Are CFLs really "greener"?

[mike3]

Hi.

That's the question. I saw this comment here:

http://comments.americanthinker.com/...23/750776.html

Originally Posted by tonymarini

It occurred to me as I read this article that the curly-q bulbs are a bigger threat to the environment than just the mercury that they contain. Whereas a plain old incandescent is comprised of glass, brass, steel, tungsten and a little solder...and it is manufactured in one step, the CFL is comprised of more than forty components, including plastics, aluminum, glass, silicon, phosphorus, antimony, copper, lead, tin, solder, FR-4 PCB, and a host of other pre-manufactured materials. remember, the chubby base on each CFL conceals an electronic circuit that establishes the ionization inside the bulb. So, not only are there fabrication/energy costs associated with the entire CFL assembly, there are fabrication/energy costs associated with the up to thirty or so electronic components (depending upon the design) in the base: capacitors, transformers, semiconductors, resistors, wire, printed wiring boards, plastic housings, etc. I wager that there is significant additional energy costs in producing a CFL over the simple incandescent bulb. As such, is the CFL really saving anything beyond it's lower energy consumption? If a genuine, honest accounting is done, I doubt it.

Another feel-good boondoggle brought to you by Congress and the US government.

Is this true: CFLs are less green than "regular" bulbs? Even when the greater running fossil fuel consumption is factored in for the latter? Hmm. That is, is an environmental equivalent to the 6x greater running consumption for the latter also present in the former, once the "hidden" costs of materials, mining, etc. is factored in, or does it turn out that the reverse is true, or both are essentially equal, and the "up front" energy cost doesn't really mean much with regards to this? This looks to be a complicated problem involving a whole lot of bookkeeping. That is, is the TOTAL environmental cost (fossil fuel consumed over operating life + mining and refining materials + manufacturing process + transportation of everything) greater, less, or equal for CFLs as compared to incandescents?

[ben m]

Look at it this way. The energy cost of making a light bulb is included in the sticker price.

Suppose that the entire $2 cost of a (cheap) CFL is paying for electricity to manufacture the parts. No profit, no labor, etc.. At, say, $0.15/kWh, that's about 13 kWh. If it took more than 13 kWh of power to make a CFL, no one would sell them at the lowest end of the market.

Let's say this is a 15W bulb that replaces a 100W incandescent. That means it's saving the user 85W whenever it's on. After it's been on for 150 hours, it has saved the user 13 kWh and paid off its manufacturing-energy.

No contest---even if my numbers are wrong by a factor of a few. (What does power cost in China these days?) Yeah, a CFL base has lots of different parts, but they're tiny tiny things (resistors, diodes, etc) with tiny embodied energies.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by ben m

Look at it this way. The energy cost of making a light bulb is included in the sticker price.

Indeed. Total cost is a pretty good way to estimate the environmental impact of commodity products.

[mike3]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Indeed. Total cost is a pretty good way to estimate the environmental impact of commodity products.

Isn't it interesting to notice how these kinds of posts don't seem to have any citations and numbers at all?

[Furcifer]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Indeed. Total cost is a pretty good way to estimate the environmental impact of commodity products.

Is it? Plastic bags are pretty cheap. A kilogram of mercury is about $10.

I'm not sure is it's a good measure or not. Plastic in particular is widely used, cheap and can have relatively little impact when it's recycled, but huge impacts when it isn't.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by mike3

Isn't it interesting to notice how these kinds of posts don't seem to have any citations and numbers at all?

Yes, it's interesting to notice how your original post has no numbers at all.

Seriously, what's controversial about my claim? The logic is pretty self-evident. If you still don't get it, I can explain it to you. Is that what you need? If you disagree with it, would you care to inform us of the basis of this disagreement?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by 3bodyproblem

Is it? Plastic bags are pretty cheap. A kilogram of mercury is about $10.

And legal disposal of that kilogram of mercury? How much does that cost? And what's the environmental impact with proper disposal?

Quote:

I'm not sure is it's a good measure or not. Plastic in particular is widely used, cheap and can have relatively little impact when it's recycled, but huge impacts when it isn't.

You mean not only when it isn't recycled, but when it's not even put in a landfill. Well, yes. But then the environmental impact isn't from the manufacture and use of the product, it's from its improper disposal. Which is, generally speaking, not legal. At least here in the US.

[Furcifer]

Originally Posted by ben m

Yeah, a CFL base has lots of different parts, but they're tiny tiny things (resistors, diodes, etc) with tiny embodied energies.

But don't they use a lot of cheap industrial chemicals making capacitors and diodes and other electronic components? Like acids and heavy metals, even poisons.

[Furcifer]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

And legal disposal of that kilogram of mercury? How much does that cost? And what's the environmental impact with proper disposal?

I think this is why they say there are hidden dangers. The manufacturing process reduces the concentration but also spreads it around. I'm not sure if it always breaks down in the environment.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You mean not only when it isn't recycled, but when it's not even put in a landfill. Well, yes. But then the environmental impact isn't from the manufacture and use of the product, it's from its improper disposal. Which is, generally speaking, not legal. At least here in the US.

True, and in an ideal world it would all be recycled. It reality though it isn't.

I'm always hesitant of claims that something does or doesn't have environmental impact. They tend to limit themselves to things like percentage content of x and known effects of y. They never seem to fully include the manufacture, transport, use and disposal of a product.

[BenBurch]

A Kg of Mercury is actually about $20, just to set that straight.

[mike3]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Yes, it's interesting to notice how your original post has no numbers at all.

Seriously, what's controversial about my claim? The logic is pretty self-evident. If you still don't get it, I can explain it to you. Is that what you need? If you disagree with it, would you care to inform us of the basis of this disagreement?

Um, I was not talking about your claim, I was talking about the thing I quoted in my original post, which itself was a post on a website. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

[mike3]

Originally Posted by 3bodyproblem

I think this is why they say there are hidden dangers. The manufacturing process reduces the concentration but also spreads it around. I'm not sure if it always breaks down in the environment.



True, and in an ideal world it would all be recycled. It reality though it isn't.

I'm always hesitant of claims that something does or doesn't have environmental impact. They tend to limit themselves to things like percentage content of x and known effects of y. They never seem to fully include the manufacture, transport, use and disposal of a product.

So what would such a total impact analysis say about this? Would the total impact (everything: manufacture, transport, use, disposal, and energy consumed during all these phases) for CFL be greater or less than incandescent, or equal?

[BenBurch]

Short answer; yes, they are green;

http://www.rmi.org/cms/Download.aspx...eally+Green%3F

[Furcifer]

Originally Posted by mike3

So what would such a total impact analysis say about this? Would the total impact (everything: manufacture, transport, use, disposal, and energy consumed during all these phases) for CFL be greater or less than incandescent, or equal?

I've looked before for other products and never seen a fully impact study. They usually limit themselves to things like major components and lifetime energy usage.

I'd be surprised if CFL's had significantly less environmental impact over their lifetimes given the number of components and the complexity of their manufacture. Factories in general cause environmental impact, and more parts mean more factories.

[LTC8K6]

I hate CFLs, but if you are going to buy them and want to be "greener" look for the RoHS label.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restric...nces_Directive

[ben m]

Originally Posted by 3bodyproblem

But don't they use a lot of cheap industrial chemicals making capacitors and diodes and other electronic components? Like acids and heavy metals, even poisons.

No; cheap capacitors contain acids and whatnot which are only harmful in the sense of "you can't spill the concentrated stuff in your eyes"---boric acid, acetic acid, ethylene glycol---but that break down harmlessly in soil. Diodes are basically silicon. The interconnects are aluminum.

