Limbaugh Interest in LEDs

A few minutes ago I was listening to Rush while out in the car. Someone called to discuss the coming replacement for incand. and CFL lighting. He said he worked for LLF, an LED fixture company just a few miles down the road from here, and now part of the Cree family. Rush gave him at least five minutes to discuss the advantages of LEDs and seemed genuinely interested. Talk centered on the "can" type fixtures LLF sells now for residential and restaurant use, and how the long term cost could be as low as 25% of current fixtures, even with the $100/fixture price. The guy really wasn't pushing his specific products, but touting the coming advantages of LEDs in most all lighting applications. Who knows, maybe Limbaugh will be lurking about here.

Geoff

A mention of CPF on Rush would be DISASTROUS for the well being of the server....

I am a regular listener and one of the many things that I disagree with El Rushbo on is his true distaste of CFLs. Yes they do have a disposal issue with mercury content but the benefits far out weigh that drawback IMHO.

I don't like the Idea of guvment mandated banning of incandescent bulbs though, I see people through local utility incentives moving to CFLs on their own.

I also hope to see LED based lighting replace most CFL and incan through free market pressure.

This could be an informative thread if we speak of the technology and not the Talk show host.

Beamhead said:

I am a regular listener and one of the many things that I disagree with El Rushbo on is his true distaste of CFLs. Yes they do have a disposal issue with mercury content but the benefits far out weigh that drawback IMHO.

Click to expand...

There's less mercury in a CFL than is released in the production of electricity from coal to run an incandescent. Including the energy to run them, CFLs have less mercury associated with them than incandescents.

LukeA said:

There's less mercury in a CFL than is released in the production of electricity from coal to run an incandescent. Including the energy to run them, CFLs have less mercury associated with them than incandescents.

Click to expand...

Then why was this needed? http://www.nema.org/gov/ehs/committees/lamps/cfl-mercury.cfm

Why have some cities and states banned the tossing of used CFLs in the trash?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7431198

As I stated before I think the benefits of CFLs out weigh this drawback.

Beamhead said:

Then why was this needed? http://www.nema.org/gov/ehs/committees/lamps/cfl-mercury.cfm

Why have some cities and states banned the tossing of used CFLs in the trash?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7431198

As I stated before I think the benefits of CFLs out weigh this drawback.

Click to expand...

Cities have banned tossing CFLs because of the same kind of people that caused the word "nuclear" to be removed from NMRI - ignorant spreaders of fear and doubt.

It's far easier for equally ignorant city officials to draw up kneejerk regulations and legislation to appease these loudmouths, than to appear as if they are allowing something bad to happen.

LukeA said:

There's less mercury in a CFL than is released in the production of electricity from coal to run an incandescent. Including the energy to run them, CFLs have less mercury associated with them than incandescents.

Click to expand...

I wasn't aware all electricity comes from coal fired plants. :ironic: Thanks for clearing that up.

Beamhead said:

I see people through local utility incentives moving to CFLs on their own.

Click to expand...

That's like saying that people will start driving hybrids due to pressure from the oil companies. The utility companies want you to use more electricity, not less.

Stereodude said:

That's like saying that people will start driving hybrids due to pressure from the oil companies. The utility companies want you to use more electricity, not less.

Click to expand...

WRONG, both SMUD and PG&E in my state spend millions on rebates for CFLs, I can get an 8 pack of 23w CFLs for around $2.50 after INSTANT utility company rebate. :shrug:

Stereodude said:

That's like saying that people will start driving hybrids due to pressure from the oil companies. The utility companies want you to use more electricity, not less.

Click to expand...

That WOULD be the case, if more use would translate into higher profits. That is not the case, because the grid is already operating at or near its critical capacity. Additional use = more failures, more public scrutiny, and more capital outlays for repairing and upgrading the grid, which the electrical company would rather not do.

It's far cheaper for them to spend a few million on giving their customers CFLs. In the long run, the 10-15% of capacity that this would save, will be used up by new electronic toys in the next couple of years... but it'll be yet another few years where the electrical companies generate revenue, but do not have to spend billions on upgrades.

Actually, this is EXACTLY what ISPs (cough... Comcast...) are doing at the moment, to reduce bandwidth use by their customers, in order to avoid upgrading the infrastructure.

meuge said:

That WOULD be the case, if more use would translate into higher profits. That is not the case, because the grid is already operating at or near its critical capacity. Additional use = more failures, more public scrutiny, and more capital outlays for repairing and upgrading the grid, which the electrical company would rather not do.

Click to expand...

