How? It appears to me that electric dryer and electric water heater only detracts from gaining electric energy efficiency in lighting if you switched water heater and dryer types in the opposite direction.
They do better than that - they can "crank down" generating units.
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.
USA electricity *cost* and energy consumption excluding hydropower from lighting alone is even more than 9%, due to electric heating being disproportionately where it costs less per KWH.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Do I need to either snip out the following with notation of doing so, or to add the per-line quotation symbols that you left out? (According to even anyone that I recognize as being among the roughly 97% of my Usenet experience that I sense as being more-"old-fart" than this Josepi New-Kid trying to be "New Kid On The Block" in a neighborhood where most who have spoken up successfully for even 5 years are "Old Farts"!
At this moment, I have so much that I have to do that I would to take a mere couple seconds to SNIP / wipe out the lines that I would otherwise have to add a quotation symbol to beginning of each, since you unusually in Usenet prefer software that fails to do so.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
You choose yet-another non-standard quotation symbol other than the standard "greater than" one.
I at this moment wonder how you managed to quote my signature 3 times consecutavely with same degree of notation of quotation.
(I am posting interleaved as opposed to top-posting)
I sign off for this posting here, due following in interleaved-style being almost snippable with notation as being good for such. Except for your being yet to be able to be able to get this quotation stuff well enough to not repeat my signature to stated 3 times at the end with same level of noted level of quotation.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Speaking of the village idiot.... when are you going to figure out how to configure your newsreader properly?
When you argue with an idiot on usenet, there is the danger that after the first few exchanges, no one can remember which was the idiot.
It's easy to remember WHO, it's just hard to tell from the non-standart attributation marks.
WHOOSH!
Faith is indeed evidence when it comes to spiritual matters. Physical things like alarms don't require faith -- just knowledge of pertinent, observable behavior and repeatable results.
Some folks pretend to believe. Some pretend not to believe. Some are up-front about their beliefs. Most, I suspect, rarely talk about it in public. Having never been accused of being "main-stream," I'm pretty open about the subject. I differ from many "believers" in that I'm perfectly willing to listen to and accept someone else's ideas. In short, I'm certain enough that what I believe is true but not quite arrogant enough to be sure everyone else is wrong. :^)
This is an interesting thread but if it continues much longer we'll annoy those who want to keep the newsgroup on topic. Nuff said?
He is very funny.
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. And, since electricity accounts for less than half of the carbon we're putting into the atmosphere and only half of our electricity comes from coal, the reduction is on the order of 1/2 of 1% (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.
Dave, Do you have any cites for those figures? Not that I doubt any of it but this argument comes up and will continue to come up for the next hundred years.
OTOH: there is the personal economy thing and this seems to be the classic main motivational force for the masses.
I have posted citations for each sector within the past 2-3 years in comp.home.automation. A search should find them. My health is lousy and I'm not up to searching for them myself right now. I lost a HDD several months back that had all of my notes along with URLs so I'd have to manually look through all of my outgoing Usenet posts to find the citations.
As I recall, the residential sector was broken down rather neatly with a pretty pie chart but the other sectors only had tables listing various categories. Still, most third graders should be able to work out the percentages.
I posted a citation to this thread that compared the efficiencies of various types of lighting but, as this thread has grown so big, it might take some effort even to find it. ;-)
Will do. Thanx
As I recall, the residential sector was broken down rather neatly with a pretty pie chart but the other sectors only had tables listing various categories. Still, most third graders should be able to work out the percentages.
I posted a citation to this thread that compared the efficiencies of various types of lighting but, as this thread has grown so big, it might take some effort even to find it. ;-)
"Josepi" wrote: Dave, Do you have any cites for those figures? Not that I doubt any of it but this argument comes up and will continue to come up for the next hundred years.
I found one of my previous posts that has citations for nearly "all of the above".
On 12/27/2009 9:13 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:
Still somewhat of a fallacy; as someone else (Dave Houston) here pointed out, the power plants that utilities most easily can switch on- and off-line are natural-gas fired ones, which are less polluting and emit less carbon than coal-fired plants.
Plus he mentioned that the *net* result of a total switchover to CFLs for residential use would result in, at most, something like a 2% energy savings.
So much for "saving the planet"[1] through changing to CFL bulbs.
[1] Something I believe in, though it won't be accomplished by the silly half-measures now being suggested to us (drive a Prius, use CFLs, support a cap-and-trade system).2% would be HUGE.
I do agree that gas and oil power plants can be turned on and off and cranked up and down more easily than coal. However, coal gets cranked up/down or turned on/off ahead of hydropower and nuclear.
2% of total USA energy consumption of all forms or 2% of USA's total electrical energy consumption?Even if that is the latter, how much is 2% of USA's electric power plant count? I would guess a few of them, since the "greater Philadelphia metro area" alone has quite a few largely to supply their needs including two nukes and half of a third one well outside the metro area but working significantly for the Philly metro area.
It will be accomplished by achieving progress on a large number of fronts, including more energy-efficient lighting, more energy-efficient transportation, more energy-efficient refrigeration and indoor climate control, improved building insulation, and many more.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
I actually agree so far here.
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.
A fair amount comes from oil and natural gas - which also have carbon.
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 ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
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.
If day-in-day-out electricity consumption is reduced, they take offline or crank down a coal generator. If growth of day-in-day-out electricity demand is slowed good-for-long-term, they scale down the construction schedule for those.
I agree here - this is one of many fronts to be fought.
Power factor is not much of a matter for fuel requirement for generators. It is more of a matter for distribution capacity to distribute and deliver amps not associated with billable watts (more properly KWH).
No, I see it as one of the many fronts that have to be fought to nibble down energy consumption. In all residences that I lived in ever since I was in one that was mine (even if only rented), the main electricity consumption factors were refrigeration, air conditioning and lighting. Equipment cost for refrigeration and A/C were free as long as I used those provided by the landlord, and the cost of substituting my own is substantial. I do skimp on use of A/C when I can by wearing skimpier clothing and eating fewer calories (a unit of heatactually) in summer.
Lighting, on the other hand, is where I manage to save. For homeowners, lighting is just one of the many fronts to fight to nibble down energy consumption.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.