More bleating on R4 this morning (I must get out more) about low-wattage light bulbs and how tungsten bulbs should be outlawed.
I have a gut feeling that those compact fluorescent things that use little power but emit a rather odd greenish spectrum, actually require a lot more energy to make, and are much more difficult to dispose of tidily. They contain electronics, which doubtless involves some rare materials (e.g. coltan) and the fluorescent coating will contain other rare-earth elements and phosphor, which also isn't very friendly..
Once you've got them (I have one on the landing and one in a cupboard), it's very easy to leave them on, because a) you know it's not costing you much, and b) they take a minute or two to reach full brightness, so they may not save much electricity, either!
Any thoughts? I'd love to know the material/energy costs of manufacture, compared to a simple glass bulb (of the sort that cartoonists use when their subjects have ideas).
|
|
Yup, more embedded carbon, no joined up thinking.
|
"more embedded carbon"
Good phrase! Can you quantify?
|
"more embedded carbon"
... i.e the amount of carbon consumed in manufacture, embedded carbon is an issue in new cars wahtever their CO2 emmisions are and is over looked. Ig embedde crabon was accounted for the the Prius would probably be outlawed!
Re light bulbs, no I cant quantify though I have read of concerns re the energy saving bulbs, joined up tinking says it is better to keep my current car and run it into the ground rather than causet a new car to be built, the same logic applies to light bulbs.
|
joined up tinking >>
.. as the say in Galway ;-)
|
|
|
joined up tinking >>
.. as they say in Galway ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Need to check out one of those Carbon life cycle analyses sites - tells you the amount of CO2 produced from digging the raw materials out of the ground until it ends up in the recycling skip or landfill. The Colour it emits can be changed depending on the composition of the coating in the bulb. I have one those colour enhancing / sunlight matching fluorescent tubes - switch it on and it is like walking into one of those 1940's techicolor films....However your eyes will adjust to it,as they probably adjust to pink or green hues of small fl.bulbs, so everything just seems dull after switching it off.
|
"The Colour it emits"
I notice it because I take photographs of equipment for technical manuals, and I can't always choose the location. Most digicams have a 'white balance' setting with a 'fluorescent' option, but with low-energy bulbs, I have to set it manually to get it to look right. Fluorescents always have 'peaky' spectra, while tungsten (especially halogen) bulbs have a nice smooth warm output that is much easier to live with, IMHO.
|
|
|
They also contain mercury. Considering the EU has banned barometer manufactureres from using mercury (about 70lb a year) in case it ends up in landfill, this seems odd, to say the least. Low energy light bulbs contain about 5 ? 15 mg of Mercury, so assuming 10mg, then 3,500,000 dumped causes a greater problem than barometers, even assuming every barometer manufactured every year is dumped in landfill.
The biggest load of twaddle, in my opinion, is the 80% of energy that is emitted as heat which they (whoever "they" may be) consider to be wasted. Well, all through winter, you burn a tiny bit less energy in your boiler because the bulbs are leating your room. In fact, if you heat with electricity, the saving will be exactly offset by the extra electricity you'll need to heat the roome that little bit more.
So, it's mostly twaddle, I'm afraid. However, as it's twaddle spouted in a green cause, it's OK.
V
|
Heat - agreed but 3/4 of the year is not winter...then the heat is wasted, especially if you have the window open in a summers evening.
Mercury - Most local councils suggest taking fluorescent tubes to a recycling centre for this reason. However the reality is that many get dumped, so 20Kg or c 1.5 litres of mercury hits landfil every year. That must be 30 - 50cc per landfil site. Then there is the issue of the extra mercury discharged from a coal fired power plant to provide the extra power for the Tungsten bulb which is quoted on one site as being 10mg.
But the net is full of debates between various people in the green organisations about which bulb is best.
For me as long as the mercury is recycled and the overall net energy usage is lower then these bulbs are OK with me. But having to do searches and read pages on the web about every consumer item I buy to assess how green it is, just gives me a headache!
|
>>But having to do searches and read pages on the web about every consumer item I buy to assess how green it is, just gives me a headache!
