My only concern is that to save on electricity the industry is producing "bulbs" that give off much less light than I would like. (that I am used to)
Some of the early attempts used 60% of normal bulb power but only gave 50% of light output...actually less efficient.
LED's do last longer but can't run as hot as incandescent bulbs when generating the same light output...they are getting better though.
I use one for a front light...it is strong enough to light up the house number and uses a lot less power than the regular bulb.
I guess it just depends on what you are replacing.
IMHO
Some of the early attempts used 60% of normal bulb power but only gave 50% of light output...actually less efficient.
LED's do last longer but can't run as hot as incandescent bulbs when generating the same light output...they are getting better though.
I use one for a front light...it is strong enough to light up the house number and uses a lot less power than the regular bulb.
I guess it just depends on what you are replacing.
IMHO
Last edited:
35 years in the lighting industry, I can tell you for residential applications, these flourescent and LED bulbs are a scam. For large commercial applications, there may be a tax write-off and savings. For residential use, the lamps have a long payback period. Think about it... how long are your lights on at home? Usually, from when it gets dark, to when you go to bed. A few hours at best. Instead, focus on billboards, roadways, and parking lots for energy savings.
Just had an idea...
I'm a supporter of the idea of having low voltage DC power lines running throughout the house. Not feasible now, every time I attempted to make it a reality I killed the idea quickly, but in the future it might be possible with a single high-efficiency AC-DC supply that stays efficient regardless of load.
Now if we wire some LEDs to that DC, it would probably make sense
Or not, since the light still comes from band gap + Stokes shift.
I'm a supporter of the idea of having low voltage DC power lines running throughout the house. Not feasible now, every time I attempted to make it a reality I killed the idea quickly, but in the future it might be possible with a single high-efficiency AC-DC supply that stays efficient regardless of load.
Now if we wire some LEDs to that DC, it would probably make sense
Or not, since the light still comes from band gap + Stokes shift.
Good luck with that. Its very difficult to create an ample, reliable power source on your own property. Please don't tell me solar or wind! Your own water wheel? Maybe your own reactor? Tap in to the overhead power lines?
Spoken like a true Canadian!
Lowering the load on air conditioning in southern buildings as well as TV studios can made a big difference. Down South, we use an amazing amount of power to keep cool. Adding even more heat inside the building with lighting doesn't help.
It depends on your energy costs.
In this country, I pay about NZ 25 cents per kilowatt hour.
A 100 watt incandescent lamp costs about NZ$1. Assuming a 1000 hour life, its TCO is about NZ$26.
A good quality 23 watt CFL costs about NZ$5 (often less). Assuming a 5000 hour life (in my experience, conservative) its TCO is about NZ$6.75 per 1000 hours. Even assuming it only lasts 1000 hours, its TCO is still only NZ$10.75.
I have just over 20 lamps that see significant use. The change to CFLs has been noticeable on my yearly electricity consumption... but the main saving for me is the greatly reduced number of times I have to climb ladders to replace lamps (3.1 meter high ceilings).
Edit:
LEDs are still too expensive for GLS use here. But they already make sense for specialist applications and the price will come down.
In this country, I pay about NZ 25 cents per kilowatt hour.
A 100 watt incandescent lamp costs about NZ$1. Assuming a 1000 hour life, its TCO is about NZ$26.
A good quality 23 watt CFL costs about NZ$5 (often less). Assuming a 5000 hour life (in my experience, conservative) its TCO is about NZ$6.75 per 1000 hours. Even assuming it only lasts 1000 hours, its TCO is still only NZ$10.75.
I have just over 20 lamps that see significant use. The change to CFLs has been noticeable on my yearly electricity consumption... but the main saving for me is the greatly reduced number of times I have to climb ladders to replace lamps (3.1 meter high ceilings).
Edit:
LEDs are still too expensive for GLS use here. But they already make sense for specialist applications and the price will come down.
Last edited:
How do you address all the mercury you're introducing into the environment? Are you prepared to hire a HAZMAT company if you drop and break one? CFL's are not the answer, either. Also, you can't dim them. Dim an incandecent just 5% and it will last many, many years. Even the commercial lighting industry has abandoned them.
The life of flourescent lamps is stated by the manufacturer based on lab test results. It is based on the lamp being on continuously for its life. That is not a real world situation. A CFL switched on and off will have a shorter life. Furthermore, the hours stated are median average. Half burn out earlier, half last longer. The commercial T-5 and T-8 lamps with electronic ballasts are very efficient. Sadly, that technology does not transfer to what is promoted to the general public stuff made in China.
LED's are the latest technology, but for the bed side lamp, it makes no sense. Not to mention the CRI (Color Rendering Index) of LED is horrible. The incandecent lamp has a CRI of 100. All other lamp sources are compared to it, and none are equal.
LED's are the latest technology, but for the bed side lamp, it makes no sense. Not to mention the CRI (Color Rendering Index) of LED is horrible. The incandecent lamp has a CRI of 100. All other lamp sources are compared to it, and none are equal.
LEDs are good if you can do without parts of the spectrum. Experiments continue in greenhouses but I think benefits are weak. High pressure sodium is cheaper for full spectrum, but plants can cope with no green and reduced blue for much of the time.
LED lights don't project so much heat, so can be moved closer, avoiding wastful overspill.
