# LED Lighting - Use More Electricity?



## jebatty (Aug 24, 2015)

Saw an article in InsideClimate: 





> Looking at the current transition from incandescent lights to CFLs and ultimately LEDs, the authors concluded "there is a massive potential for growth in the consumption of light if new lighting technologies are developed with higher luminous efficacies and lower cost of light."


 More Energy Use The assertion is that low cost LED lighting will lead to people lighting much more space or lighting brighter and that there may not be much of a reduction in actual use of electricity.

Anyone here lighting more space or lighting brighter when LED's are substituted for incandescent or CFL's? I replaced both incandescent and CFL's on a lumen equivalent wattage basis, i.e. 13 watt CFL is about a 60 watt incandescent equivalent which is about the same as 8-10 watt LED.


----------



## Bret Chase (Aug 24, 2015)

I don't use any LED's... still too expensive for me, but I have noticed more and more commercial spaces going to LED for outside lighting.... Obnoxiously hurt your eyes bright... I am sure they're saving a bunch of energy going from 250W and 175W Metalarc fixtures to LED's but pulling into a gas station shouldn't be like driving into the surface of the sun.

As far as my own house.... I light it to my comfort, not to any certain wattage.  My teens, however, want every light on in thee house at all times... and the door wide open with the AC on....


----------



## velvetfoot (Aug 24, 2015)

I replaced all my cfls with 2700k leds.  Can't tell the difference, but no warm up.  I like the 2700 color.

On another note, a local school replaced their parking lot lumineres with led models.  Doesn't seem as bright to me.  Perhaps a safety tradeoff as well?


----------



## maple1 (Aug 24, 2015)

Well - there are times now when I won't bother to go to the other side of the house to turn off a light someone left on and I'll just leave it until the next time I'm over that way. Does that count? Otherwise, no.

I have yet to experience the obnoxiously bright LED light yet though. Maybe I just don't get out enough after dark?


----------



## Bret Chase (Aug 24, 2015)

maple1 said:


> Well - there are times now when I won't bother to go to the other side of the house to turn off a light someone left on and I'll just leave it until the next time I'm over that way. Does that count? Otherwise, no.
> 
> I have yet to experience the obnoxiously bright LED light yet though. Maybe I just don't get out enough after dark?



No Irvings in NS?  They are one of the worst when they upgrade their canopy lights over the pumps...


----------



## maple1 (Aug 24, 2015)

Yes, they are all over the place. I just haven't noticed the brightness. I don't do a lot of night driving though.


----------



## Grisu (Aug 24, 2015)

That effect is called "Jevons paradox" and has been around for more than a century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

So far it has mostly proven true. Any technology that offers efficiency gains leads quickly to more consumption which negates the supposed savings from the efficiency gains. Ergo, the human population is net consuming more and more resources no matter how advanced our technology has become.

Keep that in mind when you hear someone utter the phrase "technology will save us."


----------



## DougA (Aug 24, 2015)

A few local gas stations switched last week and I find the brightness the same, just a slightly colder color to them.  There have been articles about energy consumption for the past decade looking at how the enormous TV screens and all the appliances people use have negated the efficiency that new technology has delivered. It's not just huge screens, it's that everyone now has 2 to 5 of them in their house and they are in use all the time. Same with computers.  I leave most of my computers on constantly and they don't draw much in hibernate mode but it all adds up.  

Still, even with the heat we've had this summer, our region is using less electricity than most previous years. We haven't been even close to voluntary power reductions like in past years.

In truth, if you want to worry about something, I would worry about the price and availability of food over the next few years.  With record droughts in Calif., our food prices are already up 10% in the last few months and this is growing season locally.  I hate to think of what things will be like this winter.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Aug 24, 2015)

I just swapped some T8s for LEDs.  I think they are brighter, but use much less activity going from 32 watts each to 20 watts.  Well, maybe not too much less.


----------



## iamlucky13 (Aug 24, 2015)

I haven't yet, but there's a few spaces where I will increase the lighting levels partially on the basis of LED's reducing the cost of doing so. Mostly I replace at equivalent brightness.

My living room has minimal permanent lighting - a single bulb sconce and a 100W floor lamp (both currently have 75W equivalent / 19W CFL's in them). Current maximum lighting level is 73 lux (lumens per square meter). Recommended for a living room is 150-300 lux. I can read in the current light, but I don't think many older people could.

I plan to keep the sconce, get rid of the floor lamp, and install 6 downlights on a dimmer. That should put me a little over 150 lux. Total planned power rating would be about 80 Watts, but would be dimmed down when watching TV. Were I instead to upgrade to a proper lighting level using an incandescent in the sconce and halogens in the downlights, it would take 360 Watts.

The garage has four 75W equivalent / 19W CFL's. That should be 75 lux. I can change the oil or rotate the tires in that light, but not much more, and partially by feel. I'd like to get that up to 300 lux, which replacing the cheap ceramic single bulb fixtures each with a 4', 2 bulb T-8 fixture or the LED equivalent should do. Total power rating should be 256 Watts. I'm hoping some better LED options come out before I get around to that project, because the current options aren't much better than T-8 fluorescents, but cost more.



EatenByLimestone said:


> I just swapped some T8s for LEDs. I think they are brighter, but use much less activity going from 32 watts each to 20 watts.



Which ones? Most of the replacements I've seen like the Philips Instafit or the Cree TW-series T-8's claim to be direct replacements, but actually compromise on the brightness. A standard T-8 gets 2800 lumens from 32 Watts (88 lm/W). The Philips Instafit gets 1600 lumens  (110 lm/W). The Cree TW T-8 gets 1700 lumens from 18.5 W (92 lm/W, but slightly better rated color than the Philips).

So it seems the advantages over existing fluorescents are not very large. Because these are retrofit bulbs that plug into a standard electronic ballast, the ballast power consumption is also theoretically still a factor.


----------



## iamlucky13 (Aug 24, 2015)

A lot of the street lights around here are getting replaced with LED's. I think the brightness is about the same. Energy consumption is supposedly moderately less. The color quality is definitely better. However, the visibility is worse, because they cause worse glare.

They're all using 4000-5000 Kelvin LED's. The lights they're replacing are high pressure sodium, which are somewhere around 2200 Kelvin. The old lights had terrible color quality, but were very easy on the eyes.

