Green Building Forum - Low energy bulbs

Low energy bulbs

Ads — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:15:26 +0000

Just coming into this discussion a bit late, but where do you think Mr and Mrs Average will dispose of their CFLs once they become 'compulsory' (if not already)?

Low energy bulbs

tony — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:42:03 +0000

In the dustbin! then broken in the dust cart and by the time they reach a land fill the mercury will be mostly gone but not the other heavy metals.

Low energy bulbs

skywalker — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:30:41 +0000

I find the CFL issue a real quandry.

At one level, as an early adopter, I can see that what we have is a case of what at first seemed fair has turned out to be foul. But that is too simplistic.

I take tony & paul's point about heating loads but this is only really relevant in buildings which are allready at a high standard with regard to insulation/airtighness and thus the facilty for a tightly managed heating programme. For the majority (in the UK) the heat losses from their old, badly insulated non airtight buildings make the small contribution from incandescents to overall feeling of warmth largely irrelevant. In this scenario the CFL represents a significant energy saving device if used appropriately in nearly every buildling in the country and thus will reduce our overall production of CO2 - bring it on!

The pollution issue is of perhaps greater concern but in order to quantify the real risk we need to now what the current inputs of the same heavy metals are like from other sources and if they are decreasing/increasing. Mercury is a scary metal health wise but there is a lot of it about - what is the real contribution of CFLS to increased health risk from this chemical and the other potential nasties they contain?

S.

Low energy bulbs

CWatters — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:46:15 +0000

In my area CFL are not collected. You are instructed to take them to the recycling center. Next year our nearest center is going to be closed. The next nearest would involve a round trip of some 26 miles by car. By public transport it would take a week and require 6 nights in a hotel.

Low energy bulbs

ted — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:38:23 +0000

Modern CFLs contain about 5mg of mercury. The amount used has been reduced by about 75% since they first appeared.

Low energy bulbs

Chris Wardle — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:16:49 +0000

What about LEDs? Anything nasty about them?

Low energy bulbs

CWatters — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:29:21 +0000

LEDs contain contain inorganic compounds such as gallium arsenide which I think is toxic. Next generation devices might be organic LEDs ?

Low energy bulbs

Paul in Montreal — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:31:17 +0000

Posted By: CWattersEDs contain contain inorganic compounds such as gallium arsenide which I think is toxic.

White light and other "bright" LEDs don't contain arsenic - they are a mixture of Gallium Nitride and Indium Gallium Nitride with a cerium doped yttrium aluminum garnet phosophor. Some also omit the phosphor and use Zinc Selenide.

As for disposal of CFLs, some of the manufacturers over here in Canada are putting into place programmes whereby they take back the dead bulbs and dispose of them properly - of course, people will still put them in the rubbish. Local EcoCentres in Montreal also take them.

Paul in Montreal.

Low energy bulbs

skywalker — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:50:41 +0000

It seem all sources of light can have negative health/environmental impacts or management issues!- there is no win-win.

In our parlous state the question has to be which is the least worse for the intended application which gives the 'best' CO2 performance. If banning the incandescent lightbulb = gigawats less electricity needed it has to be a good thing unless the heavy metal load poses lethal consequences. As fossil fuel burning is a significant source of mercury the simple question is does the the content in CFLs mean an increase or decrease in the amount put into the environment if their use replaces the need for fossil fuel based generation.

Ok, not simple maybe, but a good place to start!

Low energy bulbs

Paul in Montreal — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:10:17 +0000

Apart from the mercury, the heavy metal load of CFLs is no different than incandescent or regular fluorescent lights, They all have tungsten filaments and various metals in the leads - though CFLs do, of course, have associated electronics (though regular fluorescents with "electronic ballasts" do - except that it is in the fixture and not the bulb).

I would tend to ignore the CO2 performance and just go for overall efficiency - this should be the maximum with energy usage anyway. The CO2 profile will change over time as different generation strategies are used, but going for the highest efficiency will reduce the overall load in the first place which, I believe, is the most important criterion.

Mercury is a tricky issue - certainly burning coal releases mercury and hydroelectric schemes also release mercury into the environment, though the latter is more of a one-off as the land becomes flooded.

