Anyone moved to LED Lighting?

[Don Klipstein]

I don't remember hearing about it in sci.engr.lighting.

I Google for it, and it does notsound too promising:

- Don Klipstein ( [e-mail])

[Dave Houston]

Given the number of lighting patents held by Mr. Elliot, this tastes like very sour grapes.

[Dave Houston]

I don't believe I've ever encountered this claim before but it's been about

50 years since I learned the fundamentals. Still, I don't recall anything like this and this PDF from Cummins Power Generation "appears" to say exactly the opposite.

Cummins says, "A generator operating at rated kW at 0.8 power factor lagging load requires more kW from the engine than when running at rated kW on a resistive load bank. This is due to a change in alternator efficiency and will result in increased operating temperatures and fuel consumption."

[Josepi]

Power delivered to the load is the main required energy input to the generator.

However, losses in the delivery equipment and the generation equipment is due to the current or VA required to deliver power to the load. eg. Heating in the windings of the generator is due to the current passing through the windings and is not related to the usage (watts) the load makes from the source.

50 years since I learned the fundamentals. Still, I don't recall anything like this and this PDF from Cummins Power Generation "appears" to say exactly the opposite.

Cummins says, "A generator operating at rated kW at 0.8 power factor lagging load requires more kW from the engine than when running at rated kW on a resistive load bank. This is due to a change in alternator efficiency and will result in increased operating temperatures and fuel consumption."

[Dave Houston]

I'm still not clear on this. 50 years ago when the USAF taught me electronics there was only a brief discussion of reactive power where current is stored and then released out-of-phase. That was fairly straightforward. I don't recall any mention of THD (at least in relation to power lines) so I don't have a good grasp of the issues with SMPS. And, it's not clear to me whether PF as it relates to CFL/LED incorporates THD.

You and Don (and Cummins) seem to be saying that low PF adds to the generator load but the increased load is not linearly proportional to PF. How is this calculated?

[Josepi]

The generator has to produce all the power consumed by the load, where it is desired and the delivery system and generator.

Lets say you have a 120watt bulb at unity pf it would consume 1ampere x

120volts x cos< = 120 watts

If we have a 120watt bulb with a poor PF, say 50% PF (for easy figurin') we now have 2amperes x 120volts x cos60< (pf=50%) = 120watts.

The generator has to produce the bulb load (120watts) and the losses in the generator and syetm at 2 amperes. This amounts to double the losses in the conductors, transformers, generators, tap changers and all delivery equipment. With twice the current , twice the heat is generated in laminations and coils.

This is all losses to the energy source being converted by the generator. Not twice the total load but twice the twice the delivery and generating system losses. This can vary from a few percentage points to over 100% of the end load value in long systems.

Harmonics generated in lighting gets really weird and plays havoc with average sensing voltage control systems and many systems with neutral reactors. These reactors are a few ohms at 60Hz and increase with harmonics. On faults they stop the system from severe damage due to electrcal explosions in the tens of thousands of amperes and give time for the protection to take out a circuit more safely. On unbalanced loads or thrid harmoinics all the phase line up and make three times the third harmonic current in the neutral.. This becomes a big problem for distribution systems and your motor love it. They burn out.

You and Don (and Cummins) seem to be saying that low PF adds to the generator load but the increased load is not linearly proportional to PF. How is this calculated?

"Josepi" wrote:

[Dave Houston]

Rod Elliot has a section on Power Factor and CFLs which appears to indicate it's a much bigger problem in terms of generator fuel consumption.

[Robert Green]

Ouch! Don't tell me after all the intelligent posts you've made, that you actually buy into that "new math" version of reality? Don, you're breaking my heart!

A few questions as we work through the contention that adding a new vector for mercury distrubution decreases its environmental release.

1) How does that tradeoff work with hydroelectric, nuclear, solar or wind power?

It doesn't.

shows that less than half of the US's energy comes from coal. So the tradeoff only works for half of the US's power plants. For the other half, it represents a new vector for mercury poisoning that didn't exist before the CFL revolution.

2) Why don't we install scrubbers on the few hundred power plants that are the major emitters of mercury instead of relying on Rube Goldberg tradeoffs like distributing mercury in billions of light bulbs?

Because Big Power doesn't want to dig into corporate profits to clean up their power plants when they can convince people that these tradeoffs are workable. The smartest guys in the room also told us that credit default swaps would reduce trading risks. I guess we know how that worked out.

3) Does this tradeoff take into account that light bulbs are mostly used at night, when the generator turbines are running anyway, and would be generating X amount of "baseload" power anyway?

No, all we see are equations that say CFLs use less electricity than tungsten bulbs, so therefore they must result in equally less emissions. If the home lighting load is 7% of the total electrical use, what does a reduction in that small number really amount to? Is it enough to enable plants to shut down a generator? I've never seen the "adding mercury to subtract mercury" theorists ever get into the real mechanics of electricity generation to demonstrate exactly how the process works. I don't think many people are familiar with the "baseload" concept of power generation and why the all the claims of CFLs reducing emissions have to be taken with a large grain of salt:

These plants are on line 24x7 generating power whether anyone uses it or not. I've not seen one CFL "savings equation" take the baseload function into account. Why? Because it would quite obviously show that much of the alleged emission reductions claimed are in people's heads, not at the smoke stacks.

4) Does it take into account the addition of mercury to environments where most of the energy developed is from hydro or nuclear power?

No. CFL bulbs are poised to bring significant mercury pollution issues to areas where there isn't any mercury pollution from nearby coal plants because there AREN'T any nearby coal plants.

5) Does this alleged tradeoff work when you substitute LEDs for tungsten bulbs?

Yes. LEDs provide the same alleged reduction in emissions, and they do it WITHOUT adding mercury to hundreds of thousands of homes in billions of light bulbs. If anyone really cares about the environment, they won't poison it further by using mercury-laced CFL bulbs instead of LEDs.

6) Are CFL bulb makers serious about recycling used bulbs?

Hell no. We have deposit laws for mostly inert glass soda bottles but NOT environmentally hazardous CFL bulbs. Studies estimate that perhaps as few as 10% of all CFL bulbs get recycled.

7) Do people get suckered by quick fixes and miracle cures?

Absolutely. Take a look at the dietary supplement industry. Study after study shows that supplements can actually be quite harmful but folks buy and ingest them by the billion-dollar load. As for quick cures, Congress bought into the TARP, didn't it? Adding mercury to reduce mercury doesn't pass the common sense "sniff" test. And it shouldn't, it's a devil's bargain, one of many we're foisting on the next generation.

8) What happens when power plant smokestacks all get proper scrubbing equipment?

The alleged tradeoff falls flat on its face, leaving us with a gigantic mercury-laced CFL distribution network and nothing to counterbalance it.

The problem with CFLs is that the deeper one delves into this diabolical bargain, the worse things look. The savings are weak to begin with, and they're offset by the potential damage mercury poisoning can do. Sadly, we've shown time and time again that short term gains are considered way ahead of any long term costs. Look at Congress if you doubt that assertion. (-:

The right way to control emissions is by controlling the emitters. Pollutants need to be trapped at the smokestack that creates them, not on the shelves of Wal-Mart through a complex, poorly understood "tradeoff." Like a skilled magician, Big Power has managed to use misdirection to great advantage. Instead of clamoring for them to reduce the poison in their emissions, we've bought into a complex scheme to reduce pollutants by adding them to commonplace consumables.

It's a fool's game, just like Obama's claim that the war in Afghanistan is necessary to deny terrorists a place to plan their next attack. The second worst terrorist attack on the US came from within. Are we going to bomb all the states the Timothy McVeigh lived in so that we prevent other terrorists like him from "having a base of operations?" That would be stupid, but we've apparently bought into the plan, I suspect it's because there aren't too many critical thinkers left in the US press willing to say: "Mr. President, how does attacking Afghanistan prevent Al-Queda from basing its operations in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Indonesia or any other spot in the world?"

