![]() |
![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
|||||||
Why you think CFLs suck (and how to change that)Have you ever decided that it was time to save energy and switch to compact fluorescent bulbs (you know, those funny shaped energy saving lights)?... |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 | |
|
just me
![]() Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 2,602
Thanks: 99
Thanked 86 Times in 72 Posts
Rep Power: 10 ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Why you think CFLs suck (and how to change that)
Have you ever decided that it was time to save energy and switch to compact fluorescent bulbs (you know, those funny shaped energy saving lights)? I'm guessing that the switch wasn't as exciting as you hoped it would be. Dim light, maybe flicker, and long warm–up times.
No more. The new CFLs are comparable to "regular" light bulbs (incandescents) AND save you a lot of money over their lifetime. I've written a blog post on why you should change to these new lights (and it doesn't mentioned the word sustainability once!) Read it and let me know what you think. You can also download a spreadsheet that allows you to calculate the lifetime costs of different bulbs — and you'll be surprised how much money a CFL can save you. Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Site Caretaker
![]() Join Date: May 2006
Location: Durban, South Africa
Posts: 9,933
Thanks: 927
Thanked 642 Times in 568 Posts
Rep Power: 27 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
What is the position on toxic waste with CFLs?
I vaguely recall hearing ordinary flourescent tubes should require special disposal - something about nasty chemical contents? |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 | |
|
just me
![]() Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 2,602
Thanks: 99
Thanked 86 Times in 72 Posts
Rep Power: 10 ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
Also, if they are disposed of properly (recycled), then it is not an issue. In South Africa there are very few electronic waste disposal services. Pretty much all electronics (CRTs and batteries in particular) should be disposed of properly, but at the moment that is rare in most parts of the world. I'll try to find out more about this for you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Site Caretaker
![]() Join Date: May 2006
Location: Durban, South Africa
Posts: 9,933
Thanks: 927
Thanked 642 Times in 568 Posts
Rep Power: 27 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Yeah. That was it - the mercury.
It was a "by the way" kind of dinner conversation - along with how salt is too toxic to be registered as a pesticide, probably. One's never really sure of the actual significance of stuff that floats up like that - sometimes you need to take it with a pitch of salt... But it all finds its way into the memory banks. The trouble is normally extracting the exact detail. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 | |
|
just me
![]() Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 2,602
Thanks: 99
Thanked 86 Times in 72 Posts
Rep Power: 10 ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
The trick is to talk about it lucidly with a message that is stickier than the commonly known one. That is really difficult, and I'm trying to get there. Energy efficiency and recycling require action, and getting people to do something seems to be quite difficult (but I'm working on it... )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Site Caretaker
![]() Join Date: May 2006
Location: Durban, South Africa
Posts: 9,933
Thanks: 927
Thanked 642 Times in 568 Posts
Rep Power: 27 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Sorry, I'm side-tracking you. If the mercury content was a major issue, I'm sure the manufacture of flourescent light tubes would have been stopped by now.
I did a fair crawl around looking for mercury related info - particularly in relation to fluorescent tubes. I found two maybe worth mentioning -
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
just me
![]() Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 2,602
Thanks: 99
Thanked 86 Times in 72 Posts
Rep Power: 10 ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Here is the most useful resource which I have found so far (from EnergyStar): on CFLs in general, and on mercury in CFLs (pdf).
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
just me
![]() Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 2,602
Thanks: 99
Thanked 86 Times in 72 Posts
Rep Power: 10 ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Another interesting fact sheet on mercury in CFLs. The most interesting thing is the graph with mercury emission comparisons (between a CFL and an incandescent). CFLs only cause about 2.4mg to be emitted, while incandescents cause about 10mg (over 5 years) — and that is going straight into the atmosphere. The few milligrams in the actual bulb can be safely recycled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Site Caretaker
![]() Join Date: May 2006
Location: Durban, South Africa
Posts: 9,933
Thanks: 927
Thanked 642 Times in 568 Posts
Rep Power: 27 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I think that seals the deal. After adding the mercury content in the CFL and taking away the reduced mercury emissions from burning coal, the CFL results in less mercury into the environment. And (bonus) handled correctly it's contained and potentially recyclable.
A win/win all round. Perhaps they just need to add a "clean up" advisory on the packaging? |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 | |
|
just me
![]() Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 2,602
Thanks: 99
Thanked 86 Times in 72 Posts
Rep Power: 10 ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
Seems like I have some content for another blog post forming here....maybe need to do some reading on ROHS too, as this is currently having a large impact on the electronics industry. |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Did you like this article? Share it with your favourite social network. |
| Tags |
| cfl, energy efficient, incandescent bulb, lighting |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |