[david85]

Originally Posted by Duncan

That is true in winter - do your homes have AC for summer? - we don't need it here but in Indiana it was essential

Well, generally we just open a door if its hot. And we also kinda sorta turn the lights off when the sun is shining

Originally Posted by Duncan

Only if you broke 100% of the bulbs

Unless you expect 100% of them to last forever, thats exactly what will happen to every CFL some day.

[Duncan]

Unless you expect 100% of them to last forever, thats exactly what will happen to every CFL some day.

No, I expect some to be recycled - the majority to be land-filled, in both the mercury will be sequestered for a long long time

Mercury from power stations is released as very fine particles into the air - normally a long way up to spread into the biosphere

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by david85

Unless you expect 100% of them to last forever, thats exactly what will happen to every CFL some day.

I disagree... could happen to some ... maybe ... but 'will happen to every' goes to far.

• They can be responsibly disposed of ... just like other toxic materials ... be it Batteries, Electronics, Plastics, Industrial Chemicals, etc.
• Buried mercury in a sealed dump does not result in exposure while it is there ... it can be later responsibly mined in the future for resources like they already do now for some things in some places.
• Not all forms of mercury are equally toxic... some modern CFL already exploit this.

Originally Posted by david85

Unless I'm reading that wrong, their assumption only looks at the worst case senario of 100% coal fired. Maybe that's what Ian was eluding to.

Part of it.
This written/spoken word thing sucks ... it just sucks less than the alternatives... anyway.

What I was trying to get at is that it isn't even that simple ... generalizations are just generalizations ... specific contexts will have different specifics ... so there are nearly always considerable variation from the general case in specific cases... no ideal case ... it's the lesser of evils.

Here are some of those aspects that can have significant effect on the specific cases.

#1> The power plant side of it ... like you posted about your local area being more than average RE based... there will still be pollution ( mercury and others ) but overall it will be less than different areas like where I grew up a couple miles down wind of a coal fired power plant ... Although for that to be a viable alternative solution for a net pollution reduction brings us back to the deployment of RE debate we've had before.

#2> As others have posted ... It is also the bad of 100% of the CFL bulbs being broken ... which is not realistic ... it is more realistic that only a small % of the CFL mercury will be released.

#3> Not all CFL bulbs are equal ... Some CFL bulbs use a safer forms of mercury ... some use less mercury ... some come with 'safety shields' to add an additional layer of protection ... some combine multiples of these.

#4> Technology doesn't stand still ... I recall reading about researchers working on trying to get mercury free CFL technology more economical ... not there today , but it is on it's way.

#5> There is not requirement I know of to specifically use CFL ... there are other forms of lighting that are just as efficient ... some more efficient ... If a specific person doesn't like CFL for whatever reason ... use one of the alternatives to them ... there are several.

#6> If they could make a Incandescent bulb as energy efficient as a CFL or LED , etc then they wouldn't get banned... maybe they will someday ... and they will make a come back.

etc ... etc ...

Originally Posted by david85

Here's the kicker.....My province has roughly 93% hydro content in the grid, so on the whole, our exposure to mercury would go UP because of this. And for some strange reason, my province is keeping the ban in place (ICBs over 60W cannot be stocked in BC anymore).

That seems like a bit of a leap ...
Yes 93% is better ... but what about the other 7%?
What % of the CFL bulbs mercury are you realistically likely to be exposed to ( not 100% )... is your grid kwh 100% mercury free?

Meaning the EPA showed over 150% increase gap ... with 100% of the CFL mercury being exposure ... even with 100% CFL exposure you would need over 60% ( 100% mercury free electrical source ) just to break even.

If on average realistic exposure only resulted in say 5% of the CFL ... be it, not always being broken on every bulb ... or not resulting in 100% exposure every time it is broken ... etc ... now there is an over 4,900% increase gap ... to break even you would need your Re ( 100% mercury free electrical source ) to be ~98% of the electricity.

So 'mercury would go up' just seems like a leap / assumption.

I think a better approach would be to look at your more realistic case ... what % of the mercury are you likely to be exposed to? Not likely to be 100% of it... etc ... you're case might be worse to go CFL ... but 93% Hydroelectric = worse , just seems like an assumption... it might be correct... it might not.

