what a freaking waste of time. By the time of a phase out we should have a carbon system and costs to carbon so you;d be mad not to use them anyway.
Light bulbs and plastic freaking bags - total diversions
ok so I have only compact fluoros in my house, but it is hardly ground breaking policy.
And what about halogen low voltage downlights? they are just as inefficient as normal bulbs, houses who want the light quality will just install them over standard light bulb fittings leading to zero gain.
waste of time
light-bulbs do not save much energy by going from 60w to 15w, or even lower watt LEDs. However, it is a lot easier to motivate people to get interested and active in technological progress that promotes energy conservation by promoting new lighting technologies than it is to, say, convince them to widen their temperature comfort-zone and reduce climate-control to save energy.
Ideally, if people calculate the amount of energy they're saving by replacing their light-bulbs and get excited about it, they will investigate other methods of conservation, which will eventually lead them to the big gold-mines such as climate-control, water-heating, refrigeration, dryers, etc. Once these largest of energy-consumptions are tackled, household energy usage becomes entirely manageable with off- or even on-site renewable sources.
The per-kwh rates charged by my supplier are tiered so that the lowest rate is available to households using under 250 kwh per month. Without climate control, I usually use less than that. Ironically, my low level of usage would make it pretty easy for me to switch to relying completely on solar panels (if I invested in enough batteries to power the refrigerator, computer, and occasionally the dryer overnight); but my electric bill is not expensive enough to justify the investment in a solar system. Someone who uses >1000kwh/month, on the other hand, would pay back a solar system with profit in a few years with the savings from going off the grid. I can't imagine how many batteries they'd have to invest in, though, for nocturnal usage.
As for carbon credit trading, it would just result in people paying to pollute and other people becoming dependent on the economies of those who pollute and fund their lifestyles. In other words, carbon neutrality would be even further away because the people making money from carbon credit sales would have an interest in promoting higher emissions in the economies who buy their credits.
Ideally, if people calculate the amount of energy they're saving by replacing their light-bulbs and get excited about it, they will investigate other methods of conservation, which will eventually lead them to the big gold-mines such as climate-control, water-heating, refrigeration, dryers, etc. Once these largest of energy-consumptions are tackled, household energy usage becomes entirely manageable with off- or even on-site renewable sources.
The per-kwh rates charged by my supplier are tiered so that the lowest rate is available to households using under 250 kwh per month. Without climate control, I usually use less than that. Ironically, my low level of usage would make it pretty easy for me to switch to relying completely on solar panels (if I invested in enough batteries to power the refrigerator, computer, and occasionally the dryer overnight); but my electric bill is not expensive enough to justify the investment in a solar system. Someone who uses >1000kwh/month, on the other hand, would pay back a solar system with profit in a few years with the savings from going off the grid. I can't imagine how many batteries they'd have to invest in, though, for nocturnal usage.
As for carbon credit trading, it would just result in people paying to pollute and other people becoming dependent on the economies of those who pollute and fund their lifestyles. In other words, carbon neutrality would be even further away because the people making money from carbon credit sales would have an interest in promoting higher emissions in the economies who buy their credits.
QUOTE
light-bulbs do not save much energy by going from 60w to 15w,
Except it's something that everyone can easily do.
Consider there are 120 million single family homes.
If just HALF of them replaced one 60W bulb that they used for 6 hours a day with a fluor bulb of 15W, the savings would equal the output of one of our largest nuclear plants running 24/7, about 1.8 Megawatts.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| light-bulbs do not save much energy by going from 60w to 15w, |
Except it's something that everyone can easily do.
Consider there are 120 million single family homes.
If just HALF of them replaced one 60W bulb that they used for 6 hours a day with a fluor bulb of 15W, the savings would equal the output of one of our largest nuclear plants running 24/7, about 1.8 Megawatts.
The per-kwh rates charged by my supplier are tiered so that the lowest rate is available to households using under 250 kwh per month. Without climate control, I usually use less than that. Ironically, my low level of usage would make it pretty easy for me to switch to relying completely on solar panels (if I invested in enough batteries to power the refrigerator, computer, and occasionally the dryer overnight); but my electric bill is not expensive enough to justify the investment in a solar system. Someone who uses >1000kwh/month, on the other hand, would pay back a solar system with profit in a few years with the savings from going off the grid. I can't imagine how many batteries they'd have to invest in, though, for nocturnal usage.
What are your rates for power by tier?
By the way, if you have the grid available then you wouldn't install any batteries, but instead your PV system would be what is known as a "Grid Tie" system.
