That’s the question one insightful Pennsylvania resident posed to the Environmental Protection Agency recently. The spiral-shaped CFLs contain the toxic chemical mercury, which makes them dangerous to land, water and animals if not disposed of properly. “Should we be more concerned with energy saving or mercury hazards?” the woman asked.
Still, safely disposing of the bulbs is important — especially as federal agencies and other energy-conscious businesses and consumers begin buying more CFLs to reduce their electricity use. Several national retailers accept the bulbs for recycling, including Ace Hardware, IKEA and Home Depot. Most local landfills also accept the bulbs as part of their hazardous waste disposal programs.
In a pinch, EPA says you can place the fluorescent light bulb in two plastic bags and seal it before putting it into the outside trash. Just don’t tell the plastic bag recycling advocates.
Source:Federal Times If you get switched to a different article, enter CLFs in the search box in the upper right.
Tim Kauffman has it mostly right in his Federal Times post called "The light bulb dilemma: Save energy or save the planet?".
I don't think CFLs should be mandated. Mr. Kauffman correctly points out the potential environmental disposal issues but, like most, hasn't looked at the energy cost of making a compact fluorescent bulb.
How much energy is used mining the mercury?
How much energy is used to make the transistors in the CFLs?
How much energy is used to make the resistors in the CFLs?
Does making a curly glass part take more energy to make than the glass part of a regular bulb?
And how much more energy is used to assembling the completed CFL vs a completed regular bulb?
And some articles recommend you cut out the section of your carpeting where the CFL bulb broke.
.jpg)
0 comments:
Post a Comment