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.
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.
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.
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.
I have seen this figure tossed about, but even after Googling AND
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
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.
"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."
And do the math.
"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."
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
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.
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 ( firstname.lastname@example.org)
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.
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.
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
"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
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 ( email@example.com, http://www.misty.com/~don/cfapp.html )
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).  Residential
lighting thus represents three percent of total U.S. sales of
electricity to all sectors.  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. "
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
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
- Don Klipstein ( firstname.lastname@example.org)
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.