Slashdot Mirror

The Department of Energy had a pretty rigorous test regimen set up for testing LED bulbs.
http://www.lightingprize.org/6...
What is needed is a good (and trustworthy) rating agency to test and qualify the bulbs.

Yeah, like the FDA...

[rimshot]

Jeez, I crack myself up.

The FDA does not test products. Manufacturers do. They then send the data to the FDA. The FDA analyzes the data. If the FDA folks think the data passes regulatory rigor, then the product gets approved. There are plenty of smart people analyzing the data, but their hands are tied by the laws. The problem is that, over the years, Congress has quietly and thoroughly defanged the FDA to the point that it now functions more as prop to make people think that food, drugs, and devices are mostly safe. It helps sales.

The Department of Energy had a pretty rigorous test regimen set up for testing LED bulbs. http://www.lightingprize.org/6... What is needed is a good (and trustworthy) rating agency to test and qualify the bulbs.

Yeah, like the FDA...
[rimshot]
Jeez, I crack myself up.

The Department of Energy had a pretty rigorous test regimen set up for testing LED bulbs.
http://www.lightingprize.org/6...
What is needed is a good (and trustworthy) rating agency to test and qualify the bulbs.

But, of course, everybody wants to buy the cheapest ones, not ones tested to long lifetime.

For what it's worth, I have about 60 LED bulbs in my house, from about fifteen maufacturers. So far, four have failed.

Further - no viable light bulb replacements will work with dimmer switches (Which my house has many).

That was true five years ago-- these days it seems all of then are rated to work with dimmers . I have some Philips LED bulbs on a dimmer in the dining room-- they work fine.

I linked to the L-Prize test data above, but here it is again: http://www.lightingprize.org/60watttest.stm .
These are very tough, long-lasting bulbs with good performance and durability verified by extensive outside lab and field testing. The lifespan rating should likely be much higher than they put on the box, too.

http://www.lightingprize.org/60watttest.stm

(Shamelessly posted here at the top to make it easier to find.)

http://www.lightingprize.org/60watttest.stm

99.3% of initial brightness after 25,000 hours use. (see lumen maintenance)

This is far better than a CFL and better than an incandescent too.

Sigh, wasting a good thread for modding by replying to this but since no one else has I'll bite.

Why legislate? If the lamps were cost effective, then the municipalities would make the switch. Right now in central Ohio the primary electric provider charges in the neighborhood of $5 per lamp per month for power. The muni is responsible for purchasing the bulbs if I am remembering correctly.

First, you legislate it since its the only way to get it done. Sad but true. Next, you only need LED light bulbs. You don't have to replace the full lamp, at least if these consumer sites are anything to go by.

If the cost of power and the cost of the bulb are figured in, the LED street lamps take an insane amount of time to recoup the cost. Even when you figure in the labor to replace the bulbs every couple of years it still doesn't add up.

Per the source Wikipedia provided the extra initial cost is paid off within two years just from the electricity savings, and barring a physical disaster (such as the streetlamp falling over or getting shot with a gun) you don't have to change the bulb for 20 years. Really, it is a better choice but it would require work by city employees to actually make the change happen. They may even have to do a slide show!

When many budgets are being stretched to the breaking point would you advocate for your town to install LED street lights that will cost more? Would you vote for your taxes to be increased to purchase the lights, or would you prefer that a couple of employees be terminated to pay for the cost difference? I, myself, am not opposed to the idea of installing power saving, pollution reducing equipment, but there has to be a balance somewhere.

Hell yes I would advocate for this. Budgets don't magically get bigger on their own. You have to work for it. You have to plan and invest for it. This is a very, fucking, simple, means to save the city/town a lot of money and power, and it cuts down on light pollution as an added bonus!

Oh and something else to chew on: as more demand for LED lights increases, in the form of cities and towns using them for streetlights, the manufacturing process will be improved as companies compete with one another to produce a cheaper light bulb to sell. That's basic market principles. Demand drives innovation. Yet another long term economic bonus by mandating a switch to LED lights.

Apparently the Department of Energy in the US thinks they're a damn good thing that should be improved so they can become the defacto light source. They're hosting a contest since May 2008 to create a better LED light bulb. They call it the L-Prize.

Really, once you look at the known facts and the future potential you have to ask yourself why not? A handful of employees might lose their job? Taxes may go up a fraction of a percent? You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, and you can't make improvements for the future without paying for it. To hold back on something as simple as this for the reasons you gave is petty, just petty.

I just skimmed the entry requirements PDF doc, and there are a bunch of kickers. First, the semiconductor device must be manufactured in the US. Second, the light output requirements exceed that of currently available LEDs:
- The 60W replacement must have >90 lm/W output
- The PAR-38 replacement must have >123 lm/W output

So unless you have access to a semiconductor fab line in the US, you won't be participating in this contest.