Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interesting. Ideally there would be no mandates. Consumers will switch on their own when the right technology comes along.
Yep, and as it should be. Most of the time the market is pretty good about choosing the best product, though there are exceptions of cost which will overpower superior product selection such as it was with VHS vs Beta. Though that was a non-issue considering its time in the market before we moved to DVD.
The problem with CFL of course is the mercury content.
Compared to LED that is true but compared to incandescent it's less, the reason it's less is because the amount of mercury that would have went into the atmosphere from the energy you saved is greater than the amount in the bulb.
People don't realize that those twisty bulbs are toxic waste. Glad to see an alternative.
A myth. If you broke every CFL you owned, there would still be less mercury than the result of coal-fired electricity powering an incandescent. LEDs are ultimately the way to go though.
A myth. If you broke every CFL you owned, there would still be less mercury than the result of coal-fired electricity powering an incandescent. LEDs are ultimately the way to go though.
Very misleading statement there. The issue is with immediate exposure generated by that of immediate accident or localized effect such as someone accidentally breaking the bulb inside the house.
That exposure is being researched and the results of research is showing increased levels above that of safe exposure, and this is reported by the MA EPA themselves in their testing which showed spike above exposure limits far above safe levels in a normal room environment. Also, a recent study was just released that shows similar results:
Now certainly, we have had such bulbs for a long time with standard florescent bulbs, but these sources are usually contained in housings and out of any reasonable reach for most people while the CFL's are accessible in many forms to which the increased chance of breakage and exposure is far more likely than a standard florescent. And certainly this doesn't even get into the problems of their ballast encapsulation for the CFL's which are a fire waiting to happen.
Also, I find it odd that you make such a claim for a specific power source which would also be used to power the CFL and then make the position that somehow there is more danger there. I am not very familiar with the coal powering process, I am sure Coleman could inform us on the relevance of such dangers you mention within their process.
Personally, My issue is simply with that of an already working product to which meets and has met my needs for years. Certainly I would prefer something of equal quality, cost, and have it be more efficient, but it has to achieve all of those first before I will consider using them.
LED's if they can lower the costs of them to levels that incandescent have are an option (for specific usage), but not something I can see taking the place entirely unless they can match the quality and appearance of light with them as well as matching the cost.
ESL's "appear" to be a step in that direction, but as we see, there are still cons to them. I have always been of a position that in the evolution of technology, we should move forward, not side ways with various trade offs.
They use less power and generate an insane amount of heat?
Cool, can I use them to reduce my heating costs?
Yeah and when it's 95 degrees in the summer, you can sit in the dark too!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.