Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

60W equivalent LED bulb uses 9.5W and costs $13

designingwithleds.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 189 posts

Re: 60W equivalent LED bulb uses 9.5W and costs $13

#41

Post by hcarvalhoalves »

Steuard wrote: post #17
lucaspiller wrote: post #5

> These are white LEDs, that is, blue LEDs covered with a white-light-emitting phosphor Could someone explain that a bit more please?

I'm not an expert (just a physics prof), but my understanding is that LEDs always emit one specific color (wavelength) of light rather than white light (which is a mixture of many wavelengths). So if you want to use an LED to produce white light, you set up a material that absorbs light at one wavelength and then re-emits it in a wide variety of wavelengths (that is, the phosphor). (This is also the way that fluoresc…

If it uses a phosphor coating, isn't it also prone to the same issue of diminishing lumens over time as the CFLs? These bulbs lose up to 30% luminosity in 6 months (the tri-phospor ones, more expensive, can a last a year begore losing 10%/20%).

If they lose power like CFLs, even though the warranty is 10 years, you may be forced to replace it way before that.

Re: 60W equivalent LED bulb uses 9.5W and costs $13

#42

Post by mp99e99 »

Its amazing how small changes like these can cause a seachange in power consumption real difference in our collective future. This change alone could be a serious bear market for power companies! This, mixed with generally growing renewable means a greener planet may be closer than we think... most data assume constant consumption/or growth with population.

Re: 60W equivalent LED bulb uses 9.5W and costs $13

#43

Post by bcl »

Samuel_Michon wrote: post #9
wtdominey wrote: post #7

Prices keep coming down. I was at IKEA last week and they were having a sale on their E26 LED bulb for only 6 bucks. Hadn't tried their LEDs before (have others from Home Depot/Lowes) but it has great light/color. Of course it being IKEA who knows what the actual mileage will be, but they're worth checking out. http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/categories/departments/liv...

“it being IKEA who knows what the actual mileage will be” When I moved into my home 6,5 years a go, I bought compact fluorescent lamps at IKEA (the kind that looks like a regular incandescent light bulb). I have yet to replace one.

On the flip-side, I bought those same ones and haven't had them last a year. Same for the CF from Costco. I'm looking forward to long lasting LEDs. $13 is still a bit too high to replace all my lights, but I'll pick up a couple for the most used ones.

Re: 60W equivalent LED bulb uses 9.5W and costs $13

#44

Post by ssmoot »

driverdan wrote: post #29
ssmoot wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OTOH, my entire house is fluorescent and LED. My monthly electricity bill is $65. For a house! I never have to replace burnt out bulbs. At $13 I'd guess the LED is actually about at break-even over the life of the bulb vs incandescent unless you're buying incandescent in the big packs of 30 bulbs for $10. The only gas in my house is my central heating, and my old water heater. I plan to replace that with point-of-use…

Lighting is a small fraction of your overall electricity usage. HVAC alone uses many times as much. While using efficient lighting is a good idea far too many people get hung up on it when there are better places to conserve.

Yes and No? I mean, my bill only goes up $20 in the summer to cool the house, and that's in a 35 year old home in Dallas. That's over 90 straight days of 110F temperatures last year.

It's a new, pretty efficient HVAC unit though. Thankfully. First home I've had that didn't struggle to maintain 76F indoors during the hottest part of the day.

Still, there's not a ton you can do around the house as cheap as replacing the bulbs in the high-traffic areas. Anybody can do that. Replacing your HVAC for something more efficient is going to be a challenge for most.

Then there's high-R-value windows to install. Foam insulation on exterior walls (brick, so that's a lot of dry-wall work). Radiant barriers in the attic space. More ceiling insulation. Tankless water heaters.

Outside of maintaining your weather stripping, I can't think of anything that pays off as much, for as little, than replacing your light bulbs. Maybe getting a Nest thermostat? We've got recessed lighting in the Living Room, which had four big 90W halogen bulbs when we moved in, and are almost always on if somebody's home. Replaced 'em with 17W LED bulbs (http://www.usa.philips.com/c/led-light-bulbs/ambientled-17w-...).

