backtop


Print 59 comment(s) - last by namechamps.. on Aug 27 at 10:49 AM


LED light bulbs  (Source: dgtexs.com)
Humans will just use more electricity to balance it out

Replacing the Edison lightbulb with solid-state light-emitting devices (LEDs) made sense considering that many lighting developers thought it would reduce electrical usage worldwide. However, a new study argues that increased lighting efficiency will not cause a decline in electricity production because people will just use more of it, keeping the amount of electrical usage steady. 

It is often thought that a decrease in electrical usage worldwide would add to the "green" cause by reducing the number of power plants. But according to Jeff Tsao, the leader of the study and an LED researcher from Sandia National Laboratories, people will only use more electricity when presented with cheaper lighting. He also noted that this has been a pattern over recent centuries, dating as far back as A.D. 1700 as humanity moved from candle to oil to gas to electricity. The study claims that light use has remained "a constant fraction of per capita gross domestic product" as different, newer types of lighting came about. 

"Over the past three centuries, according to well-accepted studies from a range of sources, the world has spent about 0.72 percent of the world's per capita gross domestic product on artificial lighting," said Tsao. This is so for England in 1700, in the underdeveloped world not on the grid and in the developed world using the most advanced lighting technologies. There may be little reason to expect a different future response from our species."

According to Tsao, there is a good side to this. With better artificial illumination, Tsao says it will increase human productivity because light in the workspace, especially in the shorter days of winter, increases creativity and awareness. Also, better lighting helps aid those who have vision loss.

"More fuel-efficient cars don't necessarily mean we drive less; we may drive more," said Jerry Simmons, coauthor of the paper and also a researcher from Sandia National Laboratories. "It's a tension between supply and demand. So, improvements in light-efficient technologies may not be enough to affect energy shortages and climate change. Enlightened policy decisions may be necessary to partner with the technologies to have big impacts."

On the other hand, there are concerns with light pollution from too much light. But Tsao mentioned that the new solid-state lighting is digitally controlled more precisely in space and time, and would allow humans to preserve darkness when necessary.

The study was published in the Journal of Physics D just this month. Other contributing authors of the paper include Harry Saunders of Decision Processes Inc., Randy Creighton and Mike Coltrin, both from Sandia National Laboratories. 





Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Less dangerous components and radiation
By kontorotsui on 8/26/2010 7:38:31 AM , Rating: 5
The argument is certainly solid.
But compared to CFL bulbs and neon tubes, LEDs are much safer. They don't have heavy metals.
And they emit no UV, so they are better than halogens, too.




RE: Less dangerous components and radiation
By FITCamaro on 8/26/2010 7:58:00 AM , Rating: 1
That wasn't the point. The point is that compact fluorescents were shoved down our throats all in a bid to save energy. But like higher fuel economy in cars, it doesn't necessarily mean people use less.

Now I don't mind flourescents because I don't mind using them since they last longer than traditional bulbs. But I do not agree with banning incandescents as the US and Europe have done. Some people don't mind spending more in power or replacing them more often because they like the light it provides. And they should have that option.


By mattclary on 8/26/2010 9:38:02 AM , Rating: 2
Also, in cold weather, they act as heat sources and become 100% efficient since the heat production is a bonus.

That being said, I live in Florida, so all my lights are CFL.


RE: Less dangerous components and radiation
By surt on 8/26/2010 11:35:58 AM , Rating: 2
Where did you get the idea that the US has banned incandescents?


RE: Less dangerous components and radiation
By Kurz on 8/26/2010 11:40:09 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.google.com/search?q=incandescent+light+...

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=45156

Never trust your government... they'll just do the thinking for you.


RE: Less dangerous components and radiation
By surt on 8/26/2010 11:50:19 AM , Rating: 3
They aren't banning incandescents (like some countries). They are mandating energy efficiency standards. There are already EE incandescents on the market that meet the requirements for 2014.


