LED Lighting - Use More Electricity?

[Bret Chase]

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]

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.

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]

LEDs save me 30-40.00 a month

 

[ryanwc]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

(broken image removed)

(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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[jebatty]

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

 

[rowerwet]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Whoppie

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