Panasonic's New LED Bulbs Shine For 19 Years

But still... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-15 18:57 · 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.

Re:But still... by fractoid · 2009-09-15 19:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

Why the hell is this offtopic? It's true - this hippie-frenzy focus on non-incandescent light sources is idiotic. Any time you're running any kind of active heating, the thermal inefficiency of incandescent lights becomes a nonissue because the heat output is not wasted. And with the usage cycle they're talking about, a $0.90 incandescent bulb should last at least 2 years. While I agree that it's nice to see LED lighting starting to measure up to the good old bulb-and-tungsten-wire approach, I don't think there's much concrete reason to move away from incandescents in cold climates. Hot climates, there's a small but measurable advantage.

--
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Re:But still... by Patch86 · 2009-09-15 19:31 · 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.
Re:But still... by Kagura · 2009-09-15 19:51 · Score: 5, Funny

The problem is the weight. They're made of led.
Re:But still... by poopdeville · 2009-09-15 20:02 · 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.
Re:But still... by jabuzz · 2009-09-15 20:25 · Score: 2, Informative

Where I live the norm is to have thermostatically controlled gas central heating. Also the difference between summer and winter daylight hours is significant. Air conditioning is extremely rare in domestic properties anywhere in the U.K.
This means in the summer I hardly use artificial lighting, until late at night where the heat output of an incandescent light bulb can make a noticeable difference in taking the late night chill off a room.
In the autumn and winter, I have the central heating on when it is dark because it is cold, and as it thermostatically controlled the heat from the incandescent light bulbs means my central heating works a little less. If I replace these with energy efficient bulbs it will just make my central heating work harder.
The advantage of any energy efficient light bulb where I live is going to me marginal at best, and potentially negative when you take the manufacturing of the bulb into account.
Just because you happen to live somewhere where all this is not the case does not mean I don't.
I have saved more carbon output by insulating my house properly and installing a modern condensing boiler than I could ever save from switching to energy efficient light bulbs by several orders of magnitude. If every house in the UK was brought up to the same standard of insulation as mine is now we could easily meet our Kyoto targets doing just that.
Re:But still... by Eunuchswear · 2009-09-15 21:06 · 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
Re:But still... by N1AK · 2009-09-15 21:08 · 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.
Re:But still... by TheGreenNuke · 2009-09-15 22:17 · Score: 5, Funny

Agreed, also why that whole led zeppelin idea never took off.
Re:But still... by xaxa · 2009-09-15 22:23 · Score: 3, Interesting

Your gas central heating is a much cheaper way to heat your house compared to incandescent bulbs.
Electricity is about 10-14p/kWh, and gas about 3p/kWh. Even with old heating it's still cheaper; my new condensing boiler is 85% efficient and was probably quite cheap (I rent, and everything else in the flat looks cheap), yours may well be even better.
I agree extra insulation is much more useful though. I'd like to see the government take the Green Party's economy-stimulation suggestion up: subsidise adding insulation to houses. Some incentive for landlords to add insulation would be good too, but I think this might happen with the home rating thing.
Re:But still... by roguetrick · 2009-09-15 22:34 · 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
Re:But still... by Eunuchswear · 2009-09-15 23:27 · 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
Re:But still... by Muad'Dave · 2009-09-16 00:00 · 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.
Re:But still... by gtbritishskull · 2009-09-16 00:21 · 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).
Re:But still... by T+Murphy · 2009-09-16 00:39 · Score: 5, Funny

If you are using AC, you are wasting money at TWICE the rate.
Note to self: never post AC. Too expensive.

