By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
In recent months the CFL has been receiving negative press, most of which is unfortunately generated because lack of knowledge surrounding the disposal of a CFL bulb. Most of these stories relate to individuals who have received incorrect information from hardware stores, supermarkets and even public health officials. One such story is from the Canada Post.
The real truth is yes CFL bulbs do contain mercury, this is an essential element of the bulb and without this it would not operate. Whilst the amount of mercury used in production a CFL lamp is at most 6mg, the average mercury content is 4mg.
Taking the above totals into consideration, mercury emissions by a CFL lamp from electricity consumption over its lifetime is about 2.4mg of mercury. Emissions from an incandescent light bulb is about 10mg for the same period through electricity consumption. Therefore a CFL bulb emits 76% less mercury over the same time period. However, mercury stored in CFL bulbs is perfectly safe unless the glass is in someway damaged, in which case the bulbs can then emit mercury vapour. If the mercury from a CFL was to escape it would total 6.4mg, a 36% reduction on emissions from an incandescent.
The mercury in a CFL can however be reclaimed and reused through the process of recycling. Collected bulbs are crushed in a machine that uses negative pressure ventilation and a mercury absorbing filter. Therefore if you use a CFL with renewable energy and recycle it, the mercury emmission level is actually negated completely.
Mercury emissions from power plants get into rain clouds and come down in lakes and rivers, poisoning fish and the people who eat them, which has been the contributing factor the recent new recommendations from Health Canada for fish consumption. Coal-fired power plants in the US are the largest source of mercury emissions, spewing 50 tons a year into the air, about 40 percent of the total US mercury emissions. By installing CFL bulbs, you should reduce you mercury emissions from electricity by 14%. If the USA as a nation completely installed CFLs, this should lead to a 7 tonne reduction of mercury emissions per year.
Though I don't buy the article as it assumes all electricity is Coal generated. It is not that uncommon for a CFL to pop and break the glass I have had a couple do that when first installed. I always handle them with leather gloves. Disposal is a pain as well. How much fuel will you use to properly dispose of a broken CFL? Not supposed to throw them in the Blue recycle bins. I do the double plastic garbage disposal or when I try to get Walmart to give me a refund and they refuse I let them have the burnt out ones. Technically the manufacturer is supposed to warrant for 2 years. Good luck if the store where you bought them does not comply. Though I only buy when they are dirt cheap to start with. Just got 10 more of the small floods for 50 cents a piece. Hopefully I find the round bathroom type cheap before the ones I have go out.
Concerning mercury emissions - mercury is a fairly dense element. While some may get past the scrubbers in the smokestack emissions, does anyone have data on far it goes? I'd guess it drops out fairly quickly. Of course the taller the smokestack the further it may have a chance of going.
Although the potential Hg emissions are calculated to be 75 tons per year based on the Hg content in coal, the actual current emissions are estimated to be 48 tons per year due to Hg capture with pollution controls for PM and SO2. The reduction at any individual plant ranges from 0 to 98% dependent on coal type, control technology type, and other unquantified factors.
As the EPA projects we are going to be using more and more coal.
http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/utility/hgwhitepaperfinal.pdf
Instead of wasting so much money on alternative corporate welfare scams, why not do more research to clean up coal generation? We have enough coal to last into eternity. It provides cheap reliable electricity. It is not subject to the sun shining or the wind blowing. Capture that mercury and make more CFL bulbs in the USA.
Why CFL bulbs cannot be made in USA:
Or, killing them softly with our lights..... :sick:
In the past decade, hundreds of Chinese factory workers who manufacture CFLs for export to first world countries were being poisoned and hospitalized because of mercury exposure. Examples include workers at the Nanhai Feiyang lighting factory in Foshan, where 68 out of 72 were so badly poisoned that they required hospitalization. At another CFL factory in Jinzhou, 121 out of 123 employees were found to have excessive mercury levels, with one employee's mercury level 150 times the accepted standardwiki
So, you prefer business as usual corporate welfare scams eh? (Business Week)
"According to Mississippi Power's website, the coal plant project will receive a $270 million grant from the DOE to offset the cost of constructing the facility. The company said it also will receive $133 million in investment tax credits approved by the IRS provided under the National Energy Policy Act of 2005, and loan guarantees from the federal government. Mississippi Power has also applied for an additional $279 million in IRS tax credits, according to the site."
