News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Closing the "green gap": energy savings from the math of the landscape function. Parent comment

Re:Closing the "green gap": energy savings from the math of ... by SilasX on Monday February 24, 2025 @10:11PM (#43167649)
Yours seems like an unusual case. Lighting is something that’s least vulnerable to Jevons effects because (after electrification reached maturity) people already use all the artificial light they could ever want and don’t look for ways to use more when it becomes cheaper (more lighting per unit cost). Even if they’re less careful about turning off unused light, LEDs are so much more efficient that they will still use less energy for lighting.

In contrast, energy itself is very vulnerable to Jevons effects because there is always a marginal use of energy it can be applied to as more is freed up.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Closing the "green gap": energy savings from the math of ... by jcelerier on Tuesday February 25, 2025 @07:49AM (#43171193)
> people already use all the artificial light they could ever want

Huh ? People put LEDs in so many more places than they were putting incandescent lights. Under desks, beds, in closets, all around walls, over furniture, behind TVs...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Closing the "green gap": energy savings from the math of ... by SilasX on Tuesday February 25, 2025 @11:41AM (#43174155)
Hm, I'd never noticed that phenomenon, but even so, the efficiency gain is so high that, even when you enumerate all those spaces, it doesn't cancel out the energy savings of the shift.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Closing the "green gap": energy savings from the math of ... by crusty on Wednesday February 26, 2025 @11:02AM (#43184912)
Also, I've noticed that during the transition, when people have a mix of incandescent and LED, they internalize the potential efficiency of the LED, and then use the incandescent bulbs in a similar way. So the incandescent light on the hall table that's more appealing gets left on for longer periods as if it were an LED.

I'm guessing this is more common in households with legacy light fixtures and legacy nostalgias, though, and that's its own diminishing set.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Closing the "green gap": energy savings from the math of ... by ryao on Tuesday February 25, 2025 @08:34AM (#43171612)
My thinking is that we should look at the electricity usage rather than the subset of electricity used by lighting, since the bill going down because of lighting means the bill can go up because of something new.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Closing the "green gap": energy savings from the math of ... by SilasX on Tuesday February 25, 2025 @11:53AM (#43174330)
Oh yes, I agree with the general point, that the Jevons non-effect in lighting is canceled by the Jevons effect in general energy usage, and that we can't expect energy efficiency improvements alone to reduce the latter.

So there's an important point here: the benefit of energy efficiency improvements is not that it will get total energy usage down by itself (and thereby hit GHG targets), but rather, that it will reduce the total hit to consumption/utility that we experience when regulations disincentivize (GHG-emitting) energy usage.

[ Parent | on HN ]