Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

CFLs or other fluorescent light bulbs are an extremely energy-efficient lighting option. These light bulbs are significantly more energy efficient than incandescent light bulbs because they require less energy to provide the same amount of light. The use of fluorescent light bulbs, rather than incandescent light bulbs, reduces the release of mercury and greenhouse gases from coal-burning power plants. If every home in America replaced just one incandescent light bulb with an ENERGY STAR qualified CFL, it would save enough energy to light more than 3 million homes and prevent greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to those of more than 800,000 cars annually. Also, fluorescent light bulbs are more cost effective because they last up to 10 times longer than incandescent light bulbs. EPA strongly encourages the recycling of all mercury-containing light bulbs after they burn out

From the EPA (emphasis mine)

Quote:

CFLs or other fluorescent light bulbs are an extremely energy-efficient lighting option. These light bulbs are significantly more energy efficient than incandescent light bulbs because they require less energy to provide the same amount of light. The use of fluorescent light bulbs, rather than incandescent light bulbs, reduces the release of mercury and greenhouse gases from coal-burning power plants. If every home in America replaced just one incandescent light bulb with an ENERGY STAR qualified CFL, it would save enough energy to light more than 3 million homes and prevent greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to those of more than 800,000 cars annually. Also, fluorescent light bulbs are more cost effective because they last up to 10 times longer than incandescent light bulbs. EPA strongly encourages the recycling of all mercury-containing light bulbs after they burn out

.
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/id/univwast/lamps/faqs.htm#8

So let's see. If replacing one bulb would accomplish all that, if we replaced ALL the bulbs currently in our home with CFLs, I think that would be a total of 32 bulbs give or take one or two in my house, According to the calculations in the quoted paragraph, we would then be saving enough energy to light more than 96 million homes and reduce greenhouse gas emissions the equivalent of that produced by more than 25.6 million automobiles. That would pretty much take care of all the energy needed for virtually all the homes in the USA and an offset of emissions for around 1/3 or so of the cars.

If it would be that easy to reverse AGW and/or meet IPPC standards, why wasn't that one of the suggested mandates?

Or did whoever wrote that miss something?

Save the Environment
When you change to Compact Fluorescent light bulbs, you take a step in the right direction to preserve energy resources and our environment for this generation and the next.

One Compact Fluorescent light bulb keeps half a ton of greenhouse gas (CO2) out of our air.
Wal-Mart has over 100 million customers. That means if each customer bought just one compact florescent light bulb, it would:
Keep 22 billion lbs of coal from burning at power plants
Keep 45 billion lbs of GHG from being emitted
Equate to removing 700,000 cars worth of greenhouse gases from the air
Keep 700 million incandescent light bulbs from landfills

So let's see. If replacing one bulb would accomplish all that, if we replaced ALL the bulbs currently in our home with CFLs, I think that would be a total of 32 bulbs give or take one or two in my house,

One Compact Fluorescent light bulb keeps half a ton of greenhouse gas (CO2) out of our air.
Wal-Mart has over 100 million customers. That means if each customer bought just one compact florescent light bulb, it would:
Keep 22 billion lbs of coal from burning at power plants
Keep 45 billion lbs of GHG from being emitted
Equate to removing 700,000 cars worth of greenhouse gases from the air
Keep 700 million incandescent light bulbs from landfills

The only end effect of using CFLs, apart from a feel good illusion, is to induce more house lighting, just like more efficient fridges have led to widespread second fridge installations.

Now about the hazardous waste. How do we manage that?

That might be so in your house, miniTAX, and in parts of the USA, but we reduced our electricity bill with such.

Foxfyre wrote:

So let's see. If replacing one bulb would accomplish all that, if we replaced ALL the bulbs currently in our home with CFLs, I think that would be a total of 32 bulbs give or take one or two in my house,

The 32 CFLs of your house, give or take one or two, is enough to light a little village in Africa or Amazonia and would help prevent numerous case of child mortality due to indoor wood burning smoke.

The only end effect of using CFLs, apart from a feel good illusion, is to induce more house lighting, just like more efficient fridges have led to widespread second fridge installations.
Jevons paradox, ma'm !

And is it as energy efficient to produce a CFL as opposed to an incandescent bulb?

Foxfyre wrote:

And is it as energy efficient to produce a CFL as opposed to an incandescent bulb?

Yes it is. But if counting the energy to produce the much more complicated CFL and collecting & recycling it, not to speak of the incompatibilty with dimmers, the bleak light, the startup time (for closets or corridors, it sucks), the impossibility to stick it in fridges or ovens, CFLs suck. Or more precisely, banning incadescent bulbs sucks.

... not to speak of the incompatibilty with dimmers...

My electricity bill is lower due to CFL use. No doubt.

Minitax, you're just a hater on anything environmentally sound, why don't you admit it?

CFLs take much more mercury out of the air from reduced coal burning then they ever could release when they break - IF they break. I've never broken one yet and truth be told, is it all that common? They last much, much longer, so they aren't replaced near as often as conventional bulbs - less handling, less chance of breakage.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

My electricity bill is lower due to CFL use. No doubt.

Minitax, you're just a hater on anything environmentally sound, why don't you admit it?

CFLs take much more mercury out of the air from reduced coal burning then they ever could release when they break - IF they break. I've never broken one yet and truth be told, is it all that common? They last much, much longer, so they aren't replaced near as often as conventional bulbs - less handling, less chance of breakage.

Cycloptichorn

So if I am against a sucker trap, I'm against anything environmentally sound ? Come on CH !
I'm against the fact that the danger of mercury in CFL is not properly labelled. Maybe you know there is mercury vapour in it, but Joe Sixpack doesn't necessarily. Maybe Jim Hacker would like to salvage the electronic components for his indoor nuclear reactor prototype.

miniTAX wrote:

... not to speak of the incompatibilty with dimmers...

How do you call the "dimmers" which are used with lampes fluorescente compactes? They work perfectly well - and look at least similar to what is generally named dimmer.

The only end effect of using CFLs, apart from a feel good illusion, is to induce more house lighting, just like more efficient fridges have led to widespread second fridge installations.
Jevons paradox, ma'm !