Combustion versus Electricity for the Production of Light

[Garr1]

It has been claimed that switching back to the use of fire to provide light would save energy and decrease the release of pollutants into the atmosphere. But is this really true? This problem will be answered in this article.

List of Light Sources and Their Efficiency:

 

[Garr1]

Note: (The adjusted efficiency is multiplied by 24% to account for the efficiency of the fossil fuel powered Steam Turbine Plants that produce 86.4% of the electricity for the electric bulbs and multiplied by a factor of 1.16 to account for the renewable energy sources that produce 13.6% of the electricity to power the bulbs.)

Conclusion:

It is more efficient and environment friendly to use the fuel for combustion light sources to power Steam Turbine Generators and use the electricity for electric bulbs because the overall conversion efficiency of the Fossil Fuel Steam Turbine Plants and the Light Bulbs is higher than the efficiency of light directly produced by burning fuel.

 

[Budweiserbob!]

I'd still rather have the electric light. So much better.

 

[Rox_My_Sox1]

I remember reading about the sheer amount of pollution from the smoke and fumes coming from the cities during the industrial revolution as well as the occasional random fire which consumed a warehouse, a factory, or even a residential block! No thanks! Coal and wood are good for survival out in the wilderness. In the city, you need electricity!

 

[kopfhorer1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydropower

 

[PurpleStyle]

I'm sure nobody wants to hear it, but..

everything is peanuts compared to this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

If we can ever figure out Fusion, then fission will be peanuts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power

 

[Garr1]

Yes but having energy efficient appliances is also important because it will ultimately decrease the fuel consumption of the Nuclear Plants providing power to it and also reduce the nuclear fuel used in the process.

 

[Rox_My_Sox1]

If we can ever figure out Fusion, then fission will be peanuts.

Unless we...you know...blow up the freaking planet with a mistake. Shit, Fusion is awesome but it's freaking POWERFUL!

 

[PurpleStyle]

I suppose I should have clarified; sustainable fusion. We've already produced fusion in the lab - it's just not sustainable. Controlled fusion is not that powerful either. I mean, it's powerful, but controlled nuclear reactions aren't going to blow up the planet.

'Typical' deuterium-tritium fusion reactions cause only a tenth of the power of a typical fission reaction. Not only that, but one of the problems posed to the idea of sustainable fusion is the neutrons produced carry off most of the energy, so there's not really a risk in causing a "runaway Earth-destroying effect". The best example we've seen for sustainable fusion is the sun, and the only reason it appears sustainable is because it's currently enjoying 99% of the mass of the solar system. Hypothetically, if we threw enough mass into Jupiter, it would begin fusing as a brown dwarf, but that idea poses even more logistic problems. Where do we get the materials, and how do we stop the devastating gravitational effects on the solar system? :stickout

For right now, fission is fine. In the future, I imagine humanity will require more utilization of the sun's energy. It's energy output per square meter (on the Earth) per second is greater than the kinetic energy of a single D-t fusion neutron. This might seem like "peanuts" compared to the neutron, as there will be many in a nuclear reaction - but imagine covering our planet (buildings, sidewalk, roads, etc) in some sort of photovoltaic material, and we're talking massive amounts of energy absorbed in daylight.

 

[Rox_My_Sox1]

For right now, fission is fine. In the future, I imagine humanity will require more utilization of the sun's energy. It's energy output per square meter (on the Earth) per second is greater than the kinetic energy of a single D-t fusion neutron. This might seem like "peanuts" compared to the neutron, as there will be many in a nuclear reaction - but imagine covering our planet (buildings, sidewalk, roads, etc) in some sort of photovoltaic material, and we're talking massive amounts of energy absorbed in daylight.

Indeed. Solar power is an awesome energy source that we need more of! Also, what about geothermal power? Is that an option or is the temperature just too damn hot down there for us to use it?

 

[Slaver123]

I've read that a candle or any fire produces soot and releases all sorts of carcinogens into the air. Lightbulbs are healthier for our lungs.

Now I'm gonna get started on the fluorescent-lightbulb SCAM; they're bad for the environment because they contain MERCURY! Look on the box sometime; many so-called "safe, eco-friendly" fluorescent bulbs contain hazardous Mercury and can't be thrown into the regular garbage.

Then you get idiots (and companies) that use "5-year" fluorescent bulbs with dimmer switches and/or motion sensors; this kills the "5-year" bulb in about a month! I found this out by calling Westinghouse cause our lightbulbs were dying real fast at work; of course the management stooges never listened and we still use the motion sensors.... The bulbs die fast, then they get chucked in the regular trash so all that mercury can get into our water-table....

 

[Garr1]

The mercury content of the fluorescent bulbs is small compared to the mercury released by the excess fossil fuels that have to be burned to provide additional power for incandescent bulbs. And when not winter, air conditioners have to use more power because they also absorb the heat of the incandescent bulbs which also increases the mercury released from fossil fuel burning. For areas that do not need to be lit often, use LED's instead. They are more expensive but they can withstand the constant dimming and brightening and they can last an average of 11 years.