Arfa Daily wrote:
"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arfa Daily" writes:
OK then. Let's take a look at what goes into one of these lamps, and then
you can tell us if you don't agree.

Given all of this, I cannot understand how anyone can believe that CFLs
as a
substitute for incandescents, are better in terms of energy budget and
manufacturing / shipping pollutant generation than the humble light bulbs
we
already have. It's all very well saying that all of this is offset by the
reduced energy consumption throughout it's supposedly long life, but
that's
an awfully hard one to swallow.
Thanks for an excellent posting, which I've trimmed only to save space.

Having looked down your list of polutents, there are none there that
concern me. To pick up on a few of the more commonly mentioned ones...
CO2 and global warming -- I'm not a subscriber to the current popularist
theory, so I don't feel a need to reduce my CO2 footprint at all costs
(but see below).
Mercury -- The quantities involved in CFLs for domestic use are not
significant. If you are Mr. Average, you have the same amount of
mercury in your body as there are in 1000 CFLs. The larger quantities
used in commercial fluorescent lighting are already being effectively
recovered, and have been for years.
Energy use in manufacture - that's entirely encompassed in the
manufacturing costs (which are very much less than the purchase price).
Given they are sold for a profit for £1, and heavily taxed on import
to the EU (in the misguided attempt to protect Philips), the manufacture
cost is probably of the order 20p, and the energy cost some fraction of
that.

So I have dismissed the commonly quoted reasons for both using and
avoiding CFL's, because I think they're all irrelevant, yet I am clearly
an enthusiast for them. Why?

My number one reason is energy usage, not for anything to do with
carbon emissions, but because viable energy is in increasingly
short supply in the world. Some of this is due to finite resources
running out, and/or demand outstripping supply, and some is due to
a severe dereliction of duty of politicians to have anticipated
this in time to do anything sensible about it, when it's been
obvious to many of us for years. Ultimately, I suspect world
shortage of energy (or prices unaffordable to many) could well be
the trigger for the next world war, and many would argue it has
already been the cause for some current wars.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Thanks for taking the time and trouble to post an informed and considered
reply. I can take on board most of what you say. As I said in my previous
post, I too am unconvinced about the ability of man to significantly affect
the levels of CO2 prevalent in the atmosphere. I read somewhere a while
back, that in fact water vapour in the atmosphere has a much greater
greenhouse effect than CO2. Did you catch the excellent CH4 documentary "The
Great Global Warming Swindle" a while back? Very thought provoking. If you
didn't, I believe it is available to view on YouTube.


WEll there you are sadly wrong.

Although I agree with your original post.
Water vapour is already at saturation point. That why it keeps on raining.

Co2 is nowhere neat saturation point. It can keep rising a LOT.

We could eliminate almost all the excess CO2 in the atmosphere by simply
using other forms of power and fuel. And waiting a thousand years.

Since we are lazy irresponsible beings, this will happen when the fossil
fuel runs out, which it seems to be doing.

So, no need to worry about global warming: we did it, we can't undo it,
and we will be fossil free in a few decades. Its just adapting to the
next thousand years that will be 'interesting'

Lotst of people will die, and civilizations will fall. Nothing new there
really.


Arfa