Slashdot Mirror

Ok, here we go - someone check the math.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs095-01/
Tells me the mean amount of mercury in US coal is 0.17ppm.
We will assume 100% of said mercury enters the air.
We will also talk about 100 watt incandescent bulbs to make the math easier.

450 grams of coal are burned to deliver 1 KWh to your outlet.

http://www.amazon.com/Incandescent-Light-Shape-Frosted-100A19/dp/B000273TEA
100 Watt bulb, 20,000 hours.
2,000 KWh in its lifetime.
900,000 grams of coal burned for this light bulb over its 20,000 hour lifetime.
153mg of mercury in said coal.

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf
tells me the average CFL has 4mg of mercury in it.

I was going to work out a full hour-by-hour comparison - but there is not need. I the case is B/W enough, unless someone can convince me less than 4% of mercury makes it up the stack.

In the case where you don't have a dedicated server center and just a server room, use the heat from the servers (about 1000 Btu an hour, per server) to heat your facility at night. That's what we do.

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=sb_success.sb_successstories2008_johnsonbraund

Great- so with CFLs instead of putting carbon in th air we put mercury in the earth

Yes, CFLs contain mercury howewver coal fired power plants emit more mercury. Switching from incandescent lights to CFLs reduces the mercury released more than the bulbs contain. According to the Energystar [pdf] "Coal- fired power generation accounts for roughly 40 percent of the mercury emissions in the U.S." "As shown in the table below, a 13-watt, 8,000-rated-hour-life CFL (60-watt equivalent; a common light bulb type) will save 376 kWh over its lifetime, thus avoiding 4.5 mg of mercury."

Falcon

The cost of the mercury polluted into the environment from CFLs far outweighs any energy savings they may incur over incandescent lights.

BZZZT, *WRONG*!!!
According to Energystar.gov:

if all 290 million CFLs sold in 2007 were sent to a landfill (versus recycled, as a worst case) they would add 0.16 metric tons, or 0.16 percent, to U.S. mercury emissions caused by humans

How do CFLs result in less mercury in the environment compared to traditional light
bulbs?

Electricity use is the main source of mercury emissions in the U.S. CFLs use less electricity than incandescent lights, meaning CFLs reduce the amount of mercury into the environment. As shown in the table below, a 13-watt, 8,000-rated-hour-life CFL (60-watt equivalent; a common light bulb type) will save 376 kWh over its lifetime, thus avoiding 4.5 mg of mercury. If the bulb goes to a landfill, overall emissions savings would drop a little, to 4.0 mg. EPA recommends that CFLs are recycled where possible, to maximize mercury savings.

Please stop spreading the FUD about the amount of mercury in CFLs, which is negligible. The mercury in CFLs constitutes 0.1% of what we dump into the environment annually, and CFLs contribute far less mercury to the environment than incandescent bulbs. http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf

Yes..... and no. CFLs are putting mercury in the home, yes a wet-bulb mercury switch has a billion times more elemental mercury in it, but they don't put those in new products for the home much, and the mercury in CFLs is in vapor form, virtually impossible to clean up, and much more likely to react into something nasty.

If you do have traditional flourescent tubes in your house, they have lots more Hg vapor then the CFLs, but not everyone has (or wants) those tubes in their home. Some countries have talked about mandating CFLs.

Personally, I use CFLs, though I've had 3 out of the 8 I installed go bad within the first 2 years of use and still haven't found the time to "properly" dispose of them.

Please stop spreading the FUD about the amount of mercury in CFLs, which is negligible. The mercury in CFLs constitutes 0.1% of what we dump into the environment annually, and CFLs contribute far less mercury to the environment than incandescent bulbs. http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf

I call FUD.

CFLs do contain more mercury than incandescent bulbs. However, they don't have a high enough level to warrant special disposal procedures.

Below are the EPA recommendations on dealing with a broken CFL. I call shenanigans on your calling FUD.

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf

How should I clean up a broken fluorescent bulb?
Because CFLs contain a small amount of mercury, EPA recommends the following clean-up and disposal
guidelines:

1. Before Clean-up: Air Out the Room
Have people and pets leave the room, and don't let anyone walk through the breakage area on their way out.

Open a window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more.

Shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system, if you have one.

2. Clean-Up Steps for Hard Surfaces

Carefully scoop up glass fragments and powder using stiff paper or cardboard and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.

Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass pieces and powder.

Wipe the area clean with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place towels in the glass jar or plastic bag.

Do not use a vacuum or broom to clean up the broken bulb on hard surfaces.

3. Clean-up Steps for Carpeting or Rug:

Carefully pick up glass fragments and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.

Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder.

If vacuuming is needed after all visible materials are removed, vacuum the area where the bulb was broken.

Remove the vacuum bag (or empty and wipe the canister), and put the bag or vacuum debris in a sealed plastic bag.

4. Clean-up Steps for Clothing, Bedding, etc.:

If clothing or bedding materials come in direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powder from inside the bulb that may stick to the fabric, the clothing or bedding should be thrown away. Do not wash such clothing or bedding because mercury fragments in the clothing may contaminate the machine and/or pollute sewage.

You can, however, wash clothing or other materials that have been exposed to the mercury vapor from a broken CFL, such as the clothing you are wearing when you cleaned up the broken CFL, as long as that clothing has not come into direct contact with the materials from the broken bulb.

If shoes come into direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powder from the bulb, wipe them off with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place the towels or wipes in a glass jar or plastic bag for disposal.

5. Disposal of Clean-up Materials

Immediately place all clean-up materials outdoors in a trash container or protected area for the next normal trash pickup.

Wash your hands after disposing of the jars or plastic bags containing clean-up materials.

Check with your local or state government about disposal requirements in your specific area. Some states do not allow such trash disposal. Instead, they require that broken and unbroken mercury-containing bulbs be taken to a local recycling center.

6. Future Cleaning of Carpeting or Rug: Air Out the Room During and After Vacuuming

The next several times you vacuum, shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system and open a window before vacuuming.

Keep the central heating/air conditioning system shut off and the window open for at least 15 minutes after vacuuming is completed.

4) Test Methodology: Manufacturers are required to perform tests and self-certify those models that meet the ENERGY STAR guidelines.

Self-Certify? You've got to be kidding.

http://geekpi.com/?p=142

I designed, installed and maintain a 10kw solar array last year to power our businesses servers and offer a large (2900 amp hour) uninterpretable power supply during prolonged grid outages.

We recapture the waste heat during the winter to heat our facility at night. During the summer we vent that heat directly to the outside, and only use the AC as auxiliary cooling. It works excellently.

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=sb_success.sb_successstories2008_johnsonbraund

Power usage for different types of TVs is not closely related to the 'averages'. See
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-6400401-3.html
I even question the 'averages' of this article.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-010309-fi-tv-g,0,3697326.graphic
It seems to imply that CRT televisions are more efficient.
The numbers also disagree with the 'averages' of Cnet's quick guide. If I'm going to buy a flat screen I will look at the power consumption and the performance of each candidate, regardless of the type. Trying to generalize which is 'best' just isn't valid at this time. If you are really concerned about the energy consumption, go to the Energy Star site
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=find_a_product.showProductGroup&pgw_code=TV

Working on it. See http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=revisions.settop_box_spec STB OEMs who don't power down will have a tough time making the tier 2 spec. As it is, in tier 1, DVRs and other ancillary functions need to get shut down to make the grade. We designed it that way.

This will not save the earth. It will hurt the earth. The energy savings are marginal, really marginal as in replacing a single incandescent with a CFL will save two orders of magnitude more energy(*). The energy costs due to less efficient processes to make these TVs will far outweigh any benefit.

Fundamentalist environmentalism is irrational and doesn't help the earth. Just because someone says they are "saving energy" doesn't mean in the grand scheme of things that they really are.

(*) Assuming 5 hours use each day, a 100W incandescent , an equivalent CFL (23-30W), and the average price of residential electricity in California 2008.

Like Energy Star?

The real issue is not the economics. Nor is it the harsher/different light they produce...

The issue for me is the fact that the federal government is actually going to tell me what light bulb to screw in.

Not only that, but I'm going to be forced to import mercury into my home - a substance far more damaging and toxic than CO2. Where are all the environmentalists that test streams and lakes all the time looking for trace amounts of mercury? Aren't they concerned about all the mercury that is going to end up somewhere? Seriously, has anyone seen the recommended cleanup procedures?

This has nothing to do with the environment, if it did, CFLs sould be banned as toxic. Follow the money and I'm sure you'll find some hefty contributions by the CFL manufacturers.