That comes out to about $7/month in savings. (360w vs 68w @ $0.0912 per kw/hr). In the year since I installed them they've paid for themselves. They'll last 22 years according to Phillips. The ROI on LED (for your highest-traffic rooms at least) is stupid cool, and I'll effectively never have to bust out the 8' ladder to replace them. I might be off base, but I think I've typically replaced halogens every couple years or so. So even over 5 years the old bulbs probably would've cost me 10X more.

For our situation at least, that's a no brainer. If I can spend $50 today and avoid paying $5/month indefinitely, that's a big win in my book. I may not be able to afford to buy a car cash, and have to pay the financing penalty, but at least I can break out of the "financing" cycle with my home lighting. ;-)

Re: 60W equivalent LED bulb uses 9.5W and costs $13

#46

Post by ssmoot »

nitrogen wrote: post #36
driverdan wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lighting is a small fraction of your overall electricity usage. HVAC alone uses many times as much. While using efficient lighting is a good idea far too many people get hung up on it when there are better places to conserve.

It depends on how many people are in your family and how frequently they forget to turn off the lights. Plus, having 400W of incandescent bulbs on is 400 more watts that the A/C system has to cool.

Wow. I never thought of that. Thanks for the enlightening comment! Makes perfect sense.

Re: 60W equivalent LED bulb uses 9.5W and costs $13

#47

Post by nsxwolf »

I like the color temperature of incandescent bulbs. That alone is worth the extra electricity expense.

It's a bit funny how many of us obsess about the calibration of our monitors and tablets, even installing utilities that change the color temperature at different times of day to be easier on our eyes. But we don't seem to care as much about the ambient light that we see everywhere.

Also, many of my fixtures expose the bulbs and look ridiculous without a clear glass incandescent bulb.

Re: 60W equivalent LED bulb uses 9.5W and costs $13

#48

Post by Nursie »

tocomment wrote: post #40
Nursie wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's no big deal. www.popularmechanics.com/home/reviews/news/4217864 If you make a habit of breaking them open near your face and inhaling the gas, you probably have bigger problems. I've read that the actual average mercury exposure from a broken CFL is less than 10% of the mercury exposure from a serving of tuna.

Yeah they say that, but then in that same article look at the advice for cleaning up a broken CFL. If it's no big deal, why do I need to open the windows, wear gloves, etc? What is the proper way to handle a broken CFL? Open the windows and let the room air out for 15 to 30 minutes, then remove as much material as possible without a vacuum cleaner. Using disposable gloves, scoop the glass onto a piece of cardboard an…

To make you feel better. I really don't think it's much of an issue.

Re: 60W equivalent LED bulb uses 9.5W and costs $13

#49

Post by scurvy »

othello wrote: post #34
nakedrobot2 wrote: post #2

This is excellent. However, please do not say "this is enough for me" after you replace all your incandescent light bulbs with these. Household energy consumption is a tiny, tiny drop in the bucket compared to industrical energy consumption and shipping.

This is actually a common misconception: in the US (as in most OECD countries), households consume slightly more energy than the industry. As a case in point, in 2009, industry consumed 256 million tons of oil equivalent, versus 262 mtoe for the residential sector (ie households). http://www.iea.org/stats/balancetable.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=US

Most energy consumption in the US goes towards heating and cooling, not illumination. Making your house more energy efficient starts with your windows and doors, not your lightbulbs.

Re: 60W equivalent LED bulb uses 9.5W and costs $13

#50

Post by foobarian »

ssmoot wrote: post #16
ams6110 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying... that the LED bulbs have a much higher energy and environmental "cost" in manufacturing, compared to a standard incandescent? That's quite likely true and has to be considered in the big picture (similar issues with electric vehicles, that their proponents like to ignore). For me the answer is simple: $13 is way too much to pay for a light bulb, I don't care how efficient it is…

OTOH, my entire house is fluorescent and LED. My monthly electricity bill is $65. For a house! I never have to replace burnt out bulbs. At $13 I'd guess the LED is actually about at break-even over the life of the bulb vs incandescent unless you're buying incandescent in the big packs of 30 bulbs for $10. The only gas in my house is my central heating, and my old water heater. I plan to replace that with point-of-use…

My biggest problem with either fluorescent or LED is that the brightness is not there at the top end, once you get into 150W-equivalent and higher. I'm sure we'll get there though.
Post reply on HN