|
Anyone moved to LED Lighting?
In article , Josepi wrote:
Feel free to rename all the character sets, if desired. What - you want to be the first in my roughly 14 years of heavy experience in Usenet suggesting that I need to accomodate you despite lack of need to accomodate likewise anyone before you in probably over a thousand posted responses to others? Some may even understand part of your messages. I give better odds for them to understand mine than to understand yours, at the rate you are going. I have never seen anybody use a quotation symbol for marking lines. Quotation marks usually mean a quotation from a previous piece of text. I think that would be why they are called that. Yet, you appear to be unaware of the Usenet convention of having the number of quotation symbols at beginning of each quoted line reflecting the level of quotation. Otherwise, you appear to be fighting such established convention. - Don Klipstein ) "Don Klipstein" wrote in message ... | and *again*, you left the following lines short a quotation symbol each. | At least here, you added appropriately a quotation symbol at beginning of line of previously-quoted material - even though you chose a non-standard one. However, you did something else frowned-upon, maybe to put it mildly: You snipped to edit for space (actually encouraged) without stating that you did so with some sort of description of whatyou snipped. (I find it customarily acceptable to have snippage limited to signature to not need to be noted, but here I decline.) | | - Don Klipstein ) - Don Klipstein ) |
Anyone moved to LED Lighting?
In article , Josepi wrote:
Many CFLs are a third harmonic problem for the electrical distribution grid. Some claim this may have been resolved in later designs but many don't know the difference between power factor and third harmonics, either. However, total RMS current of low-power-factor CFLs including the part from 3rd harmonic is less than that of same-light-output incandescents. Transformers must use different designs to help eliminate third harmonics from these nasty bulbs (including HID lamps) and it still depends on balanced three phase harmonic distribution at about 6-10 million dollars per transformer. That is an issue that was known at least as far back as the mid 1980's. These nasty little glitches will make love to your furnace and fridge motor. Now who's saving money?...LOL These glitches have little effect on RMS voltage or difference between total RMS voltage and fundamental-frequency-component-thereof delivered to motors in nearly all industrial applications and even more totally in residential applications. (**** your bottom confusion. It's not worth educating some) I advise to know Usenet, its conventions and ettiquette! (At least you added a quotation symbol per line of material that was already previously quoted in the article that you responded to, although itappears to me that you chose a non-standard one) - Don Klipstein ) "Don Klipstein" wrote in message ... | In article m, David | Nebenzahl wrote: | On 11/21/2009 9:28 PM Don Klipstein spake thus: | | Compared to incandescents, in USA on average CFLs actually reduce mining | of mercury-containing materials and transfering mercury to the | environment. This is because about half of all electricity produced in | the USA is obtained by burning coal, a major source of mercury pollution. | | You know, we've only heard you say this here about, oh, 117,000 times. | | Your assertion (about CFLs resulting in less mercury contamination) | contains a *major* fallacy. It implies that when one use a CFL instead | of an incandescent light bulb, the electricity somehow, magically turns | "cleaner", with less mercury emitted. | | Yes, less mercury is emitted, because you use 70-75% less electricity. | | If you run a CFL, your electricity *still* comes from the same | mercury-spewing coal-fired power plant. You're just using less of it | than if you use an incandescent bulb. | | That does get power companies to crank down their plants. The nukes and | hydropower will be the last ones to crank down, because their load-related | operating costs are low. (Most of the cost of nukes is unrelated to | load.) | | Now, it's true that if *enough* people used CFLs, *and* if the resulting | power savings were enough for the power companies to say, "Hey, let's | start shutting down our dirty old coal-fired power plants", then one | could truly say that the use of CFLs reduces mercury emissions. But that | hasn't happened yet. Nowhere near it. They're still burning lots of | coal, and planning on building even *more* coal-fired plants. | | CFLs are merely slowing demand growth. Most of the incandescents | that can be replaced with CFLs are not yet replaced with CFLs, the | population is growing, along with use of larger TV sets. If all CFLs were | replaced with incandescents of same light output, the situation would be | even worse. | | SNIP from here | | - Don Klipstein ) |
Anyone moved to LED Lighting?
