Philips' new LED light bulbs are brighter, more efficient, not cheap
By Sean Hollister 
posted May 13th 2010 6:57AM
posted May 13th 2010 6:57AM
Philips Unveils World's First LED Replacement for Most Common Household Light Bulb
LIGHTFAIR International 2010
LAS VEGAS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Royal Philips Electronics (AEX: PHI, NYSE: PHG) today unveiled its 12 watt EnduraLED light bulb, the industry's first LED replacement for a 60 watt incandescent light bulb. Shown for the first time here at the Lightfair International tradeshow, it marks an important breakthrough in the use of LED lighting technology in everyday applications. Consumers will now have an LED alternative to the most commonly used incandescent bulb, which will deliver up to 80% energy savings and last 25 times longer than its century-old predecessor.
"We challenged ourselves to answer the consumer call for an LED alternative that can mimic the traditional incandescent in light quality, shape and use, in a timeframe most did not think possible"
The significance of developing an LED equivalent to the 60 watt has been recognized by many international organizations, including the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE), who created the L-prize competition to spur development of this highly sought after innovation. Philips' entry was the first, and to date remains the only submission for the L-Prize, which was used as the basis for the 12 watt EnduraLED. Exceeding the Energy Star specifications for a 60 watt bulb, the EnduraLED uses only 12 watts of power while delivering an industry benchmark of 806 lumens.
Every year more than 425 million 60-watt incandescent light bulbs are sold in the United States, representing approximately 50% of the domestic incandescent light bulb market. According to calculations by Philips, this LED replacement has the potential to save 32.6 terawatt-hours of electricity in one year, enough to power the lights of 16.7 million U.S. households or 14.4% of the total number of households in the entire US. It would also eliminate the generation 5.3 million metric tons of carbon emissions annually.
The new lamp uses an innovative design and remote phosphor technology to deliver the same soft white light and shape consumers are familiar with in an incandescent. The EnduraLED works with standard dimmers, further simplifying use and allowing consumers to enjoy an effective, low energy solution for lighting in the home. For business users, particularly those within the hospitality sector, the new lamp will provide instant plug-in savings, through extended life and reduced energy and maintenance costs, in comparison with traditional bulbs.
Expanding on the Philips EnduraLED family of replacement lighting solutions, the new lamp has a rated life of 25,000 hours, as opposed to a standard 60 watt incandescent bulb which is rated at about 1,000 hours. This means that over the course of the LED life, replacing a 60 watt standard bulb could save a business or household $120 per lamp. It will be available in the U.S. in the fourth quarter of 2010, well ahead of U.S. legislation requiring the use of more energy efficient lighting which commences in 2012. The retail price of this EnduraLED has not yet been finalized.
"We challenged ourselves to answer the consumer call for an LED alternative that can mimic the traditional incandescent in light quality, shape and use, in a timeframe most did not think possible," said Rudy Provoost, CEO of Philips Lighting. "This milestone is even more impactful because we have been able to show people around the world that LED lighting can deliver energy efficiency and the warm white light people desire for their homes, without compromise to quality. This new bulb not only underscores our commitment to sustainability, it is a clear example of Philips' global leadership in lighting innovation."
To accelerate the EnduraLED's development and introduction to the market, Philips leveraged the expertise of scientists and lighting designers from around the globe; Philips researchers in The Netherlands created a new remote