You typically size your PV system to produce roughly the average power you need for a day, but the power is generated over about 10 hours, so when your PV system is providing more power than you need the excess is fed into the grid and doing so spins your meter backward (net metering). Thus the grid is your battery and essentially costs nothing, except for a breaker that senses if the grid is down and if so disconnects your system from the grid (to protect linemen working on the grid)
Only PV users that don't have access to the grid would incur the high cost/hassel of maintaining banks of Lead Acid batteries and they usually need a back up generator as well to both maintain thier batteries properly and to deal with long sunless periods in the winter.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 20 2010, 01:41 PM)
What are your rates for power by tier?
By the way, if you have the grid available then you wouldn't install any batteries, but instead your PV system would be what is known as a "Grid Tie" system.
You typically size your PV system to produce roughly the average power you need for a day, but the power is generated over about 10 hours, so when your PV system is providing more power than you need the excess is fed into the grid and doing so spins your meter backward (net metering). Thus the grid is your battery and essentially costs nothing, except for a breaker that senses if the grid is down and if so disconnects your system from the grid (to protect linemen working on the grid)
Only PV users that don't have access to the grid would incur the high cost/hassel of maintaining banks of Lead Acid batteries and they usually need a back up generator as well to both maintain thier batteries properly and to deal with long sunless periods in the winter.
Arthur
Good point. I forgot about net metering. Still, my question is if many buildings had solar panels or windmills and were net-metering during the day, how is it economical to exchange the surplus power for nocturnal generator power if demand is high? After all, it would then still be necessary to maintain the grid infrastructure as well as the power plant and fuel-supply. The only thing that would be reduced is the rate of fuel-consumption by the power plant. How would the power-plant and grid maintenance then be funded except through higher rates? Maybe the difference could be made up with electric vehicle charging.
By the way, if you have the grid available then you wouldn't install any batteries, but instead your PV system would be what is known as a "Grid Tie" system.
You typically size your PV system to produce roughly the average power you need for a day, but the power is generated over about 10 hours, so when your PV system is providing more power than you need the excess is fed into the grid and doing so spins your meter backward (net metering). Thus the grid is your battery and essentially costs nothing, except for a breaker that senses if the grid is down and if so disconnects your system from the grid (to protect linemen working on the grid)
Only PV users that don't have access to the grid would incur the high cost/hassel of maintaining banks of Lead Acid batteries and they usually need a back up generator as well to both maintain thier batteries properly and to deal with long sunless periods in the winter.
Arthur
Good point. I forgot about net metering. Still, my question is if many buildings had solar panels or windmills and were net-metering during the day, how is it economical to exchange the surplus power for nocturnal generator power if demand is high? After all, it would then still be necessary to maintain the grid infrastructure as well as the power plant and fuel-supply. The only thing that would be reduced is the rate of fuel-consumption by the power plant. How would the power-plant and grid maintenance then be funded except through higher rates? Maybe the difference could be made up with electric vehicle charging.
Power fed back into the grid via net metering isn't saved, it fills demand from other users.
The net is the amount of central generation is reduced, saving fuel.
And yes, of course the grid infrastructure is going to persist, that's how the vast majority of renewable energy will be delivered to end users.
Funding issues are complex, but the most expensive electricity is the wattage you have to build a new generation facility to produce, so power companies could lower rates and still make money if they could quit building new generation facilities.
Consider a new Nuke can go for upwards of 10 to 15 Billion dollars and a decade to build, so it takes several decades or more and a LOT of power generation to get that huge upfront cost paid for and the facility operating at a profit.
Arthur
The net is the amount of central generation is reduced, saving fuel.
And yes, of course the grid infrastructure is going to persist, that's how the vast majority of renewable energy will be delivered to end users.
Funding issues are complex, but the most expensive electricity is the wattage you have to build a new generation facility to produce, so power companies could lower rates and still make money if they could quit building new generation facilities.
Consider a new Nuke can go for upwards of 10 to 15 Billion dollars and a decade to build, so it takes several decades or more and a LOT of power generation to get that huge upfront cost paid for and the facility operating at a profit.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 20 2010, 03:51 PM)
Power fed back into the grid via net metering isn't saved, it fills demand from other users.
The net is the amount of central generation is reduced, saving fuel.
And yes, of course the grid infrastructure is going to persist, that's how the vast majority of renewable energy will be delivered to end users.
Funding issues are complex, but the most expensive electricity is the wattage you have to build a new generation facility to produce, so power companies could lower rates and still make money if they could quit building new generation facilities.
Consider a new Nuke can go for upwards of 10 to 15 Billion dollars and a decade to build, so it takes several decades or more and a LOT of power generation to get that huge upfront cost paid for and the facility operating at a profit.
Arthur
I get that feeding solar power into the grid from residential panels reduces plant fuel consumption during the day. What I'm wondering about is what happens when so many buildings are generating so much solar power that it exceeds the daytime demand of the grid. I guess at that point you could use the excess to electrolyze water or something similar.