In m, D. Nebenzahl said:
On 12/26/2009 6:47 PM Don Klipstein spake thus: In article m, David Nebenzahl wrote: On 11/21/2009 9:28 PM Don Klipstein spake thus: Compared to incandescents, in USA on average CFLs actually reduce mining of mercury-containing materials and transfering mercury to the environment. This is because about half of all electricity produced in the USA is obtained by burning coal, a major source of mercury pollution. You know, we've only heard you say this here about, oh, 117,000 times. Your assertion (about CFLs resulting in less mercury contamination) contains a *major* fallacy. It implies that when one use a CFL instead of an incandescent light bulb, the electricity somehow, magically turns "cleaner", with less mercury emitted. Yes, less mercury is emitted, because you use 70-75% less electricity. If you run a CFL, your electricity *still* comes from the same mercury-spewing coal-fired power plant. You're just using less of it than if you use an incandescent bulb. That does get power companies to crank down their plants. The nukes and hydropower will be the last ones to crank down, because their load-related operating costs are low. (Most of the cost of nukes is unrelated to load.) Here's what I meant to write in my earlier message but forgot to. In *theory*, everything you say is true. In practice, I doubt it. Think about it. Let's say I, and my neighbors, and a good chunk of the electric customers hereabouts reduce their usage by installing CFLs. So far as our *lighting* usage goes, we're using 70-75% less juice (to use your figure). But that doesn't mean that we're reducing our *total* usage by that much: me, I've got an electric water heater and an electric dryer, so what they suck up pretty much swamps any savings I get from CFLs. Does replacing incandescents with CFLs require people to replace non-electric water heaters and dryers with electric ones? But no matter; let's say for the sake of discussion that I (we) have significantly reduced our electricity usage. That doesn't *necessarily* translate to the same amount of reduction in electric power plant generation. Think about it: it's not as if there are giant rheostats on coal-fired generators that the electric company can use to calibrate their generating capacity to meet the load. They can basically take a generating unit off-line or put it on-line. They can crank down some of their on-line generating units. Although in within-day time scale that tends to be in oil-fueled generators, they crank up and down or make usage intermittent for coal above nuclear and hydropower. So even though we use CFLs like the good citizens we are, that still doesn't mean that we're reducing the amount of coal being shoveled in the front end by the same amount (and reducing mercury emissions as well). Due greatly to electricity demand growth unrelated to choice of lighting technology, such as population growth, and increased usage of larger-screen-area TVs and increased usage of computers. SNIP a few unrelated lines following this point - Don Klipstein ) |
Anyone moved to LED Lighting?
How is this?
""Don Klipstein" wrote in message ... "In article , Josepi wrote: "Feel free to rename all the character sets, if desired. " " What - you want to be the first in my roughly 14 years of heavy "experience in Usenet suggesting that I need to accomodate you despite lack "of need to accomodate likewise anyone before you in probably over a "thousand posted responses to others? " " Some may even understand part of your messages. " I give better odds for them to understand mine than to understand yours, "at the rate you are going. "I have never seen anybody use a quotation symbol for marking lines. "Quotation marks usually mean a quotation from a previous piece of text. I "think that would be why they are called that. " " Yet, you appear to be unaware of the Usenet convention of having the "number of quotation symbols at beginning of each quoted line reflecting "the level of quotation. Otherwise, you appear to be fighting such "established convention. " - Don Klipstein ) ""Don Klipstein" wrote in message ... "| and *again*, you left the following lines short a quotation symbol each. "| " At least here, you added appropriately a quotation symbol at beginning "of line of previously-quoted material - even though you chose a "non-standard one. " However, you did something else frowned-upon, maybe to put it mildly: "You snipped to edit for space (actually encouraged) without stating that "you did so with some sort of description of whatyou snipped. "(I find it customarily acceptable to have snippage limited to signature to "not need to be noted, but here I decline.) "| "| - Don Klipstein ) " " - Don Klipstein )" " " - Don Klipstein )" " " - Don Klipstein ) |
Anyone moved to LED Lighting?
You have no idea what you are talking about here, do you?
Geeesh. It's getting boring teasing the village idiot, now PLONK " "Don Klipstein" wrote in message ... " In article , Josepi wrote: " Many CFLs are a third harmonic problem for the electrical distribution grid. " Some claim this may have been resolved in later designs but many don't know " the difference between power factor and third harmonics, either. " " However, total RMS current of low-power-factor CFLs including the part " from 3rd harmonic is less than that of same-light-output incandescents. " Transformers must use different designs to help eliminate third harmonics " from these nasty bulbs (including HID lamps) and it still depends on " balanced three phase harmonic distribution at about 6-10 million dollars per " transformer. " " That is an issue that was known at least as far back as the mid 1980's. " These nasty little glitches will make love to your furnace and " fridge motor. Now who's saving money?...LOL " " These glitches have little effect on RMS voltage or difference between " total RMS voltage and fundamental-frequency-component-thereof delivered to " motors in nearly all industrial applications and even more totally in " residential applications. " (**** your bottom confusion. It's not worth educating some) " " I advise to know Usenet, its conventions and ettiquette! " (At least you added a quotation symbol per line of material that was " already previously quoted in the article that you responded to, although " itappears to me that you chose a non-standard one) " " - Don Klipstein ) " "Don Klipstein" wrote in message " ... " | In article m, David " | Nebenzahl wrote: " | On 11/21/2009 9:28 PM Don Klipstein spake thus: " | " | Compared to incandescents, in USA on average CFLs actually reduce " mining " | of mercury-containing materials and transfering mercury to the " | environment. This is because about half of all electricity produced in " | the USA is obtained by burning coal, a major source of mercury " pollution. " | " | You know, we've only heard you say this here about, oh, 117,000 times. " | " | Your assertion (about CFLs resulting in less mercury contamination) " | contains a *major* fallacy. It implies that when one use a CFL instead " | of an incandescent light bulb, the electricity somehow, magically turns " | "cleaner", with less mercury emitted. " | " | Yes, less mercury is emitted, because you use 70-75% less electricity. " | " | If you run a CFL, your electricity *still* comes from the same " | mercury-spewing coal-fired power plant. You're just using less of it " | than if you use an incandescent bulb. " | " | That does get power companies to crank down their plants. The nukes and " | hydropower will be the last ones to crank down, because their load-related " | operating costs are low. (Most of the cost of nukes is unrelated to " | load.) " | " | Now, it's true that if *enough* people used CFLs, *and* if the resulting " | power savings were enough for the power companies to say, "Hey, let's " | start shutting down our dirty old coal-fired power plants", then one " | could truly say that the use of CFLs reduces mercury emissions. But that " | hasn't happened yet. Nowhere near it. They're still burning lots of " | coal, and planning on building even *more* coal-fired plants. " | " | CFLs are merely slowing demand growth. Most of the incandescents " | that can be replaced with CFLs are not yet replaced with CFLs, the " | population is growing, along with use of larger TV sets. If all CFLs were " | replaced with incandescents of same light output, the situation would be " | even worse. " | " | SNIP from here " | " | - Don Klipstein ) " | " | - Don Klipstein ) " | " | - Don Klipstein ) |
Anyone moved to LED Lighting?
In m, D. Nebenzahl wrote:
On 12/26/2009 6:47 PM Don Klipstein spake thus: In m, D. N. wrote: On 11/21/2009 9:28 PM Don Klipstein spake thus: Compared to incandescents, in USA on average CFLs actually reduce mining of mercury-containing materials and transfering mercury to the environment. This is because about half of all electricity produced in the USA is obtained by burning coal, a major source of mercury pollution. You know, we've only heard you say this here about, oh, 117,000 times. Your assertion (about CFLs resulting in less mercury contamination) contains a *major* fallacy. It implies that when one use a CFL instead of an incandescent light bulb, the electricity somehow, magically turns "cleaner", with less mercury emitted. Yes, less mercury is emitted, because you use 70-75% less electricity. If you run a CFL, your electricity *still* comes from the same mercury-spewing coal-fired power plant. You're just using less of it than if you use an incandescent bulb. That does get power companies to crank down their plants. The nukes and hydropower will be the last ones to crank down, because their load-related operating costs are low. (Most of the cost of nukes is unrelated to load.) Here's what I meant to write in my earlier message but forgot to. In *theory*, everything you say is true. In practice, I doubt it. Think about it. Let's say I, and my neighbors, and a good chunk of the electric customers hereabouts reduce their usage by installing CFLs. So far as our *lighting* usage goes, we're using 70-75% less juice (to use your figure). But that doesn't mean that we're reducing our *total* usage by that much: me, I've got an electric water heater and an electric dryer, so what they suck up pretty much swamps any savings I get from CFLs. How? It appears to me that electric dryer and electric water heater only detracts from gaining electric energy efficiency in lighting if you switched water heater and dryer types in the opposite direction. But no matter; let's say for the sake of discussion that I (we) have significantly reduced our electricity usage. That doesn't *necessarily* translate to the same amount of reduction in electric power plant generation. Think about it: it's not as if there are giant rheostats on coal-fired generators that the electric company can use to calibrate their generating capacity to meet the load. They can basically take a generating unit off-line or put it on-line. They do better than that - they can "crank down" generating units. So even though we use CFLs like the good citizens we are, that still doesn't mean that we're reducing the amount of coal being shoveled in the front end by the same amount (and reducing mercury emissions as well). -- - Don Klipstein ) |
Anyone moved to LED Lighting?
NotX wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:05:55 -0600, The Daring Dufas wrote: Josepi wrote: Ever notice "Satan" and "Santa" have very similar spellings using the same letters? Just like dog and God. Since God can do anything, I wonder if he can lick his........ never mind, My first grade teacher, Sister Godzilla would come back from the grave and bop me on the head if I finished that question. TDD Then you've learned to associate God with head pain. Sounds like negative reinforcement. I remember a story about some out-of-the-way place with ignorant, but imitative people. A priest comes and tells them about sin, and that they should do anything they can to stop it. The natives kill the priest. I often explain to people that I have absolutely no fear of terrorists because as a small boy, I had Irish nuns for teachers. I do have an irrational fear of albino penguins, it's odd. I haven't figured it out yet. TDD |
Anyone moved to LED Lighting?