For normal domestic use, anything other than filament lamps doesn't make sense. Halogen seems to be gaining favour in the shops. I use soft CFLs with halogen spots, but I'd rather go back to filaments and wait for the nuclear light bulb, or bacteria with firefly genes that eat household waste. Or paint everything luminous so lights aren't needed.
LED lights don't project so much heat, so can be moved closer, avoiding wastful overspill.
For normal domestic use, anything other than filament lamps doesn't make sense. Halogen seems to be gaining favour in the shops. I use soft CFLs with halogen spots, but I'd rather go back to filaments and wait for the nuclear light bulb, or bacteria with firefly genes that eat household waste. Or paint everything luminous so lights aren't needed.
I use an LED light in my reading light. It works very well. Unlike the halogen light it replaced, it doesn't get hot so I can adjust the light by hand. Very handy... But for more broad applications, I prefer the Compact Florescent Lights.
I think it was around September of 2007 when I installed the outdoor lights on my house. I bought the cheapest 9 W CFLs I could find at the local big box store. Mind you, unlike in Europe, low-wattage (<10 W) CFL bulbs are hard to find in the US. I paid less than $1/bulb. The four lights are on a timer that turns on at dusk and off at dawn. So figure 12 hours on-time on average. They've been going 365 days/year since I installed them. I have yet to replace a bulb. I didn't notice any difference on the energy bill. My math says the four bulbs should cost me $1.16 per month in energy on average. That's below the noise floor of my energy bill. The biggest deal for me is that I've never had to replace them. Try do that with an incandescent bulb.
In my garage door opener, I installed two "curly-Q" random CFL bulbs when the vibration rated incandescent bulbs I bought for it crapped out. The CFLs are still going strong. The first vibration resistant incandescent bulb lasted less than a year. The CFLs have lasted over six...
I see no reason to use incandescent bulbs. If you bother to buy a good CFL bulb with a color temperature in the 3000~5000 K range with a CRI in the upper 90ies, the light is indistinguishable from incandescent bulb light.
The LEDs are still too expensive for me. Especially considering that they don't save that much power over a CFL with comparable light output.
~Tom
I think it was around September of 2007 when I installed the outdoor lights on my house. I bought the cheapest 9 W CFLs I could find at the local big box store. Mind you, unlike in Europe, low-wattage (<10 W) CFL bulbs are hard to find in the US. I paid less than $1/bulb. The four lights are on a timer that turns on at dusk and off at dawn. So figure 12 hours on-time on average. They've been going 365 days/year since I installed them. I have yet to replace a bulb. I didn't notice any difference on the energy bill. My math says the four bulbs should cost me $1.16 per month in energy on average. That's below the noise floor of my energy bill. The biggest deal for me is that I've never had to replace them. Try do that with an incandescent bulb.
In my garage door opener, I installed two "curly-Q" random CFL bulbs when the vibration rated incandescent bulbs I bought for it crapped out. The CFLs are still going strong. The first vibration resistant incandescent bulb lasted less than a year. The CFLs have lasted over six...
I see no reason to use incandescent bulbs. If you bother to buy a good CFL bulb with a color temperature in the 3000~5000 K range with a CRI in the upper 90ies, the light is indistinguishable from incandescent bulb light.
The LEDs are still too expensive for me. Especially considering that they don't save that much power over a CFL with comparable light output.
~Tom
Good point about vibration. Fair enough about quality of light too, but.
Consumer knowledge can't be relied upon and should be discounted from rational debate. How much data is it reasonable to need for a simple shopping trip? In reality, for nearly every purchase requiring technical choice, people rely on standards, and standards erode individual freedom. Intelligibility is a social necessity, and filament bulbs are miles ahead.
In old houses like mine, there's also an issue of fidelity. High-tech fitments just don't seem right.
Eye-tracking LED headlights and a light thermal body suit could save me a fortune, but the house would get soggy.
Consumer knowledge can't be relied upon and should be discounted from rational debate. How much data is it reasonable to need for a simple shopping trip? In reality, for nearly every purchase requiring technical choice, people rely on standards, and standards erode individual freedom. Intelligibility is a social necessity, and filament bulbs are miles ahead.
In old houses like mine, there's also an issue of fidelity. High-tech fitments just don't seem right.
Eye-tracking LED headlights and a light thermal body suit could save me a fortune, but the house would get soggy.
Last edited:
Enlightened countries have recycling schemes with the cost built into the purchase price. Evacuate the gas and reclaim the mercury and phosphor, same as for traditional fluorescent tubes. (Reclaim to keep them out of the environment, not because the amount reclaimed is commercially viable.) Regarding broken lamps, the official policy here is that the quantities of mercury and beryllium etc are so low that the risk is negligible in domestic situations.
Dimmable tube fittings are available if you want them, as are dimmable CFLs. Their main problem is that the color temperature doesn't shift as they dim, as people have come to expect.
"Even the commercial lighting industry has abandoned them"... you must be referring to GLS incandescents. The last use I had for them was in Eastern style lanterns, the ones with holes cut in them to cast patterns on the walls. Now I use the halogen replacements (GLS style envelope containing a quartz glass halogen lamp). They are more efficient, last longer, and the filament is smaller so it casts more sharply defined patterns.
LED panels for hydroponic gardening are very common. They use red and blue LEDs. They don't use green because, surprise surprise, clorophyll is green and reflects green light instead of absorbing it.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.