Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Panasonic's New LED Bulbs Shine For 19 Years

Posted by kdawson on from the shine-on dept.

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."

28 of 710 comments (clear)

  1. But still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    incandescents have the advantage of putting off a lot of heat, if you're going to use one as a cheap heat lamp and light provider.

    1. Re:But still... by Patch86 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So incandescent bulbs are a bad thing in most of the world for about a third of the year (summer) and in some of the world most of the year. If you happen to be running air-conditioning at the same time as an incandescent bulb, you're just pumping money out of the window.

      Not to mention the fact that having a heat source 6 inches from your ceiling is generally not the most efficient way to heat a room. It makes far more sense to save the energy wasted from the bulb, and spend it in an efficient central heating system instead, where strategically placed radiators and vents can put the heat where it's actually needed.

    2. Re:But still... by poopdeville · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yup. A halogen desk lamp makes a great accessory during Winter. It is more efficient than using a CFL and oil heating. I don't typically need to warm up my whole office, just the place I sit. The light also looks better than CFLs, or even regular incandescent bulbs. And halogen lamps are both hotter and 40% more efficient than regular incandescent bulbs.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    3. Re:But still... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Even if we assume (incorrectly) that there is the same light usage in winter and summer, the marginal increase from paying double during the 2 months (maybe 3 during a bad summer) of AC are more than canceled out by 6 months where the bulb is redundant with the heater

      Canceled out? Please review how subtraction works. You mean reduced, not cancelled.

      If you replace your incandescents by CFL's or LED's you'll produce less heat from your lighting, so in winter you'll need to run the heater more. However the total electricity use will be the same.

      In summer (summer being defined as the months, weeks or days the heating is not being run) the heat from the incandescent will be wasted, and if you have air conditioning will make your air conditioning run harder.

      The case for CFLs just isn't that compelling in a house where more than 50% of my annual electrical bill is electric heaters.

      Things will get better if you dump your electric heaters. They are expensive and there are shitloads of better systems available.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    4. Re:But still... by N1AK · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I live in a high energy efficiency property in the UK as well, we moved to energy efficient bulbs around 18 months ago and have noticed a sufficient decrease in energy use to believe it was worthwhile.

      Obviously I don't know nearly enough about your situation to advise you, but I am not persuaded that heat produced due to inefficiency of lightbulbs or other devices is an economical source of heating.

    5. Re:But still... by roguetrick · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You save nothing on your heating bill. You just don't LOSE money from the heat provided. There's a big goddamn difference in those two concepts. Generally speaking, you'd spend the same amount of electricity if you are heating your home regardless if you used LED or Incandescent. If the temperature is comfortable outside and inside, you are wasting money heating your home by a small amount. If you are using AC, you are wasting money at TWICE the rate.

      --
      -The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
    6. Re:But still... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Canceled out? Please review how subtraction works. You mean reduced, not cancelled.

      The marginal increase in cost from the cooling is canceled out by the heating gains. That is, for every extra dollar I spend cooling heat that I produced with the light bulbs, I save at least an extra dollar off my heating bill.

      Wah? You're losing me here.

      Using silly made up numbers, assuming conservation of energy and double entry book-keeping:

      With incandescents in winter:

      In winter your heating bill is, say, $100.
      Your lighting bill is, say, $100. $90 of that is heat, $10 is light.

      So your electricity bill is $200, $190 for heat and $10 for light.

      With CFL or LED or whatever in winter:

      Your heating bill is now $190 ('cos the CFL/LED is not giving you the heat it used to)
      Your lighting bill is now $10.

      So your electricity bill is $200, $190 for heat and $10 for light.

      In summer, with incandescents, your lighting bill is $100 and your air conditioning bill is $190.

      In summer with CFL/LED's your lighting bill is $10 and your air conditioning bill is $100.

      Like I said, silly made up numbers, and you can possibly correctly claim:

      Correct. Unfortunately, CFLs and LEDs are much more expensive upfront. Since I get approximately zero savings for 6 months of the year, the time to recoup is doubled (or, with a fixed horizon, the price differential at the critical point is halved).

      But that has nothing to do with your initial claim that the heating effect of incandescent bulbs in winter canceled out their electricity savings all year round.

      Again, large upfront costs and smaller continued costs. It would cost a small fortune to replace our 1950s oil boiler with something vaguely modern.

      Wah? You said you had electric heat! Is electricity cheaper than fuel oil in New England?

      Oh, and I rent, so tearing stuff out is not an option.

      But it's so easy to get a low rate loan to buy, and property is such a great investment!

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    7. Re:But still... by Muad'Dave · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except that if you're using a heat pump vs resistance heating, the unit's SEER value comes into play. My units are SEER 13, so every unit of energy it takes to run the beast pumps 13 units of heat around.

      So using incandescent lights for heat actually wastes money - that Watt going into the bulb could be used to provide 13 Watts of heat instead of just 1 (0.9, actually).

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    8. Re:But still... by gtbritishskull · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This assumes that you are using a resistance heater. If you use a heat pump (usually a COP of around 3-4) then you are still using extra power. (Every extra watt that you use with an incandescent could have done the same as between 1/3 to 1/4 of a watt with a heat pump).

    9. Re:But still... by Firethorn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      - CFLs have a power factor of around 0.5, which means they use twice as much power as rated. For example a 15 watt CFL uses 15 watts in your home, but then it uses another 15 watts at the central power plant due to the need to "rebalance" the power and restore the PF to 1.0. TOTAL == 30 volt-amps burned

      Except that the power company puts PF correction in far sooner than the power plant, and while it doubles the amps for wire resistance calculations(until it hits the power company's correction equipment), it actually doesn't double the wattage used. More like 5-10%. They build PFC in pretty much as standard on high quality high efficiency computer power supplies, why would you think the power company couldn't do the same? And there are better bulbs out there with active PFC.

      - New technologies have allowed folks like GE to build 60 watt incandescants that only use 30 watts while still providing the same brightness. So the net usage is the same as the CFL. No need to abandon the old bulbs.

      Neat tech, but like I said, a 15 watt bulb with a PF of .5 doesn't mean it's using 30 watts. So the CFL still has a leg up of aobut 50% more light per watt than the new higher efficiency bulbs.

      - CFLs *hate* heat. CFLs hate cold. CFLs hate humidity. CFLs hate dimmers.

      I have CFLS in my unheated north dakota garage. the 12 watters start a little slower in the winter, but are still going strong. I have a 23 watt(100watt equiv) in my bathroom. It's been there for over a year, hasn't quit yet. Not instant full brightness - but I like that for those midnight trips. I don't have a dimmer in my house, but it's a five minute job to swap the dimmer out with a CFL compatible one(remember to get a dimmable CFL).

      It sounds like you're buying cheap bulbs, and your dimmer is probably the old resistance type, not the newer electronic pulse type.

      - CFLs hate being turned on and off. Rapid cycling makes them die as quick as an incandescent bulb. So you've spent 5 times as much for a bulb than doesn't last any longer.

      In 6 years the only CFL to die on me was from being dropped.

      - CFLs have a warm-up time. Turn it on to read your paper, and you have to wait 5 minutes before you can see the writing. Turn it on to go down the basement stairs - and you can't see the steps because it's still too dim (a safety hazard).

      For me it takes longer for my eyes to adjust to the new light level, open the book/paper, whatever. The 100 watt equivalent in the bathroom has the longest start-up time, and even it is pretty much instant on, just at ~40-60 watt equivalnet for the first 10 seconds.

      If the stairs are too dim, put in a brighter bulb. Heck, I wonder where people like you are getting your slow starting CFLs from, because none of mine take that long. I have two incandescent bulbs left in closets, and the only reason they aren't CFLs yet is because they haven't died, and I use them too little to bother.

      I use a mix of GE and Sylvania bulbs, what are yours?

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    10. Re:But still... by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      CFLs have a warm-up time. Turn it on to read your paper, and you have to wait 5 minutes before you can see the writing

      1990 called.. it wants its CFLs back. Have you *really* actually used them or are you just making stuff up?

      I hear that on Slashdot a lot, and it's bunk. I've had the whole house on CFLs for years now and they light *instantly*. The only time I ever had one that needed to 'warm up' was one of the original Philips ones years ago.

      So you've spent 5 times as much for a bulb than doesn't last any longer

      CFLs are now the same price (and in some cases cheaper) than incandescents, unless you count the crappy bargain bucket ones that used to last about 3 days. I've still got a bunch I was sent free by the power company.. they only blow about once a year so I don't go through them fast enough.

    11. Re:But still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're a triple degreed EE, but it took you 2 decades to decide you'd had enough of CFLs?

    12. Re:But still... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1, Insightful

      P.S.

      Ya know what pisses me off? People who dismiss your complaints as if they are meaningless. I've thrown-away at least a hundred dollars on shitty CFL products, and what kind of response do I get? "Your observations are wrong."

      What? Did I just turn stupid? Who the hell are these people to tell me that I'm too stupid to understand what I have observed with my own eyes? Frakkers. That reminds me of when I complained to magazines.com that "I did not receive my ordered magazines," and the seller told me I'm not getting a refund because it's not his fault. What??? What?!?!? I quickly disavowed them of that notion when not only did I reverse the charge on the missing magazines, but also the whole damn order (~$60).

      I know what I know, and don't you dare tell me that I'm too stupid to know if I did not receive my magazine and/or wasted ~$100 on CFLs that died prematurely.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  2. ROI by polar+red · · Score: 4, Insightful

    $40 still seems pretty pricey for a light bulb,

    one that saves 23$ a year, which lasts a whopping 19 years ? yup, some people are stupid.

    --
    Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    1. Re:ROI by paul248 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You only save $23 a year if you compare against an incandescent bulb, which is like comparing your car's fuel economy against a school bus. When you compare these bulbs to CFLs, they make much less economic sense, unless you're worried about Mercury pollution.

    2. Re:ROI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      $40 for a light bulb? dumb investment.
      1) due to accidents, overvoltage or simply moving out of the apartment, a light bulb won't last you 19 years.
      2) would you buy a $40.000 laptop because it comes with 19 years guarantee? what if they come up with something more efficient and cheaper two years from now?

    3. Re:ROI by DDLKermit007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      10 years? I've yet to have the spiral CCFLs last over 1.5 years.

    4. Re:ROI by polar+red · · Score: 4, Insightful

      accidents, overvoltage or simply moving out of the apartment

      accidents : LED's are VERY durable.
      overvoltage : do you live in a third world country ?
      moving out : take them with you

      19 years

      more efficient : maybe OLED's, and they're not market-ready. And 2 years from now means I allready have my investment + 6$ back.

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    5. Re:ROI by mlts · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are places where the cost to reach a light bulb to change it is prohibitive. It could be theater marquee lights, lights atop a vaulted ceiling, or places behind a recessed opening that takes a lot of disassembly to get to. So even though $40 might be expensive up front, not having to set up scaffolding 30-40 feet up to get to some fixtures is worth it to some.

  3. Philips by PARENA · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If this is the longest one lasting, then how come the Philips led 'bulb' I have says 20 years?

    --
    Here's the secret to immortality: ...oh dang, I forgot.
  4. How can they know for sure ? by Atreide · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Does it mean they have tested that technology for 19 years and their bulb just died ?

    Man if MS could test their product that way ! :)

    --
    The world belongs to those who get up early. - I'm far from being the king of Earth then :-(
  5. 19 years, huh? by merikari · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'll believe when I see it.

    --
    My other SIG is a Sauer.
  6. Re:Light bulb as a service by jklovanc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The mercury release caused by burning coal (burning coal releases quite a bit of mercury into the air) to produce the extra energy to run an incandescent for a year is more than the mercury contained in one CF.

    Should CFs be disposed of properly? Yes.
    Is one broken CF a hazmat issue? No.

  7. Re:Hope they put a capacitor in there by Jared555 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A lot of LED christmas lights seem to have a visible flicker noticable from half a mile away. They probably don't have anything along the lines of smoothing capacitors in them. Hopefully we are talking about better technology though

  8. Re:Dimness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They probably won't go dark even after 19 years. The lifespan of long lasting light emitters is typically defined as the time until their brightness drops below half the specified intensity. Due to the response curve of the human eye, half the brightness is not as drastic as it sounds and the emitter won't have to be replaced early in most applications. I'd be more concerned about the power electronics driving the emitters.

  9. Re:Light bulb as a service by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You forgot to finish your thought with "if you compeletely and unjustifiably overreact.

    That's pretty much what businesses and schools do in our litigious age. A local school in my area was recently closed for two days over an old barometer that got dropped in one of the science classrooms. They brought in a professional cleanup crew and spent $80,000 to have the mercury spill cleaned up.

    Now I can understand closing off the classroom where the spill happened but closing the whole school seems rather excessive to me. $80,000 for cleanup seems really excessive. But that's what they have to do in this day and age. Otherwise some parent would freak out ("OMG, you mean my kid was within a quarter mile of spilled mercury?! I read someone that stuff is as dangerous as Dihydrogen Monoxide!") and they'd be writing that $80,000 check to a law firm instead of a cleanup crew.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  10. Re:Long life bulbs cost versus cost of replacement by tuxicle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He'd have to get up there to clean the fixtures every so often.

  11. Re:More useless trash by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You had 38 CFL bulbs that all died in less than a year. Meanwhile other people (myself included) are seeing multiple years of life out of ours. As you note, it's can't possibly be something unusual in your case; you have electricl voodoo, and have a line conditioner. That's interesting.

    For no particular reason, I'm reminded of the guy I know who complains that every single romantic relationship he's in ends messily. He's wisely concluded that it's impossible for any man to have a healthy, long-term relationship with with women. I'm sure there is some valuable lesson there.

    --
    Search 2010 Gen Con events