Light bulb insanity

[Mike Henderson]

Almost sounds like the mandated MPG rules for cars. The constantly tell us that we need to save gas, conserve, buy a fuel efficient car. What happens? We use less fuel, but the oil companies expect to make a certain amount of money per yer, no matter what. They boost prices. And another effect is because we use less fuel there are less taxes paid and the road maintenance that comes from these taxes are depleted.

I have noticed that anytime they tell you to save something by reducing use, the price of that something will go up.

If you follow the price of crude oil, you'll see that as demand falls, the price per barrel falls. When the recession hit, the usage of oil declined and the price of a barrel of oil declined. As the economies in the world have recovered, usage of oil has increased and the price of a barrel of oil has increased.

The price of a barrel of oil is also affected by the availability of oil. When there's unrest in the middle east, and fear that one or more sources will be cut off, the price of a barrel of oil increases. OPEC tries to control the availability of oil, and thus maintain a certain price level, but it's been like herding cats. Almost all the members cheat.

While oil companies wish that they had absolute pricing power, they are blown by the winds of the economy and the geopolitical situation. They respond rather than lead as far as pricing goes.

Mike

[The price of gasoline is affected by the price of a barrel of oil but also by refining capacity. Here in California we have spikes in gas prices if something happens to one of the local refineries (such as a fire, or a shutdown for maintenance, etc.). It's all supply and demand.]

[Brian Elfert]

Actually, the conversion is from coal to natural gas most of the time. It's pretty impossible to replace a standard fossil fuel power generating station with wind and solar.

Also, coal may be the cheapest way to produce power but it has a lot of external issues, one of which is that it produces the most greenhouse gas. And unless the plant is equipped with the latest and greatest scrubbers, it also puts out a lot of sulfur that comes back to earth as acid rain.

The state of Minnesota is requiring power companies to get 20% to 25% of their electricity from renewable sources while at the same time requiring coal plants to close or convert to natural gas. This is causing power prices to increase. Coal may not be the best option for generating power, but it is usually the cheapest and it works works 24/7 unlike wind or solar. Personally, I hate using natural gas for power as it will eventually cause natural gas prices to rise and therefore cause my heating costs to rise.

[Mike Henderson]

The state of Minnesota is requiring power companies to get 20% to 25% of their electricity from renewable sources while at the same time requiring coal plants to close or convert to natural gas. This is causing power prices to increase. Coal may not be the best option for generating power, but it is usually the cheapest and it works works 24/7 unlike wind or solar. Personally, I hate using natural gas for power as it will eventually cause natural gas prices to rise and therefore cause my heating costs to rise.

California is also requiring the electric companies to get a certain percentage of their power from renewable sources but that's different than closing a coal fired plant and replacing it with wind or solar. It should be obvious that a fossil fueled plant cannot be replaced by wind or solar because of the irregular nature of those two technologies.

Wind and solar are mostly used for peak loading. For example, the highest demand for electricity is in the middle of the day, exactly when solar is producing the most power.
When thinking about power generation, it's important to think beyond ourselves. Natural gas produces less greenhouse gases than coal (and a lot less acid rain). Solar and wind turbines don't produce any greenhouse gas, beyond what it takes to manufacture them. If we don't do something to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases, we may not have much of a world to pass to our children and grandchildren.

Mike

[Jeff Erbele]

Power companies in many states are in the unique position of getting a guaranteed return on equity. Rather than cut costs when demand drops like most companies have to do they just apply to the state to raise rates because they aren't making enough money.

Government laws that require power companies to close coal powered electric plants and replace them with wind and solar is also causing rates to go up. Coal is generally the cheapest way to produce power.

I'm pretty sure hydro-electric is the least expensive power. The problem with hydro is every river that could be damed already has been. The Yellowstone River is the exception being the longest un-damed river in the US and it never will be given the environmental impact and other objections,
After harnessing all the rivers we still need much more power.

[Jim Matthews]

When a forward thinker like Dean Kamen discontinued use of incandescent lights in all his facilities, including his own personal island -
that says a great deal about the validity of the choice. He does it because the incandescent bulb generates more heat than light from any watt consumed.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/1...d-nation/?_r=0

[Art Mann]

What Deam Kamen's action tells me is that he is rich enough to make the conversion to LED lighting regardless of the economic feasibility. For example. in the article it explains he secured the services of the Chief Technology Officer of Philips Color Kinetics to do his project. I suspect that cost of that consultation was more than the entire yearly power bill of an average household.

[Brian Elfert]

The topic of the thread is electricity price increases. While it is true utilities are raising prices because of reduced demand, mandates for renewable power and cleaning up or replacing coal plants are also driving up prices. One utility in Minnesota is raising rates 4% strictly to pay for required pollution controls on a coal plant. Coal plants emit tons of CO2, but they are the cheapest way to make power next to hydro.