I don't know why you assume the grid is automatically more efficient than it would be to have buildings set up as self-sufficient. Ultimately, doesn't it come down to analyzing the maintenance per user of wires, poles, transformers, etc. and compare this to maintenance of a household storage system for overnight power usage?
Can water be electrolyzed under pressure so that the hydrogen is already compressed in the tank the electrodes are inside?
EDIT: what do you think about the suggestion of the OP that carbon credit trading would result in carbon reductions? If people won't reduce consumption significantly voluntarily, would they do it because they were being taxed? Would the people selling the carbon credits not just spend the money on importing more carbon-intensive goods instead of producing them domestically?
The net is the amount of central generation is reduced, saving fuel.
And yes, of course the grid infrastructure is going to persist, that's how the vast majority of renewable energy will be delivered to end users.
Funding issues are complex, but the most expensive electricity is the wattage you have to build a new generation facility to produce, so power companies could lower rates and still make money if they could quit building new generation facilities.
Consider a new Nuke can go for upwards of 10 to 15 Billion dollars and a decade to build, so it takes several decades or more and a LOT of power generation to get that huge upfront cost paid for and the facility operating at a profit.
Arthur
I get that feeding solar power into the grid from residential panels reduces plant fuel consumption during the day. What I'm wondering about is what happens when so many buildings are generating so much solar power that it exceeds the daytime demand of the grid. I guess at that point you could use the excess to electrolyze water or something similar.
I don't know why you assume the grid is automatically more efficient than it would be to have buildings set up as self-sufficient. Ultimately, doesn't it come down to analyzing the maintenance per user of wires, poles, transformers, etc. and compare this to maintenance of a household storage system for overnight power usage?
Can water be electrolyzed under pressure so that the hydrogen is already compressed in the tank the electrodes are inside?
EDIT: what do you think about the suggestion of the OP that carbon credit trading would result in carbon reductions? If people won't reduce consumption significantly voluntarily, would they do it because they were being taxed? Would the people selling the carbon credits not just spend the money on importing more carbon-intensive goods instead of producing them domestically?
power plants can be controlled as to the output? windfarms & solar cant?
QUOTE (enord+Jun 20 2010, 04:31 PM)
power plants can be controlled as to the output?
For solar panels, you might try venetian blinds. They can be continuously adjusted from letting in 100% to 0% sunlight into the panels.
For solar panels, you might try venetian blinds. They can be continuously adjusted from letting in 100% to 0% sunlight into the panels.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Jun 20 2010, 11:15 AM)
I get that feeding solar power into the grid from residential panels reduces plant fuel consumption during the day. What I'm wondering about is what happens when so many buildings are generating so much solar power that it exceeds the daytime demand of the grid. I guess at that point you could use the excess to electrolyze water or something similar.
That is not a problem that is likely to exist for a LONG time (if ever).
Consider that we expect to install 10 gigawatts of photovoltaics globally this year and the wind industry about 40 gigawats for a combined total installation of about 230 gigawatts, compared to over 4,000 gigawatts conventional.
BUT
Wind and Solar generate at around 25% of installed capacity, while conventional is over 80% of installed capacity, so the net is that Wind and Solar represent about 2% of our electrical generation.
Because houses aren't where we generate power, and even if look at the majority of our power that is renewable the vast majority of that is in Hydro, Wind farms and Solar Thermal Stations that require the grid to get it to the end users.
The net is that the grid is much more efficient than any storage mechanism we have.
Because houses aren't where we generate power, and even if look at the majority of our power that is renewable the vast majority of that is in Hydro, Wind farms and Solar Thermal Stations that require the grid to get it to the end users.
The net is that the grid is much more efficient than any storage mechanism we have.
what do you think about the suggestion of the OP that carbon credit trading would result in carbon reductions? If people won't reduce consumption significantly voluntarily, would they do it because they were being taxed? Would the people selling the carbon credits not just spend the money on importing more carbon-intensive goods instead of producing them domestically?
Why do you want to limit consumption?
Consumption GOOD.
Starvation BAD.
Arthur
That is not a problem that is likely to exist for a LONG time (if ever).
Consider that we expect to install 10 gigawatts of photovoltaics globally this year and the wind industry about 40 gigawats for a combined total installation of about 230 gigawatts, compared to over 4,000 gigawatts conventional.
BUT
Wind and Solar generate at around 25% of installed capacity, while conventional is over 80% of installed capacity, so the net is that Wind and Solar represent about 2% of our electrical generation.
QUOTE
I don't know why you assume the grid is automatically more efficient than it would be to have buildings set up as self-sufficient. Ultimately, doesn't it come down to analyzing the maintenance per user of wires, poles, transformers, etc. and compare this to maintenance of a household storage system for overnight power usage?
Because houses aren't where we generate power, and even if look at the majority of our power that is renewable the vast majority of that is in Hydro, Wind farms and Solar Thermal Stations that require the grid to get it to the end users.
