Are you dumping Mercury in the trash?

While not exactly a "tree hugger", I figure still we should be concerned about putting any amount of the "pagan god" (pun intended) into the open environment. Or, perhaps I should say back into the environment.

According to the EPA
CFLs Responsible for Less Mercury than

Incandescent Light Bulbs
Ironically, CFLs present an opportunity to prevent mercury
from entering our 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 in the
U.S. to produce electricity. A CFL uses 75% less energy
than an incandescent light bulb and lasts at least 6 times
longer. A power plant will emit 10mg of mercury to produce
the electricity to run an incandescent bulb compared to only
2.4mg of mercury to run a CFL for the same time. See http://www.gelighting.com/na/home_lighting/ask_us/downloads/MercuryInCFLs.pdf
I didn't bother to see if the figures match up exactly, but appear pretty close.

Our bodies eliminate it very slowly and so, perhaps, a more important consideration is prevent the production of mercury "hot spots" the same as we want to do with other toxins. Toxins in dumping grounds become more concentrated and hazardous to the local environment. As for energy usage, what we don't get to see is how much more energy is required to produce these more complex devices, properly package them, and deal with their disposal. This should not be done in $$$ only but in the loss of value of that energy for other uses. We can't get around the basic laws of thermodynamics using creative marketing.

Good post about the complexities. The concentration issue is a big problem; some poor kids in Japan could tell you about that- if they could talk. And it wasn't from coal burning (plenty of that in Japan), but criminally careless handling of manufacturing products. Same thing here, without the evil intent. And BTW remember we already throw away many standard fluorescents, each with its Hg load.

Ironically, liquid mercury is not a problem except as potential Hg vapor, which is a problem. Therefore burning coal can't be ignored.

Next Big Thing in lighting is the newer LEDs. Any bad news there, anyone?

become more common. I have a couple complaints but I suppose these can be worked out. Their light is quite harsh being sort of a single point source. It needs to be softened for some uses. As well, it's "color temperature" needs to made to match what our eyes respond best to for basic background and reading purposes. Incandescents already do a fair job of that and filtered fluorescents do so as well. Another glitch is light output. LEDs, to produce volumes of light, are packaged in arrays. This means multiple pinpoint light sources are needed to properly light a given space or carry a given distance. They also focus and reflect a bit differently when configured in an array. Lastly, LEDs do burn out. An array of LEDs will probably fail little by little. At what point do we toss it when light output isn't adequate for the purpose....and even though the majority of individual LEDs might be working. So, your 100 w bulb slowly becomes a 25 w bulb. I suppose you could just recycle them to different lamps until they were no longer useful. Technology will improve all of these things. My guess anyway.

although the light temperature doesn't bother me. I especially like the way it illuminates dark corners, in a flashlight. I've already seen units with diffusing lenses which seem not to lower the lumens too much.

I doubt the remaining lamps in an array will be recycled. Low cost dictates machine-made arrays, cast in plastic if not in cement. Like transistors into ICs. In this case, I think (hope?) the life extension will be much greater than that of fluorescent over incandescent. I have an alarm clock that still has all digits useable after 10? 15? I don't know how many years.