Follow this blog:
RSS

The myth of LED energy savings

By | November 29, 2012, 5:00 AM PST

This is the first of two stories examining whether LEDs are truly slashing energy consumption as advertised by the industry.

LEDs on the outside, not on the inside. That's the Amsterdam headquarters building for lighting stalwart Royal Philips Electronics, dressed up last month for Breast Cancer Awareness. LEDs are a good way to decorate facades, but they do not improve the efficiency of most indoor commercial office spaces.

LONDON - Light emitting diodes are almost certainly the future of lighting. Their best known advantage: They save a bundle of energy compared to conventional lighting.

Right?

Well, that depends on what “conventional” means. Indeed, if you swap out your living room’s incandescent bulbs - the type that domesticated humans have been purchasing for over a century - you should slash electricity usage by around 80 percent.

But if you run a commercial office building, your energy saving is basically zippo. And for that, you get to pay a huge premium

Thus, while LED sales start picking up in the home market (especially with bulb prices finally coming down) and in the street lighting and outdoor markets (have you looked up at the Empire State Building this week?) where they replace various inefficient technologies, they’re going nowhere fast in the huge commercial office sector.

This all came to light to me, so to speak, when I roamed the recent LuxLive 2012 lighting exhibition in London, talking to as many executives as I could corner from both the vendor and user side.

“The cost is prohibitive at the moment,” said Iain Trent, senior project engineer with the UK’s largest commercial property developer, Land Securities. “A medium sized 20,000 meter-square (215,000 square feet) space could be £350,000-to- £450,000 ($560,000-to-$720,000) additional. It’s as simple as that.”

Trent’s point is not lost on the major vendors like GE and Siemens.

“Everybody’s talking about LEDs, but it’s the energy efficient fluorescent lights that are selling very well (in commercial offices),” said Rune Marki, UK managing director for Siemens’ Osram lighting subsidiary, known as Osram Sylvania in the U.S.

The culprit. Fluorescent lights like GE's T5 Watt-miser have a similar energy rating but are much less expensive than LEDs.

There have been a few bright spots in indoor LED use. For instance, Phil Marshall, CEO of GE Lighting’s Europe, Middle East and Africa region, noted that retailers are switching to LEDs because many of them have been using less efficient halogen and halide lighting that provides a more shopper friendly light than do fluorescents.

“But if you look at some other applications, like commercial office, the dynamics, the financials, aren’t quite the same, so I think that might take a little bit longer,” Marshall said.

Of course, LEDs offfer other advantages that commercial office users should - and I think eventually will - take onboard. One of the softer ones: According to Trent, they add fashion cachet that will start to attract tenants to upscale office space.

He’s probably right, although LEDs have more convincing benefits. They don’t contain environmentally hazardous mercury, whereas fluorescents do.

And LEDs last longer - supposedly 25 years, although if anyone has ever operated one for 25 years, they would have had to enter a time machine, because LEDs haven’t been around that long.

Only time will tell if the quarter-century claim is valid. If it is, there are a lot of financial savings to be gained from eliminating years of new purchases (the industry likes to also say that offices will save on maintenance, but don’t forget that you’ll still have to send workers up ladders to clean the things).

But for now, especially in a sluggish economy defined by tight budgets, the vision of LED energy savings in commercial offices will remain mostly a dream.

In part 2, we’ll note how the world risks negating LED efficiency savings by using more lighting than it ever has before, because LEDs make it easy to do so. Watch for the story soon on SmartPlanet.

Photos: Philips HQ from Philips. GE fluorescent lamp from GE.

Some very public LEDs on SmartPlanet:

Some ABCs of LEDs on SmartPlanet:

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Mark Halper

About Mark Halper

Mark Halper is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

Mark Halper

Mark Halper

Contributing Editor

Mark Halper has written for TIME, Fortune, Financial Times, the UK's Independent on Sunday, Forbes, New York Times, Wired, Variety and The Guardian. He is based in Bristol, U.K.

Follow him on Twitter.

Mark Halper

Mark Halper

Mark has no financial holdings in the companies he writes about. He occasionally travels at the expense of companies or their press relations agencies in order to report on a company or industry event related to it; Mark will prominently disclose this information when appropriate. This relationship will have no influence on his coverage. Companies he covers do not get to review columns in advance, or select or reject topics.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
62
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
?????
Somewhere in all that I think I saw that LED's are not being used because fluorescent lights are more efficient.

