(Disclaimer: I have 3 in my home now.)
Did you know:
While California's Title 24 law advocates the 50/50 use of fluorescents, its Title 22 law bans the disposal of them by homeowners.
(One estimate I read is that 50,000 lbs of mercury per year could be released into the environment beginning in just a few years.)
As each CFL contains 5 milligrams of mercury, at the Maine "safety" standard of 300 nanograms per cubic meter, it would take 16,667 cubic meters of soil to "safely" contain all the mercury in a single CFL. While CFL vendors and environmentalists tout the energy cost savings of CFLs, they conveniently omit the personal and societal costs of CFL disposal.
LINK
It doesn't really matter then, that the manufacturers and backers of the compact fluorescent light bulb admit they have no program in mind for recycling the potentially deadly mercury contained in those appliances.
LINK
The CFL mercury nightmare
How much money does it take to screw in a compact fluorescent light bulb? About US$4.28 for the bulb and labour -- unless you break the bulb. Then you, like Brandy Bridges of Ellsworth, Maine, could be looking at a cost of about US$2,004.28, which doesn't include the costs of frayed nerves and risks to health.
Aware that CFLs contain potentially hazardous substances, Mrs. Bridges called her local Home Depot for advice. The store told her the CFL contained mercury and she should call the Poison Control hotline, which in turn, directed her to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).
The DEP sent a specialist to Mrs. Bridges' house to test for mercury contamination. The specialist found mercury levels in the bedroom in excess of 6 times the state's "safe" level for mercury contamination of 300 billionths of a gram per cubic meter.
The DEP specialist recommended Mrs. Bridges call an environmental clean-up firm which, reportedly, gave her a "low-ball" estimate of $2,000 to clean up the room. The room was then sealed-off with plastic and Mrs. Bridges began "gathering finances" to pay for the $2,000 cleaning. Reportedly, her insurance company wouldn't cover the clean-up costs because mercury is a pollutant.
Given that replacing incandescent bulbs with CFLs in the average U.S. household is touted as saving as much as $180 annually in energy costs -- and assuming Mrs. Bridges doesn't break any more CFLs -- it will take her more than 11 years to recoup the clean-up costs in the form of energy savings.
+++++++++++++
One of the big reasons for getting rid of the incandescent bulb is that most of the energy consumed is converted to heat rather than light. This is true.
However, the greatest use of these lights takes place in the winter when there is less daylight and most people want heat!
So is there really the huge cost savings or energy savings promised?
Also, I've had several of the "5 year" bulbs burn out within months, one almost caused an electrical fire.
That saved me no money. I threw it in the trash.
Now as to recycling these bulbs.
Have you considered the hugh size of the "carbon footprint" which would be caused by the proper collection, transportation, this-assembly and processing of waste products contaminated by mercury?
If you are really serious about the environment and energy conservation, use a nice warm incandescent bulb or buy LEDs. But not CFLs. Never again.
Edited by Rogerdodger, 05 May 2007 - 11:37 PM.