Last time I checked (and it has been a little while since I checked, so I could be wrong) there was no way to push out power settings with a GPO.

Almost true. Mostly true? Or used to be true. Or, in a perfect utopia, this isn't true anymore.

There's a tool from Energystar called EZ GPO which lets you install an power managment agent on the client, and manage it using an administrative template. In my experience, it works pretty well. It's a bit weird though: for some configurations, the tool doesn't use the win API, and has broken in the past with Windows Updates.

AFAIK, Windows 2008, or a Vista workstation on a 2k3 domain can be used to manage power savings on XP if the client-side extensions are installed.

Also, some expensive tools like LANDesk support power policies. Not ideal for most people ($$$$), but if you're already using "enterprise" management tools, worth checking out.

The EPA awarded my company with one of their top awards this year for improvements to our facility, and energy efficiency. Overall we cut energy consumption 50%, but also used our energy more smartly, including a dedicated ducting system from our server room to the building entrances. We calculate that our servers put out between 8,000 & 12,000 Btu an hour. Most of our overnight heat now comes from the servers (which have to be on 24/7 for off site access), and we've reduced our server air conditioning loads by 80% annually. We're now beginning to implement this change into bank designs.

In almost every application, it's ideal to shut off computers when not in use, but there are some business based situations where it makes sense to better harness waste heat from electronics, instead of fighting it with energy intensive air conditioners.

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=sb_success.sb_successstories2008_johnsonbraund

No really. On certain times of the year (ie. not summer), I reduce/eliminate the cooling of the server room AC and redirect the server waste heat to warm the rest of the office. Ambient air from the office space is ducted/filtered in near the floor, and a 300 CFM fan takes in the heat at the ceiling above the server tower. I estimate I capture between 9,000 & 12,000 BTU of heat an hour because of this; greatly reducing the HVAC needs of the building during the night.

This was a large part as to why the EPA gave my company one of their Annual ENERGYSTAR Energy Conservation Awards.

It never made sense to me to run an AC unit when it's snowing outside.

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=sb_success.sb_successstories2008_johnsonbraund

"But TVs have been around for a lot longer than computers have, and couchpotatoing isn't a new thing. People cooking isn't a new thing, that should already be factored in. 7pm seems to be the tail end of cooking activity."

well, lets get something straight here, LCD tvs and plasma tvs are not 'twice as efficient' as a CRT. let us be clear here, a CRT can use LESS power per square inch than a plasma tv, it all depends on what YEAR and what company built the plasma TV. the same problem can also effect LCD tv sets.

If a LCD uses fluorescent backlighting, is the exact same size as a CRT it will use about 1/2 the energy drain of a CRT, if it uses LEDs, the power drain might fall below 1/4 that of a CRT, however, this can vary widely, the type of LCD used can increase drain, the type of graphic processing unit can draw as much as 40 more watts for 'full' hd instead of standard 480i, which might draw 2 watts. it's not just one factor, it's about 3-4 factors. high end LCDs with halogen bulbs will consume around 500 watts, low end LCDs with LED lighting of about half the screen area will draw around 100 watts.

plasma, in general uses slightly more power at full brightness than a CRT, this is the trick, to get 'numbers' below a CRT they use the lowest brightness settings and then default the settings where it is usable for the typical consumer. so, don't believe the numbers. a 50" plasma will draw 750 watts at full brightness. it will draw around 500 watts at the 'minimal' brightness, which nobody can possibly use, because it's only that dim for deflated power consumption numbers.

a 20" crt will draw about 100 watts. also, keep in mind, the older sets drew a lot more power than modern sets. why? the HD tuner chips of 2 years ago took double the watts of todays HD tuners. also, there has been a lot of 'tweaking' of the power consumption numbers, they've figured out how to claim lower power consumption on newer models, when realistically when used the same the power draw is nearly identical, except for the tuner.

oh yeah, power supply efficiency and total capacity can make a huge difference in power consumption, when you don't know the exact wattage needed, you might wind up putting in a power supply that is less energy efficient, than if you know the exact draw on each rail, something that can only be known in a mature product cycle. but this is going to make less than 30 watts difference.

