BTW, the carbon footprint on a PER CAPITA basis is quite informative as well. Think of it as greenhouse gas density:

BTW, the EPA restriction for mercury release will fall to 20 tons in 2010 (if Clear Skies passes), so then CFLs won't have as large an advantage, but they will still have some.

I do, too, runaway. I never have understood the bias against nukes....

I'm rying to see if CFLs are lower mercury generaors than the amount of energy they save generates.

However I have discovered that power plants put 50 tons of mercury into the environment every year.

.....
.....
Here's a good question, though, now that you mention it. How many CFLs disposed = 1 kW of coal generated power in terms of mercury put into the environment? .....

It's kinda ridiculous to compare one CFL to a powerplant, don't you think?

You might not like it, but it isn't BS.

I signed up for the green energy option with National Grid as soon as it became tax deductable, which was last summer for the program I have.

A friend of mine designs water treatment plants. They had a presentation about increased use of CFLs and mercury contamination. This was one of the slides from the presentation.

I talked to a friend of a friend who works at a company in atlanta that makes the machines that recycle glass and plastic a few months back. He said that for the past 2 or so years, production has gone up almost 300%! They've had to do a ton of hiring. Hearing things like that are very encouraging.

Folks, now is the time to buy stock in these buisness that are producing the technology to go green. You're almost gauranteed to make a ton of money sometime down the line. Especially in companies that develop renewable energy technology. I made the green power switch with TVA as soon as I moved to nashville this past may. I've tried to get just about everyone I know here to do the same.

The First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge US Liquid Fund, for example, holds Cree Inc. (NASDAQ: CREE), First Solar, Inc. (NASDAQ: FSLR), Itron Inc. (NASDAQ: ITRI) and MEMC Electronic Materials (NYSE: WFR), among others.

So owning shares of that ETF will give you exposure to LED lighting, thin film solar, silicon supply, advanced meters and even water.

That's why Green Chip recommends going after individual companies. The upside, both in the short and long term, is significantly higher. And when you follow our recommendations, the higher risk that is associated with individual stocks is often negated, because we do the due diligence for you.

One thing to keep in mind, you can't really store electricity. Small scale you can use batteries, but large scale there are few ways. The only viable one I know of, in fact, is where they use the excess power in the evening to pump water up to a reservoir that in the day is able to be used in turn for hydro-electric.

since power can't be stored, power generation has to be built for the maximum usage. Agreed, you can turn generators off etc, but it is hard to quickly turn off a boiler on a day to day basis. CFs in the home don't make as huge an impact as other daytime needs. I think the focus really needs to be on better industrial reductions.

So it's ok to mandate lower profits for shareholders yet force them to invest in new sources of power, but mandating CFL's is not?

The source is power. Right now the power is generally produced from coal. So it seems to me that the quicker return is in reducing new demand by installing CFL's and insulating homes. Otherwise we're going to be building lots of new coal plants. We're too far behind to just say 'let's build solar panels'. They are too busy installing them in Germany and other places and there is already a global silicon shortage.

this needs to be mandated, plain and simple. it doesn't need subsidies, it just needs a mandate with regulation (perhaps even regulation over how much of that extra cost can be passed down to the consumers). clean up or stop what you're doing. it might mean higher costs for us, but this is where we've brought ourselves.



this is really the main point i've been trying to make. we need to go after the source. the source is the biggest offender here and until that changes, we're not going to be changing a whole lot. i wouldn't mind coal power plants if they worked to make them cleaner. i am also not entirely opposed to nuclear power.

Well, we probably have a slightly better chance of a small amount of our tax money being taken from the oil companies than expecting investors in utilities to voluntarily reduce their profits because you (and I) feel they should make 'greener' power. But let's face it, that ain't going to happen while Bush is in office. He's said as much.

