I just found out something this morning with the policies of these CFL
lamps. The governments are going to put in place programs for the handling
and disposal of the warn out and damaged CFL's. It seems that they have no
idea at this time of what this plan will be. One speculation is that they
will be sending them off to a third world country to be disposed of.
Apparently, it has been figured out that the cost of the plan is going to be
far greater than if they left things alone! And, they will be adding a worse
and different type of pollution problem to deal with.
This plan is being enforced in all of North America, and most of the
Commonwealth countries around the world. From what I heard, they want the
general public and businesses to use less electricity, so that more can be
sold to large industries for manufacturing. They will also be able to raise
the price per kw/hr without the public noticing it, because they will be
using a little less.
Another issue that gets to me is the one with the new hybrid cars, and
ethanol. This is a long issue, but I will make a short comment.
After about 4 to 6 years with an average use of about 16,000 to 20,000 km
per year, the batteries in the hybrid cars will have to be changed. There is
going to be a huge disposal problem with these. The chemicals used in
battery technology is some of the worse kinds for the environment.
As for the consumer, if he wants to keep his car, the battery replacement
cost is going to be in the average range of $6000 US. If he trades his car
with the used batteries, this cost will be deducted from the trade-in value.
If you calculate the usage cost of fuel for the average person, this
approach does not pay!
When making ethanol fuel from corn, the energy used, is more than what can
be had from the ethanol. The pollution caused from burning ethanol is worse
than from petrol. The chemicals released from the burned ethanol are
dangerous for people with respiratory problems. These chemicals are also
harmful to plant life.
--
JANA
_____
JANA said:
If the switch that is series with the light bulb has a night light in it,
the current pass of the night light will cause the CFL to flicker.
If the CFL is connected to a switch that is electronic, the small leakage
of
the electronics will cause the CFL to flicker or in some cases to not turn
off.
Regular CFL's cannot be used on standard light dimmers and many of the
electronic timers. This is a big inconvenience for many people.
When regular lamps become unavailable, I can see a lot of problems with
these new types of lamps. The biggest one will be the pollution from
their
disposal. They use mercury, phosphors, and many types of materials that
are
very harmful for the environment. There is also the electronics circuit
board, which contain components that have the same recycling problem as
used
in most electronics. Even though they last longer, when they are
eventually
put out in to the garbage, they will eventually end up in the land fills.
They are going to be a very big problem compared to the simple light bulb
that was made of simple glass and metals.
Regular light bulb materials are about 85% recyclable. There are almost no
materials in these that are bad for the environment. Most CFL's materials
are not recyclable, and their materials are very polluting.
It looks very strong that the government is pushing the CFL's to save some
electricity to sell to large industry. This is the only answer that is
logical. There are NO green house gasses from using regular light bulbs.
When more electricity is sold to industry, the pollution problems from its
generation will actually increase, unless the generation is from water
power, or nuclear power.
These are my (well known) views also, but I fear we are squeaking like
little lost mice in the dark ...
The general public are not told - and would not understand anyway - the
wider implications of these knee-jerk government interventions in our lives.
All too often, they are poorly thought through, and are dreamed up as a
response to the latest bit of pseudo science to hit the news stands. At the
moment, anything with the words 'green' or 'eco' or 'environment' or 'global
warming' are fair game for this sort of nonsense, and to add to its
'validity' in the public's eyes, they've already started inventing new bits
of techno-babble like 'carbon footprint' and 'carbon offsetting' to justify
what amounts to little more than opinions by a vociferous band of scientists
getting paid large amounts of money and credibility ratings, to promote the
government line. As you say, these CFLs are just trading one form of alleged
pollution, for another definite one ...
Arfa
Arfa