If so, then one line would have been enough; and much clearer.
Posted by RobSlack
29th Nov
+9 Votes
+ -
facts?
This is an interesting article, however I have to agree with RobSlack above in that the article is very unclear as to what the thesis of this small piece is. From my point of view as a corporate strategic energy and environment program designer, the most interesting piece of information here is:

"But if you run a commercial office building, your energy saving is basically zippo. And for that, you get to pay a huge premium"

Are there any sources or calculations to back up this claim that energy saving is "basically zippo"? I have recently worked with a few clients on LED projects in which we were able to identify 2-3 year paybacks (with Ontario SaveOnEnergy incentives factored in) for an LED upgrade.

I'd be interested if the author, or anyone else for that matter, could provide some context to the "basically zippo" in commercial office buildings. The claim is that the energy savings is zero, though the rest of the article focuses on the cost of bulbs which is entirely irrelevant for energy savings. Given that most office structures use some kind of T12/T8 mix right now,with some upgraded to HO and some nicer ballasts, I've seen detailed lighting designs including LEDs showing massive energy savings.

Thanks for your consideration.
Posted by PattyFerg88
29th Nov
+5 Votes
+ -
Poorly presented
An incandescent light is about 1% efficient when it comes to producing light.
A fluorescent light is about 12% efficient. An LED is about 80% efficient.

Incandescent bulbs will last 25 months. LEDs will last 25 years. CFLs should last about 5 or 6 years years. Florescent straight long-tubes will last about 15 to 17 years.

But the current price differential between long-tube fluorescent lights and LEDs is such that the LEDs do not yet produce a sufficient Return on Investment to thus make them worthwhile. Where is this information reported in the above article? A medium sized 20,000 meter-square (215,000 square feet) space could be 350,000-to- 450,000 ($560,000-to-$720,000) additional. Its as simple as that.

Yes, the information is there, but it is very much obscured in this article. Since Mark has done much better in the past at presenting the necessary information clearly, I'll assume THIS time that he's just having an off day.
Posted by mheartwood
29th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
Not convinced yet
There is a bit more information needed. The relative costs of the two technologies are one input but you also need to include a long-term model for the cost of electricity. If flourescent bulbs are currently installed, you can continue to use them until the business case for replacement is clearer. You can make a mistake if you jump to the new technology too soon, as costs should come down over time. In the meantime, replacement has different business case parameters than new construction. You can also make big gains if the cost of electricity increases sharply but that is gambling not conservative analysis.
Posted by jwaustin
30th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
The labor factor...
You also have to consider how much labor you will need to replace fluorescent bulbs versus LED. The Empire State Building had a team of men that only did lighting. That team is no longer needed after the transition to LED. So the cost of that labor can be factored into the return on investment. That doesn't sound like zippo to me.
Posted by i8thecat4
3rd Dec
0 Votes
+ -
The heat factor...
Sorry, forgot to mention the heat factor... Fluorescents and Incandescents generate a lot of heat. The cost of cooling takes a big hit in the summer (a time when electricity is more costly). So factor in the savings on the AC bill as well.
Posted by i8thecat4
3rd Dec
0 Votes
+ -
Mark just studied the cliff notes!
LED Vs Conventional lighting:

1. Energy used for lighting is eventually converted to heat. In loose terms: improving lighting efficiency reduces your HVAC costs. On average in office buildings, the annual kWh reduced in lighting yields a minimum 40% or more kWh reduction in HVAC energy . See section 6.2 of Energy Star guidelines

2. Conventional Lighting Costs: The cost of Fluorescent's are getting more expensive each year. The cost per fluorescent lamp increased 30% in 2010 and are expected to increase at minimum, at the same rate of inflation. And this does not include the costs of handling, shipping, and disposal fees associated with the recycling of old fluorescent lamps and ballasts that have a typical 2-3 year life.

3. LED Pricing: Four years ago a "top quality" T8 LED tube cost $100 each, last year they were $75, this year they cost $50. It is conceivable that at some point in the future the cost of linear fluorescents will converge by time a LED replacement is needed. The average high quality LED has a 8-15 year expected usable life.

4. LED Life Expectancy: We have experienced a total LED failure rate of 1.4% over the entire 4 years that we have been using high quality LEDs. That equals 1.4 lamps to be replaced per 100 installed over the entire past 4 year period. Therefore it is conceivable that LEDs can last, depending on design, 10 - 20 years.

