There are about 600 coal plants in the US. The numbers are a bit misleading as coal fired power plants come in all shapes and sizes. It's not the number, but the generation capacity that's important. In the US, we built 10 new plants in 2010 for a total new capacity of
1.6GW (gigawatts). However, if you include decomissioned plants, the net loss in capacity in 2010 was about -4.6GW lost. Most of the loss was balanced by a transition to federally subsidized wind power. In
2010, there was also the cancellation of 10 additional plants mostly due to legislative or EPA restriction. For example, California has a ban on new coal plants (SB1368). Europe is doing much the same.
If the EPA gets its way, it's likely that most of the older US coal plants will need to close to meet emission requirements.
The loss of -4.6GW of coal generation capacity is not going to make much of a dent in the mercury emissions. At this time, the US gets about 45% of about 4 trillion kw-hr of electricity from coal. A few gigawatts of capacity here and there isn't going to change much.
Note that capacity loss is usually balanced by burning more coal to produce more electricity at other plants. Therefore, closing a plant does NOT constitute an overall decrease in emissions. Only a decrease in generated mw-hr can decrease emissions.
If you accept my coal generation logic at face value, every product that uses electricity also dumps mercury into the environment. For example, my electric water heater would be considered a major contributor to coal based environmental pollution and far more significant than a CFL lamp. While this doesn't do anything to help one decide between CFL and incandescent, it does highlight some priorities on the process.
Yep. Something like 90% of the really obnoxious atmospheric pollution comes from burning coal. There are technologies that drastically reduce coal fired plant emissions. They're expensive, messy, use huge amounts of water, and are being largely ignored by the larger plants. Not so with the smaller plants, a few of which use one or more technologies.
As far as I can tell, neither India or China are doing clean coal plants.
I don't have an answer to the "why". Most likely, both countries economies will collapse without the generated power, which makes it one of many "necessary evils".
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
I have replaced 6 x 50w Halgens in our kitchen with 6 x these ones 3.8w each
formatting link
and I have to say I am happy on several fronts.
firstly it consumes only 23w compared to 300w of the originals. secondly they run cool not burning hot thirdly the light is WHITE not yellow and floods the kitchen rather than being directional like the halogens were.
Our ceilings are 9ft and the halogens created a bright area that was very narrow and left deep shadows to the sides of the area...
These LEDs `flood' the whole area and in effect create a daylight environment much more pleasing to me.
I will add that whilst they ran on AC 12V they had a slight flicker I found disturbing so I now run them off 12Vdc and they are great.
As for cheap CFL, we used to buy those 4 packs for about $7.50 from Bunnings. probably 1 out of 10 would fail after a few months, but the others have gone for about 3 years so far (50 bought all up). I also noticed that since the light bulbs have been banned, the cheap CFL's have all but disappeared and its hard to find any that are under the $3-4 mark. Most also have this sickening "warm white" light, rather than the proper "cool white" or "daylight" that is normal with fluros.
I still have some GE CFL ones I bought about 2002 that are working. Most though last nowhere near as long as incandescents though and they do not like a lot of the light fittings used in typical Australian homes. They either face down, or don't have enough ventilation, or simply don't fit in them
The one advantage they have over incandescents is that they are not affected by vibration.
Thanks Mick. They are a bit more expensive, but worth a try. (Even though with Deal Extreme I never know for sure if I get what's in the description.) Tony
**Exactly. Large numbers of products, including automobiles, are carefully costed, WRT energy consumption. They need to be in such a cut-throat market.
Any fool can say "this
**And yet, it is routinely done. For all manner of products. Bean counters are very good at these sorts of things. That's why companies employ them.
For turning the silicon into
**And CFLs can be energy badgeted just as well, if not with slightly more complexity.
**I don't know what the energy cost of manufacture is, for LEDs, but I'll bet it is lower than CFLs. Moreover, since a large chunk of the energy cost involves the cost of aluminium, since that aluminium is infinitely recyclable, the total energy cost would likely be very competitive.
Whilst there have been some major advances in
**Wrong on all counts. In my kitchen, I use a range of lighting, depending on what I need to do. The low Voltage halogens provide excellent, high intensity light, but with poor dispersion. I also use an 11 Watt T5 fluoro for day-to-day bench work. I recently purchased some of these:
formatting link
Not only is light output almost double that of the fluoro (measured with a light meter), but it does so on-axis and all off-axis positions too (easily
100+ degrees of spread). Colour temperature is very close to that of the halogens. I already have a number applications planned for them. I don't know how long they'll last. Further: I've been buying these things for many years (at least 10 years):
formatting link
They're inexpensive, good quality, long lasting and have a respectably wide light spread.
Of course, there has been the venerable Luxeon emitters, which are available in up to 120 degree spread and have been for many years.
As to not experiencing the same longevity as you with
**I suggest you read this:
formatting link
"After 6000 hours (December 2010), several good performers were still going strong. All had dimmed since the start of our test, but the best performers had dimmed comparatively little - if you had one of these in your home, its gradual dimming over three (or more) years would probably not be noticeable."
