[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:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DarkSky-list/join
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...
Jim:
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.
Dale
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
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...
writes:
> 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.
JNoles
[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
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpltr27b3062386dec27,0,2507563.story
________________________________________________________________
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
here...
A Town Hails the Night Sky
http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/longisland/ny-lidark183050791dec18,0,1389006.story?coll=ny-linews-print
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
http://www.news12.com/NewCDA/articles/article_detail/0,5942,&rid%3D5®ion%3DLI&tab%3Dtopstories&id%3D51249,00.html
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
http://members.aol.com/ctstarwchr
[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...
writes:
> 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)
http://members.aol.com/ctstarwchr/index.htm
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?
Hmmmm.
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
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.
> Dale
> TRIMMED
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/