All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...

Page 3 of 4  
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

?????? Are you saying you don't agree?

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia \'s Muire duit
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually, it's irrelevant. Mercury in landfills will be a more concentrated point source, and therefore a potential threat to nearby communities.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

landfill. AND, you are also assuming the mercury is in a particular form. Not all forms of mercury are toxic.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

I seldom say this, but THAT's CRAZY.
OK, there is some potential logic to it, but it really does not hold up.
--
Joseph Meehan

Dia \'s Muire duit
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Because, nothing you say makes sense. You're even arguing with Joseph now, who tried to support your position. And despite your unsupported attempts to claim Cheney somehow allowed power companies to spew mercury, below are the actual facts. Like every plan to deal with pollution in the real world, there is going to be disagreement. And nothing will ever satisfy the kook environmentalist extremists, who are against everything. A classic example is wind power. That's all the environmentalists have been bitching about for years. We should rely on solar and wind. Well, guess what? Here in NJ there is a plan to start building offshore windmills to generate electricity. Guess whose blocking that? Why, the environmentalists, of course. Same thing off Cape Cod.
The cap and trade program may not be perfect. But it's more than we had in the past and will REDUCE mercury emissions. BTW, if you don't like cap and trade, what do you think about all the environmentalists, like Al Gore that think trading carbon offsets is peachy keen, and cleanses their hands as they ride in private jets and live in multiple 10,000 sq ft houses? That kook concept has no cap and it's one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated.
Oh, and BTW, it's kind of stupid to cite Harry Reid in your arguments. Last time I checked, he runs the Senate and his party controls both houses of Congress. So, if they don't like the mercury limits, they are free to pass legislation any time.
http://www.epa.gov/oar/mercuryrule/basic.htm On March 15, 2005, EPA issued the first-ever federal rule to permanently cap and reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. This rule makes the United States the first country in the world to regulate mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.
The Clean Air Mercury Rule will build on EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to significantly reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants -- the largest remaining sources of mercury emissions in the country. When fully implemented, these rules will reduce utility emissions of mercury from 48 tons a year to 15 tons, a reduction of nearly 70 percent. CAIR and the Clean Air Mercury Rule are important components of the Bush Administration's plan to improve air quality. The Administration remains committed to working with Congress to help advance the President's Clear Skies legislation in order to achieve greater certainty and nationwide emission reductions, but believes the U.S. needs regulations in place now. EPA believes it makes sense to address mercury, SO2 and NOx emissions simultaneously through CAIR and the Clean Air Mercury Rule. These rules will protect public health and the environment without interfering with the steady flow of affordable energy for American consumers and business. The Clean Air Mercury Rule establishes "standards of performance" limiting mercury emissions from new and existing coal-fired power plants and creates a market-based cap-and-trade program that will reduce nationwide utility emissions of mercury in two distinct phases. The first phase cap is 38 tons and emissions will be reduced by taking advantage of "co-benefit" reductions - that is, mercury reductions achieved by reducing sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions under CAIR. In the second phase, due in 2018, coal-fired power plants will be subject to a second cap, which will reduce emissions to 15 tons upon full implementation. New coal-fired power plants ("new" means construction starting on or after Jan. 30, 2004) will have to meet stringent new source performance standards in addition to being subject to the caps. Mercury is a toxic, persistent pollutant that accumulates in the food chain. Mercury in the air is a global problem. While fossil fuel-fired power plants are the largest remaining source of human-generated mercury emissions in the United States, they contribute only a small amount (about 1 percent) of total annual mercury emissions worldwide. EPA's modeling shows that CAIR will significantly reduce the majority of the coal-fired power plant mercury emissions that deposit in the United States, and those reductions will occur in areas where mercury deposition is currently the highest. The Clean Air Mercury Rule is expected to make additional reductions in emissions that are transported regionally and deposited domestically, and it will reduce emissions that contribute to atmospheric mercury worldwide. Mercury Emissions
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Note to Kanter: this happened while the evil Dick Cheney was VP.

