Slashdot Mirror
Lifecycle Energy Costs of LED, CFL Bulbs Calculated
necro81 writes "The NY Times is reporting on a new study from Osram, a German lighting manufacturer, which has calculated the total lifecycle energy costs of three lightbulb technologies and found that both LEDs and CFLs use approximately 20% of the energy of incandescents over their lifetimes. While it is well known that the newer lighting technologies use a fraction of the energy of incandescents to produce the same amount of light, it has not been proven whether higher manufacturing energy costs kept the new lighting from offering a net gain. The study found that the manufacturing and distribution energy costs of all lightbulb technologies are only about 2% of their total lifetime energy cost — a tiny fraction of the energy used to produce light." The study uses the assumption that LEDs last 2.5 times longer than CFLs, and 25 times longer than incandescents.
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.
God spoke to me.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Better known as 318230.
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.
Actually brand-name CFL's delivered to your door are a little over $1 each.
Because with LEDs you only make the part of the spectrum that the tomatoes growing in the closet use.
Seriously it's the longer life.
Especially the increased on/off cycles, which is what kills almost all CFLs before their time.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Personally, I'd never trust a lightbulb test done by the blind.
Depends on how you were going to get yourself to the store otherwise.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
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).
I am practically a professional light-bulb changer
So, how many of you does it take to... oh, never mind.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
1) You won't need a hazmat team to clean up when one breaks
Can we stop with this already? Unless you start licking the floor where you dropped the bulb, it's not a problem. And if you DO start licking the floor when dropping a bulb, you deserve whatever happens to you (which, in all likelihood, is just going to be a lot of glass shards in your tongue)
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Incandescents are already 'banned' in many areas of the world (including where I live). That is to say, stores aren't allowed to sell new ones anymore (existing ones that are still going are OK obviously). The exception to this is weird form-factor lights that they don't mass-produce CFLs for (e.g. those little ones you put into bedside tables). But for standard overhead light fittings, incandescents have already gone the way of the dodo here.
Even factoring in the impact of recycling, their total lifecycle environmental impact is considerably less than incandescents. Many vendors that sell CFLs (e.g. hardware stores) also accept back dead ones. And if not, I just pop the dead ones in a box in the back of the car and take them to the dump next time I'm in that area anyway, so the 'extra' travel is minimal. For me at least, it's worth it. My electricity bills are at least $100/year less after moving to CFLs, and they produce less waste heat (which matters to me as I don't have AC!)
LEDs will be better though of course. They should be trashable just like incandescents were, while retaining the energy savings of CFLs.
That study as reported in the details didn't show significant difference between overall LED and CFL efficiencies. But the article consistently pushed LEDs. The headline mentioned only LEDs; LEDs were mentioned every time continuing advances were touted, the mercury in CFLs were pointed out (but not the toxic byproducts unique to LED production). The article's picture shows LEDs, not CFLs.
Yet LEDs don't really compete with CFLs yet. The article does mention that even a 60W incandescent equivalent is just experimental in LEDs, though CFLs have brightnesses at all levels even far past equivalence to 100W incandescents. Meanwhile, LEDs still generally aren't as efficient as their equivalent brightness CFLs. And LEDs' extra inefficiency puts heat into rooms that then require extra cooling, which consumes more energy.
LEDs are probably going to outperform CFLs. Their colors will be better than CFLs, their efficiencies probably better than double CFLs. They're smaller, probably able to be less toxic to produce and discard. Their DC power offers better efficiency direct from solar power (or its battery storage) than AC CFLs can get. But not yet. This article makes LEDs seem better than CFLs, but they're not now. It's marketing disguised as reporting. Probably the lack of numbers in an article about engineering performance should be the tipoff.
--
make install -not war
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.
Good, because CFL bulbs have been a major disappointment for me. In practice, the 10x longer lifespan compared to ordinary light bulbs turned out to be a lie. In my home they've lasted about equally long as ordinary light bulbs. They also weren't as bright as advertised; a bulb that was advertised as being as bright as a 100W incandescent bulb actually looks remarkably less bright.
That has been my experience as well.
I will probably buy $100 worth of incandescents and store them in my attic, once they start rattling their sabres about banning them in my state. I don't MIND CFLs, but they aren't yet up to the quality of incandescents... and their other virtues aren't great enough to make up for the lacking quality of light. I sometimes work on art; CFLs just don't cut it. Anything with severe spectrum peaks fouls up colors.
I 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.
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
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?
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.