Slashdot Mirror
Panasonic's New LED Bulbs Shine For 19 Years
Mike writes "As lighting manufacturers phase out the incandescent bulb, and CFLs look set to define the future of lighting, Panasonic recently unveiled a remarkable 60-watt household LED bulb that they claim can last up to 19 years (if used 5-1/2 hours a day). With a lifespan 40 times longer than their incandescent counterparts, Panasonic's new EverLed bulbs are the most efficient LEDs ever to be produced. They are set to debut in Japan on October 21st. Let's hope that as the technology is refined their significant cost barrier will drop — $40 still seems pretty pricey for a light bulb, even one that promises to save $23 a year in energy costs."
That's 38,143 hours. Not great for LEDs, actually. Most newer white LEDs are rated for 50k to 100k hours.
I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
You really think Philips would try selling a half-wave rectified LED emitter for $40? That would be so unbelievably awful, you'd probably see return rates close to 100%.
Hell, even the LED Christmas lights I bought at Wal-mart last year are full-wave.
till you break them and contaminate the room in mercury. Professional remediation is about $3000.
You forgot to finish your thought with "if you compeletely and unjustifiably overreact.
I have only CFL's in my house. not one of them has broken since i moved in in june last year. 3 of those i brought with me from my previous house, which i have i used there for nearly 5 years.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
$40 still seems pretty pricey for a light bulb, even one that promises to save $23 a year in energy costs
You must be an accountant living on the outdated system of monthly and quarterly figures.
To have an amortisation within 2 years and outright profit for 17 years afterwards sounds like a pretty damn good investment.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
I was talking to the facilities manager at the local University... about cost to replace bulbs in some of his buildings.. In some cases it is literally in the many tens of thousands of dollars range. They have to bring scaffolding in with a small crew to erect and move around. (Doors too small for a lift.)
He would be more than happy to pay $42/bulb IFF it meant he didn't have to go back in for two decades.
The bulb in TFA (I know, I know... but it wasn't in TFS) is rated 6.9w consumption, and is presumably the 60w-equivalent referenced in the summary. Most "60w" CFLs take around 12-15w if memory serves - so these LED bulbs are about twice as efficient. Save $23/yr for 19 years vs $12/yr for 5 years (you say 10, but they're usually rated to five and I've almost never seen one last more than two; they seem very sensitive to older wiring). It pays for itself in less than two years compared to an incandescent, and in four compared to a CFL.
Of course, that's all assuming they actually last that long. I don't doubt the power consumption ratings, but as I said I've never seen a CFL last anywhere near it's rated life. My understanding is that they have a limited number of starts due to the ignition ballast (which is external to the bulb in standard fluorescent tubes); I'd assume that if you have older wiring or other factors that may cause frequent power sags you'll burn through those starts unusually fast. That seems to be the case at my house, or would at least make some degree of sense to me. I could be dead wrong about the reasoning, but CFLs unquestionably die faster than incandescent bulbs around here. Hopefully this isn't an issue with LED bulbs.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
"Mercury concentration in the study room air often exceeds the Maine Ambient Air Guideline (MAAG) of 300 nanograms per cubic meter (ng/m3) for some period of time, with short excursions over 25,000 ng/m3, sometimes over 50,000 ng/m3, and possibly over 100,000 ng/m3 from the breakage of a single compact fluorescent lamp. "
study
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
This is because the really bright white LEDs are actually monochrome blue, they have a phosphor that converts some of that blue light into other colours, but not normally enough for a nice (sun like) colour.
There are other techniques that seem to convert the frequencies better; or they could use the old trick of putting different colour LEDs in one bulb. But for the moment if you want highest efficiency you're stuck with lots of blue in the light and a "cold" feel.
One point though, white LEDs are normally closer to the spectrum of the sun than incandescents, it's just that the blue spike is in the opposite direction to the very reduced blues you get from a incandescent. This is a known problem, so the conversions will continue to get better.
Nope, in the mythbusters test the only bulb that lasted a month was the LED (see 14:00 here).
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
The things contain a switch mode power supply, like just about every small mains powered device nowadays. The SMPS converts input to a current output for LEDs, which is what they need for best efficiency. It does this on both halves of the AC cycle. This added complexity contributes to the cost, but not as much as you might think.
Early LED bulbs that ran off cheap transformers used for SELV lighting used series resistors, but the current is very variable and they are, basically, crap. They got away with it because big arrays of cheap LEDs were used. A long term solution really needs not more than two or three high power LEDs in an envelope, because this helps to drive down cost. But this requires an advanced power supply.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Whoa, there, if you go from 60W to 6,9W you save 53W, if you go from 60W to 15W you save 45W, if saving 53W saves you 23$/y, saving 45W will save you 19,5$/y. But it still pays for itself in 10 years, a bit less if you take into account the price of the CFL.
In the US (well, the parts I've paid attention to) "real property" is the land and anything attached to it. If you can lift it and carry it out (with or without help) with nothing more than disconnecting it from utilities (or something like a dryer vent) then it not part of the real property. So you take the counter-top microwave with you, but not the one above the stove. You can take your fridge and washer/dryer, but not the dish washer. Stoves that slide out can be taken as well. In practice, the stove is left in place. The refrigerators are usually left as well, but not washer/dryers. It is a violation of the terms of sale for all standard sale agreements to take bulbs. If they were replaced with incandescents, no one would probably notice, but it would still be "illegal" to take them. If the sockets were left empty, I would expect that the buyer would press the issue. It's rude and a violation of contract to remove anything "secured" to the grounds, and you have to unscrew them to take them, so they are part of the real property. Blinds and curtain hardware are attached with screws or the like, and thus are also left, by law, in most of the US. The curtain fabric itself can be removed. Light fixtures must remain. Though, in the US, unlike the rest of the world, you can sign away what's guaranteed you by law, so you can make the buyer agree that you'll be taking them in direct contradiction to the law.
Learn to love Alaska