8 years ago, the number of people who could afford a tv set that drew 750 watts of power were few and far between. 3 years ago, the number of people who could afford 750 watt sets went up significantly. and the baseline sets were on average 100 watts higher than what people could afford 8 years ago in crts. if 90% of new televisions being sold have 100 watts higher drain than previous models in that price range it is going to have a huge impact. and as we can see, it didn't take 3 years for that to happen.

I've been researching tv sets for a long time, anticipating buying a new LCD set when i get the money. it was really hard, because i wanted a low power set and it really isn't happening in the screen size i was looking at. to give you an idea, of how bad things are, check the 'energy star' ratings for tv sets. a 50 inch HD set need only use 381 watts of power to be energy star rated. this is up from the 270 watts in revision 2 of the 3.0 spec

yeah, the government was swayed to increase the wattage of a hd set by 111 watts to 'please' the makers of sets, so any 50" set below almost 400 watts could claim to be green. 400 watts! 2 tv sets, and you've got a cheapo microwave! things will get better, but not until after they get worse. i just wish they would get levels into the energy star specification, like silver, gold, and platinum. where silver is the high wattage energy star, and platinum is the 'real' deal of low power.

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/par

• Clear the room of people and pets
• Open a window and shut off any heating and air conditioning
• Dispose of any fabrics ( clothes, bedclothes, etc ) that may have come into contact with the bulb or mercury.

I know that the US EPA has had a less than stellar record under the Bush administration, but why are they so much more paranoid about mercury in CFLs than Environment Canada?

Electricity use is the main source of mercury emissions in the U.S. CFLs use less electricity than incandescent
lights, meaning CFLs reduce the amount of mercury into the environment. As shown in the table below, a 13-watt,
8,000-rated-hour-life CFL (60-watt equivalent; a common light bulb type) will save 376 kWh over its lifetime, thus
avoiding 4.5 mg of mercury. If the bulb goes to a landfill, overall emissions savings would drop a little, to 4.2 mg. Frequently Asked Questions Information on Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs (CFLs) and Mercury

That's all well and good but you would be surprised at how much mercury gets into the environment from dental fillings and how few people will pay the extra $15.00 to get composite fillings!

Problem is, drop an LED lamp, and the worst you have to do sweep it up and throw it away. Drop and break a CFL, and you have a hazmat situation. . . Ever read the EPA guidelines on cleaning up broken CFLs ??? ??? Illuminating, indeed. . .

Question: How has the government used the enormous database of commercial building power usage, which is still larger in aggregate than data centers? Other than providing a useful tool for setting design goals, what nefarious federal regulations have been spawned by this evil data collection, analysis, and presentation?

I'm moderating in this forum and I could not verify the above claim.

In fact, I found several resources claiming that watch batteries have been actively using mercury for 50+ years. Mercury usage in batteries appears to be capped, making it more worthwhile for most devices to use other types of batteries, but I can't verify that watches (being small and not really power-hogs) fall into that category, since the main advantage of mercury batteries appears to be a longer lifetime.

Also of note: there is more exposure to mercury from the fish you eat than from CFL bulbs (according to NPR and Energy Star). The above user (jabuzz) appears to have fallen victim to the very FUD that brunes69 is talking about.

Seems like you're trying to leave the impression in the readers mind your criticism applies to all Wii game console, when in fact it only applies to a subset of the whole. Btw, the new CFL bulbs are a much better choice to be left on for any period of time.

Anyways, just did some quick Google research and according to the EPA the WOL feature in desktop computers using wired ethernet cannot reach a target of 5W. In fact, the desktop target thought to be achievable is 10W. That is not far from 11W. And, again, that's for a wired ethernet connection and not taking into consideration the additional power required for a Wi-Fi/wireless LAN radio transmitter.

Take a look at this report posted at EnergyStar (a US DOE & US EPA).

I forgot the EPA link:'

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/product_specs/program_reqs/thermostats_prog_req.pdf

sorry

Really? I find that very hard to believe. On average, the fridge is using about 1 kwh/day.

Energy Star

It's always on and always drawing some power even if the compressor isn't cooling. The DSL modem is drawing more power per day? How much? I just really find that hard to believe.

Yes, about 5 mg per bulb is right (though falling as technology improves).

I think this is where I first saw a calculation of Hg emissions: if mercury emissions are about 0.079 mg/kWh, and a CFL saves 296 kWh of electricity over its lifetime, then 23 mg of mercury emissions are prevented. Even if you take one quarter of the mercury emissions (the author of the linked page notes that his value is high), you still save 5.9 mg of mercury, more than the 5 mg in the bulb.

