Ouch! Don't tell me after all the intelligent posts you've made, that you actually buy into that "new math" version of reality? Don, you're breaking my heart!
A few questions as we work through the contention that adding a new vector for mercury distrubution decreases its environmental release.
1) How does that tradeoff work with hydroelectric, nuclear, solar or wind power?It doesn't.
Because Big Power doesn't want to dig into corporate profits to clean up their power plants when they can convince people that these tradeoffs are workable. The smartest guys in the room also told us that credit default swaps would reduce trading risks. I guess we know how that worked out.
3) Does this tradeoff take into account that light bulbs are mostly used at night, when the generator turbines are running anyway, and would be generating X amount of "baseload" power anyway?No, all we see are equations that say CFLs use less electricity than tungsten bulbs, so therefore they must result in equally less emissions. If the home lighting load is 7% of the total electrical use, what does a reduction in that small number really amount to? Is it enough to enable plants to shut down a generator? I've never seen the "adding mercury to subtract mercury" theorists ever get into the real mechanics of electricity generation to demonstrate exactly how the process works. I don't think many people are familiar with the "baseload" concept of power generation and why the all the claims of CFLs reducing emissions have to be taken with a large grain of salt:
No. CFL bulbs are poised to bring significant mercury pollution issues to areas where there isn't any mercury pollution from nearby coal plants because there AREN'T any nearby coal plants.
5) Does this alleged tradeoff work when you substitute LEDs for tungsten bulbs?Yes. LEDs provide the same alleged reduction in emissions, and they do it WITHOUT adding mercury to hundreds of thousands of homes in billions of light bulbs. If anyone really cares about the environment, they won't poison it further by using mercury-laced CFL bulbs instead of LEDs.
6) Are CFL bulb makers serious about recycling used bulbs?Hell no. We have deposit laws for mostly inert glass soda bottles but NOT environmentally hazardous CFL bulbs. Studies estimate that perhaps as few as 10% of all CFL bulbs get recycled.
7) Do people get suckered by quick fixes and miracle cures?Absolutely. Take a look at the dietary supplement industry. Study after study shows that supplements can actually be quite harmful but folks buy and ingest them by the billion-dollar load. As for quick cures, Congress bought into the TARP, didn't it? Adding mercury to reduce mercury doesn't pass the common sense "sniff" test. And it shouldn't, it's a devil's bargain, one of many we're foisting on the next generation.
8) What happens when power plant smokestacks all get proper scrubbing equipment?The alleged tradeoff falls flat on its face, leaving us with a gigantic mercury-laced CFL distribution network and nothing to counterbalance it.
The problem with CFLs is that the deeper one delves into this diabolical bargain, the worse things look. The savings are weak to begin with, and they're offset by the potential damage mercury poisoning can do. Sadly, we've shown time and time again that short term gains are considered way ahead of any long term costs. Look at Congress if you doubt that assertion. (-:
The right way to control emissions is by controlling the emitters. Pollutants need to be trapped at the smokestack that creates them, not on the shelves of Wal-Mart through a complex, poorly understood "tradeoff." Like a skilled magician, Big Power has managed to use misdirection to great advantage. Instead of clamoring for them to reduce the poison in their emissions, we've bought into a complex scheme to reduce pollutants by adding them to commonplace consumables.
It's a fool's game, just like Obama's claim that the war in Afghanistan is necessary to deny terrorists a place to plan their next attack. The second worst terrorist attack on the US came from within. Are we going to bomb all the states the Timothy McVeigh lived in so that we prevent other terrorists like him from "having a base of operations?" That would be stupid, but we've apparently bought into the plan, I suspect it's because there aren't too many critical thinkers left in the US press willing to say: "Mr. President, how does attacking Afghanistan prevent Al-Queda from basing its operations in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Indonesia or any other spot in the world?"
-- Bobby G.