Perhaps we should also start a campaign to ban candles - think of the massive amounts of pollution caused by making the wax in the first place and the CO2 released for a feeble amount of light. Something to think about this Christmas season as we sit around trees with LED lights - it doesn't seem that long ago that Christmas trees did have live candles on them.

Paul in Montreal.

Low energy bulbs

ted — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:10:21 +0000

Compared to the quantities of other pollutants from electricity generation Mercury is one of the least things to worry about.

Also if you didn't suffer from the levels of Mercury that were polluting the atmosphere back in the 70s and 80s then you have nothing to worry about now at all.

Low energy bulbs

Paul in Montreal — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:13:01 +0000

Posted By: tedAlso if you didn't suffer from the levels of Mercury that were polluting the atmosphere back in the 70s and 80s then you have nothing to worry about now at all.

Except that it is a cumulative poison - all that mercury from the 1970s and 1980s is now in the fish that is so popular these days as sushi.

Paul in Montreal.

Low energy bulbs

skywalker — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:31:21 +0000

Careful Paul

Mentioning Christmas trees on an environmental forum is living dangerously.

Could make Multifoils look like a freindly chat!

Hopefully the 'fun police' won't spot It.

Must go and switch the jag off, 2 hours on tickover should have got it warm enough for the school run.

S.

Low energy bulbs

Paul in Montreal — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:07:04 +0000

Posted By: skywalkerMentioning Christmas trees on an environmental forum is living dangerously.

I don't know - surely the biomass brigade would be happy - chop down a tree and then feed it into the log burner on January 6th.

We've had several days of winter smog warnings here due to people burning wood ... though I must admit I do find the smell, well, "Christmassy"

Paul in Montreal.

Low energy bulbs

ted — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:06:29 +0000

Posted By: Paul in Montreal
Posted By: tedAlso if you didn't suffer from the levels of Mercury that were polluting the atmosphere back in the 70s and 80s then you have nothing to worry about now at all.

Except that it is a cumulative poison - all that mercury from the 1970s and 1980s is now in the fish that is so popular these days as sushi.

Paul in Montreal.

Well, I don't actually know how long it takes to cycle from the air through the food chain but I'd guess it's much less than 25 years. People who ate sushi in the 90s probably had it all - especially if they ate shark! The amounts being given off now are a small fraction compared to back then.

In any case I've already got 1000 times more mercury in my teeth than I am ever going to get from the environment.

Low energy bulbs

tony — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 23:42:27 +0000

There is a big difference between mercury amalgam and organo-mercury compounds/metallic mercury the latter are way more dangerous and worth worrying about.

Low energy bulbs

ted — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:02:41 +0000

The case of mercury amalgam (which is 50% mercury) is still open to further scientific investigation as far as I can tell. The main concerns are during implantation. Nobody has unequivocally said it is safe.

As far as mercury in CFLs is concerned you are at way greater risk from a barometer or thermometer breaking. A thermometer contains about 3g of mercury - that's the equivalent of 600 CFLs.

If you were to break a CFL in an air-tight room you'd have approx 20 hours to get out without getting near a dangerous dose.

Perhaps we should ban air-tight rooms.

Low energy bulbs

david — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:13:08 +0000

You won't find a mercury thermometer in any medical institution now. They have all been taken away at great expense. Powers that be decided it was much to dangerous to have mercury near people alhtough it's not actually that dangerous as a solid [liquid?]. I remember being given mercury to roll about and try to pick up during school chemistry. It's the gas thats bad and thats what comes out of CFL's
We are talking tens of thousands of CFL's not the one or two in a room. Most of them will be landfilled and most will be broken.

Low energy bulbs

Bluemoon — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:45:42 +0000

So, what is to be done about CFLs at EOL? I have several dead ones here, and would like to know how to dispose of them. Incidentally, 'Recycling centre', is often a misnomer for a load of badly sorted skips in a shed. The local one often features TV sets and computer monitors in the 'scrap metal skip' though they usually contain relatively small quantities of metal. The attendant told me that "Only the plastic, cardboard, and metal was really wanted."

Low energy bulbs

tony — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 10:58:09 +0000

David, Mercury is a liquid at room temperature and it evaporates into atoms. The rate at which this happens will depend on temperature and ventilation and how clean the surface of the mercury is and how large an exposed surface are there is. It is a slow process but mercury is very toxic.

