Pest Problems
Then again, didn't most cities prior to the mid-1960s used be lit with mercury lamps, that are very blue (and give a ghastly light that makes everyone look like a ghost).
Why A Blue LED Is Worth A Nobel Prize
"Three scientists have jointly earned the Nobel Prize in physics for their work on blue LEDs, or light-emitting diodes. Why blue in particular? Well, blue was the last -- and most difficult -- advance required to create white LED light. And with white LED light, companies are able to create smartphone and computer screens, as well as light bulbs that last longer and use less electricity than any bulb invented before."
Inventing the LED Lightbulb
The LED was invented in 1962, with research into creating a "solid state" laser produced a visible light. Researchers in 1962 knew that "solid state" lighting was the future, but they had no idea that it would be another 50 years until all the elements of the technology would come to place to make the it a practical lighting solution for the masses.
I was at Walmart last night and I noticed how many LED light bulbs they now have on sale. It seems almost certain that traditional vacuum-tube style lighting (incandescent and fluorescent) has less then 10 years left in it's life -- prices continue to drop -- and LED lighting is now superior in most ways to the vacuum-tubes that have long lit our buildings.
Sometimes innovation takes a long time. Who would have ever thought a half century would pass before we would light our buildings with something other then vacuum tubes? Vacuum tube electronics disappeared within 10 years of the introduction of the transistor and solid state electronics, but it shows you how different technology progresses at.
How Many Lumens Do I Need?
Some ballpark estimates on how much lighting you will need to keep your room bright and well lit.
Replacing All My Camp Lighting Next Year with LEDs
Technological progress has meant LED bulbs are cheaper, more efficient, and work well in the cold outdoors conditions.
Right now, my primary source of camp lighting is a set of two 100-watt equivalent florescent bulbs, hooked to my truck’s inverter. Due to the nature of camping, and because things often get wet or dropped, they really do not last very long, and frequently need replacing.
When they don’t get broken, I usually bring them home, and save them to the some day in the future when I return them for recycling. When they break — I don’t freak out — I usually just chuck them in the campfire, and pack out the glass and unburnt debris in the morning. I don’t really freak out about the mercury. But for environmental reasons, I would like to get away from mercury-based lighting, despite the relatively tiny amount of mercury in each bulb.
In recent years, I’ve been slow moving away florescent lighting whenever I can for camping. An early purchase of mine was LED Christmas light strings. The purpose of the Christmas lights was not so much for decoration — even though they’re pretty — but to provide a small amount of backlight to the campsite, so I don’t trip on things. A string of LED Christmas lights uses a fraction of the energy, even a smallish compact florescent uses.
This past year, I noticed that LED light bulbs have finally come down enough in price to reasonably affordable. I bought my first one this past July, a 40-watt equivalent bulb that uses only 7-watts of electricity, for a bright warm white lighting of my American flag. It not only seems quite durable and efficient, it always bright regardless of the temperature. It keeps the flag lit regardless of the weather.
With prices coming down even further, I bought a second LED bulb this fall for $10. It’s a 60-watt equivalent that uses only 10 watts of electricity. Best of all, even during the cold winter months, it works quite well. I wasn’t crazy about the heat shielding on the model I bought, but many of the newer ones lack the ugly heat shielding over the glass. Despite 15 degree temperatures, the 10 watt LED bulb kept things bright all night long.
LED lighting is the future. Fluorescent lighting not only contains mercury, it also uses more power and dims dramatically even under modest temperature drops. Florescent lighting is fine indoors, in relatively warm rooms. But it doesn’t work well outside, especially when camping, when air temperatures can 50 degrees or even lower in the even lower. Common fluorescent lamps dim in the cold, while LEDs shine their brightness, regardless of the cold.
Two years ago, when I bought my truck cap, I bought a series of LED strip lights to light up the cap. At the time, I had the choice between warm-color LEDs and cool-color LEDs. I bought the cool colored ones, as I thought they would look more neat in the truck cap. I’ve been thoroughly impressed with them since purchasing, and would consider having them as part of a future off-the-grid home.
What’s nice about LEDs is they are natively 12-volts, so they work well with batteries, solar-panels, and most renewable sources of energy. The onces I bought for my truck, required no transformer or adapter, as they worked on natively at that voltage. It’s also relatively easy to step down 120 volt AC power and run it through a diode to create 12 volts DC to run LED lamps. Most LED lights are natively dimmable with common thysor-based dimmers and require no ballast.
A decade ago, I toured an off-the-grid house in Clinton County. It was a neat home, and one of it’s best features was the use of 12-volt wiring for lighting. Rather then step up the voltage from the solar panels and batteries for lighting purposes, they chose to efficiently just use 12-volt DC lamps, mainly the relatively new LED bulbs and some halogens. They also had a large inverter to power 120-volt AC appliances and select number of florescent light bulbs.
I think LEDs are the future. I am sure after spending $10 a bulb to buy a third or fourth camp light, prices will come down even further, and I will look back and think what a waste of money.
Energy Efficency vs Conservation
Most people don’t understand the difference between energy conservation and energy efficiency. Yet, it’s an important concept to understand.
For the sake of this example, let’s take a 100 watt incandescent light bulb. You plan on leaving it on for an hour, which will consume 100 watts over the hour or 0.10 kW/h. Giving it some thought about the electricity you will use, you decide to reduce your energy consumption by either conservation or improving the efficiency of the light bulb.
Energy Efficiency.
You decide to swap the 100 watt incandescent light bulb for a compact florescent bulb, which uses only 26 watts over an hour. The 26-watt CFL is as bright as the 100 watt incadescent bulb, so you don’t end up losing anything.
When you choose energy efficiency you don’t lose anything by switching over to the more efficient technology. Indeed, with modern compact florescent technology, the electronic ballasts are flicker and lamp color resembles a regular bulb. The bulb doesn’t get hot and lasts longer. You always win with efficiency!
Government can easily set efficiency standards. Through laws and regulations, the US Energy Department can tell manufacturers that they must limit the amount of energy required to complete a desired task. That does not mean giving up features, or shutting off the light bulb. Yet, without government efficiency standards, it can often be difficult to find more efficent appliances, because manufacturers are lazy and do not feel the need to innovate.
Energy Conservation.
You decide to keep the 100 watt incandescence bulb and turn off the light after 15 minutes, so you sit in darkness for the rest of the hour. You only use 25 watts over the hour.
When you choose conservation, you save money, but give up utility in response. If their is enough day light, you can turn off a light bulb, and use the day light to read by. You choose to buy a smaller car or television set to conserve energy. It’s a personal choice, or as Dick Cheney famously said, “Conservation is a personal virtue”.
Government can not normally force people to engage in conservation. Unless fuel is rationed or they send a cop to your door to tell you to turn off that 100 watt bulb, you can choose to use as little or as much energy as you want as long as you pay for it. People can be educated on virtues of conservation.
Cap and Trade or Performance Standards
After reading “Saving Energy, Growing Jobs” by David Goldstein, I am convienced that Preformance Standards, rather then Cap and Trade is a better way to reduce our greenhouse emissions.
Here is Why…
- Cost does not always induce conservation or efficency
- People and corporations are willing to pay a lot more for energy without changing behavior or investigating alternatives
- Individuals have little choice in buying efficent appliances — most appliances of a certain size consume a certain amount of energy
- Information on energy efficency is complex, little understood by the public
- Energy taxes will hurt the poor disproptionately
What Cap and Trade is…
- A hard national limit on emissions is set.
- A tax on emissions is set by a market based on the demand to emit carbon dioxide emissions. The more demand for carbon dioxide emissions, the higher the tax.
- Every consumer of energy pays a “tax” related to it’s carbon emissions as a disinsentive to consume energy that produces carbon dioxide emissions.
What Preformance and Efficency Standards Are…
- Every electric utility, every oil or gas supplier is required to meet a standard on how much carbon dioxide may be released per average unit of enery produced and distributed.
- If they are above that standard, they must buy alternative forms of energy as part of their mix to reduce their average carbon intensity. Failure to comply will lead to substantial fines. This is how Corporate Average Fuel Economy or CAFE works.
- Utilities along with oil and gas suppliers will be required buy more renewables and put them into their mix, to reduce the carbon intensity of the energy source they provide to consumers.
- Every new appliance, every new car or truck is required to meet a specified level of energy efficency. A televison for example, would be prohibited from consuming more then X watts per square inch.
Why Preformance Standards are Better…
- Preformance standards are not a tax or fee. They do not neccessarly raise the price of energy or of a consumer product.
- Consumers save money by ensuring the new appliances they buy are energy efficent. Consumers don’t pay an energy tax as with cap and trade.
- Preformance standards, per US Energy Law, do not prohibit features, but instead require high standards of efficency for all models. If you want to buy a gas guzzling SUV or big television, that’s your right, but manufacturers will be required to make sure the average of all cars and television sets are efficent.
There Are No Hard Targets for
Greenhouse Gases with Preformance Standards…
- Preformance standards are set based on national goals to reduce greenhouse emissions to levels that are demanded by science.
- The objection raised by Cap and Trade proponets is that preformance standards do not guarantee a set level of reduction of greenhouse gases by any one year.
- If people use a lot of electricity one year, or drive a lot of miles in their cars, then the preformance standards would be canceled out temporarly.
- The EPA can compensate by toughening preformance standards for energy generators and new appliances. People (at different times) are constantly replacing cars, television sets, and appliances. This leads to a constant chance at improval in energy efficency and a constant decline in carbon intensity.
- It’s better to have a system that has flexibility, so that carbon emissions can rise temporarily in relationship to a hot summer or sudden economic boom.
Why Preformance Standards Will Ultimately Win
in the Climate Change Debate….
- Preformance standards are generally allowed under existing law.
- The EPA can regulate emissions from smoke stacks, including carbon dioxide at the tonnage level or the per MW/hr level. The EPA would however need Congressional approval for a system that would set carbon dioxide standards public utility-wide level.
- Preformance standards for appliances are well established. While tightening of some standards would require Congressional approval, most legislators are far more comfortable with tougher energy efficency standards then an economy wide tax.
- Preformance standards are not a tax and do not raise energy prices.
- Energy efficency does mean a ban on any appliance or any feature people are used to. It’s the internal redesign of existing appliances, to make them consume less energy for each unit of work done.