There's a good chance that the solder is made of lead---it's banned in Europe, so obviously one can get along without it, but it's cheaper than the alternatives so my guess is that US CFLs have it---but that and the mercury in the tube are basically the only toxins found in CFLs.

But seriously, switching a 100W bulb to a 15W bulb is a huge energy savings. Huge, huge, huge. How huge? Running a 100W incandescent bulb for a year (in the US) requires some power plant somewhere to burn almost 1000 lbs of coal. 1000lbs of coal contains:

• a gram of mercury
• about 100 grams of arsenic
• 1-100 grams of lead

http://energy.er.usgs.gov/health_env...cury_coal.html

Using a CFL cuts that by 85%. If CFL electronics were made out of solid arsenic, wired together with pure lead, they'd still be less toxic than incandescents.

Plastic? We're talking about 100 grams of plastic. 100 grams of plastic maybe requires 200-300 grams of fossil fuels to manufacture. Running an incandescent bulb for a year requires 500,000 grams of fossil fuels. It's not even close.

(If you feel guilty about the plastic, buy your CFLs and make up for it somewhere else---switch to reusable shopping and lunch bags, avoid single-serving packaged snacks, etc.)

[technoextreme]

Originally Posted by ben m

No; cheap capacitors contain acids and whatnot which are only harmful in the sense of "you can't spill the concentrated stuff in your eyes"---boric acid, acetic acid, ethylene glycol---but that break down harmlessly in soil.

Ooo god a sign of someone who isn't an electrical engineer and the hasty generalization fallacy. Not every single cheap capacitor is like this. And if it is you *********** bought a piece of crap.
EDIT:
Also, I don't think those capacitors would actually work in this case. Its hard for me to say because I'd need to look at the schematic for an electrical ballast.

[ben m]

Originally Posted by 3bodyproblem

I'd be surprised if CFL's had significantly less environmental impact over their lifetimes given the number of components and the complexity of their manufacture. Factories in general cause environmental impact, and more parts mean more factories.

Your surprise is misplaced. "Small components" means that one factory makes a lot of them. A discrete-semiconductor-component factory can spit out literally trillions of diodes a year, and the whole world's CFL industry only buys up billions. In a case like this, "lots of parts" means "a handful of extra UPS truckloads", and "a couple of extra purchase orders at Vishay"---it does NOT mean "a wasteland of new factories making little parts".

Power plants and coal mines cause much, much worse environmental impact than any factory I can think of. More incandescents means more coal mines and more power plants, on a very large scale. More CFLs means a handful of extra truckloads of components shuffling around Asia. Take your pick.

[ben m]

Originally Posted by 3bodyproblem

Is it? Plastic bags are pretty cheap. A kilogram of mercury is about $10.

I'm not sure is it's a good measure or not. Plastic in particular is widely used, cheap and can have relatively little impact when it's recycled, but huge impacts when it isn't.

It's a great measure of the energy cost. My little box of 100 sandwich bags costs about the same as one gallon of gasoline; therefore we conclude that this box did not eat up two gallons of gas in manufacturing. See?

On the mercury side, we can conclude that it requires less than ~3.3 gallons of gas to mine, smelt, and purify 1 kg of mercury. Yeah, we can't use that to balance whether 1kg mercury is on the whole safer, or more dangerous, than 3.3 gallons of gas. You know why not? Because that's apples and oranges---it's incomparable. 1kg of mercury sulfate dropped into a salt mine is "better" than 3 gallons of gas spilled into Devil's Hole, Death Valley. 1kg of methyl mercury dumped in Georgian Bay is worse than 3 gallons of gas burned cleanly.

[Furcifer]

Originally Posted by ben m

Power plants and coal mines cause much, much worse environmental impact than any factory I can think of.

You're just not thinking very critically.

You probably aren't aware of all the chemicals that go into producing goods. I worked at a factory that made hydrofluoric acid. Most of it went to making florescent light bulbs coincidentally.