RE: Less dangerous components and radiation
By ppardee on 8/26/2010 4:12:26 PM , Rating: 5
This is a slippery slope, though. What is the difference between banning a product and requiring efficiency that is impossible to achieve? What is stopping the government from mandating energy efficiency standards that are an effective ban?

Once you let the bull into the China shop, it is hard to do damage control. Best to keep him out in the first place.


By Alexstarfire on 8/27/2010 8:19:51 AM , Rating: 2
Ironically, a bull does just fine in a china shop. :P


RE: Less dangerous components and radiation
By mdogs444 on 8/26/2010 8:44:47 AM , Rating: 2
You miss the entire point of the article, but that's often what people do when the results don't meet their predetermined expectations. Take the study from the article:

quote:
a new study argues that increased lighting efficiency will not cause a decline in electricity production because people will just use more of it, keeping the amount of electrical usage steady.


This is not rocket science. If someone gets a car that gets much better gas mileage, you cannot sit there and expect them to drive the same exact amount as they would have when their monthly fuel costs were much higher. All it means is they have more disposable income to use on other things - such as vacations, entertainment, etc - which often require that person to drive somewhere that they would not have gone before.

If someone were to go out and buy an air conditioner that drastically lowered their electric bill in the summer - chances are they would turn the thermostat down farther and leave it on for longer periods of time making the entire efficiency gains null from a power savings standpoint.


RE: Less dangerous components and radiation
By SilentSin on 8/26/2010 10:46:13 AM , Rating: 5
The lighting trend from 1700-present and the green car mileage argument are both flawed in my opinion. Both of those are based in a market that still had(have) untapped demand.

High MPG Cars: People always want to travel more, and if there is a cheaper way to do it they will naturally select that mode of transport up until a point where they can get to anywhere in the world for a nominal amount of cash. That is a point of saturation.

Lighting: In 1700 all people had were flame light sources, not exactly the brightest or safest way to produce light but it worked. Once the Edison it was safer and was more effective than a candle, tho expensive to implement. At the present I think we have already reached a point of saturation with lighting.

Now lighting is cheap and easy to come by wherever you go mostly. We are serviced by it ad nauseam (just look at Las Vegas or Times Square, any major city really). To say that even if we switched to CFLs and LEDs we would use more of them to make up for the savings seems somewhat ridiculous to me. Where exactly would we put more lightbulbs to make that equation work? Maybe we will start putting up light poles in the middle of forests just because we can? A bat signal for every man, woman, and child I say!

If a CFL uses 1/4th the energy, that would mean we would start to produce 4x the light output according to the author. Well, if cities got 4x brighter at least you would have an excuse to actually wear sunglasses at night besides the fact that they go with your Members Only jacket.


RE: Less dangerous components and radiation
By JediJeb on 8/26/2010 6:19:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If a CFL uses 1/4th the energy, that would mean we would start to produce 4x the light output according to the author.


This is exactly what I am afraid of. Honestly I live 5 miles from a town of only 20,000 people and I can barely see the stars at night in the direction of town. Easily 50% of the light used at night there points up instead of being managed properly and pointed in the most efficient manner. Light pollution is a very big problem, and if people implementing outdoor lighting would just take a little time to plan out their light usage, they could use less light do to a more effective job.

Stand away from your house at night with the outside lights on and if you can see the bulbs you probably do not have them oriented most efficiently. A shield that directs the light down and not into your eyes will provide you with much better vision at night, since if the light shines in your eyes you are partially blinded by it.

Billboards and signs should have the lights at the top, pointed down onto the sign instead of at the foot pointed up into space. So much lighting power is wasted that way. Most people today have no idea what the night sky should look like because they can only see the moon and a few very bright stars, even people not living in large cities. The beauty of the night sky is being trashed by light pollution just like the sides of the highways were back in the 70s by discarded fast food bags and drink cans.


