By Andrew Nusca
Posting in Cities
On the heels of GE's announcement of a 40-watt LED light bulb, Philips has announced that it will begin selling a 60-watt model by the end of the year.
On the heels of an announcement by General Electric of a 40-watt-equivalent LED light bulb, Philips has announced that it will begin selling a 60-watt model by the end of the year.
The company's new light-emitting diode bulb actually draws 12 watts, three watts more than GE's model, but delivers the equivalent of another 20 watts in equivalent light, for a total of 806 lumens.
Philips is the largest lighting manufacturer in the world.
The new bulb, which will be a part of the MASTER LED lamps line, doesn't last as long as GE's new bulb, which claims a 17-year-lifespan. Philips didn't indicate the exact figure for the lifespan of its new bulb.
Nor did the company disclose a price for the bulb, which is perhaps the only major hurdle LED light bulbs face for mass adoption. GE's 40-watt bulb is forecast to sell for $40 to $50. A rival 60-watt bulb by Panasonic will sell for $50 to $60.
As SmartPlanet readers indicated in the comments on the GE post, cost is a serious issue, and LED bulbs are simply way too expensive for adoption -- to the tune of five times as much, in fact.
Unlike the GE model, Philips's new bulb is dimmable and emits a "warm white light," rather than the usual bluish glow of LEDs or the signature greenish tinge of fluorescent bulbs.
The company is also developing a home lighting system called LivingAmbiance that could offer customizable settings, such as color variation. (Now that's one smart bulb.)
But as impractical as current LED bulbs are for the home, they're a bigger value for municipalities. If cities and towns can install light bulbs in street lights that save money and need to be changed less often, that could make a world of difference on the balance sheet.
Philips said it plans to later introduce long-lasting LEDs for applications like this, in an effort to develop "more livable" cities.
"Lifestyles are changing, urbanization is presenting new challenges for city leaders, and society in general is more environmentally aware," Philips Lighting CEO Rudy Provoost said in prepared remarks. "We are applying the functional and creative potential of LED lighting to address these trends, and to simply enhance life with light."
Apr 14, 2010
I own New Mexico LED and get my bulbs from China. I have a 12 watt LED bulb that has the industry standard of 800 lumens and I sell mine for $36.00 and it looks like a standard bulb and wonder why I haven't ever been involved in this war? I could kill a giant in it.
Do the math, LED light bulbs do save a lot of money. Assuming 17 years is 50,000 hours, a LED light bulb will outlast 33 1500 hour incandescent bulbs. At $3.00 each that's $99 vs $60 for the LED bulb. During those 50,000 hours the incandescent bulb operating cost would be: $0.08kwh /1000 x 60W x 50,000hrs = $240. The LEDs cost $0.08/1000 x 12w x 50,000hrs = $48. Total saving= $99 + $240 - $60 - $48 = $231 Governments saves even more because they factor in the cost of labor. Of course you have to know how many civil servants it takes to replace a light bulb. ( Just joking)
?Lifestyles are changing, urbanization is presenting new challenges for city leaders, and society in general is more environmentally aware.? It's correct, our LED lighting become more porpular in the market.http://www.fosintl.com/
There have changed all light in one of their parking houses, and have done some calculation and will have earned the investment back in about 4.5 years, in saved electric bill (now 65% and with motion sensors 80%, but light is still increased by 10%) AND less manual work changinfluorescent tubes each second year. They calculate that they don't need to do any major change in 10 years. (Short information in english) http://www.arlanda.se/en/Information--services-to/Press/Press- releases/Swedens-largest-installation-of-energy-efficient-lighting- now-complete-at-Stockholm-Arlanda/ (Swedish, use Google translate if you don't understand swedish, it has very good technical information) http://miljoaktuellt.idg.se/2.1845/1.308371/kampen-ar-over-- lysdioderna-vann? utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+SenasteNyttF rnMiljaktuellt+(MA:+Senaste+nytt+fr?n+Milj?aktuellt)
LED is the latest generation illumination technology which will take the place of incandescent lamp and common energy conservation lamp within 2 years. It is high-effect energy conservation, low-power consumption, high illumination and extra-long lifespan. Our LED bulbs are of high quality and reasonable price, perfect replacement for you to upgrade your lighting. Want to know more information?Login in http?//www.lightuplife.com
philips seem to take a long time to bring new lamps to the table because they run lots of tests to ensure they are up to standard. I have used other LED makes in my hotel and they fail and just don't feel as well made as the philips ones. and they will pay for them selves not as quickly as CFL but I am doing a lot less lamp changes so its good all round and the prices will come down
dclhacker - it doesn't matter HOW good something is if people can't afford it!! And for the government to use such forceful tactics as "outlawing" something is the height of "thug politics". Remember how well "outlawing" liquor in Prohibition worked? IT DIDN'T!!