I don't know why they're using such "cool" toned LED's. It's been known for decades that bluer light tones not only cause more eye strain and sense of glare, but reduce night vision.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Aug 25, 2015)

iamlucky13 said:


> I haven't yet, but there's a few spaces where I will increase the lighting levels partially on the basis of LED's reducing the cost of doing so. Mostly I replace at equivalent brightness.
> 
> My living room has minimal permanent lighting - a single bulb sconce and a 100W floor lamp (both currently have 75W equivalent / 19W CFL's in them). Current maximum lighting level is 73 lux (lumens per square meter). Recommended for a living room is 150-300 lux. I can read in the current light, but I don't think many older people could.
> 
> ...




http://www.totalbulklighting.com/led-t8-18watt-clear-g13-4-lamp-retrofit-kit-5000k.html


I'm using 20w while the literature states 18.  On their site it says 20 in a few places.  Maybe it's a typo, but maybe it's a driver.  It equals out to 73.3 lumens/w.  A bit less, but I figure the standard fluorescent fixture puts light out in every direction.  The LED only puts it out in 1... straight down.  While the white metal box does reflect it down, it's not perfect.  It must be brighter just below the light.


----------



## jebatty (Aug 25, 2015)

Although LED's are available in the warm colors, my wife and both like the 3000-3400K over the warmer incandescent or CFL's, and in some places we really like the 4000-5000K LED's, namely the garage and the basement. The bright white light makes it very easy to see, much better than the redder tones. In the basement I replaced twin 40 watt T-12's (actually energy draw was 100 watts/fixture) with circular LED fixtures rated at 14 watts (actual energy draw at 14 watts as measured by the Kill-o-watt). For five fixtures, 500 watts replaced by less than 100 watts. 

I put in one twin tube LED (32 watts) in the garage to replace a 200 watt incandescent. The LED puts out much more, brighter light than did the 200 watt bulb. And at Deep Portage where I volunteer, it is installing direct replacement LED tubes in about 150 twin tube T-8 fixtures, with economic payback estimated in 3-4 years. These are fixtures that are "on" up to around 16 hours/day. It too has found that the LED tubes, with all light shining down, are brighter in space lighting than the 28 watt T-8's being replaced. Longevity of the LED tubes remains to be seen, but based on stated life expectancy, the LED tube fixtures also will have much less maintenance cost than did the T-8's. T-8 light output degrades significantly over time. A common degrade factor is 40% over an 8,000 hour lifespan, while LED degrade is about 30% over a 50,000 hour lifespan. But different numbers from different sources.


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 25, 2015)

I read an article last week (can't find it now) that said that US electricity demand has dropped by a few % in the last couple years.  While such things happen during a recession, the lack of a recession in the last couple years suggests it was most likely the effect of lighting substitution.

Moreover, while a few % is not a huge number, given the overall slow growth of US electricity demand (due to efficiency effects offsetting population and GDP growth) the effect of the step change from lighting was to delay about a decade of time.  That is, our projected 2025 demand is now about what we used to project our 2015 demand to be a few years back.

AS for my household....my family doesn't turn off the lights, and never has.  Of course, we were all CFL since 2000.

As for Jevon's paradox...this was a right-wing bugaboo some years ago....arguing there is no point in trying to increase efficiency.  The best studies I have read distinguish two rebound effects....

1. Cheaper light means you use more light, as Jim hypothesized.  This sort of rebound is real, but more like a 20-30% increase in demand.  Obviously varies with the tech...I don't do more laundry after I buy a HE washer.

2. The bigger rebound is that is people save money in one area (their elec bill) they tend to spend it somewhere else.  IF a family saves $100 a year on lighting electricity, do they save the $100, or do they increase their spending by $100 on things that also demand electricity, emit carbon, etc.?  This is a much more slippery issue, but you might assume that if the family saved 20% of income before, they will save $20 of the $100, and spend the other $80.  Economists will then tell you how much elec/carbon that $80 will entail. 

The second rebound effect is considered bigger than the first. In some economic scenarios, money saved in higher efficiency goes completely to higher GDP that wiped out the savings. Indeed,  all the winger stories a couple years ago were talking about rebound 2, which is subject to econ assumptions.

In the end, we need to have slower GDP growth per capita, slower pop growth, or lower energy use per $ of GDP.  Lighting eff contributes to the last of these three, which is also the most popular.


----------



## andrewjoseph (Aug 25, 2015)

I feel like switching has only saved me money. However, I only swapped out my old incandescent/halogen cans for the retrofit led cans. I got them in a four pack for $70 approx at Menards during a sale, then got 11 percent back credit.

Ive been very happy with them, got 3000k I believe, and then was able to put cheaper dimmers on them due to the low output. The trims are very basic, but so were my other ones.

I could see a person start to add lighting where tbey might not need it. Im not to that point tbough.





jebatty said:


> Saw an article in InsideClimate:  More Energy Use The assertion is that low cost LED lighting will lead to people lighting much more space or lighting brighter and that there may not be much of a reduction in actual use of electricity.
> 
> Anyone here lighting more space or lighting brighter when LED's are substituted for incandescent or CFL's? I replaced both incandescent and CFL's on a lumen equivalent wattage basis, i.e. 13 watt CFL is about a 60 watt incandescent equivalent which is about the same as 8-10 watt LED.


----------



## jebatty (Aug 25, 2015)

One thing about gaining a habit (of turning out lights when not needed) is that just switching bulbs does not automatically change the habit. My wife and I turn off lights just as much now as we did before, which means uncommon for any light not needed to be on.


----------



## velvetfoot (Aug 25, 2015)

woodgeek said:


> As for Jevon's paradox...this was a right-wing bugaboo some years ago



How about this scenario:  
A lot of a potential solar installation is paid for by 'others'.  However, to maximize your 'gain' from these 'others', you need to increase your electric load.  So, you  add heat pumps and drive an electric car, again, subsidized by 'others'.  I can't help but wonder if this shift in energy usage to electric will ultimately result in more generating capacity.  Never-mind, whether the the ultimate results will be so fantastic that 'others' should pay for it.  Government wasn't paying for the shift from water to coal in Jarven's day.


----------



## DougA (Aug 25, 2015)

jebatty said:


> One thing about gaining a habit (of turning out lights when not needed) is that just switching bulbs does not automatically change the habit. My wife and I turn off lights just as much now as we did before, which means uncommon for any light not needed to be on.


I agree.  I always had a problem when our daughter was a teen and she lectured me on environmental issues but left every light on when she was home and used tons of hot water.  Even though it wasted pennies, you can't be an environmentalist when you pick which issues to care about and which ones to abuse.


----------



## begreen (Aug 25, 2015)

Being an environmentalist means being mindful, but does not have to include wearing a hair shirt. Being youthful on the other hand is bound to be full of contradictions.