The test involved a large mnumber of lamps. Quite a different scenario to yours and mine.
**I would posit that ALL manufacturers of CFLs (and ICs) are in it for the money.
They have no concern at all for the 'green' credentials
**It doesn't offend me in the slightest. Just as there are a number of quality manufacturers of automobiles, like Hyundai, Honda and Toyota, there are also a number of manufacturers of crap automobiles, like Chery and Tata. A prospective buyer has access to the same information about these vehicles that I do and anyone who buys a Tata or a Chery does so in the knowledge that they are crap automobiles. Same deal with CFLs. I've made the mistake of buying some cheap CFLs. I will not do so again.
**Not so. I would posit that BMW buyers are fools. BMW cars have a average reputation for reliability, average fuel economy, ordinary stylinbg (IMO), expensive spare parts and are no safer than (say) a Toyota/Lexus. Even a Hyundai can probably beat the BMW in a number of areas. Particularly price.
The cheaper makes will always be bought by the general public,
**Not everyone wants to be gouged by their local BMW dealer either. BMW is legendary for it's greed WRT spare parts, service and a host of other issues (here in Australia).
**Let's try to put that into some kind of perspective:
The quality CFL costs around AUS$5.00, not 5 Quid. A quality, 100 Watt, (1,000 hour) IC lamp used to cost around AUS$1.00. The replacement halogens are more expensive (about $3.50).
If UK residents are paying 5 Quid for quality, government subsidised CFLs, then there is something seriously wrong with the system. We can land them way across the other side of the planet (mine were made in China) for less than you can buy them.
If
**There is something seriously wrong with your prices. They're far too high for CFLs. Our prices are much lower and there's no subsidies.
And
**Never say "never".
**OK. I can't provide you with any more data than I already have. If you cannot counter my data, then we must accept that mine is the most accurate available. Your 'gut feel' doesn't count.
because there are none that FULLY analyse ALL
**It does add up. A CFL costs around 6 times as much, energy-wise, to make, compared to an IC lamp.
that
**You keep neglecting that it was _me_ who provided the data regarding the energy costs of production of the two lamps.
**I was directly addressing your claims that CFLs had a life-span that was considerably less than that claimed. Here in Australia (and, presumably, in Europe) such data must be able to be justified to consumer regulators. Severe fines can result for manufacturers who fail to live up to the claims of their products. AFIK, Philips has not been fined for their longevity claims. Moreover, the article I directed you to has indicated that most samples were very reliable.
formatting link
**Er, nope. I understand EXACTLY why people want IC lamps. They're cheap. Upfront. That, of course, is the short-sighted approach.
**Bollocks! Read this:
formatting link
Read AR4 IN FULL. If you feel that AR4 is in error, then you should submit a page by page rebuttal.
Only in the media.
**Er, nope. SCIENCE has released the data. The media publishes whatever their editorial people or owners tell them to. Scientists cite data.
There are
**Er, no, there isn't. There are a bunch of liars, charlatans and those who are employed by the fossil fuel industry who publish cherry-picked and misleading information. In fact, a goodly amount is nothing but lies.
**Bollocks. One vehicle I have some familiarity with is the Mitsubishi Corida Turbo. The leaded version delivered 110kW with premium leaded fuel. The unleaded version delivered 90kW with premium unleaded.
For sure, there had to be some modification to the
**It was for manu Australian manufacturers. One had to tool up to use alloy heads, whilst another just gave up and imported (at huge cost) Japanese alloy head engines, rather than tooling up.
Drops in performance of existing engines when
**Again: Not here in Australia.
**And as a lubricant for valves.
**Apparently not:
** A laughably worthless test, not in any way related to normal use.
Something the rabid green lunatics at Choice are FAMOUS for !!!
Look at the pic - all the CFLs are suspended in mid air !!
No light fittings, not even a ceiling above them.
The room is air conditioned too.
And NO on /off cycling at all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not ONE of the KNOWN issues with CFLs will be revealed in such a test.
BTW:
One reason that Choice did not cycle the CFLs is that they found it VERY difficult to do.
If you try to switch on 10 or more CFLs at once, it will trip the lighting circuit breaker ( 8 amp) regularly - with over 200 it will not even be possible at all.
CFLs have large inrush surges, up to 20 amps peak or more for long enough to active the magnetic trip on lighting breakers.
Looks like the CFLs in that test were powered from a wall outlet (ie using a
16 amp breaker) and brought on in groups of 10 ( using several multi-way power boards) until they were all lit and left like that for 12 months.
Total Bollocks.
The other green lunatic drivel quoted in the article makes me wanna puke.
That is true (IE, automotive bulbs) , but to clarify to everyone, I was referring to standard 240v domestic ones
Yes, that is the worst part. Also means that they can claim anything and not deliver and be immune. Would love to see anyone manufacturing in Australia try that and get away with it.
Not only that, but by the time the 9000 hours (375 days @ 24H a day) was up, most of the CFL bulbs tested would have been obsolete and would have been superseded by other designs, or sourced from another Chinese manufacturer who was now the cheapest, and while they may look the same, they would likely use a different circuit, and probably different parts as well - again sourced from who is now the cheapest supplier.
Economic crisis would make this situation worse, with companies involved closing and downsizing all over the place.
It would be like doing longevity tests on motherboards or hard drives. None of the units tested would still be current or on sale by the time the test was finished.
RY
g
n be
to
g a
You would have loved 4 corners last week then, I had never seen such blatant propaganda in support of the Gillard government and the carbon tax.
Well, I guess we're never going to agree on any aspect of this. You seem predisposed to take the wrong way, a number of points that I have repeatedly made, but ho-hum, it's been an interesting line of chat, and at least it hasn't descended into a screaming match as is so often the case in these discussions :-)
As to the bulbs you have found online, I must admit that I hadn't managed to come up with the eco halogens in a pearl envelope - if indeed they actually have got one when the item is in your hand. All the rest of the ones that you found, have clear envelopes, as I said, because the pearl envelopes have been banned, though Christ knows for what eco-bollox reasons. I have a bar of 4 R50 spots in the room I am in right now, and another two as wall mounted uplighters in my lounge. These used to do a lovely job of providing targeted light in the computer room, and accent light in the lounge, or reduced light for TV watching, when they had a pearlised front. Since they banned the pearlised ones, the clear-fronted version that is now the only one available, looks awful. Instead of a nice even light - the whole purpose of pearlising in the first place - you now get a harsh uneven set of rings of light wherever they are pointing, and images of the filament. Trust me, it is now very hard to find to find any light bulbs here, with the correct physical size and glass properties, to make them acceptable in decorative light fittings.
And not all CFLs are subsidised. Only the ones that are dirt cheap in the first place. Then subsidised via the power companies under government direction, via green taxes levied through our energy bills. These taxes are also been extracted from us and wasted on the useless windmills and other eyesore technologies, that are also excuses for companies to make obscene amounts of money from the green mist hysteria that prevails now throughout the civilised world. So, we have a cheap crappy CFL that is being made even cheaper by the false price that's being set on it, to get people to buy them. If you look at energy saving lightbulbs on the Homebase site that you linked to, you will see that the 'quality' CFLs that you refer to, are all up in the £3.50 to £5 bracket, as I said. Then, B&Q are flogging cheapo subsidised ones for between 10 pence and a quid. Which ones, in the cash strapped times that we are currently suffering, are most people going to buy, given that they can no longer buy what they *really* want ?
Anyway, enough time spent on this now. Been enjoyable.
Humor me for a moment. Take a digital camera photo of your favorite CFL lamp. Turn off all the other sources of light. What color do you get? Here's mine:
See a problem perhaps?
Extra credit. Find various sheets of blank paper with an assortment of brightness from about 85 to 105. Photograph those using either a CFL lamp and an incandescent lamp source. What colors do you get? (Note that the 105 brightness contains phosphors resulting in the reflected light actually being brighter than the incident light).
You might want to buy a cheap LED UV flashlight and a diffraction grating, for more fun with lighting.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
**Provided there is some respect on both sides and an attempt to undestand the other POV, I see no reason why a screaming match is necessary. I no longer waste my time with those who choose to insult, rather than present a cogent argument. It's better for my health.
Your comments about prices of CFLs have me intrigued. I did some more research. Here are some prices in the US:
formatting link
Prices appear to be somewhat lower than Australia and dramatically lower than in the UK. I suggest that you should be complaining about CFL prices in the UK. Clearly, something is seriously awry.
I accept personal preferences for ICs are valid. I accept that personal preferences against CFLs are also valid. I also accept the testing done by Choice and others, that prove the efficiency aspects of CFLs are significantly in advance of ICs. I accept, in the abscence of evidence to the contrary, that CFLs have a manufacturing energy cost that is approximately 6 times that of ICs.
Having said all that, there is one aspect of our discussion that I find deeply troubling. You're a smart guy. Yet you appear to be willing to reject the overwhelming bulk of good, solid science that has shown that rising CO2 levels are causing the present warming we find ourselves experiencing. You appear to be rejecting the science, in preference for the hysterical ravings of those who have clear links to the fossil fuel industry. OTH, the scientists who study and report on global warming, for the most part, do not have links to the alternative energy business. They do what a good scientist should do - report the science without regard to political or business bias. Consider the NASA and EPA scientists who were issuing very clear warnings to President Bush. Bush was a rabid global warming denier. We had the same thing here in Australia. During the Howard government years, Australia's premier scientific body (the CSIRO) was issuing clear reports to the government that anthropogenic global warming was going to cause serious problems for Australia and the rest of the planet. Yet the Howard government was aligned with the Bush government, in that denial of the science was the order of the day. In fact, the leftover ministers of the Howard government are still denying the science, even today. Most are religious loonies, so no one takes much ntice anymore.
Please do some reading on the topic. Unlike the present discussion on CFLs (which is really a bit of a distraction), it is a very important issue.
ElectronDepot 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.