Incandescent vs Fluorescent Light Bulbs?

Question

Not sure this is the best category for this question, but here goes.

I just read on Yahoo! News that Canada and Austrailia are planning to ban what they term "inefficient" incandescent light bulbs in favor of compact fluorescent bulbs. They claim the incandescent bulbs promote greenhouse emissions and the use of fluorescent bulbs will not only cute down on these emissions, but save users approximately $44 per year.

My question, don't the fluorescent bulbs contain small amounts of mercury and wouldn't this pose an environmental risk in the disposal of the bulbs? In America, one must have an EPA permit to dispose of them... so what happens if other countries are just throwing them away? No mention of disposal problems or solutions was mentioned in the article, but I'm curious how this will effect the environment if it goes through. The article states that incandescent bulbs will not be prohibited when they are the only appropriate alternative but still...

Answer 1

Well first of all when it comes to incandescent vs. fluorescent the real issue isn't green house gas but it isn't. the real issue is that with an incandescent bulb most of the energy is converted to heat not to light like we want.  With fluorescent however there is far less energy wasted.  And when you say that one must have a permit from the EPA to dispose of one I would double check where you got that information because that rule would just be so impractical.  With the massive number of fluorescent bulbs being sold having all those people have to get a permit that's ludicrous.

Answer 2

You are correct.  Life is full of tradeoffs.  The big question here is this:  Are the energy savings worth the environmental pollution of the extra mercury?  Now some will say that the bulbs can be recyled and the mercury recovered.  While true, it will take energy to do this.  So, will the energy required to keep the mercury out of the environment be greater than the energy savings from using these bulbs?

The answer is no one yet knows.

Additional:

An letter from a reader to the Editor of The Wall Street Journal (4/25) brought up an interesting point:  While conventional bulbs give off more heat than light the heat is not wasted as the light is usually on in an indoor room in the winter and serves to add heat to the room thus lowering the amount of fuel the furnace has to burn to heat the room.

Answer 3

Whilst the amount of mercury used in production a CFL bulb is at most 6mg, the average mercury content is 4mg. The total emissions of mercury created by a CFL bulb from electricity consumption over its lifetime is about 2.4mg of mercury. In comparison the emissions from an incandescent light bulb is about 10mg. Therefore overall CFLs result in a slightly less amount of mercury emitted over the lifetime of a CFL bulb. The real gain is the reduction of 38kg of Co2 per CFL per year and an overall saving of 14% on your electricity bill.

To ensure the safe disposal of CFL bulbs you should return them to the retailer or to an appropriate recycling facility. Once collected the bulbs are crushed in a machine that uses negative pressure ventilation and a mercury absorbing filter allowing the mercury to be reclaimed.

In countries where recycling facilities do not exist, you should contact the manufacture who should have details of how you can safely dispose of the CFLs.

Note: It is assumed the emissions from electricity consumption is from standard electricity supply. Should renewables be used then the emissions of mercury would be 0mg (not including the production of the renewable source), however for the use of incandescent bulbs to be effective we would need to be using a high proportion of renewable energy.

PS ... you can now get CFLs with ultra-low mercury levels.

Energy Saver

http://howtosaveenergy.blogspot.com

[e-mail]

Answer 4

There is no tradeoff.  Compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) do NOT increase mercury pollution.  They actually reduce mercury pollution.

Fossil fuels contain mercury.  Using incandescent bulbs causes more mercury to be emitted from power plants.  More mercury than is in a CFL.

It's better if you dispose of old CFLs properly so that even the tiny amount of mercury is not released.  But, no matter how they're disposed of, CFLs reduce mercury pollution.

So they're good for global warming and good for mercury pollution.

http://www.cityofberkeley.info/sustainab...

Answer 5

Great points-yes it is a tradeoff, and the 'best alternative' to me depends on what we can contain most effectively.  If we can contain lead and mercury from flourescent bulbs better than we can CO2, then make the switch.

Answer 6

Yes, they have mercury in them and it's definitely a problem. They also have small circuit boards which would have lead in the solder.

Answer 7

Fluorescent light bulbs do contain a little bit of mercury. Many municipalities do have special dumping sites for them. Some cities will even let you drop off fluorescent light bulbs, batteries, and smoke detectors right at City Hall!!

Failing that, the local IKEA store around here has a special garbage bin just for disposal of fluorescent light bulbs.

Maybe the larger grocery stores should do the same?