And of course if you recycle them, no mercury is emitted. (Well, maybe some trace.) If you live near a large city, there's probably an IkeaMOM's stores collect CFLs for recycling.

a heat pump might only consume 500W of electrical power (I made that number up) in order to dump the same 1000W into the same room.

Real numbers, for the curious: Not more than 303 watts, for Energy Star compliant geothermal heat pumps, and not more than 427 watts for Energy Star compliant air heat pumps. The ratio for the first is the Coefficient of Performance (COP) rating - the lowest mentioned there is 3.3, 1000/3.3=303. For the second, it's Heating Seasonal Performance Factor (HSPF), which is the same thing except in BTUs/hr per watt instead of watts per watt. The lowest HSPF is 8.0, or 2.34 watts per watt. 1000/2.34=427.

a heat pump might only consume 500W of electrical power (I made that number up) in order to dump the same 1000W into the same room.

Real numbers, for the curious: Not more than 303 watts, for Energy Star compliant geothermal heat pumps, and not more than 427 watts for Energy Star compliant air heat pumps. The ratio for the first is the Coefficient of Performance (COP) rating - the lowest mentioned there is 3.3, 1000/3.3=303. For the second, it's Heating Seasonal Performance Factor (HSPF), which is the same thing except in BTUs/hr per watt instead of watts per watt. The lowest HSPF is 8.0, or 2.34 watts per watt. 1000/2.34=427.

Yes, powering down at night can save you money, and it can reduce your carbon footprint but it sounds like you are trying to use this as a method of securing your network which i would not suggest. As far as powering down your systems, if you have a budget then use it. If you have management software, use that too. Many large networks use some sort of management software, either SMS or something similar. There are always tools available with this. Some good SMS add-ons can be found here: http://www.1e.com/Downloads/Index.aspx (no affiliation aside from that we use the software). These tools give you the option to only shut down computers which no one is logged into, or you can be more strict and force systems to shut down at a specific time, it is very flexible. If you do not have any such thing and you do use AD then simply get creative with your policies. You can use power management policies which were mentioned earlier such as EZ GPO http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=power_mgt.pr_power_mgt_ez_gpo or you can get creative with your logon scripts. Just be sure to test them first. If you are simply trying to thwart viruses maybe you should look into a unified threat management appliance which can stop them at your gateway.

• CFLs do contain mercury, but it is only a problem if the bulbs are broken or disposed of improperly. The amount of mercury in an average CFL is about 1/100 the amount contained in one of those old mercury thermometers. Also, the largest man-made source of mercury pollution is coal-fired power plants, which CFL usage will reduce. In addition, newer CFLs are being released that contain much less mercury than current ones (source [pdf]).
• It is true that some CFLs don't live up to their rated life. All Energy Star compliant bulbs are required to include at least a two-year manufacturer warranty (source).
• CFLs are available in all sorts of variants, including candle (regular and candelabra base), globe, reflector, three-way, etc.
• CFLs are available in a wide range of color temperatures, from 2700K ("warm" incandescent) to 5100K ("daylight"). Many CFLs are indistinguishable from their incandescent equivalents (that is, until you touch them and don't get burned).
• Dimmable CFLs, which work on standard dimmer switches, exist. While they do not have exactly the same dimming behaviors as incandescents, I've found them to be more than adequate.
• While most CFLs do not tolerate colder temperatures, there are many that do, all the way down below 0 degrees F
• While older CFLs didn't come on instantly, newer ones, with electric ballasts, do. They do not start at full brightness, but are plenty bright to see when entering a room, and reach full brightness quickly, often in under a minute.
• CFLs with electric ballasts don't "hum" like the old ones did.

Sorry to contradict you, but I think you misunderstood my point, and you're factually wrong about the cost of stopping and starting your car. Here's a little info on both points I mentioned as examples, along with their sources (one Canadian, one American). These are just a couple of many insignificant changes we can make that have the potential to make a really big difference. My point is that we can do a lot without making any of those draconian lifestyle changes everybody's afraid of.

"If every driver of a light duty vehicle avoided idling by five minutes a day, collectively, we would save 1.8 million litres per day of fuel, almost 4500 tonnes of GHG emissions, and $1.7 million in fuel costs every day (assuming fuel costs are $0.95/L). There is lots of opportunity to achieve that goal. Research indicates that Canadian motorists idle their vehicles an average of 5 to 10 minutes a day. One study suggests that in the peak of winter, Canadians voluntarily idle their vehicles for a combined total of more than 75 million minutes a day - equivalent to one vehicle idling for 144 years! We idle about 40 percent less in summer, but it still amounts to an enormous waste of fuel and money. Research has shown that if you are going to be stopped for more than 10 seconds (except in traffic), you will actually save on fuel by turning off then restarting the engine. The catalytic converter will stay warm for up to 25 minutes after the engine is shut off so frequent restarts will not produce the large amounts of harmful emissions equivalent to cold starts."

http://www.oee.nrcan.gc.ca/transportation/idling/issues/why-idling-problem.cfm?attr=16

"If every American home replaced just one light bulb with an ENERGY STAR qualified bulb, we would save enough energy to light more than 3 million homes for a year, more than $600 million in annual energy costs, and prevent greenhouse gases equivalent to the emissions of more than 800,000 cars."

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls

I'd be interested in hearing your response. I had a hard time believing how much we just piss away, too. There's lots more of these silly little changes that could be made that don't cost anything but have real effects when they're all added up.

For those of us who need to think bigger EnergyStar has a report and ways to cut energy usage for a whole data center... But energy saving starts at home.

There is...

I do know the Energy Star http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=about.ab_his tory has has some successes. I was doing carbon neutraility using light bulbs for a Renewable Fuels Conference held at the Aspen Institute which is managed by Marriott. I spoke with the facilities manager there who gave me the scoop on how much they have reduced their electricity use over the last few years. It was pretty impressive, about 7% in the 2005-2006 timeframe. They are also using about 8% renewable energy from PEPCO. As you can see from the link, Energy Star started in 1992 so what this administration can claim is that it did not interfere with the program and is continuing some prior policies. More recently, (under this administration) the Navy has been looking for subsantial energy savings and I think some of DOD has been following. This is not voluntary though. Organizations like the Chicago Climate Exchange are not really of this administration's making. State and municipality level efforts are largely in response to a lack of leadership at the federal level. But, it is not all that unusual for administrations to take credit for good news and shift blame for bad news regardless of what level of responsibility they have. To me, the positive thing is that some good things are happening despite the policies of the administration.
--
Make your own effort: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

I agree. With wireless networking so cheap, the most ethernet wire I'd string would be a couple of lines to an out-of-the-way closet on each floor (don't forget to run power to the closets!) for wireless hubs.

I'd put my money into things which will save you money, such as geothermal heatpumps, thermally-controlled attic fans, and high-end windows [PDF] and doors.

Additional benefits can be had from hiring your own construction supervisor. My experience has been that builders will use cheap unskilled labor to do the initial work, and only if you complain loudly will they bring in the high-priced high-talent crews to correct the mistakes made by the first group of tradesmen. Having your own person looking over the construction each day will save you a lot of heartache and get you a better-build home. After hurricanes, you'll see hordes of fly-by-nighters arrive in town, hoping to make a quick buck. In New Orleans, this might be especially true with all the rebuilding going on.

Chip H.

I agree. With wireless networking so cheap, the most ethernet wire I'd string would be a couple of lines to an out-of-the-way closet on each floor (don't forget to run power to the closets!) for wireless hubs.

I'd put my money into things which will save you money, such as geothermal heatpumps, thermally-controlled attic fans, and high-end windows [PDF] and doors.

Additional benefits can be had from hiring your own construction supervisor. My experience has been that builders will use cheap unskilled labor to do the initial work, and only if you complain loudly will they bring in the high-priced high-talent crews to correct the mistakes made by the first group of tradesmen. Having your own person looking over the construction each day will save you a lot of heartache and get you a better-build home. After hurricanes, you'll see hordes of fly-by-nighters arrive in town, hoping to make a quick buck. In New Orleans, this might be especially true with all the rebuilding going on.

Chip H.

According to nescaum.org coal-fired power releases about 48 tons of mercury per year. TFA claims that each CF bulb contains about five milligrams of mercury. Through the magic of google's calulator, we can easily convert units: 48 short tons = 43,544,867,520 milligrams

If we could cut US coal-fired power emissions 10% by replacing incandescents with lower-power CF bulbs, we'd reduce mercury emissions by roughly 4,350,000,000 milligrams. At 5 milligrams per CF bulb, this is equivalent to 870 million CF bulbs. If all of these ended up being disposed of by incineration (sending the CFs' mercury into the atmosphere) we'd come about even in total mercury emitted at that energy savings level.

Of course, it's hard to say if the 10% emission reduction could really be achieved. I certainly don't have time to account for all those variables. However, it looks like the folks at energystar.gov have done the work. They claim that there is a net mercury emission savings due to the power savings of about 10 milligrams. (Or five milligrams, I'd say, if the CF is not properly disposed at its end-of-life.)

On the whole, so long as we still use a lot of coal for power, it looks like CFs are probably a good tradeoff.

(Also, for what it's worth, TFA is quite the hatchet job. It's either not written from anything like a neutral POV or the author failed to do his homework, I found all my numbers in five minutes with three google searches. I also found, in the energystar pdf, the recommended method for disposing of a broken CF. It involves a broom, a ziploc, and a damp paper towel... materials which should cost a good deal less than $2000 in most cases.)

Steven Milloy is hardly one who should be taken seriously on environmental / health issues. Read more about the offer of the article by visiting wikipedia:

Energystar.gov has a PDF file up about CFLs and describes that the broken glass is more dangerous to you than the mercury and provides the following disposal advice:

Like paint, batteries, thermostats, and other hazardous household items, CFLs should be disposed of properly. Do not throw CFLs away in your household garbage if better disposal options exist. To find out what to do first check the following website: www.earth911.org where you can find disposal options by using your zip code (*see detailed instructions at the end of this document) or by calling 1-877- EARTH911 for local disposal options. Another option is to check directly with your local waste management agency for recycling options and disposal guidelines in your community. Additional information is available at www.lamprecycle.org. Finally, IKEA stores take

Like paint, batteries, thermostats, and other hazardous household items, CFLs should be disposed of properly. Do not throw CFLs away in your household garbage if better disposal options exist. To find out what to do first check the following website: www.earth911.org where you can find disposal options by using your zip code (*see detailed instructions at the end of this document) or by calling 1-877-EARTH911 for local disposal options. Another option is to check directly with your local waste management agency for recycling options and disposal guidelines in your community. Additional information is available at www.lamprecycle.org. Finally, IKEA stores take back used CFLs, and other retailers are currently exploring take-back programs.

If your local waste management agency offers no other disposal options except your household garbage, place the CFL in a plastic bag and seal it before putting it in the trash. If your waste agency incinerates its garbage, you should search a wider geographic area for proper disposal options. Never send a CFL or other mercury-containing product to an incinerator.

From: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/c hange_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf

Is it true that CFLs contain mercury? Why and how much?

CFLs contain a very small amount of mercury sealed within the glass tubing - an average of 5 milligrams (roughly equivalent to the tip of a ball-point pen). Mercury is an essential, irreplaceable element in CFLs and is what allows the bulb to be an efficient light source. By comparison, older home thermometers contain 500 milligrams of mercury and many manual thermostats contain up to 3000 milligrams. It would take between 100 and 600 CFLs to equal those amounts.

[...]

What should I do if a CFL breaks?

Because there is such a small amount of mercury in CFLs, your greatest risk if a bulb breaks is getting cut from glass shards. Research indicates that there is no immediate health risk to you or your family should a bulb break and it's cleaned up properly. You can minimize any risks by following these proper clean-up and disposal guidelines:

• Sweep up--don't vacuum--all of the glass fragments and fine particles.
• Place broken pieces in a sealed plastic bag and wipe the area with a damp paper towel to pick up any stray shards of glass or fine particles. Put the used towel in the plastic bag as well.
• If weather permits, open windows to allow the room to ventilate.

This is an urban legend propagated by conservative propaganda sites. Good thing we have editors to filter this stuff out for us...

There is very little mercury in CFLs, you are in more danger of getting cut by the glass than you are of getting mercury poisoning.
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/c hange_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf

I switched my house to CFLs and started saving $15-20 per month. If everyone did this then the big power companies would see a dent in their bottom line and so they start spreading lies like this.

I love people who have numbers at their fingertips!

Happily your numbers are out-of-date. Not too out of date, either. But substantially!
The EPA's Energy-Star cerification program and the improving regulations have been astoundinly successful, each year for the last 5 or so.

As you can tell here
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=ref rig.search_products_submit
you can get a nice mid-size side-by-side Fridgidaire that consumes only 45W.
Skimp a little and get the best in class and you are down at 35W.

What we need are regulations for other appliances. I just measured my TV and found that it uses 24W OFF. (Thank you Infocus.) That is WAY WAY too much to keep an IR receiver active... (267W ON is a lot to but at least it is doing something for me!)

For years the Federal Energy Star program has perpetuated the myth that if you buy appliances (or any electrical device) for the home that uses less energy, you'll see proportional savings in your monthly power bill. This is rarely the case.

Other eco-writers do similar simplistic math to calculate savings in money, energy and carbon. A recent example is Charles Fishman's September 2006 article in Fast Company magazine about WalMart's CFL project, "<a href="http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/108/open _lightbulbs.html"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">How Many Lightbulbs Does it Take to Change the World?</span></a>".

The claim is made that if a single light bulb using 45 watts less is placed in 100 million homes, 6.57 billion Kilo-Watt-Hours will be saved. The fact is, unless you are cooling your house, there is ZERO savings. Charles focused on the bulb, but forgot about the home. His entire premise is based on a false assumption. The savings are grossly exaggerated for most homes.

"Wasted" energy takes the form of heat. And this heat helps keep you warm, if only just a small amount. For most of America, for much of the year, that 45 watts will be automatically added back in by the home heating system to maintain the same level of comfort. If the home is heated with electricity, the savings in dollars, energy and carbon production is literally ZERO.

The only time energy is actually saved is when the air conditioning is running or you have the windows open to cool the house. With the air conditioning on, the savings can even be a little greater than 45 watts, but for most of America that's a small part of the year. What are the savings for the rest of the year?

ZERO!

If you are not cooling your home, EVERY light bulb and appliance is 100% efficient.

Here's why...

The second law of thermodynamics demonstrates that "wasted" energy tends to disperse evenly. And if this "wasted" energy is in your house, it simply keeps you warm. More importantly, it keeps your normal heat source from turning on. Let's see how it plays out in a real home and why saving energy by turning off the lights is mostly an illusion (pardon the pun).

If you have a home in the northern latitudes which is electrically heated much of the year, you are a net consumer of heat. And the nice thing about heat is that It doesn't matter where it comes from. And that's the key.

Take a light bulb that's only 10% efficient. That means 90% of it's energy is converted directly to heat. So what happens to that heat? It spreads out through your house and slightly delays your normal heating system from clicking on.

And what about the 10% of the energy in the form of visible light? Virtually all of it strikes objects in the house. It too is converted to heat. The ONLY ineffectiveness of a light bulb in a northern home in the winter is the light that escapes through the windows, which is a VERY small amount. Even THAT can be stopped with curtains making ANY light bulb 100% effective at producing heat. Here's how <a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_effi ciency"><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">Wiki explains it... Efficiency versus Effectiveness.</span>
</a>
Why do I qualify this with northern homes and winter? Because if you have to open the windows to be comfortable, you lose the advantage. And if you have to turn on the air conditioning, this "effectiveness" actually becomes a small liability. So those of you in Florida and south Texas... nevermind.

It's all about heat, where it moves and how we store it. But for most of America, much of the year, energy efficiency is very much an illusion. Effectiveness rules the day because we actual

Because they contain mercury, and mercury is highly toxic. These bulbs will require special disposal procedures. How many of these things are going to just end up in the trash because their "green" owners don't even realize mercury is even in the things? For disposal recommendations, please see your friendly US Government pdf file for details. In the meantime, my incandescent bulbs aren't very efficient, but they've never been blamed for dementia either...

if every US home replaced just one light bulb with an "energy-star rated" CFL, this 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, according to the US Environment Protection Agency

From the EPA website :

Remember, saving energy prevents pollution. When you use less energy at home, you lessen greenhouse gas emissions in our atmosphere. Every CFL can prevent more than 450 pounds of emissions from a power plant over its lifetime.

That's a good point, and one that is likely to make these devices a market failure. They will have a hard time meeting the EPA's charger efficiency standards. Manufacturers are working hard to meet these levels without the additional loss in the split transformer. Failing to meet these "voluntary" standard locks you out of federal contracts, and the general market in places where efficiency standards are mandatory (California).

Do you have double-paned windows?