Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

EPS100Momentum (71.57)

Ban of Incandescence bulbs fast Approaching

Recs

3

September 01, 2010 – Comments (5) | RELATED TICKERS: MCP , GE , F

Incandescence bulbs waste 95% of their energy and convert only 5% to actual light. Contrast this to the CFL which converts 25% of input energy to visible light via the Rare Earth phosphor coating. This efficiency results in much lower lamp temperatures, significantly longer life (estimated at 6 to 10 times as long), and less total energy consumed, directly reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

ENERGYSTAR reports that if every home in America replaced just one incandescent light bulb with a qualified CFL then in one year that action would save enough energy to light more than 3 million homes. This would prevent the release of greenhouse gas emissions equal to that of about 800,000 cars.

Countries around the globe are mandating the phase out of incandescent bulbs. Australia led the way by announcing all bulbs must be replaced with CFLs by 2010. The U.S. passed an energy bill that bans incandescent bulbs by 2014.

It is estimated that Rare Earth consumption in this application is growing about 15-20% per year meaning additional supply will be necessary to support this growth.

More information can be found on the ENERGYSTAR website a

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls

5 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On September 01, 2010 at 10:40 AM, ChrisGraley (99.70) wrote:

So mercury poisioning is a good thing?

Report this comment
#2) On September 01, 2010 at 10:52 AM, catoismymotor (84.28) wrote:

As Chris, above, pointed out the mercury in the CFL bulbs will cause more problems than they solve. The mercury is vaporized, taken into the lungs and poisons those cleaning up the mess caused by a broken bulb. Not to mention the environmental concern of having that same mercury enter the soil via landfills.

 

Report this comment
#3) On September 01, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Melaschasm (67.40) wrote:

For me personally, incandescent lights are a much better option.

I don't use much lighting at home, and when I do it tends to be winter.  During the winter much of the waste heat from the old bulbs is not waste, since it helps to heat my home. 

Plus the CFL's are not lasting as long as predicted for me.  I have been testing two bulb fixtures in my house by using one new incandescense bulb and one CFL bulb.  Two years into my testing and both types are having a similar failure rate.  However, One CFL costs as much as an entire package of the old fashioned bulbs.  If I continue to see the same failure rates, the new CFL bulbs are going to be a huge waste of money.

Lucky for me, the US government has decided to force everyone to switch, even though the switch is going to do more harm than good for many people.

Report this comment
#4) On September 13, 2010 at 2:02 PM, BradBuscher (< 20) wrote:

Along with wasted energy that contributes to the greenhouse effect, incandescent bulbs ultimately result in greater mercury exposure than CFLs because they consume much more power and require more power generation. Since mercury is a byproduct of burning coal, coal-fired power plants are a larger source of mercury pollution than the mercury content in the CFLs.

Although CFLs and fluorescent lamps result in less mercury pollution than incandescents, it is still important to store and transport used lights to a recycling facility in a packaging configuration proven to contain mercury vapor. Only then are these products truly green lighting solutions. Find out more at vaporlok.blogspot.com.

Report this comment
#5) On September 20, 2010 at 11:09 PM, Trex251 (< 20) wrote:

BradBuscher,

The whole CFL movement is a fallacy. Light bulbs themselves DO NOT contrbute to the greenhouse effect, at least outdoors. The overall area of the bulb itself and heat output is negligable. It's NOT POSSIBLE to affect outdoor temps. The only difference is in cold climates is insulated houses. Incandescents can actually reduce the need to use central heating because of residual heat from the bubls. Enviromentalist simply DONT understand this concept. Nor do they understand that lighting makes up less that 2% of the total energy draw. It's all about washers, dryers,  cooking stoves, HVAC, and other major appliances.

 Removing incandescents from the market place will do nothing toward the total energy use. Power generators have to keep a certain amount of reserve online for peak use to keep the grid stable. Such as really hot days when everyone is running a/c.

This is yet another concept that the Evirons simply don't understand. And renewable energy cannot, by itself,  have enough supply for peak demand. It kicks in as supplemental.

 Mercury, you can't have it both ways. Another concept the Environs don't understand is that these bulbs WILL NOT be recycled. When you have someone that's living in a rural area, and the closest recycle is fifteen to twenty miles away, that bulb is going into the trash, or worse yet, burned. CFL's contain about as much mercury as the dot at the end of this sentence, multiply that hundreds of times for bulbs not recycled, and the amount quickly grows into say a quart or more.

 

 

 

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement