The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently announced that they “improved” its guidance on how to clean up a broken compact fluorescent lamp (CFL). Included with the guidance is a new consumer brochure with CFL recycling and cleanup tips. Why is it you may ask, EPA pays attention on broken bulbs? They don’t tell you how to clean up a broken laptop or an ipod, do they? Well, as most of us know, CFLs contain mercury sealed within the glass tubing, an average of 5 milligrams. When a fluorescent lamp breaks, mercury vapor is released, which may pose health risks. EU’s Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks asserted that when you are exposed to a broken bulb, there is a danger that “long-term toxicological limit values may be exceeded up to 6,000 times”. All this raises a number of questions:
· Why is it instead of just banning CFLs, EPA explicitly encourages Americans to use them?
· How come we don’t read on the CFL label something like this: “This product contains substances known to the state of California as causing kidney and brain damage”?
· Is not ROHS directive bans products containing lead and mercury in amounts exceeding 0.1 % in homogeneous materials? After all, in electronic equipment these elements present health threat only if you have a habit of chewing printed circuit boards, but releasing mercury vapor in CFL by accidentally (or intentionally) breaking may be a real threat.
A simple answer is: a CFL is more energy efficient than incandescent bulbs, and therefore it must be a politically correct health hazard. Probably for the same reason RoHS Directive conveniently exempts CFL from their requirements and allows up to 5 mg of mercury per lamp. And to add insult to the injury, the US government is phasing in between 2012 and 2014 new efficiency standards for lighting, which would preclude sale of most traditional incandescent bulbs (see Energy Independence And Security Act Of 2007 ). So, soon, we may not have a choice. European Union and Australia have already started to phase incandescents out in 2009. I guess, I am going to stock up on incandescents until we’ll be able to buy screw-in LED lamps at a reasonable cost. Of course, their "reasonable cost" will still be 10-20 times more than that of today's regular bulbs. Indeed, aside from high-intensity LEDs, they will have to include a small power circuit with power factor correction (PFC), but… we should not worry about it—the government knows what’s better for us.
January 6, 2011
December 26, 2010
Electricity Rates May Go Up Soon Due to New EPA Regulations
Last week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its plan for establishing new greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution standards. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said: “We are following through on our commitment to proceed in a measured and careful way to reduce GHG pollution that threatens the health and welfare of Americans, and contributes to climate change.”
Here is a little history. Last summer, the US House of Representatives narrowly passed the 1,000+ page American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, called the Cap-and-Trade bill. This bill particularly mandates a 17% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, puts a price on carbon dioxide emissions, requires that at least 20% of electricity comes from renewable sources, and mandates increased energy efficiency.
Basically, the government tried to "cap" the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other so-called "greenhouse gases" that can be emitted nationally. Companies that emit such gases would be issued emission permits and would have to pay for these allowances every year. This of course would cause energy prices to rise, since the utilities and other companies would have to pay for emission permits and at the same time spend large amounts of money to change their technology. Does anyone have any doubts these extra costs will be passed on to the consumers? Luckily for us, the consumers, the Cap-and-Trade bill stalled in Senate. So now, having failed to impose their plan via Congress, the administration is moving unilaterally to develop new standards over the next year.
Note that CO2 is not declared a pollutant or health threat in itself, because it is not. Rather, its increase is said to have an insulating effect in the atmosphere and cause global warming. Most climate scientists support such a notion, although there are those who are skeptical about it. For example, Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Richard S. Lindzen asserts in his article titled "Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus", “there is no substantive basis for predictions of sizable global warming due to observed increases in minor greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons”.
Of course, fossil fuels are finite. So, regardless of the scientific dispute on global warming, eventually we will have to switch entirely to renewable energy sources. However, the electricity production from renewable sources costs significantly more than that of coal and natural gas. For example, utility-scale solar electricity costs about four times more than coal-based electricity (see cost comparison of energy sources). To become cost-competitive, photovoltaic technology should become four times more efficient, which is theoretically impossible (see solar cell efficiency limits), or drop in price four-fold, which is unrealistic. Given this fact, the transition to alternative energy should be gradual and should not rapidly hit the economy and the consumers. Especially now, when the country is broke with a multi-trillion dollar debt, it’s not the right time to burden it with politically motivated regulations.
Here is a little history. Last summer, the US House of Representatives narrowly passed the 1,000+ page American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, called the Cap-and-Trade bill. This bill particularly mandates a 17% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, puts a price on carbon dioxide emissions, requires that at least 20% of electricity comes from renewable sources, and mandates increased energy efficiency.
Basically, the government tried to "cap" the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other so-called "greenhouse gases" that can be emitted nationally. Companies that emit such gases would be issued emission permits and would have to pay for these allowances every year. This of course would cause energy prices to rise, since the utilities and other companies would have to pay for emission permits and at the same time spend large amounts of money to change their technology. Does anyone have any doubts these extra costs will be passed on to the consumers? Luckily for us, the consumers, the Cap-and-Trade bill stalled in Senate. So now, having failed to impose their plan via Congress, the administration is moving unilaterally to develop new standards over the next year.
Note that CO2 is not declared a pollutant or health threat in itself, because it is not. Rather, its increase is said to have an insulating effect in the atmosphere and cause global warming. Most climate scientists support such a notion, although there are those who are skeptical about it. For example, Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Richard S. Lindzen asserts in his article titled "Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus", “there is no substantive basis for predictions of sizable global warming due to observed increases in minor greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons”.
Of course, fossil fuels are finite. So, regardless of the scientific dispute on global warming, eventually we will have to switch entirely to renewable energy sources. However, the electricity production from renewable sources costs significantly more than that of coal and natural gas. For example, utility-scale solar electricity costs about four times more than coal-based electricity (see cost comparison of energy sources). To become cost-competitive, photovoltaic technology should become four times more efficient, which is theoretically impossible (see solar cell efficiency limits), or drop in price four-fold, which is unrealistic. Given this fact, the transition to alternative energy should be gradual and should not rapidly hit the economy and the consumers. Especially now, when the country is broke with a multi-trillion dollar debt, it’s not the right time to burden it with politically motivated regulations.
November 13, 2010
Recession, Jobs, and Business Ethics
There used to be a saying: to launch a power supply company you need to have a two-car garage and one car. This is sort of how Todd Products, where I have worked for 11 years, was launched. Paul Todd himself was an engineer and an inventor. It was really nice to work for a company where a president could walk into your cubical and discuss the electronic circuits with you. As an engineer himself he understood that experienced engineers are holders of important expertise and are not commodity-- you get a drop in business, you lay them off; you get more business, you hire some more. Another example of engineer-entrepreneur for whom I had an opportunity to work is Richard Blake -- the founder of Transistors Devices. I feel it is always refreshing to work for a company whose owner could argue about the circuits and not just financial reports. In general, in the past, companies used to be owned by someone -- an entrepreneur, an inventor, an engineer, etc. -- who devoted his/her life to the company and cared about its long term growth. Now most of the companies are owned by shareholders, which means by everyone and by nobody. They are controlled by a board of directors who seem to care only about the bottom line, and who begin what they call “downsizing” as soon as they see a drop in business.
Last week’s issue of The Jewish Press featured an article, “The Media's Madoff Moment” by A.H. Foxman. It describes a story about a 1995 fire in a textile plant, Malden Mills, that employed 2,400 people. The fire destroyed three of the four factory buildings and caused $500 million in damage. Two days later Aaron Feuerstein, an Orthodox Jew who owned the company and who followed Biblical values in his business, announced that all his employees will be paid their full salaries. He also gave $80,000 in gifts to charitable organizations, as he did every holiday season. Feuerstein ended up paying full wages to his idle employees for up to four months while the plant was rebuilt. Whatever became nowadays of business owners with a human face? I was lucky to keep my job during the recession, but during the worst of it, unemployment rates of all engineers exceeded 5% and overall jobless rates were 10%. If the companies who have cash in a bank or enough assets to get loans tried to keep their employees in spite of the losses and let them do some R&D for example, they might wind up getting out of recession sooner and stronger. The people who keep getting their paychecks would keep buying things, which would stimulate the manufacturing and job growth better than unnatural injections in the form of the government’s “stimulus plans.” And the old employees who know your business would contribute more effectively than new ones who need to go through a learning curve.
Last week’s issue of The Jewish Press featured an article, “The Media's Madoff Moment” by A.H. Foxman. It describes a story about a 1995 fire in a textile plant, Malden Mills, that employed 2,400 people. The fire destroyed three of the four factory buildings and caused $500 million in damage. Two days later Aaron Feuerstein, an Orthodox Jew who owned the company and who followed Biblical values in his business, announced that all his employees will be paid their full salaries. He also gave $80,000 in gifts to charitable organizations, as he did every holiday season. Feuerstein ended up paying full wages to his idle employees for up to four months while the plant was rebuilt. Whatever became nowadays of business owners with a human face? I was lucky to keep my job during the recession, but during the worst of it, unemployment rates of all engineers exceeded 5% and overall jobless rates were 10%. If the companies who have cash in a bank or enough assets to get loans tried to keep their employees in spite of the losses and let them do some R&D for example, they might wind up getting out of recession sooner and stronger. The people who keep getting their paychecks would keep buying things, which would stimulate the manufacturing and job growth better than unnatural injections in the form of the government’s “stimulus plans.” And the old employees who know your business would contribute more effectively than new ones who need to go through a learning curve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
