Re: the light bulb police are coming

[nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Houston)]

"BruceR" <razrbruce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> Regardless what percentage of the total
>> is used for lighting, each incremental
>> step we take to reduce energy usage
>> reduces pollution and reduces our
>> dependence on foreign oil.  Since both
>> of those are (IMO) worthwhile objectives
>> I believe it's a good idea to use more
>> efficient lighting.  That includes CFLs.
>
>While every little bit does help, does it really make sense to spend
>$2.50 for a CFL instead of a quarter for a bulb?  I use a lot of CFL's
>but only in locations that are either a PITA to change a bulb or where I
>want to reduce heat buildup.  Some disadvantages of CFL floods is their
>warm up time. It can take a full minute before the light comes up to a
>useable intensity. That's fine for the outdoor lights but doesn't cut it
>for a closet or workshop.

Bruce,

They make more sense for you than for most everybody else in the US.
Hawaii's electric rates are much higher than the rest of the US. CFLs are
3-4 times as efficient as today's incandescents (I've never said otherwise.)
and the more you pay per kWh, the faster you pay back the higher cost. Until
recently I had the lowest rate in the country ($0.06/kWh) but after Duke
bought out Cinergy, my rates increased. Duke no longer states the rate on my
bill but charges/kWh=$0.10 for my latest bill. I think the actual rate is
lower but I get hit with a minimum charge for not using "enough" electricity
- Cinergy used to state that on my bill. 30% of my lights are fluorescent.
If I replaced more with CFLs my "penalty" for not using "enough" electricity
would be even bigger. ;)

Anyone using triac dimmers is sacrificing efficiency even at full
brightness.

Standard fluorescents (around since 1938) are about twice as efficient as
incandescent (about half as efficient as CFLs). There's not likely to be
further improvements of any significance. GE's HEI will be competivive with
standard fluorescents when introduced and with CFLs when (if) they reach the
projected 4X figure. According to an NBC News report last night, the time
frame for outlawing incandescents is 2017 so GE has time to prove it's a
foolish move.

Your use of incandescents does far less damage to the environment than
transcontinental flights whether in a commercial airliner or private plane.

What I have repeatedly objected to is the false information and phony
statistics being used by the CFIs trying to push CFLs down our throats. The
picture is not nearly as pretty as the one the CFL proponents paint.

You've noted some drawbacks, others have noted that premature failure is
still an issue (after 30 years experience), they should not be used with
motion sensors as they use more energy at startup, some brands/models output
noise that requires filters (changing the economics), the color of the light
is bothersome to many people, they are a poor choice in can lights because
of heat build up leading to early failure, etc., etc., etc. For you, they
work outside, in cold climates they never start. And, even if a particular
brand of CFL has a good warranty, there are still costs associated with
warranty replacement that alter the economics. Of course, when they fail you
can always take them to your friendly neighborhood CFL recycling center.

The DOE publishes periodic surveys of energy use in various sectors. There's
a nice pie chart I referenced recently in another thread showing these 2001
figures for total electricity use...

     Residential 34%
     Commercial 30%
     Industry 28%
     Other 8%

The surveys themselves are...

     Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey
     http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/
     Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey
     http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs/
     Residential Energy Consumption Survey
     http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/

I've already noted that lighting represents 8.8% of residential electricity
use. Given that residential use is 34% of total electricity use, that means
residential lighting represents .34 x .088 = .02992 or 3% of total
electricity use.

They do not break out the others in the same way but I found one for
industry from the latest survey published...

     ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/consumption/industry/taba39a.pdf

It shows 820,286 million kWh used with 51,443 million kWh going to facility
lighting. 51,443 / 820,286 = .0627 or 6.25%. And .28 x .0627 = .0175 or
1.75% of total electricity use.

I could not find similar figures withinin the tons of reports for commercial
use but we can make some conclusions based on the others.

I'm not sure what "Other" is composed of but one possibility is government
and other public facilities which probably have lighting profiles that are
somewhat similar to commercial buildings. Adding these categories together
they represent 38% of total electricity use. If the figure given in the NYT
article (22% of total electricity is used for lighting) is accurate then
these categories must account for the remainder .22 - .02992 - .0175 =
.17258 or 17.25% of the total and .17258 / .38 = .45415 which means that 45%
of the electricty used in these categories must go for lighting. I think
most everyone will agree that such a figure borders on the preposterous and
the numbers being bandied about by CFL proponents are poppycock.

Furthermore, most of the industrial and commercial lighting already uses
fluorescents or other high efficiency lighting so the lion's share of any
savings from CFLs is likely to have to come from the miniscule amount now
used for residential lighting. I doubt it's enough to save even a small
asteroid, let alone a planet.

As I've said before, most of our electricity comes from coal and that is
certain to increase as it's both cheap and plentiful. To save the planet we
need these coal fired plants to improve their conversion efficiency as well
as capture and sequester carbon dioxide (and there's proven technology for
capturing 90% of the mercury as well). BTW, this has to be done worldwide.

As for beef, ethanol from corn gets a $0.51/gal subsidy while imported
ethanol (mostly from sugar cane) has a $0.54/gal tariff (I may have those
reversed). Beef will have to be grass-fed and studies have shown there's not
enough arable land to grow all the corn and switchgrass, etc. for celluosic
ethanol so there won't be any cattle (or humans) around and the problem
takes care of itself. :(

BTW, ethanol from corn has low conversion efficiency and worsens the global
warming problem but is super efficient at buying votes.

There is one other semi-plausible way to interpret the numbers. If we assume
that lighting uses about 1/3 of commercial electricity (still quite high but
more reasonable), that takes care of 9% of total electricity leaving 8% to
be accounted for by "Other". If all of this is in endoscopes being used to
search for the heads of the CFIs pushing CFLs, we've accounted for all of
the missing electricity. ;)


http://davehouston.net
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/roZetta/
roZetta-subscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx