|
Title: Hey patric! Lighting questions. Post by: MichaelC on January 16, 2006, 11:43:11 am I bought these GE mercury long-life, soft light bulbs for indoor use. And I plugged them into my lamps, and I was rather impressed. They throw off a soft white glow, and they don't seem to have the yellowish glow of regular bulbs. And they don't seem as "buggy" as fluorescents.
I don't know much about the inter-workings of electricity. I still assume it's magic. Do these things really conserve energy, or is that just a corporate slogan? Also, I have some energy leaks with the computer, TV's, fish tanks. Anything that can be done about that? Any other indoor energy saving tips? Title: Hey patric! Lighting questions. Post by: patric on May 10, 2007, 09:20:30 pm It's good that Compact Fluorescent bulbs are getting some attention, but unfortunate that KOTV approached it in an unwarranted scare-tactic manner.
http://www.kotv.com/news/local/story/?id=127026 While CF lamps do contain a minute trace of mercury (embedded on the phosphors inside the glass) this amount pales in comparison to the amount of mercury released into our air from the generation of electricity that would otherwise have powered the older, less efficient incandescent lamps they are intended to replace. (http://www.kotv.com/newsimages/640/f1ca1e60-3571-492c-beaf-d876c9a9b5b1.jpg) (where did the rest of this thread disappear to?) Title: Hey patric! Lighting questions. Post by: RecycleMichael on May 10, 2007, 09:42:12 pm Since I was the one that KOTV quoted in the story, let me explain.
Yes, coal powered electricity plants produce mercury and that has gotten into the world's atmosphere and oceans. Yes, more efficient lighting means less power needs and less potential for this release of mercury. But the compact fluorescent bulbs do contain mercury and they pose a risk to a homeowner when the bulb breaks. Even minute amounts of mercury inhaled can cause problems to humans and pets. Less mercury in the world can be trumped by the individual exposure in one's home. You don't want to be exposed to mercury either through your fish nor through your light bulbs. If you break a compact fluorescent bulb, we recommend you use latex gloves and a simple mask(like the kind they sell at Walgreens). Scoop the broken glass and powder using two pieces of paperboard (like a cereal box). Follow this with some sticky sided tape and press lightly on the items, then deposit everything into a zip lock bag. Save the bag and bring it to our next collection event at the fairgrounds. Whatever you do, don't try to vacuum the materials. This will just send the mercury around the room where it could be inhaled. We recommend compact fluorescent lighting for almost all applications, but do not where there is a even reasonable chance of breaking the bulb. Lighting makes up about 9% of the electricity an average house uses and reducing energy consumption makes a lot of sense. Just be careful and properly dispose careful of those CFL bulbs. This new website has information on mercury, but it is brand new and mostly just addresses mercury from thermometers. It has only been live for a couple of weeks and will get more content this summer. It was put together for us as a group project by some TCC students. http://www.mercuryfreetulsa.com/ Title: Hey patric! Lighting questions. Post by: cannon_fodder on May 11, 2007, 07:31:40 am Cleanup cost for one broken CFL to bring you back into EPA guidelines in your home: $2,000.00
Cubic Feet of Landfill space required to dispose of one CFL's mercury within EPA guidelines: 16,667 (can you say super fund?) http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=aa7796aa-e4a5-4c06-be84-b62dee548fda&p=2 Whenever the ones I have in my home die, I may very well relegate them to outdoor duties only. I rather have the extra ounce of mercury released in the atmosphere than the gram or two into my home. In the end game, the gram has the potential to do more harm I'm afraid. Or is this just fear mongering media again? edit: SEE MY POST BELOW FOR CLARIFICATION ON THIS POINT.[/b[ Title: Hey patric! Lighting questions. Post by: patric on May 11, 2007, 07:48:16 am quote: Does the $2,000 include a subscription to the National Post so we can read their stories? [:o)] But seriously, if this is cited elsewhere I'd be interested in reading it. Title: Hey patric! Lighting questions. Post by: RecycleMichael on May 11, 2007, 08:43:06 am Our goal is to keep the homes safe.
I do believe in compact fluorescent bulbs and have many of them in my home. We just think that people need to know about the mercury. I think this problem will go away. Phillips has a new ultra low mercury bulb out and Wal-Mart is investing heavily in the new bulb. Title: Hey patric! Lighting questions. Post by: cannon_fodder on May 11, 2007, 10:45:58 am D'oh! Their content was free when I read it, must have to subscribe to access the archives. Probably an AP story anyway if I do a little searching.
Well, a little searching revealed that the woman may have over reacted - according to treehugger.com (really, that was the IP). I'll go ahead and assume the site is biased but it references some material that says its a problem, but not THAT much of a problem. Snopes.com agrees with the assessment that they are a problem but not a GRAVE danger: http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp Sorry I perpetuated an exaggeration. It looked to be a reliable source. Title: Hey patric! Lighting questions. Post by: Conan71 on May 11, 2007, 03:00:13 pm As an alternative, one could also put in motion-activated light switches. If you leave an un-needed light on, whether it's a CFB or a traditional, it's still a waste of energy. Personally, I don't need another waste disposal quandry.
I'm pretty vigilant about making sure un-used lights are off. My wife and step-daughter must think empty rooms are afraid of the dark. [;)] Title: Hey patric! Lighting questions. Post by: iplaw on May 11, 2007, 03:05:39 pm Forgive me for not being the well read conservation guy (surprise, surprise), but is the drive towards these lightbulbs because of their efficency and decreased energy usage with the thought that it will help push us towards energy independence, or it more of an environmental concern?
