Understanding Light Bulbs - CFLs vs LEDs: "or nearly 23 years.
LEDs do not “burn out” like traditional bulbs and can reduce cooling costs since they emit very little heat, and heat is what wastes energy when you’re talking about lighting. This style of bulb is very durable, as it does not have a fragile shell or filament that may shatter, as happened frequently with conventional incandescent bulbs.
CFL BULBS
CFLs, or compact fluorescent light bulbs, are the tubular- and helical-shaped bulbs that use about 75 percent less energy than a traditional incandescent bulb. They are relatively inexpensive, though not as efficient in comparison to LEDs. Their lifespan is about nine years with normal usage and they can save you up to 75 percent on energy bills.
CFLs do contain a very tiny amount of mercury, about 4 milligrams per bulb, which is never released while the bulb is in use or intact. Your local waste collection agency can advise you on proper recycling of these bulbs.
HALOGEN BULBS
Halogen bulbs are another option to consider. They look and perform much like the conventional incandescent bulbs that are being phased out. Their energy savings and longevity does not compare to CFLs or LEDs, though they are still more efficient than the traditional option."
'via Blog this'
Sunday, August 24, 2014
Is LED The Most Efficient Lighting Technology?
Is LED The Most Efficient Lighting Technology?: "Another area where LED lighting technology really shines is in cold temperatures, for example, illuminating freezer storage areas. In sub-zero temperatures, fluorescent fixtures take a few minutes to warm up to full brightness. This means that you have to more or less turn the light on at the beginning of the work day, and leave it on until everyone goes home.
However, since LEDs come up to full brightness instantly in sub-zero temperatures, they can be fitted with occupancy sensors that only turn the light on when people are in the room. They can therefore cut their energy consumption significantly by automatically turning off when no one's around.
But of course, these are just a couple examples of factors that can affect the efficiency of any given lighting technology. The truth is, there are a whole host of other factors that could tip the scales in favor of one technology or another.
In some situations, the features of the LED-based fixtures might add enough efficiency to a system to overcome the disadvantage created by their initial cost. In other situations, fluorescent fixtures will still be the more affordable, more efficient choice.
Which brings us to our rather unsatisfying conclusion:
Efficiency Winner: It Depends
Price Winner: It Depends
ROI Winner: It Depends"
'via Blog this'
However, since LEDs come up to full brightness instantly in sub-zero temperatures, they can be fitted with occupancy sensors that only turn the light on when people are in the room. They can therefore cut their energy consumption significantly by automatically turning off when no one's around.
But of course, these are just a couple examples of factors that can affect the efficiency of any given lighting technology. The truth is, there are a whole host of other factors that could tip the scales in favor of one technology or another.
In some situations, the features of the LED-based fixtures might add enough efficiency to a system to overcome the disadvantage created by their initial cost. In other situations, fluorescent fixtures will still be the more affordable, more efficient choice.
Which brings us to our rather unsatisfying conclusion:
Efficiency Winner: It Depends
Price Winner: It Depends
ROI Winner: It Depends"
'via Blog this'
LED vs CFL -- Which Light Bulb is More Efficient? | CleanTechnica
LED vs CFL -- Which Light Bulb is More Efficient? | CleanTechnica: "When comparing the two on paper, the efficiency of the bulbs is nearly identical, within 0.5 lumens per watt. However, with the “real world” being taken into consideration, there are certain environmental and consumer factors that make a case for both.
One factor is cost. If your primary concern is price, the CFL would be a better choice. Although the CFL has a shorter lifespan, even if you replaced the CFL three times to achieve an equivalent lifespan to the LED, you’d still have only spent $2.58 in comparison to the LED’s $45 initial purchase price.
Another factor is location. If the fixture you’re mounting the bulb in is in a place where it’s a hassle to change, that $40 difference might be worth not having to deal with it for the expected 20+ years of normal usage you’ll get out of the single LED.
