Reason.com
New at Reason
Jonathan Rauch explores a Pratt & Whitney plant to learn how a factory can work without wasting energy.
Most Popular Stories
- 5 Classic Teen Sex-and-Drug Freakouts: Rainbow Parties, Butt-Chugging, And So Much More (By Which We Mean Less) (5.27)
- Government Beneficiaries and Other Fairy Tales (5.26)
- Lessons From the United Fruit Company (5.28)
- Are We Headed for a Fight with China? (5.28)
- Do Organic Consumers Shop Exclusively at the Jerk Store? (5.26)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Wisconsin: 65 Percent Believe Gov’t Workers Receive Better Retirement Benefits (5.29)
- Wisconsin: 69 Percent Favor 401(k)-Style Accounts for Government Workers (5.29)
- 17 Percent of Wisconsinites Favor Disbursing Retirement Benefits to Gov’t Workers Before Age 65 (5.29)
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
tom brandt|5.2.07 @ 2:56PM|#
You can jawbone about the environment all you want, but no one will do anything unless affects the bottom line. Which is as it should be.
|5.2.07 @ 3:28PM|#
Power recovery is nothing new for P&W. During WW II, radials like the one in the picture accompanying the article were produced as fast as possible. Each engine was test-run for several hours in dozens of test cells. Instead of driving a propeller or a water brake, they drove electrical generators. The generated electricity was fed back into the plant's power system.
|5.2.07 @ 3:50PM|#
Re: Light bulbs.
Are these the bulbs with the mercury disposal issue? If so, it looks like one short-term problem is being traded for an even worse long-term concern.
Ramsey|5.2.07 @ 4:35PM|#
I hate it when people bitch about the mercury "disposal issue". Fluorescent lights are recycled, and the mercury is reused. It is the phosphors and electrodes that burn out. Every CFL on the market combined likely contains less mercury than coal power plants "lose" in a year (50 tons per year!)
Guy Montag|5.2.07 @ 7:15PM|#
Are these the bulbs with the mercury disposal issue? If so, it looks like one short-term problem is being traded for an even worse long-term concern.
Without "recyclng" there is no real disposal issue, but they will be the plastic bags of the next decade.
|5.2.07 @ 8:18PM|#
"Fluorescent lights are recycled, and the mercury is reused"
SOME people might do that. I don't know of any (and we all know the value of empirical evidence). I don't think you are supposed to put flourescents in most mixed-waste recycle bins.
For CFLs, since the ballast is usually disposable, there is also the issue of pollution in the production process. A 4-pack of 60 watt incandescents are 96 cents at Menards. A 4-pack of CFLs are $9.99. It doesn't take a manufacturing engineer to figure out why. Look at the ingredient list. There be lots more stuff in the CFL - capacitors, inductors with enamel-coated windings, plastic housing, etc (I need to take a new one apart to have a look). When you buy CFLs you have already polluted the planet more before you even plug them in - as evidenced by the cost alone. That said, I tend to think they do pay off in the long term (in cost and pollution), but they are not quite as great as marketers and preachers like to pretend they are. Its also pretty stupid to use them in an environment where they are much more likely to be physically broken than to burn out after a long life, such as in automotive trouble lights that were made for incandescents or desk lamps in kids rooms.
Never mind me. I'm still pissed that my kids broke a bunch of these I bought back when the going rate was about $8 each. I never got my $8 back off the electric bill and, as you can see, the planet never got saved.
Also, I just put a CFL in the fixture outside next to the back door and it seems to attract more bugs.
Marc|5.3.07 @ 8:21AM|#
Yes, but those are bugs that can be used for fuel.
|5.3.07 @ 10:12AM|#
This impresses me more than a lot of boohooing on the part of intensely sincere people flying coast to coast plugging their eco-friendly books and movies.
|5.3.07 @ 11:27AM|#
Technical details of flourescent vs. incandescent, problems with CFLs in certain applications, marketing hype issues - a good read (best I've seen yet):
http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm
|5.3.07 @ 11:52AM|#
You can jawbone about the environment all you want, but no one will do anything unless affects the bottom line. Which is as it should be.
Which is as it should be - well said. You want to save the environment? Then leave the market alone.
|5.3.07 @ 12:18PM|#
bigbigslacker, I agree with you. The problem with fluorescents is not the ingredients per se, which is fine if one is willing to pay for the bulbs (I buy cheapo chinese knockoffs just to do my bit to SAVE American jobs) but with the idea that a person can save the environment by paying more.
BIG MISTAKE! People that think like that are extremely ignorant of basic economics. The price system not only tells you if a thing is scarce, it will tell you if you are being EFFICIENT with your RESOURCES! If you end up paying MORE for something, with no discerable benefits, then you are MISAPPLYING your resources, you are WASTING resources.
Case in point - the glass cup vs. the styrofoam cup. Many do-gooders (usually ignorant of economics) will tell you that glass cups or containers are better for the environment because they can be recycled and will not fill up landfills. They of course do not consider the costs associated with using each product: a glass cup requires MUCH more energy to fabricate than a styrofoam cup, first. Second, WASHING a glass cup requires: scarce water, soap, electricity (to pump the water at least), drainage, water waste containment and treatment, the whole works (I will not go into the details of the recycling costs of glass). Instead, the styrofoam cup only requires to be molded, shipped in a bag, used, and be placed in a landfill. The net cost will make the styrofoam cup win in every case, even if you use many styrofoam cups. A person that insists on using glass cups to drink as a way of saving the environment is WASTING resources (if you simply LIKE to use them, then it simply becomes a luxury). Just washing a glass cup uses at least half a gallon of water, or a full gallon if you want to be thorough.
It is the same thing with CFLs, and you most likely have noticed this: Their high expense indicate that they may not be, yet, the best use of your resources. Funny thing is, after the Goons with Guns (the government) imposes these things upon everybody, the Watermellons (Green outside, certainly RED inside) will most likely lobby for a disposing fee placed on each because CFLs happen to have mercury on them, making them even more wasteful than the often maligned incandescents.