What About Mercury From Compact Fluorescents?

That may be true, but here are some more considerations:
My experience lately is that compact fluorescents do not last 6x as long (I wish they did)

Burned out lightbulbs are taken from 5-100 miles away and CONCENTRATED in the landfills.

Power plants, although known to pollute air, DILUTE effluent and disperse it (in theory)

When mercury leaves a coal stack it is in vapor form, and a combination of raw metal, oxide, chloride, sulfide, etc. Once the hot gases cool down, the vapors tend to plate out or "condense" on the ultra fine particles of fly ash that are co-suspended in the stack gases. Some of these particles are directly respirable and relatively heavy, settling down within a few hundred miles of the emission point: what EPA calls "hotspots". If homes are downwind people in the hotspots are continually exposed. Other forms of mercury travel farther and precipitate to the ground with rain or as dust-fall. Once on the ground, mercury moves with runoff, and recharges groundwater. Landfill leachate, on the other hand, moves at rates less than a tenth of an inch a day,unlikely to catch anyones' lungs by surprise or impact drinking water which must meet maximum concentration standards. No matter what the release route, however, with mercury there is no "away". Dispersion ultimately leads to bioconcentration: that,s why fluorescent bulbs are better.

As for longevity, your comments are dead on. Major outlets like Home Depot seem to have dropped the reliable name brands in favor of "el Cheapo" (yes they probably are hecho y Mexico) brands with very poor performance records. I have complained at my local HD but to no avail. I plan to buy on line for a bulk order. Here that guys?

I've been buying my CF bulbs from Ikea - and in four years, I haven't had one burn out yet.

We switched to all fluorescent bulbs about 12 years ago. Although they don't seem to last us 6 years (at least not the ones we use every day!) they do last substantially longer than the incandescenrs.

Our town has a toxic item recycling day twice a year in which they accept toxic items that aren't supposed to be put in the trash. We just save up our bulbs and turn them in.

So we hve no bulbs going into the dump!

Not sure if it's the best place to buy them, but I bought four CF bulbs from IKEA about 6 years back and they're still glowing strong(knock on wood). I also remember them being the cheap ones on the rack. Can someone give an explanation on the best way to use CF. I've heard that there's an heathy minimum daily "on time" to keep them long lasting.

Jordan-
Thanks for asking a good question. Treehugger is happy to help new and old users get the most out of their lighting. To reach the most people with the answer to your questions, please look for an article with tips on using compact fluorescent bulbs in the Sunday edition, June 19th 2005.

Why not use LED lighting instead? It's a bit on the expensive side initially, but in the long term - you'll save even more money.

Brian,

LEDs are probably the future and quite cool if you can afford them and/or they fit what you want to do, but right now they are somewhat hard to find and not yet powerful enough to be used in many situations (IIRC).

So it all depends on your budget and your lightning needs.

Yes sadly LED's are far too dim and those that are not cost a small fortune that would never be made up in energy savings. So for now its CF's for most things and maybe some LED for the small areas (like lighting for the counter where you have cabinents)

Colored LEDs are quite efficient. A red LED tail light uses much less power than an incandescent bulb with a red filter. White LEDs (really blue with phosphor) are not particularly efficient compared to conventional high power lights that you'd light a room with. They are more efficient than tiny incandescent flashlight bulbs, and they are far better at making good use of lower voltage from partly dead batteries than incandescents. So while they really do work great in flashlights, even if you could afford a huge array of them to light your living room, there would be no point. A fluorescent lamp would be more efficient and cost far less.

I intend to switch to CFs, but I do have one hesitation. Lighbulbs break sometimes, so I'm concerned about contaminating my apartment with mercury. All I'd have to do is drop one when changing the ceiling lights. Does anyone know what the health risk would be from 4 mg of mercury vapor in an unventilated apartment?
Thanks

I have just bought my first CF bulbs and I wish I had known about them a long time ago. One of the great values of CF's which doesn't ever seem to be addressed is quite a major benefit. When I first tried my new bulbs out. I plugged one side by side with an incandescent. If I put my hand close to the 60w incandescent, my hand would burn after a few seconds. With the CF, I could actually touch it, even after an 8 hour stint at my office. What this translates to is a big adjustment of the thermostat for air conditioning which is added savings. My office is a recording studio and, in a 15' x 15' room I have seven 60w (now 15w) bulbs. I can feel a huge difference now in the afternoon without 7 incandescents warming up the room. This is something I hope people will start realizing making CF bulbs an even more attractive alternative.

You are quite right, Gordon.

In fact, incandescent light bulbs could almost be called "heating bulbs" since 75% of the electricity they use is wasted as heat.

