Re: Anyone moved to LED Lighting?

[don@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Don Klipstein)]

In <4b36f5e8$0$23825$822641b3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, D. Nebenzahl said:
>On 12/26/2009 6:47 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:
>
>> In article <4b36aadb$0$30847$822641b3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 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 (don@xxxxxxxxx)