By thurston on 8/26/2010 8:15:10 PM , Rating: 2
I hope you are wrong, I too am saddened by the amount of light pollution we have now. Hopefully people will not just put up more lights because they can afford more. That would really suck if people just consume to consume more not because they need it. I wish they would just turn off half the street lights in the US, their would still be enough light plus, like you said, half the time it makes it harder to see because of the glare. Maybe if more people saw the Milky Way out in the middle of nowhere at 2:00 AM in the morning they too would want to turn off some lights. Really people if you have never seen the Milky Way on a moonless night where there is no light pollution, then you should make it happen.


RE: Less dangerous components and radiation
By surt on 8/26/2010 11:40:10 AM , Rating: 4
That's only true up to the point of maximum utility. No sane person will cool their home any further than the temperature at which they would turn on the heat in winter, no matter how cheap the cooling.

Likewise, no one will use more lighting in their home than will make it uncomfortably bright.

Now, we may be nowhere close on the cooling, but we are pretty close on lighting. I don't want more than maybe 20% more lighting than my home currently has. So when I've replaced all my incandescents and modestly increased lighting, my total electricity usage WILL go down. As it will for many, many people.


RE: Less dangerous components and radiation
By Spuke on 8/26/2010 12:20:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Likewise, no one will use more lighting in their home than will make it uncomfortably bright.
I don't think people will use more lighting. Maybe a little more but I do think people will have a tendency to leave those lights on instead of turning them off like previously. Since CFL's and LED's use less, there's no need (from a users perspective) to be as diligent with turning them off. I don't agree that there will be much savings because of that reason. My own experience shows virtually no savings going to CFL's.

My average usage has been going down over the years but it was going down anyways even before I switched to CFL's. I chalk it up to now knowing exactly what temperature to set my heater and A/C to. I use the evap cooler WAY more than previously and since my pellet stove broke my winter energy usage is lower although the house is cooler than I would like.

I think there are other ways to save energy than light bulbs. Conservation goes a long way even with regular bulbs. Not going too hot or too cool with the HVAC helps tremendously. I personally would like to throw a few solar panels on the roof with some batteries just to power the HVAC. I have propane heat (expensive!!!!) and I could make up the cost pretty quickly. Just don't have $15K laying around right now.


By JediJeb on 8/26/2010 6:24:32 PM , Rating: 2
If you are good at making things, you could probably make a cheap solar hot water heater and radiator to supplement your heat in the winter fairly easily. Several designs are out there. One uses an old hot water heater tank, some plywood, a few 2x4s and an old double pane patio door. Only big expense is the recirculating pump.


RE: Less dangerous components and radiation
By ppardee on 8/26/2010 4:18:47 PM , Rating: 2
WOAH! Wait a minute... So this is almost like a situation where the cost of something goes down and people use more of it... Almost like a free market system. Odd... I would have thought we had 'evolved' beyond capitalism to a state where the State could control us. Well... maybe a competent State could.

Sadly, this probably means the governments of the world will artificially boost the price of electricity. They have to keep the people under their thumb and angry to keep the votes rolling in.


RE: Less dangerous components and radiation
By thurston on 8/26/2010 8:33:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So this is almost like a situation where the cost of something goes down and people use more of it


Lets hope not because if that is the case then we are headed toward Idiocracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy. Only morons would use more lighting based on cost not need. Are their really people out there that have rooms that are not bright enough because they can't afford to add another bulb to the mix?


By fleabag on 8/27/2010 1:30:05 AM , Rating: 2
Yes. Also, if people believe that the lighting is cheap or is "green" or some any number of excuses to make themselves feel better, they'll just leave the lights on without any consideration to the fact that they're doing more damage now than they were previous.

Buying Green Can Be License For Bad Behavior, Study Finds
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/09100...