But sitting here arguing about which method of lighting produces a few extra micrograms of mercury seems a bit silly when so much of that power is produced using non-renewable fossil fuels. Like I said, there are places that are having electricity shortages today. We may not be that far behind.

the government should be taking the money (your money) it uses to subsidize oil companies and put that money towards subsidizing renewable energy. there's your answer.

i have said several times, i use CFL's myself. i have a problem with the government telling me what i can and cannot buy. incandescent bulbs have a purpose for many people (i still MUCH prefer the light they give off to the light of CFL's).

the reason i have an issue with CFL's is that there will be far more mercury in landfills than in the air once we start using them. the reason is that the majority of incandescents being used release less mercury (either into the air or land) than CFL's.

then there's the issue of recycling. who's going to pay for that? that's YOUR money that has to go to the special care at these new recycling centers that will have to exist in every town. we can't depend on just IKEA for that (heck, i'd spend more money on gas and release more pollutants to get to the nearest IKEA than i would if i used incandescent bulbs). i think that's an unnecessary burden on the towns and states, which will equate to higher local and state taxes.

Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 7.2% in 1995 [2], and in the UK at 7.4% in 1998. [3]

Dear God man, what is going on here? I have mentioned 100w bulbs once. A study I linked to mentioned them once, and that is the only thing at all you responded to. To be honest, the reason I used 100w bulb instead of incandescent is because it's easier and quicker to spell. It doesn't matter what wattage you use. It's inefficent and it produces heat which generally is wasteful. Tax them so the price is comparable to CFL's.

How is 'government money', which is MY money, being spent on banning incandescents? Sounds pretty cheap to me. While paying for solar, wind or anything else is going to be subsidized by that 'government money' which seems to be in short supply these days. Not that I don't think it's important, I think we'll be very lucky if we're not sitting in the dark in just a few short years, but as I said...IT IS ALWAYS EASIER TO CUT CONSUMPTION THAN INCREASE SUPPLY OF ENERGY.

Please let me know when you are able to refute that. Put your money where your mouth is. Invest in some alternative energy sources. Or just talk to someone who installs solar panels. Anyone who is honest will tell you FIRST, you need to cut your CONSUMPTION, INSULATE, and then it might make sense to spend thousands on making your own energy. Before that, you might as well put your money in a pit and burn it to stay warm.

Let me know when you can refute the fact that mercury in the air is more dangerous that mercury in a landfill.

Cheers!

How can we mandate cleaner power plants which require much more investment and not expect higher electric bills? We've lived on cheap energy in this country for WAY too long and unfortunately all will have to pay, power generators and consumers alike.

We should still move away from incadescent bulbs because we can gain a great savings in energy usage. I mean when you replace a 60W incandescent with a 13W CFL, the savings are tremendous.

i don't know why you keep mentioning 100W bulbs. as i said before, they aren't that common unless you want to be sitting under the sun for everything. the only place i have ever used a 100W bulb was in a light next to the driveway at my mother's house. she lived on a dark street and this brightened up the driveway better than a lower wattage. other than that, everything has always been 25, 40, or 60W, depending on the usage.

and while i understand the benefits of moving to CFL's, if they're required, I can guarantee that the majority (80+%) of the people will not recycle them properly, even if it is mandated. many people consider recycling to be a hassle. now i'm not justifying their actions, but there's no way around it.

i would prefer to see government money going towards alternative energy sources. start at the source. we keep coming up with these gimmicks (and to a degree, that's what they are) to get around that, but the 800 pound gorilla here is the source of the energy. if we can get that taken care of, then we can eliminate a ton of the issues. but that's not going to come through subsidizing corn for ethanol or banning incandescent bulbs or taxing the hell out of them. it's only going to come from good research into newer technologies. if LED's were more mainstream, they'd come down in price. throw some money into that. they'd be a hell of a lot safer for the environment than CFL's... and they have the added benefit of lasting a whole lot longer.

converting to renewable energy sources would come at a cost to the people (directly and by way of the government). mandating cleaner power plants should only come at a cost to the energy companies who should not be passing these costs on to their customers. there could be some cost to the gov't by way of incentives, but that wouldn't be outrageous.

banning incandescent bulbs comes at a cost to the environment and to the people who need to buy more expensive bulbs to replace their burned out incandescents.

Well, I can't imagine mandating CFL's costs much to do or requires much effort whereas converting over to renewal energies and mandating cleaner power plants are grossly expensive to implement.