Anyone moved to LED Lighting?

[Dave Houston]

I found one of my previous posts that has citations for nearly "all of the above".

Search comp.home.automation at Google Groups using "residential electricity".

[David Nebenzahl]

On 12/27/2009 9:13 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:

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).

[salty]

2% would be HUGE.

[Don Klipstein]

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.

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.

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 ( [e-mail])

[Don Klipstein]

I actually agree so far here.

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.

A fair amount comes from oil and natural gas - which also have carbon.

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 ( [e-mail])

[Dave Houston]

While natural gas fired generators do emit C2, they emit much less per kWh than coal fired generators.

The 2% is only of the total US electricity not total energy - it's less than

1% of total energy (and carbon). 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.

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.

[Don Klipstein]

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.

I agree here - this is one of many fronts to be fought.

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).

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 ( [e-mail])

[salty]

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.

[Dave Houston]

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.

Power Factor affects total generating capacity. Low PF means the projected reductions from CFL/LED switches are partly imaginary.

Nibbling won't save many polar bears, Maldivians or Bangladeshis.

[Josepi]

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.

Nibbling won't save many polar bears, Maldivians or Bangladeshis.

[Josepi]

Thanx for that. Some interesting information there.

BTW: You know that GE dropped their hi-eff. incandescent development about a year ago?

"Josepi" wrote: Will do. Thanx

[Dave Houston]

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.

[Josepi]

The new promise is ESL lamps, now.

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.

[Dave Houston]

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.

[Josepi]

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.

Maybe we should genetically engineer future generations to glow in the dark. It's already been done with lab animals.

[Josepi]

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.

Maybe we should genetically engineer future generations to glow in the dark. It's already been done with lab animals.

[Han]

[e-mail] (Dave Houston) wrote in news: [e-mail]:

No genetic engineering necessary. Fireflies do it when aroused. So it's just a question of ...

[Don Klipstein]

If we get that 2% reduction in total electricity consumption, they will at least build fewer new coal-fired plants.

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.

- Don Klipstein ( [e-mail])

[Don Klipstein]

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 ( [e-mail])

[Don Klipstein]

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.

- Don Klipstein ( [e-mail])