Commentary
More on Mercury, Coal and CFLs - Updated
October 31st, 2007 by jayb
Switching to compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) is one of the single most effective steps you can take to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and save money at the same time. Yet CFLs contain a small amount of mercury, a highly toxic element. Do CFLs increase the amount of mercury in the environment?
Most of the mercury in the environment that has been spread by human activity comes from burning coal in coal-fired power plants. Coal contains a small amount of mercury that when residing in the coal is harmless. When the coal is burned to power electricity generators at a power plant, the mercury gets put into the air where it settles onto land and water and makes its way into our food supply.
The situation is acute enough that the EPA advises Americans to not eat fish more than twice a week and not at all if you are pregnant.
Coal-fired power plants create tremendous amounts of inexpensive electricity for us but we now know that the tremendous amounts of carbon dioxide make a big contribution to global warming and the mercury is making portions of our food supply inedible.
Compact fluorescent lightbulbs are highly energy efficient bulbs that go into the same fixtures that incandescent bulbs use. They create the same amount of light as incandescents while using only 25% the electricity. That means we put 75% less CO2 and mercury into the air per bulb and we pay 75% less on our electric bill for lighting.
However, in order for CFLs to perform their magic act, they contain an average of 5 milligrams per bulb. Last year 150 million CFLs were sold. They'll last an average of 5 years. CFLs should be recycled when they burn out and the number of recycling locations for CFLs is growing quickly. But let's assume that none of them get recycled. What would be the net impact on the level of mercury in the environment?
CFL Mercury Calculation
150 million CFLs thrown in the regular trash would put 1,653 pounds of mercury into the waste stream. As they use electricity, the CFLs also cause mercury to be put into the air from coal burning power plants. Let's calculate how much:
Start with the EPA's eGRID2006 version 2.1 which contains electricity generation and emissions data by state for the year 2004. According to the eGRID data, we generated 3.9 billion megawatts in 2004 from all US power plants and we emitted 106,041 pounds of mercury. That is 0.00002695 pounds of mercury per megawatt hour of electricity use. Let's assume the CFLs are 25 watts (100 watt incandescent equivalent) and that they are used for 6000 hours. (Manufacturer's typically rate CFLs at 6000, 8000 or 10000 hours lifetime.) 25 watts times 6000 hours times 150 million CFLs equals 22,500,000 megawatt hours of electricity. 22,500,000 MWh times 0.00002695 pounds of mercury per megawatt hour equals 606 pounds of mercury.
CFL Summary (150 million CFLs)
1,653 pounds of mercury in the bulbs.
606 pounds of mercury from the electricity to run them.
2,259 pounds of total mercury (assuming 0% CFL recycling)
Incandescent Mercury Calculation
Incandescent bulbs do not contain mercury so the incandescent calculation is just about the mercury that comes from the electricity used to run them.
150 million incandescent 100 watt bulbs used for 6000 hours = 90,000,000 megawatt hours of electricity. (Note that incandescent bulbs do not last anywhere near 6000 hours so to keep 150 million fixtures running for 6000 hours will take alot more than 150 million incandescent bulbs. But that is not relevant here because this is not a cost calculation but an electricity used calculation.)
90,000,000 MWh times 0.00002695 pounds of mercury per megawatt hour of electricity equals 2,425 pounds of mercury emitted.
Summary
Mercury from the CFLs and their use = 2,259 pounds
Mercury from incandescent bulb usage = 2,425 pounds
Switching to CFLs reduces the mercury put into the environment by 165 pounds or 7% assuming not a single CFL gets properly recycled.
Trackbacks are disabled on this article.
Post a Comment
The trackback url for this entry is: Trackbacks are disabled for this entry

Comments
Doug Blair said...
You miss one important fact: With relative ease, we can recapture the mercury from the CFL bulbs. We cannot easily constrain the mercury released when we burn coal....
Posted on: February 13th, 2008 at 11:18pm
Jay said...
Dude thats what re-cycling is called…
Posted on: April 2nd, 2008 at 8:43am
Alan Gaddy said...
Thank you for presenting a good comparison of the impact of using these two embattled technologies.
My only remaining concern is in regard to the local exposure of adults and children in the event of breakage. I once knew a gentleman who accidentally inflicted a large wound to his forearm with a freshly broken 4 foot fluorescent. What are the odds that he has any undetected after effects from that kind of invasive exposure?
Posted on: April 12th, 2008 at 8:18am
Thomas said...
The CFLs do not last 5 years as stated here in this story. I know this from experience using them in our high school. They are trash and the school didn’t save any energy or money by using them. Don’t use them as they are dangerous if you drop them. The CFLs stink for sure.
Posted on: April 27th, 2008 at 5:28pm
Patrick said...
Oh Thomas, your anecdotal evidence is so overwhelming! On a related note, I don’t recall many schools using incandescent bulbs at all… just non-compact fluorescents.
Posted on: May 27th, 2008 at 7:41pm
John said...
One other quick question. How can we measure the energy used in the transportation from the factory to the store, from the home to the recycling center, and in the recycling of the actual bulb. I believe (though if anyone knows, please correct me) that CFL are more often made in China (at least relative to incandescents). How much would the added transportation costs add to their mercury and carbon input in the environment?
Any thoughts?
Posted on: July 24th, 2008 at 6:57pm