(Don Klipstein) wrote:

I Google for it, and it does notsound too promising:

http://sound.westhost.com/lamps/esl-lamps.html

Given the number of lighting patents held by Mr. Elliot, this tastes like
very sour grapes.

(Don Klipstein) wrote:

Power Factor affects total generating capacity.

But not so much for fuel consumption. Reactive component of load does
not translate to turque required to turn the generator.
in torque load, not net torque.

I don't believe I've ever encountered this claim before but it's been about
50 years since I learned the fundamentals. Still, I don't recall anything
like this and this PDF from Cummins Power Generation "appears" to say
exactly the opposite.

http://www.cumminspower.com/www/lite...orTests-en.pdf

Cummins says, "A generator operating at rated kW at 0.8 power factor lagging
load requires more kW from the engine than when running at rated kW on a
resistive load bank. This is due to a change in alternator efficiency and
will result in increased operating temperatures and fuel consumption."

Power delivered to the load is the main required energy input to the
generator.

However,
losses in the delivery equipment and the generation equipment is due to the
current or VA required to deliver power to the load. eg. Heating in the
windings of the generator is due to the current passing through the windings
and is not related to the usage (watts) the load makes from the source.



"Dave Houston" wrote in message
...
I don't believe I've ever encountered this claim before but it's been about
50 years since I learned the fundamentals. Still, I don't recall anything
like this and this PDF from Cummins Power Generation "appears" to say
exactly the opposite.

http://www.cumminspower.com/www/lite...orTests-en.pdf

Cummins says, "A generator operating at rated kW at 0.8 power factor lagging
load requires more kW from the engine than when running at rated kW on a
resistive load bank. This is due to a change in alternator efficiency and
will result in increased operating temperatures and fuel consumption."

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:56:48 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 12/27/2009 8:54 PM Josepi spake thus:

How is this?

Sucks, and you know it.

Come on; get with the program. Doesn't take a ****ing genius to skim a
few messages and pick up on the standard posting scheme in any Usenet
newsgroup.


Spit the hook, David. He's an obvious troll doing a traditional
"Forrest Gump" act.

"Josepi" wrote:

Power delivered to the load is the main required energy input to the
generator.

However,
losses in the delivery equipment and the generation equipment is due to the
current or VA required to deliver power to the load. eg. Heating in the
windings of the generator is due to the current passing through the windings
and is not related to the usage (watts) the load makes from the source.

I'm still not clear on this. 50 years ago when the USAF taught me
electronics there was only a brief discussion of reactive power where
current is stored and then released out-of-phase. That was fairly
straightforward. I don't recall any mention of THD (at least in relation to
power lines) so I don't have a good grasp of the issues with SMPS. And, it's
not clear to me whether PF as it relates to CFL/LED incorporates THD.

You and Don (and Cummins) seem to be saying that low PF adds to the
generator load but the increased load is not linearly proportional to PF.
How is this calculated?

The generator has to produce all the power consumed by the load, where it is
desired and the delivery system and generator.

Lets say you have a 120watt bulb at unity pf it would consume 1ampere x
120volts x cos = 120 watts

If we have a 120watt bulb with a poor PF, say 50% PF (for easy figurin') we
now have
2amperes x 120volts x cos60 (pf=50%) = 120watts.

The generator has to produce the bulb load (120watts) and the losses in the
generator and syetm at 2 amperes. This amounts to double the losses in the
conductors, transformers, generators, tap changers and all delivery
equipment. With twice the current , twice the heat is generated in
laminations and coils.

This is all losses to the energy source being converted by the generator.
Not twice the total load but twice the twice the delivery and generating
system losses. This can vary from a few percentage points to over 100% of
the end load value in long systems.

Harmonics generated in lighting gets really weird and plays havoc with
average sensing voltage control systems and many systems with neutral
reactors. These reactors are a few ohms at 60Hz and increase with harmonics.
On faults they stop the system from severe damage due to electrcal
explosions in the tens of thousands of amperes and give time for the
protection to take out a circuit more safely. On unbalanced loads or thrid
harmoinics all the phase line up and make three times the third harmonic
current in the neutral.. This becomes a big problem for distribution systems
and your motor love it. They burn out.



"Dave Houston" wrote in message
...
I'm still not clear on this. 50 years ago when the USAF taught me
electronics there was only a brief discussion of reactive power where
current is stored and then released out-of-phase. That was fairly
straightforward. I don't recall any mention of THD (at least in relation to
power lines) so I don't have a good grasp of the issues with SMPS. And, it's
not clear to me whether PF as it relates to CFL/LED incorporates THD.

You and Don (and Cummins) seem to be saying that low PF adds to the
generator load but the increased load is not linearly proportional to PF.
How is this calculated?


"Josepi" wrote:
Power delivered to the load is the main required energy input to the
generator.

However,
losses in the delivery equipment and the generation equipment is due to
the
current or VA required to deliver power to the load. eg. Heating in the
windings of the generator is due to the current passing through the
windings
and is not related to the usage (watts) the load makes from the source

"Josepi" wrote:

This is all losses to the energy source being converted by the generator.
Not twice the total load but twice the twice the delivery and generating
system losses. This can vary from a few percentage points to over 100% of
the end load value in long systems.

Rod Elliot has a section on Power Factor and CFLs which appears to indicate
it's a much bigger problem in terms of generator fuel consumption.

http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm#pf

"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?

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.

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

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.

7) Do people get suckered by quick fixes and miracle cures?

Absolutely. Take a look at the dietary supplement industry. Study after
study shows that supplements can actually be quite harmful but folks buy and
ingest them by the billion-dollar load. As for quick cures, Congress bought
into the TARP, didn't it? Adding mercury to reduce mercury doesn't pass the
common sense "sniff" test. And it shouldn't, it's a devil's bargain, one of
many we're foisting on the next generation.

8) What happens when power plant smokestacks all get proper scrubbing
equipment?

The alleged tradeoff falls flat on its face, leaving us with a gigantic
mercury-laced CFL distribution network and nothing to counterbalance it.

The problem with CFLs is that the deeper one delves into this diabolical
bargain, the worse things look. The savings are weak to begin with, and
they're offset by the potential damage mercury poisoning can do. Sadly,
we've shown time and time again that short term gains are considered way
ahead of any long term costs. Look at Congress if you doubt that assertion.
(-:

The right way to control emissions is by controlling the emitters.
Pollutants need to be trapped at the smokestack that creates them, not on
the shelves of Wal-Mart through a complex, poorly understood "tradeoff."
Like a skilled magician, Big Power has managed to use misdirection to great
advantage. Instead of clamoring for them to reduce the poison in their
emissions, we've bought into a complex scheme to reduce pollutants by adding
them to commonplace consumables.

