http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/ Engadget Comments for Study says LEDs are about as efficient as compact fluorescents, all things considered http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/Aug 4th 2009 6:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/Aug 5th 2009 7:13AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/
So your screen doesn't have backlight at all?]]>Aug 5th 2009 7:23AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/
He has no screen, just illuminated keyboard buttons]]>Aug 5th 2009 7:43AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/
You and me are from the same species I guess. The only thing that irritates me is people calling me "Nite Owl". Sad I know. Glad I'm not alone!]]>Aug 5th 2009 8:58AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/Aug 5th 2009 11:28AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/
This study also seems to be quite flawed when factoring a true 'apples to apples' comparison. When comparing identical color temperature to efficacy (lumen output to watt consumption) - LED fixtures are still quite inefficient. If it takes 3 $50 LED lamps to do the job of one $2 CFL - you have some serious hurdles when it comes to lifetime economics and payback.

I did a writeup on this very issue last month:
http://geekpi.com/?p=535

I just bought a handful of very interesting MR16 LED replacements - they seem promising when compared to the spotlight halogens they're replacing but they still suffer from a a relatively low efficacy of 35 lumens per watt. The T5 tube fluorescents we use for area lighting are over 100 lumens per watt.]]>Aug 5th 2009 12:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/
The title, it makes me scream.]]>Aug 4th 2009 6:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/Aug 4th 2009 6:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/Aug 12th 2009 8:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/Aug 4th 2009 6:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/Aug 4th 2009 6:43PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/
Memento Mori]]>Aug 5th 2009 10:52AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/Aug 5th 2009 4:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/Aug 4th 2009 7:33PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2008/January/07010803.asp

Whilst I agree that it is a health hazard, I think the hazard (in relation to mercury in Energy Saving Lightbulb CFLs) has been nicely hyped by various media outlets - so isn't quite as dangerous as its made out to be.

]]>Aug 5th 2009 6:54AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/Aug 5th 2009 9:01AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/
No hazmat required.

The EPA has guidelines on cleaning up CFL breakage and they don't include calling a hazmat team. I really don't understand the hysteria. I imagine most people who worked retail long enough experienced a burnt out full size flourescent tube being broken over someones head. Hell, they did it in 40 Year Old Virgin. Not smart, but I haven't seen an epidemic of mercury poisoning from it.

http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/#fluorescent]]>Aug 5th 2009 10:20AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/
The mercury in a CFL is frankly too little to actually care about, it only matters when disposing of it because they don't want the mercury accumulating in landfills.]]>Aug 5th 2009 11:44AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/Aug 5th 2009 12:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/Aug 5th 2009 12:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/Aug 4th 2009 7:39PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/Aug 5th 2009 8:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/
by the way this is only saying that you are paying for the BULBS and how long they last before you replace them.

it doesnt take into consideration how far less it costs to run a .1w LED buld as opposed to a 100 watt incandesant or 20 watt CFL]]>Aug 5th 2009 11:16AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/
But regular lightbulbs shine light in all directions... great for a table lamp.

When will they make an LED bulb that has many LEDs to shine in all directions?]]>Aug 5th 2009 5:15AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/09/philips-master-led-light-bulb-set-for-us-release-in-july/
Not sure of its status though.

Then there's this:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/22/earthled-evolux-r-led-light-bulb-lets-you-choose-your-lumens/

and this:
http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/08/150-led-bulb-uses-9w-costs-65/



]]>Aug 5th 2009 6:48AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/Aug 5th 2009 8:21AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/Aug 5th 2009 5:21AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/
"Study says electric cars are about as efficient as SUVs"

?]]>Aug 5th 2009 5:50AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/Aug 5th 2009 6:16AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/Aug 5th 2009 6:54AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/
Most lighting fixtures are not built to allow the heat produced by the CFL circuitry to escape, resulting in the CFLs overheating and dying in about the same time period as a normal incandescent bulb. One of my light fixtures repeatedly burned up CFLs every few months, with a couple of the CFLs looking scorched when I pulled them out.

The manufacturers need to do real world analysis, rather then keeping the bulb lit continuously in a refrigerated or air-conditioned chamber. Where is the truth-in-advertising? Save your receipts when you buy your CFL, because the manufacturer will replace them for you as long as you pay postage) WHEN they die early.

