Why the Focus on Carbon Dioxide Is Idiocy

The focus on CO2 emissions as a reason for immediate action is total and utter crap. This simple minded approach to energy concerns is like complaining about the color of water flooding into your basement because you left the sump pump unplugged. The whole issue is chicken little thinking, where pundits believe that marketing a crisis will somehow cause meaningful change. There is a crisis all right, our inane and stupid addiction to throwing energy away at every possible level. Focusing on CO2 as the evil emission that we must control is a smoke screen that detracts from the real issue – our lack of engagement in energy conservation across all levels.

Here is what we are going to get from our focus on CO2 emissions as the core issue:

- A renewed interest in nuclear power generation – with all the toxic waste issues that brings to the table
- Conversion of food into ethanol fuel – including depletion of fresh water resources already strained from our lack of restraint elsewhere, while increasing food prices for the poor
- Cap and trade policies that screw the consumer while allowing the richest corporations a free ride
- A proliferation of idiotic battery powered vehicles that produce and use toxic materials, as well as increase weight that creates lower safety, more tire and brake wear, etc..
- A proliferation of wind and solar power systems that demand natural resource consumption that is far worse than older sources
- The increased use of diesel power in transportation for its fuel efficiency, while ignoring its unresolved solid particulate issues
- Conversion laws that feed the corporations and investors in conversion technology, while killing small business interests
- Really stupid big science projects to dig holes in the ground to store CO2, nuclear waste, and other toxins we will generate to avoid CO2
- Increases in the costs of autos, as the EPA adds CO2 to its hit list, which is ridiculous, since most all other regulated pollutants are converted to CO2 as a matter of past regulation
- Poor countries simultaneously deforesting to create charcoal for local energy use, then using that land to depletion to grow sugar cane to make ethanol
- Richer corporations in control while we all get poorer

These are just a few of the more rediculous effects of the focus on CO2 as the source of evil. They are also all very expensive, and will have a dramatic inflationary impact on economies stressed under the load of consumer irresponsibility today. Further, all of these will make the rich richer than ever, and the poor poorer.

So, what will we get from all of this? Nothing, nadda. The real incovenient truth is that, if the science is indeed true, that human production of CO2 is indeed causing global warming – the amount of reduction, in the face of population growth and development of nations elsewhere in the world, mean that we will have a net zero effect on actual human contribution of CO2. In fact, CO2 generation from human activity will continue to increase, even if we put in place all of the  idiotic programs to capture, sequester, convert, and control CO2, right this minute. Yet. we all know that all of these conversions will take years to put in place. Forget Al Gore, he is a simple minded marketer and shill to the energy companies, who realize that change is an opportunity to make money. why let the Arabs get so phenominally wealthy, when we can freask everyone out over CO2, and make all that money here in the USA. Gore wants us all to focus on this CO2 ball, while he, and his elites, consume energy and blame the rest of us for the fate of the planet.

The solution to all of our real problems is to REDUCE CONSUMPTION DRAMATICALLY. There is no other solution. In fact, we all waste energy, and we waste a lot of it. It’s incidious. Every pound of garbage we toss in the bin must be hauled, and put in growing landfills, which take a lot of energy to build and fill. Every degree on our thermostat, every minute a TV operates with no one in the room, every time we mash the gas on our 400HP mini-van SUV battle star. We are a horribly wasteful population, and our lifestyle of waste has shaped our communities around even greater waste. We commute to work at distances designed to consume energy. We have homes that are big to impress neighbors, that sit heated and air conditioned while we work in other air conditioned and heated spaces that are larger than necessary. We like our incandescent lamps, we love our big horsepower cars, we love our big idiotic homes, we love our big yards and the rider mower it takes to keep them trimmed, and we love that snow blower and its 9HP of snow pushing capability. We eat out so much we have become bloated and fat, while driving to and from the resturaunts in idiotic cars large and inefficient.

We have power plants that generate hot water to make steam to turn turbines to make electricity, that is transmitted to plants and homes that take that electricity to heat water, while the power plant increases the temperature of waterways from dumping waste heat into estuaries they are built next to. We have generating facilities to feed our peak demand, that also burn energy away in large reisters off-peak in order to avoid throttling obsolete generating systems. Our electrical grid system absorbs and wastes energy from long transmission distances, bad line system design, poor infrastructure, and voltage conversions. We burn fuel to move coal, to burn to make heated water, to make turbines turn to make generators spin, to generate electricity, that we waste and waste and waste.

