Sight fears over low-energy bulbs

[adam2]

Large users of flourescent lamps, including compact types, are required by law to recycle them.
In my work I replace dozens a week, the old ones are stored and eventually collected for recycling (I think that they are broken underwater, and the mercury extracted from the water)

I take used CFLs from home for disposal via work, as do a number of employees, I dont mind taking them for neighbours also.

Its allways worth asking if any friends or neighbours have proper disposal facilities via work.

Even without proper disposal, use of CFLs is far better for the enviroment then incandescent lamps.

[biffvernon]

In my work I replace dozens a week,

I just can't imagine what your job is, Adam. Caretaker to a whole chain of hotels? Before CFLs did you change hundreds of incandescents a week?

[adam2]

In my work I replace dozens a week,

I just can't imagine what your job is, Adam. Caretaker to a whole chain of hotels? Before CFLs did you change hundreds of incandescents a week?

I maintain a large office building, and two smaller ones.
I have never counted the number of lamps in use but it must be several thousand.
We use a selection of low energy lamps, some are the domestic type with built in control gear, intended to replace GLS lamps. Others are the 2 pin and 4 pin types were the control gear is located in the fitting.
Where the lamps are readily reached with a pair of steps they are replaced as they fail, if however scaffolding or a powered access platform is required, then it is more economic to wait until say 10% of the lamps have failed and replace them all.
CFLs have been used since I have been employed at these buildings, but in years gone by, I understand that more staff were employed, and yes they did change hundreds of lamps a week!

In previous employment I was in charge of lighting maintaintence at a large department store. Lamp replacement was a full time job for 4 men !
Thousands of lamps a week being used, mainly 12 volt halogen types but with many others. (I used to joke that we used almost every lamp type that was made, and some that were not)

[Adam1]

Even without proper disposal, use of CFLs is far better for the enviroment then incandescent lamps.

This thread and Chris's post inspired me to go off and do some more investigating about mercury in CFLs for an essay for my course. I came to the conclusion that:

1) The three biggest sources of mercury poisoning in humans are fish, some vaccines and amalgam fillings
2) Half of all atmospheric emissions come from natural sources (e.g. volcanoes); globally coal power stations emit something like two-thirds of the human-generated half
3) Coal stations with flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) trap 40% of the mercury that would otherwise be emitted into the atmosphere
3) CFLs create a lot less mercury if one or more of the following is true

(a) The electricity they save is mostly coal generated
(b) The CFL is higher wattage, say 15W or more
(c) The CFL is longer life (at least 10,000 hours)
(d) There is no FGD fitted in the coal stations (strictly speaking, this only makes a difference to where the mercury ends up)

4) It is difficult to say accurately whether the electricity CFLs save in the UK is mostly or only partly coal generated.
5) We do need to manage the mercury waste but as much because of mercury depletion - the element is key to making CFLs work efficiently
6) CFLs may/should be replaced by LEDs for lower lumen lamps.
7) It is harder to manage the mercury waste problem with CFLs because it relies on lots of electricity consumers acting responsibly rather than a few electricity generators.

[clv101]

That's a great summary Adam, thanks.