In article , Josepi wrote:
Your Easy-Bake Oven will never work again, either. The lighting load is argued about 5% of the overal system load and redcuing that by 50-75% doesn't make that much difference. But it's a start. Make that 9%, and that includes in regions of USA with much-below-nationwide-average electricity cost due to making significant use of largely-non-increasable hydropower. USA electricity *cost* and energy consumption excluding hydropower from lighting alone is even more than 9%, due to electric heating being disproportionately where it costs less per KWH. - Don Klipstein ) Where are everybody's solar PV and thermal panels? I have mine. "David Nebenzahl" wrote in message rs.com... Do I need to either snip out the following with notation of doing so, or to add the per-line quotation symbols that you left out? (According to even anyone that I recognize as being among the roughly 97% of my Usenet experience that I sense as being more-"old-fart" than this Josepi New-Kid trying to be "New Kid On The Block" in a neighborhood where most who have spoken up successfully for even 5 years are "Old Farts"! At this moment, I have so much that I have to do that I would to take a mere couple seconds to SNIP / wipe out the lines that I would otherwise have to add a quotation symbol to beginning of each, since you unusually in Usenet prefer software that fails to do so. I snip everything at and after here largely as I just warned I would - Don Klipstein ) |
Anyone moved to LED Lighting?
In article , Josepi wrote:
How is this? You choose yet-another non-standard quotation symbol other than the standard "greater than" one. I at this moment wonder how you managed to quote my signature 3 times consecutavely with same degree of notation of quotation. (I am posting interleaved as opposed to top-posting) I sign off for this posting here, due following in interleaved-style being almost snippable with notation as being good for such. Except for your being yet to be able to be able to get this quotation stuff well enough to not repeat my signature to stated 3 times at the end with same level of noted level of quotation. - Don Klipstein ) ""Don Klipstein" wrote in message ... "In article , Josepi wrote: "Feel free to rename all the character sets, if desired. " " What - you want to be the first in my roughly 14 years of heavy "experience in Usenet suggesting that I need to accomodate you despite lack "of need to accomodate likewise anyone before you in probably over a "thousand posted responses to others? " " Some may even understand part of your messages. " I give better odds for them to understand mine than to understand yours, "at the rate you are going. "I have never seen anybody use a quotation symbol for marking lines. "Quotation marks usually mean a quotation from a previous piece of text. I "think that would be why they are called that. " " Yet, you appear to be unaware of the Usenet convention of having the "number of quotation symbols at beginning of each quoted line reflecting "the level of quotation. Otherwise, you appear to be fighting such "established convention. " - Don Klipstein ) ""Don Klipstein" wrote in message ... "| and *again*, you left the following lines short a quotation symbol each. "| " At least here, you added appropriately a quotation symbol at beginning "of line of previously-quoted material - even though you chose a "non-standard one. " However, you did something else frowned-upon, maybe to put it mildly: "You snipped to edit for space (actually encouraged) without stating that "you did so with some sort of description of whatyou snipped. "(I find it customarily acceptable to have snippage limited to signature to "not need to be noted, but here I decline.) "| "| - Don Klipstein ) " " - Don Klipstein )" " " - Don Klipstein )" " " - Don Klipstein ) |
Anyone moved to LED Lighting?
|
Anyone moved to LED Lighting?
|
Anyone moved to LED Lighting?
"Josepi" wrote:
He **is** a comedian and does this frequently. Research "Edward Current" He is very funny. |
Anyone moved to LED Lighting?
|
Anyone moved to LED Lighting?
Dave,
Do you have any cites for those figures? Not that I doubt any of it but this argument comes up and will continue to come up for the next hundred years. OTOH: there is the personal economy thing and this seems to be the classic main motivational force for the masses. "Dave Houston" wrote in message ... According to DOE figures, that 9% applies ONLY to residential electricity. Residential accounts for about 1/3 of the total with industrial and commercial accounting for about 1/3 each. Industrial lighting is about 6% ot total industrial electricity and commercial lighting is about 12% of their total. The latter two sectors have long used lighting that is more efficient than CFLs so there's little to gain there (see the comparison in my earlier post). This makes residential lighting about 3% of the total and even assuming all of that is replaced by CFLs or LEDs, it means only a 2% reduction. And, since electricity accounts for less than half of the carbon we're putting into the atmosphere and only half of our electricity comes from coal, the reduction is on the order of 1/2 of 1% (which is very much in line with the UK study I referenced ealier and even that's very optimistic). BTW, the generating plants that are quickly ramped up/down are mostly fired by natural gas. |
Anyone moved to LED Lighting?
