Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffC
unfortunately that is happening in the UK .... banned by 2012.
|
It is here in the US, as well. I don't remember the exact date and am too lazy to look it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenophon
On the subject of CFLs, mercury, saving energy, pollution, etc.
If you are concerned about the amount of mercury in a CFL bulb (or many CFL bulbs, for that matter) there are a few things you should be aware of: - Businesses are required to recycle CFLs (in most states). And the recyclers are required to scavenge the mercury -- which they do quite effectively, because they can sell the mercury for significant $$. This approach alleviates most of the concern about mercury in CFLs (for businesses, subject to compliance issues).
- Although consumers are generally not required to recycle CFLs, there are easy options for doing so. For example, all local Sierra Club offices accept CFLs for free (er... no cost to you) recycling. There are probably other free options in your area as well -- call your local environmental organization and they'll be happy to give you advice.
- Newer designs of CFLs use less (and less, and less) mercury. They're getting darned close to the point where they can legitimately claim to be mercury-free. That point will be reached within a few more years.
- Do you buy (ocean) fish? Each low-mercury CFL contains less mercury than a typical fish fillet. I'm less sure about the no-name-brand CFLs from the big box store, but those labeled as having extremely low mercury fit this description.
But even with all those things, I'd be dead-set against any legal requirement to switch away from incandescent bulbs. Or to switch to any particular technology. My issue on this is that the politicos can't possibly know what issues are most important to any particular household or business. And they almost always blow it on technological issues anyway. (Did you know, for example, that catalytic convertors are not necessarily the best way to reduce emissions? There are better choices (that is, as effective or more effective for lower cost) for some combinations of engine type and usage pattern. But we have a legally-required one-size-fits-some solution. And the politicians don't ever seem to get the idea that requiring results is a better choice than mandating a particular method. Assuming, that is, that the mandate is even a good idea at all. But I digress...)
Anyway, I'm all in favor of each of you making your own choice based on your own circumstances. For my uses in my situation, CFLs make sense for any light that is frequently used. And they've made a noticeable difference in my electric bill, saving me money overall.
As always, your mileage may vary. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Disclaimers may not be effective...
Xenophon |
It's not actually the
amount of mercury involved that concerns me, it is the government making the requirement that I use something that could potentially be harmful to my family. Yes, it might save some energy, but is that energy significant enough to justify banning another product, one that was manufactured in our own country and supplied jobs here. I would just like them to take more time and do more research before making mandates to the types of technology I am forced to use in my home. The greatest freedom our country has given us is the freedom of choice. It's a shame the politicians have forgotten that in their zeal to prove that they are environmentalists.
I'm a techno geek. I am all for improvements to old technology and have no problem implementing those changes if they are proven effective. I am not convinced it is a better solution to the incandescent light bulb. There are certainly benefits to CFL's and I will be happy to use them when the technology has been thoroughly debugged and it is proven to be the best solution.