LED street lights - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Australianstig
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2016, 10:11:19 am
content: Here's how I think LED street lights should be done22W LED by way of five 4.4W 12VDC COB panels

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2016, 10:14:06 am
content: There are some LED street lights near my house.I think they should install metal detectors on street lights on main roads, then they only turn on when a car passes by. They'd need to have some form of communication network, so when a car passes, the lights over the next mile or so ahead turn on in advance.

author: Australianstig
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2016, 10:29:30 am
content: I'd rather they stay on providing a lot of light while sipping the juice for security

author: mariush
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2016, 12:46:06 pm
content: No, I'd rather see the night sky, the stars and whatever else is there, instead of having light polution all over the town.To that effect, LED lights CAN be made to reflect the large majority of their light down instead of having huge spots of light ... If it was up to me, I'd also ban large ad panels on streets in the cities after let's say 10 pm, and even ask stores to turn off flashing logos and banners and displays in the store front (basically anything that's not required by insurance or whatever to prevent theft)It's a sort of a myth that lightning is better for security, there were towns which killed the lightning in the city and the crime rate didn't really increase that much.Just like some towns killed all traffic lights and it was actually an improvement:Accident-free zone: The German town which scrapped all traffic lights and road signs :http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1028740/Accident-free-zone-The-German-town-scrapped-traffic-lights-road-signs.htmlQuoteEuropean Towns Remove Traffic Signs to Make Streets Safer :http://www.dw.com/en/european-towns-remove-traffic-signs-to-make-streets-safer/a-2143663-1BUT it's also an issue of education, and people being civilized. I can see areas where there are a lot of poor people, those people would be "encouraged" by the lack of lightning.later edit: Too much light can also affect your health, if you don't believe me see this :Missing the Dark: Health Effects of Light Pollution :http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2627884/(Scroll down to Resetting the Circadian Clock and continue reading)Environ Health Perspect. 2009 Jan; 117(1): A20–A27. PMCID: PMC2627884 EnvironewsBBC : Light pollution 'affects 80% of global population' :http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36492596

author: SteveyG
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 08, 2016, 12:48:18 pm
content: I much prefer the 35W SOX lamps, cheap to run, long service life etc. I love LEDs, but they're completely missold as the eco dream for street lights.

author: CJay
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2016, 12:50:01 pm
content: Quote from: Hero999 on September 08, 2016, 10:14:06 amFunnily enough a few years ago I knew a guy who worked at a company designing street lighting with a UHF low power comms network that allowed them to form remotely manageable lighting systems, each light could be individually addressed, queried, turned on or off, they could be assigned a 'group' ID so they'd work as one unit and they could also act as repeaters so you could daisy chain streets and for a network.They could also dim to save energy.He wasn't best impressed when I suggested they could be hacked for sound to light by the passing boy racers.

author: rollatorwieltje
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 08, 2016, 01:06:34 pm
content: Last year a new highway was opened here, with LED lighting:Highway is a bit of a silly term, considering a significant part was actually constructed below ground level. They used low mounted LED lights here to reduce light pollution.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2016, 01:11:21 pm
content: I swear the LED street lights here are using an array of 4x 100W COBsdamn they are bright.

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2016, 01:25:09 pm
content: It's kind of ironic in that area. There are so many green houses that at some places the sky is completely lit at night. (which is to bad because there are some beautiful areas).To bad that there/were so many problems with the new A4 highway.My only doubt with LED would be realibilty. On paper they should be better but in practice the realibility can be pretty poor. Also the power supplies are not always that good.Next is the investment in developing and upgrading excisting systems and areas.Btw, the price difference and usage in LED lights and light bulbs is huge in different countries. In NL and GER LED lights are super cheap nowadays. In some households people only comsume <50-100W to light the whole house. In NZ/AUS people stil use 60-100W light bulbs. The main reason is that LED bulbs are very expensive or just the crappy (and ugly) old ones

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2016, 02:53:14 pm
content: Why not just use motion sensors? And there is a damn good reason for street lights aside from security. They light up the street! More light on the street makes it easier for drivers, especially those with lesser night vision, to see where they are going. I've never seen motion detectors for lights, which may not work for Sodium lamps like in the US, but for LED lamps, it makes sense. And I bet some fancy statistics could be run to fine tune the sensitivity so to light the street when cars or a lot of pedestrian activity comes by, but to turn off and to keep off when things like wild animals come by.Street lights aren't there solely to reduce crime. They are there so you can see where your going, and even though cars have lamps, they can sometimes be pretty shit and they don't illuminate much.Also LED Street lights? What is this madness? I've never seen such hogwash in the US. We bathe in the golden glow of our sodium lamps.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2016, 03:11:06 pm
content: Even in the California Central Valley, LED streetlight are starting to show up. A couple of years ago, some agency built an overpass over the train tracks to eliminate a crossing. The roadway is lighted with LED fixtures.They show up as replacement lights as well simply due to reduced maintenance costs. It really costs a lot of money to send trucks out every day to replace lamps here and there all over the city. Mass relamping, a favorite of the lamp manufacturers, can't be justified either. I wonder if there is a magic number of fixtures per square mile for an average city.In residential neighborhoods, I believe that streetlights are there for security. True, driving is easier if the roadway is lit up but in some areas keeping track of miscreants is more important. Our IR cameras could see a little farther when the streetlights were on.

author: Lightages
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 08, 2016, 03:54:51 pm
content: LED lighting should not be used outside. Why? It is a broad spectrum light that cannot be filtered out in photography, such as in astrophotography.Lighting at night is a problem with health of those exposed to it. Lighting at night aids in crime, it doesn't hinder it. Lighting at night all the time where it isn't needed is an obvious waste of money and resources. These are either facts, or highly correlated effects. There are many studies to show these things.Humans are stupid in general. Most people feel safer in light at night and think that they are better off when it is actually harmful in the long term.Lighting up the night also has adverse effects on wild life. It disrupts their normal patterns and can confuse their reproductive cycles.Lighting at night is generally a bad thing with the appearance of being a good thing.These are not my opinions, but rather statements based on the evidence available.LED lights just make the biological and light pollution effects worse with less energy cost.

author: System Error Message
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2016, 06:28:24 pm
content: turning off the lights in asia not recommended as everyone knows asians cant drive.There is a joke from the onion on this relating to daylight savings and turning on street lamps to reduce crime but it might be in their movie.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2016, 07:09:33 pm
content: Quote from: Lightages on September 08, 2016, 03:54:51 pmI guess it would depend on who did the study and who paid for it!Ask a cop what they would think about not having streetlights and how that might relate to crime. They are the experts, everybody else is just guessing or trying to make a sponsored point.Here is a brief report re: streetlight outages in Chicago:http://www.nbcchicago.com/investigations/Report-Links-Chicago-Crime-to-Streetlight-Outages-265639931.html

author: klunkerbus
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 08, 2016, 07:10:37 pm
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on September 08, 2016, 02:53:14 pmReplacing the traditional street lamps with LED versions is all the rage here in my part of the US (Denver metro)...