I cleaned up the contaminated grease under the drier. Full chemical suit, the whole 9 yards. Every couple of days I filled a blue plastic barrel, the 55 gallon ones, that had to be sealed then put into a containment area for disposal.

Each day around the world there are hundreds of plants like this producing chemicals that go into just about everything we use in our daily lives.

I've also worked at power plants and they don't come close to producing the same toxic chemicals, although the amounts of unseen CO2 are astounding. None the less they don't have anywhere near the same environmental programs for obvious reasons. I'm not saying CO2 doesn't have environmental impact, it does, it's just that it's relatively benign.

Waste water treatment, pulp mills, steel mills, refineries, manufacturing facilities all have much more stringent environmental regulation because they a much greater impact on the environment.

Here's a list of industrial disasters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rial_disasters

The Bhopal disaster is still listed as the World's worst industrial disaster, and it wasn't a power plant.

[Furcifer]

Originally Posted by ben m

It's a great measure of the energy cost. My little box of 100 sandwich bags costs about the same as one gallon of gasoline; therefore we conclude that this box did not eat up two gallons of gas in manufacturing. See?

Energy cost is a small component of environmental impact.

So what if it only costs the equivalent of a gallon of gas to make an ounce of chlorine gas. That doesn't reduce the environmental impact of the chlorine gas. You'll find most toxic chemicals cost less than gasoline.

[Earthborn]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Indeed. Total cost is a pretty good way to estimate the environmental impact of commodity products.

No, it isn't. There is no reason to assume all environmental impact is included in the price. If the manufacture of a product produces a some toxic waste, a version of it may be cheaper if it is produced in a country with little environmental protection and where the waste is simply dumped. A version for which the waste is properly disposed of may be more expensive, but also more environmentally friendly.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Earthborn

No, it isn't. There is no reason to assume all environmental impact is included in the price. If the manufacture of a product produces a some toxic waste, a version of it may be cheaper if it is produced in a country with little environmental protection and where the waste is simply dumped. A version for which the waste is properly disposed of may be more expensive, but also more environmentally friendly.

It's not a perfect proxy, and I never claimed it was. But most commodities don't face the sort of environmental discrepancy between brands that you describe. In fact, if you're paying more for "cleaner" but otherwise equivalent production, then I wouldn't even describe it as a commodity product but as a niche product. For commodities, their environmental impact is generally determined largely by how much resources are consumed in their production and use. And that is very much included in the price.

[DC]

nm

[Furcifer]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

For commodities, their environmental impact is generally determined largely by how much resources are consumed in their production and use. And that is very much included in the price.

I know what you're saying but I'm not sure how well it translates to light bulbs. As Earthborn mentioned, in this growing global economy cheap labour is falling into second place with poor environmental practices as the main reason to do business overseas. The "nastiness" usually comes in making the components, not necessarily assembling them, so the "made in the USA" logo doesn't ensure environmental practices were adhered to in making the product.

[Ivor the Engineer]

What people are talking about are called negative externalities, which as 3BP has just said, are one of the reasons companies in the rich developed countries have stuff manufactured in China. We can pretend the environmental and human costs don't exist when it's the environment of a country thousands of miles away and other poor people who are paying with their health.

Is it better for Chinese people to die early from diseases associated with heavy metal poisoning or malnourishment?

[Furcifer]

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

Is it better for Chinese people to die early from diseases associated with heavy metal poisoning or malnourishment?

Environmentally? The latter.

Thanks for the link, I never knew there was a specific definition for these impacts.

[mike3]

Originally Posted by 3bodyproblem

You're just not thinking very critically.

You probably aren't aware of all the chemicals that go into producing goods. I worked at a factory that made hydrofluoric acid. Most of it went to making florescent light bulbs coincidentally.

I cleaned up the contaminated grease under the drier. Full chemical suit, the whole 9 yards. Every couple of days I filled a blue plastic barrel, the 55 gallon ones, that had to be sealed then put into a containment area for disposal.

