Are CFLs Net Emitters of Mercury?
“Incandescents are better than CFLs because CFLs contain mercury.”
There are many arguments against favoring CFLs over incandescents, and I agree with many of them, but this one doesn’t wash.
Click here to read this article I wrote for Electrical Contractor that makes a clear case that incandescents are actually the true net emitters of mercury, not CFLs.
As for what happens if a lamp breaks in your house, treat it as you would any of the many toxic substances we have in our homes–with caution and according to recommended guidelines.
Great article. However, at the end you reference EPA’s clean-up recommendations, and link the Energy Star site with recommendations buried within thier site. Why not post the direct link to EPA’s site containing the lastest and more stringent instructions?
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/index.htm#fluorescent
thanks again for clarifying the mercury issue. There is so much information out there it makes me wonder who or why keeps spreading it.
I liked the article. CFL’s are a great replacement for the incandescent energy hogs! However, we all need to act responsibly with the disposal of CFL’s.
I commented extensively why, in my view, a light bulb ban is wrong on
http://www.lightnowblog.com/2010/02/arizona-republican-hopes-to-use-light-bulbs-to-provoke-fight-with-federal-government/comment-page-1/#comment-1370
but see that part of it also applies here…
The “mercury from coal emissions being worse”
is a tale that keeps doing the rounds.
It assumed that untreated coal power use dominated,
and that CFLs saved as much as lab tests suggested
– which did/does not hold.
Note how USA EPA already 2005 qualified the notion:
I have covered the subject extensively, with references,
on http://ceolas.net/#li19x
Both mercury and carbon emissions are being reduced with new technology, also note EPA director Lisa Jackson’s policy and the already implemented reduction arising from Bush era legislation.
In a nutshell:
We know where the power station chimneys are and are dealing with their emissions.
We do not know where all the dumped CFLs leaking mercury are (given the failure of recycling) -and so can’t do anything about them.
RE Unsafe bulbs:
USA EPA strict guidelines of what to do about CFL breakages in the home has been ridiculed
- but has more than been supported by Maine state testing around a year ago, which tightened guidelines. Again see ceolas.net/#li19x for references etc – and preceding sections on that website, re fire, radiation risks and so on.
Thanks, Peter. Again, I disagree:
Mercury emissions produced as a byproduct of electric generation is worse than mercury emissions resulting from consumption of CFLs, based on all available evidence. It’s not a “tale.” The article referenced in this post presents a detailed case proving CFLs reduce mercury emissions.
As for any product being unsafe, I know certain conservative commentators have ridiculed cleanup procedures for broken CFLs for ideological reasons based on them hating CFLs primarily because Al Gore likes them. But the fact is you would clean up the CFL the way you would any chemical spill in the house. Standard house cleaners people keep under their sink would be cleaned up the same way–in a ventilated space, wearing gloves, and isolating the waste–but you don’t see right wing cranks like Rush Limbaugh shrieking about Mr. Clean. The fact is CFLs are not unsafe–certainly not unsafe compared to incandescents, which get hot enough to burn skin and which are short-lived and require more maintenance (getting on ladders).