By thurston on 8/26/2010 7:59:13 PM , Rating: 2
Are you sitting at home wishing you could turn on more lights but just can't afford to? I use compact florescent and don't turn on any more lights than I did when I used incandescent. If I need light in a part of my home I turn the light on. If I don't I turn the light off. Only an idiot would say to them-self "I've got energy efficient lighting I'll just leave my lights on for the hell of it." Though Reclaimer77 has stated previously that one of his motivations for not using compact fluorescent lighting is to spite commie tree-hugging liberals.

quote:
If someone gets a car that gets much better gas mileage, you cannot sit there and expect them to drive the same exact amount as they would have when their monthly fuel costs were much higher.


Why not? I'm not sitting here wanting to drive somewhere but not doing it because of gas prices. If I want or need to drive somewhere then I do. I don't just drive because I've got gas in the tank and I would imagine that most others are the same.

quote:
If someone were to go out and buy an air conditioner that drastically lowered their electric bill in the summer - chances are they would turn the thermostat down farther and leave it on for longer periods of time making the entire efficiency gains null from a power savings standpoint.


Why? I must be different from everyone else because I set the thermostat at what is comfortable to me. I would hope that people don't just try to consume as much as possible for the sake of consuming.


RE: Less dangerous components and radiation
By guffwd13 on 8/26/2010 10:11:36 AM , Rating: 4
No I must disagree entirely - and this study is apparently for a self-serving agenda as anyone in the industry today examining it as closely as this guy is would know the next generation of lighting is not limited to just lighting. Its all about the control systems that are going to run them. The future of lighting, both residential and commercial will be monitored actively from a home computer (with 16+ cores of processing power - they'll be able to spare a core without detriment to the machine's power). These control systems will optimize performance and only run what is necessary. No one in the bedroom? Why are the lights on? The system will turn them off until someone else walks in.

Second, he makes a comment that "more light is better" for worker productivity. Actually, the OPPOSITE has been found to be true in many extensive studies performed by the USGBC, the Center for Building Performance and Diagnostics and others. You cannot just take bulbs, light a space enough so that you see everything and expect it to work. Quite the contrary, by ONLY lighting the tasks necessary, the mind no longer gets as easily distracted and can better focus on the tasks at hand... not to mention fatigue on the eye and radiant temperature differentials that lead to headaches in some poor schemes.

Yes, if someone gets something cheaper they are more likely to use more, but not if the system prevents user stupidity.

And third, upgrading from a 20mpg car to a 40mpg car - I'd love to see a study that proves the car useage DOUBLES to even EQUAL the gas consumption of the previous car.

No, the argument here is entirely self-serving and wrong. They left out all the details.


By dubldwn on 8/26/2010 11:55:33 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
And third, upgrading from a 20mpg car to a 40mpg car - I'd love to see a study that proves the car useage DOUBLES to even EQUAL the gas consumption of the previous car.

Yeah, you replace all your 60W bulbs with 15W CFL's, I'm supposed to believe you will use 4X the lighting? This whole assertion makes no sense to me.


RE: Less dangerous components and radiation
By theapparition on 8/26/2010 11:58:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The future of lighting, both residential and commercial will be monitored actively from a home computer

So the benefits of all that lighting will be mitigated by running a computer and sensors 24/7.

quote:
No one in the bedroom? Why are the lights on? The system will turn them off until someone else walks in.

Don't parents teach kids these days to flick the light switch off when you leave the room? So now we need a multi-thousand dollar solution to the light switch.

quote:
And third, upgrading from a 20mpg car to a 40mpg car - I'd love to see a study that proves the car useage DOUBLES to even EQUAL the gas consumption of the previous car.

This I completely agree with. If I bought a more fuel efficient car, that wouldn't sway me in the least on travel. Who's going to get in and drive more just because they can.

Same with electricity. If my electric bill were to suddenly half overnight, I doubt I'd be going out and buying new light fixtures.


By thurston on 8/26/2010 12:20:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Don't parents teach kids these days to flick the light switch off when you leave the room?


No, parents want as little to do with their children as possible. I wish people would stop having children.


