Incandescent lamps v energy saver.

[woodchopper]

There has been some speculation that energy saving lamps have the same carbon footprint as the standard light bulb - yes, they do save energy when producing light but the manufacturing methods use a lot more energy than would ever be used the life of a standard bulb - has anyone seen the results of any research in this matter ?

[gen2]

Your concern with carbon footprints is very worthy but there is a far more serious consequence of switching to CFLs. Compact Fluorescen Lamps (CFLs) contain the toxic heavy metal, mercury. The EU is demanding that we change to CFLs by 2009, but it also prohibits mercury from being deposited in landfill sites (Restriction on Hazardous Substances directive 2006). Now consider the cost and energy expended separating used CFLs from household waste and disposed of appropriately.

See the Sunday Telegraph 15/4/07 P16 Christopher Booker

According to that article, the horrors of mercury contamination from these lamps has already been experienced by 'Bandy Bridges' in Bar Harbour, Maine who dropped and broke a CFL and was quoted $2000 to decontaminate her home!

[jake-the-peg]

That sounds very Telegraph!

Did they point out that a CFL bulb contains about 5mg of mercury and that the estimated recycling cost is about $0.50 per lamp?

Compare that to a mercury thermometer with 50 mg to 5g, now I know you're going to say that there are not many of them about any more but there a a whole load of capacitors containing 10-40mg and plety of other sources besides!

The bottom line is you don't really know anything until you look at the numbers.

I'd like to think that the Telegraph has our best interests at heart but in reality I have to say I think it's all to do with a general "anti-environmental" stance they seem to be taking of late.

It is rather amusing though that they had to go all the war to "Bar Harbour, in Maine" to illustrate their story

http://www.zerowaste.org/cfl/IMAGES_A/PILOT_PR .PDF
http://www.purdue.edu/rem/hmm/mercinfo.htm