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2016, 07:28:29 pm
content: A lot of statements all of a sudden, which all are scientifically very weak.(But sometimes I forget that politics is not about finding the facts, but just following random subjective ideas)

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2016, 07:42:36 pm
content: Quote from: Australianstig on September 08, 2016, 10:29:30 amWhen I was in college I had an intern job working for the local power company. Drew up installations for what the company called "Area Lights". They were mercury vapor street lights hooked to the power grid and with a light sensor to turn on at night. They were mostly sold for "security" reasons. Lots and lots were sold. It was a great income source because they were basically an infinite time payment.But the local police didn't think they helped reduce crime at all. Their conversations with the people they did catch led them to believe the criminal element actually preferred having some light so they could see what they were doing. Much less conspicuous to have an overhead light than to be running around with a flashlight (torch). Makes sense. Is consistent with the observation that most burglaries in my area occur during daylight.I would second the objection to LED lights because of the effect on astronomy. Unless they are designed to emit a single frequency of light, preferably aligned with the existing sodium lines or mercury lines in most current lighting.

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2016, 07:59:01 pm
content: A big problem I can see is if the LEDs used are of inappropriate color temperature. I recall when LED street lighting was first being installed in the US there were complaints of then being "too blue". Anything much over 4000K is probably not a good idea for night illumination.

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2016, 08:35:18 pm
content: Quote from: rdl on September 08, 2016, 07:59:01 pmI don't know to which LEDs you are refering, but nowadays there are beautiful warm white options. Definitely not the ugly harsh blueish anymore.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2016, 08:53:23 pm
content: Quote from: rdl on September 08, 2016, 07:59:01 pmI suppose a good reason for higher colour temperature at night is the response of the dark adapted eye shifts to shorter wavelengths, so it's more efficient.

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2016, 09:02:51 pm
content: I was in Home Depot the other day and saw some Philips LED "bulbs" that were adjustable to 3 different color temperatures. I didn't look close, so I don't know how it was implemented.There are a number of reasons why bluer colors are bad for lighting at night. I recall a couple of studies that were done, or maybe just app note type writings from LED manufacturers, which recommended something like 3500-4500K or thereabouts.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2016, 09:06:40 pm
content: Quote from: rdl on September 08, 2016, 09:02:51 pmWhy?I suppose shorter wavelengths may cause more glare and it's true it can cause problems with sleeping.I haven't had any problems with the LED lighting in my street. I sleep in the back room and have some dark curtains so my room is very dark at night, even if it's light outside.

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2016, 09:25:14 pm
content: Quote from: rdl on September 08, 2016, 09:02:51 pmSome studies suggest that blue light keeps you awake a little more.Which is actually a good thing on the road.Although, it's still debatable.

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2016, 09:43:50 pm
content: It's not that it keeps you awake a little more, but that it disrupts your body's natural circadian rhythm.http://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/blue-light-has-a-dark-sideIt also temporarily destroys your night vision. That's probably not good when driving at night, though looking inside many of the newer automobiles, which are often lit up like a carnival when it's dark outside, I guess the auto interior designers have never heard of this.

author: klunkerbus
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 08, 2016, 09:49:29 pm
content: I know the LED streetlights here aren't bluish at all. I was expecting that, but they're somewhere between natural and warm. Quite bright, too. IIRC, I remember seeing seven emitters on each one.It'll be interesting to see how they hold up. If they're anything like the LED stoplights, they'll turn into quite a maintenance hassle too or streets will just slowly get darker and darker as emitters burn out.

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2016, 10:05:31 pm
content: Quote from: mariush on September 08, 2016, 12:46:06 pm100% agree!Brian

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2016, 11:39:26 pm
content: They replaced all of ours recently too. I'd say they are better, but I think it would be better if they still had the light domes to diffuse the light more evenly. I find the way the light is concentrated it's super bright near the light but then there are dark spots between them. I guess it was probably same with the HPS ones just less noticeable. I like that they are nice and white though. A lot of LED modules have a blue tinge to them, these ones don't seem to as much. The tech has really been getting better.I would not be against the idea of them running more dim though, and only go bright based on traffic patterns. On the other hand it would maybe be annoying. Best to keep them on at a constant rate I suppose. As for light pollution I don't find they're that bad overall, maybe locally (ex: trying to see stars when standing next to one) but walk a bit away from them and you can still see stars fine, and get decent pictures. Kinda nice to have that field in front of my house, I tend to go take pics when it's clear/nice out.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 09, 2016, 12:53:57 am
content: Quote from: b_force on September 08, 2016, 01:25:09 pmOnly one 50W globe? The "normal" situation was to include many 50W down lights which lead to the government passing regulation to limit the amount of artificial lighting in new dwellings:QuoteWhen we can get sufficient lighting in our main 60m2 room with just 1 W/m2 using phillips LED down light emitters that were only a 6 dollars (4 euros) each. I prefer lighting in anything other than work areas around 0.5W/m2

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 09, 2016, 01:01:36 am
content: Quote from: mariush on September 08, 2016, 12:46:06 pmA lot more was done than just removing traffic lights or signs, and when you get some real statistics on the system once its been operating:http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2014/04/where-crashes-are-shared-space-and.htmlIts not so rosy. Just as when certain countries changed the side of the road they drive on, accidents dropped dramatically initially when people were being extra careful and then everyone settled back into their normal poor behaviour.

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 09, 2016, 01:41:13 am
content: Quote from: Someone on September 09, 2016, 12:53:57 amOne 50W globe???No i meant that 50-100W would be the total amount with LEDs, to light a whole house.Instead of a few hundred watts with (old) light bulbs.Major electricity bill safer.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 09, 2016, 01:52:31 am
content: Quote from: b_force on September 09, 2016, 01:41:13 amYou've underestimated the Australian houses that were built through the 1990's and 2000's, think 200W in each bedroom, a living area with 2000W or more, and then people wondered why the air conditioning was costing so much.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 09, 2016, 03:19:42 am
content: I really hate Sodium lights!Everything comes out as yellow,so there is no difference in appearance between white painted markers or the road,or the kerb.When I was a kid,suburban streets had incandescent lights which were fairly close together & lit the road & path pretty well.Highways used Mercury Vapour lamps,initially plain,then changing to colour corrected ones.When I went to the UK in the 1970s,I was confronted by thousands of Sodium lamps.This,combined with the Brits (then) habit of driving round with just their parking lights on,led to a few "near misses".The closest one was when a taxi loomed up--no yellow component to its dark blue paint,so it looked like "part of the road"!I guess I did,too ,as I nearly got flattened by iton a Zebra crossing.On coming home,I noticed the horrible things creeping in all over Perth.To add insult to injury,in the 1980s,the responsible authorities decided to apply "World's best practice" to the replacement intervals of streetlights.This transated as:- "If you can still see the slightest glow,don't replace it".Over the years,this has morphed into :- "Wait till someone complains!",resulting in big gaps where the street lighting has been out for ages.

author: Lightages
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 09, 2016, 04:21:11 am
content: Quote from: rstofer on September 08, 2016, 07:09:33 pmThat link seems to be almost all anecdotal. I see no actual data. Anecdotes are data.

author: SteveyG
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 09, 2016, 07:35:35 am
content: Quote from: rstofer on September 08, 2016, 03:11:06 pmDo you really think there will be reduced maintenance costs? In a couple of years almost all of the LED drivers are likely to need replacing. Cambridgeshire had a lighting improvement scheme funded by the government, but there are already non-functioning lights a year later. Compare that with the SOX lamps that used to be fitted, that would last 5 to 10 years between replacement lamps and control gear that was almost indestructible I'd say it's going to cost more in the long term.Energy savings are non-existent - the 35W SOX are one of the most efficient lighting sources known to man, but they've been replaced with 50W LED fixtures...

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 09, 2016, 08:12:18 am
content: Quote from: SteveyG on September 09, 2016, 07:35:35 amA little while ago I spoke to a traffic light technician who was repairing a set of lights at an intersection that kept tripping off. He had the cabinet open which houses all the 240v gear and traffic light controllers. Inside there was also a bunch of regular 60-watt incandescent light bulbs in holders in series with each traffic light circuit.In Australia all new traffic lights are LED and they have been retrofitting old lights with LED lamps. But the circuit which drives the old incandescent lights would trip out with the new LED lights because the current draw was too low, so their fix was to just chuck a regular household light bulb in series. Needless to say when that bulb blew, off went the lights. I should have taken a photo. Even he laughed about it.

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 09, 2016, 12:37:29 pm
content: Quote from: Someone on September 09, 2016, 01:52:31 amNo personal offense, but it sometimes makes me a little angry.A lot of people here try the be very thoughtful of their energy consumption. Finally people are moving to things like LED lights and other more efficient things (some people are so excessive they turn off all lights as much as possible).Which is just mainly good for your own wallet.I mean, let's face it. I can try to safe energy with a few lightbulbs, as long as the big Shell company around the corner keeps his lights on 24/7, it's pretty useless. It's all relative.That's how I even feel more about when I see that big countries in the world are wasting so much more and don't even make steps in the right direction. Basic things like proper insulation to start with.In the end we can even debate about how useful all of this is. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that there are just too many people on earth and still growing. Even if we safe 50% of our consumption, it's not going to do anything significant.That doesn't mean it's worth looking for better solutions and saving a dollar or two.I mean, I can buy another beer or icecream for it, that's the way I look at it.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 09, 2016, 02:11:33 pm
content: Quote from: SteveyG on September 09, 2016, 07:35:35 amI certainly hope maintenance is reduced. I just replaced all of my incandescent bulbs with LEDs and the big selling feature is decades of use. That's good because it takes decades to get a payback on energy consumption. NOT a good investment under even the best of conditions.SOX is an obnoxious technology. It has almost zero color rendering and where it does emit light is not particularly useful for human sight. We would prefer green... Westinghouse actually made some green high pressure sodium lamps back in the late '70s. At the time, I implemented the largest display of indoor HPS lighting west of the Mississippi using direct and indirect fixtures. In broad strokes, the lighting energy was reduced from around 3.6 W/sf to about 1.2 W/sf (Watts per square foot). There were enormous problems gaining acceptance - I had visits from every employee relation and environmental agency in the state. They all signed off on the project but I promised I would NEVER try such a thing again. Forty years later and I never did.Removing signal lights, causing backups for miles (look at the video clip above) may seem like a wonderful idea but it doesn't move people efficiently. There's a reason that cities coordinate their signal lights so that vehicles can pass uninterrupted through large areas. But it so cute to take them out... Just precious...Anecdotal: I just asked a cop what she thought about the proposition that people are safer without street lights. She laughed! Twenty eight years on the street and 10 more in plainclothes hasn't convinced her that darkness improves safety. But it's just anecdotal. There's no numbers or anything, just 38 years of experience in one of the 10 most dangerous cities in the US.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 09, 2016, 02:39:11 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on September 09, 2016, 02:11:33 pmWow, either LEDs must be expensive or power really cheap, where you live. When I replaced all the incandescent lamps in my parents house with CFL and LED, they got their investment back within 18 months.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 09, 2016, 03:22:36 pm
content: There's very little payback because there is very little usage. We have on the order of 40 can lights in the ceiling (maybe more, I counted 25 in the Media Room alone) but only a few burn at a time and then just for limited hours. We have never turned them all on at once! Some I don't think we have ever turned on. The payback approaches infinity as hours approaches zero!Cost? Well, the electric rate is tiered but for all practical purposes, our incremental cost of electricity is $0.35/kWh. In the old house, with an 8 kW solar array, we paid just $0.15/kWh, flat rate. Unfortunately, the roof of this house is not appropriate for solar installation (mechanically).We just bought the house a few months ago and we're still getting things sorted out.Gas, electricity, soy beans and pork bellies are all commodities. They are allocated by price. You can buy all you want as long as you can write the check.

