Re: Anyone moved to LED Lighting?

[salty@xxxxxxx]

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 03:18:55 -0500, "Robert Green"
<robert_green1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>"Don Klipstein" <don@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>
>> >  The true cost/benefits of CFLs over tungsten bulbs are incredibly
>> >complex and that allows either side of the argument to spout nearly any
>> >numbers they feel like.  All they need do is adjust the underlying
>> >parameters or ignore facts like the future cost of removing mercury from
>the
>> >environment the same way we're now removing asbestos.
>>
>>   Compared to incandescent, on average use of CFLs actually reduces
>> mercury pollution, because burning coal releases so much mercury into the
>> environment.
>
>Ouch!  Don't tell me after all the intelligent posts you've made, that you
>actually buy into that "new math" version of reality?   Don, you're breaking
>my heart!
>
>A few questions as we work through the contention that adding a new vector
>for mercury distrubution decreases its environmental release.
>
>1) How does that tradeoff work with hydroelectric, nuclear, solar or wind
>power?
>
>It doesn't.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sources_of_electricity_in_the_USA_2006.png
>
>shows that less than half of the US's energy comes from coal.  So the
>tradeoff only works for half of the US's power plants.  For the other half,
>it represents a new vector for mercury poisoning that didn't exist before
>the CFL revolution.
>
>2) Why don't we install scrubbers on the few hundred power plants that are
>the major emitters of mercury instead of relying on Rube Goldberg tradeoffs
>like distributing mercury in billions of light bulbs?
>
>Because Big Power doesn't want to dig into corporate profits to clean up
>their power plants when they can convince people that these tradeoffs are
>workable.  The smartest guys in the room also told us that credit default
>swaps would reduce trading risks.  I guess we know how that worked out.
>
>3) Does this tradeoff take into account that light bulbs are mostly used at
>night, when the generator turbines are running anyway, and would be
>generating X amount of "baseload" power anyway?
>
>No, all we see are equations that say CFLs use less electricity than
>tungsten bulbs, so therefore they must result in equally less emissions.  If
>the home lighting load is 7% of the total electrical use, what does a
>reduction in that small number really amount to?  Is it enough to enable
>plants to shut down a generator?  I've never seen the "adding mercury to
>subtract mercury" theorists ever get into the real mechanics of electricity
>generation to demonstrate exactly how the process works.  I don't think many
>people are familiar with the "baseload" concept of power generation and why
>the all the claims of CFLs reducing emissions have to be taken with a large
>grain of salt:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load_power_plant
>
>These plants are on line 24x7 generating power whether anyone uses it or
>not.  I've not seen one CFL "savings equation" take the baseload function
>into account.  Why?  Because it would quite obviously show that much of the
>alleged emission reductions claimed are in people's heads, not at the smoke
>stacks.
>
>4) Does it take into account the addition of mercury to environments where
>most of the energy developed is from hydro or nuclear power?
>
>No.  CFL bulbs are poised to bring significant mercury pollution issues to
>areas where there isn't any mercury pollution from nearby coal plants
>because there AREN'T any nearby coal plants.
>

Do you have ANY idea how long florescent's have been in wide use?
Where do you see them? How about ALL large buildings being almost
completely lit with full sized florescent's which contain FAR more
mercury than CFL's?  When you flip the typical light switch in a home,
maybe 1-4 lights are powered up. When you flip a switch in a
supermarket, there may be hundreds of lights lit up. All Florescent.

Any idea why they use florescent's ?