[GreenYes] Re: More on CFL, Hg thread

[Stephan Pollard <stephan.pollard@no.address>]

For more on the matter of mercury emissions by light source visit: 
http://www.nema.org/lamprecycle/epafactsheet-cfl.pdf

Stephan


Anne Peters wrote:

> I forwarded this discussion to colleagues at Ecos Consulting - 
> environmental/energy experts with a strong niche in lighting, 
> especially residential.  Good stuff to share with Greenyes:
>
> Chris Calwell wrote:
> I'm headed to Paris later this week to speak on this topic at the 
> International Energy Agency - Vicki's been following the CFL disposal 
> issue, so I'll encourage her to get back to you.  I personally think a 
> tax on the sale of incandescent light bulbs would be a fine idea - use 
> the bads to pay for the goods as we say...
>
> Vicki Fulbright Calwell then added: 
>  
> I continue to be amazed that a product category that represents less 
> than 0.01% from anthropogenic mercury emissions gets so much attention.
>  
> Regarding Doug's first comment about HHW not being convenient. CFLs 
> last an average of five years, so it's hard to argue that they are a 
> constant hassle. EPA recommends keeping a box in your garage/basement 
> and taking when other items build up (e.g., paint, pesticides, etc.).
>  
> The air conditioning example is comparing apples to oranges. Of the 
> energy that goes into an incandescent lamp, only 10% comes out as 
> visible light. So it's actually responsible for MORE mercury emissions 
> than a CFL (keep in mind that the single largest source of mercury 
> emissions in the US/world are coal-fired power plants).   I wrote a 
> column a few weeks ago for a northwest publication -- it provides a 
> high-level overview of this particular conundrum. You can view it at: 
> http://www.nwcurrent.com/commentary/guest/5266341.html.
>  
> Incandescents are cheaply priced, which makes it attractive to 
> consumers, so I'm not opposed to a tax on incandescents. It's much 
> better than taxing consumers who choose the more efficient lighting 
> options (either through advanced recovery fees or end-of-life fees). 
> Also, setting efficiency standards (or outright bans) on 
> energy-guzzling products has had great success. Refrigerators are the 
> great energy efficiency story. I'll throw that one back into Chris' 
> court to tell. I do agree that an outright ban is not feasible (there 
> just aren't enough substitutes for all applications), but minimum 
> efficiency standards and phase-outs are approaches that should be 
> considered. The need to seriously address global climate 
> change is urgent, and we need to act now.
>  
> LEDs show great promise -- more because of their energy efficiency 
> properties -- but they are nowhere near market ready to replace 
> general service incandescent lamps or the CFL. We'll check back in on 
> that one in about another 5 years. Additionally, they may be mercury 
> free, but they are not toxin free.
>  
> The issue will remain contentious and dynamic for time to come. But we 
> know one thing for certain: an artificial light source without 
> environmental consequence does not yet exist, so impacts must be 
> assessed comprehensively and not by mercury alone. CFLs prevent the 
> emissions of substantial quantities of mercury, greenhouse gases and 
> other pollutants, they reduce consumer energy bills, and they last far 
> longer than incandescent alternatives. They are currently the 
> environmentally preferable product despite their mercury content (and 
> regardless if they are recycled or not).
>  
> Also important to note, the average Hg content per lamp is steadily 
> dropping, with a significant push underway to reduce to best practice 
> levels: 1.7 - 2.3 milligrams. NEMA manufacturers are also voluntarily 
> adopting a 5 mg limit (6 mg in higher wattages). This means the 
> average will likely drop from 5 mg to ~3mg. This is the equivalent to 
> achieving a 40% recycling rate without the exorbitant costs associated 
> with recycling. (It takes an average of $45,000 to collect just one 
> pound of mercury!).
>  
> I'll be traveling the next three weeks, but let me know if other 
> questions pop up. 
>  
> Best,
> Vicki
>  
> Anne Peters
> Gracestone, Inc.
> 303.494.4934 vox
> 303.494.4880 fax
>
> >


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---