ARE CFLS SAFE?[1]
Compact Fluorescent Lights (CFLs) is being projected as the panacea of all lighting needs of the nation which will control if not bring down the whopping demand for energy, which in India is mostly met from greenhouse gas-producing thermal power plants. But there is a poisonous side to this harbinger of good tidings that is being swept under the proverbial carpet, durries perhaps, in the Indian context.
Ban the century-old 'Edisonion' incandescent light bulbs to help reduce global warming is a powerful thought. Smashing the light bulb that produces more heat than light, energy inefficient as a lighting device, is perhaps the right choice. And if replacing it with CFLs that produce the same light using less energy makes you feel that you have done your bit for cooling the earth, then by all means go ahead! CFLs , made like florescent tubes, produce four times more light than traditional bulbs. Hence a 15-19 wattage CFL produces as much light as a 60 watt bulb. Much of the western fraternity has progressed down the route already. But with the positives comes a few negatives too and cleaning the air doesn't necessarily justify poisoning the soil.
The issues
Point 1:
Left unsaid is that each CFL contains 4 to 10 milligrams of mercury, a deadly neurotoxin. When a CFL breaks or are discarded it releases mercury into the air. Every product containing mercury should be handled with care. Exposure to mercury, can affect our brain, spinal cord, kidneys and liver, causing symptoms such as trembling hands, memory loss, and difficulty in movement. Even 1 gm of mercury is enough to contaminate a lake and make its fish unfit for eating. Compounds like methyl mercury are the deadliest poisons known to life, which travel globally and get deposited in our food chain. Mercury passes the placental and blood-brain barrier, passing on from mother to child and can cause overall reductions in IQ of exposed populations. Though exposure from a single CFL may not cause any perceptible individual harm, in numbers they can be deadly, especially to pregnant mothers and children.
Point 2:
According to the US Environment Protection Agency replacing an incandescent bulb with a CFL will reduce the amount of mercury released into the environment (from thermal power stations) from 13.6 mg to 8.3 mg over the lifetime of the CFL. The question then arises about the lifetime of a CFL. As consumers are aware, a CFL that promises to last over six months to a year in many cases turn tail much before that. So the lifetime issue remains shrouded in ambiguity.
Point 3:
Experts declare that environmentalists should be aware that CFLs are a kind of tube light with more or less the same components including mercury vapour. The amount of mercury in a standard tube light can vary dramatically, from 3 to 46 mg. If mercury problem wasn't an issue then, it shouldn't be now also. "We need to address every mercury containing product in the country from the ubiquitous thermometer to tube lights and CFLs to stop hazardous pollutants from entering our food chain," says Tanmay Tathagat, Director, Environmental Designs Solutions, working with Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) Govt. of India, on energy efficiency related projects. However, the inherent question that arises here is the scale of operations. CFL is tethering on the brink of replacing every bulb in the nation. As any random study will point out, bulb usage is way above the lowly tube light - thus replacement ratios will be sky rocketing. If CFLs are to be introduced en masse, it will mean that our current consumption of mercury annually in the lighting sector will multiply by more than ten times. Besides if we had just one kind of tubes to combat before, now we will have unprecedented quantities of discarded CFLs rising to the ranks of deadly pollutants.
Point 4:
As a buyer knows, CFL outlets are the very same age old electrical stores that do provide a year's guarantee on the product, yet treat you like a leper if you happen to encounter a problem and return to seek a replacement. Almost thirty to fifty percent of times replacements are required
The other side
The US Environmental Protection Agency prepared a fact sheet to respond to concerns about mercury in energy-efficient lighting that uses CFL technology and declared that CFLs are responsible for less mercury than incandescent light bulbs. In fact they argue that CFLs present an opportunity to prevent mercury from entering air, where it most affects our health. The highest source of mercury in our air comes from burning fossil fuels such as coal, the most common fuel used to produce electricity. A CFL uses 75 percent less energy than an incandescent light bulb and lasts at least 6 times longer. A power plant will emit 10 mg of mercury to produce the electricity to run an incandescent bulb compared to only 2.4 mg of mercury to run a CFL for the same time. They claim that CFLs do not add to the mercury released to the environment while providing significant greenhouse gas emission reductions. On the contrary CFLs over their life-time reduce the overall amount of mercury released into the environment from the production and use of electricity.
Disposing CFLs
The dangers of mercury contamination at end of life of the CFL persist. And with CFL technology still inefficient with large number of replacements, the end of life may be nearer than projected. This would mean a huge disposal problem. "Unfortunately in India tubes are dumped, smashed and left in landfills, releasing mercury into the environment. Also at present there is no norm of CFL disposal instituted in the country," states Tanmay. Thus in the absence of collection and recycling systems, CFLs will sully the air and groundwater. While the technology for safe disposal and recycling are available, the challenge of ensuring that such systems are implemented is enormous in India.