It's a simple matter that the incremental cost of generating more electricity at this point outweighs what the utilty could charge for it. In many cases, new power plants would need to be built. Besides the usual 15-20 years of environmental studies, figure another 25 years tied up in courts by NIMBYs. That's 40+ years it might take to get a new plant put online, assuming you can overcome all the challenges to it (look what happened to the Shoreham nuclear plant on Long Island as a reason why new power plants are iffy propositions at best). This is why, as contradictory as it sounds, utilities want you to less less power. If they could get people to conserve to the point that they could entirely get rid of their expensive-to-run gas turbine peak power generators, they would actually be more profitable despite selling less power. Their baseline (nuclear, hydroelectric, and coal) plants are where the utility makes their money. They lose money with the gas turbines which might cost $0.50 per kW-hr to make power for which they they are only paid perhaps $0.18.

I saw an energy conference on TV where GE's CEO said that nuclear plants are actually the most profitable for utilities now. They're fully depreciated, and cost next to nothing in operating costs.

Limbaugh's thesis on this issue is that the legislature has no constitutional authority to tell us what kind of light bulbs we must use. See Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution for the scope of legislative authority.

Limbaugh's discussion was part of his broader (and correct) assertion that the federal government routinely exceeds the limits if its constitutional authority.

Focusing on the relative merits of LED vs. incan misses the point, IMO.

jtr1962 said:

I saw an energy conference on TV where GE's CEO said that nuclear plants are actually the most profitable for utilities now. They're fully depreciated, and cost next to nothing in operating costs.

Click to expand...

Absolutely.

Figure an average nuclear power plants generates about 1GW. The new ones can do 1GW per each reactor, but let's assume 1GW is the total.

That comes out to 8766 GWh per year. Let's assume that delivery losses take 50% off the top, so we're left with 4383 GWh of electricity.

Now, assume that the plant sells 50% of it wholesale at just $0.025/kW and 50% of it retail at $0.05/kW. That's >$100M in retail electricity sales... and $50M in wholesale electricity sales per year.

Assuming the power plant capital costs are around $2B, it means that it would fully cover the costs in a little over 13 years.

However, since new plants can generate this much electricity from a single reactor, and can have at least 4 reactors, the capital costs would likely not increase 4X, but the electricity sales would.

double post

I was under the impression that if a CFL is broken in your home and the glass and powder is vacuumed up, it spreads mercury thought your house. What are the recommended procedures for cleanup if a bulb breaks?

I would love to know how mercury is going to go through a hepa filter... might just be me but it seems like a bit of an exaggerated problem.

cchurchi said:

I was under the impression that if a CFL is broken in your home and the glass and powder is vacuumed up, it spreads mercury thought your house. What are the recommended procedures for cleanup if a bulb breaks?

Click to expand...

Here's the site that talks about this myth
http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp

Snopes.com said:

[FONT=Trebuchet MS,Bookman Old Style,Arial] What should I do if a CFL breaks?

Because there is such a small amount of mercury in CFLs, your greatest risk if a bulb breaks is getting cut from glass shards. Research indicates that there is no immediate health risk to you or your family should a bulb break and it's cleaned up properly. You can minimize any risks by following these proper clean-up and disposal guidelines:

• Sweep up — don't vacuum — all of the glass fragments and fine particles.
• Place broken pieces in a sealed plastic bag and wipe the area with a damp paper towel to pick up any stray shards of glass or fine particles. Put the used towel in the plastic bag as well.
• If weather permits, open windows to allow the room to ventilate.

Click to expand...

[/FONT]

powernoodle said:

Limbaugh's thesis on this issue is that the legislature has no constitutional authority to tell us what kind of light bulbs we must use. See Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution for the scope of legislative authority.

Limbaugh's discussion was part of his broader (and correct) assertion that the federal government routinely exceeds the limits if its constitutional authority.

Focusing on the relative merits of LED vs. incan misses the point, IMO.

Click to expand...

Glad someone made those three statements.

powernoodle said:

Limbaugh's thesis on this issue is that the legislature has no constitutional authority to tell us what kind of light bulbs we must use. See Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution for the scope of legislative authority.

Limbaugh's discussion was part of his broader (and correct) assertion that the federal government routinely exceeds the limits if its constitutional authority.

Focusing on the relative merits of LED vs. incan misses the point, IMO.

Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly.

What kind of vehicle to drive, food to eat, ethanol over gasoline, the "fairness" doctrine, eminent domain etc. etc.

Its amazing to me what seemingly intellingent people will put up with defending the fallacy that is "man-made" global warming or the gubment "protecting" them. (as long as THEY can afford it).

I suppose the topic of Limbaugh, whether initially involving LED or not, can't help but lead to more and more forcefulness in political comment. It's closed here, but welcome in the Underground.