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

Great assumption

[CrazyJim1]

Assuming LEDs last 2.5 times as long as LEDs, we conclude that LEDs last infinitely long and there is nothing superior except for LEDs.

Re:Great assumption

[Shadow of Eternity]

Aleph-one etc etc

Re:Great assumption

[Rising Ape]

Or they never work at all.

Re:Great assumption

[Trayal]

I'm still waiting for that AOLED display...

Re:Great assumption

[startled]

Assuming LEDs last 2.5 times as long as LEDs, we conclude that LEDs last infinitely long and there is nothing superior except for LEDs.

The study was commissioned by an LED manufacturer. In order to reach the desired result, they had to redefine 2.5 as the multiplicative identity. At least they're up front about it. ("Up front" being, in fact, quite important-- you don't want to see what they did to the associative property.)

Re:Great assumption

[Cryacin]

So then if we calculate the percentage efficiency against a standard lightbulb: 25x/x where x=0...

oh crap... did you guys get the same popup?

"God has detected an error in the universe.sys file. God is restarting universe."

Re:Great assumption

[Cryacin]

Light++

Nono. Light 2.0!!!

Re:Great assumption

[DarkAxi0m]

!Dark

Re:Great assumption

[RealGrouchy]

Assuming LEDs last 2.5 times as long as LEDs, we conclude that LEDs last infinitely long and there is nothing superior except for LEDs.

Or they never work at all.

Only if you divide by zero.

- RG>

Re:Great assumption

[Inner_Child]

ME TOO!

Re:Great assumption

[Comatose51]

Brilliant!

Re:Great assumption

[ihuntrocks]

That divide by zero could mean undefined and could be infinity. This leads me to the startling conclusion that LEDs don't actually produce light, but actually consume darkness. There is a strange event-horizon inside of LEDs that prevents us from observing what's going on inside. On the inside, I postulate that the mechanism inside of the LEDs let's virtual pairs of "no-tons" and "anti-no-tons" form, orbit, collide, and destroy one another. This releases the occasional photon. There is virtually no heat from this, since no-tons, by nature, are incredibly low energy particles. This must happen at a tremendous rate for the "light output" they give. I am both amazed and slightly afraid of LEDs now that I know how they work. I only hope the manufacturers continue using this awesome ability for good. ...Silly article typos....

Re:Great assumption

[Odinlake]

On a serious note though, I wonder how that "25 times" assumption stands if you include the effect of children playing indoor football etc.

Re:Great assumption

[Pieroxy]

To be honest, after having spent more than $400 in LED bulbs (that's not many bulbs trust me), most of them have died after a year or so. I'm talking about the bulbs, not the LEDs of course. I have no doubt they still have 25000 hours in stock, buit without the electronic to light them, it's very little use.

My blog on the subject (in french...)

Re:Great assumption

[dgatwood]

The problem with all these calculations is that they're crap, and not just because they didn't factor in breakage. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

They forgot to take into account that the lumen is in many ways a subjective measurement when different light types are involved, as any true measurement of brightness perception must necessarily depend not only on the light source, but also on the environment around it. First, different people's eyes may perceive light differently, so there is no one true measure of how bright people perceive a light source when it is at a particular frequency. Second, if I am trying to look at something whose colors happen to fall between the characteristic wavelengths of the phosphors in a fluorescent bulb, it can take several times as many lumens to achieve the same perceived brightness as with a continuous spectrum. This is why I'm always horrified by stores selling clothing under fluorescent light. It's complete fiction in terms of color perception.

They also failed to take into account the fact that CFLs become dramatically dimmer before they fail, unlike modern incandescent blubs. If you care at all about the amount of light, count on having to either swap bulbs out at a faster rate (thus increasing the up-front cost) or turning on more lights than you otherwise would (thus increasing the energy cost). Thus, it is likely that if you look at all the factors involved, CFLs are not significantly more energy efficient than incandescent bulbs, all while producing light that is less pleasing, causing headaches, depression, and other negative health effects, and costing a heck of a lot more. Divide this by the power factor to find out the actual load on the power grid, and you may well find that incandescents are actually more efficient, depending on the circumstances.

But by far, the biggest problem with these studies is that they universally fail to take into account all the places where neither CFL nor LED bulbs can be used at all. 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. (Yes, some manufacturers claim that their bulbs can be used outdoors in certain circumstances, but if you install them, be aware that the bulbs will fail much, much sooner than their rated lifespan would suggest, and if it is cold out, you should expect to have no light at all; in short, unless you life in California or Oregon, you shouldn't seriously consider CFLs as a viable outdoor light source.)

LED lamps will almost certainly have the same thermal failure problems for precisely the same reason. Electronic circuits are simply not designed to operate at such high temperatures, and when you try to use them that way, they will fail much, much sooner than they ordinarily would. This use can make incandescent bulbs seem positively cheap by comparison.

Likewise, ovens, refrigerators, etc. cannot use any of these types of lights because fluorescent tubes are highly sensitive to temperature extremes and LEDs are AFAIK always made of plastic and would melt. Perhaps somebody could design one with a solid glass lens, but even still, I doubt they would survive the temperature swings of an oven for very long.

http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm gives a great explanation of pretty much everything wrong with these sorts of "studies". 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. They look ugly, their light is ugly, and they have a high up-front cost. I'd rather wait for some of these new incandescent bulb technologies to exceed the efficiency targets instead.

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.

Re:Great assumption

[jabuzz]

The still did not take into account the combination of daylight hours and when central heating systems are on. This is an important consideration for more northerly latitudes. At the moment my incandescent light bulbs are 100% efficient.

Re:Great assumption

[SenseiLeNoir]

We have used a CFL (not the spiral type, but the stright type, philips) for our outdoor light for the last two years. Its still going strong, and we live in unpredictable London (hot-ish in summer, fscking cold in winter)

Re:Great assumption

[dkf]

we live in unpredictable London (hot-ish in summer, fscking cold in winter)

This is London, Ontario? The other one doesn't get cold in winter; hardly ever drops below freezing.

Re:Great assumption

[Muad'Dave]

LED lamps will almost certainly have the same thermal failure problems for precisely the same reason. Electronic circuits are simply not designed to operate at such high temperatures, and when you try to use them that way, they will fail much, much sooner than they ordinarily would.

Not to burst your bubble, but you know that LEDs are made from silicon and other semiconductors jut like MOSFETS and CPU's, right? They run at _very_ high temperatures - the max junction temperature of many MOSFETS can run as high as 175-200C!

This figure shows a Vfwd vs temp graph of an LED junction temp of 120C.

Re:Great assumption

[SolusSD]

Yeah, I did, except instead of god my name was there.

Re:Great assumption

[vlm]

This is why I'm always horrified by stores selling clothing under fluorescent light. It's complete fiction in terms of color perception.

My clothing is almost exclusively viewed under fluorescent light. I think that is normal in a first world country.

Other than outdoors, or some spots inside my house, its all fluorescent or CFL... work, stores, most of my house.

At home I don't care much.

As for outside, well, I live in a climate where its cold enough for a coat for 7 months, so no one sees my clothes, and too hot to wear much at all for 4 months, so no one sees much clothes, leaving just a few days a year where it matters.

Re:Great assumption

[Alioth]

[citation needed]

Sorry, it sounds like you're just resistant to change.

On the subject of outdoor lighting, I started using CFLs in outdoor lights 15 years ago, precisely because the incandescent ones lasted so little time (requiring a ladder to replace, and the associated falling-off-a-ladder risk). At that time, it was the only place I was using CFLs. Even then, they lasted several times longer than incandescent bulbs and used a lot less energy - they had no trouble getting their rated lifetime. At that point we lived in a part of a country that regularly falls well below freezing during the winter. Cold was never a problem. The very same heat you say will break the lamp soon gets the tube warm.

LEDs are expected to become more energy efficient than CFL, so the heat "problem" (which I've never observed) would be even less. LEDs would be absolutely perfect in refrigerators - less heat emitted into the refrigerator which means less work to do for the refrigeration machinery. Since I have built my own LED lighting units from components, I can tell you that (a) they don't have many and (b) no electrolytic capacitors either, and (c) the temperature never gets near exceeding the rated maximum on any of the components at least for 3W Lumiled cool white Luxeon Rebels. The circuit consists of a current regulating power supply (purpose made for LED lighting) - basically a small 5 pin IC, some ceramic chip capacitors, a sense resistor, an inductor, and a schottky diode. Electrolytic capacitors are inappropriate for this small switch mode power supply, their ESR is too high. The power supply circuit for two 3W Rebels is about the size of a postage stamp even on a home-etched PCB. With a factory made PCB you could probably make it half the size without much difficulty.

LEDs are very commonly used for bicycle headlamps, they have almost totally displaced filament lights. I have a 3W LED front light for my bike. It is a sealed, self contained unit complete with battery, about 50% larger than a D-cell battery in each dimension, and will last over an hour off a charge at full brightness. No overheating problems.

The dimming of CFLs as they get old and fail is a much more graceful failure mode than sudden complete failure by an incandescent. It gives you more warning the lamp needs replacing, and doesn't leave you grovelling in the dark trying to replace a bulb when it fails just when it's inconvenient.

Re:Great assumption

[Myopic]

0 * 2.5 = 0

No division required.

Re:Great assumption

[LanMan04]

Indeed. Most street lights are sodium vapor (sometimes mercury) vapor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_vapor_lamp

Re:Great assumption

[Albanach]

At the moment my incandescent light bulbs are 100% efficient.

Are you aware that heat rises? Do you spend a lot of time sitting on your ceiling?

It's all very well to make heat, but it's pointless to be making it where it's not needed. That's not in any way efficient.

Re:Great assumption

[Neil Hodges]

If you didn't leave them on all the time, they would probably last longer.

Re:Great assumption

[sh00z]

To be honest, after having spent more than $400 in LED bulbs (that's not many bulbs trust me), most of them have died after a year or so.

The Philips LED bulbs that are starting to appear on the shelves here in the US have a 10-year warranty. Have you tried getting replacements from the manufacturer(s)?

Re:Great assumption

[sgtrock]

But by far, the biggest problem with these studies is that they universally fail to take into account all the places where neither CFL nor LED bulbs can be used at all. 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.

As others have already pointed out, this is total nonsense. The first place that I started using CFLs was to replace the incandescent outdoor floods on my garage and house. I had grown tired of climbing a ladder to replace lightbulbs every several months. I haven't had to replace a single CFL since I installed the first one.

BTW, I live in Minnesota, a state known for its extreme temperature swings. Since I replaced those bulbs several years ago, the temps here have ranged from a lows of about 40 below to recorded highs of 95+ above zero (Fahrenheit).

Re:Great assumption

[b0bby]

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. (Yes, some manufacturers claim that their bulbs can be used outdoors in certain circumstances, but if you install them, be aware that the bulbs will fail much, much sooner than their rated lifespan would suggest, and if it is cold out, you should expect to have no light at all; in short, unless you life in California or Oregon, you shouldn't seriously consider CFLs as a viable outdoor light source.)

LED lamps will almost certainly have the same thermal failure problems for precisely the same reason. Electronic circuits are simply not designed to operate at such high temperatures, and when you try to use them that way, they will fail much, much sooner than they ordinarily would.

My porch light runs 24/7 (there's no switch for it) so I always use an efficient light. My last CFL out there lasted 2+ years, and here in MD that means up to 100 degrees F & down to 20 degrees F. Now I have a cheapo ebay 4w LED that has been going for about a year and a half, who knows how long it'll keep going. Either way it's longer than you'd hope for from an incandescent, meaning I don't have to get out the ladder as often, and using less power. So while in theory you may have issues, in practice I'm not seeing any, though I have had LED bulbs fail quite quickly indoors probably due to manufacturing defects. I just accept that it's new stuff and deal with it.

Re:Great assumption

[johno.ie]

This is why I'm always horrified by stores selling clothing under fluorescent light.

Hrrmmm, yes that is truly horrific behaviour. We should call in the army to deal with those retail outlets that cause so much distress to innocent consumers. Think of the consumers.

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.

Bovine Excrement. Outdoor lights should be weatherproof, that is not the same thing as hermetically sealed. Just off the top of my head, I can think of at least 6 outdoors lights that are using CFLs for the last few years. CFLs do not produce a lot of heat, perhaps 10% of the total wattage of the bulb. Even for very bright CFLs, that's about 3W of heat. A metal light enclosure will conduct heat away from the bulb so fast that you won't be able to measure a temperature difference between the inside and outside of the enclosure. Even a plastic enclosure will not trap enough heat to cause a temperature difference of more than a couple of degrees.

LED lamps will almost certainly have the same thermal failure problems for precisely the same reason.

Sorry, but precisely the same reason is actually no reason at all. LEDs use a tiny amount of power, ergo there is very little heat produced. Now I will admit that if you put a CFL, an LED and an incandescent bulb in the same sealed and insulated enclosure and turned them all on that the CFL and LED might well fail before the incandescent. That's because the heat from the incandescent will fry the other 2. But what kinda idiot would design an experiment like that?

Re:Great assumption

[b0bby]

Yes, but your heat pump is currently 300% efficient, though that may drop to 100% when it gets really cold.

Re:Great assumption

[MaWeiTao]

It's interesting you mention that. A few months ago my father got a number of LED bulbs for a few applications. A couple of bulbs have already failed. In one case he was able to repair the bulb, but it's been a frustrating experience nonetheless.

I'm not sure why failures are so common. Is it that we're dealing with Chinese made crap and no one can be bothered with some basic quality control? Are they that desperate to bring down the price?

I generally haven't had problems with my CFLs but I can't say I'm entirely pleased with their performance. Different bulbs have different warm up times, some are good almost immediately, others take 30+ seconds to get to full intensity. And a couple of times I've gotten bulbs in a different color temperature than is indicated on the package. I still use incandescents for my dimmable bulbs because I don't like all the buzzing coming from the dimmable CFLs. The 3-way CFLs have a tendency to buzz too while they're warming up. I haven't had a problem with my CFLs failing prematurely, but other people I know have, in one case a bulb failing quite spectacularly.

I suppose these are just growing pains as the technology matures. But whether they're ready for widespread use, particularly LED bulbs, is debatable. The ones that may be more reliable are far too expensive to be worth considering.

Re:Great assumption

[jeffmeden]

Electric heat? In the US at least, natural gas costs about 1/3 of what electricity does per rendered BTU. Many homes have natural gas heating for this purpose, and deriving heat from electricity could be seen as only contributing 1/3 cost efficiency when considered to be a heat source. Not to mention summer cooling costs; are you suggesting swapping out incandescents for CFLs during the summer months? Interesting theory, I look forward to some math on the subject.

Re:Great assumption

[grgyle]

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.

Re:Great assumption

[juhaz]

I'm not sure why failures are so common. Is it that we're dealing with Chinese made crap and no one can be bothered with some basic quality control? Are they that desperate to bring down the price?

That, and heat. High power leds run friggin' hot, and trying to have enough cooling for them and the drive electronics to survive AND stay light bulb sized while putting out amount of light comparable to CFL or incandescent is challenging to say the least... combine that with as cheap and possible, and you have a good recipe for self-roasting led bulbs.

Re:Great assumption

[James McP]

Oh please. First off, incandescents come in different color spectrums just like CFLs so just because the bulb is incadescent doesn't mean it's "good" light. Second, most of your time spent indoors is under flourescent light (work, restaurants, movie theaters) ergo shopping for work and night-time clothing is best done under flourescents.

You can get CFLs with a Power Factor of 90% or higher, so I call shenanagins. The capacative load increase of a CFL is completely negligible compared to the reduced active power consumption. I point to the fact my power utility is giving away CFLs by the dozen as evidence that power generation/distribution engineers find CFLs to be effective.

I have many CFLs in outdoor applications. I have a barn with 8 bulbs. The first year I put up 6 incandescents and 2 CFLs. My wife was afraid the CFLs wouldn't start up quickly enough so I put up 2 as a test.

In the first year 5 of the 6 incandescents died between our 100F summers and 20F winters. I replaced those 5 with CFLs that have continued to work for the last 2 years. Once my wife decided the CFLs provided good light in winter, I replaced that last incandescent.

Given that 3 of the bulbs are located 25ft off the ground, I really appreciate not having to change the bulbs annually.

I also replaced our two porch spotlights with outdoor CFLs. Yeah, they don't come up to full power immediately in cold weather but I upsized the bulbs. I went from 75W incandescents (950lumens) to 23W (1300 lumen) CFLs so I still have a hefty power savings and they start out almost as bright as the incandescents.

Re:Great assumption

[The_countess]

actually osram makes all 3 technologies.. and a few more.

Re:Great assumption

[mea37]

What a load of mindless FUD.

Color of light can cause differences in how light is perceived, particularly if you buy old/cheap CFL's. This used to be a major issue to me. Now I use CFL's in most of my house, and in most places there is no perceivable difference; in part because the newer bulbs are more natural, and in part because different is not the same as inferior.

You refer to incandescants as "full-spectrum"; this is misleading, as if there were one magically "correct" color that light should be. In fact, there are many types of incandescant with different light characteristics, just as there are with modern CFL.

I don't know what your comment about buying clothes has to do with anything. Large stores have had consumers shopping under flourescant light for decades. A small shop with incandescant lights is an exception, not the rule. Store light quality is typically at least as poor as even the cheap CFL's, and until recently they had the added "bonus" of perceivable flicker.

You talk about how "likely" you think it is that the dimming of bulbs befoer failure would change the equation, but you offer no numbers at all. None of the CFL's I've used has dimmed yet, and they've already lasted much longer than an incandescant. Long enough to save me money over the bulb's lifetime, and that's a key point. TFA claims it was previously unknown whether CFL's had lower lifecycle energy costs, but that's only true if you either (1) have not compared the lifecycle costs to the consumer, or (2) assume (incorrectly) that someone is subsidizing the up-front energy costs of CFL's.

You meantion negative health effects; citation needed.