I wouldn't mind seeing more of the new type of nuclear plants. They aren't a particularly cheap way to make power, but no fossil fuels and no greenhouse gases. The new plants supposedly can use the spent fuel from the current nuclear plants and produce very little waste.

[Frank Trinkle]

The incandescent lights WILL be disappearing shortly. The big lot stores will not be stocking any shortly either.

Here's the latest news:

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/12/...t-bulbs-jan-1/

I have prepared for this with Prepper-like contingencies....

Bulbs.jpg

Should last at least 10-15 years of usage!

[David C. Roseman]

We've gone to CFLs for the most part, but it's been my experience that they take a short while to gain full intensity when turned on. I've picked up a few spare packs of 60w incandescents to use in the shop for quick on/off uses, like task lighting on the bench grinders and buffers, still sporting standard screw bases. I also prefer incandescent bulbs, and small magnetic-based LEDs, for task lighting at the lathes to supplement the overhead fluorescent T8s. They avoid the "strobe" effect on spinning objects that can occur with the fluorescent tube lighting. BTW, I don't know for sure (anyone?), but I think the strobe effect is much less of a problem with the CFLs than standard tube fluorescents because they operate at a much higher frequency than the latter.

David

[Art Mann]

What is the economic feasibility of converting your house from incandescent to LED lighting technology? I went to the Government website www.eia.gov to get answers. Here is what I found out. The average home consumes 940KWH monthly with 13% of that going to lighting only. That translates to 122KWH used on lighting. The average cost of electricity in the US is $0.1252 per KWH. That means the average household spends $15.72 for lighting. There is about an 80% reduction in power requirements for LEDs, so the average household could save $12.58 per month.

Lets assume I want to replace every bulb in my house with LED equivalents. I counted about 72 bulbs, not including fluorescent, and my house is very modest in size. I looked on Amazon and standard LED bulbs are going for $10 but I would require some specialty bulbs that cost $15 or $20. I will assume the average cost per bulb is $13. That means I could replace all the incandescent bulbs with LED equivalents for $936. Using the monthly savings calculated in the first paragraph, it would take me about 6 years and 1 month to get to the break even point. On the other hand, if I stuck with the incandescents and put the $936 with the rest of my investments, it would have turned into around $1500 if the last 30 years of performance data are any indication.

Maybe the price of LED bulbs will drop significantly with increased market penetration, but for now, I will stick with what I have and replace bulbs with CFLs as needed.

[Brian Elfert]

CFL bulbs save nearly as much energy as LED. You don't have to buy expensive LED light bulbs to save on electricity. I just bought a six pack of GE "100 watt" CFLs at Sam's Club for $8 with tax included. The GE CFLs come to full brightness nearly instantly. I've decided to give LED a little more time to mature and come down in cost. I'm also strongly considering building a new house so it might not make sense to invest in LED bulbs. I am going to try to use purpose built LED light fixtures in a new house.

[glenn bradley]

Pfft!

I'm still fighting a skirmish w/my Kohler water waster - five-flush-special...

The bulb police would be a welcome diversion.

Get a Toto low flush toilet. Works very well.

Mike

*** threadjack *** Mike is right. Toto's aren't cheap but they will be the best and last you ever buy.

[Steve Rozmiarek]

My original vent was partially because the rate hike negligates savings. I did the calculations, and assuming that there will be no more rate increases (ha, they are annual), the led's have a 39 month break even. I don't intend to use some of these fixtures that long, so what then?

Everything that Americans do that actually makes something is simply the conversion of energy to matter. Be it crops in my case, or cars. When the price of energy goes up, guess what happens. To make it worse, when the price of energy is increased not by market forces, but rather by social engineering, well meaning short sighted idiots tend to really mess things up.

When my farm and home is forced to replace the seriously, 1000's of perfectly adequate bulbs with something else, it also makes another problem. I don't need a 25,000 hour light bulb on a center pivot that i'm sure a hail storm will destroy in several years. Thats wasting money, and it pisses me off that I am now forced too.

Frank, I'm using your approach, but we shouldn't have too.

[Jerome Stanek]

I just got notice of my power company's upcoming rate hike. It'll be 10% this year. This coincides with the outlawing of incandescent bulbs at the first of the year. Now I get the pleasure of not only having to pay a lot more for bulbs, but any savings that the new bulbs create is offset by another rate hike. I'm sure all parties meant well, but....

Yes, I'm venting.

Well you could still use your old bulbs at the higher electric rate

[Mike Henderson]

To make it worse, when the price of energy is increased not by market forces, but rather by social engineering, well meaning short sighted idiots tend to really mess things up.

Perhaps a better description might be "well meaning, long sighted". If we don't do something about greenhouse gases we won't have a world for our children and grandchildren to live on.

Would you prefer to have lower cost energy today and an uninhabitable world tomorrow? Or air pollution like Beijing has today?

Mike