Re: Anyone moved to LED Lighting?

[nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Houston)]

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

>>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.
>
>  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.

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