----------



## jebatty (Aug 25, 2015)

Velvet and Doug - I agree in part and disagree in part. As to the part on which I pretty much agree, "you can't be an environmentalist when you pick which issues to care about and which ones to abuse." ... except that conserving on something is better than conserving on nothing, the more things conserved the better. My wife and I are pretty good at conserving on many things, the big exception being the use of our (high mpg) cars and maybe some air travel.

Also partial agreement here: "to maximize your 'gain' from these 'others', you need to increase your electric load." ,,, except that increasing the electric load from a solar installation which supplants a fossil fuel load is a net environmental gain. In my own case, an electric car is in the foreseeable future, "fueled" substantially by our own solar PV. Our use of such a car would not result in more use of a car than now, and to the extent fueled by PV, the result would be a net environmental gain.

To the extent that our PV or other environmental efforts are paid for or subsidized by 'others,' my answer is that in most cases we pay for and subsidize gains by 'others,' from basic to applied research, from agriculture to fossil fuel extraction, from roads and bridges to health care, and the list goes on. In all of these cases, as a political society we make these choices, one gains, another loses, and the political choice may or may not result in greater benefit to society as a whole. All alternatives have gainers and losers. Unfettered capitalism is famous for this as all choices are made based on profit (greed). And gainers in the profit game usually also end up gainers in the power game to skew results in their favor. Time will tell whether or not a greed based society is better than alternatives.

One other point. I too am bothered by activists in any area not living the life they espouse. Yet as we know, none of us are perfect or can be perfect, and the road to perfection is arduous and full of pitfalls. In the end I choose my battles, try to do better in most areas, try not to be discouraged by my failings or the failings of others, and hope that as a society we look forward to and build a better future based on the best science and facts available at the time and not by belief systems that deny reality as we can know it. Galileo faced this a long time ago as he advanced his heliocentric view of the universe as then known, and he suffered derision from powerful others whose belief system required that the universe be earth centered. I am very glad that the earth centered view of the universe did not win the struggle between science and beliefs.


----------



## velvetfoot (Aug 25, 2015)

jebatty said:


> except that increasing the electric load from a solar installation which supplants a fossil fuel load is a net environmental gain.


The sun doesn't shine at night and during a lot of the winter, around here anyway.  Current solar systems supported by 'others' do not supply energy during these times.  It seems to me that enough generating plant capacity needs to be available for these times.  These plants need to be dispatched, and are not base loaded, so, will be gas fired, although with the price of oil...


----------



## mustash29 (Aug 25, 2015)

My Craftsman garage door openers used to EAT bulbs.  Even 50w rough service did not last that much longer than normal bulbs.  I switched to 100w CFL's about 15 yrs ago, they last forever and don't blow from the vibrations.

Since xmas, we have switched just about everything over.

CFL's - 24/7 outside security yellow bug light, 2 garage, 3 basement, 2 rec room, 2 LR lights (3 way), 4 LR ceiling fan (low/hi pull chain), 7 recessed kitchen, 3 on all 3 BR ceiling fans (low/med/hi pull chains), 2 bathroom vent fans.

LED's - 6 dining (computer) room chandelier, 5 kitchen tiffany, added 4 kitchen under cabinet strips, 4 & 6 bathroom vanity strips, 2 recessed hallway, recessed rec room foyer.

We used to sit and walk around in the dark most of the time, guided by nightlights.  Now we enjoy equal or better lighting, but with 75% energy savings and 90% heat savings.  Now we can make a sandwich, shave and apply makeup without getting a sunburn or having your head start sweating from the radiated heat.  Huge bonus during A/C times.

We haven't seen much in the electric bill, but we added a 60" LED TV, 8 cuft chest freezer and run the A/C a lot this summer.


----------



## velvetfoot (Aug 25, 2015)

mustash29 said:


> My Craftsman garage door openers used to EAT bulbs


Funny you should say that.  I've gone through two led bulbs on one of my three openers.  Have no idea why.


----------



## mustash29 (Aug 25, 2015)

Cheap at Wally world:

I just bought three 4 packs of GE 60w equivalent LED bulbs for 9.88 each.  That's 2.47 each.

I also got three 65w equivalent GE r-30 recessed bulbs for 2.84 each.


----------



## 7acres (Aug 25, 2015)

We never liked CFLs. We got some deals on highly subsidized LED bulbs through our power company. This year we switched out every bulb they had an equivalent LED option for. Which covered every fixture except for the chandelier in the dining room. We do not run more lights than before. We like the energy savings.


----------



## Bret Chase (Aug 25, 2015)

DougA said:


> I agree.  I always had a problem when our daughter was a teen and she lectured me on environmental issues but left every light on when she was home and used tons of hot water.  Even though it wasted pennies, you can't be an environmentalist when you pick which issues to care about and which ones to abuse.



my older daughter (14) is (or was) HORRIBLE with hot water... until one day, I went down stairs... and just shut the water off at the 10 minute mark.  she got the message.

I too have never been a huge fan of CFL's... The whole require asbestos abatement in homes... but then pepper them with mercury filled bulbs.. never made much sense to me.

That being said... LED's haven't lowered to my acceptable price point yet.

Now as far as net energy savings ... lets take a car wash I built and now do contract work for....When it was built in '05... all the wall packs were 175 watt metalarc bulbs... pole lights and bay lights were 250w Metalarc... over the last 10 years... as each ballast died.. they were not replaced.  Each lumiere was first fitted with a $100 100W mogul base CFL... which then turned into a mogul to medium adapter and a medium base splitter and 2 23 watt CFls.... same light in the bay, but only using 20% of the power.


----------



## iamlucky13 (Aug 25, 2015)

Bret Chase said:


> I too have never been a huge fan of CFL's... The whole require asbestos abatement in homes... but then pepper them with mercury filled bulbs.. never made much sense to me.



The amount of mercury in fluorescents is trivial. A standard CFL has less than 5 mg. Envision a mechanical pencil lead. Break off a piece as long as the diameter of the lead. That's roughly the volume of mercury in a CFL bulb.

It's really not like having hundreds of square feet of asbestos which you can disturb when replacing a ceiling and inhale a substantial amount of if you're not careful.

I just don't like the lighting quality of CFL's - the extra pink and the excess of one shade of green and complete lack of another shade of green makes a lot of colors look sickly.



Bret Chase said:


> That being said... LED's haven't lowered to my acceptable price point yet.



What are you using instead? Not incandescents if cost is your concern.

Using the standard reference case of 3 hours per day and 11 cents per kWh, a 60W incandescent bulb uses over $7 of electricity per year. I think the first LED I bought was probably 3 years ago for about $15. Comparing to incandescents (although in reality it replaced a flourescent), it already paid for itself and is still working just fine.