Me too, and most of the information presented has been based on a specific set of assumptions in order to get a specific result, so what use is it? Ignoring the heating effect of the bulbs is a classic example. You can't use CFLs with ordinary dimmers or elctronic light switches either, so I won't be a happy bunny if they ban filament bulbs.
Having said that the Philips ones Morissons have on more or less permanent offer at 39p seem pretty good, they reach full brightness pretty quickly and the light seems to have less of a green cast than others. I've been using a dozen at home for a couple of years now with none going duff yet.
|
>>Morissons have on more or less permanent offer at 39p>>
This offer, backed by E-On (to avoid the possibility, along with other energy saving methods, of being windfalled taxed by New Labour), is due to end shortly.
I've bought a shed load of these bulbs at this price, which is virtually giving them away - even so I hate the light they emit, which is not bright enough for most uses compared to the equivalent tungsten bulb rating.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
|
|
Yes, 3/4 of the year is not winter. Are you implying that you have the heat on only in 1/4 of the year? Also, winter nights are longer, so light usage is more than 1/4 of the time you have your heat on. On hot summers evenings you might only be turning them on for an hour or two, while in winter it can be 7 hours or more.
One full-size fluorescent can pollute up to 30,000 litres of water ( source tinyurl.com/2y23tp ). I don't know where you get the figure of 30 - 50cc per landfill site from, as you give no figures. If the EU considers 35Kg in barometers per annum as a problem, why is this being allowed. One estimate puts UK predicted usage as 400million bulbs (4 tonnes of mercury) so your figure of 20Kg per annum looks more than a little hopeful. People throw away bulbs. They will continue to do so. I have two awaiting my finding someone to take them off my hands. Will I ever find anyone? Perhaps.
Electricity from Nuclear, wind, wave, gas, etc does not cause emissions of mercury.
So, I stand by my contention that there is probably no net improvement to any aspect of life from this ill-thought out plan to ban incandescents.
V
|
"no net improvement to any aspect of life"
Rather what I thought! I feel the same way about the big whinge over standby buttons. The little energy used offsets the heating bill and helps preserve the equipment by reducing thermal cycling and cold current surges. It therefore lasts longer and (as with old cars) puts off the day when a replacement has to be manufactured, at vastly greater environmental cost.
How many mercury barometers end up in landfill anyway? Not exactly a throw-away item, is it?
The law of unintended consequences is always ready and waiting...
|
Hello Vin and Jagworth.
The article posted by Vin is very interesting.
Details of the case for and against and a new design of highly efficient incandescent bulbs can be foung at
treehugger.com/files/2007/02/ge_announces_hi.php
treehugger.com/files/2007/02/rrsp_season_is.php
treehugger.com/files/2007/02/change_a_bulb_c.php
I am not a chemist or scientist of any sort and I am curious to know whether the mercury that is in a thermometer or barometer is more of a concern due to the fact that it is all pure and concentrated. Whereas the mercury in a bulb is thinly applied as a compund of phospher and is therfore finely and minutely dispersed. Is this not similar to say Sodium being a danger in a pure form but OK as common salt Sodium Cholride thinly spread over your food? Have I gotten this all wrong?
|
"more of a concern due to the fact that it is all pure and concentrated"
My chemistry is a bit rusty, but I think that heavy metals are always a hazard, even in compounds. It amuses me that dentists are still arguing about the effects on patients of mercury in amalgam fillings while happily accepting the restrictions on disposing of the stuff!
Thanks for the links, BTW. I was pleased to see at least one person querying the net saving to the environment of 'energy saving' bulbs.
|
|
Anyone know if there any offers from the sheds for loft insulation at the moment?
|
If you ask your electricity and/or gas supplier nicely, you might get it done for free.
About a year ago Powergen installed additional loft insulation and the cavity walls insulated FOC at our Victorian semi-detached (we are on its StayWarm scheme).
It's part of a government initiative in that if the power companies don't play ball they are likely to be windfall taxed on profits...:-)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
About a year ago Powergen installed additional loft insulation and the cavity walls insulated FOC at our Victorian semi-detached (we are on its StayWarm scheme).
I'd love to know who'd apply external insulation to a solid-walled house FOC, or even give a grant towards the work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