The bottom line is that in a household setting, where optimal components and ideal conditions cannot be controlled, the LED and CFL light bulb are very close competitors. The decision for one over the other should be made based on the goals of the project and you may even require a mix of technologies to meet those goals."
'via Blog this'
One factor is cost. If your primary concern is price, the CFL would be a better choice. Although the CFL has a shorter lifespan, even if you replaced the CFL three times to achieve an equivalent lifespan to the LED, you’d still have only spent $2.58 in comparison to the LED’s $45 initial purchase price.
Another factor is location. If the fixture you’re mounting the bulb in is in a place where it’s a hassle to change, that $40 difference might be worth not having to deal with it for the expected 20+ years of normal usage you’ll get out of the single LED.
The bottom line is that in a household setting, where optimal components and ideal conditions cannot be controlled, the LED and CFL light bulb are very close competitors. The decision for one over the other should be made based on the goals of the project and you may even require a mix of technologies to meet those goals."
'via Blog this'
Saturday, August 16, 2014
Southern California Edison will pay $24.5M for 2011 windstorm damages, other deaths
Southern California Edison will spend $24.5 million in a settlement with the state over two incidents in 2011 that left three members of a San Bernardino family dead and 440,168 customers without power.
California’s Public Utilities Commission on Thursday approved the settlement between SCE and CPUC’s Safety and Enforcement Division, SED.
Nearly two-thirds of the settlement amount, $15 million, is required to be deposited into the state’s general fund within 30 days. The remaining $9.5 million will be used by the utility company to begin safety improvement plans in hopes of preventing future tragedies, according to the commission.
“Funding for the entire settlement will come solely from company shareholders and will not impact customer rates,” Rosemead-based SCE said in a prepared statement. “SCE believes the settlement is in the public interest and allows it to move forward with the utility’s principal mission of providing safe, reliable and affordable electric service.”
In the settlement, SCE admitted violating the Public Utilities Code, an action that led to three San Bernardino family members being electrocuted by a downed power line in January 2011. SCE also admitted electric poles and guy wires — used to brace poles — were below required safety levels and contributed to massive San Gabriel Valley power outages in late 2011.
“Remediation measures are forward-looking and, if well-designed and properly implemented, can correct problems in order to minimize or prevent the risk that harm will recur,” said Michael R. Peevey, CPUC president and commissioner assigned to the proceeding, in a prepared statement. “Importantly, the settlements require SCE to provide the CPUC with periodic reports on the results of the new programs designed to ensure that violations identified in the settlement do not happen again. This is very important, as the safety of electric infrastructure requires a proactive, ongoing commitment.”
The death of a husband, wife and their stepson were the end result of four years of faulty engineering, the settlement report indicates.
Before sunrise on Jan. 14, 2011, Steven Vego awoke to a fire in his backyard. The 43-year-old walked outside to extinguish the blaze and was electrocuted. His wife, Sharon, 42, went to help him and was also electrocuted. Their 21-year-old stepson, Jonathan Cole, followed in his mother’s footsteps and was killed as well.
The two remaining family members, a 17-year-old girl and her younger brother, remained inside the home and were not physically injured.
In a civil case settlement, SCE paid the two Vego children and their lawyers a combined $25 million, according to Wylie Aitken, of Aitken Aitken and Cohn, which represented the children in San Bernardino Superior Court. An SCE spokeswoman said all civil claims connected to the San Bernardino incident have been resolved but declined to discuss specifics.
SED’s investigation concluded two overhead conductors on a circuit above the Vego’s north San Bernardino neighborhood came into contact or near contact, causing one phase conductor to break and fall to the ground near the Vego’s home on Acacia Avenue.
Before the tragic morning, problems occurred on the same circuit between Dec. 23, 2006, and Oct. 14, 2008, resulting in blown fuses and conductor failures, according to the 40-page report and settlement agreement.
“SCE did not properly consider the potential significance of the previous incidents in designing, constructing or maintaining the facilities near the site of the Acacia Avenue Incident,” the report states.