Note to Kanter: that's the same Bush Administration that the evil Dick Cheney is part of.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

There are two levels of hypocrasy here. One is the buying and selling of carbon production quotas (bad word here, but best I can come up with). Basically that is where some plant somewhere can under the regs produce x amount of carbon but only uses x-y amount. They can then sell the rest of their quota on the open market. Sometimes it is bought by those who produce v+z carbon and need to get the okay to produce more. It can also be bought by those like Al who want everybody else to cut back but themselves (sorta like buying dispensations from the Church a while back). The third (true environmentalists to my mind) buy them and retire them so nobody can use them and amount of carbon goes down. The REAL fraud is in the non-marketable offsets. In this case (and my understanding is it Al's biggest "contribution") they pay someone to plant a tree to use as a carbon sink to "offset" so much carbon. This is just a scam of the highest magnitude.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's a scam because in the case of the carbon offsets, there are no caps or monitoring of anything worldwide. In China, you could build a new dirty power plant, then get dopes to pay you millions to clean it up. The case of a true cap and trade free market program, with monitoring, like the mercury program, is very different. That is a very good system and any decent and fair economist will tell you it achieves an efficient solution. It's not perfect and there are some legitimate problems with it, but it does reduce overall emissions to the target level.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:

Yahooing, I can't find an original (or any approaching) an actual citation. Anyone know where I ca get it, I'd like to see how it was figured.

Wasn't a big deal before we knew it was a big deal and they are now much less mercury? Also CFL average 3-4 mg mercury, but how many more of them would there be if used instead of incandescent and that woudl do what to the TOTAL amount of mercury floating around.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kurt Ullman wrote:

Start here:
"Mercury emissions from power plants are considered the largest anthropogenic source of mercury released to the atmosphere; about 48 tons are emitted annually in the U.S.A. as a result of fossil fuel combustion, mostly from coal-fired power plants." http://igs.indiana.edu/Geology/coalOilGas/mercuryInCoal/index.cfm
And do the math.
Or
"Over five years, a coal power plant will emit 10 milligrams of mercury to power an incandescent bulb, and only 2.4 milligrams to operate a CFL." www.acterra.org/greenathome/docs/HandoutCFLv4.pdf
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How about:
The CFL light is harsher and not nearly as pleasing as the light available from an incandescent.
The ones that I've tried that are screw in replacements take a long time to warm up. I just bought 2 at HD for the kitchen. At night, it takes at least a couple of mins for them to get to anywhere near acceptable output. For the first minute+ they are like a night light. Oh, and btw, you wouldn't know how fast they reach any light output, because it's never specd.
And the ones mentioned above were indoor flood type. When I tried to screw them into the existing ceiling cans, they would not fit because while the bulb is the right size, the neck near the base is wider to accomodate the electronics. I had to go buy extenders, which now leaves them sticking slightly out of the fixture.
Plus most can't be dimmed, and those that can are only dimmable over a narrow range.
So, I'm not so sure the observation about conventional electric ovens vs microwave is so far off. I'm not saying they can't be a good fit for certain applications. But I think there is plenty that is negative about them, including that they contain mercury, which creates more hazardous waste. And instead of telling people the truth, there are nuts running around like those in California that want to pass laws that ban incandescents. It also doesn't do much good to claim they are peachy keen, and have folks try a couple thinking they are just like regular light bulbs, then give up on them because they don't work well in the particular application. It would be far better to be honest about their shortcomings, so people can use them where they make sense. In my case, so far, that's the garage, basement and closets.

