On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 11:21:50 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote:

the manufacture of CFLs produces much more pollution than making
incandescent lamps. it probably outweighs any savings from the use of CFLs
over I-lamps.
you don't need -any- mercury in making I-lamps,nor do you need phosphors.

True. Dumping 4 tons of mercury into landfills every year is not a
good thing. However, to put that in perspective, the coal that we use
to generate most of our electricity has an estimated 75 tons of
mercury mixed in, each year, two thirds of which is belched into the
atmosphere. If you include the mercury emissions from generating the
power needed to run an incandescent lamp, the CFL lamp dumps 1/4th the
mercury into the environment as the incandescent.
http://www.cflknowhow.org/cfl-mercury-information.html

Permit me to point out that US domestic and commerical electricity
consumption has been increasing quite constantly at the rate of about
1.5%/year. If there were any energy savings from the existing CFL
lamps in service, it would have appeared as a drop in the consumption
trend. It's a bit tricky to use, but you can dig the history and
trends out of:
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/#release=AEO2011

Tungsten, as used in incandescent lamps, may not be all that
environmentally correct:
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/science/87/8703sci2.html
There's not much known about the effects of tungsten in the
environment, but it is becoming yet another thing to worry about.

I wouldn't worry much about phosphorus as we're scheduled to run out
in 50-100 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_phosphorus

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558