4-26-07 TANSTAAFL
In physics, the first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. In a closed system, energy can change form but you don't get something for nothing, or vice-versa. It's a very heady concept for many people, but it can be stated in a much more user-friendly fashion for those who don't swim too deeply in the intellectual seas... "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch" (TANSTAAFL).
The only reason I bring this up is because of energy efficient light bulbs in the news.
It seems that these bulbs are great for cutting down on your electric bill, and they last a very long time. I have a bunch of them in my house. A couple of them in the basement (the first ones I ever tried) have been there for several years. I have yet to replace any, but until I read the above-linked article, I had no idea that when it comes to disposal, these little bulbs are actually hazardous waste because they contain mercury.
It took a bit of hunting around on the net, but I did find a good link here regarding this little TANSTAAFL issue with the Energy Star certified compact flourescent lightbulbs. It's such a little issue that nobody seems to be pointing it out, apparently, to the people in Canada and Australia who have worked out legislation to ban incandescent lightbulbs by 2012 and 2010, respectively.
This brings me to the sad news, ie- TANSTAAGL, "there ain't no such thing as a green lunch." In a fire society, where nearly everything done to produce energy is ultimately coming from burning something, the idea that any alternative energy source is "green" or "eco-friendly" needs to be examined a bit more deeply than the evening news. I mean, we're talking about it, we're being made conscious of it, and we're being given information that's designed to scare us about the consequences of continuing to dump various by-products and waste products into the biosphere, but these initial steps are simply not addressing the basic problem.
The basic problem is that this whole civilization is still a fire society.
The energy saved by using the bulbs is probably about the same amount of energy that will be required to dispose of them, and may even cost more since it's pushed further down the road. The same problem exists with hybrid cars, in that disposal of the batteries probably uses up whatever amount of energy that was saved by their use. The "balance sheet" in physics with our present day technology is pretty much written in stone. The trick is that the Energy Star certified bulbs may use less electricity during their usage, but the bill comes due when they have to be disposed of. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. The bill simply gets put off to be paid much later.
Pay now, or pay (probably even more) later.
Meanwhile, there's a campaign to change over a billion incandescent lightbulbs to compact flourescent lightbulbs that, regardless of the future cost of disposing of them, is (in my opinion) a very well-intended short-term measure.
The only reason I bring this up is because of energy efficient light bulbs in the news.
It seems that these bulbs are great for cutting down on your electric bill, and they last a very long time. I have a bunch of them in my house. A couple of them in the basement (the first ones I ever tried) have been there for several years. I have yet to replace any, but until I read the above-linked article, I had no idea that when it comes to disposal, these little bulbs are actually hazardous waste because they contain mercury.
It took a bit of hunting around on the net, but I did find a good link here regarding this little TANSTAAFL issue with the Energy Star certified compact flourescent lightbulbs. It's such a little issue that nobody seems to be pointing it out, apparently, to the people in Canada and Australia who have worked out legislation to ban incandescent lightbulbs by 2012 and 2010, respectively.
This brings me to the sad news, ie- TANSTAAGL, "there ain't no such thing as a green lunch." In a fire society, where nearly everything done to produce energy is ultimately coming from burning something, the idea that any alternative energy source is "green" or "eco-friendly" needs to be examined a bit more deeply than the evening news. I mean, we're talking about it, we're being made conscious of it, and we're being given information that's designed to scare us about the consequences of continuing to dump various by-products and waste products into the biosphere, but these initial steps are simply not addressing the basic problem.
The basic problem is that this whole civilization is still a fire society.
The energy saved by using the bulbs is probably about the same amount of energy that will be required to dispose of them, and may even cost more since it's pushed further down the road. The same problem exists with hybrid cars, in that disposal of the batteries probably uses up whatever amount of energy that was saved by their use. The "balance sheet" in physics with our present day technology is pretty much written in stone. The trick is that the Energy Star certified bulbs may use less electricity during their usage, but the bill comes due when they have to be disposed of. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. The bill simply gets put off to be paid much later.
Pay now, or pay (probably even more) later.
Meanwhile, there's a campaign to change over a billion incandescent lightbulbs to compact flourescent lightbulbs that, regardless of the future cost of disposing of them, is (in my opinion) a very well-intended short-term measure.
posted by Jeff Barnard at 7:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home