Technology news and Jobs 
Science Toxic mercury: fluorescent or incandescent light bulbs. What’s better?
Science Toxic mercury: fluorescent or incandescent light bulbs. What’s better? | Toxic mercury: fluorescent or incandescent light bulbs. What’s better? |
|
| by William Atkins | |
| Monday, 06 October 2008 | |
|
Page 2 of 3 According to Energy Star research (a part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy), a CFL can save over US$30 in electricity costs over the lifetime of the fluorescent bulb when compared to an incandescent lamp. Featured Whitepaper
5 Best Practices for Smartphone Support
Science DiscussionsHowever, like all fluorescent bulbs, CFLs contain the toxic metal mercury. The average amount of mercury in a compact fluorescent bulb (CFL) is four milligrams, while the amount of mercury ranges from 1.4 to 5 milligrams. According to Energy Star, the amount of mercury saved by using CFLs rather than incandescent bulbs is eight milligrams. This would seem to indicate that it is better to use CFLs rather than incandescents. However, this is not always the case. The researchers used state data from all fifty states of the United States and national data from the United States and 130 other countries around the world. The data came from the year 2004. They state within their paper, “Combustion of coal for electric power generation is generally the largest source of atmospheric mercury pollution; reduction in electricity demand from the substitution of incandescent bulbs with fluorescents leads to reduced mercury emissions during the use of the bulb.” Their analysis, “… considers the local mix of power sources, coal quality, thermal conversion efficiencies, distribution losses, and any mercury control technologies that might be in place. Emissions of mercury from production and end-of-life treatment of the bulbs are also considered, providing a life-cycle perspective.” Their conclusions are: “Net reductions in mercury over the entire life cycle range from −1.2 to 97 mg [milligrams] per bulb depending on the country.” Thus, they found that fluorescent bulbs reduce mercury emissions to the atmosphere in "many" but not "all" countries of the world.” According to the study performed by these Yale researchers, whether it is better to use CFLS or incandescents depends on what type of system powers primarily your local homes and businesses. People who live in places that use coal primarily for electricity should use CFLs because they reduce the overall mercury emissions in the environment. These CFLs do not need coal-fired power plants to manufacture them. According to the October 1, 2008 Science News article “Fluorescent bulbs offer mercury advantage,” “For states like North Dakota, West Virginia and New Mexico — big coal burning regions — swapping out CFLs for incandescent lights should result in a net drop in local mercury releases.” It adds, “The same is true for many countries, especially China, where electricity production relies on high-mercury coal burned in plants with few or no controls on mercury emissions.” What was their conclusion is a person lives in a clean-burning-power-plant area? Please read page three. |
| < Next story in category | Previous story in the category > |
|---|