--
My webcomic
Re:But still... by commodore64_love · 2009-09-16 00:50 · Score: 3, Interesting

Me too. I've been using CFL's for almost twenty years, and I've come to the conclusion that they are a worse idea that using Edison's incandescent lighting. Here's why:
- 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
- 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.
- CFLs *hate* heat. CFLs hate cold. CFLs hate humidity. CFLs hate dimmers. In practical terms this means CFLs can not be used in 80-90% of present fixtures. I used them in my upside-down ktichen lights - they died 2 months later. I used them outside in my porch light - it worked fine until the temperature dropped below zero, and then refused to light. I used them in my bathroom, and after a shower the humidity killed half of them. I bought a so-called "dimmable CFL" which died 5 minutes after I installed it in my living room dimmer switch. Instead of saving money, I'm wasting it on tons of dead CFLs.
- 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.
- 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).
I have about 20 CFLs in my home.
But I'm gradually phasing them out and
replacing them with 25 or 40 watt incandescents.
I tried to do my part to be green over the last two decades, but it's just not working. The CFLs are not the solution to reduced lighting expenses. Perhaps these new half-power incandescents from GE will provide an answer, or the new LED lights, but CFLs are not it.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:But still... by Lumpy · 2009-09-16 01:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

If the cost of lighting your house is $90.00 for lighting only, please stop trying to replicate the surface of the sun lighting conditions in your home.
running 10- 60 watt bulbs 24/7 for 1 month costs LESS than $50.00 US. most lights are on for less than 3 hours at a time on average.
$90.00 for lighting only is so absurd for a home it's silly.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:But still... by edmicman · 2009-09-16 01:25 · Score: 2, Informative

After we bought our house I planned on replacing the vanity lights in the bathroom with CFLs as the current ones burned out. Part of it was that my wife complained about the bathroom getting too hot; I figured the less heat given off by the CFLs would help out there, too, plus if they lasted longer everybody would win. Well, I replaced two of them and they lasted maybe 6 months max - I'm sure the humidity from the shower wrecked them. Here's an application where they could save energy, and their cool-running would actually be a benefit, and they are completely useless in that environment. I'm back to using the incandescent variety in the bathroom now, and their heat-producing qualities will help in the winter, too.
Re:But still... by Firethorn · 2009-09-16 01:27 · 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
Re:But still... by anthonyfk · 2009-09-16 01:45 · Score: 2, Informative

No. The Mythbusters took a look at this; "starting" a CFL only takes as much energy as running one for 2 seconds. So, unless you'll be out and in the room again within 2 seconds, it's always better to turn them off.
Re:But still... by kimvette · 2009-09-16 01:54 · Score: 2, Informative

- 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.
I have a light meter and have measured warm-up time of various CFLs. All the ones I had (six models from four brands) were at full brightness by a minute and a half. I've never seen one which didn't immediately put out enough light for reading.

--
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Re:But still... by Tony+Hoyle · 2009-09-16 02:00 · 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.
Re:But still... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-16 02:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

You're a triple degreed EE, but it took you 2 decades to decide you'd had enough of CFLs?
Re:But still... by GameMaster · 2009-09-16 02:47 · Score: 2, Funny

I hear you can, dramatically, increase the energy efficiency if you re-route the furnace exhaust back into the house. ;-)

--

Rules of Conduct:
#1 - The DM is always right.
#2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
Re:But still... by GameMaster · 2009-09-16 02:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

Heat pumps don't work in colder environments which, coincidentally, are also, usually, the places with the longest winters and shortest summers. In the warmer environments where a heat pump would be usable, the long summers would make much of the argument moot as the extra heat from the incandescent would be unwanted most of the year.

--

Rules of Conduct:
#1 - The DM is always right.
#2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
Re:But still... by smellsofbikes · 2009-09-16 03:02 · Score: 2, Informative

>It sounds like you're buying cheap bulbs, and your dimmer is probably the old resistance type, not the newer electronic pulse type.
Not to dismiss your other arguments, but I work in lighting, specifically in designing test hardware for LED lights that run off commercially available dimmer switches, and I've spent years renovating houses, and I have never seen a resistance-type dimmer switch. The way a resistance dimmer would work, would be to dissipate the power through resistance in the wall, meaning you'd have up to the light bulb's rating of heat being generated in the tiny space of the box in the wall -- an incredibly bad idea, a fire hazard, a safety hazard, and likely to burn the next person who touches the switch because it'd be so hot.
Old-style dimmers use a triac, triggered by an adjustable resistor/diac, that chops the AC sinewave, holding it at zeroV for a while before letting it through. New-style dimmers do exactly the same thing only they let the AC rise, then chop it to 0, and they use more sophisticated electronics to do it. If you left/right reverse the waveform, you practically can't tell the difference between the two types.
This is a minor point, but one that comes up a lot in talking about dimmers. If anyone has seen a pure resistance-type dimmer, ever, I'd love to know about it.
Actually, I did see one once. It was in a museum in Iceland, and had been used in a farmhouse in the 1930's, that was using a hydroelectric generator and the resistive element served to regulate the power to all the lights in the house. It was about the size of a shoebox and was mounted on the wall with a big steel heatsink extending outwards from beneath it.