By Spuke on 8/26/2010 12:32:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This I completely agree with. If I bought a more fuel efficient car, that wouldn't sway me in the least on travel. Who's going to get in and drive more just because they can.
I'm not sure people would ONLY drive more but, like someone else mentioned, they would take the money saved and use it for something else. And that something else may entail energy usage which may result in overall similar energy usage. People exert this behavior already in other things. Don't think like the 2% geek or the conservationist that you may be because your average person is none of that. See my other post about computer purchases.


By Solandri on 8/27/2010 3:56:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
No I must disagree entirely - and this study is apparently for a self-serving agenda as anyone in the industry today examining it as closely as this guy is would know the next generation of lighting is not limited to just lighting. Its all about the control systems that are going to run them. ... These control systems will optimize performance and only run what is necessary.

It's not pushing a self-serving agenda. It's describing a well-known and intensely studied phenomenon which seems to hold true for most forms of resource consumption. The more efficient and cheaper you make the resource, the more of it we tend to consume, mostly or in some cases completely counteracting the efficiency savings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

Will lighting in the future fall into the same pattern? I don't know. But the article is just pointing out that in the past, it has followed the same pattern.


LED
By inighthawki on 8/26/2010 7:16:07 AM , Rating: 5
Stands for Light-emitting diode, not light-emitting device...

quote:
Replacing the Edison lightbulb with solid-state light-emitting devices (LEDs)




RE: LED
By Denigrate on 8/26/2010 8:48:12 AM , Rating: 4
I've read better from 8th graders than we are now getting from some so called writers on this site.


RE: LED
By FITCamaro on 8/26/2010 8:58:24 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft Word has spelling and grammar check. If they don't throw a flag, DT probably isn't going to catch it.


RE: LED
By inighthawki on 8/26/2010 9:51:14 AM , Rating: 2
The funny thing is he still hasn't changed it as of my writing this post. And there are several posts about it too...


RE: LED
By thurston on 8/26/2010 12:23:07 PM , Rating: 2
Who is he?


RE: LED
By Spuke on 8/26/2010 12:32:46 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Who is he?
You know, that guy.


RE: LED
By inighthawki on 8/26/2010 12:49:33 PM , Rating: 2
I made the quick mistake of saying he instead of she, but if you honestly didn't know (if you're being sarcastic, sarcasm tags would be nice) I was referring to the writer of the article, as was obvious by my original post.


RE: LED
By thurston on 8/26/2010 8:41:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
if you're being sarcastic, sarcasm tags would be nice


Sorry <sarcasm> didn't know they were needed.


RE: LED
By ppardee on 8/26/2010 4:22:45 PM , Rating: 2
And yet you keep coming back...


RE: LED
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/26/2010 1:19:26 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Stands for Light-emitting diode, not light-emitting device...


To be fair the Sandia National Laboratory called them "light emitting devices" (read the source link). That's coming from some of the nations' top electronics researchers (albeit funneled through PR people).

Apparently the U.S. top scientists' call them "...devices" or at least that's what their PR people would have you believe... So perhaps it's a usable, but less desirable alternative?


RE: LED
By MrTeal on 8/26/2010 2:37:15 PM , Rating: 2
It might just be a case of unfortunate coincidence. Generally the LED lights you buy contain several LEDs, along with electronics and optics. So, they would technically be a light emitting device built around light emitting diodes.


RE: LED
By JediJeb on 8/26/2010 6:30:38 PM , Rating: 3
Problem is by that definition an incandecent bulb is also an LED ( Light Emmiting Device) as is a candle or oil lamp.


RE: LED
By TSS on 8/27/2010 10:14:26 AM , Rating: 2
So just because somebody "smarter" got it wrong means everybody else should just ignore and blissfullly accept the error?

Actually, that sentance comes closer to turning science into religion then everything i've seen so far. go me.

Back ontopic, it's not usable simply because you can say "this is an LED bulb", but you cannot say, "this is a light emitting device bulb". You cannot use an abbrevation if the referrance of that abbrevation isn't what that abbrevation stands for.

i learn of leather (lol) at you.