Yes I do. It is proven reliable source of energy. Nothing on the horizon comes close to coal or nuclear in producing cheap RELIABLE energy. I don't want to shut my computer off when it rains or the sun goes down. I am not thrilled with having 6 tons of batteries to maintain. I did that at the phone company for 46 years. The Sierra club could spend their money more wisely by coming up with solutions instead of fighting progress. Saying coal is dirty so lets use something else does not solve the problem. We need more power in the USA. Everywhere you look they are running short on the grid. This MS plant will produce 582 MWs day and night at a much lower cost than any alternative. That is about 5 times more power than the Largest Solar array in the World. Which puts out a measly 97 MWs. Only about a 3rd of the day.
http://www.pvresources.com/en/top50pv.php
If the tech is so proven why do the utilities need any subsidies at all?
We had the Tilapia last night and I was quite pleased with the taste. Not fishy like canned tuna.
http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/mercury/walletcard.PDF
Ok, time for a photo of one of my favorite places.
Doing Delivery Rounds in an Electric Smith Newton (Green Car Advisor). Probably gets its power up the river from Indian Point. But that's ok - the plant has only had one small leak in the past. (lohud.com)
An Open Letter regarding recent reports that low-fat fish like tilapia are unhealthy.
Tilapia and catfish are examples of lower-fat fish that have fewer omega-3s than the oily fish listed above, but still provide more of these heart-healthy nutrients than hamburger, steak, chicken, pork or turkey. Actually, a 3 ounce serving of these fish provides over 100 mg of the long chain omega-3 fatty acids EPA and DHA. Considering that this is about the current daily intake of these fatty acids in the US, even these fish should be considered better choices than most other meat alternatives. Since they are also relatively low in total and saturated fats and high in protein, they clearly can be part of a healthy diet.
Replacing tilapia or catfish with "bacon, hamburgers or doughnuts" is absolutely not recommended.
http://south.sanfordhealth.org/visitorspatients/HealthResources/HealthArticles/
Isn't Wake Forest right in the middle of the largest hog producing state in the Union? hmmmmmm
Iowa and North Carolina contain 44% of the United States
hog inventory.
Now pass the hushpuppies.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I'm planning a trip to TN next month to get some catfish and hushpuppies (seeing Mom will be incidental
All that grease gets made into biodiesel don't you know. :shades:
That is why I buy and eat Kettle Chips. They make all their cooking oil into biodiesel and own a fleet of VW diesels. Not to mention they are the best chips on earth.
At Kettle Foods, we consciously use the healthiest sunflower and safflower oils, which is why we think it's fitting that we run a growing fleet of company vehicles on distilled vegetable oil, known as biodiesel. In fact, 100% of the waste vegetable oil from our production process is converted into biodiesel. This rich nectar that we like to call "Flower Power®" is a natural alternative to petroleum diesel fuel. Its use benefits all of us by saving as much as 8 tons in CO2 emissions every year.
On average, for every 7,600 bags of Kettle Brand® potato chips we produce, we create one gallon of waste vegetable oil. This waste vegetable oil is stored in a tank and, when enough accumulates, it is picked up and taken to a biodiesel production facility. That facility can make one gallon of 100% biodiesel for every gallon of waste oil we give them. 100% biodiesel can be used in any diesel engine, like in our fleet of bio-beetles!
Plus they use Solar power to fry them chips:
Using more than 600 solar panels set on roof-mounted racks, our plant now generates more than 120,000kWh of electricity per year.
