Hmm. Why is not the price dropping then?
Yeah, in the low wattage area, I can see the induction light as being replaced by led. In the higher range, only if they refuse to budge on price. It just seems you could get a better deal than $600 for a 400 watt induction, if it were being passed up.
Taking a look at Mercury Vapor lights, I don't see their prices falling either. You would think you could pickup a 200 watt Mercury vapor ballast and bulb for $40, when you look at how outdated the technology. I can only draw the conclusion that most consumers do not do their homework, and are easy prey to overpriced, outmoded technologies.
Actually it is because the big customers that drive the market do do their homework.
Mercury vapour is a dead technology. Selling new fixtures is banned in a lot of areas.
Why is induction not dropping in price .... simple combination of complexity to manufacture, need for profit to stay in business, and lack of economies of scale.
Keep in mind, you are also pricing single units. That goes back to the economies of scale. Few suppliers, few channels, etc.
At the end of the day, it is the educated consumer who is not buying into induction.
Good metal halide lights are seeing 16-20000 hours to 70% output. Yes there is bulb failures in there. That metal halide starts at 100-110 lumens/watt at the bulb.
Induction fluorescent may be 50,000 hours to 70%, but the bulb starts at 85 lumens/watt.
There are lots and lots of claims of great savings in electricity from induction fluorescent, but it is rarely born out when compared to a good metal halide fixture and when a lighting analysis is done. Usually the claims are before/after shots. Well if you take metal halide bulbs at the end of their life in old fixtures that are dirty, reflector corroded, etc. you will see a lot more light from induction but it is hardly a good comparison.
For the most part, you are better off for interior lighting going with 40,000 hour (or more) linear fluorescent at 100 lumens/watt source if you are doing wide area lighting.
Now in terms of that smart consumer, a 400 watt light over 50,000 hours of use will consume $2,000 of electricity over its life which could be say 6-12+ years depending on whether 12/7 or 24/7.
Depending on the vendor, the claim compared to metal halide is 30-50% electricity savings (and depending on the technology). That equates to $600 - $1000 in electricity savings. Bulb replacement is a lift truck normally so not cheap which also must be taken into account.
Mercury vapor is 1/2 the efficiency of metal halid with even faster output depreciation. You get killed on electricity costs.
Semiman
