<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13198754#post13198754 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by slug
Exactly. Put up or shut up. None of BA's arguments contain any hard numbers. Your gut feeling of what the comparative numbers may be doesn't make for a good argument.
Your comments are uncalled for. Next time try entering a dicussion in a civil maner or take your own advice...
If you wish to infer that CLEARLY skewed numbers that defy logic and reality
are BETTER than a lack of
hard numbers that ARE CLEARLY supported by reality and logic, then this is a lost discussion.
Instead of me quantifying (or showing quantification of) the cradle-to-grave costs of a CFL, why don't YOU provide proof that my assertions are wrong? I have pointed out very simple logic based on the reality of ANY manufacturing and distribution model. I have pointed out a Power Factor problem that is 100% ignored by ALL parties involved. Sure, it can be fixed at an even GREATER component footprint, impact and product COST. I have pointed out that the real world physics just don't add up.
Each point I made was logical and follows the simple reality of manufacturing of ANY product. Do you assert that this reality and subsequent logic is wrong? Or are you asserting that because I did not provide real world numbers, that the reality does not exist? If so please explain where the logic is flawed and why.
Lets try some starters:
A CFL bulb contains MUCH more glass than a tungsten filament bulb. If you look into the glass ALONE, you will find that it costs 3x-5x as much to produce the glass for a single CFL bulb as compared to a standard tungsten bulb. A simple study of the glass making process from SILICA mining, to the glass furnace will show you that a significant number of raw materials are involved. Doubling the glass in a bulb doubles the entire footprint of the process. This IS NOT accounted for in ANY
stufy I have read. Because it is not accounted for does it not exist?
A CFL bulb contains a ballast. The ballast contains capacitors, resistors, diodes and a few other components (a choke coil, a transformer etc). It contains a large amount of plastic and some elemental mercury. I have never seen the cradle-to-grave footprint of these products included in ANY study of CFL manufacturing. They only account for the COST of these products and the time to assemble them in their finished form into a finished CFL. These materials ARE NOT part of a tungsten bulb. Does that mean that because they (their cradle-to-grave footprint) are NOT accounted for in any of these studies mean that they DO NOT have an impact? Do we need HARD numbers to understand that their is an impact that is ON AND ABOVE that of a tungsten bulb?
What about the weight. Is it not common sense that a product that WEIGHS 2x - 5x as much costs 2x-5x to move down the assembly line? Lift by the forklift? Transport from vendor to store to home? Any process that uses energy creates a "footprint". Have you seen a SINGLE study that accounts for this? I sure have not. Does that mean that because NOBODY has accounted for it, that it does not exist?
Reality check. If a tungsten bulb weighs 1 oz and a CFL weighs 3 oz... it takes 3x the energy to transport the finished bulb from the plant to the end user. It also takes (AT LEAST 3x as much energy) to produce the bulb based on moving the mass of the bulb from process to process. This does not include the cost of processing the large number of raw materials for the sub components of the bulbs. Have you EVER seen this cradle-to-grave impact talked about? Does it not exist?
Just because nobody has taken the time to post what you call "hard numbers" does not mean that the reality does not exist.
For those who wish to really get into this, we can certainly start another thread in an appropriate forum regarding ANY of these costs and impacts.