It's a fool's game, just like Obama's claim that the war in Afghanistan is
necessary to deny terrorists a place to plan their next attack. The second
worst terrorist attack on the US came from within. Are we going to bomb all
the states the Timothy McVeigh lived in so that we prevent other terrorists
like him from "having a base of operations?" That would be stupid, but
we've apparently bought into the plan, I suspect it's because there aren't
too many critical thinkers left in the US press willing to say: "Mr.
President, how does attacking Afghanistan prevent Al-Queda from basing its
operations in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Indonesia or any other spot in the
world?"

--
Bobby G.

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!


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?



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.

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?


7) Do people get suckered by quick fixes and miracle cures?

Absolutely. Take a look at the dietary supplement industry. Study after
study shows that supplements can actually be quite harmful but folks buy and
ingest them by the billion-dollar load. As for quick cures, Congress bought
into the TARP, didn't it? Adding mercury to reduce mercury doesn't pass the
common sense "sniff" test. And it shouldn't, it's a devil's bargain, one of
many we're foisting on the next generation.

8) What happens when power plant smokestacks all get proper scrubbing
equipment?



The right way to control emissions is by controlling the emitters.
Pollutants need to be trapped at the smokestack that creates them, not on
the shelves of Wal-Mart through a complex, poorly understood "tradeoff."
Like a skilled magician, Big Power has managed to use misdirection to great
advantage. Instead of clamoring for them to reduce the poison in their
emissions, we've bought into a complex scheme to reduce pollutants by adding
them to commonplace consumables.


--
Bobby G.



I would like to see the owners of power companies appear in a big news
conference and announce to the country "We have seen the light!" pun
intended, "We are going to shut down all of those nasty, polluting, CO2
emitting coal fired power plants in six months. This should give people
and industry who receive electricity from coal, time enough to obtain
power from other sources. The Democrats and your President are right,
coal is a terrible thing to use as fuel and we were greedy. No more, we
are shutting down those horrible coal burning power plants to protect
all the cute little furry animals, butterflies, flowers and trees for
the children. Stopping Global Warming, er, Climate Change and protecting
The Environment is the most important thing in the whole world and we
must act immediately. We apologise to any industry, hospital, school or
other organization including all the individual citizens who may be
inconvenienced by the lack of electricity but we all must sacrifice for
the greater good. We promise that your government and leaders will not
go without electrical power so they may (cough) continue to serve you.
God bless America and its people!"

TDD

Dave Houston wrote:
"Josepi" wrote:

Power delivered to the load is the main required energy input to the
generator.

However,
losses in the delivery equipment and the generation equipment is due to the
current or VA required to deliver power to the load. eg. Heating in the
windings of the generator is due to the current passing through the windings
and is not related to the usage (watts) the load makes from the source.

I'm still not clear on this. 50 years ago when the USAF taught me
electronics there was only a brief discussion of reactive power where
current is stored and then released out-of-phase. That was fairly
straightforward. I don't recall any mention of THD (at least in relation to
power lines) so I don't have a good grasp of the issues with SMPS. And, it's
not clear to me whether PF as it relates to CFL/LED incorporates THD.

You and Don (and Cummins) seem to be saying that low PF adds to the
generator load but the increased load is not linearly proportional to PF.
How is this calculated?

I can tell you this from my experience in the electrical construction
field, building power transformers have undergone a major redesign in
the past few decades because of the computer age. This may sound a bit
odd but this applies to CFL lighting too. Computers use switching power
supplies that put an asymmetrical load and high frequency harmonics on
on a power system designed to operate at 50/60 cycles. CFL units also
use switching power supplies to operate the lamp and a wholesale change
over to CFL lighting could cause problems in older buildings. The newer
building power transformers are designed to deal with the electrical
loads presented by switching power supplies. Anytime a government gets
involved in fundamentally changing an industry, havoc will result. A
good example is when lawmakers went after the plumbing industry and we
wound up with water saving toilets that you have to flush three times
to get rid of whatever. I do believe that government types sit around
dreaming up what they can screw up next and never consider "The law of
unintended results."

http://powerelectronics.com/mag/powe...er_attenuates/

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


TDD

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 03:18:55 -0500, "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?

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.

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 ?

The Daring Dufas wrote:

CFL units also
use switching power supplies to operate the lamp and a wholesale change
over to CFL lighting could cause problems in older buildings.

I'm not sure how much of a problem this will be. Most commercial/industrial
buildings use tubular fluorescents and/or high pressure sodium lights which
save far more energy than CFLs so there's no incentive (nor mandate) to
switch to CFLs. (Changing from magnetic to electronic ballasts may be a
problem but I don't know how prevalent this is.)

As lighting is only 9% of residential energy use, even changing to 100%
CFL/LED with SMPS may not be a major problem. Electic rates already embed
charges for residential power factor issues (rather than use demand
metering). It's likely that the utilities will merely ask for rate increases
to compensate for their increased costs related to harmonics.

Dave Houston wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:

CFL units also
use switching power supplies to operate the lamp and a wholesale change
over to CFL lighting could cause problems in older buildings.

I'm not sure how much of a problem this will be. Most commercial/industrial
buildings use tubular fluorescents and/or high pressure sodium lights which
save far more energy than CFLs so there's no incentive (nor mandate) to
switch to CFLs. (Changing from magnetic to electronic ballasts may be a
problem but I don't know how prevalent this is.)

As lighting is only 9% of residential energy use, even changing to 100%
CFL/LED with SMPS may not be a major problem. Electic rates already embed
charges for residential power factor issues (rather than use demand
metering). It's likely that the utilities will merely ask for rate increases
to compensate for their increased costs related to harmonics.

I was thinking more along the lines of older apartment buildings in
large cities, especially very old ones. The building may have its
own transformer in the basement and if it was never updated since
the 1920's or 1930's, there could be some problems caused by the
asymmetrical loads.

TDD

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.

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.


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:35:49 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

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.

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.

Even if residential use of CFL's gets to 100%, the amount of mercury
involved that gets into the environment will still be dwarfed by the
mercury from coal fired power plant emmisions, or what comes from
conventional florescent tubes.

It's more like an organ grinder's monkey than a gorilla.

Oh, and unlike conventional florescent tubes, you can take CFL's to
any Home Depot for free environmentally safe recycling of the mercury.
The much greater amounts of mercury in conventional tubes still goes
to the landfill, and all the mercury from burning coal goes into the
atmosphere and then settles everywhere, getting in the groundwater and
the oceans, where it accumulates in fish for your convenience.

David Nebenzahl wrote:
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.

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 find Don's arguments entirely reasonable. Our power comes from a few
national grids. Reduction of power on a TVA hydro plant allows TVA to
sell power elsewhere.

And I have no problem getting both CFLs and linear tubes recycled.

--
bud--

Now tell us how reducing the load doesn't reduce energy usage and doesn't
reduce pollution of any type, nuclear, coal, petroleum, hydro-electric or
other. TOU load is not the only factor here.

