4 ms·
As far as the integral is concerned, the rate is a constant while time is a linear variable, so the improvement from LEDs is a constant time improvement and the
by ryao 2y ago
As far as the integral is concerned, the rate is a constant while time is a linear variable, so the improvement from LEDs is a constant time improvement and the improvement from running the lights less is a linear time improvement. Otherwise, we are in agreement.
That said, I do think that there is an incentive to spend the energy savings on things other than lighting.
- taeric 2y agoBut the power use is also constant over time t, such that any reduction in time use is effectively a constant drop in cost. You are literally shrinking either the width (time) or the height (electricity use) of the curve, as it were. For your point to be stronger, you would have to show that using lights for longer makes them less efficient, such that you increase the unit cost of electricity over the time variable. Which may indeed be the case. The naive model, though, is just Cost = (electrical use) * (time), and reducing time is the same as reducing electrical use via efficiency.