USE LED, Shut down a Nuclear power plant!

I have the permission of the person that sent this e-mail to post it.

For Immediate Release

One Light Bulb to Shut Down Nation's Largest Power Plant



(Fortuna, California) Last month, the Washington Post reported a Harris Interactive survey showing that business owners project a major loss in revenue as consumer concern over energy costs continue to grow and in profits as their own energy bills soar.





With energy costs on the rise and confidence in the economy taking a hit because of it, C. Crane Company Inc., the pioneer in Light Emitting Diode or LED flashlights, offers a solution to save consumers and businesses approximately $70 a year for every bulb they replace.



For consumers who replace accent lights, porch lights, or reading lights with these standard-fitting, long-lasting bulbs, replacing just 5 bulbs would save up to $350 each year. With bulbs lasting 60 times longer than incandescent and 6 times longer than CFL (compact fluorescent lights) bulbs, businesses save energy costs, and the labor costs of changing bulbs.



C.Crane's LED light bulbs make it easy to participate in the EPA's (Environmental Protection Agency) "Change a Light, Change the World" campaign, which encourages the replacement of one regular light bulb per household with an energy-efficient bulb. The EPA states that if each American household were to replace just one regular light bulb with an energy-efficient bulb, the country would save an astounding $600 million dollars in energy costs.



In fact, if every household in the United States replaced just one standard 60W light bulb with the new VIVID LED bulb, the country would save 24,184,400,000W, which is enough to completely shut down the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, the largest power plant in the country.



"My favorite thing about these LED light bulbs is that they give a tangible thing you can do to combat excessive power consumption in this county," remarked company president, Bob Crane, noting that burning billions of pounds of fuel is probably not good for the planet. He added "It makes good sense on an individual level, too, since it even helps their own pocketbooks."



For over 25 years C. Crane Company, a privately held company, in Fortuna, California, has been the leading innovator in the electronics industry and design. C. Crane Company has been a forerunner in LED lighting sales and technology since they began their research and development of multiple white LED flashlights in 1997. Their catalog is filled with unique products, many of which were designed or co-designed by C. Crane Company. C. Crane Company prides themselves on listening to customers' needs and producing items that exceed their expectations. A commitment to quality, value and top-notch customer service makes C. Crane Company the right new choice for electronics. Look for several new innovations from C. Crane Company at this January's Consumer Electronics Show. For more information about this C. Crane Company and their products, please contact 1-800-522-8863 (TUNE) or visit them on the web at www.ccrane.com.

MikeF said:

With energy costs on the rise and confidence in the economy taking a hit because of it, C. Crane Company Inc., the pioneer in Light Emitting Diode or LED flashlights, offers a solution to save consumers and businesses approximately $70 a year for every bulb they replace.

For consumers who replace accent lights, porch lights, or reading lights with these standard-fitting, long-lasting bulbs, replacing just 5 bulbs would save up to $350 each year. With bulbs lasting 60 times longer than incandescent and 6 times longer than CFL (compact fluorescent lights) bulbs, businesses save energy costs, and the labor costs of changing bulbs.

Click to expand...

60 watt bulb, 12 hours per day, 365 days per year @ .116 $/KwH is about $30.00 per year.

Clearly the ad is a bit misleading.

The EPA states that if each American household were to replace just one regular light bulb with an energy-efficient bulb, the country would save an astounding $600 million dollars in energy costs.

Click to expand...

Or about $2.00 per year per person.

In fact, if every household in the United States replaced just one standard 60W light bulb with the new VIVID LED bulb, the country would save 24,184,400,000W, which is enough to completely shut down the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, the largest power plant in the country.

Click to expand...

I'm to lazy to do the math here but it seems wrong.

For me saving $70/yr would take replacing a 100 watt run 24 hours a day x 365.

Oh and the replacement would have to consume no power while putting out 1600 lumens.

I hate over hyped stuff like this. Puts me off a vendor completely. The anti-nuke jab doesn't help either when our fossil alternatives are running out.

Mike

Well, my 0.02 Fuzzy math aside, granted that Nuclear power plant is operated properly it is generating much less polution than that of more conventional powerplants using coal, and other fossil fuels.
Yeah, I know Chernobyl happened, but first thing to remember is that they were running an experiment and manually shut down all safety devices and ignored all basic safety rules later on.
Hopefully cold fusion will pick up before fossil fuels run out tho

It's a strange and likely unsuccessful angle for selling LED technology. After all, you can go to the store right now and buy compact fluorescent bulbs, which are more efficient than today's white LEDs and which sell for a much lower cost per lumen.

Zvi said:

Yeah, I know Chernobyl happened, but first thing to remember is that they were running an experiment and manually shut down all safety devices and ignored all basic safety rules later on.
Hopefully cold fusion will pick up before fossil fuels run out tho

Click to expand...

