Jump to content

Want to save the environment and not use LEDs?


Recommended Posts

First of all I just want to say that if you want to save power by using LEDs, more power to you. I don't want to discuss how much you will save over the years with LEDs or how much work it will save you. I already figured up the numbers for myself in my situation and minis are by far cheaper for me. Your situation may very and you will have to figure that out yourself.

Ok, now that this out of the way.

So here you are with your whole yard full of incandescent Christmas lightspulling power from the Grid. We have seen people before and sometimes they even like to pop up here on this board and post and run. Basically they say your Christmas display is using a lot of resources and your carbon footprint is way to large, etc., etc., etc.

So here you are, have a huge display and don't have the resources to switch to LEDs for whatever reason and want to "save the environment". There is a solution and I will be doing it this year. Buy Wind Power. What happens is you buy wind power somewhere and it gets put back on the grid. I will be buying my wind power from https://www.renewablechoice.com/signup - My display last year used 1400kwh and I will be buying 3000kwh powered by wind so it will pay for it and then some. It does cost more since you pay your regular power bill and then pay for it to be replaced on the grid by wind power. See the site for all the details.

Not only will I fell better about my display, if I ever have a "tree hugger" tell me display is using to much power, I can tell them that it is powered by wind.

-Richard

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you didn't run your display at ALL and paid to have some wind-generated power "put in the grid" I might buy that argument. (Or if you had your own wind generator.)

It's like me mowing my yard with a gas-powered mower but claiming I'm not hurting the environment because I gave my mother a set of solar-powered yard lights. In the end it would have been better for me to use a push-mower and not burn the gallon of gasoline.

Still, it's good because eventually the wind/solar/tidal/etc. power generation will become better and better through the research created by people like you that are essentially funding it, so there's that.

The best solution would probably be to go all LED and power with solar-charged batteries. :]

DOH! Those batteries are bad for the environment, too! :shock:

We're doomed! :laughing:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am torn, as a conservationalist and an environmental consultant as to what we should do as "citizens of the planet". Then, I remember that Al Gore wastes more energy in a month than I can conserve in a year, and I am not torn so much anymore.

I have switched to LEDs, not to conserve power for others, but only because I do not like writing a huge check to my power utility company.

And if I were to get criticism for my display (and it's contribution to manmade global warming), I would be quick to point out how much Al Gore's homes use on his TVA, federally subsidized power, home in TN and how a recent report showed his utility bill to be $2,000 per month while it sits vacant during his trips around the globe in his private chartered jet.

Of all the wacko's out there, Ed Begley Junior is the only one that practices what he espouses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

RichardH wrote:

if I ever have a "tree hugger" tell me display is using to much power

I can only hope someone tells me that this year. It would give me a great excuse to drag my pile of old tires into the front yard, light emup using a gallon of gasoline and say, "What do ya think of that light show?":laughing:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for you Richard! That's a lot better than that bogus program

of buying carbon equivalences.

I like my LED's for many reasons but the best one is more lights, less

power and no new cords! Hey maybe next year I can run my whole

show off one 16 ga cord.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sneaky Pete wrote:

RichardH wrote:

I can only hope someone tells me that this year. It would give me a great excuse to drag my pile of old tires into the front yard, light emup using a gallon of gasoline and say, "What do ya think of that light show?":laughing:

"I'll tell you what..."

Them There are Pyrotechnics....

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

Received a really nice card in the mail from the folks at renewablechoice.com

They sent me a Christmas Card with it signed by all the folks there and each person wrote something very personalized about how much they loved the lights. They also sent me a tiny Wind Mill Model. :) - I was just on their site today and saw they featured me on their blog at

http://www.renewablechoice.com/blog

I know it would be better if I did not run a display at all, but at least this is a start until I get switched over to LEDs when the price comes down.

-Richard

Link to post
Share on other sites

David Balch wrote:

They can put 2-4 windmills in my yard

That woull be a beeeeauuuutiful sight a far as I am concerned

Hey: get a windmill in your front yard and make a mega tree out of it at Christmas. Elimates the problem of what kind of pole and support to use.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ChuckHutchings wrote:

That was pretty cool. Did you know they were going to do that or was it a surprise?

Also - maybe next year you could use mini-mills instead of mini-trees! :]

I just found out about it yesterday so it was a surprise.

I was working on my web site and was updating my FAQ. I was curious if that page would come up if I typed in "Wind Holdman". To my surprise the blog on that page showed up!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm working on obtaining some centrifuges from Russia so that I can purify my uranium that I dug up in the desert. I'll then be able to use my nuclear reactor (also Russian) to power my display and TADA! no carbon footprint at all! It'll be a glowing footprint, but it won't be carbon!

I'll know that the global warming crowd is serious about reducing carbon dioxide emmissions when they start promoting nuclear power. Until then they are still just a bunch of anti-capitalists that have attached to the green movement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I want one of these!

http://www.stirlingenergy.com/whatisastirlingengine.htm

I saw one of these on discovery, the suns concentration is so bright you have to wear welding mask to look into the back of the engine..

The engine design that turns the generator is cool! A small version will run off the heat of your hand..

( I bought my wife a diamond bracelet for Christmas on a CC, does that qualify as a Carbon credits???)

Link to post
Share on other sites

RichardH wrote:

So here you are, have a huge display and don't have the resources to switch to LEDs for whatever reason and want to "save the environment". There is a solution and I will be doing it this year. Buy Wind Power. What happens is you buy wind power somewhere and it gets put back on the grid. I will be buying my wind power from https://www.renewablechoice.com/signup - My display last year used 1400kwh and I will be buying 3000kwh powered by wind so it will pay for it and then some. It does cost more since you pay your regular power bill and then pay for it to be replaced on the grid by wind power. See the site for all the details.

This may be less environmentally friendly than you think. If you know someone in management or on the board of a normal (gas or coal powered) power plant, ask them what happens when windmills that are tied into their grid are brought online.

My dad is a board member associated with one such place. When the windmills are brought online and are generating, the normal power plant next to them mustbe broughtup to at least the same number of KWs in a "non-generating reserve". This means the plant must be generating at least the same number of KWs as the wind is generating, but they are prohibited from injecting it into the grid, causing it to go to waste:shock:. This is so that if the wind would suddenly die, the standard plant can immediately inject the power into the grid and prevent a cascading collapse of the grid. Depending upon the type of generating plant, the time frame to bring the plant up can be from hours to 3 days.

So, by buying 3000 KWh of wind generated energy, you then wasted 3000 KWh of coal or gas powered energy in a next generating station over :shock:.You also then used the 3000 KWh in your display.You won't find this fact in the reports on the company you purchase energy from. You will only find it buried in the reports of the company required to hold the "non-generating reserve" online.

What is bad is that a power company in Florida can own the windmills on a hill in Kansas. The company in Florida can "purchase" the power to reduce their carbon footprint and increase their green score. The power company in Kansas, which has the windmills physically tied into their grid, is the one that has to pay for the "non-generating reserve" that is associated with it.

I'm not trying to knock your intents, or or desire to be green. I think we should all be environmentally conscious. It is important to know all the facts about some of the alternative fuels. I'm not sure I have all the facts, but this one is shocking.

LEDs anyone?

- Keith

Link to post
Share on other sites

Texernie wrote:

This may be less environmentally friendly than you think. If you know someone in management or on the board of a normal (gas or coal powered) power plant, ask them what happens when windmills that are tied into their grid are brought online.

My dad is a board member associated with one such place. When the windmills are brought online and are generating, the normal power plant next to them mustbe broughtup to at least the same number of KWs in a "non-generating reserve". This means the plant must be generating at least the same number of KWs as the wind is generating, but they are prohibited from injecting it into the grid, causing it to go to waste:shock:. This is so that if the wind would suddenly die, the standard plant can immediately inject the power into the grid and prevent a cascading collapse of the grid. Depending upon the type of generating plant, the time frame to bring the plant up can be from hours to 3 days.

So, by buying 3000 KWh of wind generated energy, you then wasted 3000 KWh of coal or gas powered energy in a next generating station over :shock:.You also then used the 3000 KWh in your display.You won't find this fact in the reports on the company you purchase energy from. You will only find it buried in the reports of the company required to hold the "non-generating reserve" online.

What is bad is that a power company in Florida can own the windmills on a hill in Kansas. The company in Florida can "purchase" the power to reduce their carbon footprint and increase their green score. The power company in Kansas, which has the windmills physically tied into their grid, is the one that has to pay for the "non-generating reserve" that is associated with it.

I'm not trying to knock your intents, or or desire to be green. I think we should all be environmentally conscious. It is important to know all the facts about some of the alternative fuels. I'm not sure I have all the facts, but this one is shocking.

LEDs anyone?

- Keith

This is interesting.

How do they generate power then waste it? Big resistor banks?

I can see them bringing boilers and turbines on-line and letting them idle, producing nearly no outputbut to generate then waste the power seems extremely difficult.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand this...please educate me.

Regardless of whether you buy into wind energy or not, if the wind is blowing and the windmills are turning...THEY ARE going to put that energy onto the grid regardless of what you paid them. Correct? If so, then what is the point?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wayne Kremer wrote:

I don't understand this...please educate me.

Regardless of whether you buy into wind energy or not, if the wind is blowing and the windmills are turning...THEY ARE going to put that energy onto the grid regardless of what you paid them. Correct? If so, then what is the point?

Yes, I am sure they don't "hold" back energy because nobody paid for it.

Really the money actually goes towards future building of wind mill farms. Generating power from wind mills cost more than a typical coal plant which is one reason why I am guessing you don't see companies jumping all over it and investing money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah! OK, now that I can understand and appreciate. I know that wind energy isn't cheap (nor is solar), but I'm for anything green...even if it meansinitially spending more on utilities.

Speaking of green, I know that many in Utah are fighting the proposed coal plant near Ely since it would blow downwind right into your neighborhood. They want to put 2 coal plants north of Reno as well and many don't want it (including myself). I wish coal was much cleaner and environmentally friendly. :?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...