| 原帖由 fish 於 21/8/2007 12:30 AM 發表
同時共存之問題,要毒還是要熱
直接去限制用電量~或者限制只用排污量極少的工廠所製之燈泡好了
Global warming不是好玩且較Hg長遠,但Hg多起來可不是很好玩耶
綠色和平.....我最不喜的「環保」機構 ...
你還真坦白...
Taking the above totals into consideration, mercury emissions by a CFLlamp from electricity consumption over its lifetime is about 2.4mg ofmercury. Emissions from an incandescent light bulb is about 10mg forthe same period through electricity consumption. Therefore a CFL bulbemits 76% less mercury over the same time period. However, mercurystored in CFL bulbs is perfectly safe unless the glass is in somewaydamaged, in which case the bulbs can then emit mercury vapour. If themercury from a CFL was to escape it would total 6.4mg, a 36% reductionon emissions from an incandescent.
One study looking at long tubular fluorescent bulbs found that over atwo week period, only 17 to 40 percent of the mercury in the bulbevaporated. The rest remained stuck in the bulb. Roughly one-third ofthe mercury that evaporated did so in the first eight hours after thebreakage; the rest seeped out slowly over the remainder of the studyperiod.
The mercury in a CFL can however be reclaimed and reused through theprocess of recycling. Collected bulbs are crushed in a machine thatuses negative pressure ventilation and a mercury absorbing filter.Therefore if you use a CFL with renewable energy and recycle it, themercury emmission level is actually negated completely."
http://howtosaveenergy.blogspot.com/2007/05/cfl-mercury-myths.html
[ 本帖最後由 dolphin_ice 於 21/8/2007 03:44 PM 編輯 ] |
|
發表於 21/8/2007 12:30 AM 
樓主
發表於 21/8/2007 07:02 PM 
發表於 21/8/2007 07:56 PM 
發表於 22/9/2007 08:32 PM