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 09, 2016, 03:42:17 pm
content: I can tell you that in some countries LEDs are pretty much the only thing you can buy these days.LED bulbs are cheap and last much longer than conventional bulbs.

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 09, 2016, 03:46:32 pm
content: For me, electric is about $0.125 /kwh here and LED bulbs can be had for around $4 or so. A 60 watt equivalent has a payback of well under 6 months even if it lasts for less than half as long as the warranty claims.https://www.ledwaves.com/pages/led-calcI've got one that's done way better than that. A fixture where the incandescent would burn out every 3 months has had a Philips 15 watt equivalent LED running in it 24x7 for almost 4 years. Replacement costs alone for the incandescent would probably been over $20 by now.

author: djacobow
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 09, 2016, 04:08:29 pm
content: My town has pretty aggressively moved to LED streetlighting. They are bright and I'm sure they're cost-effective.One thing I have noticed, though, is that the fixtures do not have any sorts of diffusers. When walking down the street at night, objects cast multiple partially overlapping shadows from each of the individual LED chips in the array. I find it rather annoying. What did they save, $0.40 on a piece of translucent plastic?

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 09, 2016, 05:00:38 pm
content: Quote from: b_force on September 09, 2016, 03:42:17 pmNot the case in the US. LEDs are VERY expensiveAs a first example, this 60W equivalent LED was nearly $13, now down to $10http://www.lowes.com/pd/Utilitech-6-Pack-9-Watt-60W-Equivalent-3000K-A19-Medium-Base-E-26-Warm-White-Indoor-LED-Bulb/50423208It saves about 51W assuming equivalent lumen output so it save $0.35 * 51/1000 or $0.01785/hr. If the bulb costs $11 then it takes about 560 hours to break even. That's overlooking opportunity value for the cost. I could have bought something else!In any event, if the lamp runs 30 minutes per day then 1120 days or 3 years to recover the investment.HOWEVER, if you are buying solar at $0.15/kWh, the payback stretches out to 8 years!Maybe LEDs are useful in our new house without solar but in the old house with solar, payback is too far out.

author: JPortici
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 09, 2016, 05:03:56 pm
content: LED lights here? they only illuminate the street. complete darkness one meter away.with fog (and believe me there is a LOT of fog around here) the effect is spooky.. i'll post some photos if the pocic lives on till october :

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 09, 2016, 05:22:55 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on September 09, 2016, 05:00:38 pmAt the Home Depot 2 miles from me I can get a Philips 60 W equivalent soft white LED bulb for $3.97, and they're considerably cheaper than that if bought in a 4 pack. So for payback also consider replacement costs, which may be a bigger factor than actual energy usage. A $2 LED that lasts (only) 3 years is cheaper than 50 cent incandescents that burn out in 6 months. My oldest LEDs are going on 4 years and none have gone out yet.

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 09, 2016, 05:28:03 pm
content: Quote from: rdl on September 09, 2016, 05:22:55 pmThat's the main reason why I use LED bulbs.The second reason is just the principal that to me it's ridiculous to burn over 150W of lights in the living room, if that can also be around 25-40WAt the end it saves me maybe 10% on my electricity bill, plus a lot of frustration replacing bulbs more often (and always on the most terrible moments)

author: klunkerbus
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 09, 2016, 05:45:38 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on September 09, 2016, 05:00:38 pmThat $10 USD is for a six-pack of bulbs...

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 09, 2016, 05:49:56 pm
content: Quote from: b_force on September 09, 2016, 05:28:03 pm150W of power in a US household is taken up, if not even less than an Idle computer. We have about 8-9 at the least going up to 14 at most. Lighting is probably the least we pay for. Air conditioning (If you live in the US you don't just want, you need AC or you will go totally mad) is around 900W a unit even though we tend to keep them off for that reason. Heating is natural gas, so it's a tad cheaper than electric, but not by much. Same with water heating and cooking.American households use a LOT of power, mostly due to the extreme weather requiring powerful climate control. A full window mount AC unit per room is not uncommon everywhere in the US with the exception of maybe Alaska.

author: djacobow
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 09, 2016, 06:11:32 pm
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on September 09, 2016, 05:49:56 pmI think this overstates the case. Not all American households use a lot of power, but it is true that most do. It is because of extreme weather, but also, somewhat counter-intuitively, because power is cheap. The vast majority of housing -- new and old stock -- is rather inefficient. Houses are not adequately insulated, furnaces are old and, as you say, people are running window AC units, and a lot of old ones at that. Replace a lot of those window AC with a central unit and use a heat pump where that works, and you can reduce power use significantly. There is also still a fair amount of electric heat and cooking going on in the US.Another factor affecting US overall electric use is that there is a net migration occurring north to south, resulting in more use of AC.That are exceptions to this rule. In California, power use has stayed relatively flat for decades while US average use went up. This is usually attributed to the energy efficiency measures first adopted in CA in the 1970's, as proposed by Art Rosenfeld of the California Energy Commission. Some people suggest that the EE measures themselves did not reduce power use as much as the high prices. Another explanation is the migration of heavy industrial users out of the state. Hard to say how it all adds up. Here's a link to an article discussion the effect, with graphic:https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2013/08/05/deconstructing-the-rosenfeld-curve/I live in the Bay Area and do not use AC. All my lighting is LED. Our electric bill is about 7-8 kWh/day, on the order of $40/mo. This is a 1300 sq foot home, 2 adults + 2 kids, gas heat and appliances, all LED lighting except for kitchen which is fluorescent, and a metric ton of computers and electronics. :-)

author: djacobow
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 09, 2016, 06:16:48 pm
content: Oh, I forgot to mention US houses are larger than developed world average and are growing - more to heat or cool.

