Ontario Canada Bans Incandescent Bulbs

The only problem I see is there are times where an incan bulb works better such as on a light sensitive switch or dimmer.
Replacing refridgerators just for the sake of replacing them with more energy efficient ones seems like it would take more energy to build a new refriherator than what it would save.

What about the fact that CFL's contain hazardous materials. If Ontario switches, will they also set up the infrastructure to deal with the waste?

They should make exemptions for fridges if those ones are not easily replaceable.. but I heard that dimmers such up energy. Not sure on this and electrical energy calculation evades me so...

What a sad day.

It's a shame they decided to toxify the Earth with all of the mercury that comes pouring out of these so-called "green" light bulbs when they are thrown into the wastebasket.

Gaia is weeping.

LA: 10 times as much mercury comes from the burning of coal to fire up an incandescent.

2) there is recycling. Gaia is dancing.

"10 times as much mercury comes from the burning of coal to fire up an incandescent."

Surely you're not advancing the argument that just because coal contains mercury we can afford to add YET ANOTHER source of mercury poisoning to our landfills?

And surely you don't think that the coal burnt to fire up an incandescent is somehow NOT going to continue to be burnt lighting CFLs.

Not to mention all the illeffects that will occur when we have to tear down traditional incandescent manufacturing plants and then build new CFL manufacturing plants.

The fact is that we don't need new ways to poison the planet with mercury.

Wouldn't you agree we should eliminate coal AND toxic CFLs.

Gaia is at a minimum very, very depressed that so-called "green" advocates are pushing mercury-containing CFLs onto an unwitting public.

Y'know, the filaments of incandescent bulbs are made out of tungesten. I'm pretty certain, gram for gram, far more tungsten than the mercury in incandescents.

Tungsten is a non-toxic natural element, containing no mercury.

Mercury, also a natural element, is however, toxic to humans. We have no business spreading it in our landfills, where it will surely seep into our groundwater to poison us, by allowing the large-scale manufacture of CFLs.

That Treehugger is advocating the manufacture and distribution of poisonous light bulbs is simply beyond me.

Bad. Bad. Policy.

I think at the very least, Gaia is sick you putting words in her mouth.

The central question isn't whether we should be creating new classifications of mercury emissions, which matters to the environment not a whit, but whether we're creating more or less *total* mercury emissions.

CFLs present an opportunity to prevent mercury emissions from entering the environment because they help to reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants. A coal-fired power plant will emit 13.6 milligrams of mercury to produce electricity required to use an incandescent light bulb, compared to 3.3 milligrams for a CFL.

PDF link (energystar.gov)

Even if you break one, you're still at a net reduction of mercury emissions, as CFLs only contain about 5mg of mercury (some much less).

Please do some research before posting, as you're likely to do more harm than good otherwise.

Let me break it down for you in terms you can understand:

The mercury produced as a by-product of coal firing does not end up in our groundwater.

The mercury produced as a result of the manufacture of poisonous lightbulbs will inevitably lead there.

Babies will die of mercury poisoning thanks to CFLs.

If you want to get rid of coal ... let's have that discussion. But don't for a minute think that producing and selling to an unwitting public everyday household items containing a chemical KNOWN to poison human beings is the solution to any of our problems.

I for one would eliminate coal fired electric generation. But until we can do that, creating poison light bulbs simply is not the answer.

Shall we just switch off all the lights right now?

"Tungsten is a non-toxic natural element, containing no mercury."

Tungsten is NOT non-toxic. It's difficult to oxidize, more so than mercury, but I assure you tungsten is something you DON'T want running loose in your ecosystem.

Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant or intentionally misleading.

I fully support a safe-disposal/recycling regime for flourescents. And the careless dispoasal of flourescent light tubes (far more fragile than light globes) is already illegal.

The mercury produced as a by-product of coal firing does not end up in our groundwater.

No, because Gaea snorts it all up out of her infinite compassion for the human race. Where the hell else do you think it goes? Flying saucers harvest it all? If a smaller percentage off it doesn't end up in our groundwater, it's because it's in our food. The point is, it's in the biosphere, and humans and wildlife are exposed to it.

Not to mention, this is legislation *against* incandescents, not *for* CFLs. spring for LED lights or bioluminescent algae if that floats your boat.

And this whole mercury discussion has neglected to mention all the other heavy metals that won't go into the biosphere with the reduced energy consumption of non-incandescent bulbs too. PCBs, anyone?

and here's an article about how acid rain (product of coal combustion) contributes to the methylization of mercury: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/mnenvironment/spring2006/acidrain.html

What a lot of people don't consider is that incandescents are actually VERY efficient heat producers. Thus, in the winter the positive effects of CFL's approach zero as the 'wasted' energy goes directly to heating your home. Since there is a much greater need for light in winter then summer the efficiency claims are not so great.

I've tried to replace almost all possible lights in my house w/ CFL's but it is annoying how dim they are to start and I don't typically leave lights on for very long. LEDs and OLED's will be coming soon enough.