"Preserve Darkness"
By Spacemenow17 on 8/26/2010 7:58:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
allow humans to preserve darkness when necessary


So now we are running out of darkness and we need to preserve it. Could you people just stop with the useless studies already.




RE: "Preserve Darkness"
By magneticfield on 8/26/2010 9:25:21 AM , Rating: 2
Perhaps you think that astronomy is useless, they are the first who need clear dark skies at night.

Or perhaps you wouldn't mind never seeing the stars again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_pollution


RE: "Preserve Darkness"
By Spuke on 8/26/2010 11:37:51 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Perhaps you think that astronomy is useless, they are the first who need clear dark skies at night.
I think you're taking his post out of proportion. Not to mention, there's TONS of light pollution as it is and since you eco-nuts like to live in cities, you're the major contributor to why astronomers are having increasingly more problems seeing said stars. Lead by example and turn off YOUR lights.


RE: "Preserve Darkness"
By JediJeb on 8/26/2010 6:35:01 PM , Rating: 2
Definately need to reduce light pollution, but it can also be done without turning off lights. The best comprimise is to use shielded lights so the light illuminates the area of interest and doesn't shine off in directions you don't need it to.

I would love to be able to see more stars at night, and I don't even live near a large city, just a small town.


The REAL point of energy Efficiency & Savings now.
By Hafgrim on 8/26/2010 9:27:59 AM , Rating: 2
The point everyone including the article misses is not how much *less* energy production we're having to produce.. BUT how much *MORE* power we would have to produce if we had not come up with these new more energy efficient lights to begin with.

Think about it that way and it all makes sence.

We are headed down a road where are non-infinite resources, WILL run out eventually. Every gain we make in power savings will allow us to last just that little bit longer and hope we find a way to power our consumerist lifestyles before the resources to power it all, will all run out.

Simply put in a very easy to understand way is, if you have ever played an RTS game like Starcraft for example. When you run out of resource to gather you hit a brick wall and you find more resource somehow somewhere or become crippled severly... We are living in an expand or die way of life at this point & it will only get worse & worse because we will just consume more & more energy as populations continue to grow, not less. So the better more efficient lights & cars now, might save us later on before we hit the brick wall that *is* inevitably coming. That is the real point we should take from this article, that I would point to. =)




By mdogs444 on 8/26/2010 9:42:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Think about it that way and it all makes sence.

No, it doesn't make SENSE. I think you need to rethink things.

You really need to look at how most people use disposable income. If you have a car that gets 20MPG, your average monthly fuel costs are X. If you get a new car that gets 40MPG, your average monthly fuel costs are X/2. If you think that's where it ends - saving money and using less energy, than you're incredibly naive.

When people have more disposable income, they spend it on other things that they wouldn't have before because they didn't have the money for it. In this case - they can go on more vacations, more trips, more entertainment, etc - which require you to use energy that you would not have used previously.

You are just doing more things with the amount of money you have, which means you're using more energy than you were before because you can now afford to do so on the same budget.

You cannot say that these people would have used that energy regardless - because they wouldn't. They are doing it only because they have more disposable income than they had before.


By Spuke on 8/26/2010 11:48:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
When people have more disposable income, they spend it on other things that they wouldn't have before because they didn't have the money for it.
I used to see this all the time when I worked retail for a local computer store (not Best Buy). Our prices were generally lower than the competition and, without fail, people would buy more expensive parts or software when they saved money on other stuff.

I agree with mdogs, the saved money goes elsewhere in the budget. Only people with conservation in mind actually strive to use less. On a side note, I've never met a poor conservationist. The one's I've known lived way better than me.


By JediJeb on 8/26/2010 6:38:23 PM , Rating: 2
I'm in the minority I guess. I would put the money in savings and maybe be able to retire sooner :)


Diode
By acer905 on 8/26/2010 7:11:54 AM , Rating: 5
Seriously... LED... Light-emitting DIODE , not device.