5. Big Picture Cost Savings: In addition to the direct kWh savings, when performing a cost benefit analysis of determining whether to change conventional HID and fluorescent lighting to LED, you need to consider the addition cost savings of the reduced normal maintenance and upkeep of the existing lighting. This would include the avoided maintenance, labor, equipment, and disposal expenses. For example, in conventional lighting in high bay areas, you will have a replacement expense of the following every 2-3 years for each conventional HID or fluorescent light fixture. This would include: boom truck/scissor lift expense ($50-$350/day), labor rate and for 1 or 2 technicians/electricians($25-$100/hour), Ballast ($15-$250/each), lamp cost($5-$80/each), and recycle cost ($2.5-$15/each)
Posted by EnergyIntelligence
6th Jun
-1 Votes
+ -
Good post.
Thanks for putting things in perspective.

Proponents of LED lights need to understand that LED lights are just one part of a complete energy efficient lighting plan. One more tool in the tool box.

LEDs are not a panacea for efficient, cost effective lighting.
Posted by Hates Idiots
29th Nov
+2 Votes
+ -
agreed... but
I agree with you that LEDs are not a on-size-fits-all solution, and that they need to be considered as part of a holistic look at the building as a system and lighting requirements both for comfort and function; however the article above seems to claim that LEDs are not a tool in the tool box for commercial office towers because energy savings are not realised.

While cost savings may not be available without some incentives and even still in many cases, the article here seems to be very misleading.

thoughts?
Posted by PattyFerg88
29th Nov
+3 Votes
+ -
Misinformed Journalism
I am afraid this article is shallow and full of misinformation. Please do your research.

Kabir
CTO & Chairman of Board
ENDS Energy
Posted by RanaKabir
30th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
I Agee
This article is way too shallow. It does not address the true cost savings and drastic decrease in the cost of LED. Besides there is decreased A/C load using LED lamps in comparison to incandescent or CFL lamps.
Secondly our sister company sells T5 lamps along with electronic ballast. This was installed in a school in Atlanta. The ROI was thought to be about 24 to 30 months. They installed a measuring meter just to be certain. Lo and behold, they found the ROI was about 18 months. The lighting (increased lumen) with T5 was much brighter than the older T12 and T8 that was already in use!
I am still not convinced about LED as yet. But large manufacturers like GE are ready to release lower priced LED bulbs which have a life of almost 30,000 hours in real life situations! Well, I will pass my judgement after I see these "new" bulbs.
Has anyone know about CREE LED light company? http://www.cree.com/
They seem to be making decent lights which have stood up to time.
Posted by usdoc1
30th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
I understand the technical side
of all 3 lines of lighting but would appreciate an update with some details as to where you think the article is off. It helps the rest of us obtain information that may help with our own decisions. Having said that, Kabir can you add something to give us some ideas as to where your thoughts are?
Posted by wingnut1024
Updated - 1st Dec
+6 Votes
+ -
Energy or Economy? Myth or Mask?
As mentioned by others, the article lures us in with a claim about an energy savings myth and then gives almost nothing to back that up. Classic bait and switch.

However, it does touch upon a point that most energy conservationists will stereotypically find interesting.... Fluorescent bulbs promote mercury pollution.

One should note that there is a vested interest in keeping this fact under wraps. If this becomes common knowledge, then the forthcoming switch from incandescent bulbs might be hindered or forced to skip the fluorescent standard and go straight to LED. This would be terrible for industry and their government cronies because they would only be able to profit from one cycle of government-mandated upgrades rather than 2. To maximize profitability, there must first be a switch from evil incandescent to virtuous fluorescent. Only after all profits are squeezed from that mass-exodus and laws firmly in place, can the evils of fluorescent be freely exposed, sparking the next step in our lumino-regulatory evolution... to LED bulbs.
Posted by frd1963
29th Nov
+1 Vote
+ -
Another alternative, which people probably like better, is halogen
It isn't nearly as energy efficient, but many stores are selling 43W halogen to replace 60W incandescent. They're the closest match to incandescent, and they cost less than CFL. They won't save nearly as much electricity, but they fulfill the letter of the law and I suspect will keep consumers happy. I have some CFL, some halogen, and one pretty nice LED bulb (dimmable, in a ceiling fan fixture), so I'm pretty happy with my options now. I don't think anyone would realize at first glance that the bulb is an LED, so I may buy more in the future, but I'll probably buy halogen to replace some of the CFLs when they go out. It really depends on what is available and how much money I feel like spending at the time.
Posted by AlanLaRue
29th Nov
+1 Vote
+ -
speaking of halogen
if you mean a filament style lamp, there is a Japanese patent that uses a incandescent bulb with a special optical coating that allows only visible and desirable radiation to pass, and reflects everything else back onto the filament, heating it further. The 'goal' is a incandescent lamp running only somewhat warm to the touch, and using far less energy because the unwanted IR and excessive red is focused back to further heat the filament. All the energy wasted by such IR emissions in a normal light bulb are therefore saved. I do not believe it is economically manufacturable at this time, but perhaps at some time it will be available.
Posted by opcom
Updated - 29th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
bulb
I read about the heat-reflective bulb many years ago, but never looked for them for sale. Japan was never mentioned in the article, though.
Posted by MagnetBoy
30th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
halogen
All my halogens are incandescent. Is there a new kind?
Posted by MagnetBoy
30th Nov
+3 Votes
+ -
Like refrigerants.
Oh the evil R-12!! everyone must go to R-134!! but it also is bad, however, its patents have not run out, I think. follow the money.
Posted by opcom
29th Nov
+3 Votes
+ -
Ditto frd1963
"This would be terrible for industry and their government cronies because they would only be able to profit from one cycle of government-mandated upgrades rather than 2. To maximize profitability, there must first be a switch from evil incandescent to virtuous fluorescent. Only after all profits are squeezed from that mass-exodus and laws firmly in place, can the evils of fluorescent be freely exposed, sparking the next step in our lumino-regulatory evolution... to LED bulbs."

