Re: Anyone moved to LED Lighting?

[don@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Don Klipstein)]

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.

>The 2% is only of the total US electricity not total energy - it's less than
>1% of total energy (and carbon).

  I agree here - this is one of many fronts to be fought.

> 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).

>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.

  Lighting, on the other hand, is where I manage to save.  For homeowners,
lighting is just one of the many fronts to fight to nibble down energy
consumption.

 - Don Klipstein (don@xxxxxxxxx)