Discussion on:

LED street lights: How much energy is actually saved?

For consumers, failure rates don't matter as much when the cost of labor is the price paid for getting off the couch and replacing lamps.

For commercial and government, labor is a huge cost, and most of the lights that require replacing also require a ladder or a power lift. It's a no-brainer.

The relatively low failure rate was reassuring but what was the ROI? Moreover, before we widely adopt LED lighting it would be helpful to address the potential biological effects: http://www.greenprophet.com/2011/09/led-light-pollution/#

What are the results of a CBA? How much does a city have to pay to install each LED.

The energy savings and the replacement lamp savings should be significant. Unless this is balanced against the cost of installing the LED in the first place, and scrapping the old lamps, the savings data is useless.

I paid $5,000 for a new HE central A/C, new ducts, and new attic insulation in my home. Then I paid $18,000 for new radiant barrier, siding, doors, and windows.

My peak electric usage in the summer dropped by about 45%, saving me about $90 a month for four months a year, and much less than that during sub 90 degree months. All in all I reduced my electical usage by about 6,000 KwH a year, or about $600 or so. I spent $23,000 and save $600 a year in energy costs. The ROI? Never.

However, the benefits of a much more comforable home are incalculable. And, since the costs have been paid, I do reap a benefit of $600 a year lower cost of living. I'm just out the twenty-four G's.

I sure don't want my city to operate that way, unless they follow the same plan... I raised the $24,000 by spending less in other places, not by confiscating money from other people.

How much time and money is needed, if any, to convert the equipment?
This is one of the biggest factors right here. There is a far different cost
if it is a matter of plugging in a new bulb vs rewiring and the like.

Cost of new bulb vs cost of changing the old bulbs.
It takes a certain amount of time to have an employee change the bulbs.
If you are able to do the same job with far less people, this adds up fast.

This is assuming, of course, that new bulbs do at least as good a job as the old
ones. There are problems that will have to be addressed later on regarding
disposal and recycling. The old bulbs are just glass and wire. The new bulbs
contain elements that are potentially toxic, like mercury.

Fluorescent and Energy saving CF (compact fluorescent) bulbs do. You're a little confused. Please try and keep up.

If batteries in the pole and integrated solar panels are added, you will have a winner. Installation would be faster and the recovered copper from the old AC feeds would help offset the costs.

The report talked about (and also linked) in the article above examined pilot projects, and makes the case for the economic sense of converting to LEDs. Among important points it considers is that LED lights will increase in efficiency, and decrease in price, at least over the next several years.

Most large and medium sized cities run pilot projects to test how such a change would work for them - what real energy savings there are, relative ease of conversion, cost of maintenance and disposal. Most responsible managers of cities, especially now in times of budget cutbacks, phase-in such installations only after a pilot study, and usually as part of standard equipment replacement. Even so, you might take the report itself with a grain of salt: it was sponsored by Phillips and HSBC.

One aspect of upgrading lighting seldom considered is to reduce light spill both into the sky above, into adjacent housing, and into the urban habitats of birds and other animals. I don't think, however (as a previous commenter suggested) that LED street lighting would cause additional negative health effects. We're exposed to street lighting only briefly, and usually indirectly, and in nowhere near the intensity of daylight.

LED traffic lights had a fatal flaw when first installed in cold weather states.

Traditional incandescent bulbs did not ice up in snow storms. LED lights run cooler and froze over with ice and snow. Thousands of accidents happened nation wide before the problem was identified.

LED traffic lights now have thermostat controlled heaters installed when used in cold weather climates. LED streetlights have the same problem with snow and ice buildup.

When people quote the power savings of LED lights for traffic and streetlights they neglect to include the power used by the heaters. Best case, the savings are minimal when the heaters are installed. In some cases the net power used is actually higher than an incandescent bulb.

The installation is also more complex and more prone to failure making the traffic lights less reliable.

It was mentioned that a flaw of LED lighting was that it was so cool when running that it would allow snow to build up. Well, that may be true but I really like the LED light I used to replaced my mini fluorescent that was supposed to save the world. The fluorescent really did not like cold weather, it would start after a protracted period and then run dimly. The Phillips LED light I put in ($19.95 on special) goes on immediately. No cold weather problems here any more. Something else to realize is that LED lighting is great stuff but is still in its infancy, there are some fantastic upgrades to that coming along and prices are expected to drop. Looking forward to all of that.

You have made a good research on the actual saving of the government with led lights
Led lights are best found alternative source for the old energy consuming lights, they last long as they have a better working life about 50000 hrs much better than old forms also they do not harm environment and are available in many colors as Red, Green, Blue, White etc. Though led lights posses the good number of positive qualities, the most efficient lighting suffer a big set back with respect to prices, prices of these lights are quite high which makes it set back, though the prices are on fallling range (i.e, gradually falling) yet they are more expensive. Led Tube Light are also expensive for installing and this is the main reason why led lights are not popular yet.

LED Lights has a low power consumption and long and predictable lifetime.The lifetime of LED street lights is usually 10 to 15 years, three times the life of current technologies adopted. LEDs also have low maintenance cost.

It is always good to use LED lights instead of the normal lights that is being offered in the market.For which it has great attributes that is good for the environment and it saves a lot. It is very efficient that should be use for normal consumption. But with this, we should bear in mind that we can get good quality LED lamps and lights from reliable manufacturers such as BAI LED Lights that we can have transaction online. With their great devotion for giving world class products, they can give you excellent results.

I think

LED Street Lights can save much more than normal lights. LED lighting will eventually sell itself. The biggest problem is the cost, as costs continue to come down, they will eventually overtake every other form of lighting.

I think LED Street Lights can save much more than normal lights. LED lighting will eventually sell itself. The biggest problem is the cost, as costs continue to come down, they will eventually overtake every other form of lighting. This is the best way to conserve electricity.