60W equivalent LED bulb uses 9.5W and costs $13 • Hacker News Board

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

#21

Post by unwind » Thu, Apr 25, 2013, 1:59 PM UTC

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?

Basically, LEDs are typically mono-chromatic, i.e. they generate light within a pretty tight range of wavelengths (what we perceive as color).

There are two ways to get white light (which is light of "all" visible wavelengths) from a LED: combining a red, a green and a blue LED, or using a coating that when energized by (typically blue) light, in turn reacts and emits white light.

You can read more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-emitting_diode#White_ligh..., of course.

Note: I'm just an (embedded) software guy with a hobby interest in electronics. :)

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

#22

Post by chaostheory » Thu, Apr 25, 2013, 2:00 PM UTC

I'm not sure how revolutionary this is mainly because I live in a state the subsidizes the cost of energy efficient light bulbs and the IKEAs sell $10 60W equivalents.

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

#23

Post by fennecfoxen » Thu, Apr 25, 2013, 2:00 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #10

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…

Nakedrobot2 is saying that industry in general wastes / uses very much more energy than households do. While it's a good thing for households to move to energy efficient lighting it's not nearly enough. We need to work out ways for industry to reduce their energy waste / use. $13 for a lightbulb isn't too bad, if it's a nice light and efficient and lasts a long time. Businesses pay more than that if they need their l…

Cree offers its bulbs in daylight and soft-white variants. I've seen in-between bright-white 60W LED bulbs as well, but usually for about ~$6 more or so from other manufacturers (mostly Philips).

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

#24

Post by chaostheory » Thu, Apr 25, 2013, 2:02 PM UTC

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…

Please tell me you're using CFLs as the very least. Yes the upfront price is higher, but these bulbs actually pay for themselves in approximately two years and they start saving you money after that and not to mention time from not having to buy and install new bulbs.

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

#25

Post by tocomment » Thu, Apr 25, 2013, 2:08 PM UTC

I'd be pretty happy to get away from compact fluorescencts. They're filled with mercury gas (I think). It's bad news if you break one and inhale it. And I'm not sure what happens to the mercury when you dispose of them either.

Edit:

For you downvoters out there, it is considered a serious risk. Here's another article about the problems: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7431198

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

#26

Post by skorgu » Thu, Apr 25, 2013, 2:10 PM UTC

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…

Heck the efficiency gains are the maybe the fourth most important reason I switched to LEDs. #3 is bragging rights of course, #2 is the instant-on vs CFLs (barely perceptible 1/10 sec until 100% brightness).

#1 is the annoyance cost of having to replace a lightbulb. Almost all of my lights are either recessed in the ceiling or in annoying-to-access fixtures; not having to find a ladder or chair and balance the replacement in one hand is well worth the ~$10-20 LED bulbs cost. Amortized over their expected lifetime it's minuscule and if I move I'm taking the bulbs with me.

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

#27

Post by officialjunk » Thu, Apr 25, 2013, 2:10 PM UTC

Rant: when are we going to stop using watts as a unit for lightbulb "brightness?" The actual unit we care about is only implied by saying "60 watt equivalent." :(

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

#28

Post by hmottestad » Thu, Apr 25, 2013, 2:10 PM UTC

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...

The most powerful IKEA led is 600 lumen and uses 10W and costs 14$. The OP bulb is 800 lumen and uses 9.5W.

I read an article about the IKEA bulbs being quite good about 85% colour rendition compared to normal bulbs. If you feel like it you can test it by printing a camera colour test chart and compare how it looks under different lighting.

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

#29

Post by driverdan » Thu, Apr 25, 2013, 2:13 PM UTC

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…

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.

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

#30

Post by stonemetal » Thu, Apr 25, 2013, 2:13 PM UTC

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…

Per Ahmdal's law optimizing something like residential light bulb energy use isn't going to have a large impact. So don't do it and say "this is enough for me" because you have made the smallest drop in the smallest bucket.