Wow, JTF243. How did you manage to find your way onto SMARTplanet with bigoted comments like that? @Suncat2000: you said "Not because LEDs are better for the environment, not because they are more economical to operate, not because they produce less heat, but because of politics." The reason the laws are there are because non-incandescent bulbs ARE better for the environment, more economical to operate over the longterm, and DO produce less heat. The law is to incent people and companies get over the up-front cost in order to realize the longterm savings. Otherwise, short-sighted people will continue to buy the 50? incandescent bulbs, wasting electricity, filling landfills, and wasting manufacturing costs by having to produce 10x or more of the same product. You may not believe it, but sometimes the governments DO know what they're doing.
Lots of lesser-known companies have LED lights, some of which make GE's and Phillips' offerings look pathetic. EarthLED has a bulb equivalent to a 100 watt incandescent, with a 50,000 hr. lifespan - and they just reduced the price to $49.99. At average electric rates, it could pay for itself in 2 years. The main weakness of LEDs is, they need to be behind a surge protector - they are electronic, after all, one power surge and all your expensive LED lamps could be junk. But really, with all the electronics in everything these days we should all be installing whole house surge protectors anyway.
PMPCSM said: "If the LED bulb is not cost effective for home use, how can it be cost effective for a city to use to light streets?" Because the governments don't have to worry about costs. They just raise OUR taxes and spend them how THEY want!
If you were to fill a home with lamps at this price, thieves will break in just to steal your light bulbs.
There isn't enough demand to drive down the price. I know there are ways to make LED matrices without the expensive complicated circuitry (I knew a guy who just put a bunch in parallel with some resisters, I think its still running, that was over ten years ago, though it cost over a hundred dollars at the time) Anyone saying that they cannot replace on bulb for $40 once a year is either waaay below poverty or living beyond their fiscal means. Its not just the price of the bulb to consider. Its the price of electricity, and a whole if we reduce consumption the supply/demand will drive the price of electricity down. And if your a "greenie" allow for greener methods of energy production (because people will be able to easier afford it). I'm not a "greenie", all my reasons are economic.
60W is nothing, where is 80 and 100W alternatives ?! If it can last for at least 10 years and be 80/100W equivalents, I'm willing to pay $50 for it.
With the government mandate to make incandescent light bulbs illegal, companies like GE and Phillips are in a position to make a killing at the expense of US citizens. Not because LEDs are better for the environment, not because they are more economical to operate, not because they produce less heat, but because of politics. I would be more than happy to switch to LEDs...when they become affordable and bright enough. For $40, assuming one incandescent bulb lasts only a year, I can buy a 40-year supply. Doubling my cost for an LED equivalent is senseless. Or maybe it does make sense: 40-watt light bulbs don't get used because they don't put out enough light, so it practically guarantees you'll never have to replace it. Brilliant! Seriously, cost will prohibit LED residential use until the government dictates you have no other choice.
Getting an LED bulb to be dimmable is a big deal. Using 120 vac to power an LED light bulb is overkill. Most of the cost of the LED bulb is the electronics to convert ac to low power DC for the LEDs. The LED industry has made a huge change in brightness of LEDs in the last decade. There are also color combination LED modules that can produce a wide range of colors for decorative lighting. The cost of LEDs will go down as the use of LEDs become even more ubiquitous. Incandescent light bulbs are going to be phased out and there are other lighting technologies working to be replacements for incandescent lighting. LEDs with low power consumption and longer life have an excellent potential to reduce energy costs and illuminate the environment more efficiently.
Why would I want to dim a 806 lumen bulb? It's slightly dimmer than an already dim 60 watt incandescent bulb. Presumably this is a proof-of-concept product as noone will consider installing arrays of these for economic reasons at their likely price.
If the LED bulb is not cost effective for home use, how can it be cost effective for a city to use to light streets?