"Josepi" wrote:
Dave, Do you have any cites for those figures? Not that I doubt any of it but this argument comes up and will continue to come up for the next hundred years. I have posted citations for each sector within the past 2-3 years in comp.home.automation. A search should find them. My health is lousy and I'm not up to searching for them myself right now. I lost a HDD several months back that had all of my notes along with URLs so I'd have to manually look through all of my outgoing Usenet posts to find the citations. As I recall, the residential sector was broken down rather neatly with a pretty pie chart but the other sectors only had tables listing various categories. Still, most third graders should be able to work out the percentages. I posted a citation to this thread that compared the efficiencies of various types of lighting but, as this thread has grown so big, it might take some effort even to find it. ;-) |
Anyone moved to LED Lighting?
Will do. Thanx
"Dave Houston" wrote in message ... I have posted citations for each sector within the past 2-3 years in comp.home.automation. A search should find them. My health is lousy and I'm not up to searching for them myself right now. I lost a HDD several months back that had all of my notes along with URLs so I'd have to manually look through all of my outgoing Usenet posts to find the citations. As I recall, the residential sector was broken down rather neatly with a pretty pie chart but the other sectors only had tables listing various categories. Still, most third graders should be able to work out the percentages. I posted a citation to this thread that compared the efficiencies of various types of lighting but, as this thread has grown so big, it might take some effort even to find it. ;-) "Josepi" wrote: Dave, Do you have any cites for those figures? Not that I doubt any of it but this argument comes up and will continue to come up for the next hundred years. |
Anyone moved to LED Lighting?
"Josepi" wrote:
Will do. Thanx I found one of my previous posts that has citations for nearly "all of the above". http://groups.google.com/group/comp....7570ea92ec4df3 Search comp.home.automation at Google Groups using "residential electricity". |
Anyone moved to LED Lighting?
On 12/27/2009 9:13 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:
In m, D. Nebenzahl wrote: That doesn't *necessarily* translate to the same amount of reduction in electric power plant generation. Think about it: it's not as if there are giant rheostats on coal-fired generators that the electric company can use to calibrate their generating capacity to meet the load. They can basically take a generating unit off-line or put it on-line. They do better than that - they can "crank down" generating units. Still somewhat of a fallacy; as someone else (Dave Houston) here pointed out, the power plants that utilities most easily can switch on- and off-line are natural-gas fired ones, which are less polluting and emit less carbon than coal-fired plants. Plus he mentioned that the *net* result of a total switchover to CFLs for residential use would result in, at most, something like a 2% energy savings. So much for "saving the planet"[1] through changing to CFL bulbs. [1] Something I believe in, though it won't be accomplished by the silly half-measures now being suggested to us (drive a Prius, use CFLs, support a cap-and-trade system). -- I am a Canadian who was born and raised in The Netherlands. I live on Planet Earth on a spot of land called Canada. We have noisy neighbours. - harvested from Usenet |
Anyone moved to LED Lighting?
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 15:07:42 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote: On 12/27/2009 9:13 PM Don Klipstein spake thus: In m, D. Nebenzahl wrote: That doesn't *necessarily* translate to the same amount of reduction in electric power plant generation. Think about it: it's not as if there are giant rheostats on coal-fired generators that the electric company can use to calibrate their generating capacity to meet the load. They can basically take a generating unit off-line or put it on-line. They do better than that - they can "crank down" generating units. Still somewhat of a fallacy; as someone else (Dave Houston) here pointed out, the power plants that utilities most easily can switch on- and off-line are natural-gas fired ones, which are less polluting and emit less carbon than coal-fired plants. Plus he mentioned that the *net* result of a total switchover to CFLs for residential use would result in, at most, something like a 2% energy savings. 2% would be HUGE. |
Anyone moved to LED Lighting?
In , D. Nebenzahl said:
On 12/27/2009 9:13 PM Don Klipstein spake thus: In m, D. Nebenzahl wrote: That doesn't *necessarily* translate to the same amount of reduction in electric power plant generation. Think about it: it's not as if there are giant rheostats on coal-fired generators that the electric company can use to calibrate their generating capacity to meet the load. They can basically take a generating unit off-line or put it on-line. They do better than that - they can "crank down" generating units. Still somewhat of a fallacy; as someone else (Dave Houston) here pointed out, the power plants that utilities most easily can switch on- and off-line are natural-gas fired ones, which are less polluting and emit less carbon than coal-fired plants. I do agree that gas and oil power plants can be turned on and off and cranked up and down more easily than coal. However, coal gets cranked up/down or turned on/off ahead of hydropower and nuclear. Plus he mentioned that the *net* result of a total switchover to CFLs for residential use would result in, at most, something like a 2% energy savings. 2% of total USA energy consumption of all forms or 2% of USA's total electrical energy consumption? Even if that is the latter, how much is 2% of USA's electric power plant count? I would guess a few of them, since the "greater Philadelphia metro area" alone has quite a few largely to supply their needs including two nukes and half of a third one well outside the metro area but working significantly for the Philly metro area. So much for "saving the planet"[1] through changing to CFL bulbs. [1] Something I believe in, though it won't be accomplished by the silly half-measures now being suggested to us (drive a Prius, use CFLs, support a cap-and-trade system). It will be accomplished by achieving progress on a large number of fronts, including more energy-efficient lighting, more energy-efficient transportation, more energy-efficient refrigeration and indoor climate control, improved building insulation, and many more. - Don Klipstein ) |
Anyone moved to LED Lighting?
