Paul_in_Maryland
Flashlight Enthusiast
Washington Post article. Lightbulb makers aim to persuade us that higher-cost lighting is now an investment, not a throwaway commodity. More than 600 comments have been posted.
Companies strive to build a better (more expensive) light bulb (article)
- Thread starter Paul_in_Maryland
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
And the Space Shuttle was supposed to be a business, but when I said "Show me the numbers [benchmarks for rating the performance of businesses]" the mood got hostile pretty quickly.
I'm surprised the Post didn't hire a consultant to run the some numbers and list assumptions that would have gone into those numbers, for incands, LEDs and CFLs. The overall cost of ownership, how accurate the life projections are for LEDs and CFLs, what accelerated life tests they ran, etc.
E.g., if you periodically replace bulbs it's like you are paying someone an annuity, so The Present Value of An Annuity formula might be a good start.
Just saying or implying that something is 'wonderful' cannot be fact-checked.
Last edited:
idleprocess
Flashaholic
On the face of it, a CFL has lower TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) than an incandescent since it consumes less energy to produce similar lumens - even it it only lasts as long as the incandescent as opposed to its rated lifespan of 5000-8000 hours.
But reality isn't so simple. CFL's don't like overheating, short-cycling, environmental extremes, and can do funny things to the circuit they're connected to. I also gather that thanks to their non-1.0 power factor, their faceplate energy ratings need to be taken with a grain of salt - especially with the deployment smarter electrical meters that charge residential customers for power factor correction (I don't know what the power factor is of the average CFL nor how much it distorts their apparent wattage relative to their rated wattage). There are likely some other legitimate performance considerations I've missed out on.
CFL failure modes are a bit less predictable than incandescents - sometimes they simply "burn out," other times components melt, the tube goes uselessly dim, and occasionally they spark or burn.
There is concern about their constituent compounds and elements - although I find the paranoia about mercury and other compounds curious given the small amounts present and the prevalence of these compounds in other commonplace devices (which are not the subject of such paranoia).
The race to the bottom on price has hurt CFL's badly. When they were $10 (more more) each about a decade ago they easily lasted their rated lifespans and rarely experienced bad failures. Now that the target price is <$2 each, corners have been cut in terms of durability, performance, and optical quality.
While there's no accounting for personal preference, I feel that many consumers' expressed disdain for CFL's seems to be more a reaction to change than a true substantive objection. I will leave this subject alone in this discussion due to its highly subjective nature.
As fond as I am of LED lighting - even in the significantly compromised "LED bulb" footprint - I think they will take a long time to gain traction in the marketplace and the race to cut costs will hurt them in similar ways to CFL's. Some of the early "5mm showerhead" models that had placement in big-box retailers several years ago soured much of the market due to their overall shoddiness.
If we are to see lighting as a capital expense rather than an operating expense, then one needs to realize that the trade is upfront expense rather than variable operating expense. Assuming both options offer satisfactory performance, then the decision comes down to which option has the lowest total cost of ownership. If electricity were exceptionally cheap, then the incandescent would win due to its extremely low cost to acquire and negligible operating expense; with electricity not being so cheap, alternatives such as CFL's generally win due to their extremely low operating cost in spite of their greater initial cost of acquisition (in fact, a $20 LED bulb beats an incandescent for TCO assuming it lasts most of its 25,000 hour rated lifespan).
This is idea a tough sell even to sophisticated commercial operators who are often under pressure - both external and internal - to minimize capital expenses in organizations that have internalized eternal operating expenses, regardless of the TCO advantage. It will be a far harder pitch to residential consumers for "low thought" purchases such as home lighting ... whom will generally only pay more for better fixture aesthetics than performance.
A challenge with presenting lighting as an investment is that residential consumers really really want a light bulb to screw into their existing Edison sockets. This presents a challenge to nearly all of the alternative technologies. Linear florescent requires dedicated fixtures; LED and CFL do poorly in most Edison socket fixtures; the other arc-light technologies out there might screw into Edison sockets, but still require new fixtures and ballasts due to their specialized driving requirements, and even if they are self-ballasted they suffer from most of CFL's limitations. If people are willing to replace Edison-socket fixtures with purpose-built fixtures, then the notion of lighting as being an investment might catch on ... but I'm not optimistic.
But reality isn't so simple. CFL's don't like overheating, short-cycling, environmental extremes, and can do funny things to the circuit they're connected to. I also gather that thanks to their non-1.0 power factor, their faceplate energy ratings need to be taken with a grain of salt - especially with the deployment smarter electrical meters that charge residential customers for power factor correction (I don't know what the power factor is of the average CFL nor how much it distorts their apparent wattage relative to their rated wattage). There are likely some other legitimate performance considerations I've missed out on.
CFL failure modes are a bit less predictable than incandescents - sometimes they simply "burn out," other times components melt, the tube goes uselessly dim, and occasionally they spark or burn.
There is concern about their constituent compounds and elements - although I find the paranoia about mercury and other compounds curious given the small amounts present and the prevalence of these compounds in other commonplace devices (which are not the subject of such paranoia).
