wild places | wild happenings | wild news
make a difference for our wild places

home | links | search the site
  all articles latest | past | articles by topics | search wildnews
wild news on wildsingapore
  Straits Times 22 May 07
Misconception on 'energy saving' could do more harm to our environment
Letter from Professor Ron Hui Chair
Professor of Electronic Engineering & Director of Centre for Power Electronics
City University of Hong Kong

GLOBAL warming has prompted many governments to consider taking serious actions to reduce greenhouse gas emission.

It is, however, important to take the right measures that would not harm the environment in other ways.

The alarming news reported recently about soil and water pollution in China as a result of improper handling of electronic wastes has signalled a potential disaster arising from a common misconception that 'energy saving is always environmentally friendly'.

The concepts of 'energy saving' and 'environmental friendliness' can be easily mixed up. In fact, an 'energy-saving' technology is not necessarily an 'environmentally friendly' one.

For genuine environmental protection, we must (1) reduce greenhouse gas emission that is harmful to the atmosphere and (2) reduce waste/pollution in soil and water. These two requirements must go hand in hand.

Energy saving is a means to reduce greenhouse gas emission. But if a lot of waste is created in the process, it is not environmentally friendly.

Without considering the waste factor, the best solution to reducing greenhouse gas emission is to use nuclear power because it has zero gas emission. But the nuclear waste is harmful for tens of thousands of years (longer than the history of human civilisation) and so many countries have decided not to use nuclear power for electricity generation.

Those countries which use nuclear power must have a policy of handling nuclear waste before building nuclear power plants.

If any government officials think that they can use electronic compact fluorescent lamps (e-CFLs) to reduce greenhouse gas emission without considering the waste factor, they are making a huge mistake.

Fluorescent lamps, be it in compact or tubular form, need a device called ballast to limit the lamp current. There are two types of ballasts, namely electronic ballasts and magnetic ballasts.

Limited by the lifetime of a component called electrolytic capacitor, e-CFLs have typical average lifetime ranging from seven months (6,000 hours) to about 14 months (10,000 hours).

Each unit consists of two parts, namely an electronic ballast housed inside the plastic cover and a folded fluorescent lamp. The electronic ballast consists of toxic components and chemicals such as PBB and PCB, while the fluorescent lamp contains typically 3mg to 8mg of highly toxic mercury.

Another problem of e-CFLs is that the electronic ballast fails faster than the lamps. This causes unnecessary wastage of lamps and mercury.

Using e-CFLs to reduce carbon dioxide emission for a short time could lead to rapid accumulation of toxic chemicals, heavy metals and non-biodegradable e-waste that can harm the environment for thousands of years. Take Hong Kong as an example: If two million families throw away five e-CFLs each year, 10 million pieces of e-waste and 30-80 tonnes of mercury will be dumped in the landfill area annually.

Toxicologists consider a mercury dosage in the order of micro-gram as a harmful quantity. One milligram is 1,000 micrograms.

As the ballast and lamp are integrated as a single unit in an e-CFL, consumers cannot safely (and must not) separate the two parts. So they will simply throw used e-CFLs into the garbage bins. This poses another danger to the workers who collect the wastes. As the lamps are crushed in the garbage trucks, the mercury vapour can escape. If inhaled, the mercury can damage internal organs and nervous systems of human beings.

Ordinary landfill liners are not designed to handle e-waste and heavy metals such as mercury. Hence, e-CFLs must be handled as hazardous waste and the Government must set up such recycling mechanism and facilities before considering phasing out incandescent lamps with e-CFLs.

Consumers must be reminded of their hazardous nature. For example, when an e-CFL cracks, the mercury can vaporise easily. Since mercury has a higher density than air, its vapour will concentrate in low-lying areas. Crawling children can easily inhale the mercury vapour.

However, there is a better alternative that is both energy-saving and environmentally-friendly. The new generation of low-loss magnetic ballasts are as efficient as electronic ballasts. Each magnetic ballast consists of a metal core and a set of copper winding (that is, no e-waste). Magnetic ballasts are highly reliable (>30 years of lifetime), almost maintenance-free, low-cost and recyclable. They can be designed to use with detachable compact lamps. Both parts can be recycled.

The Government should encourage the use of magnetic ballasts for both compact and tubular fluorescent lamps, particularly for large public lighting systems used in car parks, warehouses, hallways, stairs and corridors of buildings.

It is imperative for all governments to develop a long-term strategy in educating the public about the importance of a sustainable society.

Energy saving and environmental protection are pressing issues that deserve our immediate attention, but a proper concept of 'avoiding wastage' is far more important for making our society more sustainable.

Any climate-friendly initiative without considering environmental impact could put the environment at risk.

In December last year, the Canadian Authority intercepted over 500 tonnes of electronic waste being smuggled to Hong Kong and China for dumping. This amount of electronic waste was just the tip of an iceberg.

The Canadian Authority singled out electronic ballasts for fluorescent lamps as one of the three major types of electronic waste discovered.

We must not let any misconception on energy saving become an unintentional reason for causing more harm to the environment.
links
Related articles in Singapore: reduce, reuse, recycle
about the site | email ria
  News articles are reproduced for non-profit educational purposes.
 

website©ria tan 2003 www.wildsingapore.com