[Vision2020] Energy saving lightbulbs... a different take
Andy Boyd
moscowrecycling at turbonet.com
Thu Jul 10 10:13:03 PDT 2008
I concur with your assessment of nwest power, although I imagine at some
peak energy times we may end up with power coming from some coal fired
plants.
>From an energy consumption standpoint we need to move toward LEDs that use
about a quarter of the energy of a cfl and no hazardous waste issues that I
am aware of. Unfortunately, there is a lot of infrastructure and $ tied up
in cfls with a poor system for the recycling of these bulbs.
On that note, in the near future we will be accepting cfl's at Moscow
Recycling for no cost due to a prgram run by Avista. I will do some
advertising when this program begins.
Thanks for the conversation.
Andy Boyd
Manager/Education Coordinator
Moscow Recycling
208 882 0590
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kai Eiselein, Editor" <editor at lataheagle.com>
To: "Andy Boyd" <moscowrecycling at turbonet.com>; "Saundra Lund"
<sslund_2007 at verizon.net>; "'Chasuk'" <chasuk at gmail.com>
Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Energy saving lightbulbs... a different take
> 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
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database:
> 270.4.7/1544 - Release Date: 7/10/2008 7:37 AM
>
>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list