How can compact fluorescent light bulbs be good for the environment, when they contain mercury?

Question

How can compact fluorescent light bulbs be good for the environment, when they contain mercury?

Answer 1

It's true, the energy they save reduces mercury emissions in the atmosphere by 100 times or so the amount of mercury in the bulbs

The mercury problem could be contained with an efficient and easy to use recycling system for them.  

LEDs are really efficient, and will likely become common in many kinds of lighting.

jcpnum4g    I don't agree on nuclear.  It has way too many problems.

One problem with nukes is water. They require enormous amount of cooling water.  There are already problems from droughts in the southeastern U.S.

Nuclear Power is hydro power"  by Lou at

http://www.grinzo.com/energy/index.php/2...

Drought could force nuke-plant shutdowns:

"Nuclear reactors across the Southeast could be forced to throttle back or temporarily shut down later this year because drought is drying up the rivers and lakes that supply power plants with the awesome amounts of cooling water they need to operate."

"Already, there has been one brief, drought-related shutdown, at a reactor in Alabama over the summer.

“Water is the nuclear industry’s Achilles’ heel,” said Jim Warren, executive director of N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, an environmental group critical of nuclear power. “You need a lot of water to operate nuclear plants.” He added: “This is becoming a crisis.”

"An Associated Press analysis of the nation’s 104 nuclear reactors found that 24 are in areas experiencing the most severe levels of drought. All but two are built on the shores of lakes and rivers and rely on submerged intake pipes to draw billions of gallons of water for use in cooling and condensing steam after it has turned the plants’ turbines."

"David Fleming, creator of the concept of Tradeable Energy Quotas and author of the forthcoming and rather wonderful “Lean Logic”, has just published The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy, which is a thorough demolition of the case for nuclear power being a solution to peak oil. and climate change. You can down load the pdf. for free here or you can order printed copies here. Like much of David’s writing, it patiently yet assertively builds its arguments, backed up by exhaustive research, to build a case against nuclear power that looks pretty much bulletproof to me." from

http://www.grinzo.com/energy/index.php/c...

http://transitionculture.org/2007/12/07/...

Link to The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy"

"In the United States, current surcharges on nuclear power too low to cover expected disposal costs. In addition, the US government foolishly absorbed all risk for an on-time opening of a repository for commercial nuclear waste -- despite longstanding technical and political challenges associated with making this happen."

"Taxpayers are now paying the industry millions per year for the delays, a figure that could rise sharply in years to come. Between inadequate fees, payments for delays, and most importantly, the shifting of disposal risks away from investors,

subsidies to nuclear waste management likely run into the billions of dollar per year."

Nuclear subsidies are higher than those for solar, wind and geothermal combined.

2006  from  http://www.earthtrack.net/earthtrack/lib...

"Federal subsidies to new nuclear power plants are likely between 4 and 8 cents per kWh (levelized), and could well be the determining factor driving the construction of new nuclear power plants.  $9 billion per year in the U.S."

"Some people object to government subsidies for renewable energy projects. What they might not know is that new nuclear plants are being underwritten by tax dollars in amounts infinitely larger than any support being offered to clean, safe energy sources. For example, the federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 included a loan guarantee program for nuclear plant developers, risk insurance that protects corporate investors against costs associated with delays in licensing, and federal tax credits."

Nukes don't make us energy independent.

"The United States and Russia signed a deal that will boost Russian uranium imports to supply the U.S. nuclear industry, the Commerce Department said Friday…."

"The new agreement permits Russia to supply 20 percent of US reactor fuel until 2020 and to supply the fuel for new reactors quota-free.

So if, under a President McCain, we build a bunch of new nuclear reactors -- they could be fueled 100 percent by Russia.

I can almost hear Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin saying, "Excellent." "

from:  http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/...

"The U.S. faces stiff global competition for nuclear fuel. We import 65 percent of our oil, but 90 percent of our uranium. At a time when state and federal leadership has set goals for "energy independence," reliance on nuclear power would mean depending on technology that requires fuel imported from overseas. Moreover, according to MIT scientists, there is less global supply of enriched uranium than commonly projected and the price has increased more than tenfold over the last five years."

