But also factor in the many more processes and transport movements to make
that one CFL. The PCB material has to be made. That then has to be shipped
to a PCB manufacturer, and from there to the lamp manufacturer. All of the
components on the PCB have to be made and shipped, and the materials to make
*them* made and shipped. Just think of an electrolytic cap for instance,
There's aluminium, steel, nickel, copper, rubber, paper, acid. Switching
tranny has copper, ferrite, steel, nickel, glue. Semicons have similar
metals plus silicon plus doping agents plus plastic. Every one of those
items has it's own manufacturing processes, spread all over the world, all
using energy, and no doubt creating their own pollutants. Plus workers that
have to be transported to and from a factory that has to be kept warm ( or
air-co'd ) and lit. They also have to be fed whilst they are there. Each
transport operation is another inefficient energy user, as the weight of the
transporting vehicle has to be shifted every time, as well as the load it is
carrying. Shifting the weight of a ship or aircraft is significant compared
to the weight of cargo it carries. Once all of those parts have arrived at
Philips or wherever, then they have to be assembled up into a CFL. I don't
really see how this whole process doesn't constitute "exporting pollution"
??
Also factor in the 'proper' recycling that is going to have to be done in
order for them to comply with the WEEE directive which already exists, but
for some reason, does not seem to be being applied to these devices at this
time. Clearly, the energy budget calculation for the manufacturing, lifetime
use, and disposal of these CFLs is very complex and probably almost
impossible to actually do with any accuracy but, when it comes down to it,
I'm willing to bet that there would not actually be much in it when compared
to manufacturing, using and disposing of 10 incandescents with their very
limited materials, processes and transport counts.
Unfortunately, these lamps are just another example of eco-hype, where it is
very easy to fool the average punter ( and politician, it would seem ) with
a bit of pseudo science regarding their apparent 'green' credentials with
regard to power consumption and lifetime. I don't dispute that they have
their place, and in pure terms of how much money they are going to take out
of my pocket in running costs, they almost certainly win over incandescents.
However, as others have mentioned, the light that they produce is not very
pleasant to 'use', nor is it very decorative, no matter how the
manufacturers mix up the phosphors to try to match the colour temperature of
an incandescent. Also, as Don says, where the useage period is short, and
there is not enough time for them to warm up properly, or where instant full
light is required, as when entering a room in the dark, they are less than
satisfactory. This problem is exacerbated in Northern Europe winters, where
it is both dark AND cold ...
Arfa