-- Bobby G.

[The Daring Dufas]

I would like to see the owners of power companies appear in a big news conference and announce to the country "We have seen the light!" pun intended, "We are going to shut down all of those nasty, polluting, CO2 emitting coal fired power plants in six months. This should give people and industry who receive electricity from coal, time enough to obtain power from other sources. The Democrats and your President are right, coal is a terrible thing to use as fuel and we were greedy. No more, we are shutting down those horrible coal burning power plants to protect all the cute little furry animals, butterflies, flowers and trees for the children. Stopping Global Warming, er, Climate Change and protecting The Environment is the most important thing in the whole world and we must act immediately. We apologise to any industry, hospital, school or other organization including all the individual citizens who may be inconvenienced by the lack of electricity but we all must sacrifice for the greater good. We promise that your government and leaders will not go without electrical power so they may (cough) continue to serve you. God bless America and its people!"

TDD

[The Daring Dufas]

I can tell you this from my experience in the electrical construction field, building power transformers have undergone a major redesign in the past few decades because of the computer age. This may sound a bit odd but this applies to CFL lighting too. Computers use switching power supplies that put an asymmetrical load and high frequency harmonics on on a power system designed to operate at 50/60 cycles. CFL units also use switching power supplies to operate the lamp and a wholesale change over to CFL lighting could cause problems in older buildings. The newer building power transformers are designed to deal with the electrical loads presented by switching power supplies. Anytime a government gets involved in fundamentally changing an industry, havoc will result. A good example is when lawmakers went after the plumbing industry and we wound up with water saving toilets that you have to flush three times to get rid of whatever. I do believe that government types sit around dreaming up what they can screw up next and never consider "The law of unintended results."

TDD

[salty]

Do you have ANY idea how long florescent's have been in wide use? Where do you see them? How about ALL large buildings being almost completely lit with full sized florescent's which contain FAR more mercury than CFL's? When you flip the typical light switch in a home, maybe 1-4 lights are powered up. When you flip a switch in a supermarket, there may be hundreds of lights lit up. All Florescent.

Any idea why they use florescent's ?

[David Nebenzahl]

On 12/31/2009 3:07 AM [e-mail] spake thus:

Of course he knows this; that's implicit in his arguments. He's not stupid.

What he's saying, which I agree with, is that the use of CFLs, primarily for *residential* lighting (not commercial, which as you point out has already been using fluorescents for many decades) will result in a massive upsurge in the amount of mercury in transit out there, some of which will escape into the environment. This is the 900-pound gorilla of CFL usage which isn't getting nearly as much attention as it should, and makes the claims that Don K. and others have made about how much CFLs will result in *reduced* mercury emissions dubious at best.

[salty]

Even if residential use of CFL's gets to 100%, the amount of mercury involved that gets into the environment will still be dwarfed by the mercury from coal fired power plant emmisions, or what comes from conventional florescent tubes.

It's more like an organ grinder's monkey than a gorilla.

Oh, and unlike conventional florescent tubes, you can take CFL's to any Home Depot for free environmentally safe recycling of the mercury. The much greater amounts of mercury in conventional tubes still goes to the landfill, and all the mercury from burning coal goes into the atmosphere and then settles everywhere, getting in the groundwater and the oceans, where it accumulates in fish for your convenience.

[bud--]

I find Don's arguments entirely reasonable. Our power comes from a few national grids. Reduction of power on a TVA hydro plant allows TVA to sell power elsewhere.

And I have no problem getting both CFLs and linear tubes recycled.

[Josepi]

Now tell us how reducing the load doesn't reduce energy usage and doesn't reduce pollution of any type, nuclear, coal, petroleum, hydro-electric or other. TOU load is not the only factor here.

Your smokestack scrubber argument doesn't wash. OPG in Ontario has been using scrubbers for decades and they are all about to be removed. I suspect the scubbers are not that effective and too expensive to implement.

