Science and Technology news... :: View topic - An interesting view on how 'green' CFLs really are:

Jan Panteltje · Guest

An interesting view on how 'green' CFLs really are:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/07/27/eco.flourescent/index.html

So, LEDs?

Martin Brown · Guest

Jan Panteltje wrote:
[quote]An interesting view on how 'green' CFLs really are:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/07/27/eco.flourescent/index.html
[/quote]
I think he overplays the failure rate somewhat. 10000 hours continuous
running is a lot more elapsed time than 1 year of normal use. The only
CFLs I have had to replace to date failed by mechanical damage not end
of life. The longest running ones are now at 6 years elapsed so their
output is begining to dip a bit.

However, I do agree that because they contain a trace of mercury they
should not be put in the general tip crushed waste stream but should
go the way of other small electrical goods and batteries. The amounts
of mercury involved are really very small though but it is essential
to their operation.

[quote]
So, LEDs?
[/quote]
You think gallium arsenide and its relatives will be better...less
mobile, plastic encased I suppose but still pretty toxic stuff.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax · Guest

Jan Panteltje wrote:
[quote]An interesting view on how 'green' CFLs really are:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/07/27/eco.flourescent/index.html

So, LEDs?
[/quote]
Yes, but probably not for at least another 5 years.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

Martin Brown · Guest

Jan Panteltje wrote:
[quote]An interesting view on how 'green' CFLs really are:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/07/27/eco.flourescent/index.html
[/quote]
I think he overplays the failure rate somewhat. 10000 hours continuous
running is a lot more elapsed time than 1 year for a normal use. The
only CFLs I have had to replace to date failed by mechanical damage not
end of life. The longest running ones are now at 6 years elapsed so
their output is beginign to dip a bit.

However, I do agree that because they contain a trace of mercury they
should not be in the general tip crushed waste stream but should go the
way of other small electrical goods and batteries.

[quote]
So, LEDs?
[/quote]
You think gallium arsenide and its relatives will be better...less
mobile, plastic encased I suppose but still pretty toxic stuff.

Regards,
Martin Brown
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Phil Hobbs · Guest

Jan Panteltje wrote:
[quote]An interesting view on how 'green' CFLs really are:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/07/27/eco.flourescent/index.html

So, LEDs?
[/quote]
The guy contradicts himself. He says that the mercury vapour escapes
from the garbage truck before it gets to the landfill, and then he says
it>s locally dangerous, unlike power plant mercury.

Once the vapour is in the air, it>s very unlikely to wind up anywhere
but the ocean. 100 million CFLs per year is something like 1000 pounds
of mercury, spread out over the Earth.

It>s a nit, folks.

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs

Jan Panteltje · Guest

On a sunny day (Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:37:44 -0400) it happened Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in
<488DBD98.7070706@electrooptical.net>:

[quote]Jan Panteltje wrote:
An interesting view on how 'green' CFLs really are:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/07/27/eco.flourescent/index.html

So, LEDs?

The guy contradicts himself. He says that the mercury vapour escapes
from the garbage truck before it gets to the landfill, and then he says
it>s locally dangerous, unlike power plant mercury.
[/quote]
Well, garbage trucks wil ldrive a lot before they are full and go to
a landfil.

[quote]Once the vapour is in the air, it>s very unlikely to wind up anywhere
but the ocean. 100 million CFLs per year is something like 1000 pounds
of mercury, spread out over the Earth.
[/quote]
Plus 100 million little PCBs with all sorts of chemicals.

[quote]It>s a nit, folks.
[/quote]
I am not sure, it is an interesting viewpoint at least.

[quote]Cheers,

Phil Hobbs
[/quote]

Phil Hobbs · Guest

Jan Panteltje wrote:
[quote]On a sunny day (Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:37:44 -0400) it happened Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in
488DBD98.7070706@electrooptical.net>:

Jan Panteltje wrote:
An interesting view on how 'green' CFLs really are:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/07/27/eco.flourescent/index.html

So, LEDs?
The guy contradicts himself. He says that the mercury vapour escapes
from the garbage truck before it gets to the landfill, and then he says
it>s locally dangerous, unlike power plant mercury.

Well, garbage trucks wil ldrive a lot before they are full and go to
a landfil.

Once the vapour is in the air, it>s very unlikely to wind up anywhere
but the ocean. 100 million CFLs per year is something like 1000 pounds
of mercury, spread out over the Earth.

