Posted on 01/25/2012 2:55:32 PM PST by dickmc
Surprisingly, there is a better --not well known-- energy efficient lighting solution than LED for roads, factories, and the like. Interestingly, Tesla invented it! It's called induction lighting.
From the latest issue of Distributed Energy magazine...
"While its more expensive than traditional lighting, it is cheaper than LED. However, it has other benefits, such as long life, due to electrode-less technology. Because there are no parts inside the lamp, it lasts forever, which Shelton equates to 100,000 hours or roughly 20 years if left on around the clock.
LED is an adequate source light, Shelton explains, but it dissipates quicklyinduction does not. Well-suited to high-space, high-bay areas, it works well in parking lots, garage structures, and cobra head streetlights. Induction lighting also uses 60% less power than traditional lighting.
Not another light puts out the same lumens per watt ratio, says Shelton.
(Excerpt) Read more at distributedenergy.com ...
The initial overcoming of the electrical resistence of the copper wire probably eats up a lot of the initial cost, to which once overcome, the cost probably drops a bit.
/johnny
Doesn’t matter how the drop is arrived; simple “percentage” arithmetic says that a drop from 1000 to 300 is a 70% drop.
I had a sales rep loan me one of these 400 watt high bay induction lamps to demo in a shop I worked at. At the time, we had over a 100 HID lamps rated at a 1000 watts apiece. You could imagine what the electric bill was like. I installed the lamp in a corner area to get an idea of light output and coverage, and was surprised by how well it worked, and it was instant on to boot. The price was roughly double that of a 1000 watt HID fixture and bulb, but the induction lamp was guaranteed to 10 years for light output and against failures.
No.
Although I don’t know the rate of electrical resistence and I don’t need to to teach a principle, but bear with me.
But let’s say that the first 200 watts are awash, as it is used to overcome the electrical resistence.
That would leave the net wattage, to be used for power for the uninducted lighting at 800 watts and 100 watts for the inducted lighting.
In this case, if it were the case, it would mean a savings of 87.5 percent, once you account for the electricity being used just to overcome the initial electrical resistence.
Nope. Doesn’t matter where the power goes.
All the generator that powers the light cares about is that with one, it has to provide 1000 watts, with the other it only has to provide 300 watts.
A 70% reduction.
It may have been a typo then.
Or it could be a innumerate moron writing the article.
Thanks dickmc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.