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."

Comments

Re:ROI

[johnlcallaway]

A 60 watt bulb burning for 5.5 hours a day uses about 120KWH a year. My non-peak electricity (i.e. night time when I would be using the lights) is $0.063/kwh. That math is $7.60/YEAR for electricity. Electric rates would have to be almost $0.18US, which is my peak rate during the summer months (it drops to about $0.086US for what passes for winter in Phoenix.) So a 6watt LED bulb would use 1/10th of electricity, saving around $7/year.And I doubt if more than 3 of the incandescent bulbs are used more than 4-5 hours on average a night.

I just bought a pack of ten 60 watt bulbs for $3. So each bulb is an upfront cost of $39.70 whenever a bulb burns out, and has a payback of over 5 years. I'm not going to keep a pack of 10 around the house, I'm going to go out and have to buy one whenever a bulb burns out. I have lived in my house now for 6 years, and just ran out of my first pack.I have a few CFLs in drawers because I don't like them, and about half of the lights we use the most are florescent.

Unless these LED lights can be used in dimmers, I won't buy them because it makes all of my dimmers (three of which are wireless RF in high ceiling fans) useless. Which is another reason I don't buy CFLs. I assume the LEDs will work in dimmers, although the article doesn't state that.

I just replaced my refrigerator because the old one finally died, and using a Kill-A-Watt meter found out it uses about $5/month in electricity. I didn't buy a high-efficiency fridge to save money on electricity, I bought a fridge that happens to be a high-efficiency fridge because it has two separate compressors that keep food SOOO much better. We are throwing out far less food now because things don't get freezer burn and produce doesn't go bad as quickly. And it's bigger, uses LED lights so it's brighter inside, and has some cool drawers and shelves that make it easier to get to the food.

I will spend money on things that are efficient, as long as the efficiencies are worth it to me. An ROI of 5 years on a light bulb isn't worth it because I can't 'see' the savings, it's buried in my electric bill which seems to keep going up and up. I've bought enough long-life light bulbs and other items in my life that didn't last to have little trust in such claims. Spending $2,400 on a refrigerator was worth it because I realized the gains immediately in food savings, something much easier to see.

Re:But still...

[Chris Burke]

I deleted my initial response to this as I took a rather insulting tone towards his EE degrees. I'm having enough problems with him thinking I'm insulting his intelligence.

Heh. I am most certainly insulting his intelligence, I just see no need to insult his degree in order to do so. :)

For two systems transmitting the same amount of real power, the system with the lower power factor will have higher circulating currents due to energy that returns to the source from energy storage in the load. These higher currents in a practical system may produce higher losses and reduce overall transmission efficiency.

Yes, it's the "energy storage" and return that he doesn't seem to comprehend. He seems to think all power in a circuit is "burned", based on a very naive EE101 view that everything is a resistive load.