An argument I've heard before against CFL lightbulbs is that they contain mercury vapor and hence are worse for the environment than incandescent bulbs. Take, for a moment, the facts in this statement as truth. We are definitely talking apples and oranges. Mercury Vapors (as best as I know) are not a greenhouse gas. Hard to say which is "worse for the environment". Doesn't matter anyway because while CFLs do contain 4 mg of mercury (GE's bulbs are 2mg if you care), incandescents release even MORE mercury, according to the EPA:
The biggest source of mercury vapors is the US's favorite way to make electricity - burning coal. Over the 5 year expected lifetime of a single CFL bulb, the energy required to light one incandescent releases 10 mg of mercury into the atmosphere. 10 mg > 4 mg. And if you properly dispose of your CFLs, they won't release any mercury.
2 comments:
Even when one factor's in the energy to light the CFL (about 1/3 that for the incandescent, 10/3=3.33) 3.33+4=7.33, still less than 10
The EPA estimates the CFL energy at 24% of the incandescent, so 6.4mg, as shown in the image, but you are correct if you had a less efficient CFL than the EPA estimates.
If you get an EPA-efficient CFL and get one from GE where they are low-mercury, you are down to 2+2.4 = 4.4 mg of mercury, less than half of the incandescent.
Post a Comment