Quote:
Originally Posted by jyl
Suppose zero CFLs are recycled. So their mercury gets released into landfills and ultimately to groundwater. However, CFLs use about 1/4 the electricity of incandescents. Much of the electricity used in the US is from coal-fired plants. Coal-fired power is the main source of mercury pollution, first into the air and then into water. Less electricity usage via CFLs means less mercury pollution from power generation. Hmm, how might these effects compare?
EnergyRace | Commentary : More on Mercury, Coal and CFLs - Updated
They are about equal. In other words, if zero CFLs are recycled, there would be no net increase in mercury pollution. The recycling rate is not in fact zero, and can be increased with more locations and education. |
Thank you. You have saved me a bunch of typing. I have no comment regarding CA and mandates but I take care of a bunch of buildings for a living and know a bit about lighting. CFLs have come a long way in even the past 3 years. I purchase them in the 100s and have replaced almost all standard incandescent bulbs. The man power savings in not changing burned out bulbs in some of the harder to reach fixtures is worth it alone. The present CFL selection is good and you can get them in some good color ranges.
Some people fear change even if it is only a change of mind.