Re: Anyone moved to LED Lighting?

[don@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Don Klipstein)]

In article <4b38d311.19941500@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Houston wrote:
>don@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Don Klipstein) wrote:
>
>>>The lighting load is argued about 5% of the overal system load and redcuing
>>>that by 50-75% doesn't make that much difference. But it's a start.
>>
>>  Make that 9%, and that includes in regions of USA with
>>much-below-nationwide-average electricity cost due to making significant
>>use of largely-non-increasable hydropower.
>
>According to DOE figures, that 9% applies ONLY to residential electricity.
>Residential accounts for about 1/3 of the total with industrial and
>commercial accounting for about 1/3 each. Industrial lighting is about 6% ot
>total industrial electricity and commercial lighting is about 12% of their
>total. The latter two sectors have long used lighting that is more efficient
>than CFLs so there's little to gain there (see the comparison in my earlier
>post). This makes residential lighting about 3% of the total and even
>assuming all of that is replaced by CFLs or LEDs, it means only a 2%
>reduction.

  I actually agree so far here.

> And, since electricity accounts for less than half of the carbon
>we're putting into the atmosphere

  So at this point we reduce carbon contribution by 1% - small, but to be
added to the many other ways we can nibble that down.

> and only half of our electricity comes from coal, the reduction is on
>the order of 1/2 of 1%

  A fair amount comes from oil and natural gas - which also have carbon.

> (which is very much in line with the UK study I referenced ealier and
>even that's very optimistic).
>BTW, the generating plants that are quickly ramped up/down are mostly fired
>by natural gas.

  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.

 - Don Klipstein (don@xxxxxxxxx)