The race to the bottom on price has hurt CFL's badly. When they were $10 (more more) each about a decade ago they easily lasted their rated lifespans and rarely experienced bad failures. Now that the target price is <$2 each, corners have been cut in terms of durability, performance, and optical quality.
While there's no accounting for personal preference, I feel that many consumers' expressed disdain for CFL's seems to be more a reaction to change than a true substantive objection. I will leave this subject alone in this discussion due to its highly subjective nature.
As fond as I am of LED lighting - even in the significantly compromised "LED bulb" footprint - I think they will take a long time to gain traction in the marketplace and the race to cut costs will hurt them in similar ways to CFL's. Some of the early "5mm showerhead" models that had placement in big-box retailers several years ago soured much of the market due to their overall shoddiness.
If we are to see lighting as a capital expense rather than an operating expense, then one needs to realize that the trade is upfront expense rather than variable operating expense. Assuming both options offer satisfactory performance, then the decision comes down to which option has the lowest total cost of ownership. If electricity were exceptionally cheap, then the incandescent would win due to its extremely low cost to acquire and negligible operating expense; with electricity not being so cheap, alternatives such as CFL's generally win due to their extremely low operating cost in spite of their greater initial cost of acquisition (in fact, a $20 LED bulb beats an incandescent for TCO assuming it lasts most of its 25,000 hour rated lifespan).
This is idea a tough sell even to sophisticated commercial operators who are often under pressure - both external and internal - to minimize capital expenses in organizations that have internalized eternal operating expenses, regardless of the TCO advantage. It will be a far harder pitch to residential consumers for "low thought" purchases such as home lighting ... whom will generally only pay more for better fixture aesthetics than performance.
A challenge with presenting lighting as an investment is that residential consumers really really want a light bulb to screw into their existing Edison sockets. This presents a challenge to nearly all of the alternative technologies. Linear florescent requires dedicated fixtures; LED and CFL do poorly in most Edison socket fixtures; the other arc-light technologies out there might screw into Edison sockets, but still require new fixtures and ballasts due to their specialized driving requirements, and even if they are self-ballasted they suffer from most of CFL's limitations. If people are willing to replace Edison-socket fixtures with purpose-built fixtures, then the notion of lighting as being an investment might catch on ... but I'm not optimistic.
LEDninja
Flashlight Enthusiast
Lightbulb makers do not have to persuade anybody.
Once the 100W bulbs start disappearing from the store shelves in the new year followed by 60W and 40W, there will be no other choice but pay for higher-cost lighting.
Europe started a couple of years ago already.
LEDninja
Flashlight Enthusiast
Duplicate post.
Last edited:
LEDninja
Flashlight Enthusiast
Duplicate post
Last edited:
deadrx7conv
Enlightened
The movement to other bulb-types will bring down the cost.
We could have banned non-halogen incan's a decade or two ago by using halogens.
ESL bulbs are another completely ignored option.
I guess that the CFL group has the best lobby. Its a bulb that I love to hate.
LED still isn't friendly to older enclosed fixtures that are overly popular.
CFL quality is no better than incan's. I replace them pretty regularly. I thought that they would be the 'last' bulb that I'd ever have to buy(hahahahaha). And, I do expect LED to suffer the same fate as CFL. Like the 1980's diesel engine, it will take time for some consumer to try again after those horrible LED options from just a year or two ago.
We could have banned non-halogen incan's a decade or two ago by using halogens.
ESL bulbs are another completely ignored option.
I guess that the CFL group has the best lobby. Its a bulb that I love to hate.
LED still isn't friendly to older enclosed fixtures that are overly popular.
CFL quality is no better than incan's. I replace them pretty regularly. I thought that they would be the 'last' bulb that I'd ever have to buy(hahahahaha). And, I do expect LED to suffer the same fate as CFL. Like the 1980's diesel engine, it will take time for some consumer to try again after those horrible LED options from just a year or two ago.
idleprocess
Flashaholic
Agreed. It easily meets the efficiency bar set by the legislation and avoids most CFL pitfalls but gets little mention. Efficiency is pretty blah, but nearly triple the lumens-per-watt of incans goes a long way towards the supposed goal of better residential energy efficiency...
I'm finding that the newer brand-name CFL's aren't faring so well. Recently had a Philips fail after a few tens of hours of operation ... of course the original packaging and receipt were lost to the sands of time, so I just replaced it with a newer one from a blister pack: itself bought some time back.
LED bulbs avoid CFL's high-power electronics and startup stresses, but otherwise faces the same challenges of shoehorning a driver circuit and thermally-sensitive components into a footprint intended to be occupied by an incandescent comfortable with burning temperatures. Initial quality on LED bulbs from major brands seems decent, but they also go for $20 or more ... the CFL cycle may well repeat itself 10 years later as price becomes a point of competition.
blasterman
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2008
- Messages
- 1,802
Owner of a non profit I volunteer for has been replacing all the CFLs in the place with low cost LED bulbs. They aren't EcoSmarts, but some other clone that's cheaper.
