Re: Anyone moved to LED Lighting?

[don@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Don Klipstein)]

In article <4b3a2232.19333906@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Houston wrote:
>don@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Don Klipstein) wrote:
>
>>In article <4b395226.52473718@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Houston wrote:
>>>don@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Don Klipstein) wrote:
>>>
>>>>  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.
>>>
>>>While natural gas fired generators do emit C2, they emit much less per kWh
>>>than coal fired generators.
>>
>>  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.
>
>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.

  If we get that 2% reduction in total electricity consumption, they will
at least build fewer 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.

>>> 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.
>>
>>  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).
>
>Power Factor affects total generating capacity.

  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.

> Low PF means the projected
>reductions from CFL/LED switches are partly imaginary.

<SNIP from here>

 - Don Klipstein (don@xxxxxxxxx)