Panasonic's New LED Bulbs Shine For 19 Years 710
Mike writes "As lighting manufacturers phase out the incandescent bulb, and CFLs look set to define the future of lighting, Panasonic recently unveiled a remarkable 60-watt household LED bulb that they claim can last up to 19 years (if used 5-1/2 hours a day). With a lifespan 40 times longer than their incandescent counterparts, Panasonic's new EverLed bulbs are the most efficient LEDs ever to be produced. They are set to debut in Japan on October 21st. Let's hope that as the technology is refined their significant cost barrier will drop — $40 still seems pretty pricey for a light bulb, even one that promises to save $23 a year in energy costs."
But still... (Score:2, Insightful)
incandescents have the advantage of putting off a lot of heat, if you're going to use one as a cheap heat lamp and light provider.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:But still... (Score:4, Insightful)
So incandescent bulbs are a bad thing in most of the world for about a third of the year (summer) and in some of the world most of the year. If you happen to be running air-conditioning at the same time as an incandescent bulb, you're just pumping money out of the window.
Not to mention the fact that having a heat source 6 inches from your ceiling is generally not the most efficient way to heat a room. It makes far more sense to save the energy wasted from the bulb, and spend it in an efficient central heating system instead, where strategically placed radiators and vents can put the heat where it's actually needed.
Re:But still... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:But still... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:But still... (Score:4, Insightful)
Canceled out? Please review how subtraction works. You mean reduced, not cancelled.
If you replace your incandescents by CFL's or LED's you'll produce less heat from your lighting, so in winter you'll need to run the heater more. However the total electricity use will be the same.
In summer (summer being defined as the months, weeks or days the heating is not being run) the heat from the incandescent will be wasted, and if you have air conditioning will make your air conditioning run harder.
Things will get better if you dump your electric heaters. They are expensive and there are shitloads of better systems available.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You save nothing on your heating bill. You just don't LOSE money from the heat provided. There's a big goddamn difference in those two concepts. Generally speaking, you'd spend the same amount of electricity if you are heating your home regardless if you used LED or Incandescent. If the temperature is comfortable outside and inside, you are wasting money heating your home by a small amount. If you are using AC, you are wasting money at TWICE the rate.
Re:But still... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But still... (Score:5, Funny)
If you are using AC, you are wasting money at TWICE the rate.
Note to self: never post AC. Too expensive.
Re:But still... (Score:4, Insightful)
Wah? You're losing me here.
Using silly made up numbers, assuming conservation of energy and double entry book-keeping:
With incandescents in winter:
In winter your heating bill is, say, $100.
Your lighting bill is, say, $100. $90 of that is heat, $10 is light.
So your electricity bill is $200, $190 for heat and $10 for light.
With CFL or LED or whatever in winter:
Your heating bill is now $190 ('cos the CFL/LED is not giving you the heat it used to)
Your lighting bill is now $10.
So your electricity bill is $200, $190 for heat and $10 for light.
In summer, with incandescents, your lighting bill is $100 and your air conditioning bill is $190.
In summer with CFL/LED's your lighting bill is $10 and your air conditioning bill is $100.
Like I said, silly made up numbers, and you can possibly correctly claim:
But that has nothing to do with your initial claim that the heating effect of incandescent bulbs in winter canceled out their electricity savings all year round.
Wah? You said you had electric heat! Is electricity cheaper than fuel oil in New England?
But it's so easy to get a low rate loan to buy, and property is such a great investment!
Re:But still... (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that if you're using a heat pump vs resistance heating, the unit's SEER value comes into play. My units are SEER 13, so every unit of energy it takes to run the beast pumps 13 units of heat around.
So using incandescent lights for heat actually wastes money - that Watt going into the bulb could be used to provide 13 Watts of heat instead of just 1 (0.9, actually).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Heat pumps don't work in colder environments which, coincidentally, are also, usually, the places with the longest winters and shortest summers. In the warmer environments where a heat pump would be usable, the long summers would make much of the argument moot as the extra heat from the incandescent would be unwanted most of the year.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If the cost of lighting your house is $90.00 for lighting only, please stop trying to replicate the surface of the sun lighting conditions in your home.
running 10- 60 watt bulbs 24/7 for 1 month costs LESS than $50.00 US. most lights are on for less than 3 hours at a time on average.
$90.00 for lighting only is so absurd for a home it's silly.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I hear you can, dramatically, increase the energy efficiency if you re-route the furnace exhaust back into the house. ;-)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yup. A halogen desk lamp makes a great accessory during Winter. It is more efficient than using a CFL and oil heating. I don't typically need to warm up my whole office, just the place I sit. The light also looks better than CFLs, or even regular incandescent bulbs. And halogen lamps are both hotter and 40% more efficient than regular incandescent bulbs.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Where I live the norm is to have thermostatically controlled gas central heating. Also the difference between summer and winter daylight hours is significant. Air conditioning is extremely rare in domestic properties anywhere in the U.K.
This means in the summer I hardly use artificial lighting, until late at night where the heat output of an incandescent light bulb can make a noticeable difference in taking the late night chill off a room.
In the autumn and winter, I have the central heating on when it is da
Re:But still... (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously I don't know nearly enough about your situation to advise you, but I am not persuaded that heat produced due to inefficiency of lightbulbs or other devices is an economical source of heating.
Re:But still... (Score:4, Interesting)
Your gas central heating is a much cheaper way to heat your house compared to incandescent bulbs.
Electricity is about 10-14p/kWh, and gas about 3p/kWh. Even with old heating it's still cheaper; my new condensing boiler is 85% efficient and was probably quite cheap (I rent, and everything else in the flat looks cheap), yours may well be even better.
I agree extra insulation is much more useful though. I'd like to see the government take the Green Party's economy-stimulation suggestion up: subsidise adding insulation to houses. Some incentive for landlords to add insulation would be good too, but I think this might happen with the home rating thing.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Me too. I've been using CFL's for almost twenty years, and I've come to the conclusion that they are a worse idea that using Edison's incandescent lighting. Here's why:
- CFLs have a power factor of around 0.5, which means they use twice as much power as rated. For example a 15 watt CFL uses 15 watts in your home, but then it uses another 15 watts at the central power plant due to the need to "rebalance" the power and restore the PF to 1.0. TOTAL == 30 volt-amps burned
- New technologies have allowed folk
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:But still... (Score:5, Insightful)
- CFLs have a power factor of around 0.5, which means they use twice as much power as rated. For example a 15 watt CFL uses 15 watts in your home, but then it uses another 15 watts at the central power plant due to the need to "rebalance" the power and restore the PF to 1.0. TOTAL == 30 volt-amps burned
Except that the power company puts PF correction in far sooner than the power plant, and while it doubles the amps for wire resistance calculations(until it hits the power company's correction equipment), it actually doesn't double the wattage used. More like 5-10%. They build PFC in pretty much as standard on high quality high efficiency computer power supplies, why would you think the power company couldn't do the same? And there are better bulbs out there with active PFC.
- New technologies have allowed folks like GE to build 60 watt incandescants that only use 30 watts while still providing the same brightness. So the net usage is the same as the CFL. No need to abandon the old bulbs.
Neat tech, but like I said, a 15 watt bulb with a PF of .5 doesn't mean it's using 30 watts. So the CFL still has a leg up of aobut 50% more light per watt than the new higher efficiency bulbs.
- CFLs *hate* heat. CFLs hate cold. CFLs hate humidity. CFLs hate dimmers.
I have CFLS in my unheated north dakota garage. the 12 watters start a little slower in the winter, but are still going strong. I have a 23 watt(100watt equiv) in my bathroom. It's been there for over a year, hasn't quit yet. Not instant full brightness - but I like that for those midnight trips. I don't have a dimmer in my house, but it's a five minute job to swap the dimmer out with a CFL compatible one(remember to get a dimmable CFL).
It sounds like you're buying cheap bulbs, and your dimmer is probably the old resistance type, not the newer electronic pulse type.
- CFLs hate being turned on and off. Rapid cycling makes them die as quick as an incandescent bulb. So you've spent 5 times as much for a bulb than doesn't last any longer.
In 6 years the only CFL to die on me was from being dropped.
- CFLs have a warm-up time. Turn it on to read your paper, and you have to wait 5 minutes before you can see the writing. Turn it on to go down the basement stairs - and you can't see the steps because it's still too dim (a safety hazard).
