MA: Lighting Technology Act (Debating)

[ZuWo]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: TJ in Cleve

[TJ in Oregon]

The reason for doing this would be that it makes financial sense because it would drastically reduce our maintenance costs for traffic lights (and would cut energy usage as well). This is modeled after the state of Kentucky replacing all their traffic lights’ incandescent bulbs with LEDs. The main downsides are the initial capital cost and that the higher energy efficiency of LEDs means they will not melt snow and ice on them as easily as inefficient incandescent bulbs.

[ZuWo]

I'm generally supportive of this bill.
Are there any other downsides of LED technology? (You're the chemistry guy, you might know such things )

[TJ in Oregon]

The downside is primarily the immediate cost since LEDs cost four times as much as incandescent bulbs. There is some question about the future of the price and any decline in it would have huge implacations for the future of lighting technology. There is some chance that by buying them today, we lose out on a cheaper price a year from now.

Also, LEDs are a new technology and when all else is equal it's always advisable to go with older technologies because there may be a web of unforseen problems we haven't thought of yet. For LEDs, the light is more directional than in incandescent bulbs, resulting in a slightly less powerful light to your eyes.

Still, with all else considered, the options are not equal at all for this type of application. LEDs are pretty obviously better (and I say this as someone who opposes the usage of most of our current batch of "green" technologies because most of them are essentially junk). But, LEDs last practically forever and we'd cut our bulb costs alone by more than half over ten years, not to mention maintenance and energy.

[afleitch]

The downside is primarily the immediate cost since LEDs cost four times as much as incandescent bulbs. There is some question about the future of the price and any decline in it would have huge implacations for the future of lighting technology. There is some chance that by buying them today, we lose out on a cheaper price a year from now.

It is a minefield; In the European Union they passed a directive in essense meant that as of 2009 virtually all incandescent bulbs were banned and clear bulbs which are not category C energy efficiency rating or better will be phased out by 2013.

While the cost of non-incandesent bulbs is higher than the old filament bulbs the price difference even ignoring the net benefit of the bulb being brighter/efficient/long lasting isn't prohibative. Certainly the Mideast government would be putting out a supply contract so we'd be buying in bulk at any rate.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I oppose section 1 due to the fact that LED lights will not melt the snow on them.  Considering that the Mideast does receive a lot of snow, I am formally introducing the following amendment:

"Section 1 is removed and all subsequent sections are renumbered accordingly."

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The amendment is now brought to a vote.  This will be a 24-hour vote.

[ZuWo]

Nay

In my opinion, the energy-saving aspect is more important than the snow-melting one. Yes, we must ensure that the snow at least on the most important Mideast roads is removed, but I don't think we should depend too much on traffic lights.

[TJ in Oregon]

Nay

The easiest solution to this is to install a snow scoop on to the lights or if that doesn't work an energy-dissapative filament. The scoop would be preferable to the filament becuase the filament would cut into our energy savings.

Inks is correct in noting the problem here and it has to be addressed. However, the cost savings from making this change are so large that we could add almost anything to the light and it would still be economically beneficial.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I don't see the costs here being that large - I remain opposed.

AYE

[Mopsus]

Nay

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I oppose section 1 due to the fact that LED lights will not melt the snow on them. 

I agree, though my opinion counts for nothing. Maybe there could be an amendment involving use of the snow scoop or something like that?

[Franzl]

Nay ftr

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The AYEs are 1, and the NAYs are 4.  The NAYs have it and the amendment is not agreed to.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Is there further debate on the bill?

[TJ in Oregon]

I don’t want to micro-manage this too much, but I suppose an amendment like Cathcon suggested is probably a good idea as long as it’s worded vaguely enough to give discretion to the project manager.

I offer the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Voting is now open on the above amendment.  This will be a 24-hour vote.  Members will vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN

[TJ in Oregon]

Aye

[Mopsus]

Aye

[Franzl]

Aye

[ZuWo]

Aye

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

AYE

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Voting is now closed.  The AYEs are 5, and the NAYs are 0.  The AYEs have it, and the amendment is agreed to.