In article , Robert Green wrote:
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...
On 12/31/2009 3:07 AM spake thus:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 03:18:55 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:
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.
Do you have ANY idea how long florescent's have been in wide use?
Where do you see them? How about ALL large buildings being almost
completely lit with full sized florescent's which contain FAR more
mercury than CFL's? When you flip the typical light switch in a home,
maybe 1-4 lights are powered up. When you flip a switch in a
supermarket, there may be hundreds of lights lit up. All Florescent.
Any idea why they use florescent's ?
Of course he knows this; that's implicit in his arguments. He's not
stupid.
Thank you. I explained it to him in excruciating detail anyway, for it
seems not so implicit to him. I think he missed my earlier magnum opus on
CFLs. I even gave him a mnemonic so that he could spell flu-ores-cent
properly in the future.
What he's saying, which I agree with, is that the use of CFLs, primarily
for *residential* lighting (not commercial, which as you point out has
already been using fluorescents for many decades) will result in a
massive upsurge in the amount of mercury in transit out there, some of
which will escape into the environment. This is the 900-pound gorilla of
CFL usage which isn't getting nearly as much attention as it should, and
makes the claims that Don K. and others have made about how much CFLs
will result in *reduced* mercury emissions dubious at best.
I spent a good portion of my life in a SCIF helping build computer models
that tried to predict a number of important statistics based on various
nuclear attack scenarios. Once you become involved in something that looks
at every fort, factory, armory, hospital, police station, jail, power plant,
water plant, chemical storage plant, bridge, tunnel, etc, etc, in the
country, you begin to appreciate the complexity and arbitrary nature of such
models.
You can't build something like that without making assumptions and
invariably, many of them turn out to be well-reasoned, but dead wrong. A
lot of corrections to the model came after examining serious disasters that
in some ways simulated nuclear attacks. Hurricanes always broke the model.
So did earthquakes. It's humbling. And it's why I get verbose when people
claim things about similarly complex subjects with such unwavering
certainty. I've been down that road before and it's "a maze of twisty
little passages, all different." It takes more than magic words or wishful
thinking to get real answers.
In the "CFLs will save enough money to do X,Y and Z" argument the number of
variables is astounding. Part of the problem, I am discovering, is that
people believe the power grid is some sort of giant battery. They don't
understand the concept of base loads, peak loads, spinning reserves and grid
management. They believe, quite logically, if you save 50 watts switching
from TILs (Tungsten Incandescent Lighting) to CFLs on your home bill, that
represents *exactly* 50 watts' worth reduction in carbon/mercury emissions.
At least that's how I understand some of the claims about CFLs. I don't
blame people for thinking that way. I thought of it that way myself until I
started researching it.
I see it as even more due to transmission and generator winding losses
that are mostly though significantly short of entirely due to
"real"/"resistive" component of current.
I think the most important concept lacking in the discussion is the
"stair-step" function of power generation. Generators aren't capable of
responding quickly to demand.
Not even the oil and natural gas ones?
They have basically three modes: off, idling
and running.
They don't have to run at "full output power".
At best, CFLs are causing *some* plants to idle, at worst, all
that happens is that everyone's lights glow a little brighter and there may
be fewer summer brownouts. Dramatic savings? Maybe. Dramatic risks?
Certainly. No one doubts mercury is a neurotoxin. No one with a brain
unaffected by mercury or some other neural "nuking" agent, that is.
Appealing to chemophobia, while switching from incandescents to CFLs on
average actually reduces (or slows increase of) mercury pollution?
I'm sure you know that big, 200 ton coal plant turbines don't start and stop
on a dime. These beasties form the backbone of base load power generation.
The base load is power that gets generated to meet carefully projected needs
no matter what the actual load. If it isn't used, it isn't saved. It's
either shunted to some other part of the grid, entailing transmission
losses,
Fairly small actually!
or the plant operators boost the overall voltage in the system, or,
in grid failures, shunt it to huge resistor banks.
Where do you get that - can you cite this?
Meanwhile, the shorter-term fluctuations are handled by cranking up and
down oil and gas fueled power plants. Longer term change in projected
power requirements will affect the construction schedule for coal-fired
power plants.
I think I do well enough snipping from here
- Don Klipstein )