The $16.5 million payout from the Acacia Avenue Incident was determined by multiplying the maximum penalty — $20,000 — to the days between the Acacia Incident and the October 2008 contact — 822 days — and rounding up.
Neither SED nor SCE said the fines were excessive, according to the settlement report.
The remaining $8 million of the settlement stemmed from a windstorm in the fall of 2011.
The storm knocked down 243 electric poles, the report says, eliminating power to 440,168 customers in the San Gabriel Valley, about 9 percent of SCE’s current 4.9 million customers.
Outages lasted up to eight days, and 226,053 customers were simultaneously without power, according to the agreement between SCE and SED.
In addition to the substandard safety levels of the electric poles and their braces, SCE’s collection methods prevented SED from reconstructing all but five of the failing poles for analysis.
“In mitigation, SCE believes that the preservation of all poles, conductors, and other associated equipment would have hindered SCE’s efforts to restore power to its customers impacted by the windstorm at some locations,” the settlement report states.
In the wake of the storm, SCE provided subpar customer service, according to the report, by giving customer’s incorrect power restoration estimate times, increasing the settlement agreement by $3.5 million to it’s $24.5 million total.
Monday, August 11, 2014
Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis: Meet "McCashier" Your $15.00 Per Hour McDonald's Worker Replacement
Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis: Meet "McCashier" Your $15.00 Per Hour McDonald's Worker Replacement: "Any readers care to check that out?
Math, Not Counting Benefits
For a location open 24 hours: The cost of human cashiers, not counting benefits, $15/hour * 24 hours * 365 days/year = $131,400
For a location open 6AM to Midnight: $15/hour * 18 hours * 365 = $98,550.
For the machine to be cost effective, all it needs to do is cost less than $100,000 a year to buy and maintain.
By the way, it won't just be McDonald's that eliminates cashiers. Expect to see machines like that everywhere. Basic cost-accounting math demands that outcome.
Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com"
'via Blog this'
Math, Not Counting Benefits
For a location open 24 hours: The cost of human cashiers, not counting benefits, $15/hour * 24 hours * 365 days/year = $131,400
For a location open 6AM to Midnight: $15/hour * 18 hours * 365 = $98,550.
For the machine to be cost effective, all it needs to do is cost less than $100,000 a year to buy and maintain.
By the way, it won't just be McDonald's that eliminates cashiers. Expect to see machines like that everywhere. Basic cost-accounting math demands that outcome.
Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com"
'via Blog this'
In L.A., getting paid to go green - Los Angeles Times Sunstarter
In L.A., getting paid to go green - Los Angeles Times: "Jenal said that could hamstring a key objective of the solar program: familiarizing the public with alternative energy sources.
"What the LADWP did right is to see this as a way to get solar throughout a lot of different places in the city. It demystifies the whole concept," Jenal said. "From the stated goal, there is no place better than nonprofits -- places where people come to congregate, come to learn -- for them to learn about the value of sustainable energy."
Leslie of the LABC said residents and smaller organizations that can't shoulder the cost of a full solar installation can still invest as shareholders in nearby projects, and would see a return once these projects become profitable.
"We didn't want a program that would only be for a select part of the city," Leslie said. "We want to make sure that solar is diverse."
"We have sunshine over 300 days a year. The sun's free," she said, "so the better we get at harnessing it, the better off we're going to be.""
'via Blog this'
"What the LADWP did right is to see this as a way to get solar throughout a lot of different places in the city. It demystifies the whole concept," Jenal said. "From the stated goal, there is no place better than nonprofits -- places where people come to congregate, come to learn -- for them to learn about the value of sustainable energy."
Leslie of the LABC said residents and smaller organizations that can't shoulder the cost of a full solar installation can still invest as shareholders in nearby projects, and would see a return once these projects become profitable.
"We didn't want a program that would only be for a select part of the city," Leslie said. "We want to make sure that solar is diverse."
"We have sunshine over 300 days a year. The sun's free," she said, "so the better we get at harnessing it, the better off we're going to be.""
'via Blog this'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)