Your smokestack scrubber argument doesn't wash. OPG in Ontario has been
using scrubbers for decades and they are all about to be removed. I suspect
the scubbers are not that effective and too expensive to implement.

LED lamps are too expensive and too dim-witted, yet. Expensive equate to too
much production polution outweighing any lifetime benefits. The cost of our
health insurance on increase spectacle coverage and accidents from people
falling down stairwells will outweigh any savings alone...LOL

Let's face it: the general populace doesn't care about the "greenwashing"
part of the formula, only their pocketbooks and the capitolistist economic
system in place that hasn't made it feasible, yet.

Many other good points, noted.



"Robert Green" wrote in message
...
5) Does this alleged tradeoff work when you substitute LEDs for tungsten
bulbs?

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

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.

7) Do people get suckered by quick fixes and miracle cures?

Absolutely. Take a look at the dietary supplement industry. Study after
study shows that supplements can actually be quite harmful but folks buy and
ingest them by the billion-dollar load. As for quick cures, Congress bought
into the TARP, didn't it? Adding mercury to reduce mercury doesn't pass the
common sense "sniff" test. And it shouldn't, it's a devil's bargain, one of
many we're foisting on the next generation.

8) What happens when power plant smokestacks all get proper scrubbing
equipment?

The alleged tradeoff falls flat on its face, leaving us with a gigantic
mercury-laced CFL distribution network and nothing to counterbalance it.

The problem with CFLs is that the deeper one delves into this diabolical
bargain, the worse things look. The savings are weak to begin with, and
they're offset by the potential damage mercury poisoning can do. Sadly,
we've shown time and time again that short term gains are considered way
ahead of any long term costs. Look at Congress if you doubt that assertion.
(-:

The right way to control emissions is by controlling the emitters.
Pollutants need to be trapped at the smokestack that creates them, not on
the shelves of Wal-Mart through a complex, poorly understood "tradeoff."
Like a skilled magician, Big Power has managed to use misdirection to great
advantage. Instead of clamoring for them to reduce the poison in their
emissions, we've bought into a complex scheme to reduce pollutants by adding
them to commonplace consumables.

political agenda snipped
--
Bobby G.

I haven't seen a big box store or a grocery store, that uses fluorescents,
built in the last twenty years.
They all used HID lighting of some type. Of course they are even worse for
third harmonic content than CFLs.

People do not like the flicker of fluorescents, as it irritates the nervous
system but I am not sure the HID lighting is any better for persistence of
light. Count the number of fights in the grocery store and compare...LOL

Third harmonics take a special winding design to reduce the passing of third
harmonics to the generating source. Usually use of a zig-zag secondary
winding causes cancellation of any balanced multi-phase third harmonics.
This, in effect causes two phases to subtract their in phase components. In
a three pahse system third harmonics are typically all in phase between all
phases.

Neutral reactors are typically used in large tranformers and consist of a
large air core reactor. These reduce fault current to manageable levels but
convert many third harmonic currents into voltage problems which radiate the
problem to the rest of the system loads.

We ran into some interesting concepts with this on 100MVA transformer
voltage sensing. If the third harmonic crosses zero exactly the same time as
the fundamental the peak of the waveform is higher. If the third harmonic is
phase leading it lowers the peak of the fundamental. This can play havoc
with a lot of sensing equipment without massive filters. We leave this
problem with the grid delivery system people to replace every $5M-$20M
transformer in their system. Cheaper lighting? You bet.


"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
Dave Houston wrote:
I was thinking more along the lines of older apartment buildings in
large cities, especially very old ones. The building may have its
own transformer in the basement and if it was never updated since
the 1920's or 1930's, there could be some problems caused by the
asymmetrical loads.

TDD

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 )

In article , Dave Houston wrote:
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

Power Factor affects total generating capacity.

But not so much for fuel consumption. Reactive component of load does
not translate to turque required to turn the generator.
in torque load, not net torque.

I don't believe I've ever encountered this claim before but it's been about
50 years since I learned the fundamentals. Still, I don't recall anything
like this and this PDF from Cummins Power Generation "appears" to say
exactly the opposite.

http://www.cumminspower.com/www/lite...orTests-en.pdf

Cummins says, "A generator operating at rated kW at 0.8 power factor lagging
load requires more kW from the engine than when running at rated kW on a
resistive load bank. This is due to a change in alternator efficiency and
will result in increased operating temperatures and fuel consumption."

A generator at 80% of rated power at .8 pf will still be easier to turn
than one operating at same current and 1.0 pf (100% of rated power).

Meanwhile, generator losses are a much smaller percentage of output
power for big ones owned by electric companies than for smaller ones of
only several KW. Your example of full power at .8 pf is also 125% of
current delivered to a full power resistive load, and I^2*R losses may be
starting to blow up at that point.

- Don Klipstein )

bud-- wrote:

I find Don's arguments entirely reasonable. Our power comes from a few
national grids. Reduction of power on a TVA hydro plant allows TVA to
sell power elsewhere.

TVA has 11 hydroelectric dams and 59 coal fired units.

http://www.tva.gov/cleanairfacts/coal_plants.pdf
http://www.tva.gov/cleanairfacts/overview.pdf

In article , Dave Houston wrote:
"Josepi" wrote:

This is all losses to the energy source being converted by the generator.
Not twice the total load but twice the twice the delivery and generating
system losses. This can vary from a few percentage points to over 100% of
the end load value in long systems.

Rod Elliot has a section on Power Factor and CFLs which appears to indicate
it's a much bigger problem in terms of generator fuel consumption.

http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm#pf

Since most grid electricity has generator winding, transmission and
distribution losses totalling much less than power delivered, reducing
watts reduces generator load and fuel consumption even if the amps stays
the same.

Meanwhile, the article did say that a 15W CFL (which typically replaces
a 60 watt incandescent) typically takes 29 VA (volt-amps) - total VA,
not just VA other than watts.

- Don Klipstein )

In article , Dave Houston wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:

CFL units also
use switching power supplies to operate the lamp and a wholesale change
over to CFL lighting could cause problems in older buildings.

I'm not sure how much of a problem this will be. Most commercial/industrial
buildings use tubular fluorescents and/or high pressure sodium lights which
save far more energy than CFLs so there's no incentive (nor mandate) to
switch to CFLs. (Changing from magnetic to electronic ballasts may be a
problem but I don't know how prevalent this is.)

The usual commercial ballasts for 4 foot fluorescents are high power
factor anyway.

As lighting is only 9% of residential energy use, even changing to 100%
CFL/LED with SMPS may not be a major problem. Electic rates already embed
charges for residential power factor issues (rather than use demand
metering). It's likely that the utilities will merely ask for rate increases
to compensate for their increased costs related to harmonics.

Just wait for dimmable CFLs to become more widespread, and they are
becoming increasingly available. They have high power factor.

- Don Klipstein )

In article , The Daring Dufas wrote:
Dave Houston wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:

CFL units also
use switching power supplies to operate the lamp and a wholesale change
over to CFL lighting could cause problems in older buildings.

I'm not sure how much of a problem this will be. Most commercial/industrial
buildings use tubular fluorescents and/or high pressure sodium lights which
save far more energy than CFLs so there's no incentive (nor mandate) to
switch to CFLs. (Changing from magnetic to electronic ballasts may be a
problem but I don't know how prevalent this is.)

As lighting is only 9% of residential energy use, even changing to 100%
CFL/LED with SMPS may not be a major problem. Electic rates already embed
charges for residential power factor issues (rather than use demand
metering). It's likely that the utilities will merely ask for rate increases
to compensate for their increased costs related to harmonics.

I was thinking more along the lines of older apartment buildings in
large cities, especially very old ones. The building may have its
own transformer in the basement and if it was never updated since
the 1920's or 1930's, there could be some problems caused by the
asymmetrical loads.

CFLs are symmetric loads.

- Don Klipstein )

In article , Josepi wrote:
I haven't seen a big box store or a grocery store, that uses fluorescents,
built in the last twenty years.
They all used HID lighting of some type. Of course they are even worse for
third harmonic content than CFLs.

People do not like the flicker of fluorescents, as it irritates the nervous
system but I am not sure the HID lighting is any better for persistence of
light. Count the number of fights in the grocery store and compare...LOL

HPS is much worse in that area. And fluorescent with electronic
ballasts have close to no flicker at all at frequencies related to the
power line.

Third harmonics take a special winding design to reduce the passing of third
harmonics to the generating source. Usually use of a zig-zag secondary
winding causes cancellation of any balanced multi-phase third harmonics.
This, in effect causes two phases to subtract their in phase components. In
a three pahse system third harmonics are typically all in phase between all
phases.

Neutral reactors are typically used in large tranformers and consist of a
large air core reactor. These reduce fault current to manageable levels but
convert many third harmonic currents into voltage problems which radiate the
problem to the rest of the system loads.

We ran into some interesting concepts with this on 100MVA transformer
voltage sensing. If the third harmonic crosses zero exactly the same time as
the fundamental the peak of the waveform is higher. If the third harmonic is
phase leading it lowers the peak of the fundamental.

How is the fundamental changed by presence of a harmonic?

This can play havoc
with a lot of sensing equipment without massive filters. We leave this
problem with the grid delivery system people to replace every $5M-$20M
transformer in their system. Cheaper lighting? You bet.

I have seen the current waveforms of CFLs, even in my own experience.
Those spikes are drawing current at the time the line voltage peaks, not
leading the peak of line voltage by a lot.

Also, even a low power factor CFL draws significantly less current than
the incandescent it replaces.

- Don Klipstein )

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 17:10:47 -0500, BQ340
wrote:

On 12/31/2009 3:56 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:35:49 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

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.

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.

Even if residential use of CFL's gets to 100%, the amount of mercury
involved that gets into the environment will still be dwarfed by the
mercury from coal fired power plant emmisions, or what comes from
conventional florescent tubes.

It's more like an organ grinder's monkey than a gorilla.

Oh, and unlike conventional florescent tubes, you can take CFL's to
any Home Depot for free environmentally safe recycling of the mercury.
The much greater amounts of mercury in conventional tubes still goes
to the landfill, and all the mercury from burning coal goes into the
atmosphere and then settles everywhere, getting in the groundwater and
the oceans, where it accumulates in fish for your convenience.





Mercury is a natural element, and has been in the environment forever, no?

Your point, as it relates to this discussion?

Don Klipstein wrote:
In article , The Daring Dufas wrote:
Dave Houston wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:

CFL units also
use switching power supplies to operate the lamp and a wholesale change
over to CFL lighting could cause problems in older buildings.
I'm not sure how much of a problem this will be. Most commercial/industrial
buildings use tubular fluorescents and/or high pressure sodium lights which
save far more energy than CFLs so there's no incentive (nor mandate) to
switch to CFLs. (Changing from magnetic to electronic ballasts may be a
problem but I don't know how prevalent this is.)

As lighting is only 9% of residential energy use, even changing to 100%
CFL/LED with SMPS may not be a major problem. Electic rates already embed
charges for residential power factor issues (rather than use demand
metering). It's likely that the utilities will merely ask for rate increases
to compensate for their increased costs related to harmonics.
I was thinking more along the lines of older apartment buildings in
large cities, especially very old ones. The building may have its
own transformer in the basement and if it was never updated since
the 1920's or 1930's, there could be some problems caused by the
asymmetrical loads.

CFLs are symmetric loads.

- Don Klipstein )

They are? I didn't know that. I must search The Interweb for information
unless you could please point me in the right direction. If I don't
stand corrected, I'm not learning anything. 8-)

TDD

Yeah, but he is referring to the three phase CFL lamps. He appears to know
all about those too.


"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
They are? I didn't know that. I must search The Interweb for information
unless you could please point me in the right direction. If I don't
stand corrected, I'm not learning anything. 8-)

TDD


Don Klipstein wrote:
In article , The Daring Dufas
wrote:
Dave Houston wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:

CFL units also
use switching power supplies to operate the lamp and a wholesale change
over to CFL lighting could cause problems in older buildings.
I'm not sure how much of a problem this will be. Most
commercial/industrial
buildings use tubular fluorescents and/or high pressure sodium lights
which
save far more energy than CFLs so there's no incentive (nor mandate) to
switch to CFLs. (Changing from magnetic to electronic ballasts may be a
problem but I don't know how prevalent this is.)

As lighting is only 9% of residential energy use, even changing to 100%
CFL/LED with SMPS may not be a major problem. Electic rates already
embed
charges for residential power factor issues (rather than use demand
metering). It's likely that the utilities will merely ask for rate
increases
to compensate for their increased costs related to harmonics.
I was thinking more along the lines of older apartment buildings in
large cities, especially very old ones. The building may have its
own transformer in the basement and if it was never updated since
the 1920's or 1930's, there could be some problems caused by the
asymmetrical loads.

CFLs are symmetric loads.

- Don Klipstein )

Josepi wrote:
Yeah, but he is referring to the three phase CFL lamps. He appears to know
all about those too.


Oh my God! Triple asymmetrical loads?! Sheesh!

TDD

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 22:56:32 -0500, BQ340
wrote:

On 12/31/2009 7:24 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 17:10:47 -0500,
wrote:

On 12/31/2009 3:56 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:35:49 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

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.

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.

Even if residential use of CFL's gets to 100%, the amount of mercury
involved that gets into the environment will still be dwarfed by the
mercury from coal fired power plant emmisions, or what comes from
conventional florescent tubes.

It's more like an organ grinder's monkey than a gorilla.

Oh, and unlike conventional florescent tubes, you can take CFL's to
any Home Depot for free environmentally safe recycling of the mercury.
The much greater amounts of mercury in conventional tubes still goes
to the landfill, and all the mercury from burning coal goes into the
atmosphere and then settles everywhere, getting in the groundwater and
the oceans, where it accumulates in fish for your convenience.





Mercury is a natural element, and has been in the environment forever, no?

Your point, as it relates to this discussion?




"Some 55% of mercury emissions are au naturel—oceans, volcanoes, and
forest fires—and another 42% are man-made outside of America. U.S. power
plants produce just 1% of global mercury emissions. Even if the world
got rid of every power plant, fish would still ingest naturally
occurring mercury."

The Wall Street Journal, April 8, 2004

www.mercuryanswers.org

Boy are you a sucker.

(Don Klipstein) wrote:

In article , Dave Houston wrote:

Rod Elliot has a section on Power Factor and CFLs which appears to indicate
it's a much bigger problem in terms of generator fuel consumption.

http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm#pf

Since most grid electricity has generator winding, transmission and
distribution losses totalling much less than power delivered, reducing
watts reduces generator load and fuel consumption even if the amps stays
the same.

Meanwhile, the article did say that a 15W CFL (which typically replaces
a 60 watt incandescent) typically takes 29 VA (volt-amps) - total VA,
not just VA other than watts.

I have never argued that CFLs do not save energy, merely that they do not
save as much energy as proponents usually claim. Lumens per watt does not
account for PF issues (nor THD if its not included in PF calculation). What
I said was that some (not all) of the savings attributed to CFL are
imaginary. Congress should have mandated minimum standards for PF and THD.

Wikipedia has a good explanation of PF.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_f... ution_systems
quote
The significance of power factor lies in the fact that utility companies
supply customers with volt-amperes, but bill them for watts. Power factors
below 1.0 require a utility to generate more than the minimum volt-amperes
necessary to supply the real power (watts). This increases generation and
transmission costs. For example, if the load power factor were as low as
0.7, the apparent power would be 1.4 times the real power used by the load.
Line current in the circuit would also be 1.4 times the current required at
1.0 power factor, so the losses in the circuit would be doubled (since they
are proportional to the square of the current). Alternatively all components
of the system such as generators, conductors, transformers, and switchgear
would be increased in size (and cost) to carry the extra current.

Utilities typically charge additional costs to customers who have a power
factor below some limit, which is typically 0.9 to 0.95. Engineers are often
interested in the power factor of a load as one of the factors that affect
the efficiency of power transmission."
/quote

Often, the claims made by CFL/LED proponents are preposterous. I've seen
numerous articles in main stream media (e.g. NYT) and elsewhere claim that
switching to CFLs will reduce total energy requirements by 20-25%. We
couldn't achieve half of that even if we turned off all lights in every
sector. Since nearly all of the savings have to come in the residential
sector we'll be doing quite well if we get a 1% reduction in total energy.
Disparities greater than an order of magnitude cannot be attributed to
errors in calculation but can only be due to deliberate distortion and
propagana.

This was posted to this thread earlier...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:So...e_USA_2006.png

This has a table showing worldwide energy reserves...

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexpla...=coal_reserves

If the projections for shale gas prove accurate, the picture will change
significantly but, at present, the USA has large reserves of coal and small
reserves of oil and natural gas. That almost guarantees that our use of coal
will increase. (Montana is about to open a huge coal reserve to mining.)
Given that reality, it makes more sense to work toward ways we can use the
coal without increasing our carbon footprint (which may or may not be
possible/practical), If we were to take all the money we now spend on energy
driven wars in the mid-east and spend it on clean coal research, we might
even have a slim chance at long term survival.

wrote in message

stuff snipped

Do you have ANY idea how long florescent's have been in wide use?

YES, I do have SOME idea HOW long. And I even know how to spell the word
correctly, too. It starts, ironically, like the disease "Flu" - that's the
mnemonic I use. Flu -ores -cent. Three separate words in one. Aren't you
glad you asked so nicely? (-: You got smarter. You wouldn't want to
present yourself as knowledgeable in a subject you can't spell. People
might not find you credible.

http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Fluorescent (checking to make sure it's not
Brit variant)

Obviously you missed my post where I described in deadly dull detail when
FLUorescents were discovered and came into wide use. The basic principle
was revealed over 150 years ago when Stokes at Cambridge discovered
electrical fluorescence in 1852. Fluorescents came into commercial use at
the NY World's Fair, 1939 when GE introduced the Lumiline bulb after decades
of patent battles and research.

Does being in "wide use" make the mercury in them any less poisonous? Of
course not. Consider this: In 1939, along with the miracle of fluorescent
lighting, we were using the miracle substance asbestos everywhe in car
brakes, in houses, in schools, even in cigarettes. Did the fact that it was
in "wide use" for a long time everywhere mean it was not a deadly
carcinogen? Of course not. "Wide use" is proof of nothing except "wide
use."

Asbestos causes one of the nastiest cancers known to man, mesothelioma.

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

We were stupid about asbestos for the longest time but we got smart,
eventually, only after enough people died. People in very different walks
of life, from toll booth attendants who breathed brake dust filled with
airborne asbestos to roofers that worked with asbestos shingles, have died
horribly because we dragged our heels. It's cost billions of dollars to
clean it up and it's still not done. Can we do better with another poison,
mercury, now that we know it's a fast growing health problem? Maybe. I
hope so. But I suspect, once again, a lot of people will sicken and die
before we buy a clue.

It would seem just based on experience with asbestos alone that people might
consider we've been wrong before and we may well be headed down the wrong
path again with fluorescent lighting. But people are contrary cusses. They
know smoking causes lung cancer (especially if they smoked Kent with the
asbestos-filled Micronite filter) but they smoke anyway. People have
difficulty evaluating distant threats.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7757969 (search for crocidolite)

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.

That's sort of the same as saying "eat horse dung, a billion flies can't be
wrong!" (-: Shoe stores everywhere use to have neat X-ray machines to
allow you to see your foot bones. They were in wide use everywhere. But
they're not anymore. Here yesterday, gone today. Why do you suppose
that's true?

But you actually bring up a very good point, Salty. It's precisely
*because* there's too much mercury in the environment already that it's
foolish to add it to 3 billion more household light bulbs. That's
especially true when a much safer alternative, LED lighting, has arrived.
CFL adoption will seriously hamper LED acceptance and result in even more
mercury getting loose. It's nasty stuff and it's getting into the cord
blood of pregnant women. But don't take my word for it:

"E.P.A. Raises Estimate of Babies Affected by Mercury Exposure - More than
one child in six born in the United States could be at risk for
developmental disorders because of mercury exposure in the mother's womb . .
.. recent research has shown that mercury tends to concentrate in the blood
in the umbilical cord of pregnant women." Source:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/10/sc...-exposure.html

Any idea why they use florescent's ?

Well, duh, lemme think's. Because they tried bratwurst but it didn't glow
brightly enough?

Of course I know why businesses love fluorescent lights. It's the same
reason McDonald's puts "pink slime" ammonia-treated, centrifuged, formerly
used for pet food "beef product" scraps and floor trimmings in their
hamburgers these days:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/us...gewanted=print

They do it because it is cheap. But it doesn't mean it's right.

I'll bet they stop after the above NYT article get traction, though. Why?
Because up until now, people didn't *know* MickyD's was "extending" their
ground beef with "pink slime" that tests show to have much higher
contamination rates than real, nature-made beef. - It's the same with
mercury. Similarly, now that the "greenies" have learned their newest
earth-saving "silver bullet" has an Achilles' heel, they've stopped falling
over themselves to light the world with CFLs. Well, some of them have.
Many still believe the tradeoff fairytale. sigh

Like the generations before us with asbestos, we latched onto a technology
without realizing it was a health hazard. We didn't comprehend the all the
ways it would effect the world. Unless fluorescents are recycled very
carefully (and study after study shows they're not, at least in the US), we
could easily have an epidemic of birth defects on our hands. Treating such
a health disaster could cost two or ten or maybe one hundred times the money
that we allegedly saved by using a cheaper light source. Do you know
someone caring for a developmentally challenged child? It's a rough, rough
life. I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

Every argument, Mr. Dog, you've made for fluorescents was made for years and
years about asbestos. People who rang the alarm about it were ridiculed,
driven from their jobs and bankrupted. Because of that denial, lots of
people who should have lived healthy lives died horrible deaths because
people in charge couldn't or worse, wouldn't understand the danger.
Eventually, we got smart. Now, in addition to ignorance, we have to cope
with an astounding level of corporate brainwashing. Big Power and Wal*Mart
have actually been able to convince people we can somehow *subtract* mercury
by *adding* it to billions of light bulbs when the clear solution is to
scrub coal plant smokestacks. Orwell was right.

If you really want to help the environment, get smart and consider
supporting LED research by buying LED bulbs, even if they are, for now, a
little off-color or a bit pricey or a little too harsh or too dim. On the
other hand, if you want to just save a little money and condemn future
unborn Americans to possible mercury-related neurological diseases, screw in
that CFL and screw those damn babies. Your choice.

--
Bobby G.

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...

You may be interested in this (spurred by your supplied links elsewhere)
LEDs may be just as bad as CFLs for health damage due to spectral
content.

http://www.international-light-association.eu/PDF/
Artificial%20Light%20and%20Health%20PLDC07.pdf

Except this stuff on blaming health problems by melanopsin peaking at
460 nm being stimulated by CFL's blue peak (436 nm) is BS. An equivalent
amount of daylight has more stimulation of the blue color sensors in the
eye (peaking at 445 nm), as indicated by daylight appearing more blue.

Some people are doomed to stay inside for most of their lives because of
their sensitivity to UV. So saying CFL's aren't any more harmful than the
sun is actually confirming they are indeed harmful to those people.

There are any number of biological systems that depend on light. The
full-spectrum light boxes you wrote about are thought to work via the eye
and brain, simulating summer light in the winter months and (hopefully)
reducing depression that's well known to be more of a problem in the winter
months than in the summer. Some people believe SAD (Seasonal Affective
Disorder) is due to the overall reduction in daylight hours, others believe
it's the absence of the very bright, white light of summer that does the
trick. The people I know that use them, swear by them. A case could be
easily made the benefits are purely placebo effects, but I doubt it. Since
we share so many genes with so many other animals, it's not hard to believe,
that we, like them, are sensitive to daily and seasonal changes in light.

A brief search through the Merck manual at:

http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec18/ch214/ch214c.html

lists the following drugs as having potential photosensitive effects:

Xanax
Quinolones
Sulfonamides
Tetracyclines
Trimethoprim
Tricyclic antidepressants
Antifungal drugs (taken by mouth)
Antihyperglycemics
Sulfonylureas
Antimalarial drugs
Antipsychotics
Phenothiazines
Diuretics
Lasix
Thiazides
Chemotherapy drugs
Dacarbazine
Fluorouracil
Methotrexate
Vinblastine
Drugs used to treat acne (taken by mouth)
Isotretinoin/ACCUTANE
Heart drugs like Amiodarone & Quinidine
Skin preparations
Antibacterials (chlorhexidine, hexachlorophene)

Most of us have taken at least one of them; others, many more. For a long
time, nearly everyone poo-pooed the idea that CRT's were harmful to some
people and caused serious skin ailments. But anyone who has owned a CRT has
likely noticed that they are often the dustiest item in the room. It turned
out that once the Swedes, notorious for their stringent consumer protection
laws, actually did the research, they found the claims credible. They
discovered that sitting in front of a CRT with its high voltage components
acting as a attractant, caused people's hands, arms and faces to be showered
with microscope dust particles and those, in turn, clogged skin pores with
all sorts of airborne irritants, resulting in sometimes serious skin
ailments.

I mention this only to point out that there are many things that seem highly
unlikely until someone bothers to design
the proper experiments to prove or disprove a contention. Another thing to
consider is the manufacturing process. It's pretty obvious to me, at least,
that Chinese manufacturers vary greatly in their adherence to quality
control principles. Bearing that in mind, what happens to the UV output of
a fluorescent bulb with a thin, defective or non-existent phosphor coating?
It spikes tremendously. Why? Because fluorescent bulbs are designed to
emit short wave UV radiation that strikes the phosphor coating, causing it
fluoresce and converting the UV to visible light waves. With bad or thin
phosphor, there's less material to impede the UV emissions. So I'm not at
all surprised that the research varies tremendously. The items under
investigation do, too.

--
Bobby G.

Maybe while you are doing spelling corrections for salty you could correct
your own spelling.

Everybody else knows how to spell "affect".
Very few sentences ever start with "and"
People might not find you credible for trying to side track a discussion by
ad hominem attack.

Asbestos was identified in the Egytian Pharoah era to cause lung disease
death to the knitters of the shiny silver Pharoah's coats. Our leaders were
filmed promoting the products to third world countris in the early 2000-5
years. My widowed S-I-L leads an anti-asbestos group.


"Robert Green" wrote in message
...
wrote in message

stuff snipped

Do you have ANY idea how long florescent's have been in wide use?

And I even know how to spell the word correctly, too.
It starts, ironically, like the disease "Flu" - that's the
mnemonic I use. Flu -ores -cent. Three separate words in one. Aren't you
glad you asked so nicely? (-: You got smarter. You wouldn't want to
present yourself as knowledgeable in a subject you can't spell. People
might not find you credible.

Like the generations before us with asbestos, we latched onto a technology
without realizing it was a health hazard. We didn't comprehend the all the
ways it would ***effect*** the world.

long winded OCD snipped

--
Bobby G.

On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 18:45:18 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:

wrote in message

stuff snipped

Do you have ANY idea how long florescent's have been in wide use?

YES, I do have SOME idea HOW long. And I even know how to spell the word
correctly, too. It starts, ironically, like the disease "Flu" - that's the
mnemonic I use. Flu -ores -cent. Three separate words in one. Aren't you
glad you asked so nicely? (-: You got smarter. You wouldn't want to
present yourself as knowledgeable in a subject you can't spell. People
might not find you credible.

http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Fluorescent (checking to make sure it's not
Brit variant)

Obviously you missed my post where I described in deadly dull detail when
FLUorescents were discovered and came into wide use. The basic principle
was revealed over 150 years ago when Stokes at Cambridge discovered
electrical fluorescence in 1852. Fluorescents came into commercial use at
the NY World's Fair, 1939 when GE introduced the Lumiline bulb after decades
of patent battles and research.

Does being in "wide use" make the mercury in them any less poisonous? Of
course not. Consider this: In 1939, along with the miracle of fluorescent
lighting, we were using the miracle substance asbestos everywhe in car
brakes, in houses, in schools, even in cigarettes. Did the fact that it was
in "wide use" for a long time everywhere mean it was not a deadly
carcinogen? Of course not. "Wide use" is proof of nothing except "wide
use."

Asbestos causes one of the nastiest cancers known to man, mesothelioma.

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

We were stupid about asbestos for the longest time but we got smart,
eventually, only after enough people died. People in very different walks
of life, from toll booth attendants who breathed brake dust filled with
airborne asbestos to roofers that worked with asbestos shingles, have died
horribly because we dragged our heels. It's cost billions of dollars to
clean it up and it's still not done. Can we do better with another poison,
mercury, now that we know it's a fast growing health problem? Maybe. I
hope so. But I suspect, once again, a lot of people will sicken and die
before we buy a clue.

It would seem just based on experience with asbestos alone that people might
consider we've been wrong before and we may well be headed down the wrong
path again with fluorescent lighting. But people are contrary cusses. They
know smoking causes lung cancer (especially if they smoked Kent with the
asbestos-filled Micronite filter) but they smoke anyway. People have
difficulty evaluating distant threats.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7757969 (search for crocidolite)

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.

That's sort of the same as saying "eat horse dung, a billion flies can't be
wrong!" (-: Shoe stores everywhere use to have neat X-ray machines to
allow you to see your foot bones. They were in wide use everywhere. But
they're not anymore. Here yesterday, gone today. Why do you suppose
that's true?

But you actually bring up a very good point, Salty. It's precisely
*because* there's too much mercury in the environment already that it's
foolish to add it to 3 billion more household light bulbs. That's
especially true when a much safer alternative, LED lighting, has arrived.
CFL adoption will seriously hamper LED acceptance and result in even more
mercury getting loose. It's nasty stuff and it's getting into the cord
blood of pregnant women. But don't take my word for it:

"E.P.A. Raises Estimate of Babies Affected by Mercury Exposure - More than
one child in six born in the United States could be at risk for
developmental disorders because of mercury exposure in the mother's womb . .
. recent research has shown that mercury tends to concentrate in the blood
in the umbilical cord of pregnant women." Source:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/10/sc...-exposure.html

Any idea why they use florescent's ?

Well, duh, lemme think's. Because they tried bratwurst but it didn't glow
brightly enough?

Of course I know why businesses love fluorescent lights. It's the same
reason McDonald's puts "pink slime" ammonia-treated, centrifuged, formerly
used for pet food "beef product" scraps and floor trimmings in their
hamburgers these days:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/us...gewanted=print

They do it because it is cheap. But it doesn't mean it's right.

I'll bet they stop after the above NYT article get traction, though. Why?
Because up until now, people didn't *know* MickyD's was "extending" their
ground beef with "pink slime" that tests show to have much higher
contamination rates than real, nature-made beef. - It's the same with
mercury. Similarly, now that the "greenies" have learned their newest
earth-saving "silver bullet" has an Achilles' heel, they've stopped falling
over themselves to light the world with CFLs. Well, some of them have.
Many still believe the tradeoff fairytale. sigh

Like the generations before us with asbestos, we latched onto a technology
without realizing it was a health hazard. We didn't comprehend the all the
ways it would effect the world. Unless fluorescents are recycled very
carefully (and study after study shows they're not, at least in the US), we
could easily have an epidemic of birth defects on our hands. Treating such
a health disaster could cost two or ten or maybe one hundred times the money
that we allegedly saved by using a cheaper light source. Do you know
someone caring for a developmentally challenged child? It's a rough, rough
life. I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

Every argument, Mr. Dog, you've made for fluorescents was made for years and
years about asbestos. People who rang the alarm about it were ridiculed,
driven from their jobs and bankrupted. Because of that denial, lots of
people who should have lived healthy lives died horrible deaths because
people in charge couldn't or worse, wouldn't understand the danger.
Eventually, we got smart. Now, in addition to ignorance, we have to cope
with an astounding level of corporate brainwashing. Big Power and Wal*Mart
have actually been able to convince people we can somehow *subtract* mercury
by *adding* it to billions of light bulbs when the clear solution is to
scrub coal plant smokestacks. Orwell was right.

If you really want to help the environment, get smart and consider
supporting LED research by buying LED bulbs, even if they are, for now, a
little off-color or a bit pricey or a little too harsh or too dim. On the
other hand, if you want to just save a little money and condemn future
unborn Americans to possible mercury-related neurological diseases, screw in
that CFL and screw those damn babies. Your choice.

What a friggin' blowhard.

I thought you were bad. It that a nautical term?

LOL


wrote in message
...

What a friggin' blowhard.

In article , The Daring Dufas wrote:
(with some editing by me to keep down characters-per-line)
Don Klipstein wrote:
, The Daring Dufas wrote:
Dave Houston wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:

CFL units also
use switching power supplies to operate the lamp and a wholesale change
over to CFL lighting could cause problems in older buildings.
I'm not sure how much of a problem this will be. Most comm'l/industrial
buildings use tubular fluorescents and/or HPS lights which
save far more energy than CFLs so there's no incentive (nor mandate) to
switch to CFLs. (Changing from magnetic to electronic ballasts may be a
problem but I don't know how prevalent this is.)

As lighting is only 9% of residential energy use, even changing to 100%
CFL/LED with SMPS may not be a major problem. Electic rates already
embed charges for residential power factor issues (rather than use
demand metering). It's likely that the utilities will merely ask for
rate increase to compensate for their increased costs related to
harmonics.
I was thinking more along the lines of older apartment buildings in
large cities, especially very old ones. The building may have its
own transformer in the basement and if it was never updated since
the 1920's or 1930's, there could be some problems caused by the
asymmetrical loads.

CFLs are symmetric loads.

- Don Klipstein )

They are? I didn't know that. I must search The Interweb for information
unless you could please point me in the right direction. If I don't
stand corrected, I'm not learning anything. 8-)

As for a quickie here, inconvenient to resurrect the way my newsreader
and Google news archives work, is a cite in this thread to actual
oscilloscope traces of CFL current waveforms.

