Saving electricity with CFL, LED

[Ferrocyanide]

Hello all,
I am posting here because I want some juicy brains to answer.

I am wondering, is it really possible to save on electricity if we all use less?


Let’s say I am in Canada, and let’s say all of the electricity is generated via hydro power or solar power. Let’s say all the power companies is own by the canadian government.
If all of the population uses 50% less power, would our electric bill come down or would the power companies adjust the price of the electricity so that our bill stays the same?

So, if we all start using CFL or LED, will our bills be reduced or would the power company make an adjustment and increase the price of electricity?

Where does the saving in $$$ come from? Are they going to shut down a power plant or do they all remain open?

[The Grand Nudger]

A bit of both.

The least profitable generation plants would shut down first. That may (will) mean some people go entirely without outside of government intervention or on-site solutions. If the plants remaining don't hit a target number for the operators, they have a choice to fold, sell, or increase prices for the remaining generation.

That said, lighting isn't where our money or our fuel consumption goes. We cannot keep building houses the way that we do now, where we do now, with the range of use and function that they currently serve - and that's assuming we all conserve and the whole grid goes green. The lightbulbs are brass on the titanic, but if it gets people to buy more of them, they'll let you believe anything.

[Ferrocyanide]

A bit of both.  

The least profitable generation plants would shut down first.  That may (will) mean some people go entirely without outside of government intervention or on-site solutions.  If the plants remaining don't hit a target number for the operators, they have a choice to fold, sell, or increase prices for the remaining generation.  

That said, lighting isn't where our money or our fuel consumption goes.  We cannot keep building houses the way that we do now, where we do now, with the range of use and function that they currently serve - and that's assuming we all conserve and the whole grid goes green.  The lightbulbs are brass on the titanic, but if it gets people to buy more of them, they'll let you believe anything.

Well, in the Quebec system where it is mostly hydro power based, the conservation of energy seems pointless. If we don’t use it, that energy is just going to go towards the ocean and end up as heat.

Also, the turbines are turning at a certain rate whether people use it or not.
I’ve never heard the government ever announce that they are closing down a turbine or shutting down a plant.

In the USA, I think they mostly have coal fired plants. Again, I am not seeing how money can be saved. If you are buying coal from some 3 rd party and you buy less and they keep your $/ton the same, then you can have a saving.
Also, if people use slightly less power, I think this won’t result in a saving since the coal fired plant might still run all their turbines at full speed.
Perhaps if the reduction is large enough, they can shutdown one of their burners.
(I’m not an expert on this and there is the inductor effect that plays a role in this.)

What do you want to do with houses? Build large apartment complexes or single family houses with a nice large backyard and pool?

[Astreja]

I live in Canada, our provincial electrical grid is primarily hydroelectric, and virtually every bulb in my house is an LED.  We get electricity and natural gas through the same utility company.  Haven't looked at the gas/electric breakdown lately, but the combined monthly bill ranges between $160-$220 CDN depending on the weather, and has been fairly stable over the last few years. The price is somewhat regulated - increases or decreases (yes, they do happen) have to be approved by the Utilities Board.

The electricity I save with LEDs I use for electric blankets, the little space heater on my desk, and hot water for bubble baths.  (switches on the heater, causing warm air to waft across keyboard)  Ahh...

[Jehanne]

A few miles to my north and south live some Amish. While I have seen farm tractors going through town (Cedar Rapids), I have yet to see a horse and buggy in my 30 years here.

[AFTT47]

As of 2020, the USA generated just under 20% of its electricity from coal. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

Lighting for residences is not such a big deal but it is a large chunk of commercial electrical consumption.

CFL should have been in wide-scale use decades ago. It arrived far too late. Today, LED is massively more efficient as well as more durable and longer lasting.

[Anomalocaris]

Hello all,
I am posting here because I want some juicy brains to answer.

I am wondering, is it really possible to save on electricity if we all use less?


Let’s say I am in Canada, and let’s say all of the electricity is generated via hydro power or solar power. Let’s say all the power companies is own by the canadian government.
If all of the population uses 50% less power, would our electric bill come down or would the power companies adjust the price of the electricity so that our bill stays the same?

So, if we all start using CFL or LED, will our bills be reduced or would the power company make an adjustment and increase the price of electricity?

Where does the saving in $$$ come from? Are they going to shut down a power plant or do they all remain open?

That depends on how the retail power rates are set.    In a regulated monopoly system investor owned electric utilities must share their books with a public regulating agency, typically some sort of public utility commission.   In the US, regulated utilities are not permitted to make a single dime of the power they supply to their rate payers.   However much it cost them to generate or procure the power they supply to their rate base customers,   that’s exactly how much they can recover through the rates they charge the end user.

So if the total cost of generating power went down 30% because every one is using less power, the electric cost component of your electric bill will go down exactly 30%.

However, your total electric bill not go down by exactly 30%, because with typical utility, the actual cost of generating or procuring the power to deliver to the customer constitute less than half of electric bill.   The rest of consist of cost recovery on capital investment, transmission and distribution cost, and corporate overhead.

often, the only place a regulated utilities is allowed to make a profit rather than simply pass true cost to the end user is in capital investment on plant and equipment, and in transmission and distribution infrastructure.   But the permissible rate of profit is also regulated.    So a utility can’t just double the profit margin on its capital investment to make up for reduced electric demand.

Reducing total power demand will not reduce the cost recovery on existing utility infrastructure, unless the utility operate under some special rules applicable to some jurisdictions.   However, it will reduce need for future infrastructure investment.  So it will reduce long term capital investment recovery component if your utility bill.

Government owned utilities operate under somewhat different rules that are often specific to each large government owned utility, but the concept id usually similar.

[brewer]

A few miles to my north and south live some Amish.  While I have seen farm tractors going through town (Cedar Rapids), I have yet to see a horse and buggy in my 30 years here.

Wow, I haven't thought about IA Amana colonies in years, I know they're not Amish, but still. Thanks for the mental kick start. We need to hit their dog show again. We know a Tervuren rescue person in CR but haven't been contacted in awhile.. 

Just to stick with the thread, we've gone mostly LED. And I believe hydro plants with dams can very the amount of power they generate by altering H2O flow. Also, isn't any excess power generated diverted to the grid?

[Jehanne]

To address the OP, this is what it is going to take:

[Anomalocaris]

Hydro québéc sell much of their excess hydroelectric generation to New England and New York, particular New York metro area, through dedicated transmission corridors. Hydro Quebec gets paid higher New York and New England wholesale prices rather than lower Quebec prices when they do this. The excess revenue it generates through those these sells are partly used to reduce rates for its own retail customers.

So the less power people of Quebec uses, the more that can be made available for sell at a profit to the US. THe more profit there will be to reduce rates for its retail customers.