Nuke plants are expensive to build and time consuming, and expensive to dismantle when they're worn out.

Like $500 million each.

"Nuclear plant owners are responsible for costs to dismantle retired units, dispose of waste, and decontaminate the site. Each unit has its own decommissioning trust fund, paid for by customers. Wisconsin ratepayers have spent $1.5 billion for the eventual decommissioning of the Point Beach, Kewaunee, and Genoa plants."

"Estimates of the cost to construct nuclear power plants are as high as $4,000 per kilowatt, as compared to about $1,400 per kilowatt for wind projects."

And solar and wind power can be up and running much quicker than coal or nukes.

There's no accountability with nukes.

"The nuclear industry has long enjoyed limited liability for nuclear accidents under the Price-Anderson Act, which ensures that taxpayers, not industry, will pay for damages in the event of a serious accident."

Transporting nuclear waste from all over the country to Yucca Mt. Neveda is expensive and dangerous.

"Part of our electric rates go to payments to the federal Nuclear Waste Fund, which is intended to fund the construction of the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada and pay for transportation of waste to the proposed disposal site. To date, Wisconsin customers have paid about $600 million into this fund."  

  That's just one state.

Are they safe?

"A report from Argonne National Lab concluded that aircraft crashes could subject nuclear plants to numerous multiple failures that could lead to "total meltdown" even without direct damage to the containment structure."

And contrary to what someone commented, last time I posted this, liberals realize the danger of terrorism full well.   What we don't buy is, the use of it politically, to scare us into wars that are not in our best interest.   And the undermining of our rights based on that same fear.   I supported going after the perpetrators of 9/11, and understand the need for security and vigilance.  

Iraq has distracted us from that, and cost us dearly.

http://www.setamericafree.org/blueprint....

A Blueprint For U.S. Energy Security

How we can achieve energy independence, a cleaner environment without bankrupting us.

Alternative energy will make for a better economy.

To see how much oil is an economic drain, see the sources below on subsidies and hidden costs.

Answer 2

Vaccinations contain mercury also.   The coal needed to be burnt to supply the extra energy an incandescent bulb uses contains hundreds of times as much mercury as the CFL bulb.

Jonh B- nuclear fuel actually puts out a pale blue light.

Answer 3

Yea, maybe they should make nuclear bulbs. Not only the place glows,everyone will have an eternal orange glow about them. It will make nighttime look like daytime.

Answer 4

because it has to be thrown away properly,,,

i believe that Wal-Mart has a policy on taking back burned bulbs to dispose of properly,,,

Answer 5

You can recylce them. I think everyone should recycle.

Answer 6

Mercury allows CFLs to be an efficient light source and have a longer life. One CFL light bulb can save 2000 times its own weight in greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately there is currently no substitute for mercury so it remains an irreplaceable element. Scientists and researchers are working on substitutes but until then CFLs will have mercury.

Answer 7

The hacks in Washington, want to solve the problem of coal plants emissions by giving people mercury filled light bulbs. This is a crazy scheme. You put yourself at risk and it will cause a drop in power usage and reduce coal plant emissions.

The real answer is to build more nuclear power plants that are clean and efficient. You could go about using incandescent bulbs, and not worry about one of those things breaking, and calling in a government HAZMAT team to clean it up and give you a huge bill.

Answer 8

Thermometers contain mercury too....are they bad for you when you take your temperature? No. I don't think the mercury in the new lightbulbs is going to do us any harm. I have them ALL over my house in every possible place I could stick a light bulb. And we're fine. There's mercury in a lot of things, as long as you don't go chew on your light bulbs or you know suck out the mercury with a syringe, and inject it in your jugular or eyeball, I'm sure you'll be fine.

Answer 9

The largest contributor of mercury to our environment is the burning of coal. The energy needed to power incandescent bulbs will cause more mercury to be emitted than would have been in the compact fluorescent bulb .

Now that is all true if, and only if your power  is coal generated to at least 20%.

It still makes sense to  reclaim mercury from used bulbs if we can do so in an evironmentally safe way.

At best we appear to recover only 60% of the mercury put into the bulbs. It seems to be easier to  capture that amount of mercury in the smokestack of a coal fired electrical plant.

LED may be a partial solution.