If that ain't enough to convince U to buy their chips, how about their wind power generation:
Kettle Foods is now purchasing wind energy credits to offset 100 percent of our electricity use in the U.S. It will annually prevent more than 16 million pounds of carbon dioxide pollution (CO2), the major contributing cause of global warming. That’s equivalent to taking 1,300 cars off the road or planting 67,000 fully mature trees.
At our Gold LEED® certified factory in Beloit, WI we also use wind power to produce electricity onsite. We installed 18 wind turbines that produce some of our production facility's power. Click here to see how much power we’ve produced!
http://www.kettlebrand.com/about_us/sustainability/
Too bad I'm not a big chip fan. Surprised to hear that the wind blows hard enough down on the WI - IL state line to run part of the factory there. I will have to be on the lookout for the Spicy Thai chips though.
Does it really matter? Asking such a question is like arguing over how to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.
The following is something I posted some time ago on another forum and I repost it here:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We learn daily of the collapse of fisheries; the depletion of soils; the
contamination of groundwater, freshwater and soils; the death of lakes;
the destruction of Earth's ozone shield; the slow poisoning of entire
landscapes by chemicals produced through research; the acceleration of
deforestation; the extinction of thousands of species; global warming;
the increasing misery of people in impoverished countries; the dramatic
increase in ecological refugees fleeing ravaged lands.
With the full knowledge of influential governments and corporations,
millions of species, natural ecosystems and dozens of the planet's
ecological processes are being degraded, weakened or eliminated.
Novel chemicals such as hormones and pesticides are being deliberately
added to the human and pet food supply. Genetically modified foods are
widely used in food production without public consent.
"Changes to Earth's biodiversity have occurred more rapidly in the past
50 years than at any time in human history, creating a species loss
greater than anything since a major asteroid impact wiped out the
dinosaurs."
That's the conclusion of Global Biodiversity Outlook a report released
by the US CIA on Biological Diversity.
"In effect, we are currently responsible for the sixth major extinction
event in the history of the Earth, and the greatest since the dinosaurs
disappeared, 65 million years ago," the report states.
THE WIDE-RANGING REPORT CONCLUDES THAT DEMAND FOR RESOURCES GLOBALLY
EXCEEDS THE BIOLOGICAL CAPACITY OF THE EARTH BY SOME 20 PERCENT.
Among the findings:
The average abundance of species declined 40 percent between 1970 and
2000 while species in rivers, lakes and marshlands have declined by 50
percent.
52 percent of species within well-studied higher taxa including birds,
mammals and amphibians are threatened with extinction.
In the North Atlantic, populations of large fish have declined 66
percent in the last 50 years.
Since 2000, 6 million
hectares of primary forest have been lost annually.
In the Caribbean,
average hard coral cover declined from 50 percent in the last
three decades.
35 percent of the world's mangroves have been lost in
the last two decades.
If you haven't notice this then you are not been paying attention.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, of course, you can add the mess going on at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.
If you are looking for someone to blame just look in the mirror.
ateixeira, "Plants in Japan after the Earthquake" #42, 28 Mar 2011 8:15 am
Looks like the Greens took out Merkel in Baden-Wuerttemberg and may oust her from power entirely, largely over the nuke issue. (SFGate.com)
Just because the "anti-nuke" party "won" does not mean they will be immediately closing down nuke plants.
We know how politics can ( and usually does ) move slowly.
They may put in legislation to start phasing out the nukes, but then in 4 years might lose and the other party might cancel that legislation.
We are still in "knee-jerk reaction" phase about nuke power right now.
As energy prices keep increasing, conservation will pick up lots of slack.
But i do agree that mankind's effect on the climate - whether fairly small or larger as the IPCC theorizes, will not have much effect long-term on Nature. The only force that has enough effect to destroy the Earth is the Sun, or the unlikely chance we get in the way of a Gamma Ray Burst from a Supernova.