MGR cites the evil incandescent bulb as wasting 75% of its electricity consumption as heat. I live in a climate where we CONSUME heat for nine months of the year. It would be fair to say that 95% of the time a light is on in my house the heat is also on. Is this not simply moving " consumption " from one side of my plate to the other? Also is there a study available that tracks the OVERALL damage to our world through the manufacture of compact flourescents vs. incandescents from the first scoop of raw material dug out of the ground by an oil burning machine to the placement on a store shelf by a human hand. ( A package of four CFs weighs 710 grams and occupies double the space of a pack of four incandescents which weigh 170 grams.)

Anonymous,

As usual the advice we offer here is not universal and doesn't quite apply in all situations; you have to use your judgement to know what applies to you or not.

As for your points:

"I live in a climate where we CONSUME heat for nine months of the year. It would be fair to say that 95% of the time a light is on in my house the heat is also on. Is this not simply moving " consumption " from one side of my plate to the other?"

That is true, BUT: The vast majority of the world's population lives in warmer climates. Heating with lightbulbs works, but it is "involuntary" heating in places where that heat is probably not used as well as it would be with a more "voluntary" approach. Heating near the ceiling where there is little airflow is rarely the best approach.

"Also is there a study available that tracks the OVERALL damage to our world through the manufacture of compact flourescents vs. incandescents from the first scoop of raw material dug out of the ground by an oil burning machine to the placement on a store shelf by a human hand. ( A package of four CFs weighs 710 grams and occupies double the space of a pack of four incandescents which weigh 170 grams.)"

I'm no sure that this study is a real craddle to craddle one (ie. do they take into account that CFLs use less electricity and last a lot longer?), but even if it was true for the production side of things, that is not set in stone. It is possible to improve the production of CFLs (it has already been done, you can compare an old one with a new one) and change the packaging.

These arguments are hardly arguments against the use of CFL; rather, they are in favor of improving CFLs.

A craddle to craddle study MUST include every aspect of production,delivery to the consumer, energy consumption while in use, and energy consumption in disposal. The craddle to craddle study cannot simply start after the chosen light is installed in the user's room. If we truly want to make the world a better place we must look beyond our monthly electricity bill.

Exactly, that is why in places where more air conditioned is used than heating, and where electricity is produced with coal, a bulb that uses 4 times less electricity and lasts up to 10 times longer can offset production and packaging downsides. That is also important since these production and packaging downsides can - and surely will - be mitigated with time while the efficiency of incandescent lightbulbs has remained pretty unchanged for a century.

Then do you agree that, for the time being CFLs may not ( and likely are not ) suitable in a 75% heating climate?

I agree that it is a possibility, yes. As I said, I haven't seen any complete studies, and there are many factors, but it is very possible that where you live that is the case.

The climate is not the only factor, though; how electricity is produced, how far from the CFL factory/incandescent bulb factory you are (if you buy CFLs from 30 miles away, it's possibly better than buiying incandescents from 500 miles away, etc)...

Also, whatever conclusion you reach on the subject now, don't forget to update it periodically as CFL production and packaging changes.

Thanks for taking the time to write.

I'm only asking questions. Without a COMPLETE study I think any informed conclusions are impossible.

In Syracuse NY, we are campaigning to get the sellers of fluorescent bulbs (Home Depot, WalMart, Ace, True Value Hardware, et al) to give a 50- cent credit for old bulbs on purchase of new. The burned-out fluorescent bulbs would be taken by the local
incinerator authority (Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency--OCRRA) to the mercury and toxic- metals recycler in Buffalo NY, where OCRRA already ships TV and PC tubes and household batteries.
Experts claim that old, eight-foot fluorescent bulbs contain up to one gram of mercury. And in Syracuse NY, most of the fluroescent bulbs are crushed in trash bags ending up in the OCRRA incinerator, or into Dumpsters, and thus land dumps.

Anybody have a better idea to recycle old fluorescent bulbs?

As an FYI - my IKEA catalog states that they recycle CF bulbs - bring in your dead ones and they'll handle the recycling process. (Since the closest IKEA currently open is 1000 miles from me, I can't give further details.) Our local Ace also takes CFs, as does our municipal recycling program.

It's a matter of looking around, asking a lot of questions, and getting to know your area's services.

regarding the value of using incandescent bulbs for heating, unless you use electricity to heat your house already, you're almost certainly still better off to switch to CFLs.

The efficiency of burning fuel to create electricity for heating your house is really low compared to burning fuel directly. That's why most homes (and nearly ALL homes in cold climates) are heated by burning some sort of fuel rather than electrically.

In my city (Ottawa), we are supposed to drive to 30 - 40 kms to the landfill on the one day a month they collect HHW to dispose of CFLs. Wonder about the "net" energy savings. I haven't found that the lights last much more then double a regular bulb... I have been using them for many years.

As a dedicated environmentalist, I installed compact fluorescents a few years ago in many parts of my house. However, I can tell you they don't last anywhere near what is advertised on the box. Also, I've avoided putting them in rooms with artwork/collectibles because I'm afraid they could bleach/fade these valuable possessions. Does anyone know if my fear is well founded? I know traditional fluorescent lights emit ultraviolet light like the sun which can be damaging.

Regarding the heat debate, I have to agree that living in Canada, the heat from incandescents actually constitutes a benefit if nuclear power is increasingly used to generate electricity. So I don't think we should ban incandescents here like Australia and California are now proposing. It would make more sense to ban SUVs.

MGR asked:

"Then do you agree that, for the time being CFLs may not ( and likely are not ) suitable in a 75% heating climate?"

Heck no! Most folks aren't heating with electricity. That means you're giving up electric heat (power plant 30% efficient) for local gas or oil heat (>80% efficient) when you switch to a more efficient bulb. So the big picture is fuel reduction. Better efficiency is better, period.

And if you're worried about lamp life, or using one in a place that's difficult to change, stick with the better-known brands. Philips SLS and Panasonic are two that have done very well by me. And to get the Energy Star label they must have a two-tear warranty. Mark the date with a pencil or Sharpie when you install, and ask for a new one if it fails inside of two years!

--
editor note: I just want to point out that what you quote was written by Colin, not MGR.

I think that this debate about CF vs incandescent bulbs is an issue which only makes people think they are doing something about GW. The average home uses so little energy on lighting compared to what they use for transportation and heating. Just the power used to dry a load of clothes could light the average house for a week. Until we start to look at what we personally use , not what some utility 200 miles away use the problem will only get worse. We use a lot more energy to heat our home than we should, I read an article sugesting people turn their thermostats down to 21 during the day and 17 at night. Thats fine but years ago we bought a programable one and set it at 20 for 1 hour at 6 am and after 5 pm until midnight. Then down to 15 until 6 am and 7 am until 5 pm. We cut our fuel bill by 75%.
My suggestion as far as light go is just turn the things off when you aren't using them.
This is similar to recycling tin cans and paper in this area. We don't have curbside pickup and I see people driving to the recycling depot with a half dozen cans and the weekly papers. I guess what I mean by this rant is until we are prepared to actually give up using energy seriously , not just a few percent of the total the increases from other countries will swamp what little we do gain.

Most CF are lasting a year here with max life at 2 years. 6 years, I wish! They really stink when the ballasts burn out as well. I've tried everything from expensive to cheap and am not impressed with longevity.

You are better off with F32T8 fixtures, they actually last as long as promised. And the ballasts don't spurt flame and smoke if something blows.

My CFLs have been lasting for pretty long. I'd say around 4-5 years. Very nice light quality too, am pleased with them.

Almost all lightbulbs in my house are CFL. A maintenance technician of a large federal building told me that the way that CFLs last as long as they indicate on the packaging is that they are turned on and left on. Turning them off and on shortens their working period. Breaking a bulb in a house does release the mercury vapor, but just how much mercury escapes, and how does it compare to consumption of fish such as salmon, tuna, or shark? The other question that needs a clear answer is how does the public become more aware of how to correctly dispose of broken or burned-out CFLs?

In order for a "green plan" to be effective, it is essential to have on ALL levels a clear, safe, affordable actionable plan. Bring in light emitting diode lamps that can efficiently illuminate work and home spaces if it means that manufacturing and distributing them can save businesses and consumers money with minimal impact on the environment.

It's a bit weird having computer nerds opine about changing light bulbs to save energy when the computer sucks up far more fossil-fuel energy than does an old-fashioned light bulb.

My computer is on a good twelve hours a day reading all these weblogs, searching various topics like Global Warming etc, etc but my lightbulbs are on only during the time I am in any given area usually no more than two hours at night. I don't need the light bulb on during the day.

So if computer nerds are so high and mightly about saving energy, why then are you not activating that people only turn on their computers once a week. I know bloggers would lose revenue because they would not receive any hits to sustain their fossil-fule generated advertising but think of how many cars we could take off the streets if every computer owner in America shut down their computers.

If you really want to 'take the first step' in saving the planet from climate change then stop running this website. You're as bad as Hollywood when it comes to preaching about what's good for everyone else.

On reading the comments above, I realize that it seems there has been no comprehensive life cycle environmnetal and energy analysis on the conversion to these bulbs. Many people (myself included) do not like working under "cool white" flourescents (the inexpensive ones - full spectrum are about 6X more expensive) and that is not surprising if you compare the spectrums of cool white with incandescent (which peeks in the infrared and is a continuous spectrum versus the spikey cool white one). Many studies have shown that the perfoamance of students dropps under cool white flourescents and we ahve the hassle of having to sipose of them properly.