Don't see why whether you use gas or electric oven makes any real difference. The energy still has to come from somewhere.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Yeah, that short neck thing is a pita. Really very little forethought. Sodium lamps I think are just as efficient. Wonder why they can't compact those, and dispense with the Hg.
--
------
Mr. P.V.\'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

High pressure sodium lamps do have Hg, and none have as good color rendering as most CFLs, few have color rendering better than that of the worst dollar store CFLs, and all start dimmer and take longer to warm up than most CFLs, and I have yet to hear of an HPS under 35 watts.
Low pressure sodium has warmup issues as severe as an outdoor CFL on a cold winter day, and the worst color rendering that any common illumination lamp technology ever had.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

You can get a wide range of colours and colour accuracy from CFL bulbs. Like everything else, the good ones are expensive. BlueMax bulbs, for instance, are about $12 each but have a CRI of 94. Typical big-box bulbs have a CRI in the low 80s.

This is brand-dependent. Some of our bulbs take a long time, others are bright within a fraction of a second and then get slightly brighter over the next minute or so. The name brands aren't always best, either.

While I agree that people need to be aware of their shortcomings, the ideal place to use CFL is where the lights will tend to be switched infrequently and will be left on for long periods of time. This maximizes electrical savings and bulb life.
Chris
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I just replaced the two most often used bulbs in my house with them. Warm up is not an issue as the lights are on timers and we are often not in the room when they go on. I'll replace one more bulb.
In the past, the color rendition was plain UGLY green. That has been overcome. The bedroom, where we often use a dimmer, will remain incandescent. Like most things, they have a place but no every place.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Only sometimes true. I have found most non-sylvania non-special-color non-dollar-store spirals 19 watts or less to be quite impressively incandescent-like in the color of their light.
Sylvania ones appear to me a bit harsher-whiter. Then there are "Bright White" (3500K) ones that are somewhat whiter still but still "warm" - and I like those, though though they can clash a bit when mixed with incandescents.
"Daylight" ones are normally an icy cold slightly bluish white, which I think is not good for most indoor home use.
Then there are the dollar store junkers, which I usually have multiple complaints about.

Most get to nearly full light output in less than a minute, often less than half a minute. Outdoor types and any types with outer bulbs over them (whether "outdoor" or not) tend to have greater warmup issues.

How about N:Vision A19 or 40 watt ceiling fan ones? If you want faster warmup and brighter start than ones with outer bulbs, how about regular spirals? If a flood light type's bulb fits, you should be able to screw a spiral in while holding the ballast housing part rather than the tubing.

As many are saying, they often actually reduce mercury pollution by decreasing coal consumption. And why weren't all the 4-footers that schools, hospitals and businesses used so big a problem back when they had 20-plus times more mercury than modern compact ones ahve?

Many in sci.engr.lighting have favored a tax over a ban.

I think closets are where CFLs usually make less sense, due to short ontime and low usage.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com, http://www.misty.com/~don/cfapp.html )
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I dont understand the big push to convert over to CFLs. I did a little googling and came up with this statement:
"Lighting accounted for 9.4 percent of all electricity consumption in U.S. households in 1993, less than air conditioning, water heating, space heating, or refrigeration (Figure ES4). [13] Residential lighting thus represents three percent of total U.S. sales of electricity to all sectors. [14] Because the end-use estimates do not distinguish between indoor and outdoor lighting, this estimate of lighting consumption includes both."
"Virtually 100 percent of households use electricity for lighting, while less than 70 percent use it for air conditioning and less than 40 percent use it for space heating and water heating. However, because space conditioning and water heating are more intensive users of electricity than lighting, they account for a greater amount of the total electricity consumption in the residential sector. In 1993, air conditioning consumed 13.9 percent, water heating 10.2 percent and space heating 12.3 percent. Lighting consumed 9.4 percent. "
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/lighting/chap2.html
Admittedly its from 1993 data, But sheesh, 3% for total electricity usage in the US is due to residential lighting? So if we threw away all our lightbulbs entirely, and went back to candles, all we'd save is 3% of our total usage?
So why all the hype? I'm all for doing my part, but it hardly seems worth it...
dickm
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And where electricity costs more, which has some positive correlation with being other than hydropower, electric heat is used less. So I would say environmental impact and cost percentages of home electricity being from lighting being higher than the total nationwide electricity consumption percentage from lighting.
Of course, I would favor efficiency standards for refrigerators and air conditioners.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.