Re: [asa] Re: GW

Hi Jim,

You raise good concerns regarding the CFLs, and
fortunately, I think both awareness of the issue and
the number of recycling programs designed to properly
dispose of these CFLs are growing. As an example, when
my sister discovered that one of hers had been
cracked, I was able to email her a link showing that
their was a recycling facility within a couple miles
of her that could take it.

However, I would also point out that power derived
from traditional coal-fired power plants (which is the
majority of US power) also generates mercury emissions
of equal or greater amounts than CFL bulbs. I suppose
one could say that it's better to have it generated by
a plant rather than have someone be exposed to it at
home if one accidentally breaks, but in terms of the
environmental impacts, CFLs are probably better in the
long-term--especially in light (no pun intended!) of
the fact that using CFLs cuts other power plant
emissions such as SO2, particulate matter, NOx, etc.
and indirectly, reduces the environmental impacts
related to collecting and processing the coal itself
(since less coal is ultimately needed).

In Christ,
Christine

--- Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net> wrote:

> Regarding fluorescent light bulbs, every one of the
> bulbs contains a
> droplet of mercury. I rarely hear anyone speak of
> the tradeoff between
> power saving and mercury pollution even for standard
> fluorescent lamps
> (which also contain mercury), let alone the tsunami
> of new light-bulb
> configured fluorescents driven by cost saving on
> power alone. The proper
> disposition of the mercury containing devices is
> generally not
> addressed, and most are cavalierly (mostly out of
> ignorance) tossed in
> the ordinary trash and garbage. Those landfills are
> going to be
> wonderfully polluted with mercury, and no one seems
> to be worrying about
> that! I guess we have to wait for it to find its way
> down the waterways
> and into fish before it is of concern.
> JimA [ friend of ASA]
>
> Dave Wallace wrote:
>
> > I'm probably a little more skeptical than Burgy is
> but I still think
> > we should be taking remedial action. Like Burgy I
> am not a climate
> > scientist. Reasons why I am more skeptical:
> >
> > 1)The models are large complex codes and as
> someone who spent their
> > career programming, I don't think there is any
> such thing as the last
> > bug.
> >
> > 2)The computer models do not simulate all of the
> climate. As I
> > understand it, in some cases not all the physics
> is known and in
> > others the computer programs would just run too
> long to perform a more
> > exact simulation. Something called
> parameterization is used to set
> > coefficients for these areas that are not modeled
> but approximated.
> >
> > 3)Someone said that if they were tasked with
> understanding how good
> > the climate models are, that one thing they would
> do is talk to the
> > grad students who in many cases did the actual
> programming. Knowing
> > enough about the numerical methods and especially
> error propagation
> > takes more than a grad course or two in numerical
> methods. However,
> > at least one of the models and I assume more than
> one, come from
> > government research institutions and should not
> suffer from this problem.
> >
> > My take on remedial action is that we have two
> other global problems
> > for which many actions are the same as for global
> warming. Those
> > problems being:
> >
> > A) the coming depletion of oil and natural gas.
> The projection here
> > is that gas (for automobiles) which now sells for
> 4+$ US a gallon will
> > hit 6$ US a gallon in the not too far future.
> >
> > B) smog in cities like Toronto, LA, Tokyo is
> killing people,
> > especially those with respiratory problems.
> >
> > Thinking of things that improve all three or even
> any two of the above
> > is not hard:
> >
> > -Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs can reduce power
> consumption by a 75
> > to 80% and then upstream reduce fuel going into
> generating
> > stations... A while back I saw a news story that
> indicated that
> > incandescent bulbs in Canada are expected to
> become scares in the next
> > decade or so. Whether by forcing them off the
> market or adding a tax
> > of 10$ a bulb is immaterial.
> >
> > -eliminate air shuttles, Washington to New York to
> Boston etc. Ottawa
> > (where I live) to Toronto probably has around 40
> to 50 flights a day
> > each way. If we laid down dedicated dual tracks,
> even with the trains
> > that are in use today (85 to 100mph), rail
> passenger time, down town
> > to down town would be more than competitive with
> flight.
> >
> > -eliminate inter city truck transportation by
> improving rail facilities.
> >
> > -install electric water heaters, washers, dryers
> and disk washers with
> > the ability to run during off peak hours.
> Electric water heaters are
> > available here that can be shut down remotely by
> the power company to
> > help deal with city or province wide high peak
> loads. In a year or
> > two we will get billed more per kwh during peak
> hours of the day than
> > off hours. The generating stations that handle
> peak conditions are
> > typically very expensive to operate and pollute
> correspondingly.
> > Replacing good existing appliances is probably not
> the thing to do but
> > as they wear out then more efficient units should
> be obtained.
> >
> > Dave W (CSCA member)
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to
> majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
> message.
> >
> >
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to
> majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
> message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jan 27 21:57:27 2008