Golly, I hate being the one to say this....RE: P2 Impact of Bulbs... but I guess I'm feeling curmudgeonly today

[Rick Yoder <ryoder@mail.unomaha.edu>]

Rodney - I really liked learning of
the references you mentioned for what they do well. But there are two things
these references did not do well - 

1)  The EPA Power Profiler http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/powerprofiler.htm
incorrectly identified my power company.  One of the limitations of
using a zip code to ID power companies is that more than one power company
may serve a single zip code. But it serves as a very good first approximation
- and one I did not previously know about... so thanks again

2)  The second part of what it
does not do is identify mercury impact of  power plants.  It
would be helpful to the "P2 impact of CFL" discussion, but I
did not see it there.  As it is, with only the  other emission
information provided, I suppose that could imply that these other pollutants
pose a greater environmental health risk that does Hg - which may be true
due to any number of reasons.  

Rant about mercury in CFLs:
That second bit  - about mercury
and CFLs - is becoming a frequent question that we really ought to be able
to answer. Every time I attend a meeting where someone suggests that CFLs
are preferable to incandescents (which I accept), some bright, mercury-minded
person points out that CFLs have mercury in them, too, and asks the obvious
- how is it that putting Hg-containing devices into the home in a place
where one did not exist already is a net benefit to the environment?  IMHO,
no-one has adequately answered this, and to make the point, I jotted down
a quick calculation to highlight where the assumptions exist
(see below) - asking anyone who is making the claim about a positive
benefit to pony up the evidence to support their claim.  Otherwise,
we leave the technical folks in the field in the nasty position of appearing
to distribute another urban legend - something that sounds good, but maybe
isn't. So I put it to anyone on the listserve - I'm from Missouri, so I've
got the birthright to say this:  SHOW ME the data!  I'll warn
you up front that there are several variables, and in my mind the correct
reply would likely be a multi-variable graph like a fan curve or a pump
curve or a psychrometric chart - different size CFLs have different amounts
of mercury (I don't believe this is a straight-line curve) and replace
different wattages of incandescents (again, I don't think it is a straight
line relationship for energy saved, from which one learns the power demand
from the power plant).  Additionally, the "mercury used"
comparison between bulb (relatively static for a specific wattage of CFL
bulb) and emissions from the power plant (potentially widely variable,
depending on the source of the coal used to power the plant) is dynamic
at best.

I'm getting a little tired of useless
comparisons (what does a comparison of the amount of mercury in a bulb
compared to the amount of Hg in a watch battery tell me?), worthless reference
links to website home pages (not publications found in deep links - you
know, with page numbers and specific quotes, like you had to do to get
a passing grade in school?) and generally unsubstantiated claims.  The
people I talk to deserve to be given good information.  

What follows is an earlier request I
made for information on the subject - weigh in, please, if you have an
answer.  


The EPA Energy Star fact sheet, Frequently Asked Questions Information
on Proper Disposal of Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs (CFLs), was referenced
in our meeting (thanks to Fred in our office for finding the URL for me)
.... 
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf

You will need to read a bit, and it never really answers straight out the
question, "if a CFL has mercury, then doesn't that reduce its benefit
relative to an incandescent, which has no mercury?"  

The answer?  "Nope, a CFL is still clearly better than an incandescent."
Here's why: 

In the fact sheet it is noted that a CFL uses about 1/4 the energy of an
incandescent - 13W v. 60W.  In fact, this multiplier slides around
a bit, becoming more favorable to the CFL than  to the incandescent
as the light power (lumens) increase.  Check out the chart here:
http://www.gelighting.com/na/home_lighting/ask_us/faq_compact.htm#which_bulb

This means that (for lighting powered by coal-fired power plants) the amount
of energy used at the plant to power the incandescent bulb is ~4x that
of powering a CFL for the same lumens.  Therefore, the Hg emissions
at the plant are ~4x, too.  So, the question is, how much Hg is emitted
per watt generated?  According to the EPA fact sheet referenced above,
"A coal-fired power plant will emit 13.6 milligrams of mercury to
produce electricity required to use an incandescent light bulb, compared
to 3.3 milligrams for a CFL."  Unfortunately, the fact sheet
fails to tell us the size of the bulb associated with these rates, i.e.,
what the emission to wattage ratio is for these bulbs.  So, I am assuming
they are still referring to the 60W and 13W bulbs mentioned earlier in
the sheet.  Also, having just reviewed an article that clearly demonstrates
a viable mercury reduction strategy for coal fired power plants exists
by carefully testing and preferentially purchasing low mercury content
coal - different sources have markedly different content - I'm skeptical
that these are precise numbers of mercury emissions.  Mercury emissions
will vary widely, depending on the coal seam used and on control technology
- EPA Energy Star should address this.

In order to answer the question, "Is the amount of mercury in a CFL
+ the amount of mercury emissions associated with the energy required to
power the CFL less than the amount of mercury emissions associated
with the coal fired power used to light an incandescent bulb?" we
need to know how much mercury is in a CFL bulb. Again, from the fact sheet
we can't tell what size bulb EPA is talking about, and the amount changes
depending on size, but let's again assume the 13W bulb.  The fact
sheet says the average is 5mg of mercury in the bulb.  A chart with
2002 and 2003 mercury amounts associated with different bulbs available
under a New Jersey contract is available here: 
http://www.informinc.org/fact_P3NJlampcontract.php  
There is also a comparison of the CFL amount of mercury compared to other
household devices in the fact sheet, and here's a chart that compares amounts
in other items, too. 
http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/energystar/english/consumers/questions-answers.cfm?attr=4#mercury
But I'm not sure that's a worthwhile comparison - after all, aren't we
trying to get rid of as much mercury as we can?  Those comparable
items will be harder to find as we continue to have success in our mercury
reduction efforts.  But back to the calculations...