If this is just about energy consumption, why do we care? Are we really concerned about overusing a natural resource that we'll never run out of? Title: Hey patric! Lighting questions. Post by: inteller on May 11, 2007, 03:44:10 pm quote: yes, this from a government that orders $1000 hammers and $100 washers. sorry, but anything they give an estimate for I File 13. Title: Hey patric! Lighting questions. Post by: rwarn17588 on May 11, 2007, 05:12:32 pm I use CFLs simply because they lower my electric bill by a substantial amount (my bill was $38 last month). Wherever I've moved, I've taken them with me because of the bulb's long life.
It's a bottom-line decision. If using less energy also keeps the utility from burning as much coal or having to build a new gazillion-dollar power plant, that's gravy. Title: Hey patric! Lighting questions. Post by: patric on May 11, 2007, 06:19:29 pm quote: Sometimes the best answer is the simplest one, and rwarn's reasoning is as good as any. However, even if our consumption levels off, AEP/PSO will continue to build more coal and gas burners in our back yards (and on our dime) to export power to states with tighter environmental rules than ours, so dont expect changes overnight. Recyclemichael posted some rational advice regarding CFL's use in the home, which can be summed up by saying the most heavily-used lights in your home (such as ceiling lights) would be better candidates than the table lamp in the kids room (assuming the hot naked filament doesnt set the bed on fire). Not using a Compact Fluorescent for fear of the trace amounts of mercury inside seems like not using a smoke detector for fear of the trace amount of radioactive material inside. The benefits far, far outweigh the risks. Im still partial to motion detectors outside (especially the 2-level ones like Heath/Zenith, etc. that give you a little ambiance when motion isnt detected) but I would probably steer you away from the floodlight-style versions that are not so neighbor-friendly. Title: Hey patric! Lighting questions. Post by: Conan71 on May 14, 2007, 08:06:07 am LED lights- 50,000 hours, still less energy usage than CFL's, very low heat output, no mercury concerns. These are rapidly finding their way into boating and RV's due to the low power draw on battery banks. Since they have now figured out a way to make a "white" diode (they still look a little bluish to me) they might be practical for homes before long.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070513/ap_on_hi_te/led_lighting Title: Hey patric! Lighting questions. Post by: patric on May 14, 2007, 05:32:50 pm quote: They have big hopes in Raleigh, were they plan to use them for streetlights someday: http://news.com.com/City+tries+to+cut+energy+bills+with+LEDs/2100-11392_3-6158103.html?tag=nefd.pulse The big thing to watch in LED's is Efficacy (how many Lumens of light per Watt of energy used you can squeeze out of an LED (one manufacturer now claims 70 Lumens per Watt). If you're itching to try them out for yourself, here are some screw-in LED bulbs you can buy locally: http://www.walgreens.com/store/product.jsp?CATID=100770&navAction=jump&navCount=0&id=prod2419636# Walmart also has a similar item #BLBW02. Needless to say, the days of describing a lamp's brightness in terms of "watts" is a bit obsolete. 1,000 Lumens is somewhere between the brightness of a 60-75 Watt household incandescent lamp (mom and pop's porch lamp). 9,500 Lumens is the brightness of the average residential streetlight (100-watts HP Sodium). 110,000 Lumens is the brightness of a single 1000-watt Metal Halide lamp you would find at a gas station or fast food joint. Title: Hey patric! Lighting questions. Post by: Conan71 on May 15, 2007, 09:38:33 am I don't have any night light fixtures I can think of at home which is what Walgreens has available. I notice pricing on bulbs seem to be value-based on lifespan using an incandecent as the benchmark rather than what would appear to be production cost-based.
I'm going to be putting a 12V LED reading light over our berth in our sailboat and see how I like it. The lower amp draw and less heat is the main attraction. Title: Hey patric! Lighting questions. Post by: patric on June 17, 2007, 10:07:16 pm A good example of Mercury's relationship to electrical generation in the news today:
(MUSKOGEE, Okla.) June 17 - Environmental researchers say mercury concentrations in rainfall samples collected near an eastern Oklahoma town were higher than those found in all but one other town in the U.S. Rainfall samples collected at an air quality station near Stilwell in Adair County had a mercury concentration of 15.4 nanograms per liter. That's more than twice the national average of about 7 nanograms per liter, according to the Mercury Deposition Network, which is part of the National Atmospheric Deposition Program. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has previously identified coal-fired power plants as a main source of atmospheric mercury, and four such plants are in counties near to Stilwell. Title: Hey patric! Lighting questions. Post by: PonderInc on June 26, 2007, 04:06:41 pm Didn't I read somewhere that AEP wants to build a huge coal-fueled power plant in Oklahoma somewhere? This strikes me as folly in a state known for it's natural gas reserves. (Especially given the devastation caused by leveling mountains to get at the coal...too bad the folks in W.Virgina don't have much say in the matter...)
Title: Hey patric! Lighting questions. Post by: sgrizzle on June 26, 2007, 07:17:42 pm quote: AEP and OG&E are cooperatively building a coal-fired plant south of Ponca City next door to OG&E's sooner power plant. While AEP's oklahoma subsidiary runs almost entirely on Natural Gas, the parent company is almost exclusively coal. |