1) Is conserving energy more environmentally sound than preventing mercury pollution?
In some cases, the answer clearly is no. Mercury is highly poisonous, it persists in the environment (it doesn't ever break down), and it can't be practically cleaned up once it is dispersed. If renewable energy, such as wind or solar, is wasted, the environmental harm is relatively limited and it stops when the wasting stops. Even if mercury-containing coal is being burnt, it is easier to scrub the power-plant exhaust at a single point of pollution than to collect mercury diffused out over the environment (and the emitted carbon dioxide can be recovered by vegetation, although the environment may now contain tens of millions of years of released carbon-dioxide storage). Mercury and radioactive wastes are both truly horrible prospects as pollutants. Earthjustice calls mercury emissions "one of the most toxic pollutants emitted" (In Brief, p. 20, Spring 2006, "Cement Kilns Spew Mercury, Government Stands By"). Already the public is warned not to consume tuna, etc. very often due to mercury despite the dietary benefits of seafood.
In your article we read that various new energy efficiency technologies have saved billions in electricity costs including "high-frequency ballasts for fluorescent lamps are saving the United States around $5 billion worth of electricity and natural-gas costs" (p. 25). If it were to turn out that the cost of cleaning up mercury pollution exceeded $5 billion a year and, that once spread through out the environment, mercury becomes essentially irretrievable at any cost, then the energy savings would not be a net savings but a huge pollution mistake.
Some environmental groups have worked for years to remove sources of mercury pollution from the waste stream such thermometers, thermostats like in cars, etc. to protect us from environmental exposure such as through fish and so forth. Fluorescent light bulbs could quickly reverse this important progress.
2) Are fluorescent bulb the best way to conserve energy?
Incandescent bulbs are often called inefficient; however, the energy they use goes about 1/2 to light and 1/2 to heat. In homes, equipped with electric heat, in the winter incandescent bulbs are 100% efficient, because heat produced by the an incandescent light bulb offsets heat the electric furnace would have had to produce; they also offset heat a fuel-burning furnace would have had to provide. In the summer, ventilation or an air conditioner will have to dispose of the excess heat; however, in the summer, in a house with good natural lighting including solar tubes, less lights are needed than in winter.
In my area fluorescent bulbs were promoted as an easy way to conserve energy -- people had to make no changes in their lifestyle e.g. they could keep on burning a porch light and street lights all night, or illuminating their house while they are out, or illuminating rooms they don't occupy and at light levels they don't actually need. Both reducing unneeded lighting or use of fluorescent bulbs has the potential to reduce energy use, but reduced energy use would reduce coal-burning and accompanying mercury releases, unlike use of compact fluorescent bulbs which create a new source of mercury pollution.
Does it take more energy to manufacture a fluorescent tube and to dissemble it safely than the excess energy used by an incandescent? Their high price suggests it probably does. If you go a mile out of the way to deliver the (single) bulb to a recycler (to avoid breaking one at home in storage), how does that fraction of a gallon of gas alone compare to the energy the incandescent would have wasted over its life time?
The purported long life of compact fluorescent bulbs has not proven true for us. We had to return several to the store when they w
Slashdot Mirror
1) Is conserving energy more environmentally sound than preventing mercury pollution?
In some cases, the answer clearly is no. Mercury is highly poisonous, it persists in the environment (it doesn't ever break down), and it can't be practically cleaned up once it is dispersed. If renewable energy, such as wind or solar, is wasted, the environmental harm is relatively limited and it stops when the wasting stops. Even if mercury-containing coal is being burnt, it is easier to scrub the power-plant exhaust at a single point of pollution than to collect mercury diffused out over the environment (and the emitted carbon dioxide can be recovered by vegetation, although the environment may now contain tens of millions of years of released carbon-dioxide storage). Mercury and radioactive wastes are both truly horrible prospects as pollutants. Earthjustice calls mercury emissions "one of the most toxic pollutants emitted" (In Brief, p. 20, Spring 2006, "Cement Kilns Spew Mercury, Government Stands By"). Already the public is warned not to consume tuna, etc. very often due to mercury despite the dietary benefits of seafood.
In your article we read that various new energy efficiency technologies have saved billions in electricity costs including "high-frequency ballasts for fluorescent lamps are saving the United States around $5 billion worth of electricity and natural-gas costs" (p. 25). If it were to turn out that the cost of cleaning up mercury pollution exceeded $5 billion a year and, that once spread through out the environment, mercury becomes essentially irretrievable at any cost, then the energy savings would not be a net savings but a huge pollution mistake.
Some environmental groups have worked for years to remove sources of mercury pollution from the waste stream such thermometers, thermostats like in cars, etc. to protect us from environmental exposure such as through fish and so forth. Fluorescent light bulbs could quickly reverse this important progress.
2) Are fluorescent bulb the best way to conserve energy?
Incandescent bulbs are often called inefficient; however, the energy they use goes about 1/2 to light and 1/2 to heat. In homes, equipped with electric heat, in the winter incandescent bulbs are 100% efficient, because heat produced by the an incandescent light bulb offsets heat the electric furnace would have had to produce; they also offset heat a fuel-burning furnace would have had to provide. In the summer, ventilation or an air conditioner will have to dispose of the excess heat; however, in the summer, in a house with good natural lighting including solar tubes, less lights are needed than in winter.
In my area fluorescent bulbs were promoted as an easy way to conserve energy -- people had to make no changes in their lifestyle e.g. they could keep on burning a porch light and street lights all night, or illuminating their house while they are out, or illuminating rooms they don't occupy and at light levels they don't actually need. Both reducing unneeded lighting or use of fluorescent bulbs has the potential to reduce energy use, but reduced energy use would reduce coal-burning and accompanying mercury releases, unlike use of compact fluorescent bulbs which create a new source of mercury pollution.
Does it take more energy to manufacture a fluorescent tube and to dissemble it safely than the excess energy used by an incandescent? Their high price suggests it probably does. If you go a mile out of the way to deliver the (single) bulb to a recycler (to avoid breaking one at home in storage), how does that fraction of a gallon of gas alone compare to the energy the incandescent would have wasted over its life time?
The purported long life of compact fluorescent bulbs has not proven true for us. We had to return several to the store when they w