Re: Anyone moved to LED Lighting?

[nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Houston)]

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.

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

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.