So, my room light bulb burnt out yesterday and I have been sitting in the dark all evening today, pondering light bulbs.
However, soon the question might not even be mine to ponder. The federal government has adopted a national standard for lighting efficiency that will come into effect in 2012. Most of the traditional, incandescent bulbs that are currently available won't meet the required performance level. The objective is to ensure that only more efficient bulbs such as compact fluorescent lights (CFLs), enhanced halogens, and others that are expected in the near future, are used in Canada.
There are pros and cons to using CFL's, the biggest pro being their long-life span and energy efficiency. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, if just one regular incandescent lightbulb in every American home was replaced with a CFL bulb, it would prevent 90 billion pounds of greenhouse gas emissions from power plants- that is the equivalent of 7.5 million cars off the road! Itis also estimated that each CFL saves the consumer $30 in energy costs over the lifespan of the bulb. They generate up to 70% less heat than a traditional incandescent bulb and last about 10 times longer.
However, CFL's cost more to buy initially, and their real major drawback is that they contain mercury and must be disposed of very carefully. Each bulb contains about 5 mg of mercury, so it is vital that CFLs are recycled and not tossed into landfills (Ikea recycles them! Some hardware stores take them back aswell). If one is broken, you should leave the room and open doors and windows to the outside to let it air out for about 15 minutes.
So, after some reading, I think I will replace my burnt out bulbs with CFLs as the benefits seem to outweigh the drawbacks(provided the bulb is disposed of correctly at the end of its life!)
What do you think?
Sources:
http://theneverendinglist.ikea.ca/en/Compact-Fluorescent-Bulbs.html
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/prod/cfl-afc-eng.php
I think the advantages for CFL's far outweigh the disadvantages. The bottom line is that there will never be anything in the world that is achieved without a trade off and the mercury is a reasonable trade off in my eyes.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, we can't sit on the fence about things like 5mg of mercury when so much is at stake due to climate change. An example that I like to when discussing the "pollution trade off issue" is the debate over the battery pollution from Hybrid and Electric cars. People are quick to dismiss the idea of plug in electric cars because of environmental concerns with disposing of the batteries. The truth is, however, that we can reasonably contain solid and liquid forms of pollution, be it batteries or mercury from CFL's, but when it comes to CO2 and other gaseous emissions, once they are released, we have no way of containing them or removing them efficiently from the atmosphere. Though there are disposal problems with both batteries for cars and with CFL's, switching to these transfers the pollution to a place where we have the luxury of time to figure out how to deal with it all, which is something we don't have when it comes to climate change.
I hope that all made sense... sorry for the little tangent there! haha.