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 09, 2016, 07:06:56 pm
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on September 09, 2016, 05:49:56 pmBecause of bad insulation you mean?I have seen people putting on their AC when it's just 25-35 degrees C outside (77-95 F).Which is absolutely a waste of energy to me.A well insulated house stays around a nice comfortable 25 degrees.And no personal offence. But some people are just beyong being spoiled. They start already complaining if they sweat a tiny bit.There are also many more creative (and cheaper) ways to keep cool (or warm for that matter).For me it's just a weird way of thinking. Just pumping in more power is not a solution. Solve the core problem first.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 12:31:20 am
content: Quote from: b_force on September 09, 2016, 07:06:56 pmThe problem is while energy is cheap the alternatives aren't attractive or necessary for consumers. You can look at how Americans program their central heating/cooling thermostats or that cars have remote controls so they can be pre heated/cooled before the driver gets in:https://www.caraudionow.com/best-remote-car-start/For instance in Australia the average cost of energy for households is less than 10% of the Median household income:http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-24/abs-survey-shows-households-spend-average-of-99-per-week-on-ene/4978268Energy is a tiny incremental cost for most people, so they don't care about reducing use.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 02:11:12 am
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on September 09, 2016, 05:49:56 pmDepends on where in the US. It's a must have in hot and humid places like Houston, but here in San Diego, it is "nice to have" at most. And I'm sure there are places in the US where the idea of having A/C is considered crazy.I haven't come across a PC that *idled* at 150W for a long time. Even the dual CPU servers (Haswell E) I have worked on generally idled at 50W. It's definitely not hard to find one that will exceed that under load. I measured my own PC pulling 400W under a worst case load but it sits at around 180-200W when optimizing for performance per watt.Quote from: djacobow on September 09, 2016, 06:11:32 pmMost central units are not much better than a decent window unit, likely worse once you factor in zoning. What would be better are mini splits, preferably "smart" ones that detect where the people are and direct the heating/cooling as needed. With good control, they can even respond almost instantly and largely obsolete the idea of turning them on ahead of time.Cooking does not make up a particularly significant amount of residential energy usage (in most homes, that is) but it does make a very large part of peak demand. Refrigeration can be a significant load, especially with an older refrigerator.Quote from: djacobow on September 09, 2016, 06:16:48 pmZoning the HVAC system can largely nullify the efficiency impact.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 02:59:50 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on September 10, 2016, 02:11:12 amYet, if you live just a few short miles east in El Cajon, air conditioning is NOT optional! Surrounding areas like Lakeside and Santee are similar. They get HOT in the summer. And they stay that way due to the surrounding hills. El Cajon == The Box The heat settles into The Box and it stays there.It's the same with the Central Valley up around Sacramento. Days over 100 deg F (38 deg C) are fairly common in July and August. I haven't checked the nameplate but I would bet our AC condensing unit is closer to 6 kW but it supports a house around 3100 sf.EDIT: 120 deg F / 49 deg C days happen from time to time here. There may only be a dozen days like that per year but when they happen, you KNOW about it!Our newer houses tend to be well insulated and there are energy efficiency requirements on new construction. The problem is, a lot of the housing was built just after WWII and has never been upgraded.The good news is that it is starting to cool off such that highs are in the '80s. The AC probably won't start until after 5 PM and will only run intermittently until about 9 PM.Could we live without AC? Sure! But why should we? We didn't work our butts off for 40 years to spend our twilight years sweating. That's for young people!

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 03:18:39 am
content: Quote from: b_force on September 09, 2016, 07:06:56 pm80F is pretty cold in the summer for New York. We can reach 110F with 80% humidity at many time, and the humidity is the killer. Humidity in the summer can be 60-80% and is normally not lower. And this is just New York, a pretty northern state. More southern states, heck even CT can get worse.Trust me if you lived a YEAR in the US, you would know that we would die without it. And yea our houses are insulated like crap, while your houses are REALLY expensive. In a trip to Germany recently I have seen empty lots going for 80K. That is more than our ENTIRE HOUSE costs, and we have a 3 story, two family (Combined now) house with a basement. And you really start to feel bad for the people who do not have AC. Trust me, we wish we had 25C weather in the summer, and the humidity disables sweating.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 03:21:47 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on September 10, 2016, 02:11:12 amYea, but most American households aren't rich enough to just install an HVAC system for the little benefit it gives them over a window unit. Some places don't even have the ducting for that since radators are used.All these energy saving measure are expensive while a large portion of the population is struggling to put bread on the table. Places like Holland are richer, and are below sea level giving cooler climates, but America isn't, and we have WAY hotter weather than western Europe.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 03:30:13 am
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on September 10, 2016, 03:18:39 amIf you can buy a house for $80k, you don't live in California! An empty lot, say 5000 sf, for $80k would be snatched up in a minute if it could be built on and the location was decent. Oh, sure, there are houses cheaper than $80k but they aren't in a place where I would want to live.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 03:33:10 am
content: Quote from: rstofer on September 10, 2016, 03:30:13 amNo I am in Schenectady, New York. We aren't prime targets, and a lot of houses go for dirt cheap because of a population collapse.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 04:34:41 am
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on September 10, 2016, 03:33:10 amThe home of General Electric! I worked for them for 15 years.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 05:08:15 am
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on September 10, 2016, 03:21:47 amMini splits are ductless and are in many ways superior to using ducts since ducting losses can be very significant. They are more expensive than window units but that is to be expected for a higher end product.What the poor can do are cheap but effective ways to save. One of my favorite tricks is to use aluminum foil to partially block windows during the summer in order to cut down on the heat. Those who don't want to block any of the view can use thermal tints and/or solar screens instead.Something else to consider is that where insulation is poor and there's no way to upgrade it, directed heating and cooling really helps reduce the impact. It doesn't need to be at all high tech - simply setting your desk so that you're in front of the window A/C does the trick. (That's the trick my friend Allie Moore used, although she commented that it would work better if the A/C could be dialed down. She got some nice "smart" mini splits once she graduated and moved into a house.)For heating, a Peltier chip or two with two heatsinks - the hot one blowing towards you and the cold one blowing away from you - lets you take advantage of heat pump technology for very little cost. Or use some reflector incandescent bulbs (if you can still find them) on a dimmer for a low power yet effective infrared heater.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 05:47:18 am
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on September 09, 2016, 05:49:56 pmAs others have pointed out, you are making broad generalizations that are unfounded. I have lived in So. California, No. California, Vermont, Montana, Oregon, and NW Washington state. I have never needed air conditioning in any of my homes. Few, if any of my neighbors had air conditioning - it simply wasn't needed. The temps and/or humidity did not require it. The only place I've ever had air conditioning was my house in Montana and it wasn't really needed there - I used it for maybe one week in the summer.Heating and cooking with nat gas is only common is some locales. I many areas, electricity predominates. In rural areas, propane is common.You are really giving the international forum members a very distorted view of the U.S. You should not assume your experience in your part of the U.S. applies elsewhere.

author: SteveyG
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 09:33:22 am
content: Quote from: AcHmed99 on September 09, 2016, 01:12:26 pmThe 35W fitting is the standard over here for residential lighting. We do use 150W HPS lamps on major roads however, but interestingly they are not fitting LED fixtures here, but replacing them with 250W "white" high colour rendering HPS lamps at greater distance spacing. Stupidly, these high colour rendering SON lamps are more inefficient...What do you need high CRI for when driving? All you need to do is be able to see the road and obstacles.Where are you getting your efficiency levels from? AFAIK, there are no general purpose light source that gives greater than 15% of the input energy as usable light (including LED fixtures), and LEDs have a theoretical limit of around 40% under lab conditions with active cooling.

