Re: Anyone moved to LED Lighting?

[don@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Don Klipstein)]

In article <YVAZm.72281$cd7.67323@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Josepi wrote:
>Many CFLs are a third harmonic problem for the electrical distribution grid.
>Some claim this may have been resolved in later designs but many don't know
>the difference between power factor and third harmonics, either.

  However, total RMS current of low-power-factor CFLs including the part
from 3rd harmonic is less than that of same-light-output incandescents.

>Transformers must use different designs to help eliminate third harmonics
>from these nasty bulbs (including HID lamps) and it still depends on
>balanced three phase harmonic distribution at about 6-10 million dollars per
>transformer.

  That is an issue that was known at least as far back as the mid 1980's.

> These nasty little glitches will make love to your furnace and
>fridge motor. Now who's saving money?...LOL

  These glitches have little effect on RMS voltage or difference between
total RMS voltage and fundamental-frequency-component-thereof delivered to
motors in nearly all industrial applications and even more totally in
residential applications.

>(fuck your bottom confusion. It's not worth educating some)

  I advise to know Usenet, its conventions and ettiquette!

(At least you added a quotation symbol per line of material that was
already previously quoted in the article that you responded to, although
itappears to me that you chose a non-standard one)

 - Don Klipstein (don@xxxxxxxxx)

>"Don Klipstein" <don@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:slrnhjdilo.is7.don@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>| 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.)
>|
>| >Now, it's true that if *enough* people used CFLs, *and* if the resulting
>| >power savings were enough for the power companies to say, "Hey, let's
>| >start shutting down our dirty old coal-fired power plants", then one
>| >could truly say that the use of CFLs reduces mercury emissions. But that
>| >hasn't happened yet. Nowhere near it. They're still burning lots of
>| >coal, and planning on building even *more* coal-fired plants.
>|
>|  CFLs are merely slowing demand growth.  Most of the incandescents
>| that can be replaced with CFLs are not yet replaced with CFLs, the
>| population is growing, along with use of larger TV sets.  If all CFLs were
>| replaced with incandescents of same light output, the situation would be
>| even worse.
>|
>| <SNIP from here>
>|
>| - Don Klipstein (don@xxxxxxxxx)