GreenYes Archives

[GreenYes Home] - [Thread Index] - [Date Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]


[GreenYes] Re: CFL disposal in MN and other CFL issues


There are lot's of technical issues with CFL's: power factor,
harmonics, inrush, RF emissions. These can all be solved. I can
imagine a zero-mercury, electrodeless, CFL that looks like a
resistive load to the line, has a nice spectrum, is dimmable.... It
will probably cost more than a dollar or two, but the first CFL's I
ever bought cost about $25 and had to be ordered from Real Goods.....

Alan

At 02:53 PM 2/21/2007 -0500, daklute@no.address wrote:
>Hi, Doug
>
>LED's are commercially available and used readily in higher-end
>commercial applications and are begining to appear in very high-end
>residential homes mostly as under-counter lights. They will most
>likely fundamentally change the face of lighting, but are a long way
>from being universally applicable.
>
>Similar to Moore's Law for computers, LED's are regularly reducing
>the amount of energy used per lumen produced.
>
>Your defense of incandescents is mostly correct, but each
>justification gets less and less important as time goes on. The
>light quality of CFL's is changing (for the better) regularly with a
>number of much "warmer" bulbs now being marketed through main-stream
>retailers. The biggest drawbacks are down-lighting, oudoor lighting
>in extreme (MN) cold temps and dimming. Each is being addressed by
>the industry. BUt, I'm not sure either or the combination justifies
>a 125 year old, 5% efficient technology like the incandescent.
>
>Best,
>Chris
>
>On 2/21/07, Doug Koplow <<mailto:koplow@no.address>koplow@no.address> wrote:
>The attached post is from Anne Morse about CFL disposal financing in
>MN, and may be of interest to some on the list.
>I personally have found the HHW drop-off program in our area
>inconvenient and time consuming, so I don't favor this as the venue
>for bulb recovery nationally. My concern is that participation
>rates would be very low, as the larger the cost in time or
>complexity for people to participate in a program, the smaller the
>percentage of people who actually will. The MN program in
>interesting in using utility funding to underwrite proper CFL
>disposal. Better than nothing, but the utility has little leverage
>over bulb manufacture. Fees directly on the sale of bulbs, linked
>to mercury content, would send a better signal to manufacturers to
>come up with alternative formulations.
>
>There was another posting noting a proposal in Australia to ban
>incandescent bulbs. Not a great idea in my view. First of all,
>conservation of energy resources should be encouraged through the
>proper pricing of electricity, not through bans of specific products
>that use electricity. Lots of products use more electricity than
>incandescent lighting per unit of energy services delivered (air
>conditioning, for example). Are these to be restricted or banned as
>well? Second, CFLs are not yet a perfect substitute for
>incandescents -- even ignoring the mercury issue. The light quality
>is improving, but still not as good as incandescent. The bulbs
>can't be easily used in certain applications, such as with dimmers,
>in some outdoor applications, or in small fixtures that require high
>lumen output.
>
>I've gotten some e-mails about whether a tax on incandescent bulbs
>should be used to pay for CFL recovery. The problem here is that
>CFLs are not the only game in town. Cross-subsidizing the problems
>with CFLs could impede the movement to market of lighting sources
>that are both efficient and toxics-free. I believe that LED
>lighting is one such technology, and would be interested in whether
>anybody on the list knows how close these are to being able to
>compete with CFLs.
>
>-Doug Koplo
>
>_______________________________
>Doug Koplow
>Earth Track, Inc.
>2067 Massachusetts Avenue - 4th Floor
>Cambridge, MA 02140
><http://www.earthtrack.net>www.earthtrack.net
>Tel: 617/661-4700
>Fax: 617/354-0463
>
> CONFIDENTIAL
>This message, and all attachments thereto, is for the designated recipient
>only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private
>information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
>immediately and delete the original. Any other use of the email by you
>is prohibited.w
> >>> "Anne Morse"
> <<mailto:AMorse@no.address>AMorse@no.address> 02/20/07 10:18AM >>>
>Doug,
>
>Could you please post this to greenyes, if you think it helpful in
>the discussion.
>I have not signed up to be able to post, and so the message bounced back.
>
>thanks,
>Anne
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Anne Morse
>Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 9:13 AM
>To: 'Doug Koplow';
><mailto:bsteinberg@no.address>bsteinberg@no.address
>Cc: <mailto:GreenYes@no.address>GreenYes@no.address
>Subject: Financing CFL disposal in Minnesota
>
>
>Here's how we finance disposal of household CFL's here in Minnesota:
>
>The state's largest utility, Xcel Energy, is required by the state
>to spend a significant % of sales on conservation initiatives,
>termed the Conservation Incentive Program, or CIP. Xcel opts to use
>CIP money to fund the disposal of fluorescent bulbs in the state
>through the counties' Household Hazardous Waste (HHW)
>facilities. Here's how it works:
>
>Residents can bring up to 10 CFLs or regular fluorescent bulbs to
>our HHW facility every year, at any time, at no charge. (Ten is
>obviously ample to cover household-generated bulbs.) When the
>county disposes of the fluorescent bulbs through our recycling
>contractor, Mercury Waste Solutions, Xcel rebates the counties the
>cost of disposal, and a handling fee to cover our time.
>
>For quantities larger than ten - business quantities - we schedule
>two collection days per year, when the recycling contractor is on
>location at our HHW facility. Businesses bring in their bulbs and
>are charged the cost of disposal by the contractor: $.40 for 4'
>bulbs, $.45 for CFL's, and $.60 for 8' bulbs.
>
>This procedure has been in place for well over ten years, and
>everyone appears to be happy with it. Our HHW facility is open 8 -
>4:30 M-F, and Saturday mornings in the spring and summer.
>
>There are some areas of the state that served by other utilities
>that are not as big as Xcel, and thus are not required to expend CIP
>funds. As a result, coverage is not 100%, but it's darn close.
>
>Anne Morse
>Winona County, MN
>
>Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
>attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
>may contain confidential and privileged information. Any
>unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is
>prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact
>the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
>
>
>
>
>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GreenYes" group.
To post to this group, send email to GreenYes@no.address
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to GreenYes-unsubscribe@no.address
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---



[GreenYes Home] - [Date Index] - [Thread Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]