What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
206 Comments
- robdiggity, on 10/12/2007, -9/+89Curious about how we intend to dispose of the mercury present in CF lights. The cost and energy savings are obvious yes, but there is a downside that doesn't seem to get much attention: What do we do with all the mercury?
- randall814, on 10/12/2007, -31/+95while i certainly understand the more important environmental concern, this kind of sucks. for people such as movie makers and photographers, this is horrible news. fluorescent is cold, harsh, and downright ugly. incandescent light just makes things look so warm and beautiful.
at the very least, warm white LED FTW! - Fhionnlaoch, on 10/12/2007, -69/+123"there are plenty of ways to generate those same lighting contidtions/effects without destroying the world"
Yeah, 'cause every time you use a incadescent light bulb, you're literally destroying the ***** world. Also, it causes the deaths of five puppies. - greenvortex, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28Over its life, the power plant emissions saved by a CFL outweigh the emissions at disposal. For the mercury in particular, it is better to bury a tiny bit of mercury in the landfill than it is to operate a power plant and spew gaseous mercury into the air. EPA report: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/id/merc-emi/merc-pgs/emmrpt.pdf
- evilTak, on 10/12/2007, -7/+32I'm confused as to how a government can be simultaneously liberal and fascist...
- neophytoplasm, on 10/12/2007, -17/+38From GE's own web site:
Fluorescent lamps contain mercury. Mercury at atmospheric pressure is a silver colored liquid that tends to form balls. Mercury is a hazardous substance. When one lamp is broken, the best thing to do is to wear chemical resistant glove to clean it up. The gloves can be vinyl, rubber, PVC, or neoprene. The gloves you buy in the supermarket for household cleaning are sufficient. The gloves protect your skin from absorbing mercury and from getting cut by the glass. The remains of one lamp can be disposed as normal waste since the amount of mercury is small. However, for future reference, when large quantities of lamps are being disposed you must follow your state and the federal regulation for disposing of mercury-containing lamps.
Nice, so now I just fill my house/family/local landfill with mercury instead of using an inert incandescent bulb with no harmful chemicals that might lead to increased carbon dioxide emissions that might impact the trend of global warming (where it is yet not understood how human emissions are impacting this current warming cycle) because no one wants to use nuclear power because of fear mongering politicos frightening the uneducated public about the benefits;/risks of atomic power. Well, this whole light bulb deal is a real win/win for the people!! - IEatHamburgers, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23Does this actually mean *all* incandescents or just household light bulbs?
- dracostimpy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19@ImOscar
FYI... I'm part of the public, and I've been using fluorescent bulbs for 2 years now. Government's job should be to inform people of better alternatives, not to force them to adopt those alternatives. If someone doesn't have the $40 to exchange all their incandescent bulbs immediately after the legislation is passed (despite the fact that it would save them money in the long run), then they shouldn't be forced to take a payday loan just to make sure their house isn't raided by FBI bulb enforcers.
How about we take the logic of legislating it one step further... LED lights are far more efficient than fluorescent bulbs, but they run about $40 per bulb at present. Since they save the planet, however, ought we not make a law saying everyone MUST use LED bulbs immediately and throw out all their fluorescent bulbs? Where do you draw the line between what is a reasonable expense to foist onto the citizenry to save the planet and what is subsidy-by-legislation to the lighting industry? Shouldn't it be up to the consumer to decide what they can afford at present, regardless of the long-term expense?
*****, I'm sure GE is begging congress to pass the same law so they can reap nice profits when everyone is forced to replace all their bulbs at the same time and at greater cost now than if the fluorescent lighting industry were allowed to naturally evolve to a point where fluorescent bulbs are just as cheap as incandescent. I'm sure when everyone's incandescent bulbs burn out a year or two from now and they see better, longer lasting and more efficient bulbs for the SAME price at that time since the price will drop as the market grows, then they'll choose fluorescent bulbs since there's no initial cost above that of the old bulbs. Moreover, legislation of this short will FORCE a fluorescent lighting shortage, which in turn drives up prices and profits.
Australia, by passing this law, is giving a handout to the lighting industry at the expense of the citizenry while using the environmental movement as its justification. Slippery slope, folks. Won't be long before Australia forces everyone who owns a wristwatch to buy a shiny new Seiko kinetic watch since old watches have environment-polluting non-rechargeable batteries. And hey, if you think you're gonna use a gas stove to cook your steaks, I have news for ya, Aussies... microwaving has far lower environmental impact. MMMmmm... microwaved steaks! - unicronband, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20fluorescent- Australian for lightbulb
- johnhummel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17I just wanted to put my own $0.02 into this conversation:
1. For those screaming about "dem Government people are taking over our lives": Last time I checked, *you* elect "those government people". They are your representatives. If you don't like what they're doing, why are you voting for them?
2. This sounds like a good idea. Cars did not start getting better fuel standards on their own - it took government regulations which could be a kind of meta-consumer choice. Consumers (who elect their government officials) told the car companies "We want better fuel standards", and after the 1970's, we got it. (That there hasn't been much movement in two decades tells us that the consumers haven't elected officials who wanted more stringent standards until now.) The move by the Australian government will hurt some people, such as photographers and movie makers - people who can get their bulbs from the same place they get their specialty film for their movies (aka: from a specialty shop). But for the other 99% of the population, this can assist in lower energy bills, lower pollution and carbon emissions. It's a simple move that can make a good dent in the problem.
3. As a kind of meta-consumer move, this will also now encourage light bulb manufacturers do to better on the fluorescent line up, especially as they have 3 years in which to do it. More realistic lights for those complaining of tints or odd colors, or smaller bulbs to fit better in light bulbs (a problem in my house - my wife's lamp has a lampshade that is too low for the flourescent bulbs).
So yes, there is some pain here for some people. But in the long run, the government (elected by the people to represent them and think about hard issues like this) has made the right move by asking for a small sacrifice. Hopefully, we can make the same move on other issues such as car standards, increasing energy conservation, and other things to reduce emissions and increase non-oil energy supplies. - elroy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15You know how long it's gonna take to bake cookies in an EZ-Bake Oven with a CF bulb?
- tlogank, on 10/12/2007, -8/+22@randall814: I totally agree. I recently installed these new 'energy efficient' bulbs in all the lights at my home. Yes, it is great that their so energy/earth friendly, but you are absolutely right, the walls and floors in my house now have a weird tint/look to them. The grey wall in one of my rooms looked purple, and the hardwood flooring now has a yellow-ish tint to it. I will probably just leave them installed(since I spent so much on them), but I do hope they improve on this if they really want to start forcing consumers to purchase them.
- azurechaos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Seriously, there is considerably more mercury created (at least in the US) to fuel incandescent bulbs than the direct amount present in CFLs.
- nickaster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13I doubt the bulbs are banned for purposes such as movie making - I believe it's just a general household ban
- WATYF, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15forget the bad lighting and mercury issues.... the real problem is, how will we power our lava lamps?!?!?!?!?
seriously though, I was getting a little gung ho about CF bulbs and starting to look into them, and at first, this sounded like a good idea. But in reality, it's never a good idea when a) the government gets involved :op and b) you have no choice as a consumer.
If disposing of CF bulbs en masse is gonna dump a bunch of mercury into our landfills, then I'm thinking that we should check out some other alternatives.
And a-freaking-men to those who are suggesting nuclear (or nucular, if you're from the south) power as the better alternative. It's funny how environmental fear-mongering is getting us to do stupid things like outlaw lightbulbs and place all kinds of expensive regulations/taxes on consumables, and yet at the same time, they're trying to scare us *away* from the one alternative that looks the best at this point. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+19Re: robdiggity
Hmm... make thermometers? - Prysorra, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16I fail to see how the availability of incandescent bulbs are a statement of lifestyle choices....