The net is that the grid is much more efficient than any storage mechanism we have.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I don't know why you assume the grid is automatically more efficient than it would be to have buildings set up as self-sufficient. Ultimately, doesn't it come down to analyzing the maintenance per user of wires, poles, transformers, etc. and compare this to maintenance of a household storage system for overnight power usage? |
Because houses aren't where we generate power, and even if look at the majority of our power that is renewable the vast majority of that is in Hydro, Wind farms and Solar Thermal Stations that require the grid to get it to the end users.
The net is that the grid is much more efficient than any storage mechanism we have.
what do you think about the suggestion of the OP that carbon credit trading would result in carbon reductions? If people won't reduce consumption significantly voluntarily, would they do it because they were being taxed? Would the people selling the carbon credits not just spend the money on importing more carbon-intensive goods instead of producing them domestically?
Why do you want to limit consumption?
Consumption GOOD.
Starvation BAD.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 20 2010, 05:15 PM)
That is not a problem that is likely to exist for a LONG time (if ever).
Consider that we expect to install 10 gigawatts of photovoltaics globally this year and the wind industry about 40 gigawats for a combined total installation of about 230 gigawatts, compared to over 4,000 gigawatts conventional.
BUT
Wind and Solar generate at around 25% of installed capacity, while conventional is over 80% of installed capacity, so the net is that Wind and Solar represent about 2% of our electrical generation.
Because houses aren't where we generate power, and even if look at the majority of our power that is renewable the vast majority of that is in Hydro, Wind farms and Solar Thermal Stations that require the grid to get it to the end users.
The net is that the grid is much more efficient than any storage mechanism we have.
Why do you want to limit consumption?
Consumption GOOD.
Starvation BAD.
Arthur
Consumption isn't good, it's great. Obviously people don't appreciate it enough or they wouldn't keep needing more to get the same effect. Who said anything about starvation? Agriculture is already nearly 100% solar powered (at least the growing part is). We were talking about electricity, I thought.
If you had read and gotten what I said in my initial post on this thread, you would understand how conservation can be a progressive process instead of looking at it as limitation. The OP complained that light bulbs don't save much energy. I agreed but I pointed out that they are an excellent didactic tool for stimulating people to conserve. The reason light-bulbs teach conservation so well is because you can literally see the amount of light you're getting all around you. So if you're getting the same amount of light out of a 15W bulb instead of a 60W one, you get the idea that you can achieve the same quality of light with a fraction of the energy usage.
You can tell people that the most effective strategy for saving electricity is turning off their air-conditioning but they're going to be a lot less happy going from 70F to 85F in one day as if they gradually increase their indoor temp and watch how much KWH savings they achieve each time they raise the thermostat one degree.
Heating is obviously a different story for people who live in cold climates because it's harder to deal with cold than with heat, imo. Still, you can move the thermostat in the winter down one degree at a time, wear sweaters, light gloves, etc. to increase your tolerance of cold. You can call this "starving" your body of comfort but in reality your comfort zone is relative to what you're used to. People lived for most of human history without air conditioning and without very good insulation and heating. We are lucky to have much more knowledge about insulation and construction to control and contain the heat and cold we use, but I believe as a result many people have forgotten that our bodies themselves are designed to adjust to heat or cold as well.
Consider that we expect to install 10 gigawatts of photovoltaics globally this year and the wind industry about 40 gigawats for a combined total installation of about 230 gigawatts, compared to over 4,000 gigawatts conventional.
BUT
Wind and Solar generate at around 25% of installed capacity, while conventional is over 80% of installed capacity, so the net is that Wind and Solar represent about 2% of our electrical generation.
Because houses aren't where we generate power, and even if look at the majority of our power that is renewable the vast majority of that is in Hydro, Wind farms and Solar Thermal Stations that require the grid to get it to the end users.
The net is that the grid is much more efficient than any storage mechanism we have.
Why do you want to limit consumption?
Consumption GOOD.
Starvation BAD.
Arthur
Consumption isn't good, it's great. Obviously people don't appreciate it enough or they wouldn't keep needing more to get the same effect. Who said anything about starvation? Agriculture is already nearly 100% solar powered (at least the growing part is). We were talking about electricity, I thought.
If you had read and gotten what I said in my initial post on this thread, you would understand how conservation can be a progressive process instead of looking at it as limitation. The OP complained that light bulbs don't save much energy. I agreed but I pointed out that they are an excellent didactic tool for stimulating people to conserve. The reason light-bulbs teach conservation so well is because you can literally see the amount of light you're getting all around you. So if you're getting the same amount of light out of a 15W bulb instead of a 60W one, you get the idea that you can achieve the same quality of light with a fraction of the energy usage.
