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

Wed Jul 9 16:35:41 PDT 2008

Fair enough, but I do have one minor point of contention.
The 200 pounds of greenhouse gasses should have been quantified if the power 
was generated by coal or diesel, rather than lumping all power generation 
together.
If I recall correctly, water, wind, solar, geo-thermal and nuclear 
generation don't emit greenhouse gasses.
In an area that is served by non-burning electrical sources, the greenhouse 
gas point is a non-issue.
Just a thought.....

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Andy Boyd" <moscowrecycling at turbonet.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 2:09 PM
To: "Saundra Lund" <sslund_2007 at verizon.net>; "'Chasuk'" <chasuk at gmail.com>
Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Energy saving lightbulbs... a different take

> 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
>
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
Kai Eiselein
Editor, Latah Eagle 