There is a pattern to the madness and I'm guesing that they didn't want to be found out so soon.

Bravo for exposing it so clearly and convincingly.
Posted by NotSoTupeloHoney
30th Nov
+1 Vote
+ -
Question
"However, it does touch upon a point that most energy conservationists will stereotypically find interesting.... Fluorescent bulbs promote mercury pollution."

Does this include the CFLs we are currently buying?
Posted by NotSoTupeloHoney
30th Nov
+2 Votes
+ -
All CFL's currently contain mercury
See here: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls_mercury

Note that one justification for using mercury in the above link is "No mercury is released when the bulbs are intact or in use." Because no CFL will be 'in use' and 'intact' forever, this statement is mute.

Good question though. Most don't realize this, but don't worry, the media will be all over it once the switch the CFL's is complete wink
Posted by frd1963
Updated - 30th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
fluorescent
Yes, CFLs are fluorescent. Compact Fluorescent Light
Posted by MagnetBoy
30th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
I agree there was bait
but there was nothing there when the author tried to do the switch. Maybe his dog ate the article.
Posted by jwaustin
30th Nov
+2 Votes
+ -
Light placement
Light placement is just as important as lumens. Lighhting a building, so that it looks good outside is just waste. Providing minimum+ work lighting is what should be engineered. Ergonomics should be given more importance. Instead, little thought is given. Lights are placed where they can be best accommodated, and wattage increased because of poor placement.
Posted by 16Tons
29th Nov
+5 Votes
+ -
Immediate savings with LEDs
In our design office, we had to rely on halogen reflector bulbs because CFLs did not offer the color temperature or lighting punch that we needed to properly display our drawings. Six month's ago we switched all our halogen reflectors to Phillips LED reflectors for an immediate savings of 8% on our monthly electric bill. With LEDs, we were able to achieve all our criteria for color temperature and brilliance, not available with flourescents. Initial cost was high, but long range this was a very worthwhile move.
Posted by stan@...
29th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
A special case
I agree with your opinion. This special case, of high importance to the business, benefitted from a change of technology based on what spectrum was required.
Posted by opcom
Updated - 29th Nov
-1 Votes
+ -
re: Facts?
an anecdote which supports the assertion: I recently replaced a 200W 240V incandescent bulb with a 4ft 40W 240V fluorescent tube. The tube's ballast (an inductor in a steel box about 4" x 1" x 1", easily fitting in the hand) barely gets warm - judging by other devices I have which consume a watt or less and are essentially metal boxes around the same size as the ballast, I can say with some confidence that the ballast isn't wasting more than a watt. So the total power consumption is 41W or less. But the light is noticeably brighter than that emitted from the 200W bulb it replaced, and the room much better lit. Conclusion? more light, and 5x less power, so at least 5x more efficient. Compact fluorescents are not quite as efficient (light power out / electrical power in) as a long tube and ballast - the various manufacturers quote between 4 and 5x advantage over incandescents. And if LED manufacturers quote a similar advantage, there can be little difference, in efficiency terms, between a long fluorescent tube (as used in most office buildings) and an LED lamp. But the fluorescent tube is dirt cheap, and I've never known a ballast to fail..they last for many many years. Tubes fail, and tube starters fail, but both are cheap. I've had tubes from Osram which have lasted 20 years. My guess would be that LEDs don't quite match the performance of a tube, in fact, because the electronics required to drive the low-voltage LEDs from the high supply voltage is more complex and less efficient (consumes more power). An Electronic 'ballast' which is more efficient than a good single inductor would be an unusual and expensive beast. I've not quoted figures, but I'm a retired electronics engineer, so I do have some experience. My bet? Efficiency-wise, there's little difference, but the tube wins. Cost-wise, I've no doubt that over the normal building turnover/refurbishment times of a few to ten years or so, the tube wins hands down. Of course, the old-fashioned fluorescent tubes don't attract 'incentives', and these may be the only source of the advantage the suppliers claim.
Posted by RHambeau
29th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
Ballasts do go out
Not debating most of your post, but in my work area there are 13 florescent fixtures, and the ballasts have gone out on 2 of them this year, plus at least 1 went out the year before. The maintenance guy complains about them going out all over the building.