For me it takes longer for my eyes to adjust to the new light level, open the book/paper, whatever. The 100 watt equivalent in the bathroom has the longest start-up time, and even it is pretty much instant on, just at ~40-60 watt equivalnet for the first 10 seconds.
If the stairs are too dim, put in a brighter bulb. Heck, I wonder where people like you are getting your slow starting CFLs from, because none of mine take that long. I have two incandescent bulbs left in closets, and the only reason they aren't CFLs yet is because they haven't died, and I use them too little to bother.
I use a mix of GE and Sylvania bulbs, what are yours?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I have
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not to dismiss your other arguments, but I work in lighting, specifically in designing test hardware for LED lights that run off commercially available dimmer switches, and I've spent years renovating houses, and I have never seen a resistance-type dimmer switch. The way a resistance dimmer would work, would be to dissipate the power through resistance in the wall, meaning
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
t doesn't matter. The point is that a 15 watt CFL is actually using 30 volt-amps, so it's only saving half as much energy as a 60 volt-amp traditional bulb
I'm a triple-degreed electrical engineer. Not an idiot.
You're a triple-degreed EE who doesn't know how power factor [wikipedia.org] works, and yes that does make you an idiot. Idiots can get degrees, who would have thought?! If you didn't have the degrees, then you'd just be excusably ignorant (but in either case a jackass for talking like you weren't ignorant).
Cluepho
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
CFLs have a warm-up time. Turn it on to read your paper, and you have to wait 5 minutes before you can see the writing
1990 called.. it wants its CFLs back. Have you *really* actually used them or are you just making stuff up?
I hear that on Slashdot a lot, and it's bunk. I've had the whole house on CFLs for years now and they light *instantly*. The only time I ever had one that needed to 'warm up' was one of the original Philips ones years ago.
So you've spent 5 times as much for a bulb than doesn't last a
ROI (Score:5, Insightful)
$40 still seems pretty pricey for a light bulb,
one that saves 23$ a year, which lasts a whopping 19 years ? yup, some people are stupid.
Re:ROI (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:ROI (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:ROI (Score:5, Informative)
I have only CFL's in my house. not one of them has broken since i moved in in june last year. 3 of those i brought with me from my previous house, which i have i used there for nearly 5 years.
Re:ROI (Score:5, Interesting)
CFLs in my house have died within a year: the ones installed in the bathroom and kitchen. They don't like the humidity and heat which is why I'm not surprised. The others have lasted since Feb 2007. Brands don't seem to matter.
Re:ROI (Score:5, Funny)
Brands don't seem to matter.
If decades have mottos, that should be the motto of the "00s".
Since everything comes from the same factory in China, brands no longer matter.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I swear to God if anybody does that to me when I'm moving into the house they've sold, I'm turning up
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:ROI (Score:4, Informative)
Re:ROI (Score:4, Interesting)
(What I would do if swapping to LED bulbs would be to put the bulbs I take out in a box somewhere and reinstate them when leaving.)
Yeah I would put cheap globes in too. On a different but related note I have a relative who, when he inspected a house he was buying would hide items which he wanted to own, then retrieve them after taking the place over.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't use the cheap rubbish your electricity company sent you. Get some decent ones, and you will find they light up a lot quicker.
Re: (Score:2)
I have only CFL's in my house.
Do you spend the first two minutes after entering a room and turning on the lights, blundering around and bumping into things?
15 years ago I could have done, only, not really. Not in the last 10 years though, and not even with the £1 Asda bulbs in the last 5 years.
Oh well, when my incandescents blow, I'll be in the same boat, thanks to EU law.
Before blaming the EU for everything, perhaps check how the UK MEPs voted.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Don't buy bulbs from IKEA... I have no idea how they make their bulbs so shit, but honestly, they are.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes there is, the manufacture and importation of incandescent lightbulbs at 100W and over into the E.U. is now illegal.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I've yet to have the spiral CCFLs last over 1.5 years.
Same here. They can last that long in theory, but the ballasts go dead in a year or two. If a LED works like it should, it will be ballast-free and actually last until the thing burns itself to a crisp inside.(ie - failure from wearing out vs defect)
Also, don't underestimate the benefit to the utility companies which have to generate extra power for CF bulbs vs other technologies. Less load means less brownouts and so on. If these are full-wave, in f
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I bought my first CFLs back in 2001 (six of them). All but one is still working. One, I had in a portable work light, and I busted it transporting it. The others survived a move to my new house in 2005.