Are you familiar with Soviet nuclear plant design? Chernobyl (or another similar disaster) was inevitable. Unlike American plants (and most other contries), the Soviets did not build containment domes. They had absolutely tremendous reactor vessels - something like 20m in diameter and 40m tall! They also used graphite between fuel stacks as a moderator.

While it is possible to gain efficiency of a measure great enough to not need a single nuclear power plant, keep in mind that United States population growth will necessitate the demand for increased power production.

The electrical power needs of the United States is rising, even though many devices and even industries are becoming more efficient.

Just a few facts about Nucular power plants in the United States: 1) they give off LESS RADIATION than coal fired plants 2) they are safe compared to the damage conventional power plants do to our invironment 3) in the future we will need conventional, nuclear, solar, wind and hydroelectric plants for electric unless we all start turning our lights off and live in the dark. LEDs will help, but unfortunately eveything can't run off LEDS. (I wish my freezer, stove and heater could be powered as efficiently) We will need a mix of conservation, LEDs, and all types of power generation to keep up with the growing demand for electric.

And what do these bulbs co$t....?

lingpau said:

Just a few facts about Nucular power plants in the United States: 1) they give off LESS RADIATION than coal fired plants 2) they are safe compared to the damage conventional power plants do to our invironment 3) in the future we will need conventional, nuclear, solar, wind and hydroelectric plants for electric unless we all start turning our lights off and live in the dark. LEDs will help, but unfortunately eveything can't run off LEDS. (I wish my freezer, stove and heater could be powered as efficiently) We will need a mix of conservation, LEDs, and all types of power generation to keep up with the growing demand for electric.

Click to expand...

And a "few" more people have died from coal related deaths than nucular accidents.

I hope pebble bed reactors make a comeback, but that will require education.

Mike Painter said:

I hope pebble bed reactors make a comeback, but that will require education.

Click to expand...

My experience shows that anything that requires "education" is going to have a LONG drawn-out battle to see the light of day - ie: Burn something other than gasoline in our cars!? Are you crazy? Or just a Commie?

just to give another side of the argument:

http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/chernob/rep02.html

i know the info is biased and not as reputable as a peer-reviewed journal, but i would think the events could be checked if you really wanted to.

nuclear power is not nearly as safe as many of you claim. i'm not saying coal is any better, but there are definite risks and dangers of using nuclear power.

edit: i found one for just US nuclear accidents: http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html

edit2: found another site with a good list of accidents: http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-nuclear-accidents

C Crane seems to do a better PR job.
But superbrightleds has more variaty at better prices.
http://www.superbrightleds.com/cgi-bin/store/commerce.cgi?product=MR16&cart_id=4197839.24318
So does advancedmart.
http://store.advancedmart.com/11acand12vdc.html
On the other side of the pond threr is wavicle
http://cnb-host1.clickandbuild.com/...&op=catalogue-products-null&prodCategoryID=17

I find current LED household lights to be rather dim. Runs cool though. Now that summer is over most of my LED lights are replaced by low wattage compact flouresents. Only one I am still using is a 1 watt in a gooseneck lamp clamped to my bed headboard as a night time reading light.

Study up on 3 Mile Island and you'll see that nuclear power plants are not without significant risks. That said, nuclear power might be a whole lot better for us than coal, all factors considered!

It's time this country had a Manhattan project for alternative energy.

Almost every nuclear plant built in the US has been a one off design and that's asking for grief. France did it smarter and came up with a good basic design that they replicated and refined.

Mike

We need MORE nuclear power plants, not fewer.....

That is the one thing that France has done sensibly.

As much as I like alternative energy sources, nuclear power plants are the only paractical way for us to keep our standard of living and reduce our dependence on foreign controlled energy sources.

While I might actually learn to like living in stone-age conditions, I doubt that 99% of the people in the world would. :candle:

So, if using LEDS is going to shut down one of our most efficient energy sources, I guess I'm going to have to go back to using incandescent.

I always wonder about people who want to ban oil, ban coal, ban nuclear power, yet also refuse to have wind turbines and solar panels spoiling their view and splattering bloody feathers around.

Not saying anyone here at CPF is like that, but it is something that I have often noticed among the "greenies". Heck, there are even a bunch of them that want to blow up the dams that provide clean, safe, renewable hydroelectric power .

I think that if we build a BUNCH of Nuclear plants now, the economy might get so good that we COULD invest trillions and quadrillions of dollars into alternative energy research that might produce something that would keep the greenies, the nimbys AND the people who want to lead a comfortable, civilized life happy.

This is like a discussion about religion, politics or the opposite sex! Everybody has a strong opinion and most have valid points. I think we all agree that something must be done soon or we will either run out of fossil fuel, polute the earth until we all die, or worry outselves out of our minds about nuclear accidents. There is a downside to everything. Is nuclear completely safe? Of course not. Is fossil fuel safer? It might not be. Look at what is happening because of pollution and the greenhouse effect. The potential for disaster is possible both in nuclear and conventional power generation. I personally like the idea of windmill farms, solar electric generation and hydroelectric to suppliment all other forms of electric generation. Some say no to windmill generation because of the space it requires. Others say no to solar electric generation because it will block large areas of the earth from the sun. Hydroelectric is limited to river areas and some object to its effects on nature. Pick your poison. Every choice has its consequenses. LEDs will help, but not save the world. Never the less, I'm stocking up on as many LED flashlights as my budget will allow. They just keep getting better and better!

lingpau said: "...we all agree that something must be done soon or we will either run out of fossil fuel...or worry outselves out of our minds about nuclear accidents..."