You mention power factor, but you're clearly counting on your readers not knowing what that means. It's also clear from how you used it that you don't know what it means. (A power factor of .5 does not mean that the grid delivers twice as much energy, as you imply. If you think it does, please feel free to explain where that extra energy goes. You have heard of thermodynamics, right? That said, there would be a slight loss of system efficiency due to power factor, if not for the fact that power companies can and do balance the power factor out as it otherwise would cost them money.)

As for where you can't use CFL's:

Start with outdoor lights. I use CFL's in several. Some are even in my garage rafters, where they get hotter than if they were truly outside. They've all survived a St. Louis summer; not one has overheated. They've also survivied a St. Louis winter; I still got light out of them.

Even if all of the special-purpose applications where you claim CFL's won't work, were really applications where CFL's won't work, that would accuont for a tiny fraction of the lighting needs of the average consumer; if that's "by far, the biggest problem" you can come up with, then you're basically admitting there's no significant problem to speak of.

Re:Great assumption

[dgatwood]

What does this have to do with a discussion of CFLs? Yes, sodium and mercury vapor lights are relatives of fluorescent tubes, but only because they both use an electrical arc. They have more in common with the long-tube-style fluorescent bulbs than they do with CFLs.

Re:Great assumption

[dgatwood]

That is NOT a compact fluorescent bulb. They don't usually work the same way. A straight tube bulb generally uses a simple transformer to step the voltage up. A CFL is invariably a high frequency design that uses a charge pump or similar because the component cost is cheaper and the size of the CFL base won't hold a transformer.

Further, as soon as you talk about a long tube design, you've completely missed the point. The limited volume of air inside the enclosed space is what causes the charge pump circuit to fail. Compared with one of those globe lamps above your door, a long tube enclosure is freaking *huge* volumetrically.

Re:Great assumption

[dgatwood]

It's not the LEDs that fail. It's the circuitry needed to step down from 110VAC or 220VAC to single-digit VDC that fails. The alternative to that is using a hack like LED Christmas lights do, but then you get a horrible 60 Hz flicker.

Re:Great assumption

[dgatwood]

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.

All I can tell you is that my experience with CFLs has consistently been that equivalently sized CFLs seemed perceptibly brighter when I looked out at the room but caused greater difficulty making out detail, e.g. for reading. Doubling the amount of CFL-produced light always fixes this, but then there went the energy savings.

Re:Great assumption

[default luser]

But you know nothing of how MOSFET transistors work (not used in the LED itself, but in the power and control circuits driving the LED). They have two things that are affected by temperature: on-state resistance, and threshold voltage.

On-state resistance is proportional to increases in temperature. This means as temperature increases, the power dissipated by the power/control circuits will be higher.

In addition, as temperature rises, the current drawn by the MOSFET increases because the threshold voltage decreases. "On average this [threshold voltage] variation is between 4 mV/C and 2 mV/C depending on doping level," which means you can see a significant current increase with a device designed for 50C running at 100C, since current is proportional to the inverse of the threshold voltage.

When you combine these two properties, you get the danger of ,a href="http://www.smpstech.com/tmos0000.htm">MOSFET thermal runaway, especially in a cheap device stuck in a light socket with no active cooling Normally you can implement special control circuits to remove this dependency, or add aggressive cooling, but not at the price points LED bulbs have to meet and the environments the have to work in.

Re:Great assumption

[mrt_2394871]

... all while producing light that is less pleasing, causing headaches, depression, and other negative health effects, ...

I've just kitted out my lounge with 'daylight' CFLs, which have a colour temperature of 6400K. The light quality is abso-flipping-lutely marvellous.

Ditto the pair of LED spots for bedtime reading.

I for one welcome our energy-saving lighting overlords...

Re:Great assumption

[Ihmhi]

I've seen everything from car geeks to networking geeks... and now, for the first time, I see a lighting geek.

I love Slashdot.

Re:Great assumption

[ryanov]

I have looked at it for CFL's (might have been Philipps, but I'm not sure). The deal there was that the shipping and handling cost of a warranty replacement was more than the bulb. With more expensive LED's, that may not be true, but I was pretty ticked off when I found that out (I had one fail in a few weeks that was clearly defective in some way).

Re:Great assumption

[Anonymous Coward]

1) There are compact fluorescents that have straight tubes (actually U-bend, but not spiral), which is what grandparent is most likely referring to (more popular in Europe than the States?).

2) Traditional, non-compact straight fluorescents don't use transformers (or inductive chokes) anymore. Instead, they use electronic control gear which basically does the same thing as the electronics in a CFL (except that it's not integrated with the fluorescent tube). Electronic control gear drives the tube at a high frequency (tens of kHz), eliminating flicker and improving efficiency. Warmstart control gear enables fluorscent tubes to be turned on and off at will without reducing lifetime, and eliminates startup flicker (startup happens in 0.5 - 2 s, depending on the control gear). Some control gear units have digital (e.g. DALI) or analog (e.g. 1-10V) control interfaces, which enables dimming control. A control gear unit lasts 50,000 to 100,000 hours, and costs from 10 to 60 eur a piece (depends on the model).

Re:Great assumption

[Muad'Dave]

That's funny, I already knew everything you said and understand the concept of thermal runaway. Ive posted in this forum on that very subject before.

The point I was trying to make was that there is no reason a priori that LEDs should be as temperature sensitive as the electrolytic capacitors used in CFLs. They should easily handle any environmental temperature swings. Any changes in Vfwd, etc can be compensated for with PTC resistor/thermistor (another very temperature-tolerant component) or a constant current supply (a FET can act as a constant current source).

Re:Great assumption

[tdi1]

The quality of the bulb is the key factor. If you buy crap bulbs, they won't last, and unfortunately there are too many manufacturers piling in to make a quick buck and it is giving the field a black-eye.
I've installed a half dozen Cree LR6 "bulbs" for recessed lights. One has been running two years, the others about a year. No failures. Excellent quality light.
While this is about LEDs, I'll comment on CFLs as well because there are a lot of people with similar poor lifespans with those. Again, crap bulbs = short life. I've got a dozen outdoor lights that get used in all temperatures. One failed, the rest have worked without flaw for three years.
Indoors, I've got two living room, 3-way fluorescent bulbs that burn 24/7/365 (yes, this wastes energy but I can't convince the wife to turn them off). Three years and 26,000 hours later and not a failure. I have a bulb above my shower in a recessed light fixture, considered a "worst case" for CFLs - never had to replace since installation 4 years ago.

The fundamental technology is excellent. Many manufacturers suck.

Re:Great assumption

[LanMan04]

Yes, but they most certainly aren't incandescent, which is why the GP (GGP?) said.

Re:Great assumption

[mattack2]

Doubling the amount of CFL-produced light always fixes this, but then there went the energy savings.

Do you mean literally just doubling the number of bulbs, or doubling the "approximate equivalent luminous power"?

At least from the chart on the Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp), doing either of those still saves energy use compared to incandescent lamps. (You could also bring in the typical longer life of the CFL bulbs.)

Re:Great assumption

[dgatwood]

I assume by "control gear", you're talking about a charge pump? Yeah, I've seen those. The only problem with them is that you're beating the living crap out of the capacitor, and assuming it's electrolytic (cheap), if it isn't in a reasonably sized air space, you eventually get electrolyte failure and it pops like a firecracker, leaking corrosive goo out everywhere. Case in point, the graphite Airport Base Station from a few years back.

If the enclosure is big enough and the parts have large enough tolerance, you're fine. Sadly, far too many electronic devices these days seem to be designed with inadequate tolerances....

Re:Great assumption

[dgatwood]

Well, I always solved it by turning on a second light, but you could do it either way, I suppose. :-)

Re:Great assumption

[ChrisMaple]

CFL's and "long-tube-style fluorescent bulbs" use the same mechanism, a phosphor activated by the UV generated by mercury discharge. Sodium and mercury vapor both use the gas discharge directly, no phosphor involved.

Re:Great assumption

[ChrisMaple]

The cheapest LED lights that run from 120V are nightlights. The circuit consists of a capacitor to control current by I=C*dV/dt, a resistor to limit current when voltage spikes, a rectifier bridge so that the LED glows on both half cycles, and the LED. Sometimes there's an additional capacitor added for some reason. Any current draw variation caused by LED tempco is too small to be meaningful. No transistors of any type needed.

Re:Great assumption

[mattack2]

So, if you were using all CFLs, you still should have been saving power (with the assumption I originally posted).

Re:Great assumption

[fractoid]

Sorry, but precisely the same reason is actually no reason at all. LEDs use a tiny amount of power, ergo there is very little heat produced. Now I will admit that if you put a CFL, an LED and an incandescent bulb in the same sealed and insulated enclosure and turned them all on that the CFL and LED might well fail before the incandescent. That's because the heat from the incandescent will fry the other 2. But what kinda idiot would design an experiment like that?

LEDs produce a lot less heat than incandescent lights for a given brightness, but they're really not efficient in terms of turning electrical energy into light energy. The best figures I can find are around 12% efficient (for as-yet-unreleased LED lighting giving 80 lumens per watt of input energy, and using the best-possible-case conversion of 680 lumens ~= 1 watt of radiant energy.

Re:Great assumption

[mattack2]

You should get your wife to turn off the lights (or install auto-shutoff systems). But I presume that those two are on all the time is what makes them not fail.. The same holds true for incandescents, i.e. they blow when you're turning them on. See this for an example of a very long-lived incandescent: http://www.snopes.com/science/lightbulb.asp

Re:Great assumption

[dgatwood]

I meant more similar in terms of having an external ballast driving the bulb rather than trying to step the AC up to a higher voltage inside the base of the bulb. At least I believe that sodium/mercury bulbs are not internally ballasted.

Re:Great assumption

[dgatwood]

Yeah. Using 58 watts instead of 100. If this is a cheap CFL, the power factor can be as bad as 0.5, which mean the real power consumption (the load on the grid) could actually be slightly *more* than the incandescent (116VA instead of 100VA).

And if you use halogen bulbs instead of plain incandescent bulbs, the CFLs look even worse by comparison....

Re:Great assumption

[dgatwood]

The LEDs, no, but how are you going to get anything approaching regulated DC from a 110VAC or 220VAC line without capacitors? The LED-based lamps for buildings are almost certain to contain electrolytic caps. They're going to build it as cheaply as possible, which probably means doing a half-wave or full-wave bridge followed by a line voltage (110VAC or 220VAC) smoothing capacitor, followed by a whole bunch of LEDs wired in series so you can avoid the current limiting resistor that would otherwise waste power. At least I think you can do it that way. I can't say I've ever tried it. Certainly seems to work well enough for Christmas lights (except that they omit the smoothing capacitor, so you get a lovely 60 Hz jitter).

Now I'll grant you that it's probably not getting beaten on as hard as a capacitor in a charge pump circuit.... :-)

Re:Great assumption

[dgatwood]

1. I never said heat would break the lamp itself. I said that heat can fry the circuitry in the base of a CFL. The fact that you've never observed early failure from CFL heat death doesn't mean it doesn't occur. The Energy Star website agrees with me that this is a problem with at least some CFLs. There's your citation.

2. I certainly did not intend to imply that LEDs could not be used in refrigerators. I intended for the refrigerator part to be just about CFLs and for the oven part to be about both CFLs and LEDs. Sorry if that wasn't clear. The epoxy shell of LEDs would almost certainly melt in ovens (Epoxy apparently melts at about 375 degrees F), and although a fluorescent tube might survive, provided the ballast were located elsewhere, such an installation would require significant modifications to the oven, making it impractical to eliminate this use for the foreseeable future. And of course, when it comes to refrigerators, fluorescent tubes don't appreciate extreme cold, though LEDs could conceivably be used there, provided that the rapid temperature swings when they come on don't cause the solder joints to crack too quickly. I'd probably want to do some experimentation before I said LEDs would be fine there, but it's quite possible that they'd be fine.

3. LED-based bicycle lights and flashlights are a largely unrelated subject. These devices do not use any voltage conversion except possibly a current limiting resistor in series with the LED. The parts that are problematic in terms of requiring adequate ventilation don't exist in those devices because you're starting with DC instead of AC.

4. The failure mode of CFLs dimming is just one of several failure modes that these bulbs can exhibit. Other failure modes include the flicker of death (when the tube won't quite come on) and the electrolytic big bang (where the capacitor in the charge pump blow and the light fails to illuminate entirely). I don't have any statistics on the frequency of these failure modes. It would be an interesting bit of information to have. You know, now that I think about it, it might not be possible to get the flicker of death with CFLs because of the way their ballasts are designed. So it may just be the two failure modes---fading in brightness or suddenly going dead (or fading in brightness and then suddenly going dead).

5. I'm assuming when you said that your lights don't contain electrolytic capacitors, you meant that you spent more money to use film or ceramic caps instead. Unfortunately, most mass-produced devices use mostly electrolytic caps whenever they can because they are cheaper. Expecting your design decisions to be the norm is like expecting people not to eat.

If you don't use any capacitors at all, then how precisely to you generate anything approaching filtered DC without capacitors? And if you say that you use a full wave bridge without any smoothing caps like those @$&% LED Christmas lights that flicker obnoxiously as the light pulsing interacts with the facets on the bulb, I'm going to have to hurt you. :-D

Re:Great assumption

[Phoghat]

I've been using CFLs in my outdoor lighting for about 5 years now and I know it's anecdotal but I haven't found a problem.

Re:Great assumption

[tdi1]

You're correct. Best would be to turn them off when not in use. One does go off at night. The other gets put on the dimmest setting at night as it's used as a night-light - the only fixture on at night to allow safe passage.
The rest of the fixtures go on and off as needed.

CFLs definitely vary in life with use. I've seen charts showing as little as a few thousand hours if they're turned on for only 5 minutes at a time and up to 20k hours when left on. Starting surges play a profound role in the life of fluorescents.

Re:Great assumption

[Jeprey]

> Not to burst your bubble, but you know that LEDs are made from silicon and other semiconductors
> jut like MOSFETS and CPU's, right? They run at _very_ high temperatures - the max junction temperature
> of many MOSFETS can run as high as 175-200C!

LOL. Classic example of "fractal wrongness".

I work in semiconductor device physics and device reliability for a living. I've been involved in the design analog circuits and ICs professionally for 30+ years.

1. Silicon devices can not operate at high temperatures and still work for long. 200C is the standard temperature we use to accelerate silicon devices to rapid failure for the purposes of determining room temperature failure times. Typical failure in such testing occurs within seconds to hours at 200C depending on the electrical bias used.
2. No LED is made from silicon. All LEDs are and always have been III-V compound semiconductor devices. wLEDs are all of the minimal geometry heterojunction variety - they are really LEDs that produce blue, indigo, violet or UV light which stimulates a phosphor either on the LED device itself or in the plastic encapsulate to produce white light through simple fluorescence (exactly the same as a CFL or ballast-fired fluorescent bubble but lower power).
3. III-V semiconductor devices are far more sensitive to heat than silicon devices. This is due to the higher mobilities combined with the tendency toward positive temperature coefficients in many. These make them more sensitive because current increases with temperature and can even have a positive feedback loop that makes them inherently unstable thermally (worst case they burn out and burn out far too quickly). It's not unusual for a laser diode (a III-V device) to have 3 terminals: one "ground", one for power bias, and one for temperature monitoring output to attempt to control the thermal runaway that tends to occur for the above reasons.
4. Temperature, voltage and current accelerate failure mechanisms in all semiconductors. In the case of III-V, the temperature sensitivity issue radically enhances the life time degradation (III-V fails quicker at the same temperature and geometry than silicon in most cases). This is due to the above thermal reasons but also because heterojunctions are far smaller and more sensitive to damage than the homojunctions used in silicon. The smaller you make anything, the shorter the life time it will have - defects have more impact when you reduce the number of atoms in the device - a very concerning feature of nanoelectronics.
5. I would never recommend any commercially sold product use just resistor biasing, for example, in a wLED product for the above failure risk. There's a story floating around about SCEdison fielding wLED street lights and having 60% failure in 6 months. I wouldn't be surprised if it were true - I'd bet resistor bias was used in said wLED modules. You are opening your company up for massive lawsuits if not failure. This is why companies like National Semi, Linear Technologies, Texas Instruments and Analog Devices all have "Switching Power Supply LED Bias ICs" - it's the only way to reliably operate any LED circuit under high power for long life. The only way.
6. The diagram of junction voltage vs. junction temperatures only show what the junction voltage is to achieve a given current or light output with temperature. It says absolutely nothing about whether you should ever operate at those junction temperatures. The short answer is you never should do so. Considering ambient temperature effects on heat dissipation combined with life time degradation due to temperature acceleration, prudent engineering design would keep the junction temperature well below 40C-50C for maximum life time. Since very little empirical data exists for wLED device reliability, a conservative design would be best. Anything else and you are lying (deluding yourself) about your products longevity with your customers. That tends

Re:Great assumption

[jabuzz]

Yes I am aware heat rises. I also spend a lot of time heating my ceiling, because if the light bulb does not heat the ceiling, then my central heating will.

Your grasp of thermodynamics is poor.

Re:Great assumption

[jabuzz]

The purpose of baning incandescents is to reduce CO2 emissions not save money. If that were the sole consideration everyone would be buying CFL's today.

I live in Scotland, where close to 50% of my electricity is from low carbon sources (mainly hydro and nuclear), something my condensing gas boiler is not, even though it is cheaper to run.

I would add where I live there is *no* cooling in private houses period. The number of days a year in which the temperature gets over 25 Celcius can be counted on ones hands.

We don't all live in places live California or Spain.

LED lighting vs. CFL question

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone know if LED lighting can save on power over CFL with the same output (lumens)?

I purchased some LED bulbs and they tend to be much more expensive and the savings (watt rating) is very negligible. What makes LED more attractive? Is it just the longer life time?
--
Anonymous Coward Sig 2.0:
MADONNA IS THE BEST!!
Impeach Obama; install Madonna; end the war!