Each day around the world there are hundreds of plants like this producing chemicals that go into just about everything we use in our daily lives.

I've also worked at power plants and they don't come close to producing the same toxic chemicals, although the amounts of unseen CO2 are astounding. None the less they don't have anywhere near the same environmental programs for obvious reasons. I'm not saying CO2 doesn't have environmental impact, it does, it's just that it's relatively benign.

Waste water treatment, pulp mills, steel mills, refineries, manufacturing facilities all have much more stringent environmental regulation because they a much greater impact on the environment.

So, would _you_ say that the fossil fuel use difference over the running lifetime does not appreciably alter the overall ecological impact, due to the much worse effects of that stuff impacting?

However, if these chemicals are disposed of in a controlled manner (though in China, things might differ), wouldn't this then considerably blunt the impact due to them, and so the running fossil fuel use thing then becomes important, as that does discharge into the atmosphere on a continuous basis?

Originally Posted by 3bodyproblem

Here's a list of industrial disasters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rial_disasters

The Bhopal disaster is still listed as the World's worst industrial disaster, and it wasn't a power plant.

However, disasters are a sporadic event. I'm talking about continuous effects from production, use, and disposal of product.

[Furcifer]

Originally Posted by mike3

So, would _you_ say that the fossil fuel use difference over the running lifetime does not appreciably alter the overall ecological impact, due to the much worse effects of that stuff impacting?

I know they save money. I think however the environmental impacts are a lot less clear than they claim. The studies I've seen all take coal and convert it to electricity to9 make claims they are "greener". Not all electricity comes from coal, so I suspect some bias as soon as I see that. Then they overlook the things like the chemicals that go into making the plastics, and gases, the paints and the ceramics. A lot of these chemicals have known lasting effects from their toxicity. And producing these chemicals also creates CO2. CO2 is a pollutant, but the effects to the environment aren't as clear as mercury or lead. At least not presently.

Given all of this I'm skeptical of the claim they are "greener". Why not just stick the facts: they cost less.

Originally Posted by mike3

However, if these chemicals are disposed of in a controlled manner (though in China, things might differ), wouldn't this then considerably blunt the impact due to them, and so the running fossil fuel use thing then becomes important, as that does discharge into the atmosphere on a continuous basis?

Yes, but that seems to ignore toxicity and toxicity creates serious environmental hazard.

Originally Posted by mike3

However, disasters are a sporadic event. I'm talking about continuous effects from production, use, and disposal of product.

The production of light bulbs and all the parts and chemicals associated with making them is continuous as well.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

...

Is it better for Chinese people to die early from diseases associated with heavy metal poisoning or malnourishment?

Of course not, but their government will find some other creative way to kill them all if we stop buying their cheap junk.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by 3bodyproblem

The studies I've seen all take coal and convert it to electricity to9 make claims they are "greener".

It's either coal or natural gas. That's where our marginal electricity generation comes from, and that's what counts when you're talking about making a difference.

[Steve001]

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

What people are talking about are called negative externalities, which as 3BP has just said, are one of the reasons companies in the rich developed countries have stuff manufactured in China. We can pretend the environmental and human costs don't exist when it's the environment of a country thousands of miles away and other poor people who are paying with their health.

Is it better for Chinese people to die early from diseases associated with heavy metal poisoning or malnourishment?

It's more then that. China purposely devalues their currency making it attractively cheaper to the US too have products made there.
China all by itself does a very good job of self polluting its own environment do to very lax governmental controls. That's what I hear knowledgeable people say about China

[Steve001]

I wonder how much environmental impact LED lighting has during the manufacturing process ?

[ben m]

Originally Posted by 3bodyproblem

Energy cost is a small component of environmental impact.

So what if it only costs the equivalent of a gallon of gas to make an ounce of chlorine gas. That doesn't reduce the environmental impact of the chlorine gas. You'll find most toxic chemicals cost less than gasoline.