You can tell people that the most effective strategy for saving electricity is turning off their air-conditioning but they're going to be a lot less happy going from 70F to 85F in one day as if they gradually increase their indoor temp and watch how much KWH savings they achieve each time they raise the thermostat one degree.
Heating is obviously a different story for people who live in cold climates because it's harder to deal with cold than with heat, imo. Still, you can move the thermostat in the winter down one degree at a time, wear sweaters, light gloves, etc. to increase your tolerance of cold. You can call this "starving" your body of comfort but in reality your comfort zone is relative to what you're used to. People lived for most of human history without air conditioning and without very good insulation and heating. We are lucky to have much more knowledge about insulation and construction to control and contain the heat and cold we use, but I believe as a result many people have forgotten that our bodies themselves are designed to adjust to heat or cold as well.
If people switch from gasoline to plug in hybrids their consumption of electricity will increase.
Is that bad or good?
Hardly, people have many methods of generating heat, or retaining heat, but only air conditioning is very effective at reducing heat, which is why we average about 700 people per year in the US who die from excessive heat.
You see it's not as simple as you make it out to be.
Take your light bulb example,
Hardly, people have many methods of generating heat, or retaining heat, but only air conditioning is very effective at reducing heat, which is why we average about 700 people per year in the US who die from excessive heat.
You see it's not as simple as you make it out to be.
Take your light bulb example,
pointed out that they are an excellent didactic tool for stimulating people to conserve. The reason light-bulbs teach conservation so well is because you can literally see the amount of light you're getting all around you. So if you're getting the same amount of light out of a 15W bulb instead of a 60W one, you get the idea that you can achieve the same quality of light with a fraction of the energy usage.
But what do you also learn?
That to save money requires far higher up front costs for a more efficient device and that the payback only occurs if this more complex device lasts long enough, which any user of CFLs will tell you is an iffy proposition.
Or that this more efficient device comes with operational drawbacks, like not being dimmable, not working in very cold or very hot locations, producing a less desireable quality of light, taking time to come to full brighness, suffering shortened life if turned off and on frequently and while the incandescent light was innocuous, the new light includes a very hazardous metal vapor (Hg) which is quite poisonous even in small doses and is damn difficult to clean up if one breaks a bulb indoors (something that does occur), and we know will be disposed of improperly and leach mercury into the environment.
http://www.epa.gov/cfl/cflcleanup.html
Which should also remind you that there is no such thing as a Free Lunch.
Arthur
Is that bad or good?
QUOTE
Heating is obviously a different story for people who live in cold climates because it's harder to deal with cold than with heat, imo.
Hardly, people have many methods of generating heat, or retaining heat, but only air conditioning is very effective at reducing heat, which is why we average about 700 people per year in the US who die from excessive heat.
You see it's not as simple as you make it out to be.
Take your light bulb example,
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Heating is obviously a different story for people who live in cold climates because it's harder to deal with cold than with heat, imo. |
Hardly, people have many methods of generating heat, or retaining heat, but only air conditioning is very effective at reducing heat, which is why we average about 700 people per year in the US who die from excessive heat.
You see it's not as simple as you make it out to be.
Take your light bulb example,
pointed out that they are an excellent didactic tool for stimulating people to conserve. The reason light-bulbs teach conservation so well is because you can literally see the amount of light you're getting all around you. So if you're getting the same amount of light out of a 15W bulb instead of a 60W one, you get the idea that you can achieve the same quality of light with a fraction of the energy usage.
But what do you also learn?
That to save money requires far higher up front costs for a more efficient device and that the payback only occurs if this more complex device lasts long enough, which any user of CFLs will tell you is an iffy proposition.
Or that this more efficient device comes with operational drawbacks, like not being dimmable, not working in very cold or very hot locations, producing a less desireable quality of light, taking time to come to full brighness, suffering shortened life if turned off and on frequently and while the incandescent light was innocuous, the new light includes a very hazardous metal vapor (Hg) which is quite poisonous even in small doses and is damn difficult to clean up if one breaks a bulb indoors (something that does occur), and we know will be disposed of improperly and leach mercury into the environment.
http://www.epa.gov/cfl/cflcleanup.html
Which should also remind you that there is no such thing as a Free Lunch.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 20 2010, 06:57 PM)
If people switch from gasoline to plug in hybrids their consumption of electricity will increase.
Is that bad or good?
Hardly, people have many methods of generating heat, or retaining heat, but only air conditioning is very effective at reducing heat, which is why we average about 700 people per year in the US who die from excessive heat.
You see it's not as simple as you make it out to be.
Take your light bulb example,
Is that bad or good?
Hardly, people have many methods of generating heat, or retaining heat, but only air conditioning is very effective at reducing heat, which is why we average about 700 people per year in the US who die from excessive heat.
