Very Cool on Mercury Concerns re: Compact Fluorescent Bulbs

Given: compact fluorescent bulbs do not give off as much heat as incandescent bulbs. As one poster pointed out, this leads to (double) savings when a building is being air conditioned by switching to CFLs, you're using less energy directly (in the bulb), as well as reducing the amount of energy needed to cool the building, because there's less heat being generated in the building by that bulb. But what about when a building is being heated anyway? The answer is that incandescent bulbs are still worse than CFLs, because direct electricity-to-heat heating (which is what 90% of the energy going into an incandescent bulb is doing) is a very INefficient way to heat a space. Your furnace, designed for heating, is a more efficient user of fossil fuel energy: If it's an oil or gas heater, you're combusting the fuel and using the heat directly, instead of burning the fuel in a power plant to generate electricity (a process which inevitably includes significant loss in efficiency), then transmitting the electricity over power lines (more losses), then turning it into heat. If you have electric heat, you'd be better off switching to a heat pump (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pump); even if you can't make that investment, separating your in-home heat and light generation (by installing CFLs) gives you the choice to use one or both, but heating even partially by incandescent doesn't. Furthermore, an incandescent light bulb will of course be emitting its heat wherever it's screwed in, which is probably in a socket at or above the level of the people in the room. Since heat rises, you'll effectively be helping to heat the area near your ceiling, whereas household heating systems (and even electric space heaters) are designed to put their heat nearer to where the people are which is the whole point of heating in the first place. (Optionally, see also energy expert Joseph Romm's explanation at http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/26/please-dont-use-incandescent-bulbs-for-heating/ ) This is of course separate from the discussion of the mercury in the bulbs, but I think previous posters have made plenty of good comments about that. In balance, to me CFLs seem worth the slight mercury risk; should be handled with care; and by the time they burn out (5-10 years?), LED bulbs will hopefully have come down in price enough to switch to those. A final point that I haven't heard anyone here mention is that in an institutional context, where changing a burnt-out lightbulb (jokes aside) represents a labor cost, CFLs (and LEDs) are even more cost-effective, since the longer lifetime means a proportional savings in labor it's that many fewer times that you have to use someone's paid time to change a bulb.

Nils Klinkenberg
Rochester, NY, USA

Hi,

I'd say CFL's are worth having because of the advantages they offer. Hg is only released if they break. As my environmental chem lecturer said "if there's no exposure, there's no risk". The question is, if we didn't use them, would we be better or worse off? I personally love LED's and I reckon they are the next step. We have them in traffic lights here. Tuna and swordfish on the other hand - if we stopped eating them we'd be doing the oceans' ecology a big favour at no harm to ourselves. There are plenty of far more sensible things to eat.

Lorna 

Hi Charles,

From a physicist's point of view it's a valid point - but here in Australia lots of people have lights and A/C on at the same time! And as for Christmas - well - stoves on baking turkeys, MILLIONS of fairy- lights decorating the outside of houses, all in 30C of sweltering heat.

Lorna

Sure why not? But that doesn't answer my question about whether or not the precautionary principle should be applied to CFLs.

Francois

the forms of mercury in fish and in CFLs are two different forms. Fish have methylmercury, an organic form which can accumulate in organisms, magnifies up the food chain and pass through the placental barrier. The CFLs have mercury vapor, which isn't as bad. Also, I have heard that Home Depot is starting a CFL recycling program.

Melissa McCullough

919/541-5646 (fax -5489)
US EPA / OAQPS
Mail code C304-05
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Attached is a link to the latest clean-up procedures for broken CFLS promoted by the U.S. EPA: http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/index.htm#fluorescent The link also has a link to the Maine Dept. of the Environment's CFL breakage 

I agree that we should not turn to incandescent bulbs to heat our home, but I think the poster makes a valid point - if the extra energy used by incandescent bulbs generates heat, then the energy is not wasted if it contributes to the ambient temperature in the house on a winters day. It is actually somewhat elegant to integrate uses, rather than have a "1 tool for each task" approach.Turning this idea on its head,people who heat with electricity are missing the chance to light their homes on a cold evening. Perhaps someone coulddevelop an Easy-Bake oven model of home heating, that identifies the actual heat energy given offversus power used fora light bulb. Of course, since many peopledon't even turn off lights when they leave a room, I cannot see how we can convince them to change their bulbs each spring and fall.

Charles Campbell

EarthWise Thunder Bay
Thunder Bay, Ontario
http://www.earthwisethunderbay.com

The idea of using incandescent bulbs to heat your home is not based on real-world scenarios. Please see One Change's document below for more details. Anyone interested in discussing the facts and myths about CFL bulbs is welcome to contact me, as we are always working to build on our library of knowledge.

