What is Digg?71 Comments
- ramong, on 10/10/2007, -6/+29Never mind the energy savings, can you imagine being in the city at night and actually seeing the stars?? that would have such a profound psychological effect on people, it would make them calmer and more positive. It would also make them sleepier so they would want to go to bed earlier.
- fpcyber, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14Very "think outside the box" idea. I love it. Lowers the energy costs, lightbulb costs. However I would assume these sensors have to be cleaned regularly, as I bet they are pretty sensitive.
- santiago1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Why not have LED based street lighting with IR sensors mounted around the poles. That way, when someone comes near, the lamp will "ignite", then turn back off after a period of time. Save energy and allow for adequate lighting for the pedestrians and with LED lamps, you can focus the beam directly down onto the street.
- netengineer10, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10It depends on how you look at it. I think in certain cities it could easily work, and others it might be a bad idea.
In general, if it cuts energy consumption by 90%, its something we have to seriously consider. Also, what your not realizing is that if there are less lights on the street, the bicycle rider with reflectors will stand out more to the cars headlights. The cars in the street will stand out more to the people crossing it.
We can't be afraid to try new ideas because we are afraid of the consequences, especially when the current ideas of more coal and nuclear power plants are much more risky. How much tax payers money goes toward city lighting? If we can save, we can reduce taxes, or have our taxes diverted to better causes like new schools.
As far as "Cover for people wanting to do things at night that don't want to be seen?", in these times more than any, when we are being pumped full of fear to look out for "terrorists" and report any "suspicious packages" we run into in our train stations or bus stops, in order to justify a war and more killing, i will redirect you to Mr. Franklin Delano Roosevelt. "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself " - qevlhma93, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7If clouds cover the moon, the sensor will light up the streetlights.
ie: the fact that it is a sensor :) - greenm1981, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7The lighting would be the same as if the lights were on full time. Ambient moonlight + adjusted streetlight = Full lighting. If the clouds obscured the moon, then the streetlight would adjust to compensate.
- profOblivion, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6You're right, although I don't think the idea needs to be taken to the extreme of having the lights turn completely off during a full moon - just dim them, so that the amount of light reaching the ground is constant.
I think a more sensible solution (long-term) for saving energy and limiting light pollution is more efficient use of street lights. The common "cobra-neck" style model is terrible for shooting light up into the sky rather than at the street. Simply using more efficient shielding and directing the light downwards properly can go a long way to being able to not have them turned up as high as they are now, still allowing the same amount of light at ground level, and curbing some of that nasty light pollution. - fpcyber, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Someone needs to read the links in the article. These streetlights dim depending on the amount of moonlight.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6If it gets me laid, then I'm all for someone raping me.
- thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Wouldn't the alleys and similar places have very low visibility of the moon, and therefore be on more often?
- robojerk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5What are stars??
- OrlyonokEaglet, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Not to mention the light pollution credits such a city could sell...
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5You still wouldn't be able to see much of the night sky in the city. Street lights are not the only source of light pollution. But this is a step in the right direction.
- cliffzdude, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4My God...it's full of stars!
- DrCube, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3See now: I was taught that there is an excess of electricity produced at night (as the demand is less and a similar amount is produced) and that street lighting was a way of stopping this being wasted. Is this the case? If so this surely undermines any 'energy savings' unless we find other ways to store/use said energy.
Still, I would love to see these used purely from a reduced light pollution point of view. - fernando26, on 10/10/2007, -13/+16This is neat and all, but less lights = darker = more people getting hit while riding their bike, walking, etc at night. Also more cover of darkness for ppl wanting to do things at night that don't want to be seen. These are just 2 examples, I'm sure you can come up with many more given a little while.
This is a lawsuit waiting to happen if implemented. Just imagine: someone's kid is killed while walking home from his part-time fast food job around the corner because some tiny soccermom in a massive SUV "didn't see him crossing the street in the dark, sorry!" and the parents sue the city (i.e. you're tax money) for umpteen million dollars.
While its a good idea, it has too many downsides... =( - thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3That would be awesome. Of course, someone would have to take time-lapse photos so we can watch it like a game of re-generating pac-man.
- dreamlayers, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Why can't power plants just produce less electricity at night?
- duality, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I can attest to that. One time, I took a friend and his girlfriend to my parent's house in the country for a party. He had lived in a city for his entire life. On the way back, the two of them asked me to stop the car...on the highway, pretty much in the middle of nowhere. They wanted to get out and look at the stars. We spent a good fifteen minutes stargazing, and I even got to show off a bit of my astronomy knowledge at that time. After we were back on our way, I contemplated the fact that I had always taken the stars for granted. Perhaps this will have a similar effect on other people as what I saw that night.
- OrlyonokEaglet, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Will never happen, I foresee stronger city lights for the surveillance cameras to get a better picture.
- Unlgued, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3GJ on not reading the article. This wouldn't take from the illumination, just supplement the existing natural illumination as necessary. Certainly no one wants the streets to be darker.
- futureisours, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4This is the most ridiculous idea i've ever seen. Going outside and staring at stars only encourages people to get high and take drugs. If you really want to see stars than just look online at high resolution pictures of stars... much better than looking outside.
