Lighting the key to energy saving (BBC)

[eppur_se_muova]

By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website

A global switch to efficient lighting systems would trim the world's electricity bill by nearly one-tenth.

That is the conclusion of a study from the International Energy Agency (IEA), which it says is the first global survey of lighting uses and costs.

The carbon dioxide emissions saved by such a switch would, it concludes, dwarf cuts so far achieved by adopting wind and solar power.
***
"19% of global electricity generation is taken for lighting - that's more than is produced by hydro or nuclear stations, and about the same that's produced from natural gas," he told the BBC News website.
***
China, the IEA reports, has recently developed such codes. If they are implemented in all new build, this would "...offset the need for a new Three Gorges Dam project every eight years".
***
more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5128478.stm

A very enlightening read. If incandescent bulbs were phased out as rapidly as possible, the savings would be tremendous.

Related links: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4667354.stm
http://banthebulb.org/

[Mika]

1. This is just what Cuba has done (converted away from incandescent bulbs).

Of course, when Cuba does just about anything progressive the Castrophobes come out mewling with the usual 'Castro this and Castro' that routine. When I posted a thread on Cuba's conversion to compact flourecent the usual crowd came out posting that this was proof of how bad Cuba's Castro's electrical infrastructure is, instead of recognizing that it represents a substantial reduction in energy costs and fossil fuel use. Compact flourecent bulbs allow for more local solar panal use in remote locations, which is just what Cuba is doing also.

[mainegreen]

2. We replaced 3 bulbs with fluorescent lights and cut in half

our electric bill! 3 Bulbs! They were the 3 lights that are always on (kitchen/hall/living room).

[NNadir]

3. Some time back I did a calculation showing each bulb saves 1MT of CO2

in its lifetime.

Here is the thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=34359

Decisions about light bulbs really do matter.

[eppur_se_muova]

4. Interesting. I switched to CF's as soon as the price was reasonable, just

because it saves me money. I wonder why people are slow to see that?

I have incandescents around now for only one reason: when I move into a new apt, there are incandescents (need an abbreviation) in every socket. I take them out, store them, and return them to the sockets when I move out, to satisfy the terms of the lease. When I start finding CF's in the sockets when I move in, I'll start leaving CF's behind when I move out. Maybe before, if the price keeps dropping.

Maybe you could forward that calculation to the mfgr, suggest they print it prominently on the box? Couldn't hurt!

on edit: suggested abbreviation -- Antiquated Incandescent Devices, or AIDs. OK, maybe "light" instead of "device" -- AILs.

[NNadir]

15. I prefer AIDs.

It has has certain, je ne sais quoi.

I really can't understand why AIDs are still sold. Under the circumstances, it would almost seem appropriate to phase them out by regulation.

[Kolesar]

5. I would expect that Democrats should buy LCD and never CRT monitors

Especially you Democrats who spend a lot of time on the computer :tv:.

I don't think LCD monitors have a reasonable payback in electricity costs, but the usage is lower and we all know the externalized costs of electricity.

[NNadir]

6. According to this link, the screen savings are marginal or non-existent.

The unit is a useful, if mixed metric/english, "watts per square inch." It's being applied to televisions here, but the technology is similar.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-6400401-2.html

Size matters as well, so we divided each set's power use by its screen area to get a watts-per-square-inch rating. This way, small and large screens can be compared. While there is some overlap, the TVs we tested form neat groups based on technology:


Microdisplay rear projector: 0.11 to 0.15 watt per square inch
LCD: 0.16 to 0.41 watt per square inch
CRT: 0.25 to 0.40 watt per square inch
Plasma: 0.30 to 0.39 watt per square inch

Following the internal links on the future of TV power, we learn that Sanyo makes an 80 watt 32 inch TV. Using this TV thus would make watching Bill O'Reilly slightly less toxic and wasteful.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-6400401-5.html?tag=txt

It's hard to believe, but the 280 million TVs in the United States consume 4 percent of the power used, or 46 billion kilowatt-hours per year. That's an electricity bill of more than $4 billion a year. The bad news, other than another season of Pimp My Ride, is that, with big screens becoming popular, power use is rising fast and could reach 70 billion kilowatt-hours by the end of the decade.

[eppur_se_muova]

7. LCD's use back illumination, so changing the light source could matter.

Are these light sources maybe LED's already? (Not talking about LED screens here.) Does anyone know? I don't know if a CF that small is possible -- way outside my AOE.

I'll bet the LCD's use a LOT less power in 'standby' mode. A CRT needs to keep the gun hot, so there's still some power draw. An LCD can just switch off the light source. ASSUMING your local computer lab or office has their screen savers set to blank and not pretty fireworks :eyes: there could be some savings here.

I don't think I'd throw out a CRT on the basis of this. Let them burn out, and replace them by attrition. It takes a lot of energy to manufacture things, that energy goes to waste if the CRT is not worn out or burned out.

Besides in my experience, CRT's burn out pretty darned fast anyway.:)

[NNadir]

9. That's a point worth making. It costs energy to manufacture stuff.

It may not always prove environmentally wise to throw out something that works but is not efficient as its more modern equivalent that is more efficient when it operates. The matter depends on the cost of manufacturing as well as transport.

(This applies, by the way, to Amory Lovins' mansion in the clouds. :))

That is a very important point and one that is often missed.

[skids]

10. LCDs use Flourescents and LEDs

It would be hard to make them more efficient than they are already, at least until the new LEDs hit the mass market (in the lab LEDs just broke the flourescent "barrier" and will be more efficient than flourescents in the near future. Expect to see them replace flourescents entirely over the next 5 years.)

It's merely that CRT monitors are actually a lot more efficient than one might think looking at them, to start with. Given the cost of LCDs it's generally not worth it.

What is worth it, though, is if you are not a "bleeding edge" person and you have a desktop computer that you use for over, say, 8 hours a day. If you get by with a <1GZ CPU and <512M of RAM, and expect not to upgrade your PC for at least 3 years, you should go looking for a used laptop. I just did. I spent $300 on a laptop that will replace my desktop, and will pay for itself in saved electricity in under two years.

The reason this works is because desktop PCs and their power supplies are cheap crap when it comes to power usage. They are engineered for performance, not efficiency and the manufacturers cut corners when it comes to saving power -- which is why you see cases with a lot of extra fans these days. Most draw about 150W, whereas an equivalent laptop will average about 15W.

[eppur_se_muova]

11. Cool! Thanks for that.

Of course the big power supplies in desktops are to support extra (or bigger) drives and cards -- up to six in some cases -- and then most people never use that capacity. My laptop has been my desktop since ... well, since I bought my first laptop (a Power Book 170).

[Kolesar]

12. An Energy Star program could be used to drive desktop power consumption

I recall that one desktop PC maker (NEC?) was using a microprocessor chipset designed for a notebook computer. The microprocessor had features to change clock speeds to save power. Between processor selection and power supply design, energy use could be reduced. The Energy Star mark would become a purchasing requirement for state and local governments and conscientious corporations, thus driving the technology.

I would have a hard time figuring out how to make use of an old PC with a slow clock speed(per your example) and also figure which operating system and applications would work on it. I have little patience for such tasks. (That's when I go pull weeds in the garden)

[skids]

13. I really think the desktop is dead.

I wouldn't have said that a few years ago, but frankly except for gamers, noone has a reason anymore to demand such performance that a laptop won't do the trick nicely. Many geeks haven't realized this yet, but they will come around eventually as the "uber MIPS" systems lose their chic since the services they provide are being offloaded to personal/portable appliances and dedicated game systems.

As for "an old system with a slow clock speed" -- when I bought this laptop it was running XP, quite snappily, in fact. I of course immediately nuked that to install Linux, but I don't think anyone would have had any trouble "figuring out how to use" my $300 used laptop. Check ebay -- you can get a good amount of horsepower in the 3-4 year-old range at bargain prices (and do remember it's RAM that really matters, not CPU speed, these days.)

[eppur_se_muova]

14. Well, Apple's been trying to kill it for a long time.

Look at the iMac G5's and iMac DuoCores -- basically a laptop in a slightly roomier, cheaper box.

And the MacMini (and before that, the ill-fated Cube) are Apple's acknowledgement that few use all those expansion bays.

Of course, the "backpack" Dells (little box riding on the "shoulders" of the monitor) are more or less the same thing, and their smaller desktop boxes were using laptop parts already (swappable CD, floppy drives etc.).

Technological progress is leading to less consumption of materials, and indirectly, less energy. It's just taking market forces time to catch up (as always).

Buckminster Fuller had a term for this, but I can't remember exactly -- the "dissubstantiation" of physical tools, or something like that -- to describe the fact that newer technology accomplishes bigger tasks with less material. Oh, now I remember -- he called it "moreing with lessing". He liked using English instead of Latin or Greek.:)

/edit to reverse two important words

[kestrel91316]

8. My 2 BR old uninsulated house used only $60 of electricity (that INCLUDES

sewer fee and taxes etc) the past two months. Actually the electricity part was about $12-15 PER MONTH. Granted, we needed neither heat nor AC during that time, but I am sure that switching every light in the house except the bathroom vanity to compact fluorescents has made a HUGE difference. That and not leaving the TV on when I am in the office on the computer, lol.

Now I need to replace the 20 yr old fridge and see how much lower I can go.