In article , Dave Houston wrote:
(Don Klipstein) wrote: The lighting load is argued about 5% of the overal system load and redcuing that by 50-75% doesn't make that much difference. But it's a start. Make that 9%, and that includes in regions of USA with much-below-nationwide-average electricity cost due to making significant use of largely-non-increasable hydropower. According to DOE figures, that 9% applies ONLY to residential electricity. Residential accounts for about 1/3 of the total with industrial and commercial accounting for about 1/3 each. Industrial lighting is about 6% ot total industrial electricity and commercial lighting is about 12% of their total. The latter two sectors have long used lighting that is more efficient than CFLs so there's little to gain there (see the comparison in my earlier post). This makes residential lighting about 3% of the total and even assuming all of that is replaced by CFLs or LEDs, it means only a 2% reduction. I actually agree so far here. And, since electricity accounts for less than half of the carbon we're putting into the atmosphere So at this point we reduce carbon contribution by 1% - small, but to be added to the many other ways we can nibble that down. and only half of our electricity comes from coal, the reduction is on the order of 1/2 of 1% A fair amount comes from oil and natural gas - which also have carbon. (which is very much in line with the UK study I referenced ealier and even that's very optimistic). BTW, the generating plants that are quickly ramped up/down are mostly fired by natural gas. Though that is not a mercury problem, those do emit CO2. Meanwhile, a long-term-sustained sharp reduction of electricity consumption by 2% is worth taking off-line a few power plants, perhaps ones not so easily turned on-and-off-quickly as natural gas ones and with higher online cost than hydropower or nuclear - sounds like oil and coal to me. - Don Klipstein ) |
Anyone moved to LED Lighting?
|
Anyone moved to LED Lighting?
In article , Dave Houston wrote:
(Don Klipstein) wrote: Though that is not a mercury problem, those do emit CO2. Meanwhile, a long-term-sustained sharp reduction of electricity consumption by 2% is worth taking off-line a few power plants, perhaps ones not so easily turned on-and-off-quickly as natural gas ones and with higher online cost than hydropower or nuclear - sounds like oil and coal to me. While natural gas fired generators do emit C2, they emit much less per kWh than coal fired generators. If day-in-day-out electricity consumption is reduced, they take offline or crank down a coal generator. If growth of day-in-day-out electricity demand is slowed good-for-long-term, they scale down the construction schedule for those. The 2% is only of the total US electricity not total energy - it's less than 1% of total energy (and carbon). I agree here - this is one of many fronts to be fought. When you factor in the low power factor typical of CFLs that 2% drops significantly. While I've seen no data on average CFL PF, those I have measured as well as those measured by others and reported to me (an admittedly small sample) are in the 0.6 range. Had Congress truly been interested in improving efficiency they would have mandated higher PF for CFLs. But, I suspect they were only out to reward those who manufacture and sell CFLs who also contribute campaign funds. I was really impressed with how quickly Wall Mart geared up to market CFLs. Power factor is not much of a matter for fuel requirement for generators. It is more of a matter for distribution capacity to distribute and deliver amps not associated with billable watts (more properly KWH). There are much fatter targets, even within the typical residence, as the DOE statistics I've cited previously show. I'm all for reducing CO2 but think there are much better ways to do it. The anti-incandescent campaign seems like a classic case of deliberate disinformation and misdirection. No, I see it as one of the many fronts that have to be fought to nibble down energy consumption. In all residences that I lived in ever since I was in one that was mine (even if only rented), the main electricity consumption factors were refrigeration, air conditioning and lighting. Equipment cost for refrigeration and A/C were free as long as I used those provided by the landlord, and the cost of substituting my own is substantial. I do skimp on use of A/C when I can by wearing skimpier clothing and eating fewer calories (a unit of heatactually) in summer. Lighting, on the other hand, is where I manage to save. For homeowners, lighting is just one of the many fronts to fight to nibble down energy consumption. - Don Klipstein ) |
Anyone moved to LED Lighting?
|
Anyone moved to LED Lighting?
