The pollution of mercury when you dispose off CFLs is of concern. This is what Greenpeace is not projecting and at the same time pressurizing our Govt to ban use of the regular electric bulb.
There is a wrong notion being propagated by vested interests that the replacement of incandescent bulbs for lighting by CFL's (Compact Fluorescent Lamps) is safe.
The advantages of saving of electric power for the same illumination is being focused upon without looking at the replacement cost being almost 15-20 times. Consider that an ordinary bulb will fail once in 3-4 months and we will need only about Rs. 60-90 for a 15-18 month period in replacement costs while with a CFL you will shell out Rs. 220.
The other thing about CFLs is the pollution of mercury when you dispose off the device after it fails. This is what Greenpeace is not projecting and at the same time pressurizing our Govt to ban use of the regular electric bulb.
Similar is the case with other agencies interested in buying carbon credits for the savings in electrical energy like in West Bengal where a US Co. is willing to find the conversion to CFL's for the whole State without highlighting the downside of the pollution aspect.
In West Bengal the Govt is opening itself to large scale mercury contamination across the State on the false premise that one CFL can replace three ordinary electric bulbs in an average household. They forget the fact that the three sources of illumination are in three different locations within a household and these cannot be replaced by one CFL.
Moreover in a developing economy like ours where the demand for electrical energy far surpasses supply, neither can you produce less energy to be more eco-friendly nor are you actually saving energy. We have no need to fall prey to all the propaganda unleashed. We can change when we are ready for it.
