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

61–70 of 189 posts

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

#61

Post by nexox »

nsxwolf wrote: post #47

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…

I obsess about lighting plenty (more than just color temperature - florescent flicker that most people don't notice irritates me to no end,) but I don't subscribe to the idea that incandescent light sources are automatically better.

I recently acquired a 40W-equivalent version of this bulb, and in A/B testing vs a 57W "efficient" incandescent, I lost track of which bulb was which. The LED bulb actually had a warmer color that the incandescent, plus very similar brightness.

Of course, most of my bulbs are horrible, dim, slow, ugly, toxic, cool white CCFLs, installed by the previous owner (even in fixtures with exposed bulbs,) so pretty much any bulbs constitute a serious improvement.

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

#62

Post by jseliger »

nsxwolf wrote: post #47

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…

Try Switch LEDs: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2012/11/... . They're actually available, and I have a couple, which are pretty good, though the upfront cost is high.

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

#63

Post by wtdominey »

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.

I've owned a bunch of those IKEA CFL bulbs. Some -- like yours -- have lasted years while others have died within a year or two. Despite their unpredictable nature I still prefer them to most big box store CFLs I've tried.

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

#64

Post by wtdominey »

codemonkeymike wrote: post #31

The real benefit comes from not having to break out the ladder every time your ceiling light goes out.

Exactly. I have a friend who never turns on his (high) ceiling lights to avoid replacing the bulbs. I suggested LEDs. Funny, for he'd rather the bulbs be functional and never on than non-functional and never on, which is kind of OCD when you think about it.

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

#65

Post by othello »

Lagged2Death wrote: post #58
othello wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's a difficult chart for an outsider to interpret. How are there electricity exports if there is no electricity production? How do they count "industry" and "residential?" In any case, I'll note that the "residential" line does indeed read 262 mtoe but the "production" line at the top is 1,686 mtoe, leaving the "residential" category consuming something like 15% of total production. Most novices and outsiders wou…

I agree that this table is a bit confusing ;)

Actually, residential energy consumption is expressed in final energy terms. This is the actual consumption by end-users of energy carriers (e.g. electricity, gasoline, diesel, natural gas, etc...). The sum of all these end-use consumption is the Total Final Consumption (or TFC).

This is to be distinguished from primary energy sources (crude oil, coal, natural gas, etc...), which are used to produce the energy carriers that end-users consume (e.g. in a power plant to produce electricity, or in a refinery to produce gasoline). The sum of all primary energy sources consumption is the Total Primary Energy Supply (TPES).

Since residential energy consumption is reported in final terms, the correct denominator to calculate the share you were looking for is TFC. Residential energy consumption thus accounts for 17.9% of TFC, versus 17.7% for industry.

The non-residential sector is denominated in IEA terminology as 'Commercial and Public Services'. This sector encompasses office buildings, hotels & restaurants, education & research, hospital & healthcare, sports facilities and public administrations. In short, buildings that house the tertiary sector. Therefore it can't be identified at all with the industry (btw industrial buildings consumption are accounted for in the 'industry' sector).

In total, residential and non-residential buildings account for 32% of TFC in the US, second only to transport (39.5%).

Disclosure: I've worked as an analyst at the IEA for 4 years.

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

#66

Post by hdctambien »

TylerE wrote: post #51
ssmoot wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Maintain 76? 76 is borderline torture.

When it's 100 outside, 76 is down right chilly!

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

#68

Post by keenerd »

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…

> I plan to replace that with point-of-use electric tankless units.

So what is your gas bill right now? It costs around five times as much to heat with electricity.

If you wanted to be smart about it, add an electric heater with a sensor. Best of both worlds that way. Hot water is instant but after two minutes you are using cheap gas-heated water.

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

#69

Post by smackfu »

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…

Overly paranoid article.

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

#70

Post by jcampbell1 »

mikeash wrote: post #52
jcampbell1 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You also have to make an assumption about the typical weather. The waste heat offsets heating costs in cold climates, but in hot climates, you must also burn additional electricity to pump the waste heat outside. My estimate is that a 50W bulb efficiency improvement results in a saving between 30W-70W depending on the climate. If you live in Iceland, the payback is probably never. If you live in Singapore, you will r…

That's an interesting point. Reminds me of when a Wisconsin city replaced all of their stoplights with LEDs, then discovered come winter that the new bulbs wouldn't melt snow like the old ones did, requiring a lot of manual cleaning to remain visible. I'm not sure how much of a difference it's likely to make, though. Houses in cold climates usually use more efficient heating systems, so the heat from a light bulb wil…

> Air conditioning is usually pretty efficient, with efficiencies better than 10

I think you are off by a factor of 3.412. The SEER rating may be 10, but that means you push 10BTUs per Watt Hour, or 2.9 WH/WH.

I am also assuming that burning NatGas produces electricity about 40% efficiency delivered, and burning it at home for heat is about 80% efficient.

Post reply on HN