PV panel pricing has a lot to come down yet. So far it has been a fad and
the market has raped us, for it. Batteries, for storage, need to become more reliable and longer life would help. Many use the grid to "stock up" on energy while it is expensive under TOU schemes. Not off grid but another technique in co-operation with the grid suppliers. LED lighting technology has a bit to go. Close but not quite. Needs to get more output and learn to handle it's own excess heat. ESL promises a possible solution. Time will tell on that one. wrote in message ... The real boost will be when LED's come down in price. At some point (maybe now in some cases) it will be practical to use solar powered low voltage DC for all most all household lighting. A few AGM batteries fed from a rooftop array will take lighting completely off the grid. Powering an entire house with PV solar may never be all that practical, but may already be feasible for most or all lighting in new construction. A lot of the expense (and power loss) in retrofit LED's is the regulators needed to power them from the AC grid and existing wiring. |
Anyone moved to LED Lighting?
|
Anyone moved to LED Lighting?
In all these arguments we have to consider the electrical grid system is
constantly growing. Meanwhile people are excited about plugging their cars in overnight (and having to increase their electrical service to 400A, as a result). System capacity reductions will never happen. Nibbling does save some but it is not apparent due to massive system growth and reasons you stated, also. CFLs are not the answer. Too many nays in the early stages tell us that. ESL makes some promises. Agreed: Generators have to supply the VA capacity of the system and this still takes conductor (I won't say copper) and generating capacity to handle it. "Dave Houston" wrote in message ... Given the low (relative) cost for coal, utilities will take other plants off-line first. However, given that demand has already increased (big flat screens) more than a 100% CFL/LED conversion would save, they won't take any offline and will continue to build new coal-fired plants. Regulation or a carbon tax (or if the projected glut of shale gas comes to pass) might change that but switching to CFL/LED lighting will not. snipped Don's remarks Power Factor affects total generating capacity. Low PF means the projected reductions from CFL/LED switches are partly imaginary. snipped Don's remarks Nibbling won't save many polar bears, Maldivians or Bangladeshis. |
Anyone moved to LED Lighting?
Thanx for that. Some interesting information there.
BTW: You know that GE dropped their hi-eff. incandescent development about a year ago? "Dave Houston" wrote in message ... I found one of my previous posts that has citations for nearly "all of the above". http://groups.google.com/group/comp....7570ea92ec4df3 Search comp.home.automation at Google Groups using "residential electricity". "Josepi" wrote: Will do. Thanx |
Anyone moved to LED Lighting?
"Josepi" wrote:
Thanx for that. Some interesting information there. BTW: You know that GE dropped their hi-eff. incandescent development about a year ago? Yes, I saw that. They said they were going to concentrate on LEDs but they are (were?) also looking at incandescents with internal coatings that reflect IR. |
Anyone moved to LED Lighting?
The new promise is ESL lamps, now.
"Dave Houston" wrote in message ... "Josepi" wrote: Thanx for that. Some interesting information there. BTW: You know that GE dropped their hi-eff. incandescent development about a year ago? Yes, I saw that. They said they were going to concentrate on LEDs but they are (were?) also looking at incandescents with internal coatings that reflect IR. |
Anyone moved to LED Lighting?
"Josepi" wrote:
The new promise is ESL lamps, now. Yes - I've posted about them in comp.home.automation a couple of times in the past few months. They seem to fit a niche (canned spots) rather than be general purpose. Maybe we should genetically engineer future generations to glow in the dark. It's already been done with lab animals. |
Anyone moved to LED Lighting?
New travelling nightlight! Glows in the dark.
All you need is to train it to come on command and $49.95 per lamp. Our operators are standing by! S&H (4 easy payments of $99.99) not included. "Dave Houston" wrote in message ... Yes - I've posted about them in comp.home.automation a couple of times in the past few months. They seem to fit a niche (canned spots) rather than be general purpose. Maybe we should genetically engineer future generations to glow in the dark. It's already been done with lab animals. |
Anyone moved to LED Lighting?
New travelling nightlight! Glows in the dark.
All you need is to train it to come on command and $49.95 per lamp. Our operators are standing by! S&H (4 easy payments of $99.99) not included. "Dave Houston" wrote in message ... Yes - I've posted about them in comp.home.automation a couple of times in the past few months. They seem to fit a niche (canned spots) rather than be general purpose. Maybe we should genetically engineer future generations to glow in the dark. It's already been done with lab animals. |
Anyone moved to LED Lighting?
|
Anyone moved to LED Lighting?
