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

71–80 of 189 posts

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

#71

Post by nsxwolf »

jseliger wrote: post #62
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.

Looks worth a shot for some rooms/fixtures, but not the chandeliers.

Also: I forgot about my can lights. They don't seem to have that form factor.

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

#72

Post by mikeash »

jcampbell1 wrote: post #70
mikeash wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My whole life is a lie!

Thanks. Never thought people would actually use an efficiency rating where 1 didn't mean 1:1. Now I know better.

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

#73

Post by pbreit »

ams6110 wrote: post #4
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.

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…

> $13 is way too much to pay for a light bulb

A bulb that never needs replacing (assuming you stay in residence less than 10 years) and pays for itself (and more) in energy savings? Sold. Easy.

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

#74

Post by nwenzel »

jessriedel wrote: post #12
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…

> $13 is way too much to pay for a light bulb, I don't care how efficient it is. You probably should care. It only takes 6 hours per day of usage for your 60W incandecent to suck up $13 of electricity in a year. And you'll have had to change it at least once. The LEDs will last for over a decade. Yes, if you're only renting a house/apartment for a year then you may not recoup your costs (although it will be close). S…

On kWh costs, don't forget that when you reduce use, you reduce the last kWh first. Meaning, in a tiered pricing model, you reduce your most expensive electricity first.

So, the price you would use to calculate savings is not your average price / kWh. You should use your max price / kWh.

That's also why if/when you install solar panels on your roof, you recover your investment faster if you don't quite cover your entire electrical needs.

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

#75

Post by benjamincburns »

qompiler wrote: post #57
ck2 wrote: post #20

We talked about this a month or two ago here. The amazing part of this bulb is not it's watts or it's cost. It's that a manufacturer finally put it's warranty where it's mouth is. With a 10 year warranty I will actually buy it compared to the Phillips. BTW I've yet to have a cheap chinese led 110v bulb last more than 3 years.

Until your LED bulb starts making a strange noise and you discover these things actually have a cooling fan inside of them. This thing WILL fail if kept running for a long time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5avJVvrFedc

MR16s (the type of bulb in the parent's video) are tough because of their size and limited surface area relative to their lumen output. Most retrofit lamps such as the A19 (the form-factor that most people think of when they think of a light bulb) have 100% passive thermal management. That said, there are a few really good fully-passive, high-output MR16s on the market.

I believe switching capacitors in the power supply are what limit the lifetime of most LED bulbs - electrolytic caps being one of the worst offenders. Good thermal management helps mitigate these problems, but a lot of failures are chemical in nature - caused by the degradation of the capacitor's electrolyte. This is why we've all seen the capacitor choice in motherboards and PSUs used as a marketing item.

Full disclosure: I used to work for a well-known LED lighting company, but please take the above with a grain of salt as I am not an electrical engineer. [Edit: And of course, these views I've expressed are my own and not representative of my past employer.]

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

#76

Post by com2kid »

I am unimpressed by 60 watt equivalent bulbs. A 60 watt equivalent is about enough to be a desk lamp, if I need to provide light for even a small room it is a useless amount unless I get a large number of bulbs together.

Unfortunately 60 watt equivalent has become some sort of benchmark for new light bulb technology. If you really want to replace lighting in some meaningful way, start quoting 100 watt equivalent numbers to me.

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

#77

Post by Lagged2Death »

othello wrote: post #65
Lagged2Death wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...…

That's a great clarification, thank you!

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

#78

Post by hnriot »

com2kid wrote: post #76

I am unimpressed by 60 watt equivalent bulbs. A 60 watt equivalent is about enough to be a desk lamp, if I need to provide light for even a small room it is a useless amount unless I get a large number of bulbs together. Unfortunately 60 watt equivalent has become some sort of benchmark for new light bulb technology. If you really want to replace lighting in some meaningful way, start quoting 100 watt equivalent numb…

Nonsense! You're eyes adjust to very low light levels, far below what a 60W bulb outputs in lumens.

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

#79

Post by com2kid »

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.

I live in a new construction condo in the Pacific Northwest. A couple of times per year I have to turn on a single heater.

My $35 power bill is my desktop computer, refrigerator, hot water heater, and the 7 lights that end up turned on just to light up a 500 or so sqft living space. (Recessed lighting is evil.)

Post reply on HN