I suspect (hope) that LEDs don't have th eoverheating problem, so maybe in the long run will be more economical. Up-front cost is prohibitive, making them a non-starter at their current prices.]]>Aug 5th 2009 8:05AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/
I speak from experience, that of my own, and many, many of my customers, who have tried LED, and decided it wasn't worth the expense.]]>Aug 5th 2009 9:22AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/Aug 5th 2009 10:48AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/
The problem with current LED bulbs and fixtures is that they're all being overdriven. It's an universal practice to overdrive LEDs.

Two factors contribute to it: First, LEDs are still too dim, to get a good amount of light out of an LED fixture with the LEDs running at their recommended specs, on which they can get up to 70% of the original brightness after a cool 100k hours, would take quite a few LEDs in a single fixture, making it impractical because of size, and taking costs to a whole new level, to the point where no one would buy them. Have in mind that you also need to design the electronics to last long without losing precision, so no more using cheap parts.
Second, LEDs can be easily overdriven with no side effects other than a dramatically shortened life span, more heat, and maybe a bluish tint to the light.

On the other hand, I don't know if it's true, but I read somewhere that in most cases, the CFLs don't actually crap out, but the electronics in them do. Either way, they should do two more tests: One with proper CFL and LED designs, and another one with cheap consumer CFL and LED lamps, which I suspect are both very very different from the ideal designs. This study is somewhere in between.

(By the way, I'm assuming arrays of 1W LEDs. While there are more powerful LEDs, they tend to be very hard to deal with, heat management-wise, and hence only convenient for portable applications.)]]>Aug 5th 2009 11:26AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/Aug 5th 2009 8:44AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/Aug 5th 2009 9:13AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/Aug 5th 2009 1:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/Aug 5th 2009 8:56AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/www.greenlightingsupply.com ]]>Aug 5th 2009 9:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/Aug 5th 2009 9:34AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/Aug 5th 2009 9:36AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/Aug 5th 2009 9:58AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/
A "13 watt" CFL actually puts a larger load on the grid than a "13 watt" incandescent night light. An easy way to explain it to people with EE degrees is think of electrical usage (watts) as voltage (pressure) and current (volume, or mass). A CFL draws unevenly from the "current" side and very little from the "voltage" side. The actual wattage (power) is the same for both bulbs.

So what's the difference then? Joule's law. Remember, some energy is lost in transmission as heat. This is defined by the equation heat produced = ((current)^2 * resistance * time)

Lets say that a CFLs pulled twice as much current from the 'current side' of the electrical transmission than an incandescent. This would mean a 2^2 = 4 joule increase. Lets say it was 4x, thats 16. A small change means a lot of wasted energy. Real world calculations show CFL's run a power factor from 30% - 50%, whereas incandescent and LED are close to 100%. UGGGGHHHHH! Thats a lot of wasted energy!

And before the EE's here jump down my throat, I know the explanation above is flawed. If you have a simple explanation thats more correct lets here it.]]>Aug 5th 2009 10:27AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/The problem with your calculations is that it compares power consumption only. The real test is to compare units of brightness, lumens, per unit of power, watts.]]>Aug 5th 2009 3:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/
Jon:
A poor power factor doesn't automatically waste energy. The power companies have large banks of capacitors placed in proper locations to correct the phase differences. They're not stupid, they don't like to generate energy just to throw it away.

I just plugged in a couple of my CFLs to my Kill-A-Watt and checked the power factor. The PF on them is between 55 and 60%, just like any other device with an uncorrected switching power supply, like many computers (recent ones are PF corrected though due to European regulations). This isn't nearly as bad as 30%. You can expect an LED bulb to come out the same unless it also is corrected.

I do agree it sucks that non-resistive loads cannot be easily switched using a triac, but them's just the breaks I guess, it's unlikely any of our future lighting solutions will be plain resistive loads.]]>Aug 5th 2009 12:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/
It sure is, Jon. No explanation is better than such an erroneous one.

"UGGGGHHHHH! Thats a lot of wasted energy!"

A reactive load doesn't waste energy, it simply stores and releases it.

"A CFL draws unevenly from the "current" side and very little from the "voltage" side. The actual wattage (power) is the same for both bulbs."

There is no such thing as drawing from the "voltage" side, in fact there is no "current" side and "voltage" side. Power is the product of voltage and current. The phase relationship between current and voltage is what is important.]]>Aug 5th 2009 2:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/Aug 5th 2009 10:44AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/
The longest lit lightbulb is an incandescent lightbulb ... (over a 100 years continuously on), but it's got a fairly thick filament and is only 4 watts.
]]>Aug 5th 2009 10:49AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/study-says-leds-are-about-as-efficient-than-compact-fluorescents/Aug 5th 2009 10:49AM