--
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
Re:But still... by Chris+Burke · 2009-09-16 04:47 · Score: 2, Informative

t doesn't matter. The point is that a 15 watt CFL is actually using 30 volt-amps, so it's only saving half as much energy as a 60 volt-amp traditional bulb
I'm a triple-degreed electrical engineer. Not an idiot.
You're a triple-degreed EE who doesn't know how power factor works, and yes that does make you an idiot. Idiots can get degrees, who would have thought?! If you didn't have the degrees, then you'd just be excusably ignorant (but in either case a jackass for talking like you weren't ignorant).
Cluephone: PF of 0.5 does not mean the CFL actually consumes twice as much energy. It consumes a somewhat larger amount of energy because of extra resistive losses in transmitting the extra current. The CFL itself consumes the same 15 W, and the power company needs to generate the same 15 W. They also need to cover the extra resistive losses, but that's not anywhere close to equal to the real power consumed by the bulb, and doesn't put a CFL anywhere near any kind of incandescent.

--

The enemies of Democracy are

ROI by polar+red · 2009-09-15 18:58 · 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?

Re:ROI by ShooterNeo · 2009-09-15 18:59 · Score: 4, Interesting

But compact fluorescents cost $2, save almost as much power/year, and last about 10 years. They are the most cost effective.
Re:ROI by paul248 · 2009-09-15 19:06 · 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.
Re:ROI by Pinkfud · 2009-09-15 19:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

Provided the claim has any base in reality. I have been using CFLs for years, and so far my luck with them has been uniformly bad. They burn out in 3 to 6 months in my application. Possibly my environment is too hot for the electronics inside.

--
The world is my oyster. That's why it's always in a stew.
Re:ROI by DDLKermit007 · 2009-09-15 19:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

10 years? I've yet to have the spiral CCFLs last over 1.5 years.
Re:ROI by polar+red · 2009-09-15 19:18 · Score: 4, Informative

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?
Re:ROI by Kumiorava · 2009-09-15 19:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

In a lamp test by a Finnish magazine the 3 EUR fluorescent lamp died at 3000 hours. The more expensive ones are still going on but starting to show longer warming times, stains/cracks and other problems. In addition to these problems fluorescents are hazardous waste and should be recycled. At 10x longer lifespan the LED light sounds like a good deal to me.
Re:ROI by Firehed · 2009-09-15 19:44 · Score: 5, Informative

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?
Re:ROI by polar+red · 2009-09-15 19:48 · 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?
Re:ROI by lazybeam · 2009-09-15 19:50 · Score: 4, Interesting

CFLs in my house have died within a year: the ones installed in the bathroom and kitchen. They don't like the humidity and heat which is why I'm not surprised. The others have lasted since Feb 2007. Brands don't seem to matter.

--
-- no sig for you. come back one year.
Re:ROI by mlts · 2009-09-15 20:15 · 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.
Re:ROI by L4t3r4lu5 · 2009-09-15 20:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

It's unwritten law that you don't take the lightbulbs when you move house; It's just being a cheapskate. Like taking the carpets, or the hooks off the back of doors. My parents have had to walk around with candles before now because the idiot who sold the house too every bulb, and this was before the time of 24 hour shopping in the UK. They had to drag boxes out in front of the car to see what was in them.

I swear to God if anybody does that to me when I'm moving into the house they've sold, I'm turning up at their forwarding address and peeing in their letterbox.

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Re:ROI by AuMatar · 2009-09-15 20:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

And what's a little mercury pollution? Its not like that stuffs harmful.
I'll take LEDs any day over a CFL. I refuse to switch to those, they're just too hazardous for home use. I'll go to leds when the color temperature works out, until then its good old incandecents.

--
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Re:ROI by beelsebob · 2009-09-15 20:30 · Score: 2, Informative

Don't buy bulbs from IKEA... I have no idea how they make their bulbs so shit, but honestly, they are.
Re:ROI by jabuzz · 2009-09-15 20:31 · Score: 2, Informative

Yes there is, the manufacture and importation of incandescent lightbulbs at 100W and over into the E.U. is now illegal.
Re:ROI by MichaelSmith · 2009-09-15 20:33 · Score: 3, Interesting

(What I would do if swapping to LED bulbs would be to put the bulbs I take out in a box somewhere and reinstate them when leaving.)
Yeah I would put cheap globes in too. On a different but related note I have a relative who, when he inspected a house he was buying would hide items which he wanted to own, then retrieve them after taking the place over.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:ROI by mspohr · 2009-09-15 21:09 · Score: 2, Informative

Don't know what your problem is but I replaced all the bulbs in my house with Ikea CFLs and not one has failed in three years. They all are 'instant on' and have a nice color temperature.

--
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Re:ROI by mspohr · 2009-09-15 21:15 · Score: 2, Informative

In Switzerland it's standard procedure to take everything when you move out of an apartment... curtains, blinds, light fixtures, bulbs. I found this a bit odd but they are very frugal here.

--
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Re:ROI by sFurbo · 2009-09-15 22:37 · Score: 3, Informative

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.
Re:ROI by vlm · 2009-09-15 23:06 · Score: 4, Funny

Brands don't seem to matter.
If decades have mottos, that should be the motto of the "00s".
Since everything comes from the same factory in China, brands no longer matter.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:ROI by AK+Marc · 2009-09-15 23:27 · Score: 3, Informative

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
Re:ROI by toppavak · 2009-09-15 23:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

The problem with CCFL's is that short duty-cycle usage shortens their lifetimes. This makes them great for things like porch lighting, living rooms etc where they'll be on for hours at a time, but poor for things like bathrooms where they may be on for 10 minutes at a time tops. When used in situations that extend their lifetimes, CCFLs are indeed much more cost-effective than LEDs are currently, but as is usually the case, a mixed application of both will always be the winner. Also, I've noticed (in a very unscientific study) that some of the slightly more expensive brands of CCFLs actually do give more consistent performance in the long run.
Re:ROI by Chapter80 · 2009-09-15 23:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

I bought my first CFLs back in 2001 (six of them). All but one is still working. One, I had in a portable work light, and I busted it transporting it. The others survived a move to my new house in 2005.
As soon as the builders cheap incandescent lights began burning out (in 2006), I bought replacements for ALL non-dimmer lights in my house (mostly in bathrooms), about 25 bulbs. While not all of them are in use every day, every one of them is still working.
So I am well above your 1.5 estimate with a sample size greater than 30.
Re:ROI by ceoyoyo · 2009-09-16 02:10 · Score: 2, Informative

Well, most people still use incandescents. There are also some places where CFLs don't work as well, but an LED would be just fine.
Also, if you look a little further up, the LED lights still pay for themselves times two or so against CFLs over their lifetime. And that's with a brand new product. CFLs weren't a lot cheaper when they debuted.

Not impressive lifetime for an LED by mpoulton · 2009-09-15 18:59 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

Re:Not impressive lifetime for an LED by Mattsson · 2009-09-15 23:05 · Score: 2, Informative

On the other hand, we're talking high-power LEDs here.
The high power comes at the price of shortened life.

--
/.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)

Philips by PARENA · 2009-09-15 19:04 · 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.

Re:Philips by Farmer+Tim · 2009-09-15 19:56 · Score: 4, Funny

Because in 18 years a bunch of heavy-set guys in Panasonic overalls will come around and make sure your Philips bulb has a little "accident".

--
Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.

Hope they put a capacitor in there by corsec67 · 2009-09-15 19:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

I hope they put a capacitor in there with a bridge rectifier instead of just ignoring half of the 50/60 Hz cycle.

--
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me

Re:Hope they put a capacitor in there by fons · 2009-09-15 19:10 · Score: 3, Interesting

Seems an interesting comment, but I don't understand it.
Could you explain this to me?
Re:Hope they put a capacitor in there by paul248 · 2009-09-15 19:11 · Score: 5, Informative

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.
Re:Hope they put a capacitor in there by iamapizza · 2009-09-15 19:17 · Score: 5, Funny

You do realize why the Borg are so bad at making dimmer switches don't you?
Resistance is futile.

--
Always proofread carefully to see if you any words out.
Re:Hope they put a capacitor in there by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-15 19:40 · Score: 2, Informative

A typical bulb sees 50Hz 110V or 240V coming into it. When the signal goes above 0V it starts to glow, when it goes below 0V it starts to glow, back and forth faster than the eye can see.
LEDs don't work on a negative signal so the signal needs to be rectified. Half wave rectification means that when it goes above 0V you start getting power to the LED, when you go below 0V you don't. So the LED is on for only half the time. Full wave rectification flips the negative part to the positive side and you get something more closely resembling what normal bulbs do.
In real laymen terms:
Full wave is fine,
Half wave is a flickery mess.
Re:Hope they put a capacitor in there by bami · 2009-09-15 20:10 · Score: 2, Informative

Addendum:
And the capacitor is there to keep the current going for the time the voltage is around 0V. This isn't really a problem for incandescent light bulbs since they after-glow for the time there is no voltage on the bulb, so you get a consistent glow. This is not the case with CFL's as they only marginally afterglow, and even worse with LEDs since they don't glow at all when the power is cut.
Without it:
Normal lightbulb: pretty consistent light
CFL: 50hz or 60hz flicker
LED: 25hz or 30hz flicker (without rectifier).
No wonder people get headaches from standing around in CFL's all the time.
Re:Hope they put a capacitor in there by Jared555 · 2009-09-15 20:29 · 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

LED diffusion problems by bzipitidoo · 2009-09-15 19:11 · Score: 4, Interesting

The LED lights I've seen are too directed. They don't light up a room all that well. Whatever spot the LEDs are aimed at is more illuminated, and everywhere else less illuminated than with CFLs or incandescents.

--
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"

Re:Light bulb as a service by EvanED · 2009-09-15 19:13 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

Summary Misleading by Techman83 · 2009-09-15 19:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

Summary

Panasonic recently unveiled a remarkable 60-watt household LED bulb that they claim can last up to 19 years

TFA

The bulbs use only an eighth the power of incandescents. That means a 60-watt-equivalent LED bulb would cost only 300 yen (about $3) a year instead of 2,380 yen ($25.80)--a significant savings over a lifetime.

The box pictured on the right has "6.9w", which if as good as a 60 watt incandescent, is probably only a watt or two better than the equivalent CFL.

--
# cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!

19 years, huh? by merikari · 2009-09-15 19:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'll believe when I see it.

--
My other SIG is a Sauer.

Light temperature by jklovanc · 2009-09-15 19:21 · Score: 5, Interesting

My main problem with LEDs that I have seen is that their light is to cold and white. It hurts my eyes and causes migraines. I didn't see a temperature quoted in the article.

Re:Light temperature by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-15 19:34 · Score: 2, Informative

From link in TFA: Available in "Daylight" and warm "Lamp" colors
Not that they list a figure for what these are. I've seen cheep 'warm white' CFLs that have a colour rating higher than the expensive brand 'cool white'
Re:Light temperature by rdebath · 2009-09-15 20:10 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

Re:Light bulb as a service by Joebert · 2009-09-15 19:27 · Score: 5, Funny

$3000 se ms a lit le high to me too. I pai ted a gar ge once and fou d some merc ry rol ing arou d on the floor as I was pres ure wash ng. I just sco ped it up with a du tpan and put it in a jar. I'm perf ctly fine, it's not like I'm dead or hand ca ped or anyth ng now.

--
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.

Bad mathematics? by Teun · 2009-09-15 19:28 · Score: 4, Informative

$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."

Long life bulbs cost versus cost of replacement... by sl149q · 2009-09-15 19:43 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

Re:Light bulb as a service by jklovanc · 2009-09-15 19:54 · 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.

Dimness by Masa · 2009-09-15 19:59 · Score: 4, Interesting

But how dim they get over time? It's pretty pointless to have a LED light that lasts 19 years, if the light gets so dim after few years that it is practically unusable.

Re:Dimness by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-15 22:06 · 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.

Re:Light bulb as a service by goombah99 · 2009-09-15 20:08 · Score: 3, Informative

"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.

LEDs are great by DrXym · 2009-09-15 20:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

I just built a new house which has something like 32 GU10 spotlights built into the ceilings to provide lighting. An LED bulb uses ~1/25th the power of a traditional halogen so I could be turn on every single light in the house for little more than the cost of a single halogen. The initial outlay will pay for itself in a year or two. And I don't have to be climbing up ladders or risking my neck changing they so often because they last much longer.

The main issues to look for with LEDs is some of the cheaper ones give out a horrible ghostly white light. The box should say what colour temperature they output, and the best ones output 3200K warm white light similar to traditional incandescents. You wouldn't even know its an LED unless you stared at it. The other issue is only some bulbs work with dimmer switches, but there are models which do that too.

The case for LEDs in other kinds of fixtures is probably less clear cut. LEDs are fairly directional so they probably require some refractive covering to be useful in hang down bulbs. But in the meantime there are plenty of CFL solutions which again save a lot more than traditional incandescents. I really don't see why anyone would bother with incandescent bulbs unless they are ignorant of how much money they're losing or they have have highly specific needs that other kinds of bulbs do not provide.

Re:What kills bulbs by amRadioHed · 2009-09-15 21:05 · Score: 3, Informative

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 basic numbers, LED versus CFL by Mike_EE_U_of_I · 2009-09-15 21:13 · Score: 2, Informative

But compact fluorescents cost $2, save almost as much power/year, and last about 10 years. They are the most cost effective.

Indeed, CFLs are the most cost effective, as long as you don't actually use any math.

However, I do like math, so I shall try using some.

First, let us look at the cost of the bulbs themselves. The Panasonic's cost $40 and are rated for 40,000 hours. A batch of 60 watt equivalent CFLs I have in my hand (Bright Effects brand that I purchased at Lowes) cost $12 or $2 per CFL. The CFLs are rated at 8000 hours. So I will need five CFLs instead of one LED bulb.

Now let us look at energy use. The CFLs use 13 watts each and the LED with the highest light output draws 6 watts. Over the life of the led bulb, that works out to 6 watts * 40,000 hours = 240,000 watt hours = 240 Kwh. The CFL will use, over the same time span, 13 watts * 40,000 hours = 520,000 watts = 520 Kwh.

The question now becomes, what do you pay for a kilowatt hour? Where I live in the Orlando area, we are paying about 15 cents/Kwh. The LED bulb would wind up costing $36 for power and the CFL would cost $78.

This gives us total costs of:

LED: $40 (the bulb) + $36 (energy) = $76 (total)
CFL: $10 (5 bulbs) + $78 (energy) = $88 (total)

This analysis also assumes your time is worthless. If you put any value on your time, the numbers obviously get better for the LED. The quality of the light is also ignored here. LEDs come on instantly, while same CFLs can take a bit of time to reach full output.

Personally, reducing the number of bulbs I have to replace by a factor of five is quite valuable to me. My house has about 120 bulbs, and the ones that are very hard to reach or that are on all the time (about 20 of them) are already LED based. As the LEDs get cheaper, I'll replace the remainder.

Obviously, for people with cheap electricity, CFLs will still come out ahead (as long as little or no value is placed on the time for changing bulbs).

This is NOT informative, just plain wrong by Kupfernigk · 2009-09-15 21:26 · Score: 4, Informative

Nobody would ever seriously run a production LED system like this. Typical forward voltage of white LEDs is around 3V. Supplying rectified AC would waste 97% of the energy on US 110V, thus making it less efficient that a halogen bulb and producing lots of heat in the resistor.

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."

Re:This is NOT informative, just plain wrong by smellsofbikes · 2009-09-16 03:13 · Score: 5, Informative

For what it's worth, my job is designing test hardware for LED drivers. As such I spend a lot of time taking apart other people's LED bulbs and seeing what they're doing. A scary number of current LED bulbs consist of a single diode, a big capacitor, and a string of LED's in series with their series forward voltage drop being roughly equal to 150 volts, and then a single current-limiting resistor at the end of the strand. That is the *worst* way I can think of to do the job. (Not to mention the cap they're using to smooth out the ripple is a very cheap electrolytic, with a lifetime of probably about 2000 hours if you're lucky, so that will be what fails.) The nicer low-end bulbs use a full wave bridge rectifier and sometimes even a linear regulator.
Of course, any good bulb worth buying uses an actual LED driver that acts as a constant current source. But even they still often use cheap electrolytics, meaning your LEDs will still have 95,000 hours of life in them when the bulb dies because the crappy caps they're using on the input and output sides of the switcher have failed.
If you're looking at a light and want to know generally what they're doing, see if you can count roughly how many LED's are in the fixture. If there are over 30, chances are it's a series string being run on rectified AC. If there are only a dozen or less, it's got a real driver and should at least give you reasonable efficiency, although no guarantees on lifetime. In an ideal world everyone would design LED drivers and use all ceramic or Nichicon caps, which have lifetimes measured in decades rather than months, but that'd cost a few pennies more and people will always buy the cheapest thing they can buy, particularly when you're working in a price range that's already an order of magnitude more expensive than the (incandescent) competition.

--
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
Re:This is NOT informative, just plain wrong by smellsofbikes · 2009-09-16 15:55 · Score: 2, Informative

We still call them bulbs at work, but honestly I don't have a good way to distinguish between them. You'd have to pull it so far apart that it'd be useless. (The last bulb I repaired, I chucked up in my lathe and used a jeweler's saw to slice the translucent diffuser off, then pried the board with all the LED's mounted out of the body, then desoldered the leads that drove the LED's, before I could get to the failed electrolytic that caused the bulb to die.) I'm also reluctant to recommend specific manufacturers because, well, much as I hate to say this, I don't think there are any bulbs on the market right now that are really super. In a year, there will be. (Or I'll be out of a job.) Right now, ugh; it's like trying to choose an ISP in another country in 1999. My company is building evaluation boards for LED drivers that run straight off AC, and have only ceramic caps on the board, so the eval boards should last for decades, but there's no guarantee people who are making the actual consumer products based on our design are going to use our reference design, unfortunately.

--
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.

Re:Florescent Lamps are Shite by Zalminen · 2009-09-15 22:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

Ever try reading by a compact florescent bulb?

All the time.

The experience will pull your eyes out of their sockets and leave you blind by the time your thirty.

Suuure.

I miss my incandescent bulbs, my bright living room, and the ability to read a book for hours on end without getting a headache ...

Never got a headache from fluorescents either.

Yes, there's a visible difference with incandescents and compact fluorescents. Does it really matter in some way? Nope.

Re:LEDs and dimmers by Engeekneer · 2009-09-15 23:46 · Score: 2, Informative

Well, I dont know how it's done, but from the press release..

The 7.6 W standard type and the 5.5 W compact type LED bulbs are dimmable from 10 percent to 100 percent.

Re:Light bulb as a service by Shakrai · 2009-09-15 23:52 · 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.

Re:Light bulb as a service by tburkhol · 2009-09-16 00:41 · Score: 2

Of course, "The RfC [300ng/m3] is an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without appreciable risk of deleterious noncancer effects during a lifetime." From the MAAG. So, you could either pay $3000 to clean up the 4 mg of Hg, or you could open a window and try not to break a bulb every week.