LED lamps are too expensive and too dim-witted, yet. Expensive equate to too much production polution outweighing any lifetime benefits. The cost of our health insurance on increase spectacle coverage and accidents from people falling down stairwells will outweigh any savings alone...LOL

Let's face it: the general populace doesn't care about the "greenwashing" part of the formula, only their pocketbooks and the capitolistist economic system in place that hasn't made it feasible, yet.

Many other good points, noted.

5) Does this alleged tradeoff work when you substitute LEDs for tungsten bulbs?

Yes. LEDs provide the same alleged reduction in emissions, and they do it WITHOUT adding mercury to hundreds of thousands of homes in billions of light bulbs. If anyone really cares about the environment, they won't poison it further by using mercury-laced CFL bulbs instead of LEDs.

6) Are CFL bulb makers serious about recycling used bulbs?

Hell no. We have deposit laws for mostly inert glass soda bottles but NOT environmentally hazardous CFL bulbs. Studies estimate that perhaps as few as 10% of all CFL bulbs get recycled.

7) Do people get suckered by quick fixes and miracle cures?

Absolutely. Take a look at the dietary supplement industry. Study after study shows that supplements can actually be quite harmful but folks buy and ingest them by the billion-dollar load. As for quick cures, Congress bought into the TARP, didn't it? Adding mercury to reduce mercury doesn't pass the common sense "sniff" test. And it shouldn't, it's a devil's bargain, one of many we're foisting on the next generation.

8) What happens when power plant smokestacks all get proper scrubbing equipment?

The alleged tradeoff falls flat on its face, leaving us with a gigantic mercury-laced CFL distribution network and nothing to counterbalance it.

The problem with CFLs is that the deeper one delves into this diabolical bargain, the worse things look. The savings are weak to begin with, and they're offset by the potential damage mercury poisoning can do. Sadly, we've shown time and time again that short term gains are considered way ahead of any long term costs. Look at Congress if you doubt that assertion. (-:

The right way to control emissions is by controlling the emitters. Pollutants need to be trapped at the smokestack that creates them, not on the shelves of Wal-Mart through a complex, poorly understood "tradeoff." Like a skilled magician, Big Power has managed to use misdirection to great advantage. Instead of clamoring for them to reduce the poison in their emissions, we've bought into a complex scheme to reduce pollutants by adding them to commonplace consumables.

-- Bobby G.

[BQ340]

Mercury is a natural element, and has been in the environment forever, no?

[Don Klipstein]

They generate the power used, plus the small amount of generator losses.

Torque required to turn the generators is proportional to real portion of the amps taken from the generators, plus the bit required to overcome generator losses. Fuel consumption varies accordingly.

The torque required to turn the generators varies with the true watts taken from them (and dissipated in them - much smaller).

Yes - once LED bulbs as good as CFL bulbs are available for where CFLs are used.

Puh-leaze - how much mercury do CFLs add to homes?

Until I can get LED bulbs for my needs, I am reducing emissions including mercury by using CFL.

They would be reducing net mercury contribution to the environment if none of them were recycled.

Those who want to help with increasing that 10% by recycling their dead CFLs:

Home Depot also accepts deasd CFLs for proper disposal.

- Don Klipstein ( [e-mail])

[Don Klipstein]

A generator at 80% of rated power at .8 pf will still be easier to turn than one operating at same current and 1.0 pf (100% of rated power).

Meanwhile, generator losses are a much smaller percentage of output power for big ones owned by electric companies than for smaller ones of only several KW. Your example of full power at .8 pf is also 125% of current delivered to a full power resistive load, and I^2*R losses may be starting to blow up at that point.

- Don Klipstein ( [e-mail])

[Dave Houston]

TVA has 11 hydroelectric dams and 59 coal fired units.

[Don Klipstein]

Since most grid electricity has generator winding, transmission and distribution losses totalling much less than power delivered, reducing watts reduces generator load and fuel consumption even if the amps stays the same.

Meanwhile, the article did say that a 15W CFL (which typically replaces a 60 watt incandescent) typically takes 29 VA (volt-amps) - total VA, not just VA other than watts.

- Don Klipstein ( [e-mail])