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 01:07:16 pm
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on September 10, 2016, 03:18:39 am80K is nothing.Most houses here start around 150k-200k.That's for a flat or just a small home.The reason why they are expensive doesn't have anything to do with insulation. It's simply because it's packed with people here. Similar like NY city.Building an house with proper insulation will really save a lot on the long run. It's just a matter of clever construction doesn't cost much extra.I have been to NY state a few times. I was always enjoying my time outside, while family (who live there) was siting like cattle inside. Yes it's warm but not unbearable. Similar like times in some areas in France, Germany or the south of Europe. Never seen people using AC over there.What bothered me the most that without AC, inside it was the same as outside. Therefore it's pretty clear how bad the insulation is. A decent build house should have at least a 10 degree C temperature drop. (some people are stupid enough to open windows and curtains though).On top of that, I can't stand an AC. Gives me headache, the dry air makes me feel very uncomfortible and the noise is just very annoying.Anyway, this is going very off topic. Interesting stuff to see why different countries/cultures have a different approach.But personally I do feel like it's in line with what people think about LED lights.

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 02:22:43 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on September 10, 2016, 05:47:18 amI can agree with this. The USA is a big place and highly varied. I have mostly lived east of the Mississippi River and south of the Mason-Dixon line. Air conditioning is really is a near necessity in most of this area. I spent one July in Houston followed immediately by two weeks in Denver, and the climate difference was incredible.I have not owned or used a window AC unit in over 30 years. As a matter of fact, I can't even remember when I last saw one. I've never lived in rural areas though. Maybe they are more common outside the cities.None of this has anything to do with LED streetlights though.

author: klunkerbus
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 03:53:32 pm
content: FWIW, Xcel Energy, the utility company here and in a handful of other midwestern USA states, reported a 42% reduction in power consumption in their pilot programs testing LED streetlight upgrades.Source:https://www.xcelenergy.com/partners/municipalities/outdoor_lighting/community-wide_led_street_lighting_upgrades

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 07:39:50 pm
content: Well, outside me they replaced the HPS lamps with nice Phillips spanwire units, and have since then done a few upgrades. Mostly replacing dead drivers, and then recently adding extra LED fittings and 250W HPS lamps to provide a higher light level that was lost as the led modules degraded with time.As to power use I use a lot of LEd lighting, and am slowly going to replace the flourescent lighting outside in the block to LED, a further saving, as my father ( with some prompting from me as to the benefit just from the cost saving and his time in changing a lamp a week) had changed all the outdoor lighting to 18W linear flourescent and PL lamps, which paid for themselves in 2 years from a saving in power and replacement lamps. Dropped power use by 60% for general lighting, or from 2.3kW to under 800VA.I have been replacing some with LED as the fixtures fail from old age, but am not impressed with the LED lifetime in those current units, they are just a little bit less reliable than the older fluorescent fixtures, which only failed from water ingress. Electronic fluorescent ballasts are also a thing that fails a lot more than the choke start units, with them having a higher infant mortality, often just lasting over a year before failing. Refit with 2 choke ballasts and starters, and put the old tubes back and you do not worry about them for 5 years then.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 07:57:11 pm
content: A while ago our streets light were replaced by LED lights and I like them. They are brighter than the old ones, the light distribution is much better (less dark areas between poles) and the cold white improves the illumination.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 08:31:26 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on September 09, 2016, 03:22:36 pmYou're right it would be crazy to replace all your incandescent lights with LED or CFL. It sounds like you have too many lights, as only a small percentage of them are being used, it would make sense to cut down the number of lights as well as replacing them with more efficient alternatives.Look at how much energy you use annually on lighting, multiply it by 0.15, then it will give you a good idea of how power/money you'll save by switching to LED. It seems difficult to believe you wouldn't save any money or that it would take a long time for it to pay for itself: 100W of incandescent lighting will cost you about $51.14 per year, if it's only on for four hours per day, when the equivalent LED would cost just $7.65, giving an annual saving of $43.49. Even if you rip out all the fittings and replace them with fewer LEDs, it will soon pay for itself. The only trouble is, you need to be able to afford the upfront cost.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2016, 12:20:15 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on September 10, 2016, 05:47:18 amSorta need to apologize. Looking back I meant that the heating was here. I wasn't generalizing the US, I was just not thinking and writing.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2016, 12:24:17 am
content: Quote from: Hero999 on September 10, 2016, 08:31:26 pmWe have replaced every incandescent in the house with LED lamps. Maybe we save some money, maybe there is a payback that is reasonable, maybe the actual life approaches the advertising, and so on. We did it just because!

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2016, 12:30:56 am
content: Quote from: rdl on September 10, 2016, 02:22:43 pmAgain, I forgot to mention where I was talking about. AC is a must in almost all of the US though, and you need to live here for a year or so to know this. Some days are fine, and they never go above 80F, but in almost ALL of the US unless you live very near water, or your very northern (Like Maine or Alaska) your weather will either be always hot, or a deadly mixture of 110F highs in the summer and -20F lows in the winter. And yea, our houses are built using popsicle sticks and bluetack, but in the right area an American house can go for 30K for a smaller house. This is because in the 50's, and even earlier, the demand for housing was so high people had to make quick and dirty houses on the dime, not like in Europe where you have had thousands of years to make great houses to stand through the test of time. It's also a different thought process here. The poor are too poor to afford good insulation while those who can afford it don't lose enough to give a damn.Sorry to bring this so off topic to rectify here is an opinion on LED lighting.It makes sense. It's cheaper to power, and they last LOADS longer, but they are way more expensive so most cities, which do not have the money to even pave the goddamn roads, don't bother. Sodium or Mercury lamps aren't as expensive, and nobody really cares that much. The issue on light pollution is pretty stupid in my opinion. Nobody went totally mad over having lights on in the city that I am aware of. Even the talk of LED lamps disturbing sleep is easily solvable. Blinds or a shade.And having lights on all night is worthwhile. Mostly it's for safe driving. My mum is blind in the dark, and hates driving unlit roads to the point where she can't do it. It's also just useful to have lights for navigation. If your lost and need to get home, you would probably have a better time being able to see something. Crime I think is a meh issue. It's more a comfort thing. People feel safer in the light, and if you have a well lit street you can see people coming at you better.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2016, 03:04:18 am
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on September 11, 2016, 12:30:56 amWhen streetlights were Mercury Vapor, Mt. Hamilton Observatory outside San Jose, Calif, complained bitterly about light pollution. I think they were somewhat happier with High Pressure Sodium and, AFAIK, are happiest with Low Pressure Sodium. I don't know what they think about LEDs.QuoteCrime may be no issue in your town but try places like Oakland or Stockton Calif and see what you think!