As soon as the builders cheap incandescent lights began burning out (in 2006), I bought replacements for ALL non-dimmer lights in my house (mostly in bathrooms), about 25 bulbs. While not all of them are in use every day, every one of them is still working.
So I am well above your 1.5 estimate with a sampl
Re:ROI (Score:4, Interesting)
In a lamp test by a Finnish magazine the 3 EUR fluorescent lamp died at 3000 hours. The more expensive ones are still going on but starting to show longer warming times, stains/cracks and other problems. In addition to these problems fluorescents are hazardous waste and should be recycled. At 10x longer lifespan the LED light sounds like a good deal to me.
Re:ROI (Score:5, Informative)
The bulb in TFA (I know, I know... but it wasn't in TFS) is rated 6.9w consumption, and is presumably the 60w-equivalent referenced in the summary. Most "60w" CFLs take around 12-15w if memory serves - so these LED bulbs are about twice as efficient. Save $23/yr for 19 years vs $12/yr for 5 years (you say 10, but they're usually rated to five and I've almost never seen one last more than two; they seem very sensitive to older wiring). It pays for itself in less than two years compared to an incandescent, and in four compared to a CFL.
Of course, that's all assuming they actually last that long. I don't doubt the power consumption ratings, but as I said I've never seen a CFL last anywhere near it's rated life. My understanding is that they have a limited number of starts due to the ignition ballast (which is external to the bulb in standard fluorescent tubes); I'd assume that if you have older wiring or other factors that may cause frequent power sags you'll burn through those starts unusually fast. That seems to be the case at my house, or would at least make some degree of sense to me. I could be dead wrong about the reasoning, but CFLs unquestionably die faster than incandescent bulbs around here. Hopefully this isn't an issue with LED bulbs.
Re: (Score:2)
I bought some cheap (£2, 1W, 30W equivalent) LED bulbs. They claim to last 15000 hours, after that long the box says they'll keep working, but won't be as bright.
Re: (Score:2)
In theory LEDs don't care about how many times they are switched. Normal LEDs are dimmed by adjusting the PWM - they are switched thousands of times per second - this is more efficient than simply using a bigger series resistor.
I say "in theory" because these LEDs could be different to "normal" LEDs. (Driver circuitry etc)
Re: (Score:2)
The issue with LED bulbs is that they fade when they get older.
Look at the LEDs on your keyboard. If you are like most people with a desktop machine, the num lock is on all the time, and you never use the scroll lock. Even after a year, the scroll lock light will be about twice as bright as the num lock light.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Light bulb as a service (Score:5, Informative)
till you break them and contaminate the room in mercury. Professional remediation is about $3000.
You forgot to finish your thought with "if you compeletely and unjustifiably overreact.
Re:Light bulb as a service (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Light bulb as a service (Score:4, Informative)
"Mercury concentration in the study room air often exceeds the Maine Ambient Air Guideline (MAAG) of 300 nanograms per cubic meter (ng/m3) for some period of time, with short excursions over 25,000 ng/m3, sometimes over 50,000 ng/m3, and possibly over 100,000 ng/m3 from the breakage of a single compact fluorescent lamp. "
study [maine.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
The question is not whether the amount exceeds the standards set by the government (they are almost guaranteed to), but whether the amount actually absorbed into the body through the lungs is even near the amount absorbed by eating a piece of tuna. I don't have supporting evidence, but I would be willing to bet the tuna would lead to much more absorption. My main reason for guessing this is that the mercury in tuna is in organic compounds which are more likely to be absorbed than elementary mercury. It also
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. I've broken the bulb, swept up the pieces, and opened a damn window. Keep the kids out of the room for a few hours. Mercury isn't plutonium. It evaporates and dissipates.
Besides, I live in a major city (NYC). I'm pretty sure the regular air is toxic.
Re:Light bulb as a service (Score:5, Insightful)
You forgot to finish your thought with "if you compeletely and unjustifiably overreact.
That's pretty much what businesses and schools do in our litigious age. A local school in my area was recently closed for two days over an old barometer that got dropped in one of the science classrooms. They brought in a professional cleanup crew and spent $80,000 to have the mercury spill cleaned up.