Currently listening to: Madonna - Like a Virgin; Justify My Sex remix.flac

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.

Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question

[gabebear]

Probably the single best thing about the current LED bulbs is you can throw them away. All florescent bulbs(CFLs included) contain mercury. Also, CFLs that operate in freezing conditions are very expensive and still don't work that well. LEDs can also be dimmed easily and come in any color you want, or even every color.

LED technology is still progressing rapidly, so hopefully we will see LED bulbs that trounce CFL efficiency pretty soon.

Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question

[Firehed]

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)

Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question

[Galactic Dominator]

Can we stop with dumbasses giving health advice?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp#Broken_and_discarded_lamps

Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question

[afidel]

Nope, most commercially available LED bulbs are no more efficient on a lumens/watt basis than CFL's (~60) and are MUCH worse on a lumens/dollar basis, this loaded study notwithstanding.

Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question

[innocent_white_lamb]

CFLs that operate in freezing conditions are very expensive and still don't work that well.
 
People keep saying this.
 
I live where it gets below -40 in the winter and I use ordinary CFL bulbs in my outside security lights that stay on all night. In the coldest days of winter, they still work fine. They take about 15 minutes to warm up when it's really cold (they come on almost instantly in the summer) and during that 15 minutes they give off a weak pinkish glow. But after they get warmed up, they're fine for the rest of the night.
 
I couldn't use them in my unheated garage, of course, because I want to be able to switch that light on, do my thing, and switch it off again. But in an application where the lights stay on all night, regular CFL bulbs work fine in the coldest days of winter.

Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question

[beelsebob]

Does anyone know if LED lighting can save on power over CFL with the same output (lumens)?

I purchased some LED bulbs and they tend to be much more expensive and the savings (watt rating) is very negligible. What makes LED more attractive? Is it just the longer life time?
Huh? You're doing it wrong, I lit an entire hallway with a total of 5W of LED bulbs, as compared with 54W of CFLs, or 220W of incandescents. You save a *lot* of electricity with these things... As well as them lasting a lot longer.

Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question

[rve]

so hopefully we will see LED bulbs that trounce CFL efficiency pretty soon.

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.

They should not have promised lifespans and levels of brightness that they couldn't make good on. The bulky size, the ugly color and to a lesser extent the warm up time have gotten better over the years, but because I will not compromise on truth in advertisement(*), there isn't a brand of CFL bulbs left that I'm willing to buy.

(*) well, a decent approximation

Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question

[Toonol]

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.

Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question

[Toonol]

Your eyes see the average light emitted by the bulb, but the reflected light you get from the environment can be substantially different. An object that reflects light of a particular green wavelength, and absorbs other wavelengths, will look very different under the sun or an incandescent, then it would under a CFL that fakes green by mixing yellow and blue. (They fake white, not green, but the same idea holds.)

Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question

[ArsenneLupin]

Because with LEDs you only make the part of the spectrum that the tomatoes growing in the closet use.

Tomatoes. Yeah right!

Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question

[ArsenneLupin]

Indeed. You get more mercury by sharing an office where somebody eats tunafish, than by breaking a CFL. Passive tuna eating should not be taken lightly!

Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question

[dkf]

But in an application where the lights stay on all night, regular CFL bulbs work fine in the coldest days of winter.

Why are you having lights on outside all night? To give the local wildlife something to see by? To make it easier for burglars to find their way across your property? You could just switch the lights off during the hours when you're asleep (using a cheap timeswitch) and save a bunch at practically zero cost to yourself.

Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question

[soundguy]

Why are you having lights on outside all night? To give the local wildlife something to see by? To make it easier for burglars to find their way across your property? You could just switch the lights off during the hours when you're asleep (using a cheap timeswitch) and save a bunch at practically zero cost to yourself.

Not everyone sleeps at night, dumbass. Also, most people aren't anal-retentive cheapskates who get their panties in a wad over a tenth of a cent worth of electricity.

Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question

[vlm]

Why are you having lights on outside all night?

24x7 walmart sign, gas station sign, etc. All the outdoor commercial signs I'm familiar with, use old fashioned florescent tube lights, for extremely even illumination and efficiency. This might vary based on location, it never gets above 100F here, maybe in vegas that type fails in the summer, or in coastie areas they corrode.

The other reason to run a light all night is to offend your sleeping neighbors, if you're either into that generally, or trying to offend one individual neighbor. At one point, I had both my neighbors running floodlights all night, does that mean all my neighbors are jerks, or all my neighbors think I'm a jerk (or both?)

Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question

[coinreturn]

Same here. I have started marking my CFLs with the install date so I can feel justified in my bitchiness when they go out.

Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question

[EatHam]

Probably the single best thing about the current LED bulbs is you can throw them away.

I can throw away CFLs too, and the environment can eat my ass if it doesn't like it.

Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, my dropped CFL isn't much of a problem with it's ~5mg of mercury. The tens or hundreds of thousands that can be broken in a region releasing kilograms of mercury can be a problem.

The extra trucks on the roads being used to collect the CFL's for recycling consume and pollute too. I wonder if that got figured into this study?

Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question

[QuantumRiff]

I have been looking at LED's to replace my other lights, for 2 reasons, CFL's, like any flourescent, don't like turning off and on often, it wears them down faster, and my house has lots and lots of dimmer switches. the "Dimmable" CFL's seem to go from 85% bright to 100% bright, and I can't stand them!

Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question

[bestalexguy]

What about babies touching the floor and licking their fingers? Do they deserve their fate, too? Which is the right punishment for a toddler whose mother is not an expert in removing poisoning substances from contaminated surfaces? What is unreasonable in trying to keep as many hazardous materials as possible outside the household?

Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question

[xaxa]

Also, most people aren't anal-retentive cheapskates who get their panties in a wad over a tenth of a cent worth of electricity.

4 efficient outside lights might be 100W. 0.1kW * 12 hours * 365 = 438kWh each year, which would be £60 for me.

A couple of floodlights would be significantly more.

Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question

[Neil Hodges]

You haven't seen signs with "neon" (gas discharge tube) lighting? They're all over the place around here.

Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question

[bjdevil66]

Especially the increased on/off cycles, which is what kills almost all CFLs before their time.

In my "study of one", CFLs also don't work right out of the box about 10-20% of the time. They don't light at all, or they flicker on and off, etc. There is a real quality problem with those bulbs. I much prefer plain, old fashioned incandescent bulbs.

This also doesn't take into effect that some kinds of CFL bulbs are hard on the eyes when lit (some are better than others). I have to go 50/50 to get the same light "warmth" in one bedroom.

Wake me up when LED bulbs are cheap enough to consider.

Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question

[alexo]

Unless you start licking the floor where you dropped the bulb, it's not a problem.

I guess you are not a parent.

Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question

[movercast]

Actually with LEDs it should be possible to make ANY spectrum of your choice. A few UV, Blue, Green, Red, and IR LEDs thrown together actually could create a perfectly flat spectrum across the board. Also, if you put some adjustments on them, you could emulate Sunny, cloudy, moonshine or earthshine. Anybody know of companies selling these types of customized units?

Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question

[gr8_phk]

You never played with mercury did you. It's liquid at room temperature and pressure and while some may absorb through the skin, it's not that much. Plenty of kids in the old days played with mercury - yes it's a bad idea, but what's in a CFL isn't going to kill you. There is certainly no danger to being in a room with liquid mercury. In fact, IIRC one of the large observatories floats its telescope in mercury to provide a nice bearing. Just because some states legislators have passed laws, doesn't mean they are right about the level of hazard.

Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question

[gabebear]

Not everyone sleeps at night, dumbass.

Some of us do sleep at night, asshole. It would be REALLY nice if people would turn off their outside lighting so it would actually be dark. Even with the cheapest American electrical rates, you are still looking at $1/month per 25W bulb.

Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question

[Orne]

First generation CFLs contained a level of mercury that today would be considered excessive (25-50 mg / bulb), and the broken bulbs of early adopters are what spawned the big "EPA cleanup" panic with CFLs a couple of years ago. Since 2007, the mercury level in today's generation of CFLs (3mg) is "mostly harmless", i.e. broom-sweepable.

Individual Fluorescent Bulbs - About 60 percent of all fluorescent lamps sold in the U.S. in 2004 contained 10 mg of mercury or less. The remaining 40 percent contained more than 10 mg and up to 100 mg of mercury. Four-foot linear fluorescent lamps contained an average of 13.3 mg, with a high of 70 mg and a low of 2.5 mg. Compact fluorescents (CFLs) had the least amount of mercury per lamp in 2004; two-thirds of CFLs contained 5 mg of mercury or less, while 96 percent contained 10 mg or less. --Consumer and Commercial Products | Mercury | US EPA

Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question

[PitaBred]

What matters is how responsibly you deal with it. If YOU want to keep all CFL's out of your house, go for it. I, on the other hand, will continue to use them. I have an 11 month old who's getting ready to walk, so I have incandescent bulbs in any lamp that could be tipped over, but all my ceiling and wall lights that can use CFLs have them. Really... it's about acceptable risk vs. reward. 41,059 people died on the roads in the US in 2007. That's 112 people a day. Yet I go driving almost every day to get to places I need to be. How many people die a year from mercury poisoning? Or are even sickened? I end up paying a lot less for electricity due to my CFLs, and that's a real benefit to me.

People have no concept of how to manage risk, or even what actually is dangerous.

Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question

[innocent_white_lamb]

Why are you having lights on outside all night?
 
I run a movie theatre and the lights are on the outside of my theatre building. They are security lights so nobody kills himself on the way in or out of the door at night (or just passing by the theatre), and to provide a disincentive to vandals and the like.
 
It's also nice to have a light to see where I'm going when putting the garbage out and whatnot.
 
As I recall, security lights of that nature are actually required by the fire code here for this type of building.

Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question

[jeffb (2.718)]

It's liquid and vapor at room temperature. Its vapor pressure at room temperature is around 0.002mmHg. This translates into around 20 mg/m^3. If there's less mercury than that in the air, mercury will tend to evaporate at room temperature. And the more finely divided it is, the faster it will evaporate. Microscopic droplets from a broken bulb are very finely divided.

Incidentally, the recommended exposure limit for mercury vapor is about 0.025 mg/m^3.

Sure, plenty of kids played with mercury in the old days. They also didn't wear seatbelts in cars. And most of them survived to adulthood just fine.

Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question

[physburn]

That very much depends on the specific LED, now that blue, and ultraviolet LEDs have been produce, LEDs can create any spectrum that we wish. In practice a white light combo LED is unlikely to have more that three specific emitters, but for tasks, like hydroponics, custom LEDs are likely to have the advantage. By contrast, florescent bulbs have a very blue tint that is probably unhelpful for growing.

I'm actually rather surprised that LED have only the same life time cost as fluorescents, I expected LED to be much cheaper, especially because of there longer life. Increasing there use and better manufacture will likely bring down the cost of LEDs in the futures, while fluorescents have been around so long i doubt there's much improvement to be had.

---

Home Lighting Feed @ Feed Distiller

Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question

[ryanov]

I know that Boeing is planning that/doing that on their new aircraft, so it's definitely been thought of.

Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question

[toddestan]

There's this:
http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/lights/831e/

Don't own one, so I don't know how well it works exactly. Kind of want one though.

Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question

[Meski]

Especially the increased on/off cycles, which is what kills almost all CFLs before their time.

In my "study of one", CFLs also don't work right out of the box about 10-20% of the time.

Just like incandescents, really.

They don't light at all, or they flicker on and off, etc.

Again, just like incandescents. You get the cute flicker effect when the filament breaks and then arcs.

There is a real quality problem with those bulbs.

With all bulbs, from what I see.

I much prefer plain, old fashioned incandescent bulbs.

This also doesn't take into effect that some kinds of CFL bulbs are hard on the eyes when lit (some are better than others). I have to go 50/50 to get the same light "warmth" in one bedroom.

TMI about your seduction techniques there.

Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question

[Meski]

It'll probably make the wings fall off.

Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question

[Nocturna81]

I know people who own one of these (they've got, in principle, an unlimited selection of colours): http://www.lighting.philips.com/microsite/living_colors/
Personally I think they're kinda cool but I think most people get bored after a while and just leave it on a shade they like.

Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Even if you do lick the floor... That filling is far worse, and lets not forget all the goodness packet into modern city air. Old fashion FL have far more mercury in them as well. Oh and have you ever walked passed a broken street lamp?

Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question

[haruchai]

What brand(s) of bulbs were you using? I have seen some that didn't last as long as they should but they were either no-name crap or were in places where they were turned off and on frequently.

Since sticking to the rule that you shouldn't turn a fluorescent off within 15min of turning it on, I haven't had any premature CFL bulb deaths.

Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question

[haruchai]

Let's sentence all those grannies to life who, in their younger years, were mothers who carelessly broke mercury thermometers - which contained a lot more mercury than a half dozen CFLs.

Re:Wat?

[mysidia]

Surely they meant that LEDs last 2.5 times as long as traditional incandescents. Which is absurd actually... LEDs last a lot longer.

How come no mention of Halogens, I wonder?

Re:Zero

[Lord Byron II]

Or x is undefined (as in infinity) is also a solution.

Oh for fucks sake

[ArchieBunker]

How can these "editors" screw up a single sentence? They're not even janitors.

Re:Oh for fucks sake

[Mashiki]

So how many DOES it take to screw in a light bulb anyway?

Re:Oh for fucks sake

[TapeCutter]

"So how many DOES it take to screw in a light bulb anyway?"

I'd say about 10, one to do it the first time and the other 9 for the dupes.

Re:Oh for fucks sake

[Mashiki]

Zing!

Summary fail

[jaxtherat]

"LEDs last 2.5 times as long as LEDs"

yeah...

Re:Summary fail

[Ragzouken]

The same as 1 forever.

Re:Zero

[robinesque]

No one cares about the trivial solution.

Whats TCO?

[NevarMore]

I know, I know, buzzword alert.

Whats the TCO?

$X for bulb
$Y per kwh (cite sources, current prices in what locale, projected prices)
Z lifetime
Q consumption rate

Google shows a few results from manufacturers press releases.

Re:Whats TCO?

[WiiVault]

Seriously. This is all I care about, not people randomly picking apart the admittedly stupid typo in the summary.

Re:Whats TCO?

[beelsebob]

My experience recently...

CFLs (assuming an 18W bulb)
X = €1
Y = €0.13 per kwh (roughly)
Z = €24.40 (assuming a 10000 hour lifetime, as advertised)
Q = €11.54 (assuming you leave your bulb on for half the time, which may be a bit long)

LEDs (assuming a 2W bulb)
X = €10
Y = €0.13 per kwh
Z = €13.00 (assuming a 50000 hour lifetime, as advertised)
Q = €2.09 (assuming you leave your bulb on for half the time, which may be a bit long)

For the sake of comparison, Incandescent:
X = €0.10
Y = €0.13 per kwh
Z = €7.80 (assuming a 1000 hour lifetime)
Q = €35.91 (assuming you leave your bulb on for half the time, which may be a bit long)

Bob

Re:Whats TCO?

[beelsebob]

Ooops sorry, forgot to say, I was assuming a 60W incandescent bulb.

Re:Whats TCO?

[vlm]

Whats the TCO?

$X for bulb
$Y per kwh (cite sources, current prices in what locale, projected prices)
Z lifetime
Q consumption rate

Don't forget labor costs to procure/install and replace/dispose/recycle.

Incandescent works in ANY fixure, buy at every little convenience and grocery store, very safe to dispose of and recycle (just glass and a little wire) but has to be replaced every couple years.

CFL may not fit in every fixture, can only buy at home improvement stores (special trip, burn some gas), similar lifetime to Incandescent or even shorter due to cheap Chinese manufacturing, terribly toxic to dispose of due to being full of mercury. As a plus theres lots of greenwashing marketing to make the buyer feel good.

LED probably won't fit in a fixture or app that was not designed for a LED, mostly only buy online (pay shipping, burn UPS's diesel/kerosene to transport it), lasts pretty much forever, semi-toxic to manufacture but "mostly harmless" to throw away.

Even if everything were the same price and I'd "save" $5 of energy by using a LED (merely resulting in burning $5 more natural gas in my furnace to keep warm), if I have to spend $10 on shipping to buy it, not so good of a deal.

Also, incandescents don't live long in my ceiling fans, CFLs don't live long period, but LEDs run forever in that app, so the economics change for different apps. The bulb in my closet will never wear out in my lifetime, and uses virtually no energy per year, so fancy bulbs are a waste of money for my closet.

Re:Whats TCO?

[beelsebob]

My experience says that this is not true at all. Having lit a hall with 3 60W bulbs, and replaced it all with 5W of LED bulbs, I can confidently say that you're talking bullshit. The LEDs are, if anything, brighter than the old incandescents.

Another things to consider

[Sycraft-fu]

Is heat output. More or less, any energy that isn't becoming light is becoming heat. Now in some areas of the world, that matters little to none. However in hot climates, it does. An incandescent produces more heat which gets dumped in to the air in your house. You then have to run your AC more often. So you end up paying double for the power, in terms of using it and then eliminating the excess. That's one reason I rather like CFLs is that they heat up my place less. I live in the desert so that is a non-trivial thing.

Also, they can have a much more natural white point. I like the fact that you can get CFLs with a white around 6000, which is closer to what you get from the sun on a bright day. Just a much nicer quality of light. You do generally need to pay more to get higher quality ones with a better spectrum, but I'd say it is worth it.

Re:Another things to consider

[hedgemage]

I am practically a professional light-bulb changer, so I will say that in my non-scientific, non-measured, purely anecdotal experience, that CFLs put out a lot more heat than LEDs. Scads less than incandescents, but still, the ballast in the base of a CFL warms up quite a bit during operation, often growing too hot to touch when the glass spiral is still plenty cool. If you're concerned about minimizing heat, go LED.