Of course, the true reliability of LEDs remains to be seen. There are an awful lot of traffic signals having groups of LEDs not lit within the matrix, which (because they are often sequential) I take to be a circuitry issue. To fix these issues requires replacing the whole assembly, which in the case of LED is expensive.
Posted by AlanLaRue
29th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
Ballasts do (or don't)
if that's what the maintenance guy says:
1) check for dampness esp. condensation, and hence internal corrosion, where they're sited. If they're always dry, there's very little reason they should fail (except bad manufacture).
2) don't just buy the cheapest. Select. Example: I can buy tubes made by companies who began their manufacturing in Holland or Germany (you can guess who). They last many years, in my experience. Or I can buy tubes made by a particular company in Hungary (I'll spare their embarrassment). They cost about a third as much in small quantities, but none have lasted more than two years, usually one. A false economy? That depends on how many you have. You will have at least one maintenance guy to pay. When you have enough lights to maintain, that he is spending all of his time fixing the lights and not getting around to other things that need fixing, and you need to hire another guy to help him, that's when you might think about the quality of the lights you're using.

Some (many) LED lamps, like traffic signals, have strings of LEDs in series - which allows higher voltage (and simpler) drive when compared with controlled current - and then a number of those strings in parallel to increase the light output. For each series string, just one diode failing puts the whole string out of commission, and that proportion of the lamp goes out. The mean-time-between-failures (MTBF, or MTTF) of a string of N diodes in 1/N th of the MTBF of a single diode. The overall reliability of 1000 LEDs is 1/1000th of the reliability of one, much less than at first sight. This applies to both series and parallel arrangements, of course, but in the parallel case, only one LED goes out, and you might be happy to live with that for a long time until too many have burned out - you define 'too many' to your taste.
Posted by RHambeau
29th Nov
+1 Vote
+ -
Conversion to low voltage
This is indeed a problem with LED bulbs. Incandescent and florescent lighting rely on high voltage to work; LEDs need low voltage and low current power to work. Adoption of LED bulbs seems to rely on using the Edison base instead of using LEDs in a more appropriate receptical.

I really do not understand the insistance on using the Edison base. When automobiles came out, they did not attempt to steer the vehicle with reins so that horse and buggy drivers did not have much to adapt. One does not need a buggy whip to make an engine run faster. The LEDs are small and to adapt to an Edison base means adding a power converter, an LED driver, a cooling system and the LED itself; all of which waste power and decrease the life of the LED because the form factor for all the parts has to be crammed into a small form the size of an incandescent bulb. CFL bulbs are florescent lighting systems crammed into a small size and I have not had one last more than 18 months.
Posted by sboverie
30th Nov
+1 Vote
+ -
Poor engineer's opinion
Go into a grocery store and look at their lights, fluorescent and spot lights. A modern store such as our local Safeway uses a lot of spot lights. Why is that? A: because attractive lighting sells products. If 5000K fluorescent tubes are used in the meat section, sales will tumble, because no smart shopper wants to buy rotten-looking meat. What's the cost of lost sales? Possibly many hundreds if not thousands of dollars a month. What's the cost of RUNNING a good spot light? About $1. So Mr. Cheap Engineer would install fluorescent tubes in the meat section and cosmetics section and liquor section and his employer will suffer untold losses in sales possible a thousand times more than the cost of of a good LED light fixture.

Additionally, grocery stores typically use the bare-bone fixtures for fluorescent tubes, two of them side by side. Let's see. Doesn't one tube partially block light from the other tubes, and 50% of the light go to the ceiling or the fixture with insignificant reflection. There you go. Optical efficiency of cheap fluorescent fixture is about 50-60%, plus efficacy of fluorescent tubes are about 70% that of LED. 0.5 x 0.7 = 0.35 or 35% energy efficiency of cheap fluorescent tube fixtures compared to just about any LED tube.

QED
Posted by ampman731
Updated - 30th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
Typical SP - insufficient detail.
Mark, you normally write so much better than this, what happened? Efficiency comparison is a math calculation. You can include the cost of energy, the cost of money for the initial purchase, you can calculate and compare maintenance costs, you can calculate the pay back period for any savings to offset the purchase costs, you can include other factors in this case such as the waste heat (additional AC costs or heating offsets - case specific) differences between LEDs, incandescent, and florescent transformers. To have written a meaningful article and fulfilled the barest minimum of journalistic responsibilities - you would have to include at least some of these calculations or report others who have. You did none Mark, while making "zippo" referenced, or factually supported statements . What you did do is maintain the occupancy of the bottom rung in journalistic media that the oxymoronic "Smart" Planet seems to relish.
Posted by dduggerbiocepts
29th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
Good Idea
I like the idea of using LED lighting, but the cost right now is still prohibitive when compared to fluorescent. With utility price incentives I can often get 23W CFL's for as little as 25 cents each in quantity. And although the claim for CFL's is 7 years of life, I have yet to see anything close to half that in my experience. I will probably switch some of my rental homes to 12V LED lighting in the future when I do some complete rehabs, but for right now the value to me is in the use of CFL's. As a vegan I don't like the idea of using a product that potentially harms the environment; on the other hand the CFL's are easily recycled and the harm somewhat negated. I do have some LED lighting in the form of flashlights, emergency lights, and nightlights which I find cost effective. But general home lighting for me is now a fluorescent proposition.

The work I do takes me into some gov't contractor companies that are now using the new T-5 fixtures as well as LED task lighting. So even when money isn't a factor, it seems that the commercial places where I do installs, is voting with a mix of fluorescent and LED.
Posted by dcr100@...
29th Nov
-1 Votes
+ -
harm to environment
Consider the hidden risks inherent in a plant that manufactures LEDs. extremely toxic chemcials, large amounts of water that must be purified, used, then cleaned and returned to the community supply, the residue from carbon ball pits used to catch and absorb plant drainages, filters, various cleaning-up refuse and 'messes' made with chemcials and materials. There are -far- worse things than Mercury in routine use. LEDs are made of.. Gallium and Arsenic. (right?) And many other things. I'm not saying the plants pollute, but that extreme measures are taken there for safety and cleanliness and it cost a lot of money to do it. As a carnivore I don't like the idea of throwing a product that potentially harms the environment into a trash can, but prefer to recycle it somehow. If we as users of technology were offered a way to recycle things like fluorescent lamps and LEDs - without cost to us -, that would be fine. They are not acceptable in the city-provided recycling 'trashcan' here. The city only wants 'recycleables' they can make money from like aluminum, glass, ironn, certain plastics. Their program is just a mask to hide a greedy face.
Posted by opcom
29th Nov
-2 Votes
+ -
For Real?
LEDs also pollute?

You focus on the clean-up during manufacture, but what about the mining and transport of the toxins to the manufacturer?

I don't want to be responsible for sending human beings into the Earth to satisfy my needs. And, the possibility of pollution on the front side may make LEDs an impossibility for me.

(I was looking just yesterday at a Phillips website that showed the starter set for $200 and a 3 - 4 month wait for delivery. Same wait for the $75 bulbs.

As for the starter set, when the 80 per cent savings calculations are made, does that include the electricity usage of the router?)
Posted by NotSoTupeloHoney
30th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
Phillips Hue is not normal LED lighting.
Perhaps you should read up on that 200.00 starter set. (Which is so popular that they are back ordered for 3 months)

http://www.meethue.com/en-US

ARS Technica did an extensive 3 page write up on those LEDs that is well worth reading.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/11/in-living-color-ars-reviews-the-hacker-approved-philips-hue-leds/

I was at Home Depot yesterday and they had Phillips LED lights for 23.00 a pop, no wait. But they were not the Hue lights that let you control 50 lights from your iPad or iPhone, but they were very good quality LED bulbs that fit in any standard (existing) socket.
Posted by i8thecat4
3rd Dec
-1 Votes
+ -
Same old thing I have been saying for years.
Fluorescent lamps are more efficient from wall plug to lumen. They do not rely on a narrow band gap for emission but emit over a broad spectrum due to a mix of gases and although they do use phosphor to make 'white' light, their methods seems more efficient than the 'white' LED method which uses a blue/UV -emitting die to excite a yellow phosphor and this can be seen under a microscope.

