Bonehead Environmental Policies

Think using CFL light bulbs is good for the environment?  How about solar panels?  The government certainly does as evidenced by recent laws not allowing traditional light bulbs and subsidizing solar panels.  Have you heard of mercury or cadmium?

CFL light bulbs have mercury in them.  Guess what, when you break them, it’s bad for the environment.  Even if you’re careful and you don’t break them, but discard them in the trash.  Yup, it ends up in a landfill and is bad for the environment and your trash collector.  See an NPR article here. 

Solar panels are made in a variety of ways.  They are extremely cost inefficient when compared to coal or nuclear plants.  That’s why the government has to subsidize them for anyone to buy them.  There are different ways of building solar panels.  Some use silicon and others use cadmium.  The cadmium is much more cost efficient, but guess what…  Cadmium is also bad for the environment.  See an article about it here.  I’m willing to wager that more people have died from cadmium exposure than exposure to nuclear power, not including exposure to nuclear bombs of course. 

Have you heard of the law of unintended consequences?  Alternative energy is a scam.  Go nuclear!

Last 3 posts by Jason

Tags: , , , , ,

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 6th, 2009 at 6:57 am and is filed under Energy, Environment. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

3 Responses to “Bonehead Environmental Policies”

  1. Taylor Says:

    As usual, government is the problem, not the solution.

  2. dana Says:

    and can we add that they’re just plain ugly? I refuse to buy them b/c I do not want an ugly 3rd-world flourescent light glow in my front room. I’ll stick with incandescent thank you. And this just solidifies it!

  3. Eric Says:

    Yeah, I totally agree with Dana. I hate it when people say you can’t tell a difference in the light. You can!!

    I am not opposed to alternative energy in principal. Why can’t we develop cleaner technologies that don’t have negative consequences? That’s how science and technology develop, constantly improving and becoming more efficient. But until we find a true alternative energy source that is better, nuclear is the way to go for sure.

Leave a Reply