Cheers,
Suzy Fraser

Suzanne Fraser
Director of communications and outreach
Directrice des communications et liaison externe
One Change
phone (613) 232-5892 x217
[email protected]
www.onechange.org

Ok, how about really playing devil's advocate and banning the consumption of tuna and swordfish? These fish are a proven source of bioavailable mercury and, let's face it, there is nothing sustainable about eating these fish!

Lorna

Hi Francois, there apparently is a study that states that CFLs should only be used in summer as the fact that they do not give off much heat (unlike incandescents) forces furnaces to work more in winter Is it seriously suggested that people usually have enough lights on all over the house to warm it up in winter? Mon Dieu! What sort of lifestyles do people lead? The purpose of a light is to enable you to see what you're doing when natural lighting is insufficient, not to heat your house!

Elizabeth Griffin
(Victoria, BC)

Playing devil's advocate here but why not invoke the precautionary principle in this case? I used to work in the pulp and paper sector and we used to be taken to task over extremely low pollutant levels all the time. The rationale then was that, even with the amounts being so low, you never knew what the effects might be. If I remember well, dioxin levels coming out of most mills were down to something like 1 molecule per Olympic size pool of water and we were being told that that was still too much and that we should get it down to totally undetectable levels. So why does this rationale not apply here? Pretty sure that if pulp mills had the risk of releasing mercury in microgram amounts, they would be taken to task from a precautionary POV. Also, there apparently is a study that states that CFLs should only be used in summer as the fact that they do not give off much heat (unlike incandescents) forces furnaces to work more in winter, basically negating the CFL's energy saving. Haven't seen the study myself however. 

"Seriously, folks, are we panicking about the wrong thing here?" Yes, I think we are, but it's nothing special to do with mercury (avoid it in any case). We should be panicking about our unsustainable lifestyles, and political and social norms that ferociously sustain the unsustainability. Peak oil, peak CO2, peak water, peak pollution, peak cancer, peak failed states, peak everything. We must absolutely change our expectations and the way we live. Period. We will not go on living this way, no matter what we substitute, Nature sees to that and brooks no argument.

Cheers,
Adam in sunny but wet Massachusetts, US of A, where the California wildfires and Murray-Darling drought haven't reached us - yet

I'd like to offer this website for anyone who'd like to learn the latest about recommendations for safe use of cfl's. http://www.maine.gov/dep/rwm/homeowner/fluorescent.htm It's the most recent and thorough technical study on this issue and strongly recommends such bulbs not be used in areas where children play or sleep since broken bulbs do create a mercury contamination concern within a couple feet of breakage location. The report also provides clear guidelines about the safest way to clean up and dispose of the toxic remnants (that differ from US EPA's recommendations). Children are more susceptible to small exposures and need more protection than adults. NEVER USE A VACUMN FOR CLEANUP - A WET CLEAN UP WITH A DAMP RAG IS ESSENTIAL AND PLACE THE WASTE IN A GLASS JAR FOR DISPOSAL AS HAZ WASTE AT A LOCAL FACILITY. If a rug is contaminated by a broken bulb and is used for children's play area, it should be replaced. Yes, there is significantly more mercury released in the air from the burning of coal for electricity generation for lighting - so the trade offs of installing cfls are worth it in terms of overall mercury exposures by reducing our electricity use with cfls. And yes, there is mercury in the fish at the top of the foodchain that we eat. We all need to be conscious of managing our exposures safely. It does not pay off to just poo poo these concerns for children's exposure to broken cfls. Although they should not necessarily require a haz mat team to come in for the job. After reading this report from the Maine DEP, we can all feel better and smarter about the best way to use cfls safely for reducing mercury in our environment.

Respectfully,
Deb Avalone-King
Maine DEP Air Bureau

Hi,

Looking at the site, it starts off with a rebuttal of the idea that mercury from CFL's is "unlikely to hurt you", and the suggestion that you should call in a HazMat team if you break one (in about 5 years of using them, I have broken one). Then, in the very next paragraph, the same blog states that the 3-5mg of Hg in each globe "can pose a minor risk to certain groups". Not exactly the end of the world then? I've met a mercury-poisoning victim. He was a head teacher of science in a high school, and had contracted Hg poisoning from chronic exposure as an industrial chemist. He'd made a reasonable recovery since then, but took care to avoid further exposure, as his "tolerance" was much reduced. Hg is excreted from the body slowly and occasional low-level exposure such as the odd broken CFL isn't much to panic about. Here's a thought.... HOW MANY OF THE PEOPLE PANICKING ABOUT MERCURY IN CFL'S REGULARLY EAT TUNA OR SWORDFISH? I don't have the figures to hand on exact Hg levels in these fish, but they are high enough that pregnant women in Australia are advised to avoid them! In spite of this, canned tuna seems to be a staple food for many people (I don't eat it al all, for ecological as well as health reasons). Seriously, folks, are we panicking about the wrong thing here?

Lorna