Below is an image of the data reduction from the spectrum of an 'energy saver' light globe I took while calibrating my home-made spectroscope. Merlin66 put me onto the Mercury lines and it should have dawned on me then.
I bought these light globes to protect the environment, less carbon etc.. Now I realise that they contain mercury. How many people realise this fact? How many of these light-globes are in landfill? Are we warned of the correct way to store them when the millions cease to light up our "less polluted world? I found no clear warning on their packaging!
Draw your own conclusions.
Quite a few people know and has been brought up in news and Current Affair programs as well, they are working on proper disposal methods although dragging their heals I suppose. Realistically we should also be responsible just like we are becoming with recycling.
Saw a disposal method for mercury tube on New Inventors, only suited long tubes but i suppose it could adapted for others as well.
Maybe they could look at some other carsonagenic produt to replace mercury.
Bright light - nothing beats quartz halogen bulbs. Even in downlights.
As for general lighting don't commit too quickly to fixtures for CFL bulbs - white LED lighting is not far away and its more efficient, as well as much better for the environment.
The price is a bit steep at the moment so its limited to specialised industrial applications - but as the price comes down we'll start to see reasonably attractive domestic versions.
BTW the new A-Set trains for Cityrail will have LED lighting internally - it is already cost competitive on that application based on life-cycle costs for the life of the train.
must be a green product as far as the government is concerned
on a serious note, i cant see the world continuing as it has with its energy use, and all the other issues. a change is inevitable somewhere. more likely forced by circumstance than good management.
Flourescent lights have always contained mercury, there has never been any safe disposal mechanism in place. For the governments no incandescent bulb policy to work there has to be a collection and safe disposal mechanism in place.
I believe that there are some plans for disposal being implemented at the moment.
It's all a bit like Mr Rudds target of 25 Million hectare's in forest plantations (which is more than the available land for agriculture in Australia).
I have always wondered though what is the energy required to manufacture the two different bulb types. An incandescent one is quite simple and only has a few simple materials, it may use more energy to run, but the only thing that matters in the big scheme is how much energy does a single light require from its birth to death (if you get what I mean). Flourescent lights require a lot more manufacturing equipment and more dangerous chemicals, probably more energy to make a single unit, but if they last longer this is averaged down significantly. Hopefully someone has looked at the "big picture" and haven't just made a decision base purely on the energy consumed while the light is being used, otherwise we just end up using more energy in the end...not a good idea!
I remember there was a lot of noise made about the Hg content in the power saving lights when the adds first appeared to promote them as a good alternative. Somehow it got swept under the carpet and people have bought them in droves (none in my house I will keep feeding the plants instead). The Hg combines with other elements to make salts that play merry hell on the nervous system if they build up in high enough concentrations. Anybody for "mad hatters disease" .
I would also question the longevity of these fluorescent lights. I find they don't last anywhere near as long as the advertised life spans. I think fluorescent lights last much longer than incandescent globes if they are just left on. But where they are used in place of incandescent globes in the home and people seem to switch them off and on a lot, they don't seem to last. In the last 5 years, I have had to replace quite a few and they're not cheap at $6 each.
Doesn't one in fact use more energy to create and ultimately dispose off than the other yet in it's life time but the other is being done away with because it's inefficient while in use.
Irrespective of what type of globes you use, perhaps the ultimate solution lies in turning the little blighters off when they are not needed!!
This may save energy (electricity) and resources (globes and manufacturing resources), as the globes will last longer in the long run (as long as you dont blow them by turning on / off too often).
Not only that but astronomers world-wide would be happier (thus saving resources as alcohol consumption goes down...nah only joking, it would stay the same!!)
Take a drive and look at all the 'security' lighting around the place, or all the lights left on when no-one is home, or (as my kids like to do) houses with just about every globe possible turned on just because you can. Surely the amount of lighting we actually 'consume' is a fair degree of overkill.
We recently had some of our internal light fittings replaced and were discussing the 'energy saving' mercury wonders with the electician installing the lights. He said you can't get them cheap anymore because of the fact that they are carcingenic if broken and the government doesnt financially support their mass sale any more. I dont remember the exact statistics he quoted, but he also suggested that theit manufacturing cost (financial and resourse wise) was so great that it far outweighed any 'saving' when compared to your tradiational incandescent globe.
With regards to solar - the solar panels are just one part of the equation. There's also the storage cells i.e batteries to consider. What's the environmental impact behind the manufacture and ultimate disposal of these batteries? Haven't worked it out but for an average household to enjoy the benefits of energy during non-light periods (in other words when the batteries are discharging) in conjunction with ensuring optimum life of said batteries would probably work out to be a sizable array, (not to mention the space required). No matter which way you look at things there's always going to be an environmental price to pay, even with the so called "clean" energies.
With regards to solar - the solar panels are just one part of the equation. There's also the storage cells i.e batteries to consider. What's the environmental impact behind the manufacture and ultimate disposal of these batteries? Haven't worked it out but for an average household to enjoy the benefits of energy during non-light periods (in other words when the batteries are discharging) in conjunction with ensuring optimum life of said batteries would probably work out to be a sizable array, (not to mention the space required). No matter which way you look at things there's always going to be an environmental price to pay, even with the so called "clean" energies.
there are no batteries,we get an inverter,it feeds and mesures
what power we make into the grid,we get credits for what is produced
every day
Part of my work i have to change CPL globes in some customer equipment. They definately don't last that long. Most of the problem is based on the electronics burning out before the globe.
Cheap manufacturing technique. But what about advertising. Theoretically they last as long as the specs asy but realistically no way.
I have just signed up for the federal governments $8800 rebate for solar
energy.We pay the remaining $3000,i dont pay anything untill i get
letter from government with approval for grant.the installer gets the rebate.
i pay him the $3000 when the solar panels are on house,
Worst case senario is that it only saves me $300 of my power bill
per year
the panels have 25 year garantee,life of 40 to 45 years
saves nearly 3 tonnes of carbon emsions.
per year
Why this country doesnt enforce and subsidize solar panels on every
house is beyond me,in Germany 15% of power is from house hold
solar and wind generaters,we have so much sun!
Hotspur
My old man just went through this process. Only problem is that he earned more than 100K last year so he does not qualify for the rebate and he is retired now so won't get it done. I was there when the salemans was making his pitch asking curly questions of course. The panels he was selling are only guaranteed from failure for 5 years but do have futher cover in that the cells will still operate at 85% of their stated output for up to 25 years. Truth be known we could generate all of our electrical power needs by using solar cells and fuel cells but theres still too much money to be made in crude sales.
We replaced all the incandescent globes with flouro replacements 2 1/2 years ago.
Since that time we have replaced approximately 20 of them !?
So much for energy efficiency and reduced operating cost.
The electronics overheats and the circuitry sizzles.
I await the new usefully bright LED technology with open arms (and wallet).
Billions will be spent on desalination plants and expanded electricity generation and ultimately taxpayer/consumers costs will rise and very little is actually being done about really being green.
Seems to me its mostly all lip service.
The incentive to put in solar has all but vanished under the new scheme and in any case most of the solar installations are almost trivial in size compared to real average household consumption.
Why Oh Why cant the same amount of money be spent on functional incentives for larger scale private solar and mandatory (but full funded) 5000-7000l water tanks per household ?
A 1000l tank (the current rebate favourite) is an almost useless amount of water and will not last between rainfalls. It is an education process at best and nothing more.
Surely this would have been a much better use of funds than the KRudd giveaway.
For the country to go into such an unbelievable amount of debt I would have liked to have seen some secondary useful outcomes - afterall we will be paying for this for the rest of our lives - it would have been nice to think that it might have saved us a little something for the rest of our lives too.
I found no clear warning on their packaging!
.
(thus saving resources as alcohol consumption goes down...nah only joking, it would stay the same!!)