With Philips now selling $5 bulbs that only draw 8.5 Watts, the hypothetical breakeven point even between LED's and CFL's is now somewhere around 6 years.


----------



## NJ_Burner08002 (Aug 25, 2015)

LEDs save me 30-40.00 a month


----------



## ryanwc (Aug 27, 2015)

iamlucky13 said:


> Using the standard reference case of 3 hours per day and 11 cents per kWh, a 60W incandescent bulb uses over $7 of electricity per year.


Which is why I don't think the energy cost of lighting is a meaningful restraint.  Making the energy cost lower will not increase residential usage significantly because most people have installed and use about as much as they want, knowing that it won't cost them enough to worry about.  (Commercial display is a different thing entirely).


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 27, 2015)

velvetfoot said:


> How about this scenario:
> A lot of a potential solar installation is paid for by 'others'.  However, to maximize your 'gain' from these 'others', you need to increase your electric load.  So, you  add heat pumps and drive an electric car, again, subsidized by 'others'.  I can't help but wonder if this shift in energy usage to electric will ultimately result in more generating capacity.  Never-mind, whether the the ultimate results will be so fantastic that 'others' should pay for it.  Government wasn't paying for the shift from water to coal in Jarven's day.



I hear you, but I think the devil is in the details.  

Those 'others' are not just US taxpayers by a long shot.  If the price of panels has fallen 80% in the last five years (with most of the US installs happening in the last 2-3 years), the Fed rebate has fallen proportionally per watt.  Who paid for the 80% decrease...China and Germany.  China propped up its panel manufacturers in a bid to control global production, but had to pay in serious resources to seize that market.  Germany paid for much/most of its solar before the price collapse (with subsidies 5-10x more generous than those in the US today), paying China for its early panel output, and funding their producers' learning curve (which resulted in the 80% price decline).

The Feds in the US could have done something similar to land that PV manufacturing here instead of China, but they would have had to put up at least 10x the cash compared to what they have put in to date (roughly what China and Germany together put in).  In other words, early adopters do pay, and the US is a late adopter.

As for using the elec, well, if the HP and EV displace oil, then that helps US balance of trade, national security, and reduces military costs (at least some of which exist to secure oil access, even today with the US making 50% of its own crude).  What are the costs to the feds per barrel of imported oil?  Coal plant emissions do result in health impacts in the US. Did the Fed's (cheap, recent) rebate on PV panels help the economy and Fed budget (lower Medicare costs, lower military expenditure, lower economic stimulus cost needed) net?  

Many/most analysts, like the National Academy of Science and major investment banks like Citi and UBS say 'yes'.  The current total costs of PV are paid back to society and then some.  If you exclude health gains, its close.  If you include them its a big win.  And a lot of the health costs land on Medicare....b/c most of the coal emissions are hitting poor folks.

As for generation: yup, until more grid storage is fielded, a minute additional amount of reserve capacity will need to be kept around 24/7 to back up solar.  After the nat gas gen building spree in the 90s, there is already plenty of appropriate over-capacity in many markets.  Since PV runs full out on max demand periods, hot summer afternoons, it actually reduces annual peak demand....the main driver of new plant construction.  This has been shown in many markets already.  Solar reduces peak demand and demand growth of non-solar elec.

The problem with solar is that the those peak demand plants charge $$$ rates, and many utilities profit from that part of the annual cycle...and those utilities are getting hurt by solar.


----------



## billb3 (Sep 16, 2015)

Definitely saving money here with LED.
Prefer the almost instant on vs most cfl.

One beef with LED is it can be hard to tell directionality of a bulb before you get it home.
To increase useability rather than increase lumens I'd rather be able to aim the light the right way -  a fault with incandescents as well although reflectors help a little.
Sometimes it means a new fixture rather than replacing, say, an A19 bulb.
Some interesting designs though with LED.


----------



## Monaco (Sep 16, 2015)

We've been switching to LEDs for lights that are on all the time, like kitchen lights. We use the pricey but ohh so beautiful warm Edison-style bulbs that shine in a 360-degree pattern. Everyone comments on how much they love the look.


----------



## jharkin (Sep 21, 2015)

iamlucky13 said:


> A lot of the street lights around here are getting replaced with LED's. I think the brightness is about the same. Energy consumption is supposedly moderately less. The color quality is definitely better. However, the visibility is worse, because they cause worse glare.
> 
> They're all using 4000-5000 Kelvin LED's. The lights they're replacing are high pressure sodium, which are somewhere around 2200 Kelvin. The old lights had terrible color quality, but were very easy on the eyes.
> 
> I don't know why they're using such "cool" toned LED's. It's been known for decades that bluer light tones not only cause more eye strain and sense of glare, but reduce night vision.




The glare from night time lighting is a big issue.  The astronomy community especially hates them as [edit] poorly designed and placed [/edit] LED fixtures are causing an acceleration of the light pollution problem that is a bane to both amateur and professional research astronomy.  The glare also harms wildlife populations and causes issues for human sleep patterns.

To put light pollution in context, its been estimated that for most of the industrialized world, we are now living in the last generation that will know what it looks like to look up at night and see stars, at all.

There are ways to improve night time light without adding glare or making light pollution worse using well designed full cutoff fixtures that put the light only on the surface needed and not radiated off in all directions. Unfortunately this is an issue that is so unknown to the general public it makes fixing climate change look like a slam dunk easy task by comparison.

http://www.globeatnight.org/light-pollution.php
http://darksky.org/light-pollution/
https://djlorenz.github.io/astronomy/lp2006/overlay/dark.html


----------



## billb3 (Sep 21, 2015)

iamlucky13 said:


> A lot of the street lights around here are getting replaced with LED's. I think the brightness is about the same. Energy consumption is supposedly moderately less. The color quality is definitely better. However, the visibility is worse, because they cause worse glare.
> 
> They're all using 4000-5000 Kelvin LED's. The lights they're replacing are high pressure sodium, which are somewhere around 2200 Kelvin. The old lights had terrible color quality, but were very easy on the eyes.
> 
> I don't know why they're using such "cool" toned LED's. It's been known for decades that bluer light tones not only cause more eye strain and sense of glare, but reduce night vision.




Must be the same lights  that our town replaced here last Summer. Much whiter light than the yellow things they replaced but they really just light up underneath them  as the light is directed straight down at the street not all over . The one in front of my house no longer lights up my front yard and the trees around it like the old one did.


----------



## jharkin (Sep 21, 2015)

billb3 said:


> Must be the same lights  that our town replaced here last Summer. Much whiter light than the yellow things they replaced but they really just light up underneath them  as the light is directed straight down at the street not all over . The one in front of my house no longer lights up my front yard and the trees around it like the old one did.



Bill, the one's your town put in sound like full cutoff fixtures. They look like:








(notice the flat lens)


These are the right kind of fixtures to put in when towns upgrade to LED. They put the light only where its needed, reducing most of the glare and allowing even further energy consumption reduction as you need less total lumens (= less watts) when you are putting all the light where it is needed and not sending 50% of it up into the sky.


----------



## billb3 (Sep 21, 2015)

jharkin said:


> Bill, the one's your town put in sound like full cutoff fixtures. They look like:
> 
> (notice the flat lens)
> 
> These are the right kind of fixtures to put in when towns upgrade to LED. They put the light only where its needed, reducing most of the glare and allowing even further energy consumption reduction as you need less total lumens (= less watts) when you are putting all the light where it is needed and not sending 50% of it up into the sky.


Similar:



They really don't seem very bright as if they meet some minimum requirement for a street light, but considering the Town supposedly had to  shut street lights off around town because of budget constraints (2010-2012-ish) they're better than nothing.
My street is also a (major) bicycle route so we really do need something. Plus the local University uses the bike route for long distance running.


----------



## semipro (Sep 21, 2015)

Just picked up a box of these at HD.  The prices have really started to get reasonable. 3 for $10.

http://www.homedepot.com/p/GE-60W-E...t-Stik-light-bulb-3-Pack-LED10S3-96/205783754
Interesting form factor.


----------



## semipro (Sep 21, 2015)

jharkin said:


> Bill, the one's your town put in sound like full cutoff fixtures. They look like:
> 
> 
> (notice the flat lens)
> ...



And the LED type can be dimmed and turned on/off instantly unlike their predecessors.


----------



## jebatty (Sep 22, 2015)

Saw at Costco yesterday boxes of 10 - 60w equivalent Feit LED's for about $2.50/bulb.


----------



## rowerwet (Sep 22, 2015)

We saved a ton on electricity this year by putting ceiling fans in each room. Reduced our a/c use to a few days instead of three months. Also reduced the a/c load as we could run it at a higher temp with the fans.
I installed LED bulbs in every fan as they last inspite of the vibration.
Incandescent heat was nice in the six month heating season, now we will burn more wood and oil.


----------



## jharkin (Oct 13, 2015)

update.... Driving to work this morning for the first time I needed headlights all the way. I found out that two of the town I drove through upgraded to all LED full cutoff streetlights.

WOW what a massive difference. The light on the street itself is much brighter and more white than the old arc lamps - almost like driving in daylight. At the same time the light head itself gives off very little glare so it doesn't hurt your eyes. The light is very focused and doesn't illuminate the trees and houses as the old ones did so it must be far more pleasant for the people who live along those streets.

I hope some day my town upgrades the lights in front of my house, I hate the glare in the yard at night.


----------



## rowerwet (Oct 14, 2015)

I have a friend who works on the budget for one of the NY state universities. When CFL's came out they got abig push to replace all incandescent. They never saw any savings in electric bills and replacement costs went up.
They started replacing fluorescent with led a few years ago and he states they already can see a noticeable savings. Many of these lights are on most of the day. A home user may not see such a change


----------



## begreen (Oct 14, 2015)

LA reports a very nice savings since switching to LED street lights. 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/justing...es-millions-with-led-street-light-deployment/


----------



## Brian26 (Oct 15, 2015)

If any of you live near CT or are driving through Home Depot and Lowes has leds for dirt cheap subsidized through Energize CT. They practically give them away.  My brother in law in Boston stocks up every time he is down this way. He said the prices are like 75% less than prices in MA. 

I was at the Danbury, CT Home Depot the other day for work. Its on the NY border. People were buying shopping carts of the led bulbs. I assume NY residents. 

Energize CT is subsidized through our electric bills but they add the discounts to leds bulbs, heat pump hot water heaters, etc instantly at Lowes and HD.


----------



## jebatty (Oct 26, 2015)

Deep Portage Environmental Learning Center where I volunteer recently started replacement of T8 - 4' bulbs (electronic ballasts) with direct replacement 4' LED tubes in its most used fixtures. 75 bulbs have been replaced so far and have been operating long enough to obtain an approximate kwh savings: about 10 kwh/day. At an LED tube price of $12/each, total replacement cost was $900. At an electricity price of about $0.10/kwh, the savings amount to $1/day, or $365/year. The return on investment is 365/900 = 40%.


----------



## maple1 (Oct 26, 2015)

jebatty said:


> Deep Portage Environmental Learning Center where I volunteer recently started replacement of T8 - 4' bulbs (electronic ballasts) with direct replacement 4' LED tubes in its most used fixtures. 75 bulbs have been replaced so far and have been operating long enough to obtain an approximate kwh savings: about 10 kwh/day. At an LED tube price of $12/each, total replacement cost was $900. At an electricity price of about $0.10/kwh, the savings amount to $1/day, or $365/year. The return on investment is 365/900 = 40%.


 
How many watts does one of those bulbs consume, and does the ballast stay in place or is it removed or bypassed somehow? The ballast uses a fair amount of juice itself in regular flourescent use, I think.

A friend here was talking about those, but he had to order them in and has been waiting a while for them to show up. I think he mentioned $16/ea. I have 8 fixtures in my basement, that's quite a big expense to swap those out. I would likely be better going to a normal bulb base or fixture that could take two ordinary light bulbs.


----------



## jebatty (Oct 26, 2015)

The LED tubes used at DP were designed to leave the ballast in place. Others are available for direct wiring to the 120V supply line. Whether or not the LED tubes are going in a fixture with an electronic ballast, I think the best thing is to measure the current/watts before and after tube replacement to determine the wattage reduction. Bulb watt ratings do not necessarily reflect actual watts. For example, line voltage may vary from location to location. I did this with a clamp-on current meter, and my initial calculation was an estimate of about 3 years for economic payback (33% ROI). The estimate based on kwh reduction came out to about 2.5 years. Fixtures may vary, as may the wattage of the T-8's being used. 

Take a look at 1000bulbs.com and earthled.com, among other sites. Tube costs range from about $10 and up. As you likely know, LED lumens place almost all their light on the area below being lit, while florescent tubes place their lumens in all directions and need a good reflector to get the light down to the area below being lit, depending on the application. If you are interested, I suggest getting LED tubes of the color you want, higher K is whiter light, and trying them before buying a quantity. Obviously, they make most sense in areas where the fixture are on for many hours a day. Many at DP are on for about 18 hours/day.


----------



## jebatty (Oct 26, 2015)

maple1 said:


> I would likely be better going to a normal bulb base or fixture that could take two ordinary light bulbs.


 I did this in part in my garage. I had 4 screw base fixtures for a single bulb each. For 3 of these I put in a two-bulb screw adapter and then in those put in 2 LED A-19's - 60w equivalent. Those two put out more usable light than much higher wattage incandescent bulbs (150 or 200w). For the 4th fixture which lit one corner of the garage I put in a twin tube LED plug-in fixture from Costco (about $30). Much, much brighter than the single incandescent it replaced.


----------



## Rearscreen (Oct 26, 2015)

I bought a house this year that had all incandescent bulbs. Luckily in previous months before purchasing it I went on a Philips LED Home Depot Jag and kept buying 10 of them every time I bought something else there. One day at work I was on a Genie lift on the set of The View where they were doing a set make over and I noticed a bunch of strips of ribbon LED's lying on the floor. I said "You guys throwing them out?"  and a union guy said "Help yourself" so I bought an LED transformer and under the kitchen cabinets they went. Every time I turn them on I think of Whoppie.


----------



## semipro (Oct 27, 2015)

Rearscreen said:


> Whoppie


Too funny.  The things someone funnier than me could do with that typo.


----------



## maple1 (Oct 27, 2015)

Whoopies tour bus went up in flames here this past weekend. She didn't realize she was in New Brunswick rather than Ontario, apparently - but all turned out well in the end. Except for the bus.

True story.

Back to the thread...


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Oct 27, 2015)

Better to just replace the whole 4' florescent fixture with an LED equivalent. Can be had for about $36 at Sams club. Only about $6 more than a T-8 fixture with bulbs. Uses about 40 watts total rather than 40 per bulb for 2 bulbs ,so about half the wattage.


----------



## NateB (Oct 27, 2015)

jebatty said:


> Unfettered capitalism is famous for this as all choices are made based on profit (greed). And gainers in the profit game usually also end up gainers in the power game to skew results in their favor.



Your 2 statements don't match up here.  Playing the power game to skew results in your favor is not Unfettered Capitalism.  It is very much fettered capitalism (Crony capitalism) which is an unholy relationship between business and government.  I don't believe Unfettered capitalism has ever existed.  In fact government is key in capitalism to ensure fare play in business, but corrupt politicians have allowed themselves to be controlled by corrupt businessmen.  The politicians choose which companies will get the stimulus, and by default which companies go out of business.  The drive of capitalism is to be the best at what you do.  The drive of Crony Capitalism is take as much advantage of the system as you can to put more money in your pocket.  What we need are people striving to be their best, not people striving to figure out how to take the most advantage of the system.


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Oct 27, 2015)

You're on point with a great deal of what you said Nate, but government does not create fair play.  Most monopolies these days, exist because of government, not in spite of it.  Think of all of the monopolies the government has created on their own that we are required to pay for with tax money.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with pure capitalism,,of course capitalism can't be blamed for many of the so called free market issues we have today, because people are always demanding new regulations and we don't have pure capitalism. 

To say that capitalism 'takes advantage' of anything is ridiculous.  How is free trade of goods and services taking advantage of anything?  You can't force your opinions on others in such a system.
On the contrary, anything but a completely free market takes from some and gives to others.  That is an abuse of power and well in place today. 
True greed is when you have opinions and beliefs and you force others to pay for your beliefs through taxation.

People are people.  Private or public.  Both sides will do evil things.  The question is, do you want that power in the hands of many or in the hands of a few?

Oh, and LED light bulbs rock.  I converted my entire house...including 15 recessed lights.    Those were all 90W each and I save a ton with those bad boys.


----------



## NateB (Oct 27, 2015)

I agree government does not create fair play in our current system, but that is the role government should play. When I say take advantage I am referring to crony capitalism.


----------



## jebatty (Oct 28, 2015)

Pure capitalism exists only in theory. There is no completely free market and there never will be such a market except in text books. Capitalism reduces everything to monetary value or to things which create monetary value. Money is the sole object of capitalism. The government is not independent of people, corporations, and influence which impacts government. I give thanks every day that many people make decisions for the good of others and willingly give for the benefit of others without expectation or desire for a reward. The morality of "love your neighbor" (notice that this is not the morality of love your friends) is a morality worth aspiring to.


----------



## jebatty (Oct 28, 2015)

Rich countries, corporations, and individuals have the funds for research and innovation to make green energy cost effective, reliable, and available for all. If they won't do it because the poor are not on board, or because someone else won't do it, then heaven or hell is the only outcome. The climate crisis will not be solved by the free market


----------



## NateB (Oct 28, 2015)

jebatty said:


> Pure capitalism exists only in theory. There is no completely free market and there never will be such a market except in text books. Capitalism reduces everything to monetary value or to things which create monetary value. Money is the sole object of capitalism. The government is not independent of people, corporations, and influence which impacts government. I give thanks every day that many people make decisions for the good of others and willingly give for the benefit of others without expectation or desire for a reward. The morality of "love your neighbor" (notice that this is not the morality of love your friends) is a morality worth aspiring to.



I agree love your neighbor is one of the most important goals to aspire to.


----------



## NateB (Oct 28, 2015)

jebatty said:


> Rich countries, corporations, and individuals have the funds for research and innovation to make green energy cost effective, reliable, and available for all. If they won't do it because the poor are not on board, or because someone else won't do it, then heaven or hell is the only outcome. The climate crisis will not be solved by the free market



Interesting article, I wish I had billions of dollars so I could look into these things also.

Quote from the article
“There’s no fortune to be made. Even if you have a new energy source that costs the same as today’s and emits no CO2, it will be uncertain compared with what’s tried-and-true and already operating at unbelievable scale and has gotten through all the regulatory problems,” Gates said. “Without a substantial carbon tax, there’s no incentive for innovators or plant buyers to switch.”

This quote I find to be flawed.  Mr Gates says no one will invest in a new energy source, because it is uncertain to get through all the government regulation problems, and the solution is so have the government find the new energy source.???  

I think a better solution would be to cut through the red tape, and create a way that allows people to develop new energy in a safe way.  I doubt that in today's climate if someone came out with a clean energy source, that Americans would not buy all of it that they could.


----------



## velvetfoot (Oct 28, 2015)

"Bill Gates: Only Socialism Can Save the Climate’"
Tell that to the woolly mammoths.  Argh.  Another innocuous thread, now unwatched.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Oct 28, 2015)

Getting back to the subject matter, im very dissapointed in the new t-8 fluorescent lights and fixtures as the bulb ends start turning black almost immediately. They are a bit brighter than the T-12 lights and fixtures. Thats why i wont invest any more money in old technology. For a mere $6 more i can get the LED 4Ft fixtures that use half the power and im hoping will last a heck of a lot longer than the t-8 bulbs. THey seem even brighter then the T-8s.


----------



## iamlucky13 (Oct 28, 2015)

FYI, if you already have existing fluorescent fixtures installed, Phillips is on record as implicitly saying not to replace them yet (of course, they won't put it that way). They claim to have lamps that consume a little over half as much power as current tubular LED replacements for a given light output nearly ready for market:

http://www.newscenter.philips.com/m...-200-lumens-per-watt-barrier.wpd#.VjFy1iuMbhU


----------



## jebatty (Oct 29, 2015)

One large fault with fluorescent tubes is that about 2/3 of their light goes up or sideways and not down to the area that needs the light. Traditional white reflectors help with this a little, and expensive high tech reflectors help more, but still significant loss of light. A second fault is decreasing light output over time which may be in the range of 40% over the lifespan, and then combine this with dust, dirt, etc. collecting on the top and sides of the tubes, and the light loss is even greater. And one more, a long life span but not coming close to an LED.

LED tubes pretty much avoid all of these issues, unless side or up light is desired. Real world life span remains to be seen, but rapid decreases in price are making the LED tubes closer to the tube light of choice, nearly regardless of improvements in fluorescent tubes.


----------



## Vinnie 1965 (Oct 29, 2015)

Polarized glasses and  polarized sunglasses will reduce a lot of the glare from LEDs I drive truck for a living   So I need to see you all the time that's how I learned the Polaroids glass trick  warm LED colors are 2700k- 3400k  bright are 4000 to 5000k  just do your research and read reviews on the bulbs some good some bad  I get a lot of mine from superbright LEDs.com


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Oct 29, 2015)

The transformer that converts 120 volts down  to the LED required voltage also uses electricity and creates heat.


----------



## DBoon (Nov 1, 2015)

Older fluorescent fixtures used a magnetic 50/60 Hz core/coil ballast (transformer) to step 120V up to a higher voltage for the fluorescent tubes.  These had significant losses - perhaps as much as the tubes in the fixtures.  Newer fluorescent fixtures would use a switching power supply with 1/5th or less of the losses of an older core/coil transformer.  An LED would use a similar switching power supply to step-down the voltage to the LED, so I wouldn't see this being much of a factor in any comparison.


----------



## iluvjazznjava (Nov 20, 2015)

I haven't seen anything in this thread to convince me LEDs are a bad bet.  I just got a dozen LED pot lights installed in my basement and they are awesome and only use about 7w per bulb - many order of magnitudes more efficient than the half dozen incandescent 100w they replaced.


----------



## NJ_Burner08002 (Dec 25, 2015)

I have enjoyed LED bulbs.    I have saved a good amount of money.     I would say 300-400 a year.


----------



## begreen (Dec 25, 2015)

Seasoned Oak said:


> Getting back to the subject matter, im very dissapointed in the new t-8 fluorescent lights and fixtures as the bulb ends start turning black almost immediately. They are a bit brighter than the T-12 lights and fixtures. Thats why i wont invest any more money in old technology. For a mere $6 more i can get the LED 4Ft fixtures that use half the power and im hoping will last a heck of a lot longer than the t-8 bulbs. THey seem even brighter then the T-8s.


This might be the ballasts. Instant on ballasts can be harder on the bulbs, especially if they are turned on/off frequently. Programmed starts are supposed to be a bit gentler, though not quite as efficient.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Dec 26, 2015)

iluvjazznjava said:


> I haven't seen anything in this thread to convince me LEDs are a bad bet.  I just got a dozen LED pot lights installed in my basement and they are awesome and only use about 7w per bulb - many order of magnitudes more efficient than the half dozen incandescent 100w they replaced.




And that right there is making me re question my rewiring strategy.  I've been going through and changing the 14g to 12g any time I do a project.  LEDs really change the whole situation.  Yet I think the average electric bill is 900kwh per month now.


----------



## maple1 (Dec 26, 2015)

Got our power bill early this week. Think it was the lowest ever at $175 for 2 months. Can't say it's all due to LEDs, but they help. If I can find some tubes for the basement at a reasonable price, that will be about all I can do on that front. Except maybe for the outdoor motion sensor floods - but they see very little use.


----------



## jebatty (Dec 26, 2015)

I have several lighting circuits, a full main panel breaker box, and thinking about combining some lighting circuits to free up some space. I doubt all of our lights on at the same time would take 15 amps. I think the code limits the number of fixtures on a circuit, but that is way out of date for LED lighting circuits.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Dec 26, 2015)

I just love those new LED Xmas lights.  My wife has a tendency to plug 10 -15 sets of lights into 1 outlet. An over load situation with regular lights but no problem at all with LED Xmas lights.


----------



## woodsmaster (Dec 27, 2015)

i just switched most of my house from compact florescent to leds. I did go with brighter lights in most spots but they still use less electricity than what I had and they are instantly bright even if the house is cool !


----------



## BoilerMan (Dec 28, 2015)

jebatty said:


> I have several lighting circuits, a full main panel breaker box, and thinking about combining some lighting circuits to free up some space. I doubt all of our lights on at the same time would take 15 amps. I think the code limits the number of fixtures on a circuit, but that is way out of date for LED lighting circuits.


No code limit on the number of luminaries that can be installed on one circuit.  There are only a few code maxes on required circuits actually.
Combine away!  I have two lighting circuits in 3200 square feet and that was just for convenience, one upstairs and one for downstairs.

On topic:  I actually prefer the orange-yellow light of the HPS (high pressure sodium) lights, much easier on the eyes at night, especially with snow on the ground.  As an electrician I install MANY led wallpacks and pole lights.  All of the decent old HPS fixtures end up at my house in one way or another.  I always install on switches and use judiciously, and have LED lights in high use fixtures around the house.  Never have used more than 100kwh in a month's time, even with my wife being a stay at home mother.  Gas range and dryer though, all else is wood. 

TS


----------



## iamlucky13 (Jan 4, 2016)

BoilerMan said:


> On topic: I actually prefer the orange-yellow light of the HPS (high pressure sodium) lights, much easier on the eyes at night, especially with snow on the ground.



My opinion is split between high pressure sodium or 4000K LED's in full-cutoff fixtures. I don't think they are using full-cutoff fixtures in my area - all of the LED streetlights I'm seeing cause a moderate amount of glare, so I'm finding them more obnoxious than the HPS lights, even though the latter illuminate most colors poorly.