The alternative
Does CFL, then, have an alternative? Experts point towards light emitting diode (LEDs) that hold unlimited promise. They have a 10 to 100 year life as the prototypes claim, which is way longer than CFL and use 40 percent lower energy than CFLs.
"Unfortunately, LEDs are not yet being mass produced and don't produce the amount of light we usually expect from household lamps. Also the current off the shelf fixtures are not consumer friendly," informs Tanmay. India does have several showcased pilot projects where LED has been custom fabricated (like the solar powered LED lantern), but technology needs to be scaled up considerably if LEDs are to become a household name. The progress continues, but we still are years away from getting something on store shelves that will adequately replace the CFL. "Besides," points out Tanmay, "subsidies for CFL are in place, but LED's are yet to find its place in the sun."
White light LEDs that are sufficiently cheap, pleasing, and efficient is almost there, but more often than not they are used for spotlight applications. To replace the light bulb, LEDs need to have the ability to distribute light in the same manner which it does not have at present. While the lumens/watt in a LED are increasing at a dramatic rate, the lighting fixtures are not. In fact companies are selling LED bulb's but they are not nearly as bright as CFLs and cost much more. LED light bulbs have their place in decorative lighting applications but cannot at present replace CFLs. "Some ten years will have gone before we can use LED lighting in homes," adds Tanmay conclusively.
Seeking solutions
If CFLs are here to stay then we may propose a few steps that can perhaps contribute to a safe and better world that the fluorescent tubes and bulbs advocate.
Factory orientation: Most of the CFLs used in households provide less lighting than the promised wattage. It also turns dark at the edges, malfunctions and requires replacement. Enforcement agencies such as BEE needs to star label the products of different lighting companies and put them under strict norms that would ensure a reduction in replacement ratios as well as effectively deal with complaints of low wattage and lighting inefficiency over a well defined timeline.
Consumer orientation: Enforcing authorities like BEE can act as facilitators between the hapless purchaser and the CFL dispensing shops. At best it could eliminate the intermediaries and create kiosks in all market centres which are flashpoint company outlets - with purchase, replacement within guarantee period and disposal, all integrated within the same model. "The companies can function in the same way as private telecom systems function in the country," suggests Dr. D Sharma, a CFL user.
Disposal backup: Implementing agencies can put in place systems for take back and safe disposal practices by the manufacturers (also known as Extended Producer Responsibility). All manufacturers should be required to phase out hazardous substances in their CFLs as soon as environmentally sustainable alternatives are available (mandatory substitution), establish take back schemes and ensure effective recycling of CFLs.
To ensure that the consumer does not destroy the used CFL, monetary support may be provided, that may be handed over the counter in terms of buy back scheme (where the rag picker and poorer sections will benefit and at the same time clean up landfills) or extend offers on newer purchases where the buyer avails a certain discount if he brings back a CFL for recycling.
End note
The concern cannot be trivialised, since countries now promoting CFLs have strict collection and recycling laws for discarded lamps. While climate change is very serious business, we must consider all aspects when we take action for its mitigation and not produce 'bad', when trying to do well. The point is that CFL is no magic solution and must not be presented as such. It is thus most important that everyone is aware of the choices before them before being asked to switch to another system.
Recommendations towards CFL awareness
· With energy efficiency statistic of CFL usage, number of CFL units and the amount of mercury in circulation should also be made available.
· There is need for an Indian spreadsheet based on US Environmental Protection Agency to relieve concerns, incase of CFL breakage. The US Environmental Protection Agency urges consumers to get rid of dead CFLs, and clean up materials from a breakage, responsibly, but we are not directed about how to dispose CFL safely in India.
· Although CFL bulbs are categorised as household hazardous waste, our consumers cannot consult mercury details before purchasing a CFL as the price governs most preferences - besides the details are not written on the packs
· Enforcement agencies such as BEE needs to star label the products of different lighting companies and put them under strict norms that would ensure a reduction in replacement ratios as well as effectively deal with complaints of low wattage and lighting inefficiency over a well defined timeline.
· No well meaning interventions towards CFL usage in India include any provision for dealing with the manufacturer directly, imposing a recovery and recycling of the products they promote.
· At least mandatory consumer awareness on the lines of 'Tobacco is injurious to health' on every pack containing a CFL, (also a manual with picture stories on do's and don'ts about CFL usage and disposal) should be placed with immediate action.
· Local electrical shops stock broken CFL parts. Potentially hazardous the electricians are unaware of the ramifications and hoard them in the hope of creating an indigenous, free of cost CFL. Such hazards need to be highlighted and eliminated for health reasons.
--
with regards
Parveen Gulia
M.Tech (Infrastructure Planning)
Cont. No.- 09256015406
No comments:
Post a Comment