Re:Another things to consider

[jhol13]

The efficiency of CFLs and LEDs is pretty much same, therefore they will put very closely same amount of heat.
CFLs may heat the base more (no experience), but overall there cannot be any difference.

Re:Another things to consider

[texas neuron]

Actually - you have it backwards. Let's say the SEER rating of your air conditioner is 12. This means you move 12 BTU(thermal) for every 1 watt-hours of electric energy used. The energy equivalent of 1 BTU(thermal) is .29 watt-hours. You therefore move 12 x 0.29 watt hours (thermal) for every watt-hour (electric) or 3.48.

Re:Another things to consider

[Z80xxc!]

The heat issue goes both ways, too. Portland, OR recently started using LEDs in all of the street lamps, slowly fazing them in as the old incandescent bulbs fail and need to be replaced. Last winter during a huge snow and ice storm, they noticed that a lot of the LED street lamps couldn't be seen. The old warm incandescent bulbs would get so hot that they would melt all of the snow and ice off of the lamp cover. The new LEDs are so efficient that the snow doesn't melt, causing them to not be as visible when it snows. Fortunately it rarely snows much here, so it's not a huge concern, but it's funny how the inefficiency of the old lamps was actually a benefit nobody realized.

Re:Another things to consider

[yope]

They actually briefly mention this point in the study, so it is at least being considered (RTFA).
Although I do not entirely agree with some assumptions made and the last calculation about heat.
You also forget to mention the opposite possibility: excess heat being benefical in colder places. The study mentions an example where they dismiss the heating effect of the incandecent bulb under conditions where the bulb is used 75% of the time when heating is needed, as saving only 17 kg of CO2. I have made some calculations, and being very pessimistic, assuming your central heating has 100% efficiency, you should still save some 150 kg of CO2 over the 25000 hour lifecycle. That is not being insignificant anymore, but the study just dismisses it.

Re:Another things to consider

[xlsior]

Is heat output. More or less, any energy that isn't becoming light is becoming heat. Now in some areas of the world, that matters little to none. However in hot climates, it does. An incandescent produces more heat which gets dumped in to the air in your house. You then have to run your AC more often. So you end up paying double for the power, in terms of using it and then eliminating the excess.

Don't forget the other way around: if you have electrical heating, there are little to no savings using compact florescents during the fall/winter months. With incandescent bulbs the so-called waste heat is actually useful in helping heat the home itself. Without them, my electric baseport heaters just have to work harder to make up the difference, using pretty much the same amount of electricity I'd alledgedly safe by not using incandescents.

Sure, you'll safe a little during the summer time because you need less A/C, but realistically your lights will get most of their usage during the dark months...

Re:Another things to consider

[whoever57]

The heat issue goes both ways, too. Portland, OR recently started using LEDs in all of the street lamps, slowly fazing them in as the old incandescent bulbs fail and need to be replaced

I doubt they use incandescent bulbs. High-pressure discharge lamps such as mercury vapor or metal halide bulbs perhaps. These are far more efficient that incandescent bulbs, although not as efficient as LEDs. If they have a yellow color, they will be low-pressure sodium or high-pressure sodium.

Re:Another things to consider

[rtb61]

So if you live in a cold climate, where heat and light are required simultaneously, then technically speaking the extra energy put into manufacturing more complex LEDs and CFLs makes them more energy inefficient than long life incandescent light fixtures as you are making use of the heat. Always a tricky question in warm climates, which is more energy efficient trying to cool the additional heat load of natural lighting ie. big windows, or making use of energy efficient LED's and sticking to highly insulated solid walls.

Re:Another things to consider

[Rakshasa Taisab]

Wait... What?

Are you claiming that heat output only matters in warm climates? If you've ever been living in one of the northern countries you know that except for two months or so of the year, any extra heat sources in the home is a _good_ thing. Heat production is not wasted energy.

Re:Another things to consider

[mpe]

Is heat output. More or less, any energy that isn't becoming light is becoming heat. Now in some areas of the world, that matters little to none. However in hot climates, it does. An incandescent produces more heat which gets dumped in to the air in your house.

This is also an issue where it is cold enough to need heating.

You then have to run your AC more often. So you end up paying double for the power, in terms of using it and then eliminating the excess.

It dosn't help that many AC systems move excess heat from inside to outside a building, typically into an all ready hot environment, rather than do something like pre-heating hot water.

Re:Another things to consider

[jackchance]

I absolutely agree. In winter, instead of turning on your heat, you should just run your computer doing folding@home or whatever to try to put out enough heat to keep your place at a comfy temp. It's crazy to just put the electricity through a resistor when you could be getting CPU cycles out of it!!!

Re:Another things to consider

[ColaMan]

then technically speaking the extra energy put into manufacturing more complex LEDs and CFLs makes them more energy inefficient than long life incandescent light fixtures as you are making use of the heat

Which is completely irrelevant when you use the "more than 100%" energy-efficient means of heating your home, such as a heat pump.

Re:Another things to consider

[Sparr0]

If my AC can use 1Wh of electricity to move 12 BTU (~4Wh) of heat from the already-cool interior to the warmer exterior of my home, can I run an AC installed backwards to get a heater that is 4x as efficient as an electric heater?

To answer my own question, yes. That would be a Heat Pump, which can have a Coefficient of Performance of 3-4 while an electric heater has a COP of 1.

Re:Another things to consider

[jabuzz]

I would say the opposite. I live in a more northerly latitude, 56 degress 28 minutes north to be precise. At the moment whenever it is dark and I have my lights on I also have my thermostatically controlled central heating on. In effect my incandescent light bulbs currently have an efficiency of 100%. If I where to switch to CFL or LED lights, then my thermostatically controlled central heating would simply work harder to make up the difference. Not only that where I live a significant proportion of the electricity consumed comes from low or zero carbon sources (mainly hydro and nuclear). My central heating is of course natural gas, though I do have a condensing boiler so it is wildly efficient.

Then the summer arrives, and it does not get dark to very late and I hardly have the lights on at all.

Now if I lived in Spain for example it would be an entirely different situation, however I don't so yet again this has been a pointless exercise, and advances our understanding no further.

Re:Another things to consider

[adolf]

Yeah.

And it's crazy to spend BTUs fold proteins for sport, where the same energy is available cheaper in the form of gas, oil, or wood.

Re:Another things to consider

[jabuzz]

In which case the study is done by a bunch of clueless morons. Where it is cold and you have thermostatically controlled central heating, the waste heat from an incandescent will be entirely made up by the central heating system working harder. This is fundamental basic thermodynamics.

As soon as you turn on your thermostatically controlled central heating then the efficiency of an incandescent light bulb jumps radically. To work out how efficient it is you have to work out the difference between the carbon output of the generation and transmission of the electricity (which will vary depending on where you live) against the equivalent of your central heating system.

Remember the goal is lower CO2 emissions. What is better running an incandescent light bulb from a hydro electric power station or a CFL from the same powerstation and making the difference up by burning natural gas in my central heating systems boiler?

Re:Another things to consider

[macshit]

Also, they can have a much more natural white point. I like the fact that you can get CFLs with a white around 6000, which is closer to what you get from the sun on a bright day. Just a much nicer quality of light.

Haver you ever seen the spectrum of a CFL though? Every one I've is completely freaky, absolutely nothing like a blackbody spectrum (such as the sun, or an incandescent bulb), basically lots of extremely narrow high-intensity spikes at widely-distributed points.

LED bulbs don't have a perfect black-body spectrum either, but the one's I've seen a spectrum for are much, much closer than the typical CFL.

Re:Another things to consider

[StarsAreAlsoFire]

Portland (like most cities) uses a mix of HPS/Halide. I can't recall seeing any mercury vapor lamps, but sometimes they blend in pretty well. Mercury vapor tend to be in the lower power ranges, and I think PDX uses HPS preferentially.

The driving issue behind going LED has very little to do with efficiency, except perhaps as greenwashing. Yes, it almost certainly does save money on power, and without a doubt generates less CO2, in the long run. But Portland gets most of its power from hydro - particularly from ~8pm to 5am, aka offpeak. Percent savings due to power will be much lower than elsewhere (LA, for instance).

Beyond all the obvious benefits the largest cost savings comes from maintenance. HID lights don't really 'burn out', as such. They degrade. As they degrade, the current required to keep them lit hits point where the ballast can't keep up. Ahhh, then the magic! As the bulb cools, the current required to light it drops - presto! Annoying flickering street light.

All cities, to my knowledge, replace all the bulbs on a particular street on a schedule. This is expensive, but nothing compared to the cost of spot replacements. Sending a crew (perhaps a crew of one, but whatever) out to replace a single bulb on some random street will never cost less than a hundred bucks. For a four to forty dollar bulb. Chances are, when you take into account salary, cost of the lift equipment, drive time, aborted calls (the on-off cycle for a dying HID lamp can be hours), etc etc etc, you'll probably end up with somewhere around $300 bucks per spot-replacement. City lights. We won't be replacing those crazy gajillion candlepower highway interchange lamps with LEDs anytime soon. But you bet your @$$ it's going to be a couple of grand to drag out the equipment needed to reach and replace some lights on a 100 foot tall post.

With LEDs you've got hundreds of lamps per fixture. If you simply declare 'We replace lamps with 90 thousand hours (whole street replacement), bad ballasts (spot replacement), and lamps with less than 70% nominal output (spot, if reported). You've wiped out ALL aborted calls (either the ballast is dead or it isn't, either ~30% of the LEDs are dead or they aren't), and 99.5% of all spot replacements. That's a lot of bucks.

Re:Another things to consider

[Ost99]

LEDs are move efficient than CFLs.
Typical CFL 60 Lumen/Watt. Good CFL 70 Lumen/Watt.
Typical LED 90 Lumen/Watt. Good LED 140-150 Lumen/Watt.

Re:Another things to consider

[dkf]

Remember the goal is lower CO2 emissions.

That's only one of the goals. Not having to replace broken bulbs so often is another good goal, and we can justify that on pure convenience for ourselves. (You could also make points about reduced cost of transport, etc., but you'd just be skirting round the central fact of it just being better on the laziness factor.)

Re:Another things to consider

[noidentity]

Another things to consider is heat output. More or less, any energy that isn't becoming light is becoming heat. Now in some areas of the world, that matters little to none.

It's still a waste if you have a heat pump, which has a coefficient of performance (COP) greater than 1.0. A resistive heater is 1.0.

However in hot climates, it does. An incandescent produces more heat which gets dumped in to the air in your house. You then have to run your AC more often. So you end up paying double for the power, in terms of using it and then eliminating the excess.

An air conditioner also has a COP greater than 1.0, so you don't pay double for the excess energy the incandescent uses.

So, if you need heating and don't have a heat pump, you might as well use incandescents in the winter. If you do have a heat pump, or it's summer, use CFLs.

Re:Another things to consider

[lazybeam]

It's called a "reverse cycle air conditioner" and they are fairly common these days. I have one in my house and office and it can really work. One thing, if the outside temperature is below a certain number (I think about -5C) then it doesn't work properly. At those temperatures your refrigerator won't work either!

Re:Another things to consider

[texas neuron]

The rating is SEER and has to do with the ratio of BTUs (common measurement of heat transfer) and Watt-hours (common measure of electric usage). See posts above. The ratio works out to between 3 and 4 units of heat moved for every until of electric power consumed. We are not up to 10 to 1 yet (SEER of about 30).

Re:Another things to consider

[mesterha]

And it's crazy to spend BTUs fold proteins for sport, where the same energy is available cheaper in the form of gas, oil, or wood.

It should be possible to do both. Run a generator/furnace to make electricity from the gas. The electricity will heat the house and the heat from the generator can be used to heat the house. Any excess electricity can be put on the grid or used in resistive heating.

Re:Another things to consider

[movercast]

So, where does the heat in a CFL come from? I can understand incandescents as they are black body sources basically, and LEDs should produce very little heat as they convert electrons into visible photons very well (and do not produce any photons in the deep IR). CFLs are a giant black box to me though.

Re:Another things to consider

[movercast]

From what I remember, for the given external quantum efficiency (ranging in 1-5% area), LED's responsivity are in the vicinity of 10 to 50 microwatts per milliamp. Theoretically, as the wavelength of the LED decreases, the responsitity increases so the blue-er the better.

Re:Another things to consider

[PitaBred]

Depends entirely on what kind of heat you have. If you're turning on an electric space heater, yeah, use your computer. Resistive heat is resistive heat. But gas heat is much more efficient that electric, and much less expensive per BTU in every place I've ever seen.

Re:Another things to consider

[ducomputergeek]

Honestly, I could heat my old 1 bedroom apartment with my Quad-Core G5 powermac tower. I set thermostat to 60 and the only time the heat ran that winter was when it was less than 25 degrees outside.

Re:Another things to consider

[yope]

Well, this is exactly what I have always been saying. Many previous studies tend to ignore the effect of heat generated by incandescents on your heating bill. In contrast, this study does mention this effect (simple thermodinamics as you correctly state it), but I don't believe their figures.
Their study says that assuming 75% of the total time the incandescent light bulb is used, is during periods where central heating is also used, and that central heating is fuled by natural gas, the total amount of CO2 emissions saved on your GAS (heating) bill will only by about 17 kg over the whole 25000 years.
I think their math doesn't add up, since it should not be too much lower than just 75% of the CO2 emissions of the electrical energy used to light the bulb (again, relatively simple thermodynamics). Searching on the internet a little, one finds that 1 kWh of heat from natural gas produces roughly 200gr of CO2. Considering all the energy going into an incandescent bulb is converted into heat (that little fraction that is emitted as light eventually also generates heat - simple thermodynamics), that means that this 40Watt light bulb is generating 25000*0.04*0.75 = 750 kWh of heat over its 25000 hour life-span (well, in the study that's actually 25 light bulbs at 1000h each).
That yields approximately 150kg of CO2 saved by the bulb(s)... sounds much more like it.

And this result is without considering the fact that central heating also has losses (through exhaust, ventilation, etc... which yields less than 100% efficiency), so saved emissions should be even higher!

Re:Another things to consider

[AnotherBlackHat]

LEDs are [more] efficient than CFLs.
Typical CFL 60 Lumen/Watt. Good CFL 70 Lumen/Watt.
Typical LED 90 Lumen/Watt. Good LED 140-150 Lumen/Watt.

Maybe in the lab, but for bulbs you can buy, they're both around 60 Lumen/Watt.
Even when (if?) the 150 Lumen/Watt versions are commercially available, they still won't be that different in terms of heat produced.
"Perfect" would be 683 lumens per watt, so you need to compare 613 (683-70) to 553 (683-150) - around 90% of the heat of a CFL.

One thing that bothers me a lot about LED bulbs is that it's not very easy to tell high efficiency from low efficiency.

Re:Another things to consider

[afidel]

Nope, my wife owns a streetlight and it's nothing more than 3x long life 100W bulb's.

Re:Another things to consider

[Ost99]

"Perfect" would be 683 lumens per watt, so you need to compare 613 (683-70) to 553 (683-150) - around 90% of the heat of a CFL.

Ehh no?
That's only correct if you have have a set power consumption. 10W of LED will produce 90% of heat from a 10W CFL. But you'd not use a 10W LED as replacement for a 10W CFL, you'd use a 5W LED.

If you need 3000 lumen to light up a room, you need 20W of LEDs. To get the same amount of light from CFLs you need 40W of CFLs. You should end up with at least twice as much heat from the CFLs. (With 150 lumen / Watt LEDs and 75 lumen / Watt CFLs).

Re:Another things to consider

[adolf]

If it were possible to recover all of the waste heat from a reciprocating engine and do something useful with it, we'd be living in a different world right now, and would not be having this conversation.

Meanwhile, here in reality, I think I'll keep my 95% efficient natural gas furnace, and try to turn electronics off when not in use. Thanks.

Re:Another things to consider

[AnotherBlackHat]

Doh!

You are correct, I don't know what I was thinking (or rather, not thinking)

Re:Another things to consider

[mesterha]

I just want to use the waste heat to heat the house. The heat has to go somewhere. The reason that natural gas furnace is 95% efficient is that all it generates is waste heat, but it doesn't let much escape out the flue. In principle it should possible to run a gas turbine without letting much heat escape through the exhaust. Once the turbine reaches a temperature equilibrium most of the heat stays in the house. It's just a matter of distributing it.

This is just a cogeneration technique. These types of techniques have existed for a long time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeneration It is mainly used on a large scale to distribute heat to nearby locations. This of course causes loss of heat during transportation. Local generation would be better, but I assume the capital costs are high given our infrastructure. (It would be nice if the excess power could feed the grid in the winter...)

Re:Another things to consider

[adolf]

Bah.

Your proposal sucks.

At the end of the day, here's what matters to me: Useful (to me!) BTUs of heat per dollar (of mine).

It's very plainly going to be far cheaper for me to heat my house this winter (and for many winters to come) using my natural gas furnace, than to install a gas turbine, a fancy heat exchanger system for it, a cogeneration rig, additional resistive heating so I can actually use the electricity produced for something other than Folding@Home, etc.

There's just no fucking way this will begin to approach the total monetary efficiency of the inexpensive and simple heating system I already have. It's already at 95%, not accounting for transmission losses (but those exist no matter what). Squeezing anything more out the remaining 5% is going to be expensive enough that it's simply not worth considering.

Re:Another things to consider

[mesterha]

There's just no fucking way this will begin to approach the total monetary efficiency of the inexpensive and simple heating system I already have. It's already at 95%, not accounting for transmission losses (but those exist no matter what). Squeezing anything more out the remaining 5% is going to be expensive enough that it's simply not worth considering.

These statements show that you don't know what your talking about. Why do you think people in certain climates use heat pumps instead of gas furnaces? It a large part of the USA it's by far the cheapest way to heat your house. Also cogeneration techniques are currently being used and are much better solutions than simple furnaces. Yes a modern furnace can extract almost all the heat out of gas, but that is not the only way to heat a house. You can use waste heat from a nearby industrial process. You can extract heat from the outside air or the ground.

I know you want to defend what you decided to do for your house, and it might be the best solution for you, but it's definitely not the best solution for everybody, and in the future, it might not be the best solution for anybody. There's a much bigger margin than 5% to be exploited.

Re:Another things to consider

[adolf]

I know a few things.

I know that here in Ohio, the temperature ranges from +115 to -20 F. I know that I didn't decide to install this furnace -- it simply came with the house that I was forced to move into (which is a very unrelated, and far longer story). I know that geothermal and other heat pumps can work well in certain climates, including most of the early spring and late fall in this part of the world (with efficiency dropping off as the environment turns more extreme at either side). And I know I have enough land, even here in town, to install a proper network of geothermal piping.

I even know how to do most of this sort of work myself.

However, I also know this: The last time it was -20F was last winter, which is particularly cold for here. The furnace ran continuously for three entire days, and though it never did quite catch up, it did keep the house reasonably comfortable. It was comforting to rely solely on natural gas for this, as it never seems to suffer from the issues of peak demand electicity sometimes does.

I know that I don't have any nearby industrial processes to tap waste heat from. The only factory which is even remotely close is a small plastics plant that makes field tile. They're certainly not generating enough waste heat molding up their low-temperature polystyrene plastic pipe to heat my house and the rest of them in between. I also know that we don't have any heavy industry, proper, to speak of within tens of miles of my house: I live in a town employed by light industry, commerce, farming, and warehousing, none of which make for any sort of efficient capture of waste heat.

I know that electricity, per BTU, is a lot more expensive here than natural gas is. And I know that the utility buys it for a very low rate, which makes cogeneration an ugly joke.

Just to throw an equation out there: x - (y+m) = z. Where X is the cost to generate my own electricity, Y is the the proceeds from selling my extra electricity, and M is what the cost of my normal electrical usage. This leaves a positive value, Z, which is what it costs me to "save energy" using cogeneration.

Even though the equation is broken by favoring your point (M does not include the discounted rate for selling energy back to the electric grid), it's still ugly.

And I know that we're still only talking about a maximum gain of 5%, since anyone with an elementary understanding of physics must know that a process cannot exceed 100% efficiency, and we're already at 95%. And I'm already using the least expensive (dollars per BTU of heat) form of heat I can get around here, aside from cutting my own firewood from my own stand of trees (which I do not have)...but wood heat is a different sort of lie: Instead of spending my time making money to pay for fuel to stay warm, I spend my time in the cold cutting fuel into little pieces so I can burn it to stay warm.

Please, then: Tell me something I don't know.

And please realize that I'm not opposed to change. I'm just opposed to doing stupid things. For instance, I like the idea of solar energy, though I firmly believe that the math on current photovoltaics is -- at best -- really fucking scary. I am exploring the opportunity to use direct solar heating, though, and do plan on experimenting with it some next year -- at least during the warmer months to keep the pool warm and maybe preheat municipal water before it goes into the water heater.

But most of what you say doesn't make any sense, which is why I'm not looking at doing any of that.

Re:Another things to consider

[adolf]

Oh. I forgot:

I also know that neither geothermal nor other heat pumps work particularly effectively here during the cold months -- there just isn't enough ambient thermal energy that it can be efficiently extracted using that technique, most of the time during the heating season.

That said, if I were installing central air conditioning, I'd certainly look at using a system which can be reversed for heating during the more moderate times of spring and fall. Mechanically, at least, it's an easy upgrade, and would work well with my existing high-efficiency forced-air furnace. I'm just not interested in that at all right now (since the only rooms which become "too hot" in the summer are those equipped with multiple computers, which are easily and cheaply cooled using a couple of window units).

Remember, I'm interested only in BTU per dollar, which includes the amortized expense of installing and maintaining whatever it is. My existing system, even if it is not perfect, is very cheap to maintain and, to me, was zero cost to install. I don't care about being "green." I'm a liberal capitalist, if you believe that such a thing can exist.

(This is why I discount photovoltaics out-of-hand. Last time I looked, which wasn't so long ago, it was something like a 20-year payoff on initial investment...with an expected life expectancy of about 20 years. Which is all like: Great! I get to spend all of this money NOW, and MAYBE in 20 years (if storm damage doesn't ruin the whole thing first) I'll recover my investment...and then I get to do it all over again!!!! Honestly, I'd rather burn money in my firepit out back, than go through those zero-sum gyrations.)

And I welcome the opportunity to be shown that I'm wrong. So far, though, you've failed.

Besides, simplicity and predictability has its merits.

Re:Another things to consider

[mesterha]

I'm more interested in what's right for the future, as in what would be interesting technology to develop, but I'll try to stick to the present.

You mention geothermal piping. This is expensive, but if done right would work even for your climate. The temperature below 7m is pretty constant at around 50 degrees; heat pumps work well at that temperature. A far cheaper solution is to use an air based heat pump. It will not work well during your cold winters but modern units include a gas heater. Still if you've currently got a 95% efficient furnace the costs are probably not worth it.

As for cogeneration, this is not something you can do directly. It's more popular in urban settings and in other countries. Jumping to the future, what I mentioned is a way to do local cogeneration. Instead of the electricity company creating a bunch of waste heat, you create that waste heat in your own house. The electricity you get at your house is at best 50% efficient. This means at least half the energy turns to heat before it gets to your house. Assuming that heat is just being wasted, during the winter it makes sense to generate that electricity at home and use the waste heat. In some sense, your generating electricity at 95% efficiency since you would need to use the gas anyway to heat the house. If you can sell the electricity back to the power company at a reasonable rate then you can probably shave around 40% off your power bill. (The "efficiency" would be around 85% if you sell since it would suffer some transmission losses.)

Again this is just a possibility. There are several issues to be resolved. It also probably doesn't make sense if you live in a climate more suitable for a heat pump or if your place is big enough to justify a ground based heat pump. However, it does show why your 95% efficiency, while technically correct, is not useful when comparing heating options.

To get back to the original topic of discussion, the point of my original post was to show that it is possible to run SETI on your computer in the winter at the same efficiency as a gas furnace. You replied

If it were possible to recover all of the waste heat from a reciprocating engine and do something useful with it, we'd be living in a different world right now, and would not be having this conversation.

Meanwhile, here in reality, I think I'll keep my 95% efficient natural gas furnace, and try to turn electronics off when not in use. Thanks.

This seemed to imply my claim was breaking some thermodynamic law. I proceeded to explain why this is wrong. You then changed the topic to why it doesn't make sense for heating your house. While this tactic might work in a conversation, it doesn't work in print. Admit you were wrong and that you learned something; no one else is watching. Or don't.

Re:Zero

[dolphino]

This is also true for extremely small values of 2.5

Re:Wat?

[hardburn]

In theory, they last a lot longer. Well-built ones could even last more than the life of the owner.

However, LEDs are really sensitive to heat (even more than CFLs), and fixtures designed for incandescent bulbs often trap heat. A lot of manufacturers also build them fast and cheap, so expected lifetime can sometimes be measured in hours.

No shit, sherlock.

[Timothy Brownawell]

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 been unproven 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.

A CFL costs maybe $5 each (if you buy a pack with more than one), including the retail markup, and saves maybe $40/year in electricity for supposedly 7+ years. I know manufacturers probably get their energy a bit cheaper than home electric rates, but it can't possibly be the 56+ times cheaper that it would take for the $5 to cover more energy than the $40*7 saved does.

Re:No shit, sherlock.

[ShooterNeo]

I bought n-vision CFLs, which scored the highest in an objective, blind test done by popular mechanics a couple years ago. They were about $2 each with shipping, and have a 9 year warranty. So far, they've lived up to their promise : the light is almost EXACTLY like the light from an incandescent - low color temperature, lots of yellow, etc. They start up instantly, and of course use a fraction of the electricity.

Re:No shit, sherlock.

[timeOday]

A CFL costs maybe $5 each (if you buy a pack with more than one)

Actually brand-name CFL's delivered to your door are a little over $1 each.

Re:No shit, sherlock.

[ThreeGigs]

in an objective, blind test

Personally, I'd never trust a lightbulb test done by the blind.

Re:No shit, sherlock.

[gandhi_2]

If you actually pay to have a single CFL delivered to your door, does that count against your carbon footprint?

Re:No shit, sherlock.

[amRadioHed]

Depends on how you were going to get yourself to the store otherwise.

Re:No shit, sherlock.

[gandhi_2]

Hmmm.... Am I too late for the 4:30 autogyro?

Re:No shit, sherlock.

[TapeCutter]

Here in Australia I've had at least half a dozen people from various electricity companies knock on my door and offer to change all my bulbs to CFL's. This is despite the fact that whilst knocking they are standing under a CLF.

Re:No shit, sherlock.

[CrashNBrn]

Small compact size
(4) Eight packs
Electronic flicker-free starting
Easy open store pack
1 CFL bulb lasts as long as 8 incandescent bulbs

4 x 8 = 32, a little over $1 / bulb @ 34.79

Re:No shit, sherlock.

[dkf]

If you actually pay to have a single CFL delivered to your door, does that count against your carbon footprint?

You buy lightbulbs one at a time?

Re:No shit, sherlock.

[Inda]

I feel like a parrot because I post this so often:

If you live in the UK don't buy CFLs. Phone your energy supplier and ask them how you can save electric. Mention you like the look of CFLs. They will send you a box for nothing. They will also send you one of these new-fangled LCD energy meters, if you ask. They just sent me enough roof insulation to cover the whole roof space, 270mm thick, for sixteen quid.

They have to do this. It is the law. A certain amount of profit has to be given away for energy saving measures. Everyone qualifies, not just new customers.

Yes, I work in the industry.

Re:No shit, sherlock.

[LordKronos]

So far, they've lived up to their promise : the light is almost EXACTLY like the light from an incandescent - low color temperature, lots of yellow, etc. They start up instantly, and of course use a fraction of the electricity.

nvision lights (they also go by the name ecosmart) are great. Inexpensive, instant on, they come in 3 color temperatures (I prefer the daylight color, myself), available in a variety of wattages (up to 150 watts equivalent), and can easily be found in any Home Depot.

Re:No shit, sherlock.

[Suicide Drink]

> Personally, I'd never trust a lightbulb test done by the blind.
And the doubly blind, doubly so.

Re:No shit, sherlock.

[alexo]

I feel like a parrot because I post this so often:

If you live in the UK don't buy CFLs. Phone your energy supplier and ask them how you can save electric. [...]
They have to do this. It is the law. A certain amount of profit has to be given away for energy saving measures.
Everyone qualifies, not just new customers.

Interesting. Anything similar in Ontario?

Re:No shit, sherlock.

[Insipid Trunculance]

hey mate

i am with scottish power.Do these guys offer power meters?

Re:No shit, sherlock.

[TheTurtlesMoves]

That is probably a really good idea. Better than "carbon" tax.

Re:No shit, sherlock.

[Steven_Lunn]

Me too. If you find out, let me know!

Except that you cannot really buy LED lighbulbs ye

[name99]

It seems a bit premature to go on about how great LED lighbulbs are when they don't seem to be purchasable. Sure you can buy crappy novelty bulbs -- 15W or 25W replacements. But your workhorse bulbs, your 100W equivalents --- I've never seen any for sale, and a brief web search didn't turn up anything useful. One day, yes, they will be a great leap forward. Until then, how about we maintain contact with reality?

Re:Wat?

[mister_playboy]

The study uses the assumption that LEDs last 2.5 times as long as CFLs, and 25 times longer than incandescents.

The summary wording is incorrect on the frontpage of /., but correct on this page... scroll up and look.

Weird.

Eh

[ShooterNeo]

Incandescent bulbs :
+ Cheap, we're used to the light
- terrible efficiency, short lifespan, fragile, sensitive to vibration, emit heat

CFLs :
+ much more efficient, very long lifespan
- not very dimmable, contain mercury, fragile, slow to start up in cold environs, reduced lifespan if toggled on and off

LEDs
+ extremely efficient, ridiculous lifespan (60,000 hours), almost bulletproof, can toggle on and off as much as you want, start up instantly in all environs, dimmable, no toxic materials. Basically almost perfect in every way.
- $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Current generation light spectra is too high a color temperature to mimic incandescents. Current generation packaging creates a narrow, focused cone of light.

Summary : LED will pwn all once the problems are solved, and the problems appear solvable. Problems with other light technologies are inherent to the technology itself and not solvable. Once LED is perfected, the other two technologies will be useless.
 

Re:Eh

[ShooterNeo]

Read what I wrote : problems with current packaging. The reason they do that NOW is that LEDs are so expensive that it's not possible to put enough of them into a light bulb to match the total lumen output of a conventional bulb. So to make use of the limited light output, they leave the light focused in those narrow cones. Once LEDs get cheaper, they'll come packed with diverging lenses or diffusers to spread the light around.

Re:Eh

[tftp]

LEDs [...] no toxic materials

Gallium arsenide is a carcinogen, and arsenic is released when the crystal is exposed to water (after the LED light is thrown out and ends up in a landfill.) Manufacturing of semiconductors is producing poisonous waste, and it requires large amounts of energy.

Currently a 1W desk lamp (of which I happen to have two) uses about 30 LEDs. It is cool to the touch, but the light is mostly blue, and the intensity of the light is just enough to use it as a night light. I like these lamps for what I'm using them, but there is no way currently to replace the overhead lights with them, they are 100x too weak and 10x too expensive.

Re:Eh

[Timothy Brownawell]

LEDs are great if all you need is task lighting. LEDs are highly directional, whereas CFLs and incandescents are not.

As was noted, this is due to the packaging used. It would be fairly trivial to avoid by not building a lens into the package and/or making high-power "bulbs" out of maybe 20 lower-power individual LEDs all arranged facing outwards in different directions. And probably enclosing the whole thing in a frosted plastic envelope, the way some incandescent lights have the envelope frosted.

Re:Eh

[hitmark]

these days, i wonder whats not a carcinogen...

Re:Eh

[blueg3]

Many LEDs are made out of toxic materials (like gallium aresenide). Neither they nor CFLs (which contain something like 4 mg of elemental mercury) present a significant hazard to the user.

Re:Eh

[Timothy Brownawell]

these days, i wonder whats not a carcinogen...

Probably not much besides CO2.

Re:Eh

[plague911]

You can now buy an LED light bulb for 10 bucks from Home depot. Seems like your major complaint about LED's had been solved... LEDs now pay for themselves when compared to a CFL within 1 year, and when compared to incandescent within 3 months.

Re:Eh

[Anonymous Coward]

I will beg to differ on the Incandescent bulbs. Specifically, they actually last a very long time at low watts, especially the older "less efficient" ones that used thicker filiments made of different materials. Problem is those older ones put out crap light spectrum... better than candle but not nearly as good as modern incandescent bulbs, which is why they were changed.

There's such a push to use the newer technologies and incentives to just drop incandescents that nobody seems to be doing any research into ways to make them better. I think that they will go away for most applications but the rush to ban them outright is still a little premature, IMHO.

There's another issue that is often overlooked- you can make an incandescent bulb of almost any shape and still have plenty of lumes... the LED and CFL technology is still a lot bulkier for the same light output but is slowly getting better. But you just don't have the artistry that the incandescent bulbs offer.

So on my scale:
Incandescent:
+ Simple tech, Cheap, Artistic, No fixture replacements needed, Operating temperature range is fairly wide.
- Poor efficiency, short lifespan at acceptable light output levels, emit medium heat (Halogens would be high heat), sensitive to Shock (not vibration), reduced lifespan when rapidly switched on/off

CFL
+ Long lifespan, high energy efficiency
- Not nearly as "compact" as the name implies requiring some fixture replacement, Lumes decrease over lifetime, hazardous materials, fragile and sensitive to shock, poor operation in cold, reduced lifespan when switched on/off, subject to strobing/flickering in many environments

LED
+ Very efficient, long lifespan, highly durable, toggle does not reduce life, fast startup, wide operating temp range, no toxic materials, resistent to shock
- Not well tested, very expensive, wide range of quality in manufacturing, spectrum range issues, non-LED portions of the 'bulb' completely untested, bulky for the lumes.

Summary: It's hard to compare the Incandescent bulbs to the new technologies in a real fashion. There hasn't been much, if any, new development in this tech area. CFL's are progressing well, but still have issues with being bulky, ugly, and not operating consistently. LED's are almost completely untested, still very expensive, don't have equivalent light output, and introduce new parts of the overall "bulb" that may vary widely between products and which are also highly untested.

My recommendation: Get CFL's for the bulk of your light fixtures in indoor or temperature-friendly areas, the energy savings is worth it. Keep your incandescent bulbs in custom, specialty, and artistic fixtures, and in temperature zones that cause issues for the CFL's. Hold off on the LED's except on a very limited experimental basis.
In the next 5 to 10 years we will see a lot of changes in the LED arena, and changes in the CFL but not as many, incandescent bulbs will remain the same & become unavailable due solely to political pressures. By the time your current CFL's wear out and you exhaust your stockpiles of (soon to be "illegal") incandescent bulbs, the arena will have changed enough that you'll want to re-evaluate the choices over-all.

Re:Eh

[syousef]

LEDs - $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.13442

http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.24201

Price isn't such a limitation any more. Once we see true mass production it'll be sweet.

Incandescents have awful colour temp anyway.

Re:Eh

[Anonymous Coward]

Gallium arsenide is a carcinogen, and arsenic is released when the crystal is exposed to water (after the LED light is thrown out and ends up in a landfill.) Manufacturing of semiconductors is producing poisonous waste, and it requires large amounts of energy.

The toxic parts of a LED are not in your home, they are at manufacturing where they can be dealt with (given proper regulation) or buried underground. In contrast, CFLs bulbs have mercury but more importantly they have toxic fire retardant chemicals. People forget this, but it's required since CFLs would otherwise sometimes burst into flames.