At one building, a new tennant removed all the high eficiency fluorescent fixtures and put in new LED ones, some 280+ of them. All the old fixtures, lamps and all, were stacked very carefully on the dock, a huge pile maybe 8x24 FT and 6 FT high. We thought they had arranged to sell them to a surplus company, but afterwards, every one of them was thrown into the construnction refuse dumpster with the wood and sheetrock and tin, paper, organic residue.. PFC electronic ballasts, lamps, aluminum diffusers, and all were totally wasted with no attempt to reclaim. In the end, the claim of electric savings was probably met only because the total lumens was reduced. This was suspected because the wattage and lumen information was printed on the LED fixture cartons. I was on that floor later and the light was not as bright as on the fluorescent floors. There are many 'corporate green initiatives' that come from engineer-less executive suites without consultation from anyone but those who are marketing the replacement products, and the building engineer, who doesn't care. They sound good when trumpeted publicly because executives need only parrot what the marketer's cheerful brochures said. These pitfalls could be avoided by trusting the company's internal engineers to evaluate vendors' solutions before agreeing to buy them. I have no dog in this fight, nor an official preference, because my masters produce for both types of emitters. I use all CFL at home and all T-style fluorescents in my workshop, except for a few specific incandescent requirements. I reserve LEDs for compact spot illunination and instrument lighting. I hope that as the efficiency of LEDs rises, that my complaints will all become obsolete, but I will have no objection to fluorescent lighting until there is a clear cost and efficiency advantage to LEDs.
Posted by opcom
29th Nov
+2 Votes
+ -
Legal
Disposing of the fluorescent tubes in a construction land fill is very illegal in many places. California especially.
Posted by UpstateNewYork
30th Nov
+3 Votes
+ -
Light Spectrum and source
Fluorescent lamps depend on the atomic 254 nm emission of gaseous mercury (or sometimes the 365 nm emission depending on a couple of factors like the amount of mercury in the tube), a much narrower band than the 450 nm of blue LEDs. Additionally, most fluorescent lamps spectra are EXTREMELY spiky, as the phosphors are based on the f-f transitions of the rare earth phosphors, see figure 2 http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/solar-at-home/2011/03/21/a-better-kind-of-lightbulb/. They achieve high efficacy by bunching photons around the peak of the photopic response curve, which typically results in poor color rendering. LED phosphors tend to be based d - f relaxations and give broader band spectra resulting in better color rendering, but fewer photons bunched around the human eye's brightness sweet spot.
Agreed that LED systems are currently neck in neck with efficacy of 4 ft tubes, however the ceiling for LEDs is significantly higher. Just compare the photon starting points (although it's not technically correct, I tend to look at electron volts and Stoke's shift for comparative efficiencies), 254 nm is about 4 eV, while 450 nm is a bit under 3 eV; assuming the same general visible output spectrum, and high quantum efficiency of down conversion, that means that at optimization a blue pumped LED will use 30% less energy than a fluorescent.
Many other factors, come into play, of course. Driver/Ballast efficiency, efficiency of creating the initial photon either in the diode or the mercury vapor, color temperature and CRI (or CQS) of the resultant spectra, and final fixture geometry to name a few.
Add into an ROI calculation that Stoke's shift is heat, and figure your HVAC costs... This is obviously more beneficial if you spend more on cooling than heating. happy
Posted by jonhockey
30th Nov
+1 Vote
+ -
Excellent info Jonhockey
Your short write-up beat the article's author by a miles. A keeper.
Posted by ampman731
30th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
heat
Good post. I Use all kinds, FL in very dry warm areas, LEDS anywhere the light will be on for long, and incandescent where heat is a plus - their heat output is 100% efficient and light is a nice side effect !
Posted by MagnetBoy
30th Nov
+4 Votes
+ -
Time Travel
--"And LEDs last longer - supposedly 25 years, although if anyone has ever operated one for 25 years, they would have had to enter a time machine, because LEDs havent been around that long."

I guess I have traveled in time, since I remember as a kid using L.E.D.'s when I was building Radio Shack kits.
They were invented in the 60's and the underlying tech hasn't changed that much.
Posted by Ninram
Updated - 30th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
Long Lasting LEDs
Agreed.
Posted by RanaKabir
30th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
Old LEDs
Manufacturers have made great steps in improving the luminosity of LEDs since the 60's. LEDs used to be (some still are) measured in millicandelas; a unit of candela is equal to the brightness of a candle. Brighter LEDs are rated in lumens and are compared to incandescent and florescent lights.

The best place to see the improvement in LEDs is with LED flashlights with a single LED and compare that with a similar incandescent flash light of similar size. The range of colors for LEDs is much wider from reds, greens, yellows, blues and whites than were available 40 years ago.
Posted by sboverie
30th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
Complex issue
First: "Incandescent bulbs will last 25 months. LEDs will last 25 years. CFLs should last about 5 or 6 years years. Florescent straight long-tubes will last about 15 to 17 years."