You see it's not as simple as you make it out to be.
Take your light bulb example,
QUOTE (LITT+)
pointed out that they are an excellent didactic tool for stimulating people to conserve. The reason light-bulbs teach conservation so well is because you can literally see the amount of light you're getting all around you. So if you're getting the same amount of light out of a 15W bulb instead of a 60W one, you get the idea that you can achieve the same quality of light with a fraction of the energy usage.
But what do you also learn?
That to save money requires far higher up front costs for a more efficient device and that the payback only occurs if this more complex device lasts long enough, which any user of CFLs will tell you is an iffy proposition.
Or that this more efficient device comes with operational drawbacks, like not being dimmable, not working in very cold or very hot locations, producing a less desireable quality of light, taking time to come to full brighness, suffering shortened life if turned off and on frequently and while the incandescent light was innocuous, the new light includes a very hazardous metal vapor (Hg) which is quite poisonous even in small doses and is damn difficult to clean up if one breaks a bulb indoors (something that does occur), and we know will be disposed of improperly and leach mercury into the environment.
http://www.epa.gov/cfl/cflcleanup.html
Which should also remind you that there is no such thing as a Free Lunch.
Arthur
There's no such thing a perfect technology. Knowing the benefits and drawbacks of each lets people and businesses make the most rational choice they can in their current cost-benefit model.
Switching to PIHV to use electricity to power cars instead of gas could reduce the demand for risky drilling and other oil-harvesting that creates potential environmental and political problems. However, nuclear and coal fuels for power plants also have drawbacks and risks to humans and environments.
People who are at risk of heat stroke or other health problems should have access to air-conditioning. Many people only use air-conditioning for comfort, though, and they become increasingly dependent on lower temperatures for comfort the same way a drug user needs increasing doses of a drug to achieve the same effect.
The point is that people have to manage their own usage. They cannot be forced to change their behavior. That is why carbon credit trading will never work, imo. Government will have to try to force people to reduce their usage or else pay those who do and it will just end up being a way for some people to profit from the lack of conservation in others.
The light bulb campaign at least encouraged people to become active in monitoring their own energy consumption and potentially seeking other ways to reduce usage. It was more effective, imo, than repressive governance.
English?
English?
When your PV system provides more power than you need, the excess power is fed back into the network so that it turns the meter backwards.
Except it's something that everyone can easily do.
Consider there are 120 million single family homes.
If just HALF of them replaced one 60W bulb that they used for 6 hours a day with a fluor bulb of 15W, the savings would equal the output of one of our largest nuclear plants running 24/7, about 1.8 Megawatts.
What are your rates for power by tier?
By the way, if you have the grid available then you wouldn't install any batteries, but instead your PV system would be what is known as a "Grid Tie" system.
You typically size your PV system to produce roughly the average power you need for a day, but the power is generated over about 10 hours, so when your PV system is providing more power than you need the excess is fed into the grid and doing so spins your meter backward (net metering). Thus the grid is your battery and essentially costs nothing, except for a breaker that senses if the grid is down and if so disconnects your system from the grid (to protect linemen working on the grid)
Only PV users that don't have access to the grid would incur the high cost/hassel of maintaining banks of Lead Acid batteries and they usually need a back up generator as well to both maintain thier batteries properly and to deal with long sunless periods in the winter.
Arthur
I guess this is what the guest wanted to hear (see, read, whatever)
But what do you also learn?
That to save money requires far higher up front costs for a more efficient device and that the payback only occurs if this more complex device lasts long enough, which any user of CFLs will tell you is an iffy proposition.
Or that this more efficient device comes with operational drawbacks, like not being dimmable, not working in very cold or very hot locations, producing a less desireable quality of light, taking time to come to full brighness, suffering shortened life if turned off and on frequently and while the incandescent light was innocuous, the new light includes a very hazardous metal vapor (Hg) which is quite poisonous even in small doses and is damn difficult to clean up if one breaks a bulb indoors (something that does occur), and we know will be disposed of improperly and leach mercury into the environment.
http://www.epa.gov/cfl/cflcleanup.html
Which should also remind you that there is no such thing as a Free Lunch.
Arthur
There's no such thing a perfect technology. Knowing the benefits and drawbacks of each lets people and businesses make the most rational choice they can in their current cost-benefit model.
Switching to PIHV to use electricity to power cars instead of gas could reduce the demand for risky drilling and other oil-harvesting that creates potential environmental and political problems. However, nuclear and coal fuels for power plants also have drawbacks and risks to humans and environments.
People who are at risk of heat stroke or other health problems should have access to air-conditioning. Many people only use air-conditioning for comfort, though, and they become increasingly dependent on lower temperatures for comfort the same way a drug user needs increasing doses of a drug to achieve the same effect.