Now I can understand closing off the classroom where the spill happened but closing the whole school seems rather excessive to me. $80,000 for cleanup seems really excessive. But that's what they have to do in this day and age. Otherwise some parent would freak out ("OMG, you mean my kid was within a quarter mile of spilled mercury?! I read someone that stuff is as dangerous as Dihydrogen Monoxide!") and they'd be writing that $80,000 check to a law firm instead of a cleanup crew.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Should CFs be disposed of properly? Yes.
Is one broken CF a hazmat issue? No.
Re:ROI (Score:4, Insightful)
You only save $23 a year if you compare against an incandescent bulb, which is like comparing your car's fuel economy against a school bus. When you compare these bulbs to CFLs, they make much less economic sense, unless you're worried about Mercury pollution.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess mercury pollution is preferable to arsenic pollution.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And what's a little mercury pollution? Its not like that stuffs harmful.
I'll take LEDs any day over a CFL. I refuse to switch to those, they're just too hazardous for home use. I'll go to leds when the color temperature works out, until then its good old incandecents.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, most people still use incandescents. There are also some places where CFLs don't work as well, but an LED would be just fine.
Also, if you look a little further up, the LED lights still pay for themselves times two or so against CFLs over their lifetime. And that's with a brand new product. CFLs weren't a lot cheaper when they debuted.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re:ROI (Score:5, Insightful)
accidents, overvoltage or simply moving out of the apartment
accidents : LED's are VERY durable.
overvoltage : do you live in a third world country ?
moving out : take them with you
19 years
more efficient : maybe OLED's, and they're not market-ready. And 2 years from now means I allready have my investment + 6$ back.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are places where the cost to reach a light bulb to change it is prohibitive. It could be theater marquee lights, lights atop a vaulted ceiling, or places behind a recessed opening that takes a lot of disassembly to get to. So even though $40 might be expensive up front, not having to set up scaffolding 30-40 feet up to get to some fixtures is worth it to some.
Not impressive lifetime for an LED (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't LED lifetimes usually rated to the point at which they hit half brightness, not die completely? And don't white LEDs tend to turn blue over time due to the powder stuff (sorry, it's almost 4am, I can't be bothered to look up the technical term) they use to adjust the color to white fading unevenly, or something to that general effect?
In either case, it doesn't matter. If the apocalypse hasn't come in 19 years, you can bet your ass that we'll have much cheaper and better alternatives available.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
On the other hand, we're talking high-power LEDs here.
The high power comes at the price of shortened life.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Philips (Score:5, Funny)
Because in 18 years a bunch of heavy-set guys in Panasonic overalls will come around and make sure your Philips bulb has a little "accident".
Hope they put a capacitor in there (Score:4, Interesting)
I hope they put a capacitor in there with a bridge rectifier instead of just ignoring half of the 50/60 Hz cycle.
Re:Hope they put a capacitor in there (Score:4, Interesting)
Seems an interesting comment, but I don't understand it.
Could you explain this to me?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
A typical bulb sees 50Hz 110V or 240V coming into it. When the signal goes above 0V it starts to glow, when it goes below 0V it starts to glow, back and forth faster than the eye can see.
LEDs don't work on a negative signal so the signal needs to be rectified. Half wave rectification means that when it goes above 0V you start getting power to the LED, when you go below 0V you don't. So the LED is on for only half the time. Full wave rectification flips the negative part to the positive side and you get some
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Addendum:
And the capacitor is there to keep the current going for the time the voltage is around 0V. This isn't really a problem for incandescent light bulbs since they after-glow for the time there is no voltage on the bulb, so you get a consistent glow. This is not the case with CFL's as they only marginally afterglow, and even worse with LEDs since they don't glow at all when the power is cut.
Without it:
Normal lightbulb: pretty consistent light
CFL: 50hz or 60hz flicker
LED: 25hz or 30hz flicker (without r
This is NOT informative, just plain wrong (Score:5, Informative)
The things contain a switch mode power supply, like just about every small mains powered device nowadays. The SMPS converts input to a current output for LEDs, which is what they need for best efficiency. It does this on both halves of the AC cycle. This added complexity contributes to the cost, but not as much as you might think.
Early LED bulbs that ran off cheap transformers used for SELV lighting used series resistors, but the current is very variable and they are, basically, crap. They got away with it because big arrays of cheap LEDs were used. A long term solution really needs not more than two or three high power LEDs in an envelope, because this helps to drive down cost. But this requires an advanced power supply.
