Re: Anyone moved to LED Lighting?

[don@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Don Klipstein)]

In article <hhne6l$qsq$2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Robert Green wrote:
>"David Nebenzahl" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:4b3cedec$0$4724$822641b3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> On 12/31/2009 3:07 AM salty@xxxxxxx spake thus:
>>
>> > On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 03:18:55 -0500, "Robert Green"
>> > <robert_green1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> >> 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 ?
>>
>> Of course he knows this; that's implicit in his arguments. He's not
>stupid.
>
>Thank you.  I explained it to him in excruciating detail anyway, for it
>seems not so implicit to him.  I think he missed my earlier magnum opus on
>CFLs.  I even gave him a mnemonic so that he could spell flu-ores-cent
>properly in the future.
>
>> What he's saying, which I agree with, is that the use of CFLs, primarily
>> for *residential* lighting (not commercial, which as you point out has
>> already been using fluorescents for many decades) will result in a
>> massive upsurge in the amount of mercury in transit out there, some of
>> which will escape into the environment. This is the 900-pound gorilla of
>> CFL usage which isn't getting nearly as much attention as it should, and
>> makes the claims that Don K. and others have made about how much CFLs
>> will result in *reduced* mercury emissions dubious at best.
>
>I spent a good portion of my life in a SCIF helping build computer models
>that tried to predict a number of important statistics based on various
>nuclear attack scenarios.  Once you become involved in something that looks
>at every fort, factory, armory, hospital, police station, jail, power plant,
>water plant, chemical storage plant, bridge, tunnel, etc, etc, in the
>country, you begin to appreciate the complexity and arbitrary nature of such
>models.
>
>You can't build something like that without making assumptions and
>invariably, many of them turn out to be well-reasoned, but dead wrong.  A
>lot of corrections to the model came after examining serious disasters that
>in some ways simulated nuclear attacks.  Hurricanes always broke the model.
>So did earthquakes.  It's humbling.  And it's why I get verbose when people
>claim things about similarly complex subjects with such unwavering
>certainty.  I've been down that road before and it's "a maze of twisty
>little passages, all different."  It takes more than magic words or wishful
>thinking to get real answers.
>
>In the "CFLs will save enough money to do X,Y and Z" argument the number of
>variables is astounding.  Part of the problem, I am discovering, is that
>people believe the power grid is some sort of giant battery.  They don't
>understand the concept of base loads, peak loads, spinning reserves and grid
>management.  They believe, quite logically, if you save 50 watts switching
>from TILs (Tungsten Incandescent Lighting) to CFLs on your home bill, that
>represents *exactly* 50 watts' worth reduction in carbon/mercury emissions.
>At least that's how I understand some of the claims about CFLs.  I don't
>blame people for thinking that way.  I thought of it that way myself until I
>started researching it.

  I see it as even more due to transmission and generator winding losses
that are mostly though significantly short of entirely due to
"real"/"resistive" component of current.

>I think the most important concept lacking in the discussion is the
>"stair-step" function of power generation.  Generators aren't capable of
>responding quickly to demand.

  Not even the oil and natural gas ones?

>  They have basically three modes: off, idling
>and running.

  They don't have to run at "full output power".

>  At best, CFLs are causing *some* plants to idle, at worst, all
>that happens is that everyone's lights glow a little brighter and there may
>be fewer summer brownouts.  Dramatic savings?  Maybe.  Dramatic risks?
>Certainly.  No one doubts mercury is a neurotoxin.  No one with a brain
>unaffected by mercury or some other neural "nuking" agent, that is.

  Appealing to chemophobia, while switching from incandescents to CFLs on
average actually reduces (or slows increase of) mercury pollution?

>I'm sure you know that big, 200 ton coal plant turbines don't start and stop
>on a dime.  These beasties form the backbone of base load power generation.
>The base load is power that gets generated to meet carefully projected needs
>no matter what the actual load.  If it isn't used, it isn't saved.  It's
>either shunted to some other part of the grid, entailing transmission
>losses,

  Fairly small actually!

> or the plant operators boost the overall voltage in the system, or,
>in grid failures, shunt it to huge resistor banks.

  Where do you get that - can you cite this?

  Meanwhile, the shorter-term fluctuations are handled by cranking up and
down oil and gas fueled power plants.  Longer term change in projected
power requirements will affect the construction schedule for coal-fired
power plants.

<I think I do well enough snipping from here>

 - Don Klipstein (don@xxxxxxxxx)