One Bulb to Rule Them All

although i agree with the sentiment (though why we need to be told by celebrities is beyond me) i think the quote:
"this bulb with help reverse the effects of global warming"
is complete nonsense - what do these bulbs do? reforst the amazon? absorb emission? I think not.

Thjis is the sort of Al Gore crap that keeps the cynics cynical. Please celebrities, keep your mouths shut unless you have something useful (and factually correct) to say.

CFL's use less power. But they also contain MERCURY! Most people will just throw them into the trash when they are done, which is not good. Would be nice for them to inform people that when they do burn out to dispose of them properly if that's even possible. LED's are the future!!

They do contain mercury, but the biggest contributor to mercury is power plants. so using less energy=less mercury. One should not throw away the bulbs, but if people do, the mercury is minimal, and the amount of mercury they prevented from entering the environment is more than that in the discarded CFL.
see:
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf and
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/earthwise/mercury-in-cfls.html

Matt,

CFLs will *help* to reverse global warming because global warming is caused by increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere and CFLs put much less C02 in the atmosphere than conventional incadescent light bulbs. Therefore if people use CFLs instead of regular light bulbs they will help reverse the trend of rising CO2 levels which will help to reverse global warming and its related effects.

Scott,

As far as mercury, yes, there is a small amount of mercury in CFLs, but LESS mercury will enter the environment if CFLs are used rather than incadescent lights because incandescents use more energy and if that energy is produced by a coal fired plant (which is common) then they put more mercury into the environment than CFLs will even if they are not recycled.

And it is ironic that you chide the celebs in the video for not informing people how to dispose of CFLs properly and then fail to do so yourself. This USEPA fact sheet is a good place to start,

http://www.nema.org/lamprecycle/epafactsheet-cfl.pdf.

The mercury issue is tricky. IF fluourescent bulbs really lasted 5000-7000 hours, AND they are properly recycled, then the mercury avoided by buring less coal is a net benefit. But in the real world, CFLs last closer to 2000 hours (they fail prematurely due to vibration, too many on/off cycles, and cold), and not all electricity is generated by coal- thus tipping the balance the other way. But of course it still helps alleviate CO2, so make the switch to CCFLs.

I do believe (full disclosure, I have a small investment in www.laminalighting.com) that LED lights are a much better solution, and ready today. They contain no mercury, are 2x more efficient than fluorescents in actually delivering light on-task, will be 4x in the future, truly last 50,000 hours, are fully dimmable, and already provide signifant lifecyle cost advantages.

So, in commercial installations where lifecycle costs dominate, the decision to use LEDs are purely economic (tempered by fear of the new), and will grow share with or without celebrity peer pressure. But we should never turn down help when offered- just find a way to make that offer useful...