Originally Posted by david85

The energy savings also don't fall as straight forward in terms of lighting. Canada has a cold climate, so a light bulb in the home isn't actually wasting heat, since that heat stays inside the house.

well maybe not 100% waste heat ... but sense a heat pump can move more heat energy into one's home than the electrical energy needed to run a heat pump ... the waste heat is still wasted energy / electricity if there is a more efficient heating method with that same quantity of electricity.

the best home heat pump I know of has a CoP of ~5.8 so it can move up to ~5.8 Watts of heat energy per 1 Watt of electrical energy needed to operate it ... if your lighting converted 1 watt of electricity into 1 watt of heat you are ~4.8 Watts of heat more wasteful than you could have been.

Originally Posted by david85

We have CFLs in hour home and they work fine and we have long tube lighing in the shop, but I don't think Edison bulbs should have been banned.

I agree the technology shouldn't be banned directly ... from my perspective it should be a minimum __% of lighting efficiency ... if Edison style bulbs with better technology can meet that % than fine ... if not ... good bye.

If you don't like CFL ... use some other lighting technology that meets that minimum ___% efficiency.

[david85]

Ian,

In reality laws like this don't make much difference one way or another and if people really want, they can still acquire incandescent bulbs by 'other means'.

As far as I know, BC doesn't have any coal fired electricity. Another 6% comes from CNG and fractional amounts come from diesel and then we have other renewables - so I'll stand by my 'leap' as you put it.

The hydro content as a proportion has dropped in recent years, but we still haven't turned to coal:
http://www.em.gov.bc.ca/EPD/Electric...s/default.aspx

Heat pumps also have their limitations, and lose efficiency in colder climates since their output is directly proportional to ouside ambient temperature. So you are also not being realistic with your assumptions there either - just like with wind and solar a while back.

As far as safe disposal, I encourage you to look at where most electronic waste really ends up even though it is hypothetically recyclable - and often clamed to be 'recycled'.

[PhantomPholly]

Well, the mercury-in-the-CFL issue is exactly as relevant as GW; that means, it is moot.

CFLs suck. Ask any of your wives. The color is wrong; they don't come on right away; they hum; they flicker; and they don't dim. They also never last as long as advertised.

Face it: They suck, and they won't be around for long.

Now, Home Depot is already selling LED lights that don't suck in high volume:
125-watt equivalent floods that use only 24 watts: $40.
60 watt equivalent Edison "A" type bulb uses 14 watts: $24.

You have to be careful to look at the frequency spectrum - the ones that show the "color" being all the way to the left look pink (ha - lefties are pinkos!) and all the way to the right can tend towards bluish, although some are just more like daylight. The ones closest to traditional incandescent are the ones depicted as slightly left of center, and not all styles of bulb are yet available in that color - but those that do will all pass the "wife test."

These prices seem high, and they are - but these are electronics, and we know what happens to prices of electronics over time as they are mass-produced.

[PhantomPholly]

Duplicate post - deleted.

[david85]

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

The remaining technical challenge to putting to bed the whole energy issue is cost - for solar cells and grid storage and portable storage. The trend is absolutely clear - we will "break the price curve" within no more than 20 years, and probably sooner.

When the price, reliability, cost and performance can match that of conventional energy, this debate will probably end. We just aren't there yet but it is getting closer.

I would say the same for EVs, which is why some of us can get by without buying gasoline (or diesel in my case), but in the mean time we still need the rattle boxes and I don't think those still running them should be punished.

When something better is available, people will use it.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by david85

As far as I know, BC doesn't have any coal fired electricity. Another 6% comes from CNG and fractional amounts come from diesel and then we have other renewables - so I'll stand by my 'leap' as you put it.

Fair enough ... it might be correct ... I don't know ... I haven't quantified your context ... you asked if it had been quantified and we provided that to you in a general case ... I don't see you quantifying your own specific case... Stand by it if you like ... I am not claiming it is right or wrong ... I don't know ... I'm just saying I don't see the quantification you asked others for.

Originally Posted by david85

Heat pumps also have their limitations, and lose efficiency in colder climates since their output is directly proportional to ouside ambient temperature.

Vary, sure ... never claimed it didn't ... Not all Heat Pumps use Ambient air Temp ... and even if it is ... I can still be a yearly net of better than CoP of 1.0 , thus more energy efficient than the light bulb heater.

If you prefer look at the concept devoid of the example:
The concept stands:

• Any power or energy the bulb converts to heat is wasted even if you are trying to heat your house, any time there is an alternative method to use that same electrical power or energy to provide more heat or the same heat for less power or energy.

Originally Posted by david85

- just like with wind and solar a while back.

There's bait.
Not what happened here ... irrelevant to this issue ... etc ... etc..
Do you want to redo that debate again?

Originally Posted by david85

As far as safe disposal, I encourage you to look at where most electronic waste really ends up even though it is hypothetically recyclable - and often clamed to be 'recycled'.

And?
People do things they aren't supposed to ... nothing new there ... people break laws ... nothing new there ... people do things that are harmful to themselves and others ... nothing new there.
And?

If recycled properly great ... if sequestered in a proper modern dump , not as good , but still does not result in human exposure... and there are companies that mine land fills today for materials that were not recycled previously... so even what is not recycled today might be in the future from such companies.

So either way ... the % of the CFL human exposure is much lower than 100%... and even if it is 100% it is still less than incandescent in the general case quantification ... the CFL is a net of less toxic mercury exposure in the general case ... there will always be potentially different results from specific contexts ... But the quantification you asked for has been provided.

[david85]

*sigh* Looks like I may have struck a nerve again.

What sort of evidence would you like to see? I showed you where the electricity in my neck of the woods comes from - and it isn't from coal. So....if the source I offered is not good enough - what is?

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by david85

*sigh* Looks like I may have struck a nerve again.

What sort of evidence would you like to see? I showed you where the electricity in my neck of the woods comes from - and it isn't from coal. So....if the source I offered is not good enough - what is?

No nerve struck here ... sorry I gave that impression.

Maybe you an I are just using the term 'quantified' differently.

To me, 'quantified' means one identified specific numeric values ... so when you asked for quantification you were not asking for what the % distribution of the sources were ... ( which is what you provided ) ... you were given some specific numbers and the general case they applied to... and where they came from.

To me I expect the same quantification ... if you are to make a similar determination of how it impacts your specific context differently than the general case.

To be honest ... given the information you listed ... I'd expect it to be very low to near zero ... but that is an assumption on my part and is not quantifying anything.

To try and be 'more than fair' I did a bit more leg work on my own ... but I didn't get a perfectly clear picture ... as outlined bellow.

When I tried to look a bit more into it ... I found some conflicting reports ... Some list a 30 year contract BC Hydro Signed with 2 Coal Power Plants in British Columbia ( specifically in Tumbler Ridge and Princeton ) back in 2006 ... both were supposed to be up and running by 2010 ... 56 MW and 184 MW ... then there are other reports about an expansion of the current 150 MW Coal Power Plant near Alberta to a 500 MW coal power plant.

When I tried to find those on the link you provided I didn't find them ... so are these up and running? What are their emissions? ... etc... I didn't find this local data.

On a National Level ... I found some indirect data to quantify it at least on the national level as of 2003 ... which to be fair the links provided to you about the U.S. were on the national level as well ... I find from Environment Canada that they have reduced their National Mercury emissions to just over 7 tonnes by 2003 ... Electrical Generation accounting for 35% of that ... or ~2.45 Tonnes... the other 65% of the National Mercury emissions coming from other sources.... from national resources Canada I found THIS graph of national electric usage usage ... so in 2003 ~600 Billion KWH ... ~2.45 Tonnes = ~2450 kg / 600 Billion KWH = ~0.00408 mg per KWH ... which is excellent ... compared to the U.S. ( posted previously by karlos ) which does ~0.0234 mg per KWH ... Yeah Canada the U.S. is about ~473% more mercury per kwh produced on a national basis... that is very good... and based on the other previously posted study of ~150% more over the life time of the bulb in the U.S. ... that means on a National Basis in Canada unless I missed something in my indirect math ... the CFL at 100% exposure like the other previous study ... is Mercury worse by ~292% more mercury ... because the lower mercury from generation does not add up as fast ... that means that in order to break even ... you have to not break and be exposed to the mercury in the CFL less than 1 out of every 3 bulbs... if you are exposed to the mercury of fewer bulbs than that like 1 out of 4 then it is less exposure... on a national basis in 2003 as the context for that quantification.

Maybe not that specific form /wording ... but when the term quantification is used ... to me it means that kind of putting a number on it... maybe that's just me.

And of course maybe Canada has improved sense 2003 on a national basis ... it was 9 years ago... and maybe now instead of 1 out of 4 ( ~25% ) bulb exposure rates it is much lower to reach the break even point.