[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[DSLF] Digest Number 886

To subscribe to the DarkSky List Forum send email
to:  DarkSky-list-subscribe@yahoogroups...  or visit:


Help save your town from obtrusive lighting --
Invite your Planning and Zoning department and
local officials to join us!  Please visit the IDA
website at http://www.darksky.org frequently, too!

There are 7 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

      1. Re: energy savings...
           From: Dale Reid <reid@eau...>
      2. Re: NOW with Bill Moyers
           From: Mysids@aol...
      3. Downloadable Source of Report On Lighting Energy Use
           From: "Terry McGowan" <lighting@ieee...>
      4. Reaction to Riverhead Ordinance
           From: Steve Davis <w2sgd@juno...>
      5. Re: Reaction to Riverhead Ordinance
           From: ctstarwchr@aol...
      6. Re: energy savings...
           From: ctstarwchr@aol...
      7. Re: energy savings...
           From: "James Benya" <jbenya@benyalighting...>


Message: 1
   Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 09:50:29 -0600
   From: Dale Reid <reid@eau...>
Subject: Re: energy savings...


Can you give a reference to your statement about the SUV and the energy to run 
an office?  This would be a nice tidbit to toss out during discussion, and I'd 
like a reference or logical deduction as to the energy use comparison.


Message: 2
   Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 12:17:44 EST
   From: Mysids@aol...
Subject: Re: NOW with Bill Moyers

In a message dated 12/28/02 12:41:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, w2sgd@juno... 

> Last night PBS's "NOW with Bill Moyers" was on environmental
> pollution - "Is exposure to everyday chemicals harming the
> health of our children?"  It started out with a long segment
> on lead poisoning from a smelting plant and finished by touching
> on other areas.  I could not help but think about light pollution

If the opportunity prevails itself again for LP to get into the same 
limelight as chemical pollution, present the following to the news media.   

It is well known that chemical pollutants are broken down into other chemical 
forms by many natural mechanisms.   Some chemicals can be broken down by one 
process called photodegradation, that is, the degradation of the chemical to 
the exposure to light.   Photodegradation can result in other chemical 
pollution products that may or may not be more harmful.   Usually 
photodegradation is the direct exposure to sunlight.   But in chemical 
industrial setting or another pollution site, factor in the continuation of 
light exposure from surrounding artificial lighting sources.    

It is known that microorganisms also contribute to the degradation or 
breakdown of chemical pollution.   It is also known that microorganisms can 
grow and function in the presence of artificial lighting.   Consider the 
continuous production of chemical pollutant degradation products long after 
the sun has set and the lights come on.  Also consider the potential for 
wildlife food chain contamination when these pollutant products become more 
distributed beyond the pollution source.   For example, a fish, crab or bird 
feeds on organisms inhabiting a mudflat or marsh in the vicinity of a 
industrial chemical outfall on a creek or stream where light pollution is 
usually present.   The pollutants then can accumulate and be subject to 
photodegradation, adding more chemical pollutant breakdown products into the 
environment.   The mudflat organisms accumulate those chemical pollutants and 
will transfer higher up into other wildlife that feed upon these organisms; 
the fish gets eaten by another fish, crab, bird or human and the pollutant 
moves up into the food chain.   Many illegal chemical dischargers like fast 
moving waters where the pollution is washed downstream away from the site, 
reducing the evidence of an illegal discharge.   If the fast moving waters 
are in an urban setting, then light pollution comes into the picture as a 
chemical degradation process.  If the waters feed further downstream into 
designated scenic areas, wildlife preserves or parks, then the chemical 
pollution breakdown products are spread far beyond their initial discharge 
point.   If the downstream waters are used for public recreational areas, 
children and adults swimming in those waters can be potentially at risk to 
exposure to chemical pollutants.   

Consider the added public health benefits of light pollution reduction in the 
fight against chemical pollution.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Message: 3
   Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 12:27:33 -0500
   From: "Terry McGowan" <lighting@ieee...>
Subject: Downloadable Source of Report On Lighting Energy Use

The US DOE report that I mentioned back in October that provides some
excellent and authoritative statistics on lighting and energy use can now be
downloaded from http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/documents/  in several
forms.  The whole thing is about 1.2 MB.  It's listed under Technical
Reports as:

"Volume I:  National Lighting Inventory and Energy Consumption Estimate"
Final Report, September, 2002.

As a reminder, the data indicate that all lighting (indoor and outdoor)
consumes 22% of the total electricity
(kWh) generated annually in the U.S.  Outdoor lighting uses 8% of the total
electricity used for lighting.
That's equivalent to 57.8 billion kWh per year.  Of that amount, roadway
lighting uses the most energy (54%) and parking lots are estimated to be
next at 39%.  Residential security lighting uses only about 1%.

HID lamps consume 87% of all of the electricity used outdoors and generate
96% of the lumen hours.

Terry McGowan


Message: 4
   Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 12:29:31 -0500
   From: Steve Davis <w2sgd@juno...>
Subject: Reaction to Riverhead Ordinance


Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com


Message: 5
   Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 13:41:04 EST
   From: ctstarwchr@aol...
Subject: Re: Reaction to Riverhead Ordinance

Outstanding job Susan and congratulations with the Riverhead initiative!  The 
original article that spurned the letter Steve shared earlier is available 

A Town Hails the Night Sky

There is some interesting commentary on the Riverhead issue in the video clip 
at Channel 12 where citizens react.  The news team did a great job curbing 
their fears.

Town of Riverhead in the Dark

Be sure to copy all portions of these URLs to your browser, or check the 
Articles section of the LiteLynx List where they are archived.  Links may 
only be available for a short time.

Clear skies,

Cliff Haas

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Message: 6
   Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 13:55:26 EST
   From: ctstarwchr@aol...
Subject: Re: energy savings...

In a message dated 12/29/02 11:06:21 AM Eastern Standard Time, reid@eau... 

> Can you give a reference to your statement about the SUV and the energy to 
> run 
> an office?

This would be a very intriguing anecdote to use in LP presentations and 
arguments!  It should not be too difficult for someone to develop an 
algorithm to calculate this and relate it to gasoline consumption on a watt 
for watt basis.

As a starting point, I wonder if one can determine the number of joules of 
energy delivered by burning a gallon of gas whether it could be converted 
directly to watts?  Seems likely that it could.  Isn't about 99% of the 
energy released lost to heat and friction in an internal combustion engine?  
We have about the same waste factor when consuming electricity for the 
purpose of generating light, too.

Of course this would not relate to the amount of fuel it would take to 
*generate* the electricity, but would merely represent the amount of energy 
consumed for a human convenience delivered by a different means.  It might 
make a powerful impact statement that everyone who drives a vehicle could 
relate to.

Tim P. are you up for it?  Maybe another calculator to add to your website?

Clear skies and good seeing,
Keep looking up!

Cliff Haas
Author: Light Pollution Awareness Website (LiPAW)

Fight for your right to see stars in the night!
Join IDA Today!   http://www.darksky.org

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Message: 7
   Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 14:27:14 -0800
   From: "James Benya" <jbenya@benyalighting...>
Subject: Re: energy savings...

My math works out this way:

Using EPA test figures and my memory, the average auto operating at 25-30
MPG requires about 10HP to sustain 60 MPH.  The average SUV gets about
12.5-15 MPG so it is logical to assume about twice the power use, or an
additional 10HP, since most of the difference would be used to overcome
drag.  Converted to electricity with the same efficiency as mechanical drive
(a reasonable approximation), this 10 HP would generate approximately 7500
watts (746 w/hp).  In a modern office building like the ones we design
(efficiently), the average power density for lighitng and equipment is about
1.5 w/sf, ergo 7500 w/1.5 w/sf = 5000 sf.  Needless to say these are rough
numbers, but not far off.  Also keep in mind that this is cruising at
constant velocity - much more gas is used when accelerating and much less
when decelerating.

I suspect there are some other interesting environmental trade-offs here.
Are auto emissions more or less problematic than power plant emissions?

BTW, dark sky fans, the difference between an average auto and SUV would
power about 50 average street lights.

Cliff, making this more scientifically robust is a nice little science
challenge for our professor contributors out there.

James R. Benya, PE, FIES, IALD, LC
Benya Lighting Design
1880 Willamette Falls Drive
Suite 220
West Linn, OR  97068
(503) 657-9157 cell (503) 519-9631
Fax (503) 657-9153
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dale Reid" <reid@eau...>
To: <DarkSky-list@yahoogroups...>
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 7:50 AM
Subject: Re: [DSLF] energy savings...

> Jim:
> Can you give a reference to your statement about the SUV and the energy to
> an office?  This would be a nice tidbit to toss out during discussion, and
> like a reference or logical deduction as to the energy use comparison.
> Dale



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/