I had one that cracked while on, releasing mercury (supposedly not so hazardous as people hype it to be) and another where the plastic melted into an orange smoldering mess. So I've already been exposed to more toxic compounds from CFLs than if I used LEDs for the rest of my life. Just for some context.

Re:Eh

[ShooterNeo]

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.

Re:Eh

[cryptoluddite]

Halogens:
+ Cheap, we're used to the warm light, longish lifespan, resistant to power fluctuations, instant on, dimmable, non polluting, non toxic, can be used in recessed and enclosed fixtures.
- Bad efficiency (as opposed to terrible)

Halogens already solve all the main lighting problems except efficiency. But if you're in a cold climate the waste heat offsets the heating bill, raising their effective efficiency. I've never seen this factored into any analysis, but for instance if you compare a 20w CFL to a 60w halogen the cost savings are based on the straight 40w difference. So if you have a heat pump averaging at twice the efficiency of electric heating the CFL real cost is 40w... instead of being 3x more efficient it's 1.5x more efficient. On a freezing cold day CFLs in the home may be no more efficient at all than incandescent lights.

Given all the problems with CFLs, in cold climates they seem like a pretty bad choice to me.

Re:Eh

[ShooterNeo]

Heat pumps are on average 3 times as efficient as straight resistive heating.

Second, natural gas furnaces are 3 or 4 times cheaper per BTU to operate than electric, on average.

I'm not sure what the ratio is for fuel oil, it may be less favorable.

Re:Eh

[ZorbaTHut]

The grandparent post is ignoring the relative in favor of the absolute, but you are ignoring the absolute in favor of the relative. It's important to keep both of them in mind. Yes, LEDs have pollution issues. Yes, they are much better than CFLs.

Both of those points are valid and worth considering.

Re:Eh

[blindseer]

Incandescent bulbs :
+ Cheap, we're used to the light
- terrible efficiency, short lifespan, fragile, sensitive to vibration, emit heat

You say that as if it's a bad thing. I live in the American Midwest. A little gentle warming in the room from some incandescent bulbs can make a room more comfortable in the winter.

In my experience a CFL is more fragile than incandescent. I have yet to have a CFL out live an incandescent in my home. I don't know what the deal is but the CFLs I've had don't last the years that the manufacturers claim they will.

Living in a place that has four seasons it's nice to have light bulbs that come to full brightness quickly even when the temperatures are sub zero. I don't care that CFLs save on my electric bill if they keep burning up before I forget what I paid for them and don't light up once I flip the light switch. Having the threat of mercury being spread around in my home if I should happen to break one doesn't help either.

I'd consider LEDs for lighting if the price can compete with incandescent. I have seen prices come down from the obscene, to the merely profane, to expensive novelties, to something that might be considered practical if you tilt your head and squint.

Re:Eh

[Sparr0]

There are 1W LEDs. Imagine that same bulb with 30 of those. And a massive heat sink, because it would put out a significant amount of heat. While far less than the equivalent incandescent bulb, the problem is that LEDs don't like being that hot, while incandescent filaments continue working just fine.

Re:Eh

[fendragon]

LEDs [...] no toxic materials

Gallium arsenide is a carcinogen, and arsenic is released when the crystal is exposed to water (after the LED light is thrown out and ends up in a landfill.) Manufacturing of semiconductors is producing poisonous waste, and it requires large amounts of energy.

The new ones will use Gallium Nitride
I've seen a 4W Gallium Nitride LED lamp (on someone's kitchen ceiling, next to 11W CFL equivalents) and it's very effective. In that case it's an advantage that the LED is directional - the original incandescents for which they substitute would have been reflector bulbs. The light is yellower and more like an incandescent than the CFLs next to it.

As for energy cost of manufacturing, the original article claims to have factored that in to the total lifetime cost.

Re:Eh

[unitron]

That short lifespan for incandescents is a somewhat recent development.

Re:Eh

[Gordonjcp]

CFLs + Efficient, a bit longer lifespan

Except they're not. They use 20% of the electricity but also give out about 40% as much light. To replace a single incandescent bulb and illuminate a room to the same level you need two or three good-quality CFLs.

I'd also seriously question how much less energy they use in real terms. In our place up north I fitted CFLs throughout, hoping to squeeze a bit more than eight hours from a tank of diesel for the generator. With the incandescents replaced with CFLs, we now see six hours from a tank of diesel. Just to be clear, that's *less* efficient, and using *more* fuel. Nothing else has changed, just the lights.

Re:Eh

[Aceticon]

I was looking into the whole LED lighting thing about a year ago, and I see that you missed the most important cons about LEDs:
- In a size that fits a standard socket, they still can't put out the same amount of illumination (as measured in lumens) as either CFLs or Incandescent.
- Typical LED illumination is highly directional (i.e. spot type lighting) while both CFLs and Incandescent provide more diffused lighting. Current solutions for making the light from LED lamps more diffuse reduce efficiency and decrease the amount of light they put out.

Given that over the it's lifetime, LED lamps are even cheaper per-lumen as CFLs, in my view the issues I pointed above are the most significant ones.

Re:Eh

[Anonymous Coward]

No way to replace overhead lights with them? You are using older generation LED lights and have obviously not used the newer LED lights! I already light my house with them, and they are indistinguishable from incandescents. I purchased these lights from here:

http://www.lightplanet.co.uk/led-light-bulbs/60-watt-replacement-led-bulbs-c-321_335.html

I also have a 40 watt equivalent desk lamp using 3 LED bulbs that is very bright from here:

http://www.goecostore.co.uk/led-light-bulbs-1062-0.html

The costs per bulb are around £15-20, but will easily pay for itself over its 100,000 hour lifespan. For a technology site, it never ceases to amaze me how many posters on slashdot just don't keep up with technology advancements and post opinions based from their experience with older stuff! LED household lighting is her now, decent and affordable!

Re:Eh

[Rufty]

Water? Ah, maybe not.

Re:Eh

[Brian Feldman]

Really? Because hearing that, I'd question your generator's air filter and such.

Re:Eh

[juhaz]

Even if you ARE using electrical heating, lights tend to be very badly located for heating purposes. They're almost always high up, so there's barely any convection to stir up the air and heat up things evenly, and they only end up warming the roof.

Re:Eh

[Albanach]

I'd also seriously question how much less energy they use in real terms. In our place up north I fitted CFLs throughout, hoping to squeeze a bit more than eight hours from a tank of diesel for the generator. With the incandescents replaced with CFLs, we now see six hours from a tank of diesel. Just to be clear, that's *less* efficient, and using *more* fuel. Nothing else has changed, just the lights.

Then something's up with the lights you're using, your electrics or your generator.

Either way, it would be trivial to identify if the bulbs are not consuming their rated wattage by plugging in a kill-a-watt and measuring it.

Re:Eh

[kalirion]

CFLs :
+ much more efficient, very long lifespan

The two CFLs (15W, spiraled) I've tried have both burned out within 6 months. Am I just unlucky or something?

Re:Eh

[Gordonjcp]

Either way, it would be trivial to identify if the bulbs are not consuming their rated wattage by plugging in a kill-a-watt and measuring it.

Wattmeters don't tell the whole story, because CFLs have a frankly atrocious power factor.

Re:Eh

[MattskEE]

Gallium Arsenide is the material the LED chip is made of, and it is most definitely in your home and not the fabrication plant. Granted, it's usually in a plastic envelope, but as GP said it can easily leech into water when it is thrown out.

Re:Eh

[ediron2]

You're comparing apples and oranges.

I *DO* use electric heat. I live in a cold climate, too. And the heating system in many houses here is electric heating elements embedded in the ceiling. Under several inches of insulation. No, you don't heat the roof; you get warmed via radiant heat from above much like sunlight does, and the last 20+ years of homes are well-insulated enough that snow on the roof doesn't even melt. It's quite nice.

I'm not disagreeing with your contention that light bulbs won't do the same thing: you would never want to do this with kilowatt-rated incandescent bulbs; a point source of heat isn't comfortable like an n-square meter radiant ceiling. I'm just saying you and ShooterNeo appear to have no experience in this aspect of stuff you're pontificating about. That kind of puts your other statements into doubt.

Oh, and cost-wise, electric heat's not all bad-- I'm lucky enough to be in a region with cheap electricity. Most years, I see a 10-20% added cost, but a couple years ago, it was literally cheaper than the per-BTU prices of natural gas, propane, fuel oil and coal. But that was a first and only time, as far as I know.

Re:Eh

[ediron2]

Handwavium.

Yeah, and Someday we'll have aircars.

To be fair, I'll bet on 10-watt LED's before I'd bet on aircars, but everything looks better in the hypothetical future than measurable technology in the boring old here and now.

Re:Eh

[ShooterNeo]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090129090218.htm

Some people wave their hands pretty vigorously...

Re:Eh

[TheTurtlesMoves]

But a heat pump is still about 3-5 times more efficient. Thats cus every kilowatt of electricity can "pump" in about 2-4 kilowatts of heat from outside (making the outside air cooler) to inside.

Here were we all use gas for heating, the same thing applies. If i use the gas to run a small engine that then runs a heat pump, even with crap technology I can use 1/4 to 1/8 th the gas for the same heating. (The waste heat from the engine is used for heating). Do this all over Europe and think of how much we could reduce our CO2 footprint.

Re:Eh

[ediron2]

Cool article. Like I said, I'll bet on the LED's. My objection was economic claims because the LED's with your specs (price and power) don't exist. Too much changes between limited runs in a lab and the assembly line.

Oh, and I know someone else pointed this out, but waste heat isn't always a downside: I live in a cold climate. Growing up in a farm family, I've seen plenty of creative uses of light bulb heat. Incandescent bulbs make thermally-benign animal incubators out of any old box, can heat a doghouse or corner of a barn where calves or cats curl up at night, gently warmed my desk or a workbench, make ad-hoc engine heaters on the few days per year that temps fall below -30 degrees F, gently defrost frozen plastics (fridge/freezer compartments, pvc pipe, etc).

Compared to $10 for heat tape, $30 for an electric blanket and the accidental damage risk of using a blow-dryer or heat gun, they're anything but worthless.

If engineers and not marketing wonks ran the universe, we'd push for overengineered / ruggedized filaments as a way to artificially reraise the price of incandescents until the other techs win on price without collapsing the market for incandescents entirely. Handwavium worries me less than Unobtanium.

Re:Eh

[ShooterNeo]

CFLs have won on price for years now. I bought 30 nvision CFLs to replace most of the bulbs in my house just a few months ago. Total cost was about 55 dollars. Nvision scored better than every other bulb, including incandescents, in testing by popular mechanics two years ago. The testing metric was a series of sample images, text, color swatches, and so forth that a group of judges used to more or less objectively compare the quality of light from each bulb tested. They could not see what kind of bulb was being used, technically making it a blind test.

Every home depot has nvisions or their rebranding 'ecosmart'. I bought them online from home depot's web site.

Short answer about heat : even if you lived in Antarctica, you'll still save much more money than CFLs cost by using them assuming your heat doesn't come from electrical resistance heating.

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:Bu.. bu.. but...

[timmarhy]

if by greenies you mean greenpeace, they make fools of themselfs easily.

i think while this report is bullcrap on how much of a saving you get from led's, in general it's right - there really isn't a reason to keep using incandescent bulbs anymore. I plan on building a new house next year and it'll be all led driven from a dedicated 12v circuit in my house that will run outdoor lighting as well as my bar fridge.

Re:Bu.. bu.. but...

[Cimexus]

I'm pretty sure 'greenies' refers to a much broader spectrum of people than the (admittedly nutty) people at Greenpeace...

Re:Bu.. bu.. but...

[glwtta]

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

In this case the drawback is that they produce a light spectrum that makes you want to stab yourself in the eye after prolonged exposure.

I know, it's a small nit-pick. I'm probably just trying to justify my foregone decision to not change my "not stabbing myself in the eye" habit.

Re:Bu.. bu.. but...

[WhiplashII]

I have tried CFLs many times (in the two condos I have lived in for the last few years), and they have never lasted as long as incandescent bulbs. Our house isn't that strange, so I have to assume that CFLs have some pretty serious problems. Since every time one of these articles gets posted on Slashdot we see many people voicing the same concerns, I think there are some pretty serious issues. I'm not sure why they are continuously ignored - if those issues are solved, CFLs would likely see broader adoption.

For my house I ended up installing "real" fluorescent lights. They work extremely well - I've been very pleased.

Re:Bu.. bu.. but...

[lotho brandybuck]

Let me try to help...

Packaging large amounts of vacuum in incandescent lamps and CRTs increases the concentration of air we've got to breath if we're not living in a lamp or CRT.

Switching to these so-called green technologies could see us run out of air!!!

Re:Bu.. bu.. but...

[WuphonsReach]

I have tried CFLs many times (in the two condos I have lived in for the last few years), and they have never lasted as long as incandescent bulbs. Our house isn't that strange, so I have to assume that CFLs have some pretty serious problems.

I'd bet either dirty power, crappy light switches, or heat. All of which do a number on CFLs (and usually toast incandescent bulbs as well).

I had a 3-way switch for the stairs in the last place where I lived. That circuit would eat incandescent bulbs about once every few months. So I went and got a 100W CFL. It was not an enclosed fixture (it was the old type where the shade clips onto the bulb) and it was one of the better CFLs at the time (probably a $10 or $15 bulb back in the late 90s).

That bulb was still working 8 years later when I moved out.

In my current place, I only have 2 fixtures with incandescent bulbs. One is outside on the porch, and the other is in the bathroom's ceiling fixture. When you have good quality bulbs, they tend to last for years and years.

(I've had a few cheap ones die early. So I try to avoid the no-name, bottom-price, bulk-packed bulbs.)

Re:Bu.. bu.. but...

[ZorbaTHut]

On the other hand, I moved into my current apartment - with crummy power to the point that the UPS freaks out daily (for a second or two) - and immediately started going through incandescents like water. Perhaps twelve bulbs, and I was replacing one per week.

Eventually I blew two hundred bucks on good-quality CFLs. I've had exactly one bulb fail since.

From what I've been able to tell, CFLs are by no means immune to the you-get-what-you-pay-for syndrome. They're just more expensive to start with, so people skimp on them more, and get crummy CFLs, and the CFLs die rapidly. Buy good ones: they're worth it.

Re:Bu.. bu.. but...

[dunkelfalke]

There are full spectrum CFLs with a colour rendering index of 97.

Re:Bu.. bu.. but...

[TapeCutter]

I think the GP was meant to be parody but yes, I've refered to myself as a "greenie" since the 70's. Greenpeace lost my support long before they totally lost the plot and started attacking one of the greatest public health advances of the 20th century (ie: chlorinated water). Somewhere in the eighties they turned their back on the scientific principles of their founders and started using the same propoganda techniques as their opponents, this is why most (if not all) of the founders have now resigned in disgust.

Re:Bu.. bu.. but...

[TapeCutter]

Opps, I meant OP, not GP

Re:Bu.. bu.. but...

[WhiplashII]

This is by far the most common response - "you get what you pay for". I'm not saying that isn't what happened to you, but I have tried 7 different brands - and none of them were "cheap" brands. Incandescent bulbs last years, CFLs last days.

I'm serious - you plug a CFL into my house and it will be dead within a week. Every time, every brand. You can say it is bad wiring, or whatever (it probably is!), but I live in a high-rise condo with over 1,000 people in it. We can't change the wiring - we need CFLs that are more reliable.

And passing laws requiring us to use CFLs is not the answer.

Re:Bu.. bu.. but...

[xaxa]

Presumably, all the people complaining about CFLs producing the wrong kind of light are much older than me. I was born in a hospital lit with florescent tube lights, grew up in a house with about half CFLs (in all the main rooms), went outside under a full-spectrum sun, and went to school/college/university/work where every light was a florescent tube or a CFL.

When I go in a room lit by old bulbs it reminds me of my grandma's house, museums trying to imitate candlelight and the cupboard under the stairs.

Re:Bu.. bu.. but...

[Darth_brooks]

Depends on the bulb. Home Depot sells three different color temperature bulbs. I want to say that the "use only for gitmo torture chamber and office cube farm" color bulbs are 4000k, I know they're marketed as the "natural daylight" cfl's and are sold in a blue packaging. The "bright white" bulbs in the green packages or the "warm" cfl's in the red packages are perfectly fine for me.

I never thought I would be a CFL bulb snob until I bought those natural daylight bulbs.

(I will also now go sit in the corner and feel great shame for never learning the color temperature / kelvin scale.)

Easy Bake Ovens

[Dan East]

Doesn't anyone ever think of the children? What about Easy Bake Ovens? Have you ever tried to bake a tiny little cake from the heat emitted by LED bulb? No adult, let alone child, has that sort of patience.

Re:Easy Bake Ovens

[MichaelSmith]

I once blew up ten old style 20mA LEDs by mis configuring a bench top power supply. I got some heat out of the arrangement but you wouldn't want to eat the cake afterwards, or for that matter breathe the air.

Re:Easy Bake Ovens

[Guysmiley777]

Easy Bake Ovens don't use lightbulbs anymore, they have a small electric heating element built in.

Re:Easy Bake Ovens

[movercast]

More IR LEDs!

Re:Easy Bake Ovens

[zippthorne]

Pretty sure the most recent EZbake formulary doesn't actually require the bulb any more. Just mix the chemicals in the appropriate proportions and bam, 20 minutes later you get a delicious substance almost, but not entirely unlike brownies.

The study is bullshit

[MrMista_B]

"The study uses the assumption that LEDs last 2.5 times longer than CFLs, and 25 times longer than incandescents."

So...

They made it all up.

They /guessed/.

They didn't do any research, and didn't actually study anything, they just invented some numbers, then played with them.

No wonder so many people think so poorly of the environmental movement, if garbage like this gets any sort of positive press at all.

Re:The study is bullshit

[plague911]

I agree the numbers have been pulled out of their asses. However if you would bother to actually look at the numbers for commercially. The gains for LED's are actually a lot more beneficial than the study says. The stated life expectancy for newer LED's are around 100,000 hours. Around 10 X that of CFL's. not 2.5X. You pointlessly blaming this on the "environmental movement" Its just stupid. If anything the environmental movement would overstate the benefits of LEDs ..... not underestimate......:"dumbass"....

Re:The study is bullshit

[blueg3]

How exactly is a report by a semiconductor company, clearly for the purposes of promoting LED lights, the product of "the environmental movement"?

On another note, it's interesting that you manage to turn a single assumption (albeit a significant one) and turn that into "they didn't do any research". This might well be the case if all the information they came back with was the consequences of a the different lifetimes, but that's not the case. The primary product of the study -- which the summary, even, is so kind as to point out for you -- is determining the energy costs in manufacture and end-of-life for the different bulb types.

Re:The study is bullshit

[jlehtira]

And how exactly would you do actual research about whether LED bulbs actually last for 11 years of typical usage (250,000 h, 6 hours a day), in anything less than 20 years? ;).

Just that something is "assumed" doesn't mean there's no reason to make that assumption and believe it. They made a guess, right, but an educated one.

I haven't had great luck with CFLs

[lena_10326]

At my old house they burned out a lot on me. Back then they were $5 a pop and it was rather irritating replacing the same bulb 3 times in a row during a several month period.

Re:I haven't had great luck with CFLs

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect CFLs are less tolerant of a bad power supply than incandescent lightbulbs -- depending on how many power spikes you get they may fail sooner. Also, some makes seem to be better than others. For example, it may just have been bad luck, but all the CFLs I have ever bought from IKEA died fairly quickly. On the other hand, I have several others which have lasted several years.

Re:I haven't had great luck with CFLs

[westyvw]

I have not been very happy with them either. They do seem to burn out *years* before they should, often in the same timeframe or less then incandescent.
Worse, in small spaces, like a bathroom, two or more tend to get hot and off-gas (polyvinyl chloride base is my guess), and then when they do burn out they often get hotter still and turn brown or buzz.
Do I think the sky is falling? No, but this is not something I have great confidence in for a closed up for the winter household.

Re:I haven't had great luck with CFLs

[Fallingcow]

I think I toggle them too often. My CFLs have always burnt out in a year or so, even in two very different houses in different parts of the country.

I've stopped buying them. I've got maybe two or three fixtures in the whole house where they'd make sense, and even those I want to be able to turn on for just a second or two a few times a day without worrying that I'm gonna kill the stupid CFLs.

Re:I haven't had great luck with CFLs

[Cimexus]

Yeah it seems like CFLs are a great example of YMMV.

I simultaneously replaced all lights in my home with CFLs three years ago. Good quality ones with a nice spectrum similar to old style incandescents (to my eye, at least).

Since then how many have failed? Only one.

I must say I'm quite impressed. Even the outdoor ones haven't died yet (exposed to a typical yearly temperature range of almost 50C). I wouldn't ever go back to incandescents ... and frankly LEDs look even better (less waste heat, potentially better spectrum and range of colours).

Re:I haven't had great luck with CFLs

[cerberusss]

At my old house they burned out a lot on me. Back then they were $5 a pop

Just curious -- have you tried to bring 'em back to the store?

Re:I haven't had great luck with CFLs

[lena_10326]

Well, when the package claims it'll last 10+ years.. you tend not to save the receipts. (I bought a bunch in one go).

Re:I haven't had great luck with CFLs

[cerberusss]

Yeah, that's a problem... but I'm going to take this as a lesson. Shop-owners also need to know that these bulbs don't last as long and that they're going to get customer complaints -- it's the only way.

But I agree, logically people will throw away the receipt after purchase.

Re:I haven't had great luck with CFLs

[jandrese]

Quality matters a lot with CFLs. With old incandescent bulbs it was no big deal to buy the knockoff brand down at Save-Mo-Money, but if you try that with CFLs you'll get the terrible Chinese knockoff ones that put out dim flickery light, take forever to start up, and die after 6 months. I reaplaced all of the bulbs in my home 6 years ago with the Commercial Electric (apparently now n:Vision) bulbs from Home Depot and have lost only a single bulb so far. They come on immediately and have moderate to no warmup time (I have a couple that need about 45 seconds to warm up, most come on at full power right away).

Re:Wat?

[mister_playboy]

Now it's been fixed on the frontpage, too.

Good to see the editors actually do something... :)

Re:Wat?

[gandhi_2]

Well-built ones could even last more than the life of the owner.

And what if the owner is Schrodinger's Cat?

fixtures [...] often trap heat.

But LED's don't even make enough heat to melt the snow off the traffic lights without added heating elements. google

What did the study say about.....

[CFD339]

....the fact that you can't freaking READ by the damn lights. CFL == Crappy Fscking Light. I wish it weren't true, but I've tried dozens of brands, and even the ones that make me most happy are only good for general purpose hallway lights and such. I hate putting them in anywhere I have to read. For as bright as they seem to be, they are so narrow in spectrum as to be sort of lacking in their ability to illuminate.

So far, no experience with LED's on this subject.

Re:What did the study say about.....

[drinkypoo]

I use a 4W LED spot as a reading light. I got it for about three bucks from geeks.com, and it is okay. It seems less flickery than CFL. It's not very bright, but it is pretty well-focused for a page. I can't tell you how you'd like it, though.

Re:What did the study say about.....

[WuphonsReach]

Take advantage of the efficiency. Instead of a supposed 45W replacement CFL, go with a 60W or 75W equivalent. Or even the really bright 100W CFLs (which only use around 25-30W). It's still going to use less power and you'll get more light out of it.

The other trick is to find a bulb color that you like. Then add in some ambient light with a different temperature CFL in a 2nd fixture. For the office, I prefer the brighter blue CFLs. But for the L/R, I prefer the cooler and yellower CFLs.

Re:What did the study say about.....

[Ksevio]

I've had an 18W CFL in my reading light by my bed for several years now. It's a bit bright so I have it aimed at the wall so I just get the reflective light from that. It's just as good as an incandescent except that I haven't needed to replace it yet.

I will eventually

[Sycraft-fu]

Currently, all the LEDs I've found are too pricey. I have found some cheap ones, but I wasn't satisfied with the light output, or the light quality. I've found ones I liked quite a lot (Color Kinetics makes some fantastic units) but they are too expensive and often not designed for socket replacement.

I think in a few more years it'll probalby be something for me to do, but not just yet. I have to be pleased with the light output and quality, and I'm really not going to pay more than $100 per bulb, and really probalby $50 or less.

Re:Zero

[Anonymous Coward]

Infinity isn't a number.

Even as x tends towards infinity, 2.5x=x is false for all values of x but zero.

Re:Wat?

[tlhIngan]

In theory, they last a lot longer. Well-built ones could even last more than the life of the owner.

However, LEDs are really sensitive to heat (even more than CFLs), and fixtures designed for incandescent bulbs often trap heat. A lot of manufacturers also build them fast and cheap, so expected lifetime can sometimes be measured in hours.

I wonder if that's why my experience with LED bulbs is so varying. Three bulb-style LED lamps we've had to replace effectively every month (and in a 3-lamp fixture, means 3 a month!). They don't burn out, they just glow normally, then blink out suddenly. But some LED floodlights have lasted the whole duration (6+ months) with no issues at all. Strange.

Giving up on the LED bulbs and going to crack one open to see what actually failed. Going back to CFLs... even the quality ones are cheaper than the LED bulbs.

Professional light-bulb changer?

[SteveFoerster]

I am practically a professional light-bulb changer

So, how many of you does it take to... oh, never mind.

Re:Legislation

[Cimexus]

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.

Re:Wat?

[mysidia]

I think it's gotta be a romulan plot, a ploy to start a war.. and takeover slashdot.. something to do with stealing the infinitely-long-lasting LED technology. The editors we all know and love don't make fixes like that [j/k]

CFL life expectancy

[confused one]

the ballast used in the cfl's seem to have a limited on-off cycle life; or, the life expectancy is inversely proportional to the on time. If the typical on time is on the order of 5 minutes, you'll see less than 20% of the rated life expectancy. To achieve the full life expectancy the on time has to be greater than 2 hours. Don't use them in bathrooms and similar locations where they'll be switched on and off a lot -- use standard incandescent or better yet halogen bulbs in those applications.

VU1 no mercury :)

[AHuxley]

Hope for http://www.vu1.com/technology/technology.htm
No mercury, highly energy efficient, light quality identical to incandescent, not to expensive.
Why suffer if you break a light for some eco cult?
Wait for better tech and stay away from the lights of brain death.

Re:VU1 no mercury :)

[sFurbo]

Hmm, electrons exciting phosphor doesn't sound that energy efficient to me. But of course, it is close to the way CFL's does it. Let's check the web site:

For energy efficiency,Vu1 is targeting to be two-thirds more efficient than the incandesent[sic] bulb

I read that as meaning 1.67 times more lumen/watt than incandescents. So, according to WP, that would be 5/3*15.2 lm/W=25.3 lm/W, contrasted to CFL's of 46-72. And that is their target, so they are not there yet.
Besides, as I mentioned, the technology seems very close to CFL, so I would think it would be hard to get a better spectrum than CFL's. But there might be more/better phosphors available for electrons than for UV.

Re:Wat?

[erayd]

You're thinking of the low-power versions. If you look at something higher-powered, such as a Cree XR-E, then yes - you will need decent heatsinking to prevent the LED from frying itself.

Your assumption is like talking about a P4 CPU, and assuming it has the same thermal requirements as a low-end ARM CPU. Without heatsinking, the P4 will melt in short order - but the ARM will be just fine.

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:Pimping LEDs

[minimum]

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.

Do you have any numbers to back your claims?
Considering only lightsource efficacy, LED's have passed CFL quite while ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy

Re:Pimping LEDs

[Doc Ruby]

I've been trying to buy a few dozen bulbs for my home since June. CFLs actually for sale rate up to about 83lm:W, in 1900lm/23W bulbs for about $3ea in quantities of 12 (non-dimmable). LEDs actually for sale rate up to about 75lm:W, in 900lm/12W bulbs for about $12ea (no volume discount), but none at 1800-2000lm and lower than 12W quickly drop in efficiency. The prices are all over the place, but Home Depot's prices are about as good as they get in stores for either CFL or LEDs, and Internet/mailorder aren't a lot better.

If you can prove me wrong and point me to LEDs that beat that 1900lm/23W @$3ea, I'd love to see it.

Re:Pimping LEDs

[atamido]

though CFLs have brightnesses at all levels even far past equivalence to 100W incandescents.

I have a 300W equivalent CFL I picked up from Home Depot. It's a bit big to fit in most sockets, but it's pretty darned bright. I put it in our tiny bathroom, and with the white walls and giant mirror, it was like walking into the heart of the sun.

Re:Pimping LEDs

[PitaBred]

As soon as I can find a 3-way LED bulb, I'll buy one. I want to use my 3-way floor lamps, and I'm not going to put a 3-way CFL in there because I have a toddler who can tip it over fairly easily. Why is it apparently impossible to build a 3-way LED bulb?

Incondescent Amnesia

[go-black]

According to a previous Slashdot article: http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/07/07/0716247/Incandescent-Bulbs-Return-To-the-Cutting-Edge , and the impending NYT link; new-incandescent tech is still 10% better than CFL/LCD. And the sad thing is this NEW article today; sighted a quote from Philips; and yet no mention of their own "new-incandescent tech". I wouldn't expect the NYT to remember it's own words; let alone Philips's.

Till this belly button lint examining festival is over; I've stocked up on a life-time's worth of good-ole indoor floods. My house is outfitted with only these fixtures. Indoor floods are very poorly represented by a CFL/LED counterpart which doesn't look like an alien autopsy examination room. For some of us, the 20% increase in lighting-only utility bills is insignificant & meaningless.

Granted I *love* LED tech, but, as-yet ALL the bulbs I've purchased and played with are AWFUL, and more like a dim spot-light; and still the same over-exposed glow. Even the incredibly-expensive LED floods aren't worth the expense (see: www.spectrumlighting.com.au)

Don't get me started on how disgusting our freedom & liberty "loving" Congress is for legislating the death of incandescents. A better AND more efficient technology will win on its OWN merrit, by the market and consumer choice. Look what a disaster the legislated adjustment of the Day-light-savings was, in the name of energy savings.

Re:Wat?

[rhathar]

Can you do that again as a car analogy?

Power factor?

[RecessionCone]

I wonder if this analysis took into account CFL's poor power factor. Cheap CFLs usually have a power factor of around 0.5, which causes substantial electrical losses compared to Incandescent bulbs, which are purely resistive (and therefore have a power factor of 1.0). LEDs, on the other hand, have a pretty good power factor. http://www.theengineer.co.uk/opinion/led-is-the-answer/299821.article

Re:Power factor?

[sFurbo]

As most household appliances are inductive loads and CFL's are capacitive, their 1 power factor actually improves the overall power factor of a home, so if anything, CFL's will slightly reduce the electric loses.

Re:Power factor?

[TheTurtlesMoves]

I have a power meter on mine and the power factor is reading 0.86 which is about the same as a SMPS on computers. Not bad really. Compared to the freezer which had a power factor down at 0.5!

Re:Wat?

[Sulphur]

inconveniently, they're actually more efficient

All truths are inconvenient. Oh wait:

Poor CFL reliability = con on public

[Gogogoch]

My experience is that CFLs have a short life span, perhaps the same as a regular bulb. Certainly less than advertised. I'm tired of replacing the bastard things. I think CFLs have been a con on the public. We should have waited for LEDs. I feel like I bought Betamax tapes. Its just like the fuel-efficiency sticker on a car - an efficiency normal people cannot achieve. The public screwed - once again.
 

Re:Poor CFL reliability = con on public

[rampant poodle]

Overall I agree. However, it does seem that purpose built CFL fixtures do have considerably longer bulb life than CFLs used in standard fixtures. Have not done a real study but I have used a lot of CFLs in both commercial and residential situations for over 10 years. The typical screw in replacements frequently, (and sometimes spectacularly),fail in less than one year. On the other hand - many of our overhead CFL fixtures have bulb lives exceeding 4 years.

Re:Poor CFL reliability = con on public

[hyades1]

CFL's do best if they're not turned off and on a lot. When they are, their lifetime sometimes winds up to be about the same as a regular light bulb. They still use less power, but you might question whether the higher cost is worth it in some locations. I don't know whether I've just been lucky, but the first CFL I ever bought is still going strong more than two years later, and none of the others have burnt out either.

One thing that seems to have helped with the on-off problem is that I use battery-powered LED's in some cupboards and closets. I won't usually turn an overhead light on for half a minute of extra illumination when there's a light right in those dark, shadowy places where the pots, pans, cans and linens lurk.

Re:Poor CFL reliability = con on public

[dunkelfalke]

I know that the plural of anectode is not data, but I use the same CFL (85 Watt, 5000 Kelvin colour temperature) in my third flat now. It survived two relocations and 5 years already and is still going strong. I never had a lightbulb that lasted over a year, though.

Re:Wat?

[AK Marc]

However, LEDs are really sensitive to heat (even more than CFLs), and fixtures designed for incandescent bulbs often trap heat.

I had a couple multi-bulb fixtures. I put 3 9W CFLs in them. 2 of 3 burn out within a week. Every time. If LEDs are worse, then they'll never take off. If recessed lighting and enclosed fixtures will never work, then they are out. People already hate them for that, and if LEDs can't work in the majority of fixtures out there, they are a non-starter. I'm not going to redesign the lighting in my house. Count in that cost in them if they can't work in enclosed lighting and recessed lighting like incandescents do without a problem.

Older homes need not apply.

[WiiVault]

I'm a green centric guy, not to the point of insanity, but like many Slashdotters I do my best. Sadly there is little I can do with advanced bulbs thanks to the terrible wiring my 200 year old home has. No matter the bulb it is likely to blow out early into its expected life. I've tried them all an they all burn out. Sadly this means I buy cheap. Yes I know I should upgrade the wiring, but that is very expensive. I can't wait to join the revolution, but I need to have some less finicky bulbs or a huge pay increase to do it. Until then I suppose I'm part of the problem and not the solution.

Re:Older homes need not apply.

[fred fleenblat]

if it's that bad, you should probably rewire the house for safety reasons. the wire insulation is probably crumbling, you likely have no reliable ground and cannot use GFI outlets where needed. your CFL's are probably blowing because of a loose neutral, which is probably reducing the lifetime of various appliance power supplies and power bricks throughout the house as well.

get an estimate from an electrician or three. you might be able to just do the breaker box and some new dedicated lines to motor loads (fridge, washer/dryer, dishwasher, furnace blower, well pump, garage) and it won't cost an arm and a leg. these tend to be the loads that cause the larger surges and if you're lucky they'll be easily accessible from the basement or crawlspace.

Re:Except that you cannot really buy LED lighbulbs

[Vskye]

The only place I've ever seen LED light bulbs is at http://www.ccrane.com/lights/led-light-bulbs/. Not associated with this company at all, they just send me a catalog every now and then. I'd definitely be interested in these, but the cost is still to high.

Re:Wat?

[vadim_t]

Halogens are only slightly more efficient.

If a normal lightbulb is about 2 - 2.5% efficient, a halogen gets 3-3.5%.

Meanwhile, a CFL is in the 11% range.

Real life usage

[__aavevi421]

I have a set of 4 spotlights in my kitchen which I have 1 "40 LED" spot, 1 "Halogen" spot and 2 "Energy saving" spots. The Halogens last 2 months, the LEDs last 4 months and the Energy savers haven't been replaced in over a year. Halogens are much cheaper and brighter than LED and Energy savers. LEDs are expensive and need additional lighting for colour balance. Energy savers take 5 minutes to achieve full brightness. For this reason, I have the mixture in my kitchen. Halogen £0.79 Energy Saver £1.99 LED £4.99 I wont buy any more LED until the price is under £1.50

Re:Zero

[M8e]

2.5*1=2.5
2.5*1=1?????
2.5*0=0

Re:Wat?