For a 60W & 13 W comparison, the energy used is:
60W = (13.6 milligrams of Hg from the coal fired power plant + 0 in the
bulb) = 13.6 mg 
13W CFL = (3.3 milligrams of Hg from the coal fired power plant + 5 in
the bulb) = 8.3 mg 

Therefore, a net reduction of Hg for CFL, not to mention less pressure
on the power plant to generate more greenhouse gases.  A nice image
to illustrate the difference between the bulbs can be found here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CFL_bulb_mercury_use_environment.svg
and here 
http://www.nema.org/lamprecycle/epafactsheet-cfl.pdf
and supposedly in a 2002 EPA document, unspecified.  As you can see,
the numbers are different in this image, which only serves to add to the
confusion.  Why can't EPA Energy Star adequately reference their
assumptions??? 

I want to add this comment:  if properly handled, the mercury in a
CFL will be managed (the likely worst case is that it will go to a landfill),
while the mercury emitted from a power plant is disposed in an uncontrollable
fashion.  And we all know that the waste management hierarchy tells
us the CFL management (hopefully captured and recycled) is preferable to
that of emission from  the power plant. 

And of course, CFLs won't be the sensible choice (from a potential Hg exposure
risk) if you can afford to power your home with sufficient renewable energy...
 But that's not who we were asking for, was it?

OK - that's the end of the rant - let me know of the
information you have - 

rick

Richard Yoder, PE Director, P2ric.org University of Nebraska at Omaha 6001 Dodge Street, RH308 Omaha, NE 68182 vox: 402-554-6257 fax: 402-554-6260 http://www.p2ric.org/

P2RIC, the Pollution Prevention Regional Information Center, is a proud member of the Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange, P2Rx.org.

"Sobin,Rodney" <rsobin@deq.virginia.gov>
Sent by: owner-p2tech@great-lakes.net

12/13/2006 12:43 PM

Please respond to
"Sobin,Rodney" <rsobin@deq.virginia.gov>

To	"Sue Schauls" <sue.schauls@uni.edu>, "P2 providers in Region 7" <p2r7@p2ric.org>, "P2 Tech Listserve" <p2tech@great-lakes.net>
cc
Subject	RE: P2 Impact of Bulbs

Sue and other fellow P2Techers,
 
Thanks for relaying the P2
and lighting information.
 
For those of you interested
in determining emissions avoided from electricity savings (whether from
efficient lighting or other end use measures) and alternate supply( renewable
generation and CHP/co-gen), there are some other tools and data available.
 
EPA Power Profiler http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/powerprofiler.htm
provides average NOx, SO2, and CO2 emissions per MWh on a regional basis.
 
EPA eGRID
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/egrid/index.htm
“eGRID is a database that provides information on the air quality attributes
of almost all the electric power generated in the United States. eGRID
provides you with many search options, including information for individual
power plants, generating companies, states, and regions of the power grid.”
 
DOE Energy Information Administration
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/e_profiles_sum.html
provides state summary reports, which include NOx, SO2, and CO2 emissions
from electricity generation. (Click on state name for state summary report.)
 
Please be aware that your local
and regional generation mix and, thus, emissions per MWh vary based on
demand, generation asset availability, and other factors affecting utility
power dispatch.
 
Cheers,
Rod
 
Rodney Sobin
Office of Small Business Assistance
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
NOTE NEW--Postal: P.O. Box 1105, Richmond, VA 23218-1105
Street:  629 E. Main St.,
Richmond, VA 23219-2429
Tel. 804-698-4382       fax 804-698-4264 
rsobin@deq.virginia.gov
________________________________________________________
Environmental
Assistance for Small Businesses
http://www.deq.virginia.gov/osba/smallbiz.html
Virginia
Comprehensive Assistance Network
http://www.deq.state.va.us/osba/vacan/

DEQ
Innovative Technology
http://www.deq.virginia.gov/innovtech
DEQ
Distributed Energy Resources
http://www.deq.virginia.gov/innovtech/der1.html
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-p2tech@great-lakes.net [mailto:owner-p2tech@great-lakes.net]
On Behalf Of Sue Schauls
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 12:41 PM
To: P2 providers in Region 7; P2 Tech Listserve
Subject: P2 Impact of Bulbs
 
Apology for cross posting and please forward
to appropriate regional P2 listserves. 
The Small Business Pollution Prevention Center
has recently posted the Impact of Pollution Prevention tools at http://www.iwrc.org/SBPPC/index.htm
 
I hope that the data presented in this project
is useful to your clients and in assisting with more meaningful measurements
as to the actual impact of P2 by quantifying the toxins reduced when P2
suggestions are implemented.

Pollution Prevention Impact of Fluorescent Bulbs

Incandescent bulbs and fluorescent tubes are the most common lighting used in businesses today. Switching to either compact fluorescent or low-mercury fluorescent bulbs can have a major impact on energy cost savings, as well as lessen your contribution to energy production-related pollution, including global warming.

Fact Sheets
·         Light Bulb Facts (pdf format)
·         Compact Fluorescent Bulbs (pdf format)
·         Interactive Compact Fluorescent Bulb cost worksheet in MS Excel format
·         Low-mercury bulbs (pdf format)
·         Interactive Low-mercury bulb cost worksheet in MS Excel format
·         Universal Waste Rule (MS Word format)
·         Fluorescent Bulb Recyclers (MS Word format)
·         Emission Factors for Coal-fired Power Plants
 
 
Sue Schauls
Program Manager
 
Iowa Waste Reduction Center
1005 Technology Parkway
Cedar Falls, Iowa 50613
319/273-8905 or 1-800-422-3109
Fax: 319/268-3733
Sue.Schauls@uni.edu
www.IWRC.org