[AT] LED lights

Tue Nov 11 04:30:19 PST 2014

I actually read an article a while back about why LED bulbs are better for
automotive lighting than Incandescent.  Not only do they burn less current
and last longer their response time for brake lights is much quicker than
incandescent.  I don't remember the details but it was significantly faster.

Charlie

-----Original Message----- 
From: Paul Waugh
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 6:35 PM
To: 'Antique tractor email discussion group'
Subject: Re: [AT] LED lights

I like your common sense. Some people go ballistic. I replaced all my bulbs
with CFL 3 years ago and have had only one failure. I replaced 3 of those
with LED (CFL still working but took them out) and love them. I don't find a
problem with LED "warming" up, they are pretty darn quick after being used
to the CFL. My 2 cents.
Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: at-bounces at lists.antique-tractor.com
[mailto:at-bounces at lists.antique-tractor.com] On Behalf Of David Bruce
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 5:20 PM
To: Antique tractor email discussion group
Subject: Re: [AT] LED lights

In my research it is very hard to compare subsidies from one part of the
economy to another and with such I find it very difficult to find the
"truth". We know that alternative energy has been quite heavily subsidized
but in the case of more traditional utilities I'm not sure we know the scope
for better or worse. I get my electrical through a rural co-op which I'm
sure has been subsidized over the years. Same goes for my telephone co-op
which also supplies cable TV and internet. Fiber to the home was put into
place here several years ago and with our population density I'm sure that
was subsidized.

I see potentially good and potentially bad but I dislike banning of
incandescent bulbs. On the other hand I have been quite happy with CFL bulbs
and I think I will like the transition to LED bulbs for those heavy use
applications. Places where I rarely turn on the light like in my attic
incandescent bulbs are the most cost efficient as their total electrical
consumption is minimal due to lack of use.

My view is purely pragmatic.

David
NW NC

On 11/9/2014 10:13 PM, charlie hill wrote:
> Take away the government subsidy and it can not stand on it's own.   Shut
> down the
> grid and it's no good without very expensive and failure prone battery
> banks.
> For years I caught hell from folks because I was the recipient of so
> called subsidies to tobacco producers.  Folks still raise a fuss about
> various farm subsidies.
> How is that
> any different than solar power subsidies?
>
> I'm not saying folks shouldn't take advantage of grid tied systems if
> it seems like a good gamble to them.  I'm just saying with the current
> state of the art it's a scam that is being paid for by other tax
> payers.  In this state t
>
> NO alternative power system (solar, wind, tide water, etc. ) can work
> without a nuke or carbon fired generator idling in the background to
> take the demand load when the alternative system doesn't work (no sun,
> wind not blowing, etc.)
>
> Charlie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: k7jdj at aol.com
> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2014 2:04 PM
> To: at at lists.antique-tractor.com
> Subject: Re: [AT] LED lights
>
> Charlie,
>
> The system is grid tied and will pay for itself in 7 years, and yes it
> is highly Government subsidized. The solar panels have an expected
> life of 35 years. My point was there are systems that are not using
> batteries.  It delivers several KW to the home or grid if enough power is
being generated.
> The owner will never pay one cent for electric power.  The system
> monitors how much power is supplied to the grid and how much power his
home uses.
> Even if his system doesn't generate as much power as he uses, they pay
> so much more for what he does produce, it offsets the difference.
> With all the Government subsidies he will hopefully come out ahead for
> a very expensive investment.  Power companies are looking for ways to
> not have to increase their investment in more power generation.
>
> Gary
> Renton, WA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: charlie hill <charliehill at embarqmail.com>
> To: Antique tractor email discussion group
> <at at lists.antique-tractor.com>
> Sent: Sun, Nov 9, 2014 9:20 am
> Subject: Re: [AT] LED lights
>
>
> Gary, that is impossible unless they are just running a dedicated
> light or device in daylight hours or "grid tied" where they are
> putting power into and taking it out of the grid.
> In order for it to be completely off grid and thus self supporting it
> HAS to have some sort of storage
> battery for the current.   Yes I know there are panels that will operate
in
> low light but they are also
> very limited on output in those conditions.
>
> Charlie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: k7jdj at aol.com
> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2014 11:46 AM
> To: at at lists.antique-tractor.com
> Subject: Re: [AT] LED lights
>
> Lot of solar systems now don not use storage batteries.
>
> Gary
> Renton, WA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: charlie hill <charliehill at embarqmail.com>
> To: Antique tractor email discussion group
> <at at lists.antique-tractor.com>
> Sent: Sun, Nov 9, 2014 7:20 am
> Subject: Re: [AT] LED lights
>
>
> Take away the government subsidies on CFL's and solar and see what
happens.
> I'm all in favor of solar but the current equipment on the market will
> not pay for it's self in energy savings before the equipment is worn
> out (include the storage batteries in that equation)
>
> Charlie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason
> Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2014 11:11 PM
> To: Antique tractor email discussion group ; dejoodster at gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [AT] LED lights
>
> Keeping the brooder warm reason for incandescent bulbs only applies to
> probably 0.02% of the population these days, if that.  Just think, if
> we keep cutting our electric use plus with solar getting cheaper, a
> lot of homes and businesses could become pretty energy independent.
> Just like the old days before power lines were run everywhere.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AT mailing list
> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
>
> _______________________________________________
> AT mailing list
> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AT mailing list
> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
>
> _______________________________________________
> AT mailing list
> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AT mailing list
> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
>
> _______________________________________________
> AT mailing list
> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
>

_______________________________________________
AT mailing list
http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at

_______________________________________________
AT mailing list
http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at 