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

[Alan Muller <amuller@no.address>]

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