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2016, 04:06:08 am
content: Just for the fun of it, I will throw in a "pop culture" proof.Cities are well lit, and have high crime. Rural areas are dark and have low crime. The answer is obvious - light causes crime!I am not actually aware of any good studies on the relationship of light to crime. Based on the anecdote from police sources I mentioned earlier I suspect that it does little or nothing. May give people a feeling of security.It does take away the stars. I used to live in a suburban area with no streetlights. Stars were spectacular, the milky way could be seen many nights and meteors and comets were fairly easy to see. Satellites just be looking up just after sunset. Nothing like a really dark location, but still nice. Then a large apartment complex was built about a half mile away. With lots of all night lighting on parking, sidewalks and doorways. Thereafter only the brighter stars were visible. No milky way. Few meteors. The ISS was about the only satellite regularly seen.Many don't care about that, but I missed the stars. I am now back in a rural location with a dark sky, but unfortunately, trees and weather conditions make it hard to see.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2016, 04:08:10 am
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on September 11, 2016, 12:30:56 amAgain, your generalizations are unfounded. Yes, true for the south, southeast and much of the southwest (the heat), extremes of cold and heat true for much of the midwest, yes. But it is not true at all for the west coast (which of course is where a large part of the US population is), the mountain west, and much of the northeast and New England. And I have lived in all of those areas for extended periods.As far as LEDs - for the home they are great and I'm slowly replacing my compact flourescents with them.But I've got to say, my current car is the first one I've owned with LED headlights and they suck! Especially a problem on the rural roads I drive on due to deer. I really should replace them with a set of aftermarket HID Xeon lights.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2016, 04:12:45 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on September 11, 2016, 04:08:10 amNew England? New England is even worse than mideast New York. CT tends to get 10F higher highs, and about the same winters. AC is very needed there, and only gets worse more south.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2016, 04:15:01 am
content: Quote from: rstofer on September 11, 2016, 03:04:18 amCrime is a DEFINITE issue here. Look up the crime rate for Schenectady NY.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2016, 04:23:25 am
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on September 11, 2016, 04:12:45 amAgain you are generalizing - this time to all of New England. I said much of New England - as in Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine - and much of Mass ( for example, none of the places my ex girlfriend lived in Boston over the years had AC).Even Southern Vermont (which is close to you in Schenectady) AC is not really needed (though some have it). I spent many summer weekends in Bennington, VT at the very nice home of my ex's parents - no AC. None needed. Windows and shade trees kept the home cool even on hot summer days. Ceiling fans also work very well.Remember - New England was settled and highly populated for centuries before AC was even an option. Many of the homes there were built long before electricity and they were built with windows, porches and with shade trees. People were not sweltering in "deadly" heat.This is really silly and OT - so I'll leave it at this: I think we both agree that AC is a necessity for a large portion of the US.But I can categorically state from first hand experience that for large portions of the US AC is not needed nor used by much of the population.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2016, 04:47:12 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on September 11, 2016, 04:23:25 amMost Americans have much higher standards of comfort today. The deep South was also populated for centuries before AC. People survived, partly through home design to help minimize heat, and partly by just putting up with things that are not acceptable to most people today. Rooms in New England were not heated to current standards in the winter. Things like heavy clothing indoors, not bathing in the winter, and heating beds with pans of hot coals were the work around. Not acceptable for a variety of reasons today.Climate change, whether global or local is also a factor. Your experience in the past may not reflect current conditions. I grew up in Denver. Air conditioning was rare there in the 1950s. There were some hot nights, but few that I remember. My family remained in Denver until recently. More and more hot days (mostly due to the city's heat island, but possibly also an effect of global warming) forced use of an evaporative cooler by the 1990s. Relatively high humidity and still more hot days caused installation of AC in the early part of this decade. These changes were not unique to my family, it was a widespread occurance. This change was not all bad. In the 1950s and early 1960s a few days of weather in the range of -15F to -20F happened almost every winter. Such cold snaps have becomed much more rare in the last few decades.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2016, 05:03:21 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on September 11, 2016, 04:47:12 amAgreed. Especially true for the South where I agree with the idea that AC there is a "must have" nowadays.Just not true in much of New England (or much of the US) then or now. Sure AC would be nice to have in many places for the occasional very hot or humid day but it is not a "must have" in those places. It is uncommon and there are not "deadly temps greater than 110 F"QuoteAgreed, things are changing. But not that fast. I haven't lived in New England since 2000 but I do continue to spend extended time with friends and family - all who own homes without AC in California, Oregon, Washington, and Montana.I'm grateful that I now live in one of the coolest parts of the country (NW WA) were it rarely gets above 80 degrees F and humidity is not an issue on warm days.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2016, 07:04:26 am
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on September 11, 2016, 04:15:01 amI thought Schenectady was a much larger city. In any event, it doesn't compare to Stockton or OaklandOakland has a crime index of 1 (out of 100, 100 is safest):https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ca/oakland/crime/Stockton has a crime index of 4:https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ca/stockton/crime/Schenectady has a crime index of 8:https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ny/schenectady/crime/Not the kind of thing we need to rave about! I prefer to have streetlights.

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2016, 01:25:34 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on September 11, 2016, 04:47:12 amThank you for saying it, but that was exactly what I was telling.And sorry, but it's also my experience in the more east northern states.People very easily go for comfort and convenience.Like I said before, yes summers can be hot. But nothing out of the ordinary to me.I always survived without AC. Maybe it's all about building a tolerance??(I also put on my heaters on very late, even when it's already winter)I have been brought up that way, you can just better build up a tolerance and face it.In the long run you're much better of.Just a loose thought, but could it be that people are even build differently?My GF is from NY and we noticed that she struggles to remove heat from her body.You can clearly see a difference in our pours. Mine look wide open on a hot day, but hers are almost completely closed.On the other hand, people from warmer countries always complain about the cold in NL, GER, UK and Ireland.For us it's just normal, we don't really bother.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2016, 02:07:00 pm
content: Living in a hot climate, and then staying in a place even hottor, we would be walking around in winter with a jersey on, complaining of the cold, while the upcountry visitors would be dropping from heatstroke. People who live in AC 24/7 are not able to adapt to temperature changes easily.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2016, 02:25:34 pm
content: Quote from: SeanB on September 11, 2016, 02:07:00 pmThat's not really true though. When I lived in USA (on the east coast) one of the things that would bug me is that in the summer, when it was 40C outside, cinemas would be cooled to 17C inside, such that I'd have to bring winter clothes to watch a movie. So yeah, people who grew up with AC can handle temp change, just kinda.... backwards?

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2016, 02:35:02 pm
content: That's exactly my thought.One of the reasons I hate AC, my body is in shock every time.Finally adapted and than all of a sudden a huge temperature and humidity difference.Going from hot (pours all open), to super chilly and from freezing walking back against a brick wall.That way you never get used to it (is even asking for getting a serious cold/sick)If I'm in the US in the summer, I always carry a sweater with me.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2016, 04:09:48 pm
content: Quote from: b_force on September 11, 2016, 02:35:02 pm"The coldest winter I ever spent was a summer in San Francisco" often attributed incorrectly to Mark Twainhttp://www.snopes.com/quotes/twain.aspYes, along the coast of California, the ocean breeze often keeps the temperatures down. When people think about California, they usually think about the big coastal cities like parts of LA, San Diego and San Francisco. I can tell you for a fact, sailing on SF bay is almost never a T-shirt event. When the wind kicks up in the summer (the best time to sail if you're up for it!), it gets chilly! Throw in a little spray, well, actually, a lot of spray, and it gets downright cold!California is a desert! There's a reason part of the desert is called Death Valley. There's a reason the Marine Corps trains for Afghanistan at their facility in Twenty-Nine Palms. The entire center of the state is one huge desert.When someone says they lived in California and didn't need AC, get their street address!

author: jitter
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 08:14:36 pm
content: Quote from: b_force on September 11, 2016, 01:25:34 pmNot a shred of doubt in my mind that different people experience temperature differently. I think it's a combination of genetics and the circumstances in which you grew up in the very first years after being born.I worked with men and women coming from different parts of the world, and I noticed that women usually want the ambient temperature higher than men. Also, people coming from hot and humid climates tend to find our climate on the cold side.Personally, I can deal with cold much better than with heat, especially humid heat. I tend to sweat quite easily in humid conditions even in as low as 20C/68F if I have to make some physical effort. But that ability to sweat should actually make me more tolerant of heat. Low humidity and some wind, I can tolerate 30C/86F without problems. Above that or high humidity and you won't find me outside unless I really have to be there.I have an AC to keep the temp and humidity in my top floor apartment acceptable. It's mainly a comfort thing, and hot days combined, it may me running a couple of weeks every year at most.In winter time I feel much more comfortable having the heater set to something as low as 15C/59F. I don't mind going from hot to cold or sitting in a draught (unless it makes me feel cold).On street lighting: I have come to expect that new units or replacements are LED and I have little doubt that the other, older systems will fade from existence in a relatively short time.I think LED lighting can be made to be very reliable and long lived. Good quality LEDs, good thermal management and an overengineered LED-driver, and you should be good for at least 70,000 to 100,000 hours making them fit-and-forget items. Pro stuff seems to be able to do that.And I like the white light much better than those horrible yellow LPS lights. In busy streets, they tend to install 4000 K lights, in residential areas, it's mostly 3000 K.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 09:20:40 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on September 11, 2016, 07:04:26 amWe have a pop of 66k, and it's still in the running of 8th most crime ridden city in the US

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 11:58:53 pm
content: Wether you need AC or not, also depends on humidity a lot. So even relatively hot, but dry parts of California should be Ok, if the houses are build for that climate and you are used to it. At least my experience in the desert of NM was, that there was not much desire to have AC in the house - though one needed it in the car. This was not just a personal feeling - even houses in the $300 K range could be without AC, despite of summer high temperatures around 100 F. However just the few degrees more from climate change and urban heat effect could make the difference in humid areas.At least there a lot of street lights (still the old yellow ones) helped to keep the crime rate down (100% rating). Of cause could also be the other way around: low crime rate makes a city rich and thus they can afford to have light all night. Also bad neighborhoods tend to have a lot a damaged lights.I can understand that even today not all new street lamps are LEDs. The old florescent ones are way cheaper and not that much higher in consumption. LEDs are still improving and getting cheaper and thus it might be worth waiting a few years.

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2016, 01:58:45 am
content: I live in Canada, and I just got A/C. It's nice to have for those 25C+ days. I definitely would want it if I lived where it got 30C and over regularly.

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2016, 02:19:08 am
content: Quote from: jitter on September 15, 2016, 08:14:36 pmThat seems to be pretty reasonable. From what I read, what was getting people up in arms was 5500-6000k or worse, and very bright at night. I can't say that I disagree. Not exactly on topic, but (I know I've said this before somewhere) I don't understand why the current choices for interior lighting tend to be at the extremes. Most of what is sold in the US is either under 2800K or 5000K and higher.

author: jitter
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2016, 05:35:36 am
content: Maybe the process of the LED-producion is a bit susceptible to variations. The need for "binning" to keep CCT variation within reasonable limits certainly seems to indicate that.So, if you're process is not quite under control, what do you do? I'd say: dump the extremes on the market via cheaper, less critical channels...Also you need to take into account that different cultures experience CCT differently.Here in Northern Europe we have a relatively warm daylight because of the angle the sunlight comes under. For residential use, 2700 K is by far the standard and even 3000 K is considered less cosy.But go South, say Greece, and you'll find cooler whites, 4000 K, are preferred. Even in restaurants, chances are you'll find yourself eating under 4000 K fluorescents over there. To us, it's rather weird to be in an intimate environment with what we consider industrial lighting...