Plus 100 million little PCBs with all sorts of chemicals.

It>s a nit, folks.

I am not sure, it is an interesting viewpoint at least.
[/quote]
Let me lay it out a little clearer, then.

The abundance of mercury in crustal rocks is about 67 ppb
and in seawater 50 ppt. (http://www.webelements.com/mercury/geology.html)

So 500 kg of mercury is equivalent to the natural background abundance in

500 kg/(6.7x10**-8) = 7x10*12 kg of country rock

or

500 kg/(5x10^-11) = 1 x 10**16 kg of seawater.

Sounds like a lot. One cubic metre of water weighs 1000 kg, so 100
million CFLs per year is equivalent to the mercury contained in
10**16/1000 or 10**13 cubic metres, or 10**4 cubic kilometres--a cube
21.5 km on a side. Sounds like really a lot, but the ocean>s volume is
about 1.3 billion cubic km. So if you dumped all that mercury into the
ocean and stirred, you>d increase the mercury content of seawater by

100%*10**4/(1.3*10^^9) or 0.0008% per year--and that>s 0.0008% of a
barely-measureable 50 ppt to begin with.

For country rock, the picture is even clearer. That 7x10**12 kg of
crust has a specific gravity of about 3.5 for rock, so let>s be generous
and say that soil is half rock and half organic matter. (I wish my
garden was that good, but that>s another story.)

So figure 1.7*10**3 kg / m**3 of rock for topsoil. That 1000 kg Hg is
then equivalent to the quantity of naturally-occurring mercury in

7*10**12 kg / 1000 kg/m**3 or 4.4 x 10**9 cubic metres of soil, or a
square 66 km on a side by 1m deep. That>s a big area, of course, but
the surface area of the USA alone is 10 million square km. So again, if
it>s evenly distributed, all that mercury doesn>t do squat.

So we can ignore mercury in the atmosphere, and we>re left with
concentrations in certain areas.

There>s no doubt that mercury pollution in Minamata Bay led to high
mercury concentrations in the food chain and consequently to a horrible
tragedy. That>s data. Minamata fish had over 10 ppm (!) methyl mercury
at the time of the tragedy, but it got down to below 300 ppb by 1997,
so the Japanese government reopened the fishery.
(http://www.nimd.go.jp/archives/english/tenji/e_corner/qa5/q2.html)

And the total mercury effluent at Minamata was about 200 tons (i.e. 400
years' production of CFLs at 100 million per year), just dumped in one
little bay.
(http://www.nimd.go.jp/archives/english/tenji/e_corner/qa5/q3.html) And
that was methyl mercury, one of the most dangerous forms (due to easy
uptake by fish).

They dredged it all up and made an island out of it--a form of
containment far less effective than a clay-lined landfill. Yet 50 years
on, the fish in the bay are safe to eat--right next to that nasty
landfill with the hundreds of tons of mercury in it.

So mercury is dangerous, all right, but the actual level of risk to
anyone from CFLs is pretty small.

As I said, it>s a nit.

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs

Phil Hobbs · Guest

Jan Panteltje wrote:
[quote]On a sunny day (Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:37:44 -0400) it happened Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in
488DBD98.7070706@electrooptical.net>:

Jan Panteltje wrote:
An interesting view on how 'green' CFLs really are:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/07/27/eco.flourescent/index.html

So, LEDs?
The guy contradicts himself. He says that the mercury vapour escapes
from the garbage truck before it gets to the landfill, and then he says
it>s locally dangerous, unlike power plant mercury.

Well, garbage trucks wil ldrive a lot before they are full and go to
a landfil.

Once the vapour is in the air, it>s very unlikely to wind up anywhere
but the ocean. 100 million CFLs per year is something like 1000 pounds
of mercury, spread out over the Earth.

Plus 100 million little PCBs with all sorts of chemicals.

It>s a nit, folks.

I am not sure, it is an interesting viewpoint at least.
[/quote]
Let me lay it out a little clearer, then.

The abundance of mercury in crustal rocks is about 67 ppb
and in seawater 50 ppt. (http://www.webelements.com/mercury/geology.html)

So 500 kg of mercury is equivalent to the natural background abundance in

500 kg/(6.7x10**-8) = 7x10*12 kg of country rock

or

500 kg/(5x10^-11) = 1 x 10**16 kg of seawater.