So there is a down side to CFL. We need to see a full life cycle analysis before we know if they save the environemnt or even energy in the long run. I imagine they are far more energy intensive to produce.

Sure, CFL's will save you money over the long haul -- unless you DROP one. That will set you back two thousand dollars according to this article.

Introduce toxic heavy metals into my children's environment to save a few pennies on electricity? Uh, no, thank you.

--
editor note: More info here.

My concern is with mercury from a broken bulb contaminating my office or home. Say, for example, that a compact fluorescent falls and breaks on the edge of my desk, then falls on the carpet. How can that be cleaned up to ensure that people are not exposed fo vaporizing mercury for the life of the carpet?

Thanks for your thoughts.

I have a concern...my son broke a CF light bulb. It was in a lamp on a table and he bumped into it. I had no idea about proper disposal when it happened and also did not realize they contain mercury. So, I cleaned it up and threw it in the trash. But I also vaccumed it. That is my concern. I saw somewhere that you should not vaccum it up. So, I am worried that I need to get rid of my vaccum. I need some help here. And I am having trouble finding answers.
Thanks

Before you buy a CF Lightbulb please check out this web page for dangers:
http://au.messages.yahoo.com/news/top-stories/638097/

The article cited by Mark Petereit "The CFL mercury nightmare" is nothing more than a poorly written piece of alarmist propaganda written by an energy industry shill. The amount of mercury in a CFL is one-fifth of that found in a wristwatch battery, and hundreds of times less than that found in other common household applications (thermometers, thermostats, switches, etc.). Even if one breaks, the risk of exposure is extremely small if proper care is taken during cleanup (sweep, don't vacuum debris; wipe down area with damp paper towel; dispose of all debris & cleaning materials in a sealed bag at a hazardous household waste center).

So out of all of the comments about concerns of breaking and properly cleaning up of a CF bulb there is not one response. Why is that?

Here are the recommendations for cleaning up a CF bulb if it breaks. This is from a document that is on the Energystar.gov website:

How should I clean up a broken fluorescent bulb?
EPA recommends the following clean-up and disposal guidelines:
1. Open a window and leave the room (restrict access) for at least 15 minutes.
2. Remove all materials you can without using a vacuum cleaner.
􀂃 Wear disposable rubber gloves, if available (do not use your bare hands).
􀂃 Carefully scoop up the fragments and powder with stiff paper or cardboard.
􀂃 Wipe the area clean with a damp paper towel or disposable wet wipe.
􀂃 Sticky tape (such as duct tape) can be used to pick up small pieces and powder.
3. Place all cleanup materials in a plastic bag and seal it.
􀂃 If your state permits you to put used or broken CFLs in the garbage, seal the CFL in two plastic bags and put into the outside trash (if no other disposal or recycling options are available).
􀂃 Wash your hands after disposing of the bag.
4. The first time you vacuum the area where the bulb was broken, remove the vacuum bag once done cleaning the area (or empty and wipe the canister) and put the bag and/or vacuum debris, as well as the cleaning materials, in two sealed plastic bags in the outdoor trash or protected outdoor location for normal disposal.

The glass used in a CFL tube is considerably thicker than the glass used for an argon bulb. Plus, the plastic ballast adds a small amount of flexing room. I don't know if anyone's done a study, but my estimated guess is that a CFL is 5 or 10 times less likely to break than a traditional bulb.

syn's comment regarding a comprehensive life cycle study that has never been done - the manufacture of cfls being energy intensive, not to mention shipping, storage, disposal, etc. - tells me he/she's the only person on this entire site thinking beyond his own house. On another point when bulb life is questioned the answer is invariably " these lamps must be left on at all times to last as long as claimed " Surley, syn and I can't be the only ones to see the lunacy here. Most workplaces are occupied for 40 to 50 hours per week. Cfls burning for 168 hours or incandescent burning for 50 hours? Please explain what it is I'm missing here.

Not all people recycle the bulbs and the reality is...MORE MERCURY in the groundwater...how bout a lightbulb with no mercury ie incandescent bulbs lit with Nuke energy...no mercury VOILA....If your gonna be "green" be green

Hmmm now...let me get this straight...

How should I clean up a broken fluorescent bulb?
EPA recommends the following clean-up and disposal guidelines:
1. Open a window and leave the room (restrict access) for at least 15 minutes.
2. Remove all materials you can without using a vacuum cleaner.
􀂃 Wear disposable rubber gloves, if available (do not use your bare hands).
􀂃 Carefully scoop up the fragments and powder with stiff paper or cardboard.
􀂃 Wipe the area clean with a damp paper towel or disposable wet wipe.
􀂃 Sticky tape (such as duct tape) can be used to pick up small pieces and powder.
3. Place all cleanup materials in a plastic bag and seal it.
􀂃 If your state permits you to put used or broken CFLs in the garbage, seal the CFL in two plastic bags and put into the outside trash (if no other disposal or recycling options are available).
􀂃 Wash your hands after disposing of the bag.
4. The first time you vacuum the area where the bulb was broken, remove the vacuum bag once done cleaning the area (or empty and wipe the canister) and put the bag and/or vacuum debris, as well as the cleaning materials, in two sealed plastic bags in the outdoor trash or protected outdoor location for normal disposal.

And for an incandescant bulb...

1. Sweep up the broken glass and put it in the garbage.

Disposable rubber gloves...made from rubber produced by a fossil fuel burning plant.

Seal in 2 plastic bags...plastic bags made from oil in a fossil fuel burning plant.

Put the vacuum bag in 2 more sealed plastic bags...made from oil and produced in a fossil fuel burning plant.

Disposable wipes? More garbage?

And this is supposed to be environmentally friendly?

And you think fro a minute that everyone of the Great Unwashed is going to follow this advice?
Why isn't this information on the packaging or in the media?

I am willing to bet that this post will be either edited or censored.

I would like to see some information about LED replacement bulbs for the answer to our lighting problems............

The great "Unwashed" have been cleaning up broken florescent bulbs FOR DECADES.

Those long tubes have been used on a large scvale for a long time. What is the difference?

Many kids learns about cleaning them up at their first job when they break a bulb: "Don't breathe the fumes and go get a broom."

Sheesh.

You can extend the life of a incandescent bulb by 20 times if you install a lighting control system. With a lighting control systems you can do a soft on and soft off, which is what cause over 60% failures of incandescent bulbs. Furthermore if you dim the lights by 50% you can save 40% of the electricity, making incandescents very energy conscience without the draw backs of CFLs

I would like to know as I am sure everyone else would, what are the side effects from a bulb breaking? Please explain

The graph provides a great comparison to the mercury debacle here. Unfortunately, it's a bit misleading. The data used assumes coal is used for 100% of the electricity for the bulb. Coal accounts for only 1/2 of the electricity in reality. Other forms (hydro, oil, nuclear, etc)
easily emit a third of the "embodied" mercury that coal emits- remember that concrete and steel for nuclear and hydro use a lot of coal energy to mine the nuclear fuel or construct dams.

This would lead one to conclude that the coal burned to power the incandescent bulb produces about 6.5mg, not 10mg as stated. This also means the "average" CFL uses about 5.6mg of mercury. The discrepancy is really not so large in reality (only 17% less rather than 56%
less).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mercury_emissions_by_light_source_%28en%29.svg

The other issue is that CFL's do not last as long as rated, and the average residential application would certainly fall somewhere in the lifetime-cut-in-half zone.....

http://www.interiordesign.net/GreenZoneNews/CA6465981.html?subhead=Ask+Penny&nid=2068

Of course, incandescent bulbs suffer a similar hortened fate if used intermittently. Yet the lifetime reductions are easy to get right from GE. You'll note the reductions in life are a small fraction of the deep cuts in CFL lifetimes given similar use models. For this post, let's assume the CFL life will be cut by 50% and the incandescent by roughly 20% with intermittent use.This means the embodied mercury for the incandescent bulb per hour of operation increases to a basis of 6.5mg*1.2= 7.8mg. The mercury associated with using CFL's increases t a whopping 11.1mg.

Ok lets go over it again....incandescents: 7.8mg....CFL's: 11.1mg.

Now let's look at the nature of the mercury embodied in the CFL versus incandescents....

Mercury is largely mined from cinnebar, rather than as a mining by-product.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_%28element%29

Roughly 1/3 of the supply of mercury in past decades is obtained from primitive mining practices in South America. For each ounce of mercury that is gleaned from South America, an equal amount is lost to the rivers and surface tailings of the environment. Other processes, on average, waste only about 10-15% of the environmentally available mercury (ie, Chinese, Russian sources). Because mercury is a global commodity, the waste means that for every ounce of mercury purified, 1.4 ounces is lost to rivers, streams, the air, and the surface (refs from starting at the Wiki article). This puts the ultimate mercury emission form using an incandescent bulb at 7.8mg and CFL's at 15.54.

The mercury from using purified sources in CFL's is clearly nearly twice the mercury emitted from coal plants.

I didn't include the energy that is required to produce the two styles of bulbs in the first place- the CFL may require somewhat more given how it is made, but I have been unable to glean info on what the story really is there.

Do the research- information is surprisingly available on this topic to make data-driven, reality-based assessments rather than idle opinions or marketeering messages. I think the take-away message is that if mercury is important to you, CFL's are clearly worse- no doubt about it unless you don't think the real data is relevant. From an energy perspective, the choice seems to be about even. From a waste disposal perspective...well, the choice is also clear. Unless you have areas you need lights for long periods (greater than an hour perhaps), it is not clear that CFL's are the answer for many if not most residential applications.

I think the drive will be to make these numbers look a lot better for CFL's in the future. Less mercury, longer life, etc. But let's not kid ourselves in the green movement- being green requires a lot of creativity, awareness, and investigation, and the fruits of those traits may lead us to realize we need to move in different directions. I bought CFL's for the entire house and was a great fan, but now I don't see that my decision was such a wonderful idea.

Further to post by Lee. The comparison of energy required to produce and transport CFLs compared to incandescents can be roughly estimated by measuring the volume and weight of each product. By that I mean : 4 incandescents-- 170 grams and 75 cubic inches . 4 CFLs-- 720 ( yes, 720 ) grams and 181 cubic inches. Fossil fuel is expened from the first shovel full of raw material until they are carried into the consumer's home. Also of note : the wasted energy of incandescent lights is in the form of heat. Where I live( western Canada ) we illuminate with hydro-electricity and we heat with fossil fuel. As well, we consume heat for approximately 75% of the year.

Here's another point to consider, folks. We are told 75% of incandescent energy is wasted in heat. Replace 27 100W incandescent bulbs in a medium sized home with 27 CFLs. You now have a heating shortfall of 2000W. That's two four foot baseboard heaters. That may not seem significant, but it is real.

Why is it acceptable to add Mercury to the enviroment for the cause of "GW" when just a few years ago mercury cell batteries were banned from the marketplace? MC batteries are a drop in the bucket in mercury volume compared to the mercury entering the market from Cf's I have no less than 45 items in my home that could use CF bulbs in comparison to 2 items that need MC batteries. This amounts to 225mg of Mercury from CF's and 40mg from the MC batteries. Which is the greater threat to the enviroment? Both, none? The logic or facts that I am reading from treehugger is that CF's will reduce the demand on the power grid thus reducing mercury release from fossil fuel power plants and that the offset will reduce merc released to the enviroment. Good theory, but the reality is that the power grids are running at capacity and over and the use of CF's may ease the demand so that there will be fewer brown outs but it will not reduce the hours and level of operations of these plants. If you believe that it will you probably agree in carbon offsets.

I could be wrong, but I'm sensing a trend here, as facts and data catch up with hype, hysteria, and marketing.

"The highest source of mercury in America’s air and water results from the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, at utilities that supply electricity."

This may be the case NOW, but what about in 2013 when CFLs start replacing incandescents everywhere on a truly massive global scale and start entering our waste stream at those levels?

"Since a compact fluorescent bulb uses 75 percent less energy than an incandescent bulb, and lasts at least six times longer, it is responsible for far less mercury pollution in the long run. A coal-burning power plant will emit four times more mercury to produce the electricity for an incandescent bulb than for a compact fluorescent."

Sorry, but as a former student of the sciences, I have to ask what that has to do with the cost of tea in China? Unless you're comparing that to a figure for the amount of mercury that was actually used to produce the bulb and what's actually IN the bulb, how can you state that using them will really result in less mercury being placed in our environment in the long run?

Additionally, there's a huge difference between trace mercury belched into the air by a coal plant and trace mercury turning your children's own bedroom into a toxic waste site because a stray ball broke the bedside lamp.

Why not make better incandescents instead? duh.

Would'nt it be something if a big box retailer like Home depot took the high road in helping to properly dispose of the new and increasingly popular energy efficient mercury filled cfl light bulbs. Its one thing to promote the idea that saving energy helps save the planet by reducing toxic carbons emitted from energy producing plants while allowing our land fills to be potentially contaminated with improperly disposed of
mercury filled cfl bulbs. When will not only the manufacturers but the retailers who will in the end make enormous profits by promoting
this product take responsibility for its proper disposal. Which will in turn help to educate the public as well. Or do we do what we Americans always do and wait till its to late and its necessary to spend billions to clean up all our land fills. I work for home depot and I do promote
the cfl bulbs to my customers but I would be more comfortable doing so if I knew that they would be disposed of properly .

Dan, you seem to be assuming disposal is the only issue still at large here. We can intelligently assume, given the difference in volume, weight, and materials of CFLs compared to incandescents that manufacturing, shipping, and storing of the ' ready for sale' CFLs is more harmful to our dear old planet. The question no one is answering, or even asking is " are we making up for that in the use and disposal of them ".

Is it true that all fluorescent lights are manufactured in China because of the toxicity problems posed by mercury used in their production?

Is it true that all fluorescent lights are manufactured in China because of the toxicity problems posed by mercury used in their production?

Collin I'm assuming that cfls are the wave of the future and that proper disposal is an issue that needs to be addressed. A company such as Home Depot could and hopefully will promote proper disposal by providing information as well as drop off points in their many stores nation wide. As far as whether cfls really do help save energy taking into account production costs ect . ect. maybe you could post some hard facts supporting your claim I'm sure we all would be interested in your findings. But until then we can help save the planet on the back end by properly disposing of the ones already in use.

My claim is in the form of hard facts : 170 grams and 75 cubic inches for a pack of four incandescents. 720 grams and 181cubic inches for a bundle of four CFLs. These products leave a " carbon footprint " starting from long before you screw one into your ceiling and continueing long after you remove it.

Until someone is willing to commision a study on the full cycle carbon footprint of CFLs compared to incandescents from mining and logging of raw materials to manufacture and package both to the disposal of them we are only guessing that there is any benefit whatsoever to CFLs. Most of the people who visit a site like this probably believe they are saving the planet just because their monthly hydro bill is lower.

Yes, Kathy, most CFLs, if not all, are made in China for several reasons. Labour is cheap and air quality regulations are virtually non-existent, to name a couple. Incidentally, most of the electricity in China is generated by burning coal.

GE makes their florecent bulbs using cheap labor in mexico. thats great a light bulb when broken that can cause nervous system damage and death in children is being cheaply made in mexico .. wow... think i will wait until they come up with something better. i dont think most people even understand how toxic mercury is.

Your're not telling the whole danger. My college students are studying this issues right now. What about the broken mercury filled bulb on the floor of a home and a child crawling to touch it? No thanks. I'll stock up on incandescents before daddy government says bye bye to them. I'd rather have the mercury in the landfill and near the plant than on my kitchen floor.

I recently read an article on the danger of mercury in compact fluorescent bulbs and the clean up steps required upon breakage. I than found your site and read through the postings on this subject. I can now say that I find it insane to even consider using these bulbs and risking the potential harm if a bulb breaks and one of my chlldren was exposed to the dangers before taking the necessary cleanup steps. Comparing this to the mecury in other products is meaningless since there is very llittle likelihood that breakage/exposure will result from these products as significant likihood in the case of lighjt bulbs. I don't care how long they last or how much less enegy they use- I will be using incandescent until somebody invents a safer fluorescent.

Even if the safety issue with the mercury didn't exist, there still is no carbon footprint data to support the notion that there is any benefit at all. These things have a three part carbon footprint
1 Manufacture, package, and ship.
2 Energy consumption while in use.
3 Disposal after use.
The sale of this product is a result of marketing and hype -- nothing else. Nobody seems to be looking beyond # 2.

Dude, I have little kids in the house. I don't care about burning power plants and such stuff. I just don't want my kids to have brain damage because some idiot decides to place killer chemicals inside light bulbs.

Here's a thought, don't be clumsy. I've replaced all my bulbs, those of my parents, and in our building. Never dropped one. Further, the glass is very thick, and they are far sturdier than incand. Alas, my electricity bills are far lower, the light is fine, and none have burned out. Some were made in china, some mexico, and some here in the US. Make your own conclusions, but for the time being, it's a superior solution to saving money, energy, and helping the demand load on the electricity generation facilities. Note: the military and many forward thinking businesses are completely switching, as it's just good business. Lots of things are dangerous in life, just use prudence and caution.

Here's a thought, don't be clumsy. I've replaced all my bulbs, those of my parents, and in our building. Never dropped one. Further, the glass is very thick, and they are far sturdier than incand. Alas, my electricity bills are far lower, the light is fine, and none have burned out. Some were made in china, some mexico, and some here in the US. Make your own conclusions, but for the time being, it's a superior solution to saving money, energy, and helping the demand load on the electricity generation facilities. Note: the military and many forward thinking businesses are completely switching, as it's just good business. Lots of things are dangerous in life, just use prudence and caution.

The marketing hype machine is running full tilt. Has the world become even more nuts? How can manufacturing and disposing of a mercury based product possibly be considered "Green". Furthermore, companies such as Walmart have refused to take the responsible position of instituting a recycling drop-off, telling isn't it? So the average person just tosses them in the trash, endangering those downstream and ultimately endangering our future by concentrating mercury in our ground. If you break one in your home, I hope you don't have small children around, mercury is a known neurotoxin, the 2nd most toxic substance found on earth.

computer nerds can be green treehuggers?

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/01/thinnovation_th.php

:-)

CFL bulb breakage and cleanup seems to be a bigger issue than many people think. The Maine State DEP did a pretty thorough study (couple of hundred pages, fancy mercury vapor test equipment, multiple brands of bulbs, different heights for measurement, etc.). They came up with some recommendations for cleanup that you can find in a nice 1-page summary in Appendix E of their report (on the right-hand side of the upcoming link). Basically, however, leaving the room immediately following the break (after opening windows) and NOT vacuuming up the residue would be two main things to remember. Also, the residue and other things (e.g. rubber gloves) should be disposed of in a tightly sealed glass jar, NOT in a plastic bag, and brought to an appropriate waste disposal facility.

You can read the extensive study or get the 1-page cleanup summary from the Maine DEP here:

-- Fritz

Most jurisdictions don't currently have a way to dispose of CFs properly. As usual, gov't agencies travel the learning curve at a snail's pace. This is the recommendation of my local jursidiction:
Recycle if you can, throw away if you must. If you throw away, place the bulb(s) in a brown paper bag and seal inside a zip lock bag. (I'm just the messenger) If recycling, store the used bulbs until you have a number of them and take them to your local recycling center on hazardous materials disposal day. Do NOT put the bulbs in your regular recycling.

IKEA sells a good CF and will take old bulbs back to recycle properly.

I have been reading extensively about cleaning up a broken CFL. It scares the hell out of me. I have children and pets that play on the floor. Turning off my AC and let the room "air out" for 15 minutes? Rubber gloves, sealed glass jars, turning off the AC the next few times I vacuum that area, are you kidding me?

The rationalization that coal fired power stations put off more mercury doesn't fly either. What about the alternative energy that we are producing and planning to use? When we get to where coal and oil only produce 10-20% of our energy needs and everybody has CFL's, then what? Now we have CFL's spread out in every house in every town and landfill?

Or are we just kidding ourselves with alternative energy sources?

I am sorry but I will spend a few extra bucks on power and keep the peace of mind of having a healthy environment in my house, something that I actually have control of.

I just had a compact flourescent installed in an energy audit - less than three weeks later, the glass cracked near the base and turned black. I guess we breathed the mercury vapor. Now we are all coughing. I'm not sure if the cough is related, but it makes me wonder whether this is long-term sustainable.

I suggest switching over to LED lights. They are getting really efficient and contain NO mercury and can be sent to your local eRecycling facility when they burn out.

The answer is Halogen Energy Saver (HES) bulb. They are pleasing, efficient (meet 2014 standards) and have zero mercury (which is now believed to cause autism).

I would like to applaud Home Depot for walking the talk when it comes to the environment. The company has recently implemented an in store recycling
program that allows customers to bring in their spent cfl bulbs for proper disposal. I'm not sure how many other stores offer this important service
to their customers but you can be sure Home Depot is a leader Who's example sets a standard for responsible retailers World Wide.

Compact fluorescent lights use less power, but we are advised to avoid switching them on and off too often (which means what exactly?).

So this means I end up leaving light on when in the past I would have switched it off.

Are we therefore using the same energy as we did before, since I am leaving a light on when I would have turned it off?

Hi all,

was looking to find back on the internet..something found..about 2 years ago.. on a french site called futura-sciences.com... not anymore on the site. This site is for informations news on sciences subject.

On the site.. when I did lookout.... an interresting article..about just that.. CF light bulb.. a Japanese scientist had developped in his small laboratory.. a light bulb with no mercury inside..and with tampering with the reflectory material inside the lamp..found another way of even putting more light out of the bulb..but with no mercury inside.. zero....

I am quite sure.. he did not filled a patent for it.. but surely.. his invention was bought by a large corporation.. and putted in some secret files...somewhere... but if this guy did found something.. it is possible to have those...CF lamps come clean in a near(hoping the near is soon) futur.

Badly I did not made a copy of the article, cuz I would had listed a copy of it here... still looking on the web...if any article report the invention of this guy.. but I am telling you.. it does exist a solution...with no HG in the light bulb... even then.. just imagine... ALL fluorescent lamps in office building..with no mercury inside them.. a market of billion of billions of dollars....

I did went to the big store...recently..to ask to a clerk where the led bulbs were.. he said ..we do not have them yet... he then asked his manager..who asked to the store manager...who told me..if you want leds lamps...just ask and we will get them for you to find them the nxt time you visit.. took 3 weeks.. and yes they had ordered some.. yes expensive... but.. like me.. if we all asking our store managers.. to bring to the market right now.. this new CF lamp with no mercury inside.. they will order it...and maybe..the corporation..who bought the patent..will put it to the market.
This is only a wait and see thing... but this will come soon.
In the meantime.... my CF are not so bad.. as I do care for them...and recycle them in thoses special places..for hazards wastes.

Best of all to you for a bright futur

Bricktal
Montreal
Canada