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

181–189 of 189 posts

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

#181

Post by dfc »

rdl wrote: post #167
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…

What I'd really prefer is using LEDs to do novel kinds of lighting fixtures, not just replace edison-screw-base incandescents. I want a glowing uniform ceiling square, wall square, undercounter wide strip, etc.

Under cabinet?

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

#182

Post by rdl »

dfc wrote: post #181
rdl wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I'd really prefer is using LEDs to do novel kinds of lighting fixtures, not just replace edison-screw-base incandescents. I want a glowing uniform ceiling square, wall square, undercounter wide strip, etc.

Under cabinet?

Kitchen counter/workspace lights mounted under cabinets above. Pretty common; IKEA sells sticky lights to mount that way now.

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

#183

Post by dfc »

rdl wrote: post #182
dfc wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under cabinet?

Kitchen counter/workspace lights mounted under cabinets above. Pretty common; IKEA sells sticky lights to mount that way now.

You wrote under counter but what I was pretty confident that you meant under cabinet. My two big complaints with the current offerings are that they are either too thick so they end up being a little proud of the cabinet face or they are the thin strips that only project the light in a stripe across the counter.

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

#184

Post by sshanky »

com2kid wrote: post #79
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.

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.)

Why is recessed lighting evil?

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

#185

Post by rdl »

dfc wrote: post #183
rdl wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kitchen counter/workspace lights mounted under cabinets above. Pretty common; IKEA sells sticky lights to mount that way now.

You wrote under counter but what I was pretty confident that you meant under cabinet. My two big complaints with the current offerings are that they are either too thick so they end up being a little proud of the cabinet face or they are the thin strips that only project the light in a stripe across the counter.

The thing I really want in my next kitchen is an "air wall" and well designed fume food/fire hood, with both big lights and task/spot lights. Right now I have one of the stupid "recirculate the output after running through a tiny filter" nominal hoods over the stove, which is really incompatible with high-heat cast iron or wok cooking. And would terrify me if there were a fire (I have a Halon 1211 and an ABC dry chemical between the stove and the exit, along with a costco bag of baking soda, and plenty of pan lids, but still)

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

#186

Post by benjamincburns »

com2kid wrote: post #147
benjamincburns wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is kind of an obsolete way of thinking. Most people think of "X-watt equivalent" as the area illumination caused by an X-watt omnidirectional A19 incandescent. Industry expresses equivalency in terms of lumens, or total light output, but not total illumination of a specified area. This is only apples-to-apples for fully omnidirectional bulbs. LED lighting is costly and complex enough that directional LED bulbs a…

> LED lighting is costly and complex enough that directional LED bulbs are more or less at cost parity with omnidirectional LED bulbs. In fact, true omnis are often more expensive just because LEDs are inherently directional. This is the first time in the history of lighting where omni wasn't significantly less expensive than directional. There was that awesome Kickstarter awhile back for a nice omnidirectional LED b…

Sorry for the late response, I just noticed this.

First I'm not a lighting designer, I just used to work next to a few of them so I'm probably (definitely) overconfident in my opinions in this area. That said, I personally go back and forth on what you're saying.

Let me qualify: when I say "directional," I mean uniform 180° or narrower. The real difference is in the optic: flood vs spot. You can get a surface mount 180° flood fixture (ceiling mount) or a well fit recessed fixture with something like a BR40 (good wide-angle disbursement) to do exactly what you're talking about. If you want wide-area lighting, stay away from PARs, MR16s, GU10s, etc. Are omnis in a stood-off fixture easier? You betcha. Is paying to light your ceiling necessary? Nope.

All of that said, I hope they get dirt cheap but efficient omnis out there too. Forcing the general consumer to think about stuff like this is a barrier to entry, and broad swaths of people being more efficient is a Good Thing indeed.

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

#187

Post by ssmoot »

cheald wrote: post #180
ssmoot wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dallas. ~2400sqft maybe? I forget. It's pretty easy to lock in ~9c rates here. I think I actually pay 9.6c per kwh because I chose the "100% Windpower" option. I expect the car will probably kick that up <$10.

Wow, that's impressive. How old are your AC units? Newer ones are apparently crazy more efficient - I'm wondering if it might be worth the upgrade cost now.

We just bought the house a year ago, so I have no idea. I know it was on the market for two years and got all new kitchen appliances. The condenser certainly looks new though, and bigger than I'm used to in a single story home, so it's my guess it also saw an upgrade.

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

#188

Post by ssmoot »

keenerd wrote: post #68
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…

> 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.

Gas is typically more than my electricity bill and I only have the gas water heater and central air. Dryer, cooktop, etc is all electric.

You're right of course, but given my cheap electric rates, the fact that "some day" I could produce electricity on my roof, and I won't be throwing 2 gallons of water down the kitchen sink waiting for it to warm up, that it'll be a win overall.

I'm not going to be drilling for gas in my back yard anytime soon after all. :-)

Plus, I'd find it hard to believe that generally speaking my electricity isn't far better for the environment considering it's 100% wind. It's probably easier to ask what weeks has there not been some mishap in Texas City than not. That's not normally a primary driver for me, but all things being equal it's a plus.

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

#189

Post by giardini »

chaostheory wrote: post #177
giardini wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have used every brand available including Phillips. The CFLs don't last; the incandescents work reliably. As for the quality of electrical power - that's in the hands of the power company. We returned bulbs on warranty but, seriously, if you're spending money/time driving to/from Home Depot to get replacement CFL bulbs on a warranty instead of buying cheap incandescent bulbs that work, you are suboptimizing.

> The CFLs don't last Then go with LEDs then. They still save you money in the long run. > if you're spending money/time driving to/from Home Depot to get replacement CFL bulbs on a warranty instead of buying cheap incandescent bulbs that work, you are suboptimizing. How is it sub-optimal? Aren't you driving even more to and from Home Depot buying new incandescent bulbs?

Have you priced LEDs? They'll likely be stolen more frequently than CFLs and at significantly greater cost (they are very distinctive and easily-recognized).

Incandescent bulbs last years; CFLs don't. I save money and time buying incandescents instead of CFLs.

Post reply on HN