Sounds like a lot. One cubic metre of water weighs 1000 kg, so 100
million CFLs per year is equivalent to the mercury contained in
10**16/1000 or 10**13 cubic metres, or 10**4 cubic kilometres--a cube
21.5 km on a side. Sounds like really a lot, but the ocean>s volume is
about 1.3 billion cubic km. So if you dumped all that mercury into the
ocean and stirred, you>d increase the mercury content of seawater by

100%*10**4/(1.3*10^^9) or 0.0008% per year--and that>s 0.0008% of a
barely-measureable 50 ppt to begin with.

For country rock, the picture is even clearer. That 7x10**12 kg of
crust has a specific gravity of about 3.5 for rock, so let>s be generous
and say that soil is half rock and half organic matter. (I wish my
garden was that good, but that>s another story.)

So figure 1.7*10**3 kg / m**3 of rock for topsoil. That 1000 kg Hg is
then equivalent to the quantity of naturally-occurring mercury in

7*10**12 kg / 1000 kg/m**3 or 4.4 x 10**9 cubic metres of soil, or a
square 66 km on a side by 1m deep. That>s a big area, of course, but
the surface area of the USA alone is 10 million square km. So again, if
it>s evenly distributed, all that mercury doesn>t do squat.

So we can ignore mercury in the atmosphere, and we>re left with
concentrations in certain areas.

There>s no doubt that mercury pollution in Minamata Bay led to high
mercury concentrations in the food chain and consequently to a horrible
tragedy. That>s data. Minamata fish had over 10 ppm (!) methyl mercury
at the time of the tragedy, but it got down to below 300 ppb by 1997,
so the Japanese government reopened the fishery.
(http://www.nimd.go.jp/archives/english/tenji/e_corner/qa5/q2.html)

And the total mercury effluent at Minamata was about 200 tons (i.e. 400
years' production of CFLs at 100 million per year), just dumped in one
little bay.
(http://www.nimd.go.jp/archives/english/tenji/e_corner/qa5/q3.html) And
that was methyl mercury, one of the most dangerous forms (due to easy
uptake by fish).

They dredged it all up and made an island out of it--a form of
containment far less effective than a clay-lined landfill. Yet 50 years
on, the fish in the bay are safe to eat--right next to that nasty
landfill with the hundreds of tons of mercury in it.

So mercury is dangerous, all right, but the actual level of risk to
anyone from CFLs is pretty small.

As I said, it>s a nit.

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs

Jan Panteltje · Guest

On a sunny day (Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:06:45 -0400) it happened Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in
<488DD275.4030502@electrooptical.net>:

[quote]Let me lay it out a little clearer, then.

The abundance of mercury in crustal rocks is about 67 ppb
and in seawater 50 ppt. (http://www.webelements.com/mercury/geology.html)

So 500 kg of mercury is equivalent to the natural background abundance in

500 kg/(6.7x10**-8) = 7x10*12 kg of country rock

or

500 kg/(5x10^-11) = 1 x 10**16 kg of seawater.

Sounds like a lot. One cubic metre of water weighs 1000 kg, so 100
million CFLs per year is equivalent to the mercury contained in
10**16/1000 or 10**13 cubic metres, or 10**4 cubic kilometres--a cube
21.5 km on a side. Sounds like really a lot, but the ocean>s volume is
about 1.3 billion cubic km. So if you dumped all that mercury into the
ocean and stirred, you>d increase the mercury content of seawater by

100%*10**4/(1.3*10^^9) or 0.0008% per year--and that>s 0.0008% of a
barely-measureable 50 ppt to begin with.

For country rock, the picture is even clearer. That 7x10**12 kg of
crust has a specific gravity of about 3.5 for rock, so let>s be generous
and say that soil is half rock and half organic matter. (I wish my
garden was that good, but that>s another story.)

So figure 1.7*10**3 kg / m**3 of rock for topsoil. That 1000 kg Hg is
then equivalent to the quantity of naturally-occurring mercury in

7*10**12 kg / 1000 kg/m**3 or 4.4 x 10**9 cubic metres of soil, or a
square 66 km on a side by 1m deep. That>s a big area, of course, but
the surface area of the USA alone is 10 million square km. So again, if
it>s evenly distributed, all that mercury doesn>t do squat.

So we can ignore mercury in the atmosphere, and we>re left with
concentrations in certain areas.