Bulbs are bright, but the heatsink get's too warm to the touch, and as I predicted in other threads the color of the bulb has shifted greatly in less than a year. Where the bulbs were originally about 3500k the older ones are now 5000k - likely because of the heat.
Bulbs are bright, but the heatsink get's too warm to the touch, and as I predicted in other threads the color of the bulb has shifted greatly in less than a year. Where the bulbs were originally about 3500k the older ones are now 5000k - likely because of the heat.
My main issue is light bulb makers of LED bulbs are not trying to compete with CFLs at all. If you look at the lumens/watt efficiencies of LED bulbs and comparable output CFL bulbs the LED bulbs most of the time are no better than CFLs and I have seen too many of them actually LESS efficient yet brandishing the ole "savings" ad on the package which of course is only compared to incans.
Basically the only "advantage" LED bulbs have at this time is supposed runtime before dying but until they actually have them in use for long enough that could be smoke and mirrors also. I was hesitant to swap out my incans for CFLs at a $20 price point I see even less reason now to do so when there is no savings in electrical bills to compensate the expense. Give me a 1500 lumen LED bulb for $20 at 80+ lumens per watt and then I will start seeing the light.... forget these 30-60 lumens/watt LED bulbs not worth the expense right now I am content to throwaway 2-3 CFLs and save $5-$10+ over time to wait for LED bulbs to get their act together.
Basically the only "advantage" LED bulbs have at this time is supposed runtime before dying but until they actually have them in use for long enough that could be smoke and mirrors also. I was hesitant to swap out my incans for CFLs at a $20 price point I see even less reason now to do so when there is no savings in electrical bills to compensate the expense. Give me a 1500 lumen LED bulb for $20 at 80+ lumens per watt and then I will start seeing the light.... forget these 30-60 lumens/watt LED bulbs not worth the expense right now I am content to throwaway 2-3 CFLs and save $5-$10+ over time to wait for LED bulbs to get their act together.
Paul_in_Maryland
Flashlight Enthusiast
When I started this thread, I didn't realize that the responders would be so well-informed, their responses so well-considered. Thanks, all; I've learned a lot.
blasterman
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2008
- Messages
- 1,802
If you check the Caliper tests on the Dept of Energy's web site a lot of higher end bulbs are getting close. One bulb scored 97 lumens per watt, but I can't find the details on it other than the picture (see summary charts #12). Govt sites aren't the best organized.
1500lumen is going to be the biggest problem because without active cooling we need some serious technological improvements. I just build my own lamps.
Biggest difference for me is color. 3000-4000k CFLs can't touch higher end LEDs in terms of color rendition. The warmer the color, the bigger the difference.
idleprocess
Flashaholic
I'm seeing some major brands put out LED bulbs with 25k-50k hour warranties; whether they make the terms reasonable (just return it) or unreasonable (need original packaging, original receipt, signed statement by three witnesses, and six forms of ID) is another thing; the trend is towards the latter judging by the terms I vaguely remember on the box of the "60W equivalent" Philips bulb I bought some time back. Accelerated testing procedures usually uncover flaws in the design, but obviously isn't perfect. I mention major brands, because unlike short half-life of numerous store brands, a major brands' options for a flood of warranty claims tend not to include "let's move the assets to another entity then fold up shop to escape liability."
On their face, a CFL consumes around a quarter of the electricity of its "watt-equivalent" incandecent to provide similar light output. At the low low electric price of $0.10/kWH, a "60W equivalent" (13W) CFL costs $1.30 per thousand hours of operation to run; a 60W incandescent runs $6.00. But this assume both devices have a power factor of 1; in reality, the (effectively) resistive load of the incan has such a power factor while the dynamic load of the CFL (featuring the likes of capacitors and coils on the line side to distort the phase) does not. A really bad power factor could erase the faceplate advantage; a moderate one would simply reduce it. This information is curiously hard to find, and the effect it has on the average consumer's electrical bill is also highly variable - I gather that it takes a "smart meter" to measure it at the customer side (and thus bill the customer), and said meters are hardly universal.
EDIT: I have been meaning to obtain one of those digital watt-meters for a number of reasons; knowing the power factor of some devices would be an added bonus
I suspect the reason that the savings from more energy-efficient lighting is not obvious to most is because lighting tends to be such a small slice of the average home's electrical bill that its effect is lost in the "noise" of their usual usage fluctuations.
Last edited:
I think if you have a 60 watt light and use it 5 hours a day for a year it is about 110Kwh or about $11 a year at 10 cents per Kwh. If an LED bulb is just 10% more efficient it only saves $1 a year compared to a CFL and if it costs $15 more then you have to use it a lot for 15 years or perhaps 10 years if you go through another CFL in the meantime. Now if the LED bulb were twice as efficient as the CFL it would save about $5 a year over it and pay for itself in 4-5 years which would be a very worthwhile investment. Waiting 10-15 years to break even typically is about useless for savings sake because trusting something to last that long is not a common thing to do. Most CFLs are close to 50-60 lumens per watt I figure when LED bulbs get to 120 lumens/watt or so they will start being an investment in savings.
Similar threads