I'd love it if they would use 2500-3000K LED's for the streetlights. We'd get better illumination than equivalent lumens in HPS, but less glare than the current LED's.

I wonder how much cost is driving the 4000K choice versus city engineer's reading the spec sheets and choosing the highest efficiency while ignoring lighting quality. 4000K LED's can get slightly higher efficiency than lower color temps, although with the other factors considered, they could probably get away with slightly lower brightness at lower color temps, making it a wash.

But as I understand it, the manufacturers don't have perfect control over the color temperature of the LED's they produce, so they test and sort them coming off the production line. The large numbers of low color temperature LED's being used for household lighting probably leaves a lot of excess high color temperature LED's to sell. I'm sure they could tighten up the variation with better process control, but that would increase costs a bit.


----------



## Snagdaddy (Jan 4, 2016)

Just confirming that the craftsman garage door openers eat bulbs.  Same thing, I switched over to using CFL's which haven't burned out on the unit yet.  Maybe this is the best use for a CFL anymore.


----------



## iamlucky13 (Jan 4, 2016)

Garage door openers are one of the places rough service bulbs are recommended. The repetitive vibrations can shake the filaments of regular bulbs to pieces relatively quickly.

Flourescents and LED's both seem to be acceptable alternatives to a rough service incandescent, based on my very limited experience in that regards.


----------



## jebatty (Jan 5, 2016)

How is it that during the daytime most people seem to love sunlight (5500-6500K) -- bright, very "white" and of course literally warm in temperature. But come dusk and nightfall, then people like the redness of incandescent lights and find anything above about 3000K too "white"? Is it our genetic makeup that taught us night has to be lit by a fire, like the caveman experience; or is it simply that old technology resulted in fire red light and we are so accustomed to that that we think daylight at night is not the right kind of light? Or maybe because the red light stimulates melatonin release and gets people ready for sleep and white light simply makes the days too long? Just musing.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 5, 2016)

Our eyes obviously adjust to differences in color temp, as you can see by staring a single color for a long time and seeing the complement, etc.  

One factor is simple contrast.  In a house full on incandescents, where someone buys a couple daylight CFLs or LEDs, they look glaringly wrong.  

Another factor is the limitation of color temp as a descriptor....CRI = 80 is really not that great for color rendering and making things look ok, but it is a de facto standard on the cheap end.  I think CRI80 in a warm white bulb is 'ok' for most people in terms of color rendering, but CRI80 for daylight bulbs is simply terrible.  I suspect a 'daylight' bulb that actually emitted a solar spectrum (CRI=100) would be perfectly acceptable, or even preferable to most people.


----------



## maple1 (Jan 6, 2016)

I stumbled upon an LED tri-lite bulb in a store today. Didn't know there was such a thing - then I saw them in 2 more stores after that. It was kinda pricey at $25 but I brought one home with me. We have a tri-light lamp in a corner of our living room that is on all the time in the evenings, and I had kind of accepted that it would be incandescent forever. Even had two colour choices - warm (2500+/-) or daylite (5000+/-). I went with warm. I just put it in, now we'll see if my better half notices the difference when she gets home.


----------



## begreen (Jan 6, 2016)

What price was the bulb? I'd like to see some LED halogen tube bulb replacements on the market. Are there any?


----------



## maple1 (Jan 6, 2016)

$25.

(As posted  )


----------



## velvetfoot (Jan 6, 2016)

Snagdaddy said:


> Just confirming that the craftsman garage door openers eat bulbs. Same thing, I switched over to using CFL's which haven't burned out on the unit yet. Maybe this is the best use for a CFL anymore.


Interesting...  It just did it on one unit for me, but it consumed two in quick succession.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 6, 2016)

Looks like you did ok, these two are $19 for 100W equivalent max or $30 for 150W equivalent max:

*40W/60W/100W:*
http://www.amazon.com/Philips-45334...qid=1452127937&sr=1-1&keywords=3-way+led+bulb

*50/100/150W:*
http://www.amazon.com/GE-Lighting-9...qid=1452127937&sr=1-2&keywords=3-way+led+bulb

Both would pay for themselves in ~2000 hours of runtime, or maybe 1.5 years.


----------



## maple1 (Jan 6, 2016)

The one I got was a GE, but a 30/70/100.

Light is still on, and no comments on it yet. I think its close enough to the old incandescent that there isn't a noticeable difference, actually.


----------



## ECSEfficiency (Jan 9, 2016)

velvetfoot said:


> Funny you should say that.  I've gone through two led bulbs on one of my three openers.  Have no idea why.


The led frequency interferes with the garage door opener. LED'S are not good for garage door openers.


----------



## semipro (Jan 9, 2016)

ECSEfficiency said:


> The led frequency interferes with the garage door opener. LED'S are not good for garage door openers.


Finally, a good use for all the CFLs I have.  Too bad I don't have a garage door opener.


----------



## Buzz Saw (Jan 9, 2016)

ECSEfficiency said:


> The led frequency interferes with the garage door opener. LED'S are not good for garage door openers.


Interfer how?  Does it effect the range of the remote?


----------



## begreen (Jan 10, 2016)

semipro said:


> Finally, a good use for all the CFLs I have.  Too bad I don't have a garage door opener.


Guess I just dumb lucked into that one. The halogen bulb I used burned out in a few weeks so I put in a CFL and it's been in ever since.


----------



## jebatty (Jan 10, 2016)

ECSEfficiency said:


> The led frequency interferes with the garage door opener. LED'S are not good for garage door openers.


Work just fine in my two garage door openers.


----------



## seige101 (Jan 10, 2016)

ECSEfficiency said:


> The led frequency interferes with the garage door opener. LED'S are not good for garage door openers.



The lower prices brands of LEDs will cause interference, have had problems with Utilitech (lowes), Great value brand (walmart), SOME of the Ecosmart (home depot) and SOME of the lower priced Phillips lamps. Have had good results with the higher prices Phillips, name brand CREE and TCP lamps.

If you install led lamps on garage lights or a motion sensor or the garage door opener it self and your garage door stops working you might have to swap them out with another brand. We had problem with Phillips Par 38 lamps about 4 generations ago causing problems with WIFI when we put them in some recessed cans in a conference room, when we replaced them with the newest generation we had no interference issues.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 10, 2016)

jebatty said:


> Work just fine in my two garage door openers.



me too.


----------



## begreen (Jan 12, 2016)

And there is this news in incandescent technology. 

http://news.sciencemag.org/technolo...edium=facebook-text&utm_campaign=oldbulb-1868


----------