(Can you think of an actual chemical, other than water and water-with-tiny-amount-of-stuff-dissolved-in-it, that's cheaper than gasoline? I can't.)

But: sure, the environmental impact of a product is both its net-energy-cost and its net-other-pollution cost. To get the first, you do an energy budget. Retail price is an upper bound. Done.

To get the net-other-pollution cost, you look at the components. CFLs contain a tiny array of analog electronic components; we know ahead of time that they're fairly environmentally benign (a bit of lead for non-ROHS compliant bulbs); plus a glass envelope and a screw base (not too different than an incandescent); plus a few mg of mercury (certainly worth worrying about). Done.

That takes care of the manufacturing, then you think about the operations. The incandescent causes the mining, washing, transport, burning, and fly ash disposal of 1000 lbs of coal per year. (Pro-rate for the fraction of time the average bulb is turned on.) The CFL causes likewise for 150 lbs.

Again: it's no contest. The worst things you can imagine about an unregulated, lead- and PCB-dumping CFL manufacturer ... well, they're still better than the known facts about those coal mines.

[ben m]

Originally Posted by technoextreme

Ooo god a sign of someone who isn't an electrical engineer and the hasty generalization fallacy. Not every single cheap capacitor is like this. And if it is you *********** bought a piece of crap.
EDIT:
Also, I don't think those capacitors would actually work in this case. Its hard for me to say because I'd need to look at the schematic for an electrical ballast.

Found a photo.

http://www.eetimes.com/design/power-...ow-to-dim-them

I see two big electrolytics---I presume they're filtering the mains. Then there's a blue package I associate with ceramic and a dark red one I associate with film. Could be wrong.

[technoextreme]

Originally Posted by ben m

Found a photo.

http://www.eetimes.com/design/power-...ow-to-dim-them

I see two big electrolytics---I presume they're filtering the mains. Then there's a blue package I associate with ceramic and a dark red one I associate with film. Could be wrong.

Wait what??? Thats an incredibly stupid design.

Originally Posted by 3bodyproblem

I've also worked at power plants and they don't come close to producing the same toxic chemicals, although the amounts of unseen CO2 are astounding. None the less they don't have anywhere near the same environmental programs for obvious reasons. I'm not saying CO2 doesn't have environmental impact, it does, it's just that it's relatively benign.

Uhhh... Power plants produce plenty of toxic chemicals. They just unleash them into the air which means the laws that you nothing about don't actually apply.

[ben m]

Originally Posted by Steve001

I wonder how much environmental impact LED lighting has during the manufacturing process ?

http://www.ledsmagazine.com/news/7/3/12

Basically the same answer. Yes, there's an upfront cost to make high-tech components; which is worth the huge energy savings over the device's lifetimes.

[technoextreme]

Originally Posted by 3bodyproblem

Each day around the world there are hundreds of plants like this producing chemicals that go into just about everything we use in our daily lives.

No there aren't. You just picked the most ridiculously stupid example that your mind could think of to try and prove a point.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Originally Posted by technoextreme

Wait what??? Thats an incredibly stupid design.

<snip>

What is "incredibly stupid" about the design?

[Earthborn]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

It's not a perfect proxy, and I never claimed it was.

I think there is a subtle difference between "imperfect" and "utterly wrong". It would only work if manufacturers pay for the full environmental damage that they do. That's not the case, and may even be impossible as a lot of environmental resources have no monetary value.

Quote:

For commodities, their environmental impact is generally determined largely by how much resources are consumed in their production and use. And that is very much included in the price.

I don't think that is the major part of their environmental impact. A large part of the environmental impact -- that I already mentioned but which you seem to ignore -- is what sort of waste is produced during manufacture, and more importantly what happens to that waste. Disposing of it in an environmentally friendly way is often a lot more expensive than dumping it, which may make products with a high impact cheaper.