I'll be cutting a lot more trees down; dead ones first, and splitting them for my wood-pile. I have a few hardwoods that are too close to the house anyway, with the branches touching the roof. That will be my main change if oil stays around $4/gal.
My wife is also quitting her job which is 10 miles away, and going to run a business from her house. We'll save gas there, but her main complaint of driving is more focused on snow and ice on the roads. So in her opinion too, she'd like to see more GW than we have! We're still in the 30's during the day, and teens at night, so it's still plenty cold. Plenty cold = more energy used! If we could average 75 degrees, I'd say the so-called GW is a bad thing. But with the Earth at an avergae of 58F or 59F, i don't see where GW of 1F or even 5F is that bad. There's a lot, lot more land that is too cold to live on, compared to land that is too hot to live on.
Two-thirds of oil and gas leases in Gulf inactive (Yahoo)
As oil prices continue to climb, a backlog of more than 100 offshore drilling plans for the Gulf of Mexico are awaiting approval from the Obama administration, according to federal data.
The federal government has not approved a single new exploratory drilling plan in the Gulf of Mexico since lifting its deepwater drilling moratorium on Oct. 12. There are currently 103 plans awaiting review by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement.
Millions of acres of issued leases idle, DOI report says (Oil & Gas Journal)
Berkley report disappoints climate-change skeptics
University of California-Berkley physicist Richard Muller has expressed doubts about the accuracy of climate-change data in the past. So when oil-industry executives helped fund a major study and asked him to lead it, they probably expected his results to refute the collection of studies showing global temperatures have been rising for the past 100 years.
But as sportscasters are fond of saying when an underdog team unexpectedly wins, that’s why they play the game. To the disappointment of those hoping to discredit the previous studies, Muller unexpectedly told a congressional hearing last week, based on preliminary results of the study: “We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups."
Laugh break: LOL LOL LOL LOL ROFLMAO ROFLMAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
According to a Los Angeles Times article this week, Muller and a team of scientists launched the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project to address what he called "the legitimate concerns" of skeptics who believe that global warming is exaggerated.
According to the article, three groups – the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA and a British research group -- have conducted studies of temperature data collected from tens of thousands of weather stations around the globe. While the studies used different data and different statistical methods, they each concluded the planet land surface has, on average, warmed about 1.2 degrees Celsius over the last 100 years. In his report to Congress, Muller notes that the portion of global warming attributed to human causes is smaller, becoming apparent after 1957. Global temperatures since then have increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, with human causes accounting for about 0.6 degrees.
Critics have attacked those results as biased, skewed and based on incomplete or unreliable data, but Muller’s results so far have mirrored the previous data and shown that statistical analysis can account for potential biases caused by differences in quality of weather stations or length of time they have been in service.
Muller’s results are preliminary and have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal. The project Web site notes that the team analyzed a small subset of data representing 2 percent of the total, which includes 1.6 billion temperature measurements to check programs and statistical methods. “The Berkeley Earth team,” the Web site reads, “would be more comfortable sharing them after they had been published in a peer-reviewed journal. However, Dr. Richard Muller was called to testify before congress on 31 March 2011. We did not solicit this presentation, but understand that congress needs our best testimony. For this reason we have shared some preliminary results.”
While the Berkley team works to complete their analysis of the full data set, climate-change believers and skeptics already are praising or condemning the results accordingly. So stay tuned – the group plans to make their data available during the first half of 2011. Surface-temperature measurements are just one factor in the debate over whether climate change is occurring and whether human activities play a role. Studies such as this will have influence though, as the United States and other world governments formulate policy related to global warming and greenhouse gas emissions.
Go to the Berkley Earth Website for more information on the study and the text of Muller’s presentation to Congress.
Read more from the LA times.
A politician should know better than to ask a question if you don't know the answer.
In his report to Congress, Muller notes that the portion of global warming attributed to human causes is smaller, becoming apparent after 1957.
What does that mean to you?
I am reading a book "The Secret Life of Dust". It goes into minute detail about various forms of pollution that attach themselves to dust and or are dust in and of themselves. There are some very high tech studies going on to track pollution that flows around the globe. It seems Washington state and British Columbia are the recipients of large amounts of pollutants from China. Remember that when you buy anything made in China. That includes the batteries and motors in electric vehicles.
1- You are off base about the "flawed data" comment. This study KNEW about the ciriticsm of the supposedly "bad" locations, and properly took that into consideration:
the BEST project is examining various surface temperature records with the aim of resolving ...
...current criticism of the former temperature analyses, and to prepare an open record that will allow rapid response to further criticism or suggestions. Our results will include not only our best estimate for the global temperature change, but estimates of the uncertainties in the record.
The BEST project is using over 39,000 unique stations, which is more than five times the 7,280 stations found in the Global Historical Climatology Network Monthly data set (GHCN-M) that has served as the focus of many climate studies.
In Congressional testimony last week, Muller released some initial findings:
Prior groups (NOAA, NASA, HadCRU) selected for their analysis 12% to 22% of the roughly 39,000 available stations. (The number of stations they used varied from 4,500 to a maximum of 8,500.)
They believe their station selection was unbiased. Outside groups have questioned that, and claimed that the selection picked records with large temperature increases. Such bias could be inadvertent, for example, a result of choosing long continuous records. (A long record might mean a station that was once on the outskirts and is now within a city.)
To avoid such station selection bias, Berkeley Earth has developed techniques to work with all the available stations.
This requires a technique that can include short and discontinuous records.
In an initial test, Berkeley Earth chose stations randomly from the complete set of 39,028 stations. Such a selection is free of station selection bias.
http://www.carbonbrief.org/media/48204/berkeley-1.jpg
2. The entirety of the "1957" comment you quoted follows:
In our preliminary analysis of these stations, we found a warming trend that is shown in the figure. It is very similar to that reported by the prior groups: a rise of about 0.7 degrees C since 1957. (Please keep in mind that the Berkeley Earth curve, in black, does not include adjustments designed to eliminate systematic bias.)
The Berkeley Earth agreement with the prior analysis surprised us, since our preliminary results don’t yet address many of the known biases. When they do, it is possible that the corrections could bring our current agreement into disagreement.
Why such close agreement between our uncorrected data and their adjusted data? One possibility is that the systematic corrections applied by the other groups are small. We don’t yet know.
The main value of our preliminary result is that it demonstrates the Berkeley Earth ability to use all records, including those that are short or fragmented. When we apply our approach to the complete data collection, we will largely eliminate the station selection bias, and significantly reduce statistical uncertainties.
One oft expressed concern is that climatologists have failed to adequately account for confounders in their temperature data such as urban heat island effects, station placement and equipment changes, changes in the time of monitoring and so forth. Perhaps such changes have led researchers to find a spurious trend toward higher average global temperatures. However, Muller testifying about the BEST project's preliminary (and un-peer reviewed) analysis of station quality reported:
Many temperature stations in the U.S. are located near buildings, in parking lots, or close to heat sources. Anthony Watts and his team has shown that most of the current stations in the US Historical Climatology Network would be ranked “poor” by NOAA’s own standards, with error uncertainties up to 5 degrees C.
Did such poor station quality exaggerate the estimates of global warming? We’ve studied this issue, and our preliminary answer is no.
The Berkeley Earth analysis shows that over the past 50 years the poor stations in the U.S. network do not show greater warming than do the good stations.
Thus, although poor station quality might affect absolute temperature, it does not appear to affect trends, and for global warming estimates, the trend is what is important.
Just Face it Gary - people who "dismiss out of hand" the possibility of man's actions contributing to Global Climate are just wishful thinkers.
Sure there are stations out there with quite a bit of accuracy error, and some that are more accurate. That would only affect the absolute temperature as measured. But the "heat island" effect will affect poor and good stations similarly. The heat island affect will increase BOTH poor and good stations' temperatures absolute temperatures. The "heat island" effect simply expresses that no matter how the instruments are placed, the Fact that the urban area is increasing around it - more vehicles, homes, and factories using energy and discharging the heat in that area - you will see ALL the sensors go up.
The temperature sensors are pretty much just picking up the factor - that humans are generating more heat in the area, and that the population increased. Take that temperature trend and then put some cities populations next to it! Same trend right?
I'm sure these guys went a few levels deeper in their analysis.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
What did they do with it? You throw out that data as was done with over 6000 stations across the Northern tier and it skews the data for the WHOLE GLOBE.
You don't like simple solutions, but it is quite simple to see that there is NO WAY these so called scientists can EVER get an accurate temperature for the whole world for any given moment. So how can they KNOW for certain that there is overall warming or cooling. To be absolutely accurate to the tenth of a degree you would have to have accurate measuring devices evenly spaced around the entire globe. With most of the globe being water I don't see how they can ever accomplish that. So what you have is a hodge podge of data being analyzed by people wanting to generate interest in what they are doing. And to have that interest become DOLLARS in their pockets.
By the way did you know that one third of all the dust in the air comes from people driving on dirt roads? And that Maricopa County has 700 miles of county maintained dirt roads and 3000 miles of private dirt roads? That is a big part of Phoenix pollution. And the roads that have oil dumped on them to to try and keep the dust down put out a more toxic dust than those that are just left to natures dust.
Berkeley Earth's funding may become a problem now that the Koch Brothers Foundation has seen the recent preliminary study results. Maybe they think Greenpeace has deeper pockets.
EXACTLY. And in case you missed it, this was funded in part by CLIMATE CHANGE SKEPTICS - specifically, the Koch Foundation - OIL MEN. They had an agenda from that regard.
They set out trying to disprove the warming data - but could not !!!
But they did a MORE THOROUGH JOB than previous studies, and it turned out the warming results were STILL THERE.
They are submitting it for peer review. So we will see more info on this study later.
I'm sure their methods were WELL THOUGHT-OUT, since they were trying to discredit the analysis of the data.
I think the Koch Brothers were expecting a different result (and after the preliminaries, and maybe a few phone calls), they'll get one.
Still number one:
Toyota Prius: 1,000,000 Sold in the U.S. (Straightline)
Ask her if she thought the Berkeley Football team was good enough to deserve a coach that is paid $2.7 million per year. In 2009 there were 365 professors and staff paid over $200k per year. These are supposed to be public servants, not over lords. While your wife may feel she got good value for what it cost her. The tax payers of CA are not benefiting from her good education, are they? It is past time for a tax payer revolt in this country. I wonder how many profs that were at Berkeley when your wife was attending are now sucking us dry on a huge retirement.
http://www.sacbee.com/statepay/?name=&agency=UC+BERKELEY&salarylevel=200000
Her folks were long time residents and paid for schooling all those years (elementary school on up).
And who knows, I may yet convince her to move back one of these years.
Maybe if I offer to buy her a Prius to cruise the freeways in....
Like dropping a small stone and a large stone off a high tower, and seeing if they hit the ground at the same time?
You're the one who always tells us that man affects the climate on a global scale. I'm not proposing anything so grandiose. If you can believe mankind changes the whole climate, you should be able to believe that the thermometer that Phoenix had when the city was 100,000 and is now sitting in an area heated by what 2,000,000 people, is going to be a little warmer with all those AC's exhausting, planes, blacktop and concrete, and heat from auto engines. How could it be the same? So that thermometer from the 1950's will see a higher temperature. Stand in the center of some candles, and have people keep adding candles in ever increasing circles around you and see if you don't get hotter.