[Hal_Porter]

I can do you one based on technobabble.

Your assumption is like talking about a Dalek phase inversion apparatus, and assuming it has the same polarity requirements as a Gallifreyan warp transvortex node from a type 40 Tardis. With a polarity reversal modification by a rogue Timelord using a sonic screwdriver, the Dalek phase inversion machine will explode five minutes before then end of the last episode - but

I'm sorry, this analogy seems to have failed. I can sell let you have at a discount rate if you want to break it down for spares.

Re:Wat?

[darthflo]

Without heatsinking, the P4 will melt in short order

Wrong. :)

Re:Wat?

[erayd]

Sigh... it's a freaking analogy, OK? 'Melt' doesn't have to be pedantically correct.

For the guy who wanted a car analogy... it's like trying to run a formula 1 engine at full load with the cooling rig from a 1980s civic.

Bring on the LED's, after solving their problems

[cbope]

Before I mention LED's, the 3 main problems I see with CFL's today are:

1. They last nowhere near as long as they are marketed. We moved into an old house about 1.5 years ago. We almost immediately started replacing all incandescents with CFL's and that was completed within a few months. Until today, we have had to replace about 10-20% of the CFL's. Which means multiple failures within 1.5 years. Most of the CFL's sold here are marketed with a 6-10 year lifetime, so how is it that many are failing after a year or so? I stay away from the generic brands and only buy the more expensive CFL's from the major manufacturers (including the one mentioned in TFA). I know that CFL's should not be switched on and off at short intervals and we avoid that as much as we can, but this can only be taken so far. CFL's don't come anywhere near their stated lifetimes today.

2. They have a long warm-up time after switching them on. Most CFL's take about 10-20 seconds before they reach about 90% of their peak light output. This is just not acceptable in many cases. Take a closet for example. You turn on the light to look for something. But with a CFL, you have to stand there and wait while the light warms up before you can see anything. So you are standing there, waiting for the bulb to reach an acceptable brightness. This is unacceptable. In this case, you need light NOW. Not 10-20 seconds from now, but NOW. Some of the smaller CFL's meant to replace halogen spots are even worse, I have 3 in a coatroom and they have to be on almost a full minute before they reach 90% output.

3. Performance in the cold is far worse. Warm-up times increase exponentially in the cold. I have many outdoor lamps around my house and yard. Over time, these have also been replaced with CFL's. Some are on a twilight timer and this eliminates the problem of slow warm up (for the most part), but if I need extra light outdoors I need to switch the lights on a couple of minutes before I actually NEED the light, to give the bulbs a chance to warm up and produce usable light.

As I'm pretty fed up with CFL's weaknesses, I'm all ready for LED's once they solve the current problems:

- Broad spectrum daylight output is needed (today's LED's emit a fairly narrow spectrum or output a too cold color temperature)
- Better light diffusion and dispersion is needed to mimic incandescents (many LED's are too "point-source")
- Cost, the current prices for LED's are ridiculous

Waiting...

PS: I don't mention mercury and recycling because I live in Finland which has a good recycling system. Here, it is not a problem (or inconvenience) to recycle and we don't just throw everything in a landfill.

Re:Wat?

[borizz]

They burn out every week? You might have some seriously dirty power where you live. We have a few ceiling mounted, closed, multi bulb fixtures, and the CFL's in them don't burn out nearly as quick as yours. Current set has been going for about 2 years now. And they're on for at least 3 hours straight.

Power factor

[Nicolas MONNET]

I just got a killowatt sort of thing, and I tested it on a CFL and on a LED (3W Luxeon); CFL has close to .5 power factor vs 1.0 for the LED. I was astonished how bad it was on the CFL. Sure it does not use much power but it wastes shittons of power in the transmission line as a result -- I'm just not billed for it. Thing is, it shouldn't be too hard to improve the PFC, should it?

Re:Power factor

[vlm]

Thing is, it shouldn't be too hard to improve the PFC, should it?

No, virtually impossible.

LEDs conduct anytime they cross more than a couple volts. Hook up to a decent bridge rectifier and a switching power supply in constant current mode, and its no great challenge to get a PF of one. You can run the LED itself on constant DC forever if you want. A nice simple nearly resistive DC load means a nice simple efficient power supply.

CFLs being a tube of glowing gas have to be fed AC or the electrode at the + end will overheat and erode (think arc welding). The current-voltage curve is crazy. Also when it's not conducting, its essentially a capacitor and an insulator in series. You'd need a AC-DC switching supply to make DC with a good PF and then another separate DC-AC inverter to handle the icky PF of the tube. Or you could just cheap out and sell a lamp with a simple supply and a "bad" PF.

Its interesting that other than thermal issues and eventual phosphor wear out, you really can't make a LED that will work at all, that won't work for a long time. On the other hand, its easy to make a CFL that'll kind of work, for a little while, and then promptly burn out. Pretty clear which technology better fits the China/Walmart/Big Box Store business model... I would never buy a CFL from a place like that, LED maybe, but never a CFL.

Re:Power factor

[juhaz]

Its interesting that other than thermal issues and eventual phosphor wear out, you really can't make a LED that will work at all, that won't work for a long time. On the other hand, its easy to make a CFL that'll kind of work, for a little while, and then promptly burn out. Pretty clear which technology better fits the China/Walmart/Big Box Store business model...

That'd be nice if it weren't for the "other than thermal issues" part. China/Walmart/Big Box Store business model can and will skimp on cooling, and you get LEDs that'll kind of work, for a little while, and them promptly cook themselves.

Go for Luxeons

[Nicolas MONNET]

3W, and now 5W per LED. Low power LEDs suck for lighting, even when you have 100s of them, I've found.

Also the semiconductor in the LED is encased in plastic, which is in turn in a metal+plastic casing. You really have to work hard to expose it. Even in a landfill most will never leak. The mass of dangerous material is tiny, anyway.

OTOH it's easy to break a CFL. The amount of mercury is ridiculously small, though.

COST-OF-FAILURE is missing from the calculation

[donely]

25 incandescents = 2.5 CFLs = 1 LEDs - why are people only talking about how great that is? Where the evaluation of the impact on cost-of-failure (25 times higher for LEDs). To make an informed decision, cost of failure needs to be part of the equation. What the probability blubs are dead-on-arrival? what's the probability they stop functioning optimally/at all after 500 hours? 1.000 hours? 5.000? 10.000? Without knowing the answers to the above questions (which has huge impacts on the final cost of the product in the life cycle of the product), the attractiveness of LEDs cannot be correctly I assessed. AND, unless LEDs are 99.9999% reliable, LEDs are still an unattractive option financially, unless you get product-lifetime guarantees with free replacements with your purchase. Environmentally they seem like a good option (dependent on reliability vs. alternatives)

Re:Legislation

[Cimexus]

You seem to have missed the point that ... I wasn't making a point against the OP. I was merely saying "they are actually banned already" in some places as a response to the OP's "I hope they don't ban them".

That is, I wasn't arguing against the OP, just adding to it with some information as an aside. The OP's points are of course still completely valid.

dimmable

[phsdv]

CFLs : ..., not very dimmable, ...
LEDs : ..., dimmable, ...

I understand why you say this, however I must disappoint you, it is not correct. It is also very easy to dimm a CFL. For a retrofit LED lamp (thus in the shape of a incandescent bulb), you have to add as much electronics to dim the LEDs as you would need to dim a CFL lamp.

Technically, dimming a CFL is as easy as increasing the frequency of the oscillator that drivers the CFL tube. The only issue is the TRIAC dimmer in the wall that does not like the low power of the CFL lamp (or LED lamp). Translating the dimmer position to the oscillator frequency is easy.

The same is also true for LEDs. That is why many retrofit LED lamps are also not dimmable (there are dimmable retrofit LED as well!).

As soon as we get rid of the old fashion 2 wire TRIAC or transistor dimmers, we can dim CFL and LED easily, and safe even more energy in the end because we do not have to dissipate extra energy only to keep the dimmer happy.

Rubbish

[Kupfernigk]

Those bulbs are still three times less efficient than CFLs, not 30% but 300%. And if you believe that "a better and more efficient technology will win on its own merrit[sic]", remember you are talking about a world in which even 90% of the inhabitants of the developed countries are incapable of understanding a simple efficiency calculation. Sometimes people are so incapable of making a rational decision that you have to do it for them.

Re:Wat?

[xaxa]

I bought some 1.5W LED bulbs for £2 each to replace 50W halogen bulbs. They're now about 18 months old, and still work, but they are noticeably dimmer than when I first installed them.

I expect the problem will be solved (if it hasn't already with less-cheap bulbs), the same happened to the early CFLs 15 years ago.

Re:Wat?

[hardburn]

Still, without getting really expensive, there isn't much homeowners can do about dirty power, except scream uselessly into the brick wall known as the power company. New lighting technology is going to have to cope with this situation.

Re:Wat?

[GameboyRMH]

Yep, good thing all that heat just comes out of nowhere or you'd be wasting lots of energy in the form of heat. Oh wait...

Halogen gives high quality lighting but still has very poor efficiency compared to flourescent or LED lighting. Flourescent and LED are average to poor quality of course, but they all have their advantages and disadvantages.

Halogen is sort of the Corvette of lighting - not the most inefficient but far from "green."

Coefficient of Performance

[AlpineR]

Wikipedia says: "When used for heating a building on a mild day, a typical air-source heat pump has a COP of 3 - 4, whereas a typical electric resistance heater has a COP of 1.0."

So, yes, contrary to popular belief, resistive heating is a terrible waste. Burning the coal in a potbelly stove would be a little better then burning it in a power plant to generate electricity to transmit (with losses) over power lines to heat a wire near your ceiling. But using it to drive a refrigeration cycle would be a far better use of the energy.

Re:Coefficient of Performance

[jabuzz]

However I live in Scotland, some 20% of my electricity is generated from renewables (mainly hydro) and another ~25% comes from nuclear. All low carbon options, and that percentage is likely to rise in the future, and could theoretically hit 100%

Firing my gas central heating will never be low carbon.

real world numbers

[roc97007]

> The study uses the assumption that LEDs last 2.5 times longer than CFLs, and 25 times longer than incandescents.

I'm wondering whether they're using actual longevity measurements or theoretical numbers. The numbers above imply that CFLs last 10 times longer than incandescents, and being a consumer of both, I have not found that to be true. Moreover, although I have not invested in LED lighting yet, I note that it is rare to see an LED traffic light that doesn't have several LEDs blown out or flickering wildly.

Wasted energy

[AlpineR]

We will know we're reaching the limits of computer technology when using a computer as a space heater no longer seems like a clever idea. A computer should only use as much energy as it takes to flip the output bits plus a little extra to make it happen faster than the age of the universe.

Let's grab some rolling paper

[DrYak]

{...} the tomatoes growing in the closet use.

Tomatoes. Yeah right!

Tomatoes ?!?
I didn't knew you could smoke *these*.

{runs quickly to the nearest groceries store}

Simple economics

[jdesbonnet]

I don't understand why this "it has not been proven whether higher manufacturing energy costs kept the new lighting from offering a net gain" argument has any traction.

It's simple economics: Energy costs money and nobody in the manufacturing supply chain is going to provide free energy. So assuming everyone is making a profit (or breaking even at least) then the price the consumer pays must cover the cost of the energy used in manufacture and transport.

So if the end consumer realizes a net saving at the end of the product's life then then it's a genuine net gain.

(I am assuming here that energy prices are in the same ball park the world over and have the same fossil fuel vs renewable ratio: a crude assumption but I think sufficient for this argument).

Not true (or biased)

[Richard_J_N]

If you compare the best-of-breed tungsten with the best-of-breed CFL, the factor is about 3.3. That factor of 5 (I remember when it used to be 7) is derived from a comparison with a rather poor tungsten bulb (eg 40W, which are far less efficient than 100W).

I looked at what's available now in the shops:
    Best Tungsten: 105 W in, 2100 lumen out.(*)
    Best CFL: 18W in, 1200 lumen out.

Efficiency difference: factor of 3.3

(*) This is the Philips "Halogen Energy Saver -30%", which also lasts 2000 hours. I'm writing this in the UK; if it were the USA, the lower mains voltage acts even more in Tungsten's favour.

In addition, Tungsten bulbs:

* Give a much better light: full spectrum, better colours, warmer, more flattering to females, and not cold/depressing in wintertime.

* Run at (virtually) full efficiency from start to end; whereas CFLs need to be replaced after 6 months as they age.

* Give out waste heat, but this is still offset against the heat you'd otherwise burn natural gas to get; electricity is potentially
green (Nuclear), whereas gas never is; also the waste heat is usually in the same room that you currently occupy, rather than
around the entire house.

* Run at a power factor of 1.0, whereas CFLs are inductive, wasting a lot of energy in transmission and generation. (the consumer isn't directly metered for this, but it pushes up the price of electricty in general).

* Could be improved further if we combine the halogen technology (in the Philips bulbs) with the Dichroic technology (used by Osram) to reflect IR back to the filament.

So, yes, there is a slight figure of merit for fluorescent bulbs, but it's pretty small.

Re:Except that you cannot really buy LED lighbulbs

[Thrakamazog]

Assuming you are in a country that has Home Depot stores: http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Search?keyword=led%2Blightbulb&langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053

Be a responsible parent

[winwar]

Stop breaking light bulbs. Of ANY kind. Seriously.

I have never broken a light bulb. I have never seen one broken outside of abuse. I'm sure it can happen. But this strawman in a glass house is getting really old.

Handle things made of glass with care. Gently hand tighten (no breaker bars or torque wrenches needed). Lights come with protective covers, it's okay to use them. If you can remember the last time you broke a bulb then I hope you install them for a living or you are buying cheap crap or are doing something wrong.

Re:Be a responsible parent

[bestalexguy]

Stop breaking light bulbs. Of ANY kind. Seriously.

Stop burning down your house. Of ANY kind. Seriously.

Nevertheless, there are laws which prevent manufacturing furniture and upholstery with materials which release toxic fumes when on fire. And yes, there are costs associated.

The whole point in my post is we are talking about households. Households are places populated with hyperactive toddlers and almost blind elderly (straw)people. The second group is steadily growing. Things do get broken. Are these weak categories so unlikely to mistakenly hit a bulb with a hard object? (Incidentally, I hardly fit in either category, but, to my shame, it happened to me, too: I deserve a -1:clumsy for this).
One more issue: how are we going to teach granny how often she should switch CFLs on and off not to waste away any benefit, due to hugely reduced lifespan?
All in all, forcing people to give up incandescent altogether smells of corporate interest instead of general benefit. Didn't I mention it? In EU incandescent bulbs are being phased out by law.

Thus I admit: I'd really like to keep on reading my midnight book with my highly dimmable old-fashioned incandescent bulb.

What about the heat?

[ACMENEWSLLC]

So it is winter where I live. Normally the heat from all my incandescent lights heat up my place a bit. This is where a lot of the waste is of the incandescent lights.

Most of the lights I have are now CFL. So while it is true the CFL is using less power, am I not compensating by using more power at my electric furnace?

Does the net power difference (savings) take into consideration that fact?

umm, garbage much?

[holophrastic]

I remain confused. A few decades ago was the garbage crysis, then the pollution, then the recycling, then the fuel, then the electricity.

So let's try to swarm around this thing.

I shouldn't buy gasoline cars, because they pollute. I should buy electric because they don't. But I should save electricity.

I should recycle my lightbulbs because the glass is reused to make lightbulbs, and there's a whopping teenie weeny amount of material in incandescent bulbs in the first place, and it's all recyclable. But I should save energy
and buy CFL's. But I shouldn't use them because you need a hasmat team to clean your home for two weeks if you drop one and the mercury breaks. Oh, and even more modern lightbulbs use computer chips and chemical
coatings and produce about 100 times the amount of garbage as old lightbulbs.

Oh yeah, and they all produce way less light. Sure I can work by a CFL, or and LED, but they are just crap light to an incandecent. And just try to take any half-way crappy product photography, and see just how many CFL
or LEDs it takes to light your box.

Above me right now are 12 lights in the ceiling. Guess which one is a $60 LED? That's right, the one producing a very bright light in one teeny tiny spot directly beneath it -- on the floor. Whoopy shit.

And guess why there are 12 of them? That's right, because all of the others are CFLs.

No worries, there's a floor-lamp. A single 120W incandecent has no trouble filling the room.

LEDs are brighter because they are always focused -- I've yet to see one that's omnidirectional. How many flashlights does it take to fill the room -- one cone of silence at a time.

Re:My house lighted like Bourne Identity fight sce

[darkshadow]

I went all CFL a few months ago and now, my house is lighted like a Bourne Identity fight scene in an Eastern European stairwell.

I can hardly wait until incandescents are banned.

Or like the J.J. Abrams Enterprise Bridge

Funny...I was just pondering the fact

[PortHaven]

That in my bathroom I have had to replace my flourescent bulb 2 times now over a period of 3 yrs. But my incadescent bulb has remained.

So much for longer lasting.

Re:Funny...I was just pondering the fact

[belg4mit]

This is well established as the worst-use case for CFLs. CFLs, like any fluorescent, are more limited by starts than total burn time, unlike incandescents. Therefore short-cycle duty will drastically limit their lifespans.

CFL = reduced quality of life

[technicurt]

I replaced two 60W incandescents in my computer room with two 23W "100W equivalent" CFLs. I expected to save a lot of power while increasing the light output from 120W to 200W equivalent. Instead I find that the lighting is dim and creates a depressing environment in the room. I couldn't conceive of replacing all the bulbs throughout my house. This leads me to believe the energy equivalence is a bunch of hype at best, and outright dishonesty at worst, and that efforts to outlaw incandescents are severely misguided and premature. Switching to CFL represents a quality of life reduction. I'm hoping LEDs ultimately turn out to be a better solution.