- ajchavar, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14this could be easily (though i dont know about cost-effectively) fixed by tinting the glass around the CF bulbs. . .similar to how we photographers/videographers gel our hotlights or flashes to match the ambient light. why not just "color correct" the light at the source by tinting the glass. . .?
- spudnic, on 10/12/2007, -11/+21"This is a fact, no matter what anyone says, in our hearts we know that it is the truth."
I don't often use this term, but, lol. just... lol
So basically no matter what proof anyone might come up with which contradicts global warming, you'll dismiss it without even considering it? This is why the global warming people lose creditability. - garagethrash, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9fluoro = Australian slang for fluorescent :p
- CarpetFilter, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10While I am pro-environment, not sure I agree with this.
Rather than forcing people to live a certain way and thus earning themselves some animosity, the government should encourage this kind of behavior with incentives, such as tax breaks. You want people to choose this kind of behavior, rather than be forced into it, otherwise people just won't be happy about it.
I believe every modern nation should allow its citizens to write off all expenses relating to green tech. They could further amend building codes so that all new buildings are constructed with CFLs instead of incandescent lights. But if the owners want to change them out with incandescents later on, well, they should be allowed to. Perhaps exceptions could be offices, who tend to leave the lights on 24/7/365 - forcing those guys to at least use efficient tech 24/7/365 might be a good idea. - diggduggjoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Another issue is that compact fluorescent cannot go everywhere. They do not work well in the cold, especially at -15 we had here a few weeks ago. They are a good value for the save a lot of energy, but they are not perfect for every application. My entire home is using fluorescent, either CF of standard.. I am definitely for the use of them, but why not spend money on marketing and research to fix the few things that people do not like about them? Why use force when a good old salesmanship and innovation could make the public much more willing to make the move.
Why do so many people feel the need to force others to comply to their preferred lifestyle? Why not rejoice in freedom and leave others alone? If, you wish to sell your neighbor on using CFs fine, you have the write to speak, but demanding they agree with you is wrong. - ryanonfire, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9How am i supposed to heat my house now!
- Epyn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Jesus, if you actually think fluorescents run at 60hz you must not be able to read any of the comments on here, or press releases, or you haven't bought a decent CF in the last 2 years.
I don't like filament bulbs because they only flash for a second, burn out and smoke. I'll stick to candles, thanks. - thebhef, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11It's AUSTRALIA. Winter? No sir.
- dracostimpy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@Fhionnlaoch
Your logic is ass backward. Shouldn't the government, instead of FORCING people to buy more expensive light bulbs, instead perhaps do what it can to lower the price of the new light bulbs by increasing demand through education and tax breaks or even simply by buying the new bulbs itself, since government buildings need light too?
What happens if the government decides it doesn't want anyone to eat corn anymore because they want to use it all for ethanol to "save the planet"? Are you content with eliminating corn from your diet? How about beef too since cows produce methane? In fact, almost all veggies need fertilizer, which is often petroleum-based... let's ban all fertilized crops. And any non-fertilized crops that require a combine/tractor to harvest them since those machines create smog. So we're left with, umm, oranges maybe? I hope you like oranges, because by your logic, the only way to save the planet is for government to ban all activities that are detrimental to our precious ecosystem.
Wait a second... did I just hear you fart while reading this? That's a $50 fine for ozone pollution, citizen! - rogueman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I bought a harsh white-colour fluorescent bulb too, but since I already had two who give a beautiful soft light I knew it wasn't just one color. It helps if you read the label, and also choose a more expensive brand. I go with Philips (the yellow ones), and over all they're great. It's only annoying that they were guaranteed for 5 years and after I little over 5 years all of them burned out. They recover the costs in the first year so it's still ok. Also now the most expensive ones go 8 years.
- Morphix, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9With respect to Mercury, while it's true that CF lightbulbs contain mercury, the amount of mercury in the lightbulb is less than the amount released by the increased amount of coal which is burned during the lifetime of an incandescent bulb, so the net amount of mercury is actually less if you switch to CFLs.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10"Filters and gels" will only work for colour correction if the colour you want to correct to is present in the light already. All a filter does is remove 'extraneous' light colours, not add colours that aren't there.