RE: Diode
By FITCamaro on 8/26/2010 7:50:10 AM , Rating: 2
So wait the sun isn't an LED?


Power usage would go up anyway
By nafhan on 8/26/2010 10:05:33 AM , Rating: 2
I think power usage will continue to climb as long as energy is relatively cheap. Where power efficiency helps is not in lowering the amount of energy we use, but in allowing us to have the energy available for other uses at a reasonable price (time to buy a new GPU...).




RE: Power usage would go up anyway
By mcnabney on 8/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: Power usage would go up anyway
By Spuke on 8/26/2010 12:00:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That way the free market takes over and creates the efficient products because people now have a vested interest in them.
Raising taxes is not part of the so-called free market. There is nothing free about increasing control. And raising taxes on energy in an attempt to control it has nothing to do with free.


By MikieTImT on 8/26/2010 4:15:07 PM , Rating: 2
Well, we don't exactly live in a free market, do we? Instead of raising taxes to make consumption quotas, why don't we just eliminate all subsidies/loan guarantees on existing technologies? Then, the market is truly free.


Energy Production???
By AnnihilatorX on 8/26/2010 8:09:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Study Shows Increased Lighting Efficiency Will Not Cause Decline in Energy Production


You mean Energy Usage?




RE: Energy Production???
By AnnihilatorX on 8/26/2010 8:11:23 AM , Rating: 2
Right, I see what you mean

But still, Energy production of course won't reduce, as population keep increasing and people living standard keep increasing. It's nothing to do with efficiency increase being useless.


This is Jevon's Paradox from 1865
By randomly on 8/26/2010 7:54:22 AM , Rating: 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

Increasing energy efficiency is a very good thing, but it will not reduce the amount of energy that people consume. This is why the Negawatt approach to energy use reduction is highly suspect.

Unfortunately the only sure way to promote efficiency AND reduce energy consumption is to make energy more expensive.

One way to do this is to shift some government taxes away from things like income tax and put them on energy, without increasing the over-all tax burden on the population.




One thing
By Ammohunt on 8/26/2010 1:57:08 PM , Rating: 2
Less demand for electricity only raises prices the electric companies have to make up the difference in operating costs so when they sell less the will have to charge more. Its great to save the earth and all but Electric companies are for profit businesses.




Two points
By Armassault on 8/27/2010 10:25:28 AM , Rating: 2
First of all, yes, (some of the) typical consumers will probably use more or less the same power for lighting. But I doubt we'll be increasing the use of lighting in street lights and in workplaces. The energy savings should be noticeable in some areas.

Second, LED's last up to 30 years, reducing waste in production and disposal. The article skips that fact.




The study is stupid.
By namechamps on 8/27/2010 10:49:26 AM , Rating: 2
While lower cost may increase consumption it isn't a linear relaitonship.

Anyone think if their car got double gas mileage they would suddenly drive twice as much. What about triple or quadruple? Would you just drive around aimlessly to keep consumption up.

60W bulb to 15W CFL. So someone is going to keep lights on 4x as long? Really. Average light is used for 4 hours. So it is going to go to 16 hours per day? Say in 10 years that 60W is replaced with a 6W LCD (twice as efficient as current models). So people are going to start running their lights 40 hours a day? Or buy 2 for no reason just to run them 20 hours a day each?

While their is an offset with increased efficiency it is never 1:1. By that logic we should all drive 4 ton Hummers that get 4 mpg. The same "logic" works both ways right. Everyone will cut their driving by 80% to keep consumption exactly the same.




By ZachDontScare on 8/26/2010 3:17:19 PM , Rating: 1
If the cost of energy goes down due to higher efficiency, people will use more of it. Its like gasoline... people drive more when gas is cheap.

What I want to do is a study about all these stupid studies. Quick, someone give me $50 million. I promise, I'll create or save 2 jobs with it.




"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates













botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki