Incandescent Light Bulbs Banned

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

The New bulb was a scam..and those of you that fell for this scam , need to start looking at things a little closer.

We are!
And we're using better light to do it!

I dont think so
And no you are not

Do you know the impact these wastes of money are having on the electrical grid? (CFL's)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,400]

>Do you know the impact these wastes of money are having on the electrical grid?

Yep. They reduce energy demand and thus reduce the need for new power plants (and the pollution they create.)

[1969912 0]

Quote

Do you know the impact these wastes of money are having on the electrical grid? (CFL's)

You mean because they're an inductive load?

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[winsor 186]

Quote

Quote

Do you know the impact these wastes of money are having on the electrical grid? (CFL's)

You mean because they're an inductive load?

Deductive loads are greatly superior.

[1969912 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Do you know the impact these wastes of money are having on the electrical grid? (CFL's)

You mean because they're an inductive load?

Deductive loads are greatly superior.

I could have said reactive load, but would likely have been criticized for being vague

Seriously, though, assuming rushmc was talking about power factor issues related to the inductive nature of CFL's, he does have a point. I'm not convinced, however, that replacement of all incandescent bulbs with CFL's will have a huge impact on the grid. Sure, the utilities will probably have to add some PF correction capacitors, but the power lines themselves should be OK. Just a WAG with a little thought behind it.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[billvon 2,400]

>Seriously, though, assuming rushmc was talking about power factor issues related to
>the inductive nature of CFL's, he does have a point.

Older CFL's (the ones that take a few seconds to come on) use magnetic ballasts, and these are indeed an inductive load. Modern CFL's (i.e. any made in the past 5 years) do not, but their power factor isn't great due to peak rectification - generally around .6 or so. In other words, like any other switchmode power DC supply.

However, if you replace a 100 watt incandescent with a 26 watt CFL of either type, you still come out ahead. There is more light, less power and less current (actually VA) overall. The utility has to put in less transmission equipment to support a given amount of light, and a user's electric bill will always be lower.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>Seriously, though, assuming rushmc was talking about power factor issues related to
>the inductive nature of CFL's, he does have a point.

Older CFL's (the ones that take a few seconds to come on) use magnetic ballasts, and these are indeed an inductive load. Modern CFL's (i.e. any made in the past 5 years) do not, but their power factor isn't great due to peak rectification - generally around .6 or so. In other words, like any other switchmode power DC supply.

However, if you replace a 100 watt incandescent with a 26 watt CFL of either type, you still come out ahead. There is more light, less power and less current (actually VA) overall. The utility has to put in less transmission equipment to support a given amount of light, and a user's electric bill will always be lower.

True at this time

However, utilities are looking at different tarrifs to deal with lower power factors at the residential level

Dont know how soon

Large users are penalized for a couple of reasons for power factors lower than 85% here

Can add up to big money

Also, simple watt hour meters do not account for poor power factor so they are not paying for the energy used when compared to what it takes to create it

This part is quickly changing in some cases too as smart grid technology, while not really being deployed at the same rate, has created newer meters that can account for poor power factor at the residential level

Bill, do LED's use a transformer of some type or do they (or can they) function off of normal line voltage? I know very little about them. The company I work for is currently running a pilot in a couple of towns with LED street lighting

The energy used is so much less it will force new street light tarrifs to be put into place

Thanks for the info in advance

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mdrejhon 8]

Quote

Bill, do LED's use a transformer of some type or do they (or can they) function off of normal line voltage? I know very little about them. The company I work for is currently running a pilot in a couple of towns with LED street lighting

All Individual LED chips run at low voltages, somewhere between 1 volts and 5 volts. Although Wikipedia vary in quality, the specific article on LED has become very good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-emitting_diode

You can power LED directly from mains current, by having enough bulbs in series (christmas lights), and a simple resistor. Unfortunately, with such raw power, LED will flicker noticeably for many people (with the 60 Hertz AC frequency - LED only shines light with current going in one of two directions of AC).

LED are DC devices (direct current). They perform best as constant-voltage / constant-current devices. For high-quality LED Light, you need regulated DC current. One method if a specialized switching power supply inside the base of the LED light, that is current-regulated. (imagine a modified version of a modern high-efficiency AC adaptor built into the base of a LED light bulb.) However, most LED bulbs are transformer-less, using various designs of transformerless switching power supplies & voltage/current (amperage) regulators, since LED will burn out it you overvoltage them. The best power conversion being done is at least 90% power conversion efficiency, with a PF of 0.99+.

The minimum standard, US Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Star program mandates minimum acceptable power factors or 0.7 and 0.9 respectively for domestic and commercial LED lights.

Reference:
http://www.ecnmag.com/articles/2011/08/application-solutions-PFC-techniques-in-LED-lighting/

[1969912 0]

Quote

>Seriously, though, assuming rushmc was talking about power factor issues related to
>the inductive nature of CFL's, he does have a point.

Older CFL's (the ones that take a few seconds to come on) use magnetic ballasts, and these are indeed an inductive load. Modern CFL's (i.e. any made in the past 5 years) do not, but their power factor isn't great due to peak rectification - generally around .6 or so. In other words, like any other switchmode power DC supply.

However, if you replace a 100 watt incandescent with a 26 watt CFL of either type, you still come out ahead. There is more light, less power and less current (actually VA) overall. The utility has to put in less transmission equipment to support a given amount of light, and a user's electric bill will always be lower.

Interesting. Do modern long, straight tube type fluorescents use similar power supplies? I'm running about half CFL's right now, and they are ones that my utility recently provided. They do seem to be quite a bit better than the ones I tried 5-10+ years ago. A "75 watt equivalent" seems to just a bit brighter than a 60 watt incan. One of the problems I had with the older ones was that the power supply housing would show evidence of overheating, even in ceiling fixtures that are open at the top with just a glass diffuser suspended below the bulbs. They seemed to have a pretty limited lifespan. My test fixture has a 60 watt incan with its bulb about 2 cm from the power supply of a 20 watt CFL. Looks good after 4+ months.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Bill, do LED's use a transformer of some type or do they (or can they) function off of normal line voltage? I know very little about them. The company I work for is currently running a pilot in a couple of towns with LED street lighting

All Individual LED chips run at low voltages, somewhere between 1 volts and 5 volts. Although Wikipedia vary in quality, the specific article on LED has become very good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-emitting_diode

You can power LED directly from mains current, by having enough bulbs in series (christmas lights), and a simple resistor. Unfortunately, with such raw power, LED will flicker noticeably for many people (with the 60 Hertz AC frequency - LED only shines light with current going in one of two directions of AC).

LED are DC devices (direct current). They perform best as constant-voltage / constant-current devices. For high-quality LED Light, you need regulated DC current. One method if a specialized switching power supply inside the base of the LED light, that is current-regulated. (imagine a modified version of a modern high-efficiency AC adaptor built into the base of a LED light bulb.) However, most LED bulbs are transformer-less, using various designs of transformerless switching power supplies & voltage/current (amperage) regulators, since LED will burn out it you overvoltage them. The best power conversion being done is at least 90% power conversion efficiency, with a PF of 0.99+.

The minimum standard, US Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Star program mandates minimum acceptable power factors or 0.7 and 0.9 respectively for domestic and commercial LED lights.

Reference:
http://www.ecnmag.com/articles/2011/08/application-solutions-PFC-techniques-in-LED-lighting/

Thank you

I know I need to look into these more

Thanks for the links too

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,400]

>Also, simple watt hour meters do not account for poor power factor so they are not
>paying for the energy used when compared to what it takes to create it

Watt-hour meters accurately measure the energy used (and hence the prime power used to create it) - but do not measure poor power factor. If you have a 100 watt load that has a poor power factor it takes just as much energy as a 100 watt load that has good power factor. The peak current is higher in the poor power factor load, though, so the conductors have to be thicker (i.e. thicker wires.)

>Bill, do LED's use a transformer of some type or do they (or can they) function off of
>normal line voltage?

Series connected LED's (like the ones used in traffic lights and christmas lights) can run directly off 120VAC, but result in poor power factor since they only conduct during the peak of the AC waveform. The LED's used in lightbulb replacement that I have looked at so far do have _relatively_ good power factors (i.e. around .8 or so) and use a transformer. A stepdown DC/DC converter actually, but it does the same thing.

Power factor is actually becoming a fairly big deal - not because of LED or CFL lighting, but because large electronic loads (like the power supplies for computers) tend to have very poor power factors. It's actually driven some changes to building wiring in buildings that have a lot of electronic loads, like server farms. Power factor correction is becoming the standard for new electronic loads so hopefully the problem will decrease with time.

[billvon 2,400]

>Do modern long, straight tube type fluorescents use similar power supplies?

Modern T8 bulb fixtures - yes, all use electronic ballasts. Older T12 fixtures (48 and 96 inch) are a mixed bag. Magnetic ballasts are super cheap and so are still sometimes used, but most newer ones use electronic ballasts, generally with very good power factors.

> One of the problems I had with the older ones was that the power supply housing
>would show evidence of overheating.

Yeah they don't seem to do well when run in enclosed fixtures base up. In one of our outdoor fixtures (sealed) a typical CFL would last about a year, much shorter than the rated life of 10 years. The ones inside in open fixtures seemed a lot better. We were only in our last house 8 years so I couldn't see whether they lasted that long, but they were either that or close. (The one exception was a Home Depot torchiere-style light that lasted 5 years before it flaked out.)

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>Also, simple watt hour meters do not account for poor power factor so they are not
>paying for the energy used when compared to what it takes to create it

Watt-hour meters accurately measure the energy usedNo, the simple ones do NOT if the power factor is bad. That is why I made the reply as I did (and hence the prime power used to create it) - but do not measure poor power factor. If you have a 100 watt load that has a poor power factor it takes just as much energy as a 100 watt load that has good power factor. The peak current is higher in the poor power factor an over simplification and not totally true load, though, so the conductors have to be thicker (i.e. thicker wires.)And the watt hour mete does not correctly record the total energy used

>Bill, do LED's use a transformer of some type or do they (or can they) function off of
>normal line voltage?

Series connected LED's (like the ones used in traffic lights and christmas lights) can run directly off 120VAC, but result in poor power factor since they only conduct during the peak of the AC waveform. The LED's used in lightbulb replacement that I have looked at so far do have _relatively_ good power factors (i.e. around .8 or so) and use a transformer. A stepdown DC/DC converter actually, but it does the same thing.

Power factor is actually becoming a fairly big deal - not because of LED or CFL lighting, but because large electronic loads (like the power supplies for computers) tend to have very poor power factors. It's actually driven some changes to building wiring in buildings that have a lot of electronic loads, like server farms. Power factor correction is becoming the standard for new electronic loads so hopefully the problem will decrease with time.

the last part of your post is spot on. I realized I over simplified with the CFLS so thanks for this as you have it correct here

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[1969912 0]

Thanks for the info on CFl's.

Re: LED's. A guy I worked with several years ago told me I could run a LED on 120 VAC using just a capacitor along with the LED. He did the math on the whiteboard and it made sense, so I agreed to try it. It worked. Ran it for several hours. I don't remember any details, but it did work. No diode(s), resistors, etc.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The New bulb was a scam..and those of you that fell for this scam , need to start looking at things a little closer.

We are!
And we're using better light to do it!

I dont think so
And no you are not

Do you know the impact these wastes of money are having on the electrical grid? (CFL's)

OK. You missed the sarcasm and the joke.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Do you know the impact these wastes of money are having on the electrical grid? (CFL's)

You mean because they're an inductive load?

Deductive loads are greatly superior.

I could have said reactive load, but would likely have been criticized for being vague

I'm gonna go with "reductive" for $59.95.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[billeisele 122]

finally a post on energy with some good info :)

what we're seeing in SC is that plug loads (all the stuff plugged in the wall) are rising, 15 years ago plug loads were maybe 5-10% of the toal usage

lighting, HVAC, refrigeration and water heating were 90-95%

the non-incandescent bulbs have reduced usage and demand on the grid but the plug loads have increased xx times more than what the new bulbs have reduced

everyone please keep buying those big screens, DVRs, cable boxes, computers, cell phone chargers and game boxes - I need a raise

next time you have your big screen on, just go to the screen and see how much heat there is - that is your money coming to me :)

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

[pirana 0]

Quote

. . . and a user's electric bill will always be lower.

Funny thing is, my utility company's rate hikes seem to always stay one step ahead of my attempts to reduce our useage. I've been switching to CFL's, gotten much better at getting family to only keep lights on as necessary, upgrading to more efficient appliances, using far fewer holiday lights & using them for less time, and so on and so forth. My electric bill has NEVER gone down.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Gravitymaster 0]

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2011-12-13/electric-bills/51840042/1?loc=interstitialskip

Use less so they can charge you more. This is what happens when the demand continues to grow and the supply doesn't keep pace.

[pirana 0]

Quote

b. For several hours, continue to air out the room where the bulb was broken and leave the H&AC system shut off.

I can see a lot of people not being quite so diligent on a few points.

That's an understatement. I wonder how likely a person will be to follow that procedure in this part of the country, on a day with -20F temperatures. So I guess we try to only break them on nice warm days.

Ah, what the hell, what's a little mercury when you've got ". . . poison in the water and the whole world's in a trance."

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Funny thing is, my utility company's rate hikes seem to always stay one step ahead of my attempts to reduce our usage...

Yes, and if you reduce your usage to under 1,000 kwh per month, then they hit you with a surcharge for not using enough. Use more than 1,000 kwh, and you get a lower rate per kwh. So we're actually punished for conserving, and rewarded for using a lot.

Yeah, that's the way to go...

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

holiday lights

Aha! War on Christmas!

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

Funny thing is, my utility company's rate hikes seem to always stay one step ahead of my attempts to reduce our usage...

Yes, and if you reduce your usage to under 1,000 kwh per month, then they hit you with a surcharge for not using enough. Use more than 1,000 kwh, and you get a lower rate per kwh. So we're actually punished for conserving, and rewarded for using a lot.

Yeah, that's the way to go...

It's the 'Merican way!
John, you nailed this one, IMO.

We could jack them back.
Everybody in the neighborhood operating off one meter and splitting the cost.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[billvon 2,400]

>Use more than 1,000 kwh, and you get a lower rate per kwh.

Interesting. Here in California we have a tiered rate structure - the less you use the cheaper energy becomes. Here are the tiers:

Tier 1 - 14¢/kwhr - Up to baseline
Tier 2 - 16¢/kwhr - 101% to 130% of baseline
Tier 3 - 29¢/kwhr - 131% to 200% of baseline
Tier 4 - 31¢/kwhr - Above 200% of baseline

So use more than 200% of average and you pay WAY more per kwhr. Use less than average and you pay very little.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>Use more than 1,000 kwh, and you get a lower rate per kwh.

Interesting. Here in California we have a tiered rate structure - the less you use the cheaper energy becomes. Here are the tiers:

Tier 1 - 14¢/kwhr - Up to baseline
Tier 2 - 16¢/kwhr - 101% to 130% of baseline
Tier 3 - 29¢/kwhr - 131% to 200% of baseline
Tier 4 - 31¢/kwhr - Above 200% of baseline

So use more than 200% of average and you pay WAY more per kwhr. Use less than average and you pay very little.

Moreover - for Pacific Gas and Edison (not sure about the Socal Edison concern that Bill probably sees), during certain times of the year if you can reduce your power use 20% from the year before, you get an additional rebate for this reduction.

California efforts are all about reducing average and peak usage to avoid the need for more power plants, or out of state power. There's no advantage to charging people for using too little.