Sure, you can get the colour closer, but you cannot fix CF's lack of spectra with filters. - spyd3rweb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7i'll start the black market for incandescent bulbs! msg me for some ultra high grade stuff man!
- johndi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6A good fluorescent light doesn't have that problem. Look at how popular laptops and LCD monitors have become and they use fluorescent tubes for back-lighting.
- dracostimpy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@ImOscar
It's reasonably priced for you, me and Dupree, perhaps, but not everyone. Competition is nothing if not good for the marketplace, and what the government is doing is eliminating competition. Now that people have no alternative, what motivation is there for manufacturers to reduce fluorescent bulb prices? They will then be the cheapest bulbs available, albeit at a multiple of the price of a typical incandescent bulb. Don't be surprised if Australians see prices stagnate or perhaps even rise for those bulbs over the next few years while the price continues to decline in countries that aren't foolish enough to eliminate competition by regulation.
As for drawing the line, how about letting the CONSUMER choose when to draw the line instead of big brother? Why is it so hard for you to imagine people choosing the more sensible alternative when the time comes that these bulbs are such a bargain that incandescent bulbs is no longer a viable alternative? People used to ride horses to get from point A to point B, but did the government have to pass a law to convince people that using a car was a better alternative? Granted that was a paradigm shift, but the principle is the same regardless.
Here's perhaps a better example: CRTs versus LCDs in computers. Both are just fancy lightbulbs, and CRTs are cheaper than LCDs, yet CRTs as an industry are fading despite the cost savings. How on earth is this happening without a law forcing people to buy LCDs? Perhaps it's because LCDs are just that much better in many respects, kind of like fluorescents are to incandescents. The time will come soon that fluorescents are just as much of an overwhelming value to old bulbs as LCDs are to old CRTs, and at that time the MARKET will phase out the old technology. For government to do so is reckless and manipulative, and regulation always happens at the cost of the consumer rather than the producer. Congratulations to GE for your government-mandated windfall. - richterbelmont, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12"This decision is a no-brainer."
Given that these bulbs contain mercury, I would say it's anything but a no brainer. How many people know this, and know to dispose of them appropriately?
And even if you were aware of the situation, would you really take the time if the nearest mercury disposal facility was 30-60+ miles away? Or would you just chuck it in the garbage? - MrKite, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Fluorescents give me a freakin' headache and they remind me of work. I wouldn't be able to handle this type of lighting all over my house. I'd rather light candles (in which I do quite a bit).
- Railer, on 10/12/2007, -12/+18You guys all understand that you are just causing a much larger environmental problem 10 years from now? All of these florescence are filled with mercury and in 10 years when we go to throw all these away, and no they won't all be recycled, there is going to be a huge mercury problem worldwide.
It's soooo much easier just to use nuclear power. It's completely CO2 free and the waste products can be properly disposed. I don't know it just makes more sense to me.
Now that does not mean I'm against alternate forms of lighting I personally have all florescence in my house, even some LED bulbs, but I know they need to be disposed of properly. I just think we're not thinking this through. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13The mercury in the fluorescent bulbs is very minute and has no more damage to the earth when tossed in our landfills compared to regular incandescent bulbs. If you happen to have a fluorescent bulb with more mercury than what is allowed in typical landfills then refer to your state disposal policies and recycle or dispose of those bulbs accordingly. The ones we use in our homes have next to no mercury in them; the rest are federally regulated by EPA and must be disposed of accordingly.
- jpop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Cynical comment:
Phase 1: Replace your incandescents with fluorescents and save money on power!
Phase 2: You've conserved so well, the power companies are losing money, so they need to triple your rates to meet their financial goals. - diggduggjoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I have similar feelings. I moved everything to fluorescent, have PCs using extreme energy savings and live in a cold house most of the winter (I set back to 60 degrees most of the day now while my family is gone and while we sleep) . My utility bills just go up to about what they were before.
I am saving money, but wonder if my efforts and millions of others make utilities ask for rate increases. - yellekc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5As others have mentioned mercury is released into the atmosphere when generating electricity.
Australia generates over 75% of its power from coal.
The amount of mercury spewed into the atmosphere to power an incandescent bulb over a fluorescent one is way more than the amount of mercury contained in these bulbs. So even if absolutely everyone disposed of them incorrectly, there will still be far less mercury released into the environment.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/ab/CFL_bulb_mercury_use_environment.svg/300px-CFL_bulb_mercury_use_environment.svg.png - jeffiek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Why is Australia banning incandescents?
Because they can.
Think about it. Ten years ago it would have been impossible to implement such a ban. Fluorescents were way to primitive, costly and there wasn't much negative publicity from the energy point of view. Ten years from now it won't be necessary to ban incandescents, the consumer will have abandoned them on their own (at least that's how it appears, and it is a typical trend with new technology).
But today there's a window of opportunity for governments. They can expand their authority into another aspect of everyday life. Bear in mind that governments didn't create the compact fluorescents, industry did that. And governments didn't cause them to grow from an idle curiosity to a competitive product, consumer demand did that. Neither fact will stop politicians from grandstanding - it's what they do. - tripm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This is cool - but how will I make brownies in my Easy-Bake Oven once the bulb burns out?
- GeneralAntilles, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Or let market forces take care of it. When fluorescents become a compelling replacement for incandescent bulbs, people will buy them. Until then, government has no place legislating this sort of *****.
- azimuthal, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11The gov does dictate what cars you drive, by safety standards, licensing systems, emissions standards etc.
There aren't many food restrictions in place that I can think of, but it seems like trans-fats are being banned in some places (New York City..), which I think is a great idea.
I'm not sure what kinda of tools you would like to implement to entice people to switch. CF bulbs have been easily found for years, but their high cost of entry has hurt their adoption. Even though they pay for themselves over their life span.
This is just the kind of thing that should be legislated. - GeneralAntilles, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Newer fluorescent electronic ballasts allow for both 3-level and dimming. But it still doesn't change the fact that having government legislate every aspect of our lives is *****.
- BriSoFli, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Ironically, CFLs present an opportunity to prevent mercury from entering our air, where it most affects our health. The highest source of mercury in our air comes from burning fossil fuels such as coal, the most common fuel used in the U.S. to produce electricity. A CFL uses 75% less energy than an incandescent light bulb and lasts at least 6 times longer. A power plant will emit 10mg of mercury to produce the electricity to run an incandescent bulb compared to only 2.4mg of mercury to run a CFL for the same time."
http://www.nema.org/lamprecycle/epafactsheet-cfl.pdf - chingy1788, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4no it doesnt
according to yellekc and wikipedia's sources
"As others have mentioned mercury is released into the atmosphere when generating electricity.
Australia generates over 75% of its power from coal.
The amount of mercury spewed into the atmosphere to power an incandescent bulb over a fluorescent one is way more than the amount of mercury contained in these bulbs. So even if absolutely everyone disposed of them incorrectly, there will still be far less mercury released into the environment.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/ab/CFL_bulb_mercury_use_environment.svg/300px-CFL_bulb_mercury_use_environment.svg.png"
it does not - superKduper, on 10/12/2007, -10/+14In Australia, because incandescent bulbs aren't meant to burn upside-down (gravity on the filament, etc), bulbs life is MUCH less than it is in the northern hemisphere. So people won't miss these bulbs anyway.
- SIRBERUS, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I've seen a few comments about using nuclear energy.. apparently I have been brain washed, because I was under the assumption that it produced waste that could not be dealt with.
Anyone got any good articles that say otherwise? - loup, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4There actually are some CF lights that work with dimmers now. At my local hardware store they run round $10US
- Sparebear75, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I bought the Philips Marathon compact florescents last fall and they don't throw off as harsh light as the other brands. Kudos to Austrailia for taking this step.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 207 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 