Re:Long life bulbs cost versus cost of replacement by tuxicle · 2009-09-16 00:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

Re:Light bulb as a service by smaddox · 2009-09-16 01:12 · Score: 2

The question is not whether the amount exceeds the standards set by the government (they are almost guaranteed to), but whether the amount actually absorbed into the body through the lungs is even near the amount absorbed by eating a piece of tuna. I don't have supporting evidence, but I would be willing to bet the tuna would lead to much more absorption. My main reason for guessing this is that the mercury in tuna is in organic compounds which are more likely to be absorbed than elementary mercury. It also turns out that organic mercury is what is actually dangerous (read: carcinogenic) about mercury.

The math doesn't work out by mister_hoberman_to_y · 2009-09-16 01:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

60 watts * 5.5 hours/day * 365 days/year = 120,450 total watts = 120 Kw. Around here electricity is around $0.10 / Kw, so your total power cost for a 60 watt bulb under these usage parameters is around $12/year. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I'm going to save $23 on something that costs $12 to operate. Not that I'm against saving the electricity. I just don't like it when the numbers don't add up.

More useless trash by kenp2002 · 2009-09-16 01:42 · Score: 2, Informative

I switched the whole house to CFL. Every light. These bulbs are supposed to last 3-5 years.

I have replaced EVERY CFL BULB IN THE HOUSE within a year. EVERY ONE. GE Brand. No electrical voodoo in the house (I have a line conditioner even at the main). EVERY ONE. I shipped every damn one of them back to GE and Philips for a refund and explaination on why they failed. ZERO response.

Yeah my electric bill went down. $4 a month after replacing EVERY BULB in my house. That is 38 bulbs. You only save oodles of money provided you run them 5 hours a day constantly to cover the cost of the bulb. If have those 5 minute hall and closet lights along with perhaps 2-8 bulbs on for 5 hours (reading lamp, kitchen lights) you lose money. I barely saved money due to the living room lights being on all day. The livingroom, kitchen, and my office are the only high use lights and effectively had to subsidize all the other lights in the home. The $4 a month doesn't cover the $90+ spend on the bulbs...

Now every bulb was replaced back then as the old incandescent ones died off. So they were replaced over a 6 month period when we moved in (The old bulbs were at the oldest 4 years old.) So it can't be blamed on a bad batch of bulbs or a specific store (Target, Home Depot, Menards, and Walmart were sources for the bulbs)

So the CFLs being cheaper is pure bull shit as far as a home is concerned. That useless philips halogen crap in the garage that was supposed to be a 5 year bulb worked out to 8 months and didn't survive the winter.

Total scam in my opinion on CFLs. Until they can get an LED to match a 100 watt bulb (because I like to be able to see in my house rather then some crap ass 60-watt equivalent...) get it as cheap as a normal bulb, I keep my nice 100 watt incadescents thank you. When they burn out I don't have to fork over $3 to replace them.

I won't even get into the discussion about the quality of light from CFLs and LEDs vs. Incandescent bulbs... more useless ineffective crap to protect your new found god...

Telling us it saves $25 bucks a month if bullshit. I'll buy 1. It goes in my garage. If it can survive 3 years I MIGHT consider buying a second one for the bathroom and if that survies another 3 years... then we'll talk. So far this low-energy lighting scam is just that.. a scam as far as my experience has gone.

My criteria from now on: Full Spectrum, 100 Watts, NO STROBING, NO FLICKERING.

CFLs are a joke and LEDs have a long way to go. Too bad it looks like government has to subsidize and legistate to prop up yet another failure... How long till they ban those nice incandescent lights... oh wait...

--
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-

Re:More useless trash by ChaosDiscord · 2009-09-16 08:38 · 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

Re:Light bulb as a service by MightyYar · 2009-09-16 01:49 · Score: 2

Exactly. I've broken the bulb, swept up the pieces, and opened a damn window. Keep the kids out of the room for a few hours. Mercury isn't plutonium. It evaporates and dissipates.

Besides, I live in a major city (NYC). I'm pretty sure the regular air is toxic.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.

Slashdot Mirror

Panasonic's New LED Bulbs Shine For 19 Years

92 of 710 comments (clear)