I was just reading an article that GE has figured out a way to make incandescents as efficient as CFLs.

I actually don't think this policy makes a whole lot of sense. What am I supposed to put in my old architectural dimmable lamps??

If you tax the carbon (and mercury) instead, you don't have to come up with a thousand different policies and regulations for every energy application. This lets the market and innovation sort it out on its own without penalizing any specific company/individual.

Before we replace all our incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescents, I think we need to consider how and where these supposedly “greener” lights are manufactured, how much fossil fuel is used to produce them, and how much toxic waste ends up in the air and water where the factories are located.

We also need to consider whether or not it makes sense to use a fluorescent bulb where the “unwanted” heat from an incandescent bulb might actually be of benefit. Greater energy efficiency can be achieved by integrating the heating and lighting systems in the home. For example, radiant heat lamps can be connected in series to provide both heat and light in bathrooms, bedrooms and other suitable locations. These bulbs keep tables, chairs and counter tops warm to the touch so that the air temperature in the home can be kept much lower. If designed intelligently, this can save a huge amount of energy.

Meanwhile, we need to get rid of all the lights in our public spaces that are unnecessarily bright -- and sometimes just unnecessary. Many streetlights, for example, are so intensely bright that it’s painful to look at them. Lights such as these waste an immense amount of electricity.

Most important of all, we need to start designing our homes and other buildings to use the heat and light from the sun DIRECTLY. The sun provides all the energy we need, every day. The more we use today’s sunshine, the less we will need to rely on yesterday’s sunshine (i.e. fossil fuels). We haven’t even begun to make this essential change.

Hohumm..

My first thoughts were pretty much in agreement with "all above" but it's pretty easy to be a critic.

An old saying, "Nobody kicks a dead dog" comes to mind.

Good or bad this makes people think and hopefully the bugs get worked out in the process. Before the attack, I do realize that lots of bad has come from well meaning politicians.

It is true that CFL have some mercury. But coal plant also produce mercury. Consequently, having to choose between two evil, I choose the CFL. This is why:

• It is almost impossible to control the mercury emission of a coal plant. It goes into the air that might travel hundreds or thousand of Kilometres. The coal burned in Ontario producing a lot of nasty chemical does not stop at the border and reach part of US and others Canadian provinces like it neighbour Quebec. Consequently, some Quebec resident feel the nasty consequence of Coal burning even if there is not a single coal plant in this Province. Limiting the air borne mercury production is acting responsibly for your neighbour.
  
• Recycling mercury in CFL or disposing of this nasty stuff responsibly is much easier than for air born particulate. Recycling mercury will create some jobs when air borne mercury just help to fill hospitals and the funeral home.
  
• Reducing the consumption of electricity, coal and gas is the only way to achieve a sustainable world. Acting now is important. The CFL are not a new and unknown technology. It good and bad point are well documented and solution exist to alleviate most of the issue with the bad point (mostly mercury and some electronic chip). I say, go for it.
  
• LED might or might not be a better answers… but practically speaking, they are not ready. Most of what is on the market at this time have a very low performance per watts (similar to incandescent). Some new model are promising. However, LED are electronic devices that needs to be dispose off correctly too.

NOTE: Quebec is massively Hydro (93%). This also create some specific issue with mercury but in the water of rivers. Fish contamination exist and the consumption of them in large quantity might be hazardous. This is to says that there is no easy fix for mercury.

All this weeping Gaia/Gaea talk makes this discussion sound coo-coo crazy. The facts are pretty clear that reducing non-renewable energy consumption, especially coal, is a net gain for the earth and natural environment. The economic stage is set for a large net effect of Ontarians reducing their energy use while saving money. This is sound legislation that addresses not only the environment but issues of income while still being progressive. I find the comments of other blog readers fretting over milligrams of mercury rather bourgeois. If that's an issue go outfit your home with LED fixtures so you can be further condescending toward us proletarians.

Canada is jumping the gun on eliminating incandescent bulbs. To date, CFLs suitable for motion controlled lamp fixtures do not exist. These fixtures are actually more efficient using incandescent blubs due to their short ON time. CFLs fail early when cycled on an off a lot. CFLs do not tolerate operating in a totally enclosed fixture,, which provides little cooling for the electronic components and thereby early failure.

Some applications benefit from use of CFLs,Others are totally inappropriate. Betting that a solution for the latter will arrive in time for a legislated deadline is unwise at best.

I have been in the process of converting to an all CFL household only to find out by trial and error (and some googling) that CFL's fail very quickly in track lighting and recessed fixtures.

In my online searches I have stumbled upon some real horror stories about people who have broken the bulbs in their homes which has resulted in thousands of dollars worth of cleanup to remove the mercury.

I did read in the past the post about the quality of various manufacturers, but do you have any information on "best practices" for use and safety/disposal/mercury contamination topics?

As far as the mercury information goes - I am not looking for a debate about how much mercury ends up in the environment from other sources.... I just want to know if my kids are going to get mercury poisoning if a bulb breaks in their rooms. Real scientific responses only please.