I think that FL tubes and CFL's are classed as hazardous waste but the waste disposal industry has yet to get its ace sorted out.

Low energy bulbs

ted — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 15:20:19 +0000

Just to help to keep a sense of proportion:

In the UK all industrial processes (including burning coal to make electricity) released 7600 kg of mercury into the atmosphere in 2005.

For an equivalent amount to be released by breaking CFLs would require 1.5 billion to be destroyed rather than correctly recycled. That's about 60 for every house in the country.

And yes I agree that recycling in the UK is a joke but this is something that has got to change.

Low energy bulbs

waveydavey — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:53:48 +0000

Many of are asking about the disposal of cfl's, tubes and lamps........

Posted By: AdsJust coming into this discussion a bit late, but where do you think Mr and Mrs Average will dispose of their CFLs once they become 'compulsory' (if not already)?

Posted By: BluemoonSo, what is to be done about CFLs at EOL? I have several dead ones here, and would like to know how to dispose of them. Incidentally, 'Recycling centre', is often a misnomer for a load of badly sorted skips in a shed. The local one often features TV sets and computer monitors in the 'scrap metal skip' though they usually contain relatively small quantities of metal. The attendant told me that "Only the plastic, cardboard, and metal was really wanted."

Every time i get a light fitting with a tube or a cfl it is recorded and i am charged 15pence(disposal fee). This is then passed on to the customer. The 15pence is to dispose of the the lamp in the future. The wholesalers actually understand that i probably wont actually bring that particular lamp back so i build up a bank of credits, to which i can bring back any lamp from any job/fitting i want. This is directive is called easyweee. I have been told it is compulsory, but the only stockists i found carrying out this is CEF. My details are also passed onto the enviromental agency. So basically you need to get in touch with your electrician or local electrical wholesaler.

Low energy bulbs

tony — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:59:47 +0000

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/18/nbulb118.xml

Try this one! No mention of easyweee, and clearly they think that there is a system in place.

When I was in a European airport a few years ago the cleaner came round to collect the rubbish from the four clearly marked recycling bins and emptied them all into the same black sack. I hope this is not happening where our MP's sit.

Low energy bulbs

fostertom — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:09:47 +0000

Posted By: tedIn the UK all industrial processes (including burning coal to make electricity) released 7600 kg of mercury into the atmosphere in 2005

How many kg released by the cremation industry in 2005?

Posted By: Paul in Montrealit is a cumulative poison - all that mercury from the 1970s and 1980s is now in the fish

It's cumulative in the human nervous system too. After a lifetime of NHS dentistry I was steadily sinking through the 90s; became suicidally depressed 2001-3; had my mercury fillings removed in 3x4hr hi-tec sessions; recovered fully within 12wks, starting 6wks after the last came out; am now a notably happy man! Everyone has severe mercury poisoning but luckily most aren't affected as much as I was. It was diagnosed for me by Dr Robert Jacobs of Verwood, who is a proper medical doctor, but with a shed full of Russian, German and American Resonance diagnosis and treatment electronics. Even for those affected as I was, annual homeopathic detox usually does it, but not in my case - I needed complete removal. Just removal is useless - it leaves all the toxins still lodged around the body (50yr natural-detox half-life), so his German homeopathic cocktails were essential.

Posted By: tedif you didn't suffer from the levels of Mercury that were polluting the atmosphere back in the 70s and 80s

It's my belief, and experience, that you probably were suffering, and still are, along with the entire population, but just regard that particular kind of (slight) depression and/or 'madness' as 'normal'. Could explain the nasty history of the 20th century.

Low energy bulbs

ted — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:54:32 +0000

I wonder what the correlation is between use of dental amalgam and the prescription of valium?

Also from: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/ppc/old-consultations/crematoria/consultation.pdf

Â· it can be roughly predicted that, without intervention, mercury emissions from
crematoria in the UK will increase by two thirds from 2000 to 2020. A plateau or
slight rise in emissions would follow to 2035 or so, then followed by a decrease
back to 2000 emission levels around 2055.

Â· by 2020 crematoria would emit between 11 and 31% of the UK mercury emissions
to air. The upper figure is consistent with UK emissions as reported to UN/ECE and
EU.

The average emission across all the cremations was 0.9g Hg per cremation.