The point is that people have to manage their own usage. They cannot be forced to change their behavior. That is why carbon credit trading will never work, imo. Government will have to try to force people to reduce their usage or else pay those who do and it will just end up being a way for some people to profit from the lack of conservation in others.
The light bulb campaign at least encouraged people to become active in monitoring their own energy consumption and potentially seeking other ways to reduce usage. It was more effective, imo, than repressive governance.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Jun 20 2010, 03:29 PM)
The light bulb campaign at least encouraged people to become active in monitoring their own energy consumption and potentially seeking other ways to reduce usage. It was more effective, imo, than repressive governance.
So far the govt campaigns have been very heavy handed and from what I can tell promoting a backlash the opposite reaction.
A LOT of stocking up on incandescent bulbs.
The big reason it will have little impact is that commercial establishments are already almost totally fluorescent, but household use is at night, which comes after the time of day that utilities experience peak load demands.
If you want to reduce coal and NG fired plants, you have to reduce PEAK load.
The interesting twist to this is it will reduce non-peak use, which with the new smart meters on the way and pricing based on cost, the reduction willl be to the lowest cost kWhrs, and worse for the utility, the ones they currently make the most money on (Peak is what costs them the most).
The fact is domestic power use is mainly from our large appliances (refrig, AC, Washer/Dryer) and the ever larger share of our PC/1080 TVs/DVRs/wireless modems etc etc oriented life.
Arthur
So far the govt campaigns have been very heavy handed and from what I can tell promoting a backlash the opposite reaction.
A LOT of stocking up on incandescent bulbs.
The big reason it will have little impact is that commercial establishments are already almost totally fluorescent, but household use is at night, which comes after the time of day that utilities experience peak load demands.
If you want to reduce coal and NG fired plants, you have to reduce PEAK load.
The interesting twist to this is it will reduce non-peak use, which with the new smart meters on the way and pricing based on cost, the reduction willl be to the lowest cost kWhrs, and worse for the utility, the ones they currently make the most money on (Peak is what costs them the most).
The fact is domestic power use is mainly from our large appliances (refrig, AC, Washer/Dryer) and the ever larger share of our PC/1080 TVs/DVRs/wireless modems etc etc oriented life.
Arthur
incandescent heat can promote conservation in winter where if u sit & feel localized heat, the rest of the house can be colder comfortably unlike in summer when the AC has to compensate for the heat.
sadly, a lit lamp has a better chance of being sold than an unlit lamp
sadly, a lit lamp has a better chance of being sold than an unlit lamp
talking of light bulbs, compact fluorescent that stop on 12V DC sucks! Just less than four months of use and you start getting black burn marks at the base. A week or two later you end up with a dim light. To worsen the pain the thing is damn expensive, as in up to 4 times the cost of the AC counterpart.
QUOTE (boit+Jun 26 2010, 11:55 PM)
talking of light bulbs, compact fluorescent that stop on 12V DC sucks! Just less than four months of use and you start getting black burn marks at the base. A week or two later you end up with a dim light. To worsen the pain the thing is damn expensive, as in up to 4 times the cost of the AC counterpart.
No warranty?
I check the warranty on the CFLs I buy, because some of them are useless, for instance I don't buy bulbs where to exercise the warranty I have to send the bulb back.
Most require you save the receipt though, so I do.
I also write the date I put them in service on the plastic part of the bulb.
Finally, a lot of CFLs don't last long if burned with the bulb down (casing on top) or aren't meant for enclosed fixtures, and sometimes this limitation is specifically mentioned in the description of the bulb, sometimes not, but that's why I look for bulbs where they specifically allow the bulb to be run upside down and in an enclosure as they tend to last longer in my experience.
Arthur
No warranty?
I check the warranty on the CFLs I buy, because some of them are useless, for instance I don't buy bulbs where to exercise the warranty I have to send the bulb back.
Most require you save the receipt though, so I do.
I also write the date I put them in service on the plastic part of the bulb.
Finally, a lot of CFLs don't last long if burned with the bulb down (casing on top) or aren't meant for enclosed fixtures, and sometimes this limitation is specifically mentioned in the description of the bulb, sometimes not, but that's why I look for bulbs where they specifically allow the bulb to be run upside down and in an enclosure as they tend to last longer in my experience.
Arthur
Most of the CFLs in my country are from the people's republic of china, hardly will you get a warranty on those. Philips ac compacts have a warranty but the dc doesn't. I somehow suspect the we get counterfeit philips compact dc. About fixing the light upward, that's news to me, good one, i hasten to add. I'll give that a try. The next shop attendant will be up against a well informed customer.
QUOTE (boit+Jun 30 2010, 07:51 AM)
Most of the CFLs in my country are from the people's republic of china, hardly will you get a warranty on those. Philips ac compacts have a warranty but the dc doesn't. I somehow suspect the we get counterfeit philips compact dc. About fixing the light upward, that's news to me, good one, i hasten to add. I'll give that a try. The next shop attendant will be up against a well informed customer.
