Slashdot Mirror
Lifecycle Energy Costs of LED, CFL Bulbs Calculated
necro81 writes "The NY Times is reporting on a new study from Osram, a German lighting manufacturer, which has calculated the total lifecycle energy costs of three lightbulb technologies and found that both LEDs and CFLs use approximately 20% of the energy of incandescents over their lifetimes. While it is well known that the newer lighting technologies use a fraction of the energy of incandescents to produce the same amount of light, it has not been proven whether higher manufacturing energy costs kept the new lighting from offering a net gain. The study found that the manufacturing and distribution energy costs of all lightbulb technologies are only about 2% of their total lifetime energy cost — a tiny fraction of the energy used to produce light." The study uses the assumption that LEDs last 2.5 times longer than CFLs, and 25 times longer than incandescents.
Since this is an energy-saving technology, surely it has some fatal yet under-appreciated drawback that fully justifies my foregone decision never to change my habits or lifestyle for any reason and makes fools of the "greenies" in my own mind! You know, like how Hummers are actually more eco-friendly than the Prius, and how windmills screw with feng shui. I've always found an excuse to view all environmentalism as self-defeating before, don't let me down this time slashdot!
Because with LEDs you only make the part of the spectrum that the tomatoes growing in the closet use.
Seriously it's the longer life.
Especially the increased on/off cycles, which is what kills almost all CFLs before their time.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Depends on how you were going to get yourself to the store otherwise.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
1) You won't need a hazmat team to clean up when one breaks
Can we stop with this already? Unless you start licking the floor where you dropped the bulb, it's not a problem. And if you DO start licking the floor when dropping a bulb, you deserve whatever happens to you (which, in all likelihood, is just going to be a lot of glass shards in your tongue)
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Incandescents are already 'banned' in many areas of the world (including where I live). That is to say, stores aren't allowed to sell new ones anymore (existing ones that are still going are OK obviously). The exception to this is weird form-factor lights that they don't mass-produce CFLs for (e.g. those little ones you put into bedside tables). But for standard overhead light fittings, incandescents have already gone the way of the dodo here.
Even factoring in the impact of recycling, their total lifecycle environmental impact is considerably less than incandescents. Many vendors that sell CFLs (e.g. hardware stores) also accept back dead ones. And if not, I just pop the dead ones in a box in the back of the car and take them to the dump next time I'm in that area anyway, so the 'extra' travel is minimal. For me at least, it's worth it. My electricity bills are at least $100/year less after moving to CFLs, and they produce less waste heat (which matters to me as I don't have AC!)
LEDs will be better though of course. They should be trashable just like incandescents were, while retaining the energy savings of CFLs.
Unless you're heating your dwelling with electrical resistance heating, which is the worst and most expensive form of heat there is, the excess heat from incandescents is not doing your energy bills any favors. Each unit of heat emitted is about three times as expensive as the equivalent BTUs from burning natural gas or using a heat pump. So in effect it's still costing you money to use incandescents, but you only save ~2/3 to ~3/4 as much money as you'd think if you replaced those incandescents with CFLs.
That study as reported in the details didn't show significant difference between overall LED and CFL efficiencies. But the article consistently pushed LEDs. The headline mentioned only LEDs; LEDs were mentioned every time continuing advances were touted, the mercury in CFLs were pointed out (but not the toxic byproducts unique to LED production). The article's picture shows LEDs, not CFLs.
Yet LEDs don't really compete with CFLs yet. The article does mention that even a 60W incandescent equivalent is just experimental in LEDs, though CFLs have brightnesses at all levels even far past equivalence to 100W incandescents. Meanwhile, LEDs still generally aren't as efficient as their equivalent brightness CFLs. And LEDs' extra inefficiency puts heat into rooms that then require extra cooling, which consumes more energy.
LEDs are probably going to outperform CFLs. Their colors will be better than CFLs, their efficiencies probably better than double CFLs. They're smaller, probably able to be less toxic to produce and discard. Their DC power offers better efficiency direct from solar power (or its battery storage) than AC CFLs can get. But not yet. This article makes LEDs seem better than CFLs, but they're not now. It's marketing disguised as reporting. Probably the lack of numbers in an article about engineering performance should be the tipoff.
--
make install -not war
Start with outdoor lighting. Outdoor lights, by their very nature, must be sealed. CFLs contain lots of electronic components, including electrolytic capacitors. In a sealed enclosure, these parts can heat up beyond the thermal limits of their components within minutes. Therefore, for outdoor use, you should not use CFLs, period.
Don't be ridiculous. Most street lights aren't incandescents. Most streets are outdoor.
I'm pretty fed up with the same tired B.S. arguments being trotted out by manufacturers to try to convince people to buy CFLs and LED lights.
I think it's clear where the B.S. is.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Good, because CFL bulbs have been a major disappointment for me. In practice, the 10x longer lifespan compared to ordinary light bulbs turned out to be a lie. In my home they've lasted about equally long as ordinary light bulbs. They also weren't as bright as advertised; a bulb that was advertised as being as bright as a 100W incandescent bulb actually looks remarkably less bright.
That has been my experience as well.
I will probably buy $100 worth of incandescents and store them in my attic, once they start rattling their sabres about banning them in my state. I don't MIND CFLs, but they aren't yet up to the quality of incandescents... and their other virtues aren't great enough to make up for the lacking quality of light. I sometimes work on art; CFLs just don't cut it. Anything with severe spectrum peaks fouls up colors.
I am a lighting engineer...
LED lamps are used all the time in aviation, where they are certified for high humidity, immersion, salt spray, and temperature extremes. It is commonplace to seal them and use conductive heat sinks to dissipate the internal heat. Thermal failure problems are well understood and well mitigated.
CFL fixtures can also be easily protected. It is all about using the right lamp type for the right job, no one is claiming that a CFL is the best for commercial street lighting, for example, where sodium lamps offer superior benefits, and especially not in an oven!
With regards to color vs energy, CFLs and white LEDs use a phoshpor to reradiate a broader color spectrum. The efficacy losses due to light outside of your visual spectrum are a very small fraction of the total output. While your comments with regard to color quality vs aesthetics are important, you assumptions about color vs efficacy are more or less false.
And one more aside, I'm even using standard spiral CFLs in my outdoor porch and carport now exposed to rain and weather, with no problems. They've lasted over 2 years now.
----- And all that the Lorax left here in this mess was a small pile of rocks, with one word...UNLESS.