It is called the E-Lampinator.

Check out our website.
http://www.communityenvironmentalliance.com

Good for the Chinese ,gosh darn it, they have a much less polluted country then the US. Why the way some of the blame America first and always crowd tend make one think that China is cleanest nation on the earth and that they can do no wrong when it comes to pollution as a matter of fact the only nation that contributes to the junk science of Climate change is the US.

The Chinese are using compact fluorescents. In fact, they have agreed to phase out incandescent bulbs entirely – they figure it will take about 10 years. They are the first developing nation to make this commitment:

http://www.reuters.com/article/summitNews/idUSN0132741220071001

Kind of interesting that when you Global Warming Alarmists are in favor of something you will bend over backwards to excuse and play down and ill effects of what you are pimping. Say can any of you tell me what China is using to light their homes? It would be interesting to find out that the Chinese might be using the old fashion bulb while they flood our nation and then our landfills with tons of mercury. As a side have any of you ever considered that maybe running Atomic power plants might not have as many problems as you once thought.

This, unfortunately, is where Mr. Balbus strays into "I-read-it-somewhere" territory.

The figure often cited (the EPA, more than one coal industry group, and various researchers) for coal plant mercury pollution is .0234 milligrams/kWh of *coal* generated power (http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/home_journal_news/4217864.html). Coal contributes slightly over 50% of our energy needs in the US. The burden nationwide, on average, is then .0117 mg/kWh.Yes, you may burn 80% or 90% coal in your light bulbs, but as a nation, the .0117 number is the one to use when evaluating widespread adoption. This means a 22W CFL (about equivalent to a 100W incandescent in light emission) with a rated life of 6000 hours will, on average, represent about 1.5mg of mercury emissions from a coal plant in its rated lifetime. A 100W incandescent will represent an emission of about 7mg in the same time period. At the end of that life, the CFL will put around 4mg (perhaps much higher in some brands and lower in others) plus 1.5mg into the environment. We can argue all day about which form of mercury is worse, but first lets look at the myth that CFL’s use less mercury.

To produce purified mercury in a CFL, the extraction process releases about .4mg for every milligram produced into the waterways, atmosphere, and soil as waste. This is a well-established worldwide average that includes many processes, both crude and hi-tech. This means that the 4mg in the CFL actually represents 5.6mg of mercury that enters our environment. Adding the coal energy contribution means the CFL’s account for 7.1mg versus 7mg for incandescents.

Add to this the Lawrence Livermore Laboratories study that concluded that the average CFL life is reduced by 50% where they are turned on and off every hour and the mercury contribution goes up to a whopping 13.6mg or so. The reduction in incandescent life for the same use model (20%) does not affect its mercury consumption and it remains at 7mg or so. The same study concluded that a 30 minute use model reduced the CFL life by 85%…which would mean CFL's would use ..gulp.. 38.8mg of mercury by the time the rated life of the CFL was reached…compared to the 7mg used by the incandescents.

These are real numbers. CFL’s can offer significant energy savings in general. However, the thrust of a lot of pro-CFL articles in addressing mercury emissions is completely unfettered by reality by claiming less mercury pollution is generated through CFL adoption. CFL’s will use a lot more mercury than incandescents, period. How unhealthy that mercury is is a valid debate, however.