In article , Robert Green wrote:
"Don Klipstein" wrote in message

The true cost/benefits of CFLs over tungsten bulbs are incredibly
complex and that allows either side of the argument to spout nearly any
numbers they feel like. All they need do is adjust the underlying
parameters or ignore facts like the future cost of removing mercury from
the
environment the same way we're now removing asbestos.

Compared to incandescent, on average use of CFLs actually reduces
mercury pollution, because burning coal releases so much mercury into the
environment.

Ouch! Don't tell me after all the intelligent posts you've made, that you
actually buy into that "new math" version of reality? Don, you're breaking
my heart!

A few questions as we work through the contention that adding a new vector
for mercury distrubution decreases its environmental release.

1) How does that tradeoff work with hydroelectric, nuclear, solar or wind
power?

It doesn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:So...e_USA_2006.png

shows that less than half of the US's energy comes from coal. So the
tradeoff only works for half of the US's power plants. For the other half,
it represents a new vector for mercury poisoning that didn't exist before
the CFL revolution.

2) Why don't we install scrubbers on the few hundred power plants that are
the major emitters of mercury instead of relying on Rube Goldberg tradeoffs
like distributing mercury in billions of light bulbs?

Because Big Power doesn't want to dig into corporate profits to clean up
their power plants when they can convince people that these tradeoffs are
workable. The smartest guys in the room also told us that credit default
swaps would reduce trading risks. I guess we know how that worked out.

3) Does this tradeoff take into account that light bulbs are mostly used at
night, when the generator turbines are running anyway, and would be
generating X amount of "baseload" power anyway?

They generate the power used, plus the small amount of generator losses.

Torque required to turn the generators is proportional to real portion
of the amps taken from the generators, plus the bit required to overcome
generator losses. Fuel consumption varies accordingly.

No, all we see are equations that say CFLs use less electricity than
tungsten bulbs, so therefore they must result in equally less emissions. If
the home lighting load is 7% of the total electrical use, what does a
reduction in that small number really amount to? Is it enough to enable
plants to shut down a generator? I've never seen the "adding mercury to
subtract mercury" theorists ever get into the real mechanics of electricity
generation to demonstrate exactly how the process works. I don't think many
people are familiar with the "baseload" concept of power generation and why
the all the claims of CFLs reducing emissions have to be taken with a large
grain of salt:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load_power_plant

These plants are on line 24x7 generating power whether anyone uses it or
not. I've not seen one CFL "savings equation" take the baseload function
into account. Why? Because it would quite obviously show that much of the
alleged emission reductions claimed are in people's heads, not at the smoke
stacks.

The torque required to turn the generators varies with the true watts
taken from them (and dissipated in them - much smaller).

4) Does it take into account the addition of mercury to environments where
most of the energy developed is from hydro or nuclear power?

No. CFL bulbs are poised to bring significant mercury pollution issues to
areas where there isn't any mercury pollution from nearby coal plants
because there AREN'T any nearby coal plants.

5) Does this alleged tradeoff work when you substitute LEDs for tungsten
bulbs?

Yes - once LED bulbs as good as CFL bulbs are available for where CFLs
are used.

Yes. LEDs provide the same alleged reduction in emissions, and they do it
WITHOUT adding mercury to hundreds of thousands of homes in billions of
light bulbs.

Puh-leaze - how much mercury do CFLs add to homes?

If anyone really cares about the environment, they won't
poison it further by using mercury-laced CFL bulbs instead of LEDs.

Until I can get LED bulbs for my needs, I am reducing emissions
including mercury by using CFL.

6) Are CFL bulb makers serious about recycling used bulbs?

Hell no. We have deposit laws for mostly inert glass soda bottles but NOT
environmentally hazardous CFL bulbs. Studies estimate that perhaps as few
as 10% of all CFL bulbs get recycled.

They would be reducing net mercury contribution to the environment if
none of them were recycled.

Those who want to help with increasing that 10% by recycling their dead
CFLs:

www.lamprecycle.org

Home Depot also accepts deasd CFLs for proper disposal.

SNIP from here

- Don Klipstein )