Incandescents can and do last longer, my experiance with LED decoration light strings is that they fail 50% in 10 months. CFL's might last--if you can keep them from being in lamps easily tipped...they break every bit as easily as an incandenscent at many times the cost. Straight-tube florescents also vary but you can expect 4,000 hours before substantial decrease in light output.

In any particular application, things like: are you installing new fixtures in a new environment, replacing fixtures that exist, the cost of power, the incentives for using one technology over another, the purpose of the lighting (low-pressure sodium is fantastically effcient--but no one wants to work under it.) Environmental costs and many other factors.

If I can purchase used long-tube florescents for a couple dollars a fixture, it will be difficult to find anything else as cost-efficent.

Power costs and material scarcities, both of which are largely artificial manipulations designed to create profit from artificial scarcities, as well as social incentives greatly affect cost-benefit ratios.

We do not live in a world of scarcity. We have not lived in such a world for decades.

The era of scarcity ended with achievement of the ability to travel into the Solar System...which opened the capability to harvest 10,000 times our entire civilization's energy use every hour (or more,) in orbit and transmit it for use to the ground.

All scarcities since 1980 and most since 1890 have been artificially created to retain power and control over society.

Had we begun building orbital solar power collectors in 1975 when proven feasible, the USA could now be generating all of our power plus exports without the use of an ounce of coal, oil, gas or other burnable fuels.

That we have not done so is due to the greed of our leadership, and in particular their infantile need for 'control' over other people.
Posted by wizoddg
30th Nov
+2 Votes
+ -
LED Failure Points
LED "failure" is mostly due to supporting component failure and NOT the actual LED itself. Actual LED failure, while less common, is mostly due to thermal or current runaway due to very poorly designed power supply along with very poorly designed heat sinking. The LED itself is a very robust device that can last decades. I have proven this in my research. Read my full post below.
Posted by RanaKabir
30th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
MTBF
MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure) is a complex subject. If you have 10 components each with an expected life of 25 years, then you have a real life expectancy of less than 3 years.

This is true for all lighting systems, and for other systems as well. Your computer has several hundred electronic components each with an expected life span of around a thousand years. The result is that you can expect 3 years of life out of it.

Real numbers for light sources are:
Incandescent, around 3 months
Quartz Halogen, around 2 years
Floursecent lamps (t-35 bulbs) around 2 years
Metal Halide Arc Lamps around 4 years
High Pressure sodium Lamps around 5 years.

For the Arc lamps and the fluorescent lamps, the lamps normally last longer, but, they are replaced as the light output falls.

Lamps and ballasts will also be replaced as failures occur. They don't all fail at the end of the period. It's more like a half life. Expect to replace a couple every week in a typical office. LEDs will be the same. The average life may be 25 years for the LED, but, there is more in there. Expect to replace a real 25 year system with 300 fixtures, at about one fixture every two weeks or so.
Posted by YetAnotherBob
6th Dec
0 Votes
+ -
You had me going there for a second.
I almost swallowed the hook until I started paragraph eight. You failed to define 'travel into the solar system' and I can do that by leaving my front door. My nth great-grandfather could do it by leaving the cave after checking for sabre-toothed tigers.

You also forget the special case of Occam's Razor known as Hanlon's Razor.
Posted by jwaustin
30th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
Total Cost of Ownership model requires reduction in supply
I think that use of energy efficient devices that reduce the demand for electricity is a critical element of improving the total cost of ownership of the entire system. That reduction in demand MUST be matched with a reduction in supply to make the system more efficient. If there is less usage (reduced demand) without reducing capacity (less supply), eventually rates will rise to cover fixed costs, and the "savings" of energy efficiency will be lost. The reduction in the total demand and supply of energy through the conventional energy grid must be the objective.
Posted by karwac
30th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
Real Systems
In real systems, the demand goes up. The energy savings made in lighting will be used somewhere else. The same thing goes for savings in newer and more efficient HVAC systems. Your demand might go down, until you buy some new process equipment, or a new more powerful data center, then it goes up. but, even if your demand goes down, your neighbors will be increasing their demand.

With nations like Germany shelving their Nuclear generating capacity and replacing it with coal (with a few windmills thrown in for political reasons), expect to have shortages of power, not a surplus. The problem will not be an excess of capacity, it will be from brownouts and outright blackouts.
Posted by YetAnotherBob
6th Dec
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!