Re:This is NOT informative, just plain wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, any good bulb worth buying uses an actual LED driver that acts as a constant current source. But even they still often use cheap electrolytics, meaning your LEDs will still have 95,000 hours of life in them when the bulb dies because the crappy caps they're using on the input and output sides of the switcher have failed.
If you're looking at a light and want to know generally what they're doing, see if you can count roughly how many LED's are in the fixture. If there are over 30, chances are it's a series string being run on rectified AC. If there are only a dozen or less, it's got a real driver and should at least give you reasonable efficiency, although no guarantees on lifetime. In an ideal world everyone would design LED drivers and use all ceramic or Nichicon caps, which have lifetimes measured in decades rather than months, but that'd cost a few pennies more and people will always buy the cheapest thing they can buy, particularly when you're working in a price range that's already an order of magnitude more expensive than the (incandescent) competition.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hope they put a capacitor in there (Score:5, Informative)
You really think Philips would try selling a half-wave rectified LED emitter for $40? That would be so unbelievably awful, you'd probably see return rates close to 100%.
Hell, even the LED Christmas lights I bought at Wal-mart last year are full-wave.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A lot of LED christmas lights seem to have a visible flicker noticable from half a mile away. They probably don't have anything along the lines of smoothing capacitors in them. Hopefully we are talking about better technology though
Re:Hope they put a capacitor in there (Score:5, Funny)
Resistance is futile.
Re: (Score:2)
but what about the faliure rate? (Score:2)
LED diffusion problems (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The LED lights I've seen are too directed. They don't light up a room all that well. Whatever spot the LEDs are aimed at is more illuminated, and everywhere else less illuminated than with CFLs or incandescents.
This can usually be alleviated by a good design of emitter geometry, lens and diffuser. Unfortunately, designing good lenses is difficult, and fabricating and assembling the resulting complex shapes is expensive.
Summary Misleading (Score:4, Interesting)
Panasonic recently unveiled a remarkable 60-watt household LED bulb that they claim can last up to 19 years
TFA
The bulbs use only an eighth the power of incandescents. That means a 60-watt-equivalent LED bulb would cost only 300 yen (about $3) a year instead of 2,380 yen ($25.80)--a significant savings over a lifetime.
The box pictured on the right has "6.9w", which if as good as a 60 watt incandescent, is probably only a watt or two better than the equivalent CFL.
Re: (Score:2)
How can they know for sure ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Does it mean they have tested that technology for 19 years and their bulb just died ?
Man if MS could test their product that way ! :)
19 years, huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'll believe when I see it.
Light temperature (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
From link in TFA: Available in "Daylight" and warm "Lamp" colors
Not that they list a figure for what these are. I've seen cheep 'warm white' CFLs that have a colour rating higher than the expensive brand 'cool white'
Re:Light temperature (Score:5, Informative)
This is because the really bright white LEDs are actually monochrome blue, they have a phosphor that converts some of that blue light into other colours, but not normally enough for a nice (sun like) colour.
There are other techniques that seem to convert the frequencies better; or they could use the old trick of putting different colour LEDs in one bulb. But for the moment if you want highest efficiency you're stuck with lots of blue in the light and a "cold" feel.
One point though, white LEDs are normally closer to the spectrum of the sun than incandescents, it's just that the blue spike is in the opposite direction to the very reduced blues you get from a incandescent. This is a known problem, so the conversions will continue to get better.
Bad mathematics? (Score:5, Informative)
$40 still seems pretty pricey for a light bulb, even one that promises to save $23 a year in energy costs
You must be an accountant living on the outdated system of monthly and quarterly figures.
To have an amortisation within 2 years and outright profit for 17 years afterwards sounds like a pretty damn good investment.
halogen replacements? (Score:2)
While I wouldn't mind using LED as replacements when the existing CFL wear out, particularly if they are less toxic when discarded, what I really need is a replacement for halogen small US base and bayonet, along with a few "candelabra" small base bulbs. Dimming would be a plus.
Anyone making those yet?
Long life bulbs cost versus cost of replacement... (Score:4, Informative)
I was talking to the facilities manager at the local University... about cost to replace bulbs in some of his buildings.. In some cases it is literally in the many tens of thousands of dollars range. They have to bring scaffolding in with a small crew to erect and move around. (Doors too small for a lift.)
