|
Worshipping at the altar of Gaia...
On Sep 2, 1:44*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"JustWait" wrote in message ... In article , Not if you buy a good one. And CFB's have come a long way. AND they last forever! Yeah, just like the Mercury in the land fills.. Have you read about the area of China surrounding the plants where they make these things? 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. |
Worshipping at the altar of Gaia...
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! "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 |
Worshipping at the altar of Gaia...
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 |
Worshipping at the altar of Gaia...
"Jack" wrote in message
... 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. It does take more mercury, since it's a byproduct of the process. Sorry if that destroys an argument that original bulbs are better. Since we're replacing old bulbs with new, we should also move toward renewable energy, since that's clearly a problem. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Worshipping at the altar of Gaia...
On Sep 2, 8:08*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message ... 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. It does take more mercury, since it's a byproduct of the process. Sorry if that destroys an argument that original bulbs are better. Since we're replacing old bulbs with new, we should also move toward renewable energy, since that's clearly a problem. My, you have a short little attention span. It does *not* take more mercury, since both the incandescent and CFB have similar glass, metal, and plastic content. In fact, it's a near certainty that the CFB takes *more* energy, and therefore mercury, to produce, since it is more complex, with more plastic and metal content than the old tech bulb. Oh, and IT CONTAINS RAW MERCURY! Now, snap to attention... I never stated that the old bulbs were "better", I just correctly stated that the mercury argument is false, and that you obviously didn't understand it when you tried to bring it up. Renewable energy? Another thread. Now you can go back to sleep, bumper sticker slogan boy. |
Worshipping at the altar of Gaia...
|
Worshipping at the altar of Gaia...
"Jack" wrote in message
... My, you have a short little attention span. It does *not* take more mercury, since both the incandescent and CFB have similar glass, metal, and plastic content. In fact, it's a near certainty that the CFB takes *more* energy, and therefore mercury, to produce, since it is more complex, with more plastic and metal content than the old tech bulb. Oh, and IT CONTAINS RAW MERCURY! What exactly do you think is the mercury that gets spewed into the atmoshere?? Non-raw mercury?? Now, snap to attention... I never stated that the old bulbs were "better", I just correctly stated that the mercury argument is false, and that you obviously didn't understand it when you tried to bring it up. No. You just are supporting the argument. Renewable energy? Another thread. Assuming you don't relate the two items, which are closely interrelated. Now you can go back to sleep, bumper sticker slogan boy. Only when I'm tired, and don't call me a boy. Clearly, you know nothing about me. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Worshipping at the altar of Gaia...
On Sep 2, 9:04*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message ... My, you have a short little attention span. *It does *not* take more mercury, since both the incandescent and CFB have similar glass, metal, and plastic content. *In fact, it's a near certainty that the CFB takes *more* energy, and therefore mercury, to produce, since it is more complex, with more plastic and metal content than the old tech bulb. *Oh, and IT CONTAINS RAW MERCURY! What exactly do you think is the mercury that gets spewed into the atmoshere?? Non-raw mercury?? Non-sequitur. Fact is, it takes more energy to manufacture the CFB, so that releases more mercury into the atmosphere. Couple that with the fact that the standard bulb contains no mercury, and the CFB contains mercury, and you're just wrong. Now, snap to attention... I never stated that the old bulbs were "better", I just correctly stated that the mercury argument is false, and that you obviously didn't understand it when you tried to bring it up. No. You just are supporting the argument. No. Your grey matter is failing you. Horse, water, drink. Giddyup. |
Worshipping at the altar of Gaia...
"Jack" wrote in message
... What exactly do you think is the mercury that gets spewed into the atmoshere?? Non-raw mercury?? Non-sequitur. Fact is, it takes more energy to manufacture the CFB, so that releases more mercury into the atmosphere. Couple that with the fact that the standard bulb contains no mercury, and the CFB contains mercury, and you're just wrong. You said "RAW" mercury. As opposed to... Now, snap to attention... I never stated that the old bulbs were "better", I just correctly stated that the mercury argument is false, and that you obviously didn't understand it when you tried to bring it up. No. You just are supporting the argument. No. Your grey matter is failing you. Horse, water, drink. Giddyup. Rein yourself in... The water might not be potable. -- Nom=de=Plume |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:15 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com