In article , Dave Houston wrote:
(Don Klipstein) wrote: In article , Dave Houston wrote: (Don Klipstein) wrote: Though that is not a mercury problem, those do emit CO2. Meanwhile, a long-term-sustained sharp reduction of electricity consumption by 2% is worth taking off-line a few power plants, perhaps ones not so easily turned on-and-off-quickly as natural gas ones and with higher online cost than hydropower or nuclear - sounds like oil and coal to me. While natural gas fired generators do emit C2, they emit much less per kWh than coal fired generators. If day-in-day-out electricity consumption is reduced, they take offline or crank down a coal generator. If growth of day-in-day-out electricity demand is slowed good-for-long-term, they scale down the construction schedule for those. Given the low (relative) cost for coal, utilities will take other plants off-line first. However, given that demand has already increased (big flat screens) more than a 100% CFL/LED conversion would save, they won't take any offline and will continue to build new coal-fired plants. If we get that 2% reduction in total electricity consumption, they will at least build fewer new coal-fired plants. Regulation or a carbon tax (or if the projected glut of shale gas comes to pass) might change that but switching to CFL/LED lighting will not. When you factor in the low power factor typical of CFLs that 2% drops significantly. While I've seen no data on average CFL PF, those I have measured as well as those measured by others and reported to me (an admittedly small sample) are in the 0.6 range. Had Congress truly been interested in improving efficiency they would have mandated higher PF for CFLs. But, I suspect they were only out to reward those who manufacture and sell CFLs who also contribute campaign funds. I was really impressed with how quickly Wall Mart geared up to market CFLs. Power factor is not much of a matter for fuel requirement for generators. It is more of a matter for distribution capacity to distribute and deliver amps not associated with billable watts (more properly KWH). Power Factor affects total generating capacity. But not so much for fuel consumption. Reactive component of load does not translate to turque required to turn the generator. in torque load, not net torque. Low PF means the projected reductions from CFL/LED switches are partly imaginary. SNIP from here - Don Klipstein ) |
Anyone moved to LED Lighting?
In article , Dave Houston wrote in part:
(Don Klipstein) wrote: In short, debate on usefulness of reducing nationwide electricity consumption by 2% by replacing residential incandescents with CFLs No, I see it as one of the many fronts that have to be fought to nibble down energy consumption. In all residences that I lived in ever since I was in one that was mine (even if only rented), the main electricity consumption factors were refrigeration, air conditioning and lighting. Equipment cost for refrigeration and A/C were free as long as I used those provided by the landlord, and the cost of substituting my own is substantial. I do skimp on use of A/C when I can by wearing skimpier clothing and eating fewer calories (a unit of heatactually) in summer. Nibbling won't save many polar bears, Maldivians or Bangladeshis. No item of energy consumption accounts for anywhere close to a majority. The only way to make total energy consumption a lot smaller is to slash energy consumption of a large number of items that are all minorities of total energy consumption. - Don Klipstein ) |
Anyone moved to LED Lighting?
In article , Josepi wrote:
Thanx for that. Some interesting information there. BTW: You know that GE dropped their hi-eff. incandescent development about a year ago? I would guess because they are still about 35-40% as efficient as CFLs and they think their CFLs are doing OK enough or will soon. Meanwhile, Philips has some of these on the market already. SNIP the previously quoted stuff missing quotation symbols - Don Klipstein ) |
Anyone moved to LED Lighting?
In article , Josepi wrote:
The new promise is ESL lamps, now. I don't remember hearing about it in sci.engr.lighting. I Google for it, and it does notsound too promising: http://sound.westhost.com/lamps/esl-lamps.html SNIP from here - Don Klipstein ) |
Anyone moved to LED Lighting?
On 12/27/2009 8:54 PM Josepi spake thus:
How is this? Sucks, and you know it. Come on; get with the program. Doesn't take a ****ing genius to skim a few messages and pick up on the standard posting scheme in any Usenet newsgroup. o Bottom post (or intersperse your comments *after* those of who you're responding to--same difference). o The standard quotation marker is "". Not quotation marks, not hyphens, not asterisks, not any other cutesy character. And while you're at it, learn to judiciously trim posts. You don't need to include every single character in the message you're responding to. (Classic case: replying to a 200-line post with 2 words.) Don't be an idiot. ""Don Klipstein" wrote in message ... "In article , Josepi wrote: "Feel free to rename all the character sets, if desired. " " What - you want to be the first in my roughly 14 years of heavy "experience in Usenet suggesting that I need to accomodate you despite lack "of need to accomodate likewise anyone before you in probably over a "thousand posted responses to others? " " Some may even understand part of your messages. " I give better odds for them to understand mine than to understand yours, "at the rate you are going. "I have never seen anybody use a quotation symbol for marking lines. "Quotation marks usually mean a quotation from a previous piece of text. I "think that would be why they are called that. " " Yet, you appear to be unaware of the Usenet convention of having the "number of quotation symbols at beginning of each quoted line reflecting "the level of quotation. Otherwise, you appear to be fighting such "established convention. -- I am a Canadian who was born and raised in The Netherlands. I live on Planet Earth on a spot of land called Canada. We have noisy neighbours. - harvested from Usenet |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:42 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter