[Vision2020] Energy saving lightbulbs... a different take

Wed Jul 9 14:09:31 PDT 2008

 Below is an article that I researed for spring 2008 'Talkin' Trash' 
newsletter showing impacts of the use of cfls and incandescent lightbulbs.
With all this talk about global warming, many people have been asking how 
they may be able to reduce their impact.  We receive many calls at our 
facility regarding the use and disposal of Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFL's). 
So here's the bottom line regarding the use of these lamps.

             The life cycle of any product, including mining, manufacturing, 
transportation, storage, use and disposal, have an effect on our 
environment. To determine the overall effect, an environmental life cycle 
assessment is used.

One CFL requires five times the energy to produce when compared to one 
incandescent lamp. However, this still represents less manufacturing energy 
overall because 6-10 times as many incandescent lamps have to be produced to 
last as long as one CFL.

In terms of energy use, an Energy Star qualified CFL uses at least 
two-thirds less energy than a standard incandescent lamp.  Also, the extra 
power needed to run the incandescent lamp will generate an extra 200 pounds 
of greenhouse gasses.

The biggest issue with CFL's is the mercury contained within.  Mercury is a 
toxic metal that contaminates our water and food supplies, leading to 
adverse health affects.  A CFL has about 5mg of mercury.  An incandescent 
lamp has no mercury.  Although incandescent lamps contain no mercury, a coal 
fired power plant will emit 10mg of mercury to produce the electricity to 
run an incandescent lamp compared to only 2.4mg of mercury to run a CFL for 
the same amount of time.  So in the long run the incandescent lamp will emit 
more mercury into the environment than a CFL.

This now leads to the disposal of CFL's.  Because of the mercury component 
of CFL's, every attempt should be made to recycle these lamps.  These types 
of lamps should never be broken if it can be helped.  One CFL has the 
potential to contaminate between 1,000 and 6,000 gallons of drinking water 
Although mercury is considered a hazardous waste, CFL's are not required to 
be recycled by the federal government at this time unless one is a large 
consumer of these bulbs.  The issue is whether there are recycling 
opportunities in your area.

The Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers estimates that only 25% of 
all fluorescent lamps and tubes are recycled.  There are only about two 
dozen licensed facilities in the U.S. for processing mercury.  So even 
though these lamps are becoming more popular, there is a lack of reasonably 
accessible drop-off areas.  Further, the cost to recycle these lamps is 
relatively expensive.  When searching for CFL recycling through mailing 
services, the cost per lamp is approximately 90 cents each.   At the time 
this article was written, no CFL recycling locations could be located in Nez 
Perce  or Latah Counties.

Where no recycling opportunities exist, the best practice is to place the 
CFL in a sealed plastic bag and then place with your regular trash.  That 
way if the lamp is broken, the bag will help to contain the mercury as well 
as the broken glass.

Ultimately, CFL's contributes less mercury to the environment than using 
regular incandescent lamps.  Below are some of the benefits of using CFL's:

- If every American home replaced just one lamp with an Energy Star approved 
CFL, the US would save enough energy to light more than 2.5 million homes 
for a year and prevent greenhouse gases equivalent to the emissions of 
nearly 800,000 cars.

- CFL's save $30 or more in energy costs over each lamps lifetime.

- CFL's generate 70 percent less heat, making them safer to operate.

- The average lifespan of a CFL is five years.

Sources:  www.eartheasy.com; Earth911.org; www.npr.org; Wall Street Journal; 
January 24, 2008 Section D

Andy Boyd
Manager/Education Coordinator
Moscow Recycling
208 882 0590
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Saundra Lund" <sslund_2007 at verizon.net>
To: "'Chasuk'" <chasuk at gmail.com>; "'Andy Boyd'" 
<moscowrecycling at turbonet.com>
Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 1:48 PM
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Energy saving lightbulbs... a different take

Actually, I found Poe's little diatribe rather amusing  :-)  Clearly the man
has not had much experience cleaning up broken glass because many of the
EPA's recommendations (note:  they appear to be recommendations rather than
"regulations" as he stated) pertain to the safety of cleaning up broken
glass in general  :-)

With respect to the mercury content, I was curious as to how much mercury
there is in CFLs compared to the old-style thermometers I used to look
forward to getting broken so I could play with the mercury.  So, this is
what I found:
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact
_Sheet_Mercury.pdf

Presumably, this is the same 3 page document Poe entered into the record.
Of course, he chose to read selectively, which is something all politicians
seem to be adept at  :-)  For instance, anyone with common sense knows not
to use a vacuum to clean up broken glass on hard floors (duh!), but Poe
chose not to make the distinction the EPA makes  :-)

Now, I know that WalMart specifically was really gung-ho for this bill to
pass and spent lots of money on the effort because WalMart stands to make
lots and lots of money from the transition to CFLs, something they've been
pushing for at least a couple of years.

So, rather than bashing the EPA's recommendations to consumers on how to
handle the CFLs WalMart wants us to all be forced to buy, and rather than
poking fun at our congressional members who are trying to help us along in
becoming more energy efficient (BTW, I agree with Andy that we need to move
past CFLs), perhaps Poe should have used this as a great example of how Big
Business' special interests get laws through Congress to tell us what kind
of light bulbs we can buy  :-)

To me, that's the real story here.

Perhaps he's ticked that the WalMart biggies apparently didn't substantially
contribute to his 2006 campaign and that's why he targeted this particular
bill to speak out against:
http://www.newsmeat.com/campaign_contributions_to_politicians/donor_list.php
?candidate_id=H4TX02108
It will be interesting to see if his speech brings those WalMart
contributors back to the fold  :-)  Somehow, I'm guessing it won't, but who
knows?

BTW, those who were following the waterboarding as torture discussion might
not be surprised to know that Poe doesn't think it is
(http://archive.glennbeck.com/news/12122007b.shtml).

JMHO,
Saundra Lund
Moscow, ID

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
nothing.
~ Edmund Burke

***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2008 through life plus
70 years, Saundra Lund. Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside
the Vision 2020 forum without the express written permission of the
author.*****

-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of Chasuk
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 12:21 PM
To: Andy Boyd
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Energy saving lightbulbs... a different take

 Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 12:16, Andy Boyd <moscowrecycling at turbonet.com> wrote:

> As usual, you only get half the story from a congressman who has his own
> agenda to support.

If you are going to refute (especially when you come across as mildly
insulting: "as usual..."), refute.  Substantiate your "half the story"
claim.  Describe this purported agenda.

I'm not necessarily doubting you, but why tantalize?

Chas

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.4.7/1542 - Release Date: 7/9/2008 
6:50 AM