There>s no doubt that mercury pollution in Minamata Bay led to high
mercury concentrations in the food chain and consequently to a horrible
tragedy. That>s data. Minamata fish had over 10 ppm (!) methyl mercury
at the time of the tragedy, but it got down to below 300 ppb by 1997,
so the Japanese government reopened the fishery.
(http://www.nimd.go.jp/archives/english/tenji/e_corner/qa5/q2.html)

And the total mercury effluent at Minamata was about 200 tons (i.e. 400
years' production of CFLs at 100 million per year), just dumped in one
little bay.
(http://www.nimd.go.jp/archives/english/tenji/e_corner/qa5/q3.html) And
that was methyl mercury, one of the most dangerous forms (due to easy
uptake by fish).

They dredged it all up and made an island out of it--a form of
containment far less effective than a clay-lined landfill. Yet 50 years
on, the fish in the bay are safe to eat--right next to that nasty
landfill with the hundreds of tons of mercury in it.

So mercury is dangerous, all right, but the actual level of risk to
anyone from CFLs is pretty small.

As I said, it>s a nit.

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs
[/quote]
That is a lot of impressive figures Phil, sorry to hear about your garden.
Apart from the mercury, that person says 'better magnetic ballasts then
electronics' I have 2 18W fluorescent with magnetic ballast right over my desk.
The ballasts (armature) I bought around 1983 IIR.
The CFLs I buy seem to break down on a regular basis, the one in the kitchen
went out some weeks ago, it is only on in the evening, think it did not
make 10000 hours...
So the amount of electronics junk could be reduced with magnetic ballasts,
Or is there an argument against that too?

Don Klipstein · Guest

In article <488DDCFF.A317867@hotmail.com>, Eeyore wrote:
[quote]
Jan Panteltje wrote:

An interesting view on how 'green' CFLs really are:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/07/27/eco.flourescent/index.html

The road to hell is invariably paved with good intentions.

And if by magnetic CFL he means a return to line frequency ballasts,
you>re back to flicker problems again.

Maybe the ultra highly efficienct halogen lamp that GE and Philips were
working on is a better bet ?
[/quote]
Those have half or less the efficiency of CFLs. These are known as HIR
lamps.

Philips has a few on the market now. I got some at Home Depot a couple
months ago. They have a 70 watt one producing 1600 lumens and a 40 wat
one producing 800 lumens. This is sufficient to escape the 2012-2014 "bans"
on general purpose incandescent lamps - this is not a ban but an energy
efficiency requirement.

For several years there have been 350 watt T3 HIR halogen lamps
producing 10,000 lumens, while conventioanl T3 500 watt 120V halogens
produce 10,500 lumens. There is also a 225 watt HIR one producing about
as much light as a normal 300 watt one.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

Eeyore · Guest

Jan Panteltje wrote:

[quote]An interesting view on how 'green' CFLs really are:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/07/27/eco.flourescent/index.html
[/quote]
The road to hell is invariably paved with good intentions.

And if by magnetic CFL he means a return to line frequency ballasts,
you>re back to flicker problems again.

Maybe the ultra highly efficienct halogen lamp that GE and Philips were
working on is a better bet ?

Graham

John Larkin · Guest

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:37:44 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

[quote]Jan Panteltje wrote:
An interesting view on how 'green' CFLs really are:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/07/27/eco.flourescent/index.html

So, LEDs?

The guy contradicts himself. He says that the mercury vapour escapes
from the garbage truck before it gets to the landfill, and then he says
it>s locally dangerous, unlike power plant mercury.

Once the vapour is in the air, it>s very unlikely to wind up anywhere
but the ocean. 100 million CFLs per year is something like 1000 pounds
of mercury, spread out over the Earth.

It>s a nit, folks.

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs
[/quote]
Cool:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/12/031205053316.htm

"They found no change in methylmercury levels in the tuna over that
27-year period.

The researchers predicted that mercury in the surface waters should
have increased by up to 26 percent during this time, according to a
computer model. The model took account of the change in atmospheric
mercury, the sub-equatorial Pacific waters and the potential for
mixing in the"thermocline" — a transition layer in the ocean where
temperature changes rapidly."

Ya gotta love those computer models.

John

John Larkin · Guest

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:06:45 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

[quote]For country rock, the picture is even clearer. That 7x10**12 kg of
crust has a specific gravity of about 3.5 for rock, so let>s be generous
and say that soil is half rock and half organic matter. (I wish my
garden was that good, but that>s another story.)
[/quote]
When we bought our house, the composition of our back yard was

23% rocks

41% clay

32% construction debris

4% ants.