I can't believe this thread isn't locked yet, but in case anybody's interested I need to correct a few misconceptions:

There's enough fossil fuel for several hundred years in coal alone, admittedly at current rates. That's for residential and industrial use, the areas targeted by the LED lights. There are definitely emission issues, but it won't soon run out.

What will run out much sooner is petroleum, especially for transportation. By some estimates there's only a few more years before peak oil production is reached, at which time production will decline and prices greatly increase. Unfortunately, LED and other high efficiency lights don't directly help this.

National energy consumption is mostly keyed to economic output, not population. If the economy grows at 3% per year, energy consumption will grow roughly the same amount. Conservation is good but of only limited value in the long run. If every residence used LED and CF lights resulting in several percent annual energy savings, within a very few years that savings will be swallowed by the inexorable annual increase in energy consumption.

Re nuclear power, as already stated regardless of what some countries do, others such as France will continue using this very aggressively. If every residence in France used LED and CF lights, 75% of their power would still come from nuclear, and there's no plans to change this.

Re solar, wind and hydro: Hydro is already maxed out and further dam construction (in the US) is resisted by many groups. Solar/wind are OK for a few % but cannot be scaled upward to the world's titanic energy consumption, which is about 1.2E14 kilowatt hrs per year. Average solar insolation in mid latitudes is 200 kw-hr/m^2/yr. Assuming overall system efficiency of 10% (and that's being generous), it would take 1.2E14 / 200 *0.1 = 6 trillion square meters of collecting area, or 6 million square km or 1.5 billion acres, in very rough terms about the size of the US mainland. Every little bit helps but the bulk of world energy will likely never come from solar or wind.

The only alternative energy source that can be scaled upward to a significant % of world need is biomass, and even that won't work unless the most efficient techniques/crops are used (e.g. biodiesel from high yield algae) -- otherwise the land area required is too great, and the net energy gain (energy out vs energy in) is too poor.

Re the C. Crane ad for LED residential lights, as already stated you needn't wait for LED fixtures (or pay extreme prices)-- fluorescent lights are available now, much cheaper, and more efficient than current LED fixtures. So by this reasoning if C. Crane's LED fixtures shuts down a power plant, NOT buying their fixtures and instead buying fluorescent lights might shut down two plants because of the increased efficiency of flourescent over LED (varies by type of flourescent -- cold cathode flourescent is up to 80 lumens/watt).

If the thread gets locked and anybody wants to discuss further, you can continue in the Cafe forum or CPF Underground: http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=51203

Silviron said:

We need MORE nuclear power plants, not fewer.....

That is the one thing that France has done sensibly.

As much as I like alternative energy sources, nuclear power plants are the only paractical way for us to keep our standard of living and reduce our dependence on foreign controlled energy sources.

While I might actually learn to like living in stone-age conditions, I doubt that 99% of the people in the world would. :candle:

So, if using LEDS is going to shut down one of our most efficient energy sources, I guess I'm going to have to go back to using incandescent.

I always wonder about people who want to ban oil, ban coal, ban nuclear power, yet also refuse to have wind turbines and solar panels spoiling their view and splattering bloody feathers around.

Not saying anyone here at CPF is like that, but it is something that I have often noticed among the "greenies". Heck, there are even a bunch of them that want to blow up the dams that provide clean, safe, renewable hydroelectric power .

I think that if we build a BUNCH of Nuclear plants now, the economy might get so good that we COULD invest trillions and quadrillions of dollars into alternative energy research that might produce something that would keep the greenies, the nimbys AND the people who want to lead a comfortable, civilized life happy.

Click to expand...

Whenever you decide to publish a newsletter I will subscribe.

Great post.

gnef said:

just to give another side of the argument:

http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/chernob/rep02.html

i know the info is biased and not as reputable as a peer-reviewed journal, but i would think the events could be checked if you really wanted to.

nuclear power is not nearly as safe as many of you claim. i'm not saying coal is any better, but there are definite risks and dangers of using nuclear power.

edit: i found one for just US nuclear accidents: http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html

edit2: found another site with a good list of accidents: http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-nuclear-accidents

Click to expand...

These are for the most part industrial accident and barely hold a candle to deaths in the coal industry.
Once you get out of just industrial accidents you find that
Health problems linked to aging coal-fired power plants shorten nearly 24,000 lives a year, including 2,800 from lung cancer, and nearly all those early deaths could be prevented if the U.S. government adopted stricter rules, according to a study released Wednesday.