New bulbs have one hitch: mercury

[Zonker]

A 100 watt bulb, dimmed 50% draws 50 watts. A CFL equivalent of a 100 Watt incandescent draws 23 to 25 watts. Dimmers are dumb! Further, depending on the type of dimmer you bought, you might not be saving electricity at all! Some dimmers use resistance to cut the electric to the bulb, but use the remainder, resulting in no savings!

Babble all you want about how little energy is used for lighting, but saving 50 to 75% in electricity usage is nothing to sneeze at!

What you say is similar to those who think getting a car with 1 or 2 mpg better is a waste of time. It's all about scale. If everyone uses CFL's or gets slightly better mileage, the aggregate would be huge savings.

The mercury scare is a convenient excuse for those resistant to change. Typical conservative reaction. They still believe the world is flat.

[Steve in Wellington]

just shows what happens when crazy fanatic lunatics run the country..

use fluorescent light bulbs because they're "environmentally safe

plastic bags replaced paper bags, now neither is "good"

use ethanol for fuel while starving the poor and incresing food prices

cut down on energy consumption so prices can rise because the utility companies need to maintain their profits while other sources of energy like nuclear are outlawed

don't allow logging so the forests can over grow and then burn out of control

legislate smaller flow toilets so you can flush three times instead of once

push small cars so you can make more trips

the list just goes on and on..

[Bung hole]

dumb wrote:

But do the "green" kooks feel better about themselves while changing all their bulbs over? That's all that matters. Like most of the save the planet clap trap, it is nothing more than poorly thought out emotional over reactions lapped up by a gullible public. Just don't lap up the mercury! Talk about going green!

Your post is nothing more than a "poorly thought out emotional overreaction." Get over yourself Mor'n.

[PGZ]

Steve in Wellington wrote:

just shows what happens when crazy fanatic lunatics run the country..

Which crazy fanatic lunatics are you talking about? Are you saying that liberals are running the country?

Steve in Wellington wrote:

use fluorescent light bulbs because they're "environmentally safe

From an aspect of reducing energy usage, thereby the burning of coal or oil for fuel to generate the electricity (and the pollution and mercury emitted by the power plants) versus the tiny amount of mercury in these bulbs, yes, they are environmentally safe. But you don't have to even look any further than the savings in your pocket if you don't care about the environment.

Steve in Wellington wrote:

plastic bags replaced paper bags, now neither is "good"

At the time plastic bags came out, there was no other viable alternative for paper bags. Over time, the popularity of plastic bags (and the petroleum that they are made from as well as the sheer multitude in the garbage) showed everyone that we really don't need them if we do not recycle them. You can do just fine without either.

Steve in Wellington wrote:

use ethanol for fuel while starving the poor and incresing food prices

Ethanol from corn was the easy (and wrong) choice. There are many other sources of Ethanol that would not reduce the food to the poor and have an effect on food prices, but they still need development

Steve in Wellington wrote:

cut down on energy consumption so prices can rise because the utility companies need to maintain their profits while other sources of energy like nuclear are outlawed

Nuclear power is not outlawed. Complain about the price of electricity to the power companies. They are (usually) private organizations and this is a capitalist country. Are you suggesting that they reduce their profits or should be more legislated?

Steve in Wellington wrote:

don't allow logging so the forests can over grow and then burn out of control

It is the elimination of the natural processes of fire that cause the overgrowth and the explosive and dangerous fires. Logging does not help because the fires feed on the fuel at the bottom (small trees, dead branches, etc) that accumulate due to the reduction of naturally occurring fires. Logging just takes out the big trees and leaves the accumulated fuel.

Steve in Wellington wrote:

legislate smaller flow toilets so you can flush three times instead of once

Even if you flush 3 times (which I highly doubt someone needs to do every time, either you need more fiber or need to see a doctor), the amount of water saved is less than a single flush from a normal toilet in the 1970s.

Steve in Wellington wrote:

push small cars so you can make more trips

Push small cars? Human-powered locomotion in a passenger vehicle? Like the Flintstones?

[Puddles]

Zonker wrote:

A 100 watt bulb, dimmed 50% draws 50 watts. A CFL equivalent of a 100 Watt incandescent draws 23 to 25 watts. Dimmers are dumb! Further, depending on the type of dimmer you bought, you might not be saving electricity at all! Some dimmers use resistance to cut the electric to the bulb, but use the remainder, resulting in no savings!
Babble all you want about how little energy is used for lighting, but saving 50 to 75% in electricity usage is nothing to sneeze at!
What you say is similar to those who think getting a car with 1 or 2 mpg better is a waste of time. It's all about scale. If everyone uses CFL's or gets slightly better mileage, the aggregate would be huge savings.
The mercury scare is a convenient excuse for those resistant to change. Typical conservative reaction. They still believe the world is flat.

First, reastats haven't been on the market since the early 70s for residential use. They use triacs now which turns electricity on and off so all dimmers to save energy and bulb life. And incandescent lamp on a dimmer has an average life of 10+ years. CFLS around 5-6 unless you buy the good ones for $20 a pop. I did that for my 2 lamps and they're perfect. The light is also better too, but they too probably won't last as long as my incandescent bulbs.

Second, again we're talking about a 3-4% savings in total if we use CFLs so why is that worth all the hazardous waste we would generate? You know people are just going to dump them in the garbage and they will then end up at landfills eventually getting into the earth and water supply. all to save 3-4%? It not practical. And like i said, wallmart and Homedepot don't want to recycle them themselves because they would have to have a hazardous waste management program in place.

We should be focusing on motor loads and heating/ac to get a grip on emitions in the residential market. There is nothing wrong with CFLs, but they will not help against global warming if we don't address the real problems.

[Not in the least confused]

PGZ wrote:

<quoted text>
Push small cars? Human-powered locomotion in a passenger vehicle? Like the Flintstones?

Nah. We can solve two problems in the following manner.

High gas prices...Hire illegal immigrants to push our cars. It's cheaper than gasoline.

The illegal immigrant problem...pay 'em in pesos so they have to go home to spend it.

Problems solved!

[Bung hole]

"Second, again we're talking about a 3-4% savings in total if we use CFLs so why is that worth all the hazardous waste we would generate? You know people are just going to dump them in the garbage and they will then end up at landfills eventually getting into the earth and water supply. all to save 3-4%? It not practical. And like i said, wallmart and Homedepot don't want to recycle them themselves because they would have to have a hazardous waste management program in place."

Once again, when we burn coal for electricity, we release mercury. CFL's will reduse the need for electricty and therefore less coal (and oil) will be burnt. Also, CFL's will be a point source of "pollution" (the 4-5 mg can hardly be considered pollution) in landfills instead of a non-point widespread blanketing of mercury fallout from the smokestacks of power plants.

[Stupidity SUX]

This entire topic is rather comical. Standard lighting for offices,stores, and all bussiness in general is tube lighting which contains mercury. Standard practice for disposal is city trash pickup, no "special" handling no one really gives a crap.

Doesn't matter if its a CFL/tube light/street lamp they do not contain enough mercury to worry about, should one break there is more reisk in getting a cut than there is in mercury exposure. Heck, even if you ate the darn thing, the glass would cause more problems than the potential mercury exposure.

[Bright light]

The Washington crowd of legislators passed this into law, and the biggest dim bulb of them all signed the law. They KNEW that there would be a problem with the mercury later. but didn't want to tell the stupid public about it or the stupid public wouldn't approve of the law.
In a year or two the mental midgets in Washington will pass another law requiring WalMart and other stores that sell the bulbs to accept them for recycling.
Our lawmakers are truly dumb.

[Puddles]

Stupidity SUX wrote:

This entire topic is rather comical. Standard lighting for offices,stores, and all bussiness in general is tube lighting which contains mercury. Standard practice for disposal is city trash pickup, no "special" handling no one really gives a crap.
Doesn't matter if its a CFL/tube light/street lamp they do not contain enough mercury to worry about, should one break there is more reisk in getting a cut than there is in mercury exposure. Heck, even if you ate the darn thing, the glass would cause more problems than the potential mercury exposure.

On a commercial level it is monitored by the state and there is are mandated recycle programs for hazardouse materials which these bulbs fall under. Thousands of dollars in fines are given if a company does not meet the standards. We don't have that in a residential application. And again, the answer is not in lighting, it's somewhere in motor driven appliances and hv/ac systems. This whole clean lighting thing a kinda a joke until we tackle those things because lightbulbs will not fix the warming issue on the residential side.

[Puddles]

Bright light wrote:

The Washington crowd of legislators passed this into law, and the biggest dim bulb of them all signed the law. They KNEW that there would be a problem with the mercury later. but didn't want to tell the stupid public about it or the stupid public wouldn't approve of the law.
In a year or two the mental midgets in Washington will pass another law requiring WalMart and other stores that sell the bulbs to accept them for recycling.
Our lawmakers are truly dumb.

And knowing wallmart, they're going to make that process difficult and homeowners are going to just throw them out with the trash. A little research is all it takes to get the answers together, but in the game of politics and a falling economy, they need to do what's right for the $

[Jeff]

I have to say that this is one of the more intelligent forums I have seen. It's actually refreshing.
So even if we save only 3-4% in energy expenditures by using CFLs, isn't that at least a start. IS it the entire answer?..no..but it's a start. I'll take the 3-4 %. I agree that other changes need to happen, such as reducing the power expenditures of other electrical items and HVAC systems.
The whole mercury thing is way overblown. Yes.. mercury is highly toxic if ingested, but it's been in flourescent lights and many, many other things for many years and how many problems have been caused by it? Heck the can of Raid under your sink is just as lethal but I bet 90 % of the posters have a can or two at home.(myself included)

[Puddles]

Jeff wrote:

I have to say that this is one of the more intelligent forums I have seen. It's actually refreshing.
So even if we save only 3-4% in energy expenditures by using CFLs, isn't that at least a start. IS it the entire answer?..no..but it's a start. I'll take the 3-4 %. I agree that other changes need to happen, such as reducing the power expenditures of other electrical items and HVAC systems.
The whole mercury thing is way overblown. Yes.. mercury is highly toxic if ingested, but it's been in flourescent lights and many, many other things for many years and how many problems have been caused by it? Heck the can of Raid under your sink is just as lethal but I bet 90 % of the posters have a can or two at home.(myself included)

True jeff, but i do not think banning the incandescent light bulb is the appropriate action to take. Not that it will actually happen. In the highend contracting world, i know of a certain man of a certain country who was the head backer of banning incandescence. We'll just say he's from australia. He was then asked by his contractor(who will remain nameless cause greg would beat me) to get into his brand new house of 2 years old to replace the exsisting fixtures so that the property would pass code for the new policy... he refused using certain statistics on where most of his energy is being used. Typical political BS. He forced the bill through to advance his own political future. And being an electrictian and AV installer for a while now, i think this might be why i have a bad taste in my mouth when it comes to these bulbs. I know they aren't what they're cracked up to be. Advances in lighting control systems in todays world are amazing and save over 60-70% of your power used by lighting and not one of them works with these little things bcause they are peices of crap manufactured overseas (except the good ones from japan, but they're like $30 a peice). There are so many better avenues than using these things and no one realy cares because these are hot right now. And you can't put the blaim on the consumers because they don't know any better. Ask a good electrician or integrater what they think of CFLs. They'll tell ya. But you won't here anything from policy makers (except in Cali). It's almost political suicide to say anything against them.

[Steve in Wellington]

PGZ wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Push small cars? Human-powered locomotion in a passenger vehicle? Like the Flintstones?

Which crazy fanatic lunatics are you talking about? Are you saying that liberals are running the country?
You haven't noticed that they are? You should get out more often.
From an aspect of reducing energy usage, thereby the burning of coal or oil for fuel to generate the electricity (and the pollution and mercury emitted by the power plants) versus the tiny amount of mercury in these bulbs, yes, they are environmentally safe. But you don't have to even look any further than the savings in your pocket if you don't care about the environment.
What savings? The bulbs cost more. Inability to use coal just means that there is less choice and whenever there is less choice that translates to higher costs.
At the time plastic bags came out, there was no other viable alternative for paper bags. Over time, the popularity of plastic bags (and the petroleum that they are made from as well as the sheer multitude in the garbage) showed everyone that we really don't need them if we do not recycle them. You can do just fine without either
Untrue, the fanatics forced us to use plastic because they claimed we were killing too many trees. Then when they woke up one day they realized that plastic bags were supposedly more evil.
Ethanol from corn was the easy (and wrong) choice. There are many other sources of Ethanol that would not reduce the food to the poor and have an effect on food prices, but they still need development
The ethanol craze is just another example of a knee jerk reaction by the same nuts who really know nothing other than forcing their will on everyone else. What other sources? All sources thus far have a major problem of causing more pollution and expending more energy than what's being used now
Nuclear power is not outlawed. Complain about the price of electricity to the power companies. They are (usually) private organizations and this is a capitalist country. Are you suggesting that they reduce their profits or should be more legislated?
Who said that nuclear power is outlawed? How many plants have been built in the last 10 years? If the country was truly capitalist the government would not make it practically impossible to build these plants.
It is the elimination of the natural processes of fire that cause the overgrowth and the explosive and dangerous fires. Logging does not help because the fires feed on the fuel at the bottom (small trees, dead branches, etc) that accumulate due to the reduction of naturally occurring fires. Logging just takes out the big trees and leaves the accumulated fuel.
Don't know what liberal ecological web site you found that "logic" on but you make absolutely 0% sense on that response. Fires go out of control because of overgrowth in the forest, logging cleans it up and replants areas logged.
Push small cars? Human-powered locomotion in a passenger vehicle? Like the Flintstones?
Whatever turns you on
Even if you flush 3 times (which I highly doubt someone needs to do every time, either you need more fiber or need to see a doctor), the amount of water saved is less than a single flush from a normal toilet in the 1970s.
You must flush quite a lot based upon your responses thus far

[RGAG]

Steve in Wellington wrote:

<quoted text>
Which crazy fanatic lunatics are you talking about? Are you saying that liberals are running the country?
You haven't noticed that they are? You should get out more often.
From an aspect of reducing energy usage, thereby the burning of coal or oil for fuel to generate the electricity (and the pollution and mercury emitted by the power plants) versus the tiny amount of mercury in these bulbs, yes, they are environmentally safe. But you don't have to even look any further than the savings in your pocket if you don't care about the environment.
What savings? The bulbs cost more. Inability to use coal just means that there is less choice and whenever there is less choice that translates to higher costs.
At the time plastic bags came out, there was no other viable alternative for paper bags. Over time, the popularity of plastic bags (and the petroleum that they are made from as well as the sheer multitude in the garbage) showed everyone that we really don't need them if we do not recycle them. You can do just fine without either
Untrue, the fanatics forced us to use plastic because they claimed we were killing too many trees. Then when they woke up one day they realized that plastic bags were supposedly more evil.
Ethanol from corn was the easy (and wrong) choice. There are many other sources of Ethanol that would not reduce the food to the poor and have an effect on food prices, but they still need development
The ethanol craze is just another example of a knee jerk reaction by the same nuts who really know nothing other than forcing their will on everyone else. What other sources? All sources thus far have a major problem of causing more pollution and expending more energy than what's being used now
Nuclear power is not outlawed. Complain about the price of electricity to the power companies. They are (usually) private organizations and this is a capitalist country. Are you suggesting that they reduce their profits or should be more legislated?
Who said that nuclear power is outlawed? How many plants have been built in the last 10 years? If the country was truly capitalist the government would not make it practically impossible to build these plants.
It is the elimination of the natural processes of fire that cause the overgrowth and the explosive and dangerous fires. Logging does not help because the fires feed on the fuel at the bottom (small trees, dead branches, etc) that accumulate due to the reduction of naturally occurring fires. Logging just takes out the big trees and leaves the accumulated fuel.
Don't know what liberal ecological web site you found that "logic" on but you make absolutely 0% sense on that response. Fires go out of control because of overgrowth in the forest, logging cleans it up and replants areas logged.
Push small cars? Human-powered locomotion in a passenger vehicle? Like the Flintstones?
Whatever turns you on
Even if you flush 3 times (which I highly doubt someone needs to do every time, either you need more fiber or need to see a doctor), the amount of water saved is less than a single flush from a normal toilet in the 1970s.
You must flush quite a lot based upon your responses thus far

Bingo! So true

[Penny]

Isn't it true that the plastic bags that are used everywhere are part of the oil industry. While we pay exhorbitant prices for gas, aren't these pesky little bags also part of the problem? And what about the plastice soda and water bottles?
Same issue? Why did we switch from glass anyway?
Cheaper to make? They aren't cheaper to buy. I was a plastics and die cast buyer in the 70's and early 80's, just about the time that plastics were being touted as the best new invention for the automobile and appliance industries. Couldn't understand then how a plastic part would last as long as a metal or stainless one. But I sure could see the cost savings to the industries. Fast forward to 2008 and now we pay over $3.50 a gallon for gas supposedly because the supply and demand is driving up the price. 30+ years of profit driven greed must play a part here somewhere.

[PGZ]

Steve in Wellington wrote:

<quoted text>

Who said that nuclear power is outlawed? How many plants have been built in the last 10 years? If the country was truly capitalist the government would not make it practically impossible to build these plants.

Wow. I thought your train of thought was hard to follow before, but now...
I'll just take one point at a time and see if you can follow:
Lets just start with nuclear power:
You said it was outlawed. Your exact line was "while other sources of energy like nuclear are outlawed". It is not outlawed. And your statement that "if the country was truly capitalist the government would not make it practically impossible to build these plants" only shows that you have no idea of what capitalism really is. It does not mean that businesses rule the country and should not have to follow any law or there should be no restrictions placed on them.
Companies can build the nuclear power plants if they follow the rules and can convince the people in the area that it is safe. Although it costs a tremendous amount of money to build a nuclear power plant (even without the added restrictions), if a company thought it could make money on it, it would build them.
Nuclear power works in France and other countries overseas even though have followed more stringent laws than here for safety, they have made the public more willing to accept the plants and it is economically viable.

[Don]

Sound Reasoning wrote:

<quoted text>
Some more drawbacks, which are significant ones to me....
Most can't be dimmed. Even the ones marked "dimmable" are only slightly dimmable (like from 100% down to 60 or 80%).
Related to the above, one can't START them dimmed. This means they don't work in the couple of situation where I have "theater lighting" (the lights slowly ramp up).
The LOOK UGLY in fixtures with clear or transparent glass shades or globes.

All the lights in my house are on this type of circuit and CFLs just won't work properly. Plus, dimmable CFLs can cost $50 or more each! I think I will stick with regular light bulbs.

[otownnole]

BuBBa wrote:

<quoted text>
Al Gore doesn't live like that. Have you noted the extreme size of his various homes and the excessive energy they consume? That's the problem with these type liberals who want to impose their flawed beliefs on the rest of us. The problem is they have no intention of lowering their lifestyles to that they want to force on the non-elites.

I don't want that. They want to be richer and this scam is how they are doing it.

[Puddles]

Don wrote:

<quoted text>
All the lights in my house are on this type of circuit and CFLs just won't work properly. Plus, dimmable CFLs can cost $50 or more each! I think I will stick with regular light bulbs.

The problem with the "dimmable" CFLs are that most of the bulbs are brought in overseas and they do not have standards on the ballasts they use in them. According to UL and other Electrical Standards Unions, a bulb can be called dimmable if it reduces the amount of light output when dimmed. So what we see are CFL bulbs that jump to light levels, or just go to one realy low dimmed level before shutting off. Fortunately, the company can technically say it is "dimmed" because the bulb is less bright than when it is switched. It's retarded, but thats how it works. If you truely want to use flourescent lamps and dim them you should use fixtures that have externally mounted ballasts. The quality of dimming and the lamp life will be so much better than these screw-in ones.
When it comes to saving energy on lighting, there are definitely better ways than these things. Motion Sensors for closets, bathrooms, and outdoor lights. RF dimmers and switches that allow you to turn off all of the lights from one button at your bed so you don't leave lights on in the basement all night. Just dimmers in general will save electricity and greatly extend lamp life while giving you full range of lighting. CFLs are great for table lamps, closets, and outdoor fixtures that you don't want dimmed and don't care too much about the light quality. And when using CFLs i realy recommend not using them in Enclosed Fixtures or downward facing fixtures (aka can-fixtures). They will not live that long because of the heat that will build up in the fixture. The ballast is installed at the base of the unit and they aren't rated for heat going through the base. So use them only in fixture where the heat will rise from the bulb and away from the base. Then you will get you full lamp life and energy savings.