Anyone moved to LED Lighting?

[real1]

Some say it's a comedian not a Christian. It IS funny.

[Josepi]

He **is** a comedian and does this frequently. Research "Edward Current"

Did you read the comments? Atheists are pissed about it. Good advert fr religious addict.

[Don Klipstein]

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?

I give better odds for them to understand mine than to understand yours, at the rate you are going.

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 ( [e-mail])

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 ( [e-mail])

[Don Klipstein]

However, total RMS current of low-power-factor CFLs including the part from 3rd harmonic is less than that of same-light-output incandescents.

That is an issue that was known at least as far back as the mid 1980's.

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.

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 ( [e-mail])

[Don Klipstein]

Does replacing incandescents with CFLs require people to replace non-electric water heaters and dryers with electric ones?

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.

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.

- Don Klipstein ( [e-mail])

[Josepi]

How is this?

" "> 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 ( [e-mail])

" 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 ( [e-mail]) " " - Don Klipstein ( [e-mail])" " " - Don Klipstein ( [e-mail])" " " - Don Klipstein ( [e-mail])

[Josepi]

You have no idea what you are talking about here, do you?

Geeesh. It's getting boring teasing the village idiot, now

" "Don Klipstein" wrote in message news: [e-mail]... " 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.

" >(f*ck 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 ( [e-mail])

" >"Don Klipstein" wrote in message " >news: [e-mail]... " >| In article , 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. " >| " >| " >| " >| - Don Klipstein ( [e-mail]) " >| " >| - Don Klipstein ( [e-mail]) " >| " >| - Don Klipstein ( [e-mail])

[Don Klipstein]

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.

They do better than that - they can "crank down" generating units.

[Don Klipstein]

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 ( [e-mail])

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.

- Don Klipstein ( [e-mail])

[Don Klipstein]

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 ( [e-mail])

[Doug Miller]

Speaking of the village idiot.... when are you going to figure out how to configure your newsreader properly?

[salty]

When you argue with an idiot on usenet, there is the danger that after the first few exchanges, no one can remember which was the idiot.

[HeyBub]

It's easy to remember WHO, it's just hard to tell from the non-standart attributation marks.

[salty]

WHOOSH!

[Robert L Bass]

Faith is indeed evidence when it comes to spiritual matters. Physical things like alarms don't require faith -- just knowledge of pertinent, observable behavior and repeatable results.

Some folks pretend to believe. Some pretend not to believe. Some are up-front about their beliefs. Most, I suspect, rarely talk about it in public. Having never been accused of being "main-stream," I'm pretty open about the subject. I differ from many "believers" in that I'm perfectly willing to listen to and accept someone else's ideas. In short, I'm certain enough that what I believe is true but not quite arrogant enough to be sure everyone else is wrong. :^)

This is an interesting thread but if it continues much longer we'll annoy those who want to keep the newsgroup on topic. Nuff said?

[Robert L Bass]

He is very funny.

[Dave Houston]

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.

[Josepi]

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]

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]

Will do. Thanx

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.