So (somewhere back near the original thread!) we can deduce the somewhat macabre statistic that there is 180 times more mercury emitted to the air by the cremation of a person than from breaking a CFL.

Low energy bulbs

Paul in Montreal — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 21:31:20 +0000

My uncle had a friend who is an embalmist. As far as I remember he said that teeth were pulled from a corpse before cremation - as much to recover the gold as to prevent mercury emissions. Perhaps that's not done anymore?

Paul in Montreal.

Low energy bulbs

ted — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:06:59 +0000

That would seem a much simpler solution than having to install scrubbers in crematoria chimneys but is probably considered less acceptable.

Low energy bulbs

CWatters — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:08:42 +0000

President Bush sounds the death knell for Corvettes and light bulbs (just somewhat slowly)...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3076119.ece

Two of Americaâ€™s most famous products, the Corvette sports car and Thomas Edisonâ€™s electric light bulb, face extinction after a new energy law signed by President Bush yesterday.

The legislation, which is intended to reduce reliance on Middle Eastern oil, sets higher fuel efficiency standards for vehicles for the first time in 32 years. It requires cars and light lorries sold in the US to meet an average 35 miles per gallon by 2020, almost 10mpg more than current standards.

Industry experts said that the new efficiency standards, the most far-reaching for a generation, could kill off some famous American cars, including the Corvette.

Alisa Priddle, of caranddriver.com, said that she had spoken to executives at General Motors about the unveiling next month of the new Corvette ZR1. â€œThey are saying this is probably the last Corvette of its type, as itâ€™s been legislated out of use,â€ Ms Priddle said. â€œThis is arguably the most iconic sports car in world, and a symbol of American carmaking.â€

The legislation, passed by the House and Senate with veto-proof majorities, also requires a huge increase in the production of corn-based ethanol as a substitute for petrol, from six billion gallons now to 36 billion gallons by 2022. If that production target is met the measure could cut US oil use by 1.1 million barrels a day, about half the daily amount currently imported from the Persian Gulf.

The Energy Independence and Security Act also calls for improved energy efficiency on household appliances such as refrigerators, freezers and dishwashers, and a 70 per cent increase in the efficiency of light bulbs.

The law sets new efficiency standards that will phase out the incandescent light bulb, commercialised by Edison in the 1880s, by the middle of the next decade. The 100 watt bulb will stop being sold in 2012. Eventually household lighting will be based solely on fluorescent bulbs and light-emitting diodes (LEDs).

Currently, fuel efficiency standards for cars are an average 27.5mpg, and 22.5mpg for light trucks, which include pick-up trucks and sports utility vehicles, the luxury large off-road vehicles that are particularly fuel inefficient.

The automobile industry lobbied vigorously against the legislation but, faced with such overwhelming majorities in both the House and Senate, embraced it yesterday. Environmentalists also praised it and predicted that small cars will have to made more attractive to the US consumer.

Low energy bulbs

tony — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:02:11 +0000

Sounds good to me. Are Hummers excluded?

Low energy bulbs

fostertom — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:22:16 +0000

Posted By: ted0.9g Hg per cremation

That's a hell of a lot of the most toxic of all non-man-made substances, to be carrying around bathed in your digestive juices. They still try to say fillings don't leak, the stuff remains bound, but numerous research results say different. The airways (throat, lungs etc) of anyone with even one mercury filling, have a permanent level of mercury vapour in them that would have them shut down and decontaminated several times over, if they were a workplace. Dentists have by far the highest suicide rate of any profession.

Having experienced the power of both poisoning, diagnosis and healing through homeopatically-potent processes, both by physical dosage and by electronic 'simulation' of same, I know that all talk of the smallness of the dose is barking up the wrong tree. The homeopathic principle is that effects become potentised with dilution; I've explained how and why previously on this tread. They also become potentised by Intention, whether the Intention to diagnose and heal, or the determined pig-ignorance of technologists who choose to ignore common-experience and research results because they deem it 'unscientific' by the current paradigm - and we all know how quickly paradigms shift, when the time comes. To bathe yourself in radiations from excited mercury vapour emanating from such an Intention-loaded technological device is equivalent to continually ingesting small (i.e. homeopathically potent) doses of the most toxic of all non-man-made substances. Best not, in my opinion.