Another option, instead of buying very expensive DC CFLs is to buy a screw in ballast that allows you to use a regular CFL.
http://www.solarseller.com/dc_fluorescent_...w_voltage7d.htm
Note that the CFLs will now be the pin type.
As to the Burning base up issue.
CFL ballests tend to not last as long when exposed to a lot of heat.
Which means you also have to consider the ambient temp.
In a cool air conditioned house you might be fine burning it base up, even in an enclosed fixture.
But in an un air conditioned house, in the summer, in an enclosed fixture burning base up might be way too much heat for it. Particularly as the wattage of the bulb goes up.
Finally, even if the house is air conditioned, if you are dealing with recessed ceiling cans, the can can actually be in the attic and it might be operating at a much higher ambient temp.
Try to find the spec sheets for the bulbs you are interested in, and if heat is an issue, get the bulbs that have the highest rated operating temps.
https://1000bulbs.com/pdf/TCP%20289%20Serie...c%20Sheet_1.pdf
https://1000bulbs.com/pdf/neptun24518_specsheet.pdf
https://1000bulbs.com/pdf/Ushio-3000476-Specsheet.pdf
Arthur
Arthur
Another option, instead of buying very expensive DC CFLs is to buy a screw in ballast that allows you to use a regular CFL.
http://www.solarseller.com/dc_fluorescent_...w_voltage7d.htm
Note that the CFLs will now be the pin type.
As to the Burning base up issue.
CFL ballests tend to not last as long when exposed to a lot of heat.
Which means you also have to consider the ambient temp.
In a cool air conditioned house you might be fine burning it base up, even in an enclosed fixture.
But in an un air conditioned house, in the summer, in an enclosed fixture burning base up might be way too much heat for it. Particularly as the wattage of the bulb goes up.
Finally, even if the house is air conditioned, if you are dealing with recessed ceiling cans, the can can actually be in the attic and it might be operating at a much higher ambient temp.
Try to find the spec sheets for the bulbs you are interested in, and if heat is an issue, get the bulbs that have the highest rated operating temps.
https://1000bulbs.com/pdf/TCP%20289%20Serie...c%20Sheet_1.pdf
https://1000bulbs.com/pdf/neptun24518_specsheet.pdf
https://1000bulbs.com/pdf/Ushio-3000476-Specsheet.pdf
Arthur
Arthur
An AC fluorescent bulb is off 50% of the time. Does it mean it uses half the power a similar direct current fluorescent bulb uses? Or does this start and brake consumes more power just like a vehicle doing frequent stops? Any difference in their operational life if we just consider this aspect? And if the light could be on for a fiftieth of a second and off for a twenty fifth of a second will we notice the difference? Much to ponder.
i plugged a twirly ac bulb into a kill a watt & saw no significant power consumption for the startup
What have been your experience with LEDs? Mine has not been so pleasant, especially for the flash lights. They tend to fail sooner. The only one which has never disappointed is the one I have in my Nokia phone. A two hours plug to the mains will fully charge the Lithium ion battery. This gives continues light for as long as eight hours.
QUOTE
so that when your PV system provides more power you need the excess is fed into the network and turn so that the meter backwards.
English?
QUOTE (Guest+Jan 10 2011, 03:50 PM)
English?
requires a special bulb that screws in counterclockwize?
requires a special bulb that screws in counterclockwize?
QUOTE (Guest+Jan 10 2011, 11:50 PM)
English?
When your PV system provides more power than you need, the excess power is fed back into the network so that it turns the meter backwards.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 20 2010, 04:41 PM)
Except it's something that everyone can easily do.
Consider there are 120 million single family homes.
If just HALF of them replaced one 60W bulb that they used for 6 hours a day with a fluor bulb of 15W, the savings would equal the output of one of our largest nuclear plants running 24/7, about 1.8 Megawatts.
What are your rates for power by tier?
By the way, if you have the grid available then you wouldn't install any batteries, but instead your PV system would be what is known as a "Grid Tie" system.
You typically size your PV system to produce roughly the average power you need for a day, but the power is generated over about 10 hours, so when your PV system is providing more power than you need the excess is fed into the grid and doing so spins your meter backward (net metering). Thus the grid is your battery and essentially costs nothing, except for a breaker that senses if the grid is down and if so disconnects your system from the grid (to protect linemen working on the grid)
Only PV users that don't have access to the grid would incur the high cost/hassel of maintaining banks of Lead Acid batteries and they usually need a back up generator as well to both maintain thier batteries properly and to deal with long sunless periods in the winter.
Arthur
I guess this is what the guest wanted to hear (see, read, whatever)
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.