Push me enough, I will make the time to repost the links - but allow me
a bit of time here...

- Don Klipstein )

In article , Dave Houston wrote:
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

In article , Dave Houston wrote:

Rod Elliot has a section on Power Factor and CFLs which appears to indicate
it's a much bigger problem in terms of generator fuel consumption.

http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm#pf

Since most grid electricity has generator winding, transmission and
distribution losses totalling much less than power delivered, reducing
watts reduces generator load and fuel consumption even if the amps stays
the same.

Meanwhile, the article did say that a 15W CFL (which typically replaces
a 60 watt incandescent) typically takes 29 VA (volt-amps) - total VA,
not just VA other than watts.

I have never argued that CFLs do not save energy, merely that they do not
save as much energy as proponents usually claim. Lumens per watt does not
account for PF issues

A 15 watt CFL presents generator net torque load somewhere between 29/60
and 15/60 as much as a 60 watt incandescent does. Given the usual extent
of losses for power for USA natiobnwide average after it has made it into
the generator mechanical power input shaft, I would say closer to 15/60
than to 29/60, but still in-between.

(nor THD if its not included in PF calculation).

It is. The usual low-power-factor electronic-ballast CFLs have little
lead, no lag - it's mainly harmonic content detracting from PF. (The H
in THD is "harmonic" - THD is Total Harmonic Distortion which has its own
measurements, although power factor determinations for CFLs do give proper
consideration to harmonic content in the currentwaveform.)

What I said was that some (not all) of the savings attributed to CFL are
imaginary. Congress should have mandated minimum standards for PF and THD.

With even low power factor CFLs having somewhere between 15/60 and 29/60
as much load on gnerators as incandescents do, I would prioritize getting
CFLs utilized, optimize them afterwards.

Wikipedia has a good explanation of PF.

SNIP stuff about power factor that I do not find fault with

Often, the claims made by CFL/LED proponents are preposterous. I've seen
numerous articles in main stream media (e.g. NYT) and elsewhere claim that
switching to CFLs will reduce total energy requirements by 20-25%. We
couldn't achieve half of that even if we turned off all lights in every
sector.

It appears to me that the total is not of global or nationwide energy
usage, but some subset thereof.

Since nearly all of the savings have to come in the residential
sector we'll be doing quite well if we get a 1% reduction in total energy.

Heck, that must be at least 2% of electrical power generation - good for
downscaling the construction schedule of coal-fired power plants by a few.

That appears to me to still be significant, especially when combined
with the dozen or two other ways to nibble down energy consumption by
siimilar extent and the few ways to achieve even greater energy savings.

Disparities greater than an order of magnitude cannot be attributed to
errors in calculation but can only be due to deliberate distortion and
propagana.

I snip from here due to point turning

- Don Klipstein )

(Don Klipstein) wrote:

Since nearly all of the savings have to come in the residential
sector we'll be doing quite well if we get a 1% reduction in total energy.

Heck, that must be at least 2% of electrical power generation - good for
downscaling the construction schedule of coal-fired power plants by a few.

By a few what? minutes? hours? days?

"dgk" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:55:59 -0500, "Josepi" wrote:



As pointed out, it's very hard to accurately assess the
benefit of CFLs because of the complexity of the issue. Few models seem
to
include the fact that in the winter, incandescent bulbs actually help
heat
the home. 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.


You would also need to factor in extra cooling in summer which likely
offsets the winter heat gain.

Not necessarily. The days are (usually) much longer in the summer, so the
need for inside lighting is far less than in winter. CO2 and other emission
savings are dependent on a lot of things, like whether dirty or pricey power
plants come on line to handle peak loads, whether the electricity would be
generated anyway, etc. and whether excess can be transferred or sold.

Remember, when building your model, to factor in the line loss involved in
transmitting power far away from its point of generation. Also remember
that at night, voltage in most systems is at its highest because of the
excess generating capability, at least compared to the daytime load. Does
having 122VAC at your outlet instead of 110VAC really translate into a
substantial emission savings? I doubt it, but it's one of the ways power
plant operators cope with varying demand.

When people simply equate the money they save by using fluorescents into a
directly proportional amount of emission reduction, that's not a valid
comparison. Electricity used at night, during "off-peak" hours is usually
cheaper for a reason. It's partly because electricity has to be used when
generated or it's lost. Each plant is different. Some have to keep those
baseload generator turbines spinning, still outputting CO2, mercury, etc. to
be ready to cope with increased demands or generator failures. How can
someone really calculate accurate savings without factoring all these
elements into their models?

You can't simply shut down a 200 ton turbine: if they aren't kept spinning
their main shafts will deform and become unbalanced and they'll shake
themselves apart. You can't slow them down to lower the output. When they
are generating electricity they have to run at a fixed RPM (3600, IIRC) to
create 60Hz AC power. You can run them at lower torque, but they still need
to spin because some turbines are so massive that it takes hours to get them
up to speed and operating temperature.

Many power system guidelines specify that a significant percentage of their
operating reserve must come
from spinning reserves. Why? Because spinning reserves are more reliable,
have fewer issues related to "cold starts" and can respond to demand changes
immediately. There are often considerable delays getting non-spinning
reserve generators on line and the only options for the operator may then be
to import the needed power or turn to brownouts.

So power savings, when it comes to generation, have to be calculated in
terms that account for a lot of things that are conspicuously absent from
the models and claims of those who believe they are saving the earth with
CFL bulbs. Even shunting excess power to other parts of the grid has to be
examined closely because there are Joule heating losses that increase the
further away the power is shipped. Do these savings model accurately
account for the cost of heating the air around the transmission lines when
shunting excess capacity to another part of the grid? Doubtful.

Then there's the power factor issue to consider. Are you really saving
money when the power company boosts the voltage at night to compensate for
the lower demand? When I see statements that say CFLs will save precisely
X amount of dollars and create precisely X fewer emissions, I'm pretty
certain there's a lot of slop in those estimates. Perhaps so much slop that
the claims come pretty close to meaningless guesses and wishful thinking.

As you examine each input to the model, you'll see that it grows incredibly
complex in a short time. So much so that when you see a hard, fast number
you can be assured that someone made an awful lot of assumptions to get
there. At night, when CFL bulbs are typically on, the issue is how much
less carbon and mercury is being emitted through CFL use? It could be as
much as the greenest greenie claims or as little as next to nothing.

So far, I've not seen a study that even begins to account for all the known
inputs. At their most primitive, studies simply compare watts and claim the
savings in kilowatt hours translates into equivalent drop in emissions. But
that's totally fallacious without considering all the other elements of the
equation.

I will give you one common sense test. How many power plants have been shut
down because of the allegedly tremendous savings we've realized by switching
to CFLs? By the sound of the claims, you'd expect to see at least one or
two dozen, wouldn't you?

--
Bobby G.