- mr1337, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2This would be a wonderful idea to get people to be able to see the stars again, especially in metro areas, but I don't think the moon will be able to offer the amount of light in all places that are needed for safety. Areas with a lot of buildings or trees won't be fully illuminated, and crime goes by unnoticed easier in darker places. If you want to save electricity, put solar panels on top of your street lights.
- luckykpolice, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2which would be worse than now how?
- notque, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2This would be awesome here. Would really enjoy it.
- geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Why would they need to be cleaned a lot? They're facing upwards, the rain would wash them off. Furthermore, they're photodiodes, most of them detect the most light in the infrared range, so they can see through most stuff that would get put on them (except for maybe a birds nest, which would just cause the lamp to malfunction and always think it's bright out due to the birds/eggs).
It's basically a modification of how streetlights that aren't on timers have always been done (only instead of detecting daylight as a way to turn off the lamp, it's detecting light intensity and adjusting the brightness on it). - endlessoul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Good point. But there is night vision if need be. As long as they compensate for the lack of moonlight, then I think they're a great idea.
- Akaji, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm sure they could find a way to make it require few cleanings - there are tons of light-based sensors that are used that don't need constant cleaning.
- Richandler, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4This would be a criminal's dream in the inner cities. No lights! The lights are placed up for that sole reason. Safety.
- dreamlayers, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's called full cutoff lighting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_pollution#Improving_lighting_fixtures
It helps but you still get quite a lot of light reflected off the ground and various objects. - Lister169, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Beware of the moon...stick to the road and stay off the moors."
- Jadart, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Wow, something that's not complete ***** on treehugger. Cool idea.
- Chrontius, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Nuclear plants can, however, be throttled without actually scramming the reactor.
- dreamlayers, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The light of a full moon can seem bright if your eyes are adapted to low light, but in a city there will be lots of bright lights which will prevent that. For example what about seeing pedestrians after oncoming traffic passes?
I also wonder about how they intend to dim the streetlights. I've never seen a high pressure sodium dimming ballast. A quick search shows that one can find such things http://ballastchina.en.alibaba.com/product/0/51602502/HPS_Dimmable_HID_Electronic_Ballast.html but I bet they're a lot more expensive than what's used in streetlights nowadays. - AndreiOttawa, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Aren't SUVs equiped with headlights?
- Urusai, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Of course...hehe.
- aminorking, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's more to do with electricity being cheaper at night as there is less demand.
- plus1chromosome, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1HERE HERE!
We miss the stars. Perhaps we might one day have our city children look up and want to know how Hubble found the galaxies to be traveling apart from eachother – maybe they’d one day ask why it is that suns explode combining hydrogen into biological chemical elements that make up your body --- maybe one day we could have another Carl Sagan. - JorgeGT, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Hydroelectric facilities can also reduce their power, i'm sure about that, and I suppose nuclears could reduce the speed of the reaction (carbon retardants), but obviously they cannot be "shut down". (the restart process is very long)
- HanSolo69, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It doesn't matter how full the moon is it's still going to be dark in a cramped city with lots of buildings blocking the light
- jotate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Wow, you're dumb. Even if you're being sarcastic. Just dumb.
- Timmmm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Some can (e.g. gas I think), but others, especially nuclear cannot be turned off every night. It would be way way way too expensive.
- Cyberen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I hope that was sarcasm.
- Humptydank, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Uhmm, streetlights are there for my safety and are supposed to be bright, especially on dark nights. If you're going to start varying things like that, why not just turn them off and let the moon do its job?
I would vote for a few nights a year, say, during the Perseid meteor shower, when large cities and companies are encouraged to turn off their lights and make the city dark. Then, for that night only, the police can increase foot patrols, and people can go up on their roofs and watch the show. It would be a nice way to promote astronomy to kids, especially when they, as I did, first start to like it simply because you're allowed to stay up late. - corneliusJones, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1well i think we know what kevinliu will be doing once we get these new street lamps...
- corneliusJones, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Once your eyes adjust to the darkness (which I think we can agree is a good thing to do at night) you will be able to see just fine. Streetlights now are overkill and disrupt your night vision, so when you do drive into the country your eyes do not have to adjust as much. Plus we'll be saving tons of energy, and be able to see the moon and stars again, and using our night vision.
- squegie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I don't see how revolutionary this is. The lights in Bedford County, PA have a night sensor. When it gets dark, they come on. In fact, some of them are oriented incorrectly (or street is graded incorrectly). With some of these lights, when I drive near/under them, the light goes out as it picks up my headlights.
Granted I think it's mostly an on/off proposition and not an off/slighly on/fully on deal. Using a variable photo-sensitive resistor/transistor set would be quite useful. But the actual circuitry/technology has been in place for quite a long time. We would just have to replace a $0.50/sensor with a $0.75/sensor. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1As far as I can tell, it's already been implemented along at least a few roads in Austin, TX
freaked me out the first few times I biked down a road and the streetlights popped on. - HairyFotr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If the sky is too cloudy or foggy you can't see the moon. But if they would program it according to a weather map and maybe put some sensors around town, that would be ok too.
The good thing about sensors on every lamp is that every light is independent - I'm not sure the lights can be turned on and off one at a time right now, and some corners/alleys just require more lighting. - Chrontius, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Doesn't matter. *bury*
-
Show 51 - 71 of 71 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is