He would be more than happy to pay $42/bulb IFF it meant he didn't have to go back in for two decades.
What is 5-1/2 hours a day? (Score:2)
Did someone steal the decimal point off your keyboard? Or maybe even the comma, if you're from that part of the world?
C'mon, behave yourself.
Dimness (Score:5, Interesting)
LEDs are great (Score:5, Interesting)
The main issues to look for with LEDs is some of the cheaper ones give out a horrible ghostly white light. The box should say what colour temperature they output, and the best ones output 3200K warm white light similar to traditional incandescents. You wouldn't even know its an LED unless you stared at it. The other issue is only some bulbs work with dimmer switches, but there are models which do that too.
The case for LEDs in other kinds of fixtures is probably less clear cut. LEDs are fairly directional so they probably require some refractive covering to be useful in hang down bulbs. But in the meantime there are plenty of CFL solutions which again save a lot more than traditional incandescents. I really don't see why anyone would bother with incandescent bulbs unless they are ignorant of how much money they're losing or they have have highly specific needs that other kinds of bulbs do not provide.
More useless trash (Score:3, Informative)
I switched the whole house to CFL. Every light. These bulbs are supposed to last 3-5 years.
I have replaced EVERY CFL BULB IN THE HOUSE within a year. EVERY ONE. GE Brand. No electrical voodoo in the house (I have a line conditioner even at the main). EVERY ONE. I shipped every damn one of them back to GE and Philips for a refund and explaination on why they failed. ZERO response.
Yeah my electric bill went down. $4 a month after replacing EVERY BULB in my house. That is 38 bulbs. You only save oodles of money provided you run them 5 hours a day constantly to cover the cost of the bulb. If have those 5 minute hall and closet lights along with perhaps 2-8 bulbs on for 5 hours (reading lamp, kitchen lights) you lose money. I barely saved money due to the living room lights being on all day. The livingroom, kitchen, and my office are the only high use lights and effectively had to subsidize all the other lights in the home. The $4 a month doesn't cover the $90+ spend on the bulbs...
Now every bulb was replaced back then as the old incandescent ones died off. So they were replaced over a 6 month period when we moved in (The old bulbs were at the oldest 4 years old.) So it can't be blamed on a bad batch of bulbs or a specific store (Target, Home Depot, Menards, and Walmart were sources for the bulbs)
So the CFLs being cheaper is pure bull shit as far as a home is concerned. That useless philips halogen crap in the garage that was supposed to be a 5 year bulb worked out to 8 months and didn't survive the winter.
Total scam in my opinion on CFLs. Until they can get an LED to match a 100 watt bulb (because I like to be able to see in my house rather then some crap ass 60-watt equivalent...) get it as cheap as a normal bulb, I keep my nice 100 watt incadescents thank you. When they burn out I don't have to fork over $3 to replace them.
I won't even get into the discussion about the quality of light from CFLs and LEDs vs. Incandescent bulbs... more useless ineffective crap to protect your new found god...
Telling us it saves $25 bucks a month if bullshit. I'll buy 1. It goes in my garage. If it can survive 3 years I MIGHT consider buying a second one for the bathroom and if that survies another 3 years... then we'll talk. So far this low-energy lighting scam is just that.. a scam as far as my experience has gone.
My criteria from now on: Full Spectrum, 100 Watts, NO STROBING, NO FLICKERING.
CFLs are a joke and LEDs have a long way to go. Too bad it looks like government has to subsidize and legistate to prop up yet another failure... How long till they ban those nice incandescent lights... oh wait...
Re:More useless trash (Score:4, Insightful)
You had 38 CFL bulbs that all died in less than a year. Meanwhile other people (myself included) are seeing multiple years of life out of ours. As you note, it's can't possibly be something unusual in your case; you have electricl voodoo, and have a line conditioner. That's interesting.
For no particular reason, I'm reminded of the guy I know who complains that every single romantic relationship he's in ends messily. He's wisely concluded that it's impossible for any man to have a healthy, long-term relationship with with women. I'm sure there is some valuable lesson there. [despair.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nope, in the mythbusters test the only bulb that lasted a month was the LED (see 14:00 here [google.com]).