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.

Comments

Bu.. bu.. but...

[timeOday]

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!

Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question

[HornWumpus]

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.

Pimping LEDs

[Doc Ruby]

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.

Re:Great assumption

[amorsen]

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.