Mr. Kahan: I cannot give you a "real scientific response" because I am not a real scientist, but a CFL has 4mg of mercury, a thousanth of an ounce, smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. A regular 4' fluorescent tube has a lot more. A thermometer has 500mg. I will put the question to our scientific specialist Helen Suh Mackintosh and perhaps she will do a post on it.

Aside from the ecological issues, I have been searching the internet for hours upon hours for any kind of report that would demonstrates the OVERALL energy reduction by using CFLs. The only thing it seems anyone is looking at is electrical usage and nobody has reported anything on the total impact on home energy usage - when it comes to this they say that heat from bulbs is insignificant or undesirable, but I thought the whole point behind this CFL drive was to multiply a small savings by millions of households? All that energy star, efficient lighting and appliances have done is made our homes cooler and electrical bill less. While this is good at times when we are running AC, and is also good for all exterior applications, it doesn't help our other utilities any.

Without a doubt we will lose some (even barely noticaeble) heating aspects from the incandescent lights, especially in winter or on cold nights. Since the majority of Canadian's houses are heated by either electricity or natural gas, the overall saving will be negated since Canada is so dependent on Hydro (renewable resource), and the worse case is we would contribute more CO2 from the burning of primary fuels (natural gas).

This is a case where we are all being led by politicians, special interest groups and large corporations to follow the bandwagon without a full understanding of the large picture. and now the government of Canada is telling me that after 2012 I have to buy expensive, inferior quality lighting? instead of banning this, why would they not let the market do its thing (if I cold buy good quality electrically efficient lights at a price that would save me money and reduce my total energy footprint I'd be on it.)

In the meantime, the things we can do that actual makes an impact is:
-turn off lights when we do not need them.
-improve our homes with efficient furnaces, insulation, windows and doors and seal the cracks.
-use cold water to wash laundry
-hang clothes to dry
-turn the temp down in winter and up in summer when AC is on
-turn down our water heater temperature
-use more blankets at night
-use LED, CFL or motion sensors for exterior lighting
-use public transit, bicycles, walking and carpools
-reduce, reuse recycle.
-etc.etc.

as you can see there is a lot we can do already without having to resort to shortsighted, pointless tactics like this.

Until I fly into a city that doesn't have their baseball diamonds and soccer fields lit up from every angle well past the time that people are actually playing baseball, I'm not going to worry about my lightbulbs.

Your list of things we can do all involve me reducing my comfort. Why would I do that?

I walk to the supermarket (15min each way). I use public transport. I never use a tumble dryer.

I ONLY use incandescent light bulbs.

CFL lights and LEDs run off AC flicker, I see them flicker out the corners of my eyes, and I get head aches within 5 minutes of sitting in fluorescent lighting.

I accept fluorescent lights at work, because I need to work... I won't accept fluorescent lights in my home.

Raise the tax on energy, and let me choose how I want to use my energy.

It may cost you over 2K (USD) to clean up a broken CFL bulb. Screw that.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=aa7796aa-e4a5-4c06-be84-b62dee548fda

LA: The National Post picked up an article from Fox News by a guy who runs a website called junkscience.org, which quoted only the first paragraph of a Maine newspaper. It is a complete distortion of the article, and the Maine Department of the environment says so. We are preparing an analysis of this to be published soon.

I'm not going to worry about my lightbulbs but all changes every time

If you don't believe any of this I encourage you to do your own research to verify:

The energy required to produce CFLs is 10 to 20 times that of an incandescent.

CFLs weigh more and are bigger therefore they cost more to distribute.

Power factor for CFLs is twice as poor as for incandescents. This means that whatever energy savings you get by switching to CFLs, the power utility realizes only HALF that savings in energy production due to increased transmission/distribution losses

CFLs are temperature intollerant and are intended to be used only in ventilated fixtures. They fail far more quickly than rated in typical use because of this. Increased rate of failure means greater replacement rate = means more energy spent on producing CFLs = more power plant mercury emissions and CO2

Ideally we wouldn't produce ANY mercury, but the environment has natural processes that *help* deal with non-concentrated mercury emitted from coal power plants. Mercury concentrated in landfills from CFLs is a far less fixable problem.

The longterm health effects of high-frequency light flickering inherent in CFLs has not been thoroughly studied.

There is no standardization for CFLs like there is incansecents, giving manufacturers the opportunity to publish misleading technical information about their products. Presumably this will change but banning incandescents prior to standardizing is a bad idea.

Unlike incandescents, CFLs require a wide variety of non-reclaimable materials to produce.

When CFLs fail, plastic on the housing often becomes melted, sometimes resulting in smoke. CFLs can fail instantaneously and violently if condensation occurs within them.

CFLs have a much higher inrush current (power consumed when they are first switched on) increasing the likelyhood of tripping a breaker or blowing a fuse.

Unlike incandescents, CFLs emit electro-magnetic interference, contributing to radio wave pollution.

No study on incandescent-less communities has been performed. A small-medium town should be studied for 1-2 years to measure the actual effects of using exclusively non-incandescents.