On Sep 2, 4:41*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
As usual, I'm not confused. Fossil fuels have mercury as a by-product. It is
produced in the manufacture not used, my bad. Then, I see you went on to
confirm, exactly my argument. Thanks!

Then you went on to prove my point... your "bad" indeed. You wrote
"It takes much
more mercury to make the standard light bulb than the is in the new
ones." Nothing ambiguous there... you were dead wrong.

However, if you're now trying to spin it to say that mercury is
produced in the manufacturing process while making incandescents, that
won't fly either. Mercury is likewise produced during the
manufacturing of CFBs. No savings there.

The mercury savings, as I pointed out, is in the *use* of the two
types of bulbs. As I already noted, the savings is due to less energy
being used by the CFB, but that only is when the energy is produced by
coal. Take that away, and the CFB, because it *contains* mercury, is
the worst polluter.

Hope that helps!




"Jack" wrote in message

...



Yet again, there are those pesky facts getting in the way. It takes much
more mercury to make the standard light bulb than the is in the new ones.
If
you don't believe me, look it up. The new ones are a win-win for
everything.

--
Nom=de=Plume

As usual, you're confused; that's completely false. *Mercury is not
used in the manufacturing of incandescent bulbs.

There have been studies that suggest that using CFBs saves enough
energy to offset the amount of mercury they contain... but that
depends on ALL the energy being consumed as having been produced by
coal-burning power plants. *Burning coal releases mercury, so the
power saved (and mercury not released) by using CFBs is supposed to
offset the mercury content of the CFB. *If some of your power comes
from another source (nuclear, hydro) then this argument goes away. *As
the maximum saving is around 7%, it doesn't take much to wipe that
away.

--
Nom=de=Plume