If we add all of the waste built into our lifestyle, infrastructure, technnologies, and addiction to all things electrical and fuel powered, the actual real work we attain is less than 10% of the actual energy potential extracted from the earth in all forms. This is the real issue, not CO2 at all. Reduce energy consumption and here’s what you get:

- Less need for ANY form of new generating or fuel source capacities
- Less impact in CO2, less environmental damage caused by energy creation and consumption
- Lighter cars that are safer in crashes as well as in end-of-life recovery
- Less wasteful homes that are cheaper to maintain
- A sustainable society with a future

We know we can do the following right this minute, with very little real pain:

- Save between 70% and 90% in energy used for lighting by reducing light levels, adding simple controls, and converting obsolete luminaires to high efficiency fluorescent and LEDs
- Save easily 50% of the energy used for auto transportation by moving into cars that are right sized for the use. Small 2 seat cars for daily commuting, with little motors that get 40MPG, rather than 18MPG SUVs
- Save 30% to 50% of the energy used for heating and air conditioning by simply installing programmable t-stats and turning the temps down in winter and up in summer, and sealing off unused rooms
- Save 70% of energy from waste management by throttling idiotic buying of crap we do not need, skipping the bags, and recycling
- Save 70% of transportation costs from purchase of products made here in the USA, not distant countries on the other side of the globe
- Save 30% to 50% of the fuel we use every week by planning trips, not driving when it is not necessary, and more careful driving behavior

These are just a few ideas that work. Now, put our backs into it, and we can all, as individuals, reduce energy demand by no less than 60%, without suffering in anu meaningful way. This more than doubles energy capacity in this country, with no new power plants, not one new nuke, not a single new coal fire facility, not one additional oil well.

Why can we not see this as the real issue? Why do we need to suffer this rediculous parade of pundits and politicians touting CO2 as our enemy? Simple, we are all dupes to the corporate marketers, who want their cake and eat it too. In fact they want all of the cake, and they want to get fat eating it. They want us to believe that we need more energy, not use less. The only time they want us to use less is during peak demand, which makes them build capacity. They’d prefer we use more off-peak, where they can make money. Politicians want to keep the energy lobbiests happy, so we get to pay. We will pay for CO2 abatement, sequestration, cap and trade… all because we refuse to do the one thing we all have real control over, consumption.

Take back our country from the politicians, and the Al Gore psuedo environmentalist dupes of the energy corporations, take back our future, by taking control of our individual energy use. Look around, cut waste, seal up the house, and learn how to enjoy life with a concious effort to cut consumption. If we all cut our energy use, and trim our waste, the CO2 issue simply resolves itself. For those of political inspiration: Fight any proposal to build another single power plant, support aggressive energy codes, educate your neighbors.

CO2 is a by-product of our bad behavior. Learn to conserve and CO2 emissions will be resolved, while we benefit from numeorus other benefits, like a cleaner planet, with water for low cost food, and less money handed to energy companies each month as a bonus!

A Renewed Focus

As I move most of my application content to SSL Interactive I struggled to find the time and purpose for this blog entity. Then, it came to me – do what I intended to do all along. Share personal projects, provide projects with instructions for others to try for themselves, and let the pundit clowns who are spoiling the SSL universe have it with both barrels.

I have come to a point where I am simply sickened by the bull that this industry attracts. In a free market system there is no way for a governmental agency to clean this up, so the only real recourse is for those who seethe crap to expose and pound on those who spew it with a hammer. So, let’s get ready to rumble. It’s not only time we clean up the environment, it’s time we clean up the environmentalists, the SSL clowns, and the marketing shills and scam artists!

I’m not dead yet

Business has been good, and I’m now heading the development of SSL Interactive at Architectural SSL magazine’s web site. This has become a more regular outlet for information on SSL products and the market in general. I hope you’ll take some time to look it over. The link is in the right hand links listing.

Molex Electronics Launches 120VAC LED Modules

Using the Acriche 120VA LED and proprietary reflector/heat sink integration, Moles has developed a very nice pair of modules for installation in simple lighting products. Lumenique, LLC provided consulting services to the company for design definition and market strategy, so it’s difficult to be completely objective on this. However, after having a couple prototypes to play with, and being part of the team, I can say these modules definitely have a place in the market. With excellent optical efficiency (82% for the reflector unit), 900 center beam candella for the 15 degree spot, performance is very good for 4.5 watts. These modules plug directly into GU25 sockets, and require no drivers or power supplies. The is a great opportunity for manufacturers who don’t want to mess with all the electronics, optics, and thermal engineering, and are ideal for retrofitting into existing incandescent or fluorescent products.

Visit the Molex site for complete details, and the exclusive distribution agreement with Leviton to bring these products to market! Molex SSL Site

New Blog Site Sponsored by Architectural SSL Magazine

After 6 months of work, Architectural SSL magazine has launched its blog on Solid-State Lighting. As the administrator, my goal is to explore project examples, commercial products, scams, and current events not covered elsewhere on the web. The site is called “SSL Interactive”, and has opportunities for manufacturer sponsorship.

Take a look! SSL Interactive

Why Package Devices Are King

Under that LED die lies a reflector surface and a thermal slug to manage the loads these powerful products demand.

There is one universal truth in all solid-state components, LEDs included – HEAT is the enemy. There is no escaping the loss in performance and life that results from heat within an LED device. The reason packaged High Brightness LED devices do as well as they do comes down to one key factor – thermal management. Inside those innocuous looking devices is a slug of copper that conducts heat from the LED and delivers it to the PCB, or MCPCB directly. This is considerably more effective than the 5mm (and similar through hole design) products, which have virtually no heat sink beyond the legs and one small bit of metal under the reflector cup. The illustrations here show this in better detail.

The relative lack of thermal control (other than the standoff legs and a small metal bar under the reflector) limits these through hole devices to very low loads or intermittant use.

The standard 5mm, or through hole style LED is just fine for what it was invented for – loads of a fraction of a watt, and use for indicators that were operated intermittently. It’s when this design is loaded with high output LED die driven at higher currents, then operated continuously, that causes these things to fall apart. Thermal design is all about staying ahead of the heat gain. Fail that and the microchip can’t survive. First lumen output suffers, then ultimately the die begins to break down. In the worst cases, the bond wires melt or break from thermal expansion and contraction.

HB Packaged LED devices are designed specifically to manage the additional heat of high current operation and continuous duty that general illumination requires.

In addition, this thermal conductor design allows luminaire engineers to draw heat away from the LEDs through metal circuit boards, heat sinks, and other designs that pull heat from that internal slug and distributes it. This cannot be done effectively on through hole LEDs (5mm or others), as the stand off legs simply cannot conduct heat effectively from the die inside.

HB package devices also include considerably more reflector area and optical control around the LED die. This amplifies the performance of the die inside, as well as producing control from more precise placement of the LED inside luminaire optical systems.

As a general rule, surface mount LED devices should be held to elss than 1/4 watt, and driven at no more than 10 to 30 mA. Common package devices using high quality LED die and proper internal and external thermal management can reach power levels up to 5 watts at drive currents of 700 mA. At the extreme end, LED packages have been deployed that exceed 200W, while delivering reasonable life and lumen depreciation – although these devices require expert engineering development and are generally very specific in application. Try any of this with a through hole device and the result will be a little pop and  barely visible flash as it expires.

Design Is Key to Efficiency and Quality of Illumination

In response to a growing sentiment that “playful” design is doomed due to the demand to cut energy use, that we must give up quality to cut watts quantity. I could not disagree with this more. In fact design plays a much larger role in cutting energy use than anyone is, giving it credit for. In fact, I contend that design of an application plays a larger role than reaching for some ultimate efficiency number. The two renderings shown here were created in AGI32 using photometric data from available LED products. The effect of design on the quality of a space and its energy use are clearly illustrated. The only factor changed between these two renderings is the lighting system applied. All other factors are identical.

72Watts - This "efficient" design uses (6) 12W"high efficiency" luminares rated at 52 lumens per watt to meet the illuminance requirements necessary for the space - an average of 12 Fc throughout. Yet, there is not a lot of interest here - the space just looks flat. There is very little focus or dimensional definition beyond the physical objects themselves.

40 Watts - This space uses (10) 4W medium efficiency luminaires at 39 lumens per watt, but much narrower beam spreads. The result is lower average illuminance (5Fc) but greater definition of the space that reinforces vision within the 3D space. Further, there is more visual interest and a central focus. Best of all - there is a realized energy savings of 48%!

Don’t buy into the baloney that energy conservation requires one must eschew design. Instead embrace the use of artful application of light to reduce the amount of light being thrown into a space from luminaires with poor control but high efficiency – use less light, with greater focus onto target surfaces. The art of lighting design is about design for vision, not meeting prescribed illuminance levels on some plane above the finished floor. The best designs create the most interesting and visually attractive space with the least amount of energy. We do not want to live in a world where the only qualifier of efficiency is the luminaire manufacturers data sheet above all else. Not only will this lead to greater energy consumption, it will reduce the quality of space we all live within for no reason. We need more design, more interest in the application of light, and less influence of purely empirical calculation.

Design has been devalued by those who believe lighting is something to be applied to meet minimum standards, that “effect” is a luxury that we can live without. This is why we live in offices with uniform illumination levels and flat surface rendering that gives us all headaches and eye strain. We know we don’t like it, ut live withit it. Why? Dynamic vision is created as much from the design of dark releif within a space, as it is from applying light onto horizontal planes within a calculation tool. The difference in these renderings are subtle in 2 dimensional presentation. In the 3D space we all live within, the effect is far greater and more readily felt and seen. With a greater degree of design expertise, we can realize greater energy savings AND an improvement in visual performance and quality.

More 120VAC LED Experimentation – The Frankenstein PAR20

My first LED lamp - Almost too easy

The light pattern worked surprisingly well considering the Frankenstein nature of the lamp.

In the process of retrofitting lighting into new and existing designs, I come across particularly problematic situations that no products on the market seem to exist. The most recent was a single head pedant I needed a light source with a light pattern somewhere between an old R20 spot and a PAR20 Flood, at around the R20 flood light output. The fixture was designed around the R20 and its soft beam.

I tried a couple commercial R20 LED products, and found them all to be too harsh and splashy, and too narrow in distribution. So, I figured, how hard can this be? I was impatient and tired of buying stuff that don’t work…

Igor! gather me up some parts!

Is More Than 4,000 Lumens in a Single Package a Good Thing?

4,000 lumens in a package smaller than the face of an MR16 lamp has interesting possibilities, and some issues to contend with

Luminus just announced the offering of  a configuration that pushes over 4,000 lumens in a single packaged device.  The company claims include the use of a Photonic Lattice technology to increase surface brightness and uniformity of the device. The result is a 6mm x 6mm area LED with exceptionally high output.

http://www.luminus.com/content1463

This all sounds great on the surface (no pun intended), and may be for a few special applications. Here is my own view of products like this:

First: 6,000K is not “cool white” it is beyond daylight white at best and has very limited usefulness for interior illumination.

70CRI is not good enough, period, no matter how much light is being cranked out.

The combination of 6,000K and 70CRI puts the application space for this product in factories, garages, outdoor areas, and warehouse locations, where cost will be a huge issue. The potential for long life may be its biggest asset here, in operational expense over higher maintenance HID products. However, this puts it squarely against 250W and 400W Metal Halide, and 50,000hr T5 lamp technologies – systems all producing well over 20,000 lumens, at very low initial cost.

+/- 32 lumens per watt efficacy is simply not good enough (assuming a raw 34 l/w at a power factor of 75% with a driver/power supply efficiency of 88% and ambient operating temp of 45C). This compounds the thermal design issues raised by its small size .

One Colorful Step at a Time

Now that the office is 100% LED, including a retrofit of the pendant, a retorift/remodel of a Kovac Feather task light to LEDs, and a custom copper tubing linear wall washer - all white now... its time to step up and get into this color thing head first.

I miss the simplicity of low voltage halogen lamps. Must be getting old… A lamp, socket, transformer, a few bits of shiny metal, a switch from anywhere, maybe a sliver of glass, a transformer, couple lengths of wire… clean and simple. LED projects are a bit more complex, especially when you want to incorporate color in the mix. I tried a few white only LED designs and found them… well, common and boring. I’ve retrofit most everything to LEDs, from decorative to work lighting using white LEDs, my office is 100% LED now, the house is now 75% LED, 20% CFL, and the remaining halogen lamps, soon to be disappeared in favor of new LED products of my own invention. This has all been fun, but the end result is not that much more than I had, short of the energy saving. This is not what I believe in, it’s just the easy way out.

So, the next step…