On 11 Nov, 18:05, Mike Clarke wrote:
In article Mike Clarke wrote:
I emailed my MP pointing out the limitations of CFLs and highlighting the
problems which will arise in situations where it's not practicable to use
them as direct replacements for filament bulbs. He appears to be
sympathetic to the problem and has asked the Energy Minister to a
response.

Well I eventually got a reply from the Minister. Naturally my email won't
have any effect on the government's actions but the reply did provide a few
interesting bits of information in the following quotes:

"On 27 September the Secretary of State announced a voluntary initiative led
by the major retailers and energy suppliers that will see inefficient
incandescent light bulbs phased out"

I'd raised the issue of mercury content and disposal, quoting
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268747,00.html as an example of the
extreme measures people might be faced with. The reply contained a couple
of interesting points:
snip
Secondly, over the lifetime of both types of bulb
CFLs actually produce less mercury. This is due to the fact that mercury is
emitted from power stations during electricity generation and CFLs are more
energy efficient"

That is a misrepresentation of the truth: it is only definitely true
if the all the power is generated from coal. It certainly is
definitely not true for hydroelectric, tidal, wave-power and wind
power; and almost certainly not true for nuclear, and probably not
true for oil and gas fired power stations. The minister should know
better.

Sid