John

John Larkin · Guest

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:30:35 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

[quote]On a sunny day (Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:06:45 -0400) it happened Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in
488DD275.4030502@electrooptical.net>:

Let me lay it out a little clearer, then.

The abundance of mercury in crustal rocks is about 67 ppb
and in seawater 50 ppt. (http://www.webelements.com/mercury/geology.html)

So 500 kg of mercury is equivalent to the natural background abundance in

500 kg/(6.7x10**-8) = 7x10*12 kg of country rock

or

500 kg/(5x10^-11) = 1 x 10**16 kg of seawater.

Sounds like a lot. One cubic metre of water weighs 1000 kg, so 100
million CFLs per year is equivalent to the mercury contained in
10**16/1000 or 10**13 cubic metres, or 10**4 cubic kilometres--a cube
21.5 km on a side. Sounds like really a lot, but the ocean>s volume is
about 1.3 billion cubic km. So if you dumped all that mercury into the
ocean and stirred, you>d increase the mercury content of seawater by

100%*10**4/(1.3*10^^9) or 0.0008% per year--and that>s 0.0008% of a
barely-measureable 50 ppt to begin with.

For country rock, the picture is even clearer. That 7x10**12 kg of
crust has a specific gravity of about 3.5 for rock, so let>s be generous
and say that soil is half rock and half organic matter. (I wish my
garden was that good, but that>s another story.)

So figure 1.7*10**3 kg / m**3 of rock for topsoil. That 1000 kg Hg is
then equivalent to the quantity of naturally-occurring mercury in

7*10**12 kg / 1000 kg/m**3 or 4.4 x 10**9 cubic metres of soil, or a
square 66 km on a side by 1m deep. That>s a big area, of course, but
the surface area of the USA alone is 10 million square km. So again, if
it>s evenly distributed, all that mercury doesn>t do squat.

So we can ignore mercury in the atmosphere, and we>re left with
concentrations in certain areas.

There>s no doubt that mercury pollution in Minamata Bay led to high
mercury concentrations in the food chain and consequently to a horrible
tragedy. That>s data. Minamata fish had over 10 ppm (!) methyl mercury
at the time of the tragedy, but it got down to below 300 ppb by 1997,
so the Japanese government reopened the fishery.
(http://www.nimd.go.jp/archives/english/tenji/e_corner/qa5/q2.html)

And the total mercury effluent at Minamata was about 200 tons (i.e. 400
years' production of CFLs at 100 million per year), just dumped in one
little bay.
(http://www.nimd.go.jp/archives/english/tenji/e_corner/qa5/q3.html) And
that was methyl mercury, one of the most dangerous forms (due to easy
uptake by fish).

They dredged it all up and made an island out of it--a form of
containment far less effective than a clay-lined landfill. Yet 50 years
on, the fish in the bay are safe to eat--right next to that nasty
landfill with the hundreds of tons of mercury in it.

So mercury is dangerous, all right, but the actual level of risk to
anyone from CFLs is pretty small.

As I said, it>s a nit.

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs

That is a lot of impressive figures Phil, sorry to hear about your garden.
Apart from the mercury, that person says 'better magnetic ballasts then
electronics' I have 2 18W fluorescent with magnetic ballast right over my desk.
The ballasts (armature) I bought around 1983 IIR.
The CFLs I buy seem to break down on a regular basis, the one in the kitchen
went out some weeks ago, it is only on in the evening, think it did not
make 10000 hours...
So the amount of electronics junk could be reduced with magnetic ballasts,
Or is there an argument against that too?
[/quote]
For another 50 cents or so, the electronic ballasts could be made
reliable.

Why have an input electrolytic at all? Why not full-wave rectify and
let the light be modulated at 120 Hz? Make it triac dimmable while
you>re in there.

John

Tim Wescott · Guest

Jan Panteltje wrote:
[quote]An interesting view on how 'green' CFLs really are:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/07/27/eco.flourescent/index.html

So, LEDs?
[/quote]
Ultimately I think it>s going to be condoms, pills and abstinence, or
mass starvation.

Between the right wingers with their heads in the sand and the left
wingers with their heads up their donkeys (I never did get that aphorism
:) I doubt that you>ll ever see a rational policy to deal with the fact
that there>s too damn many of us living too damn high on the hog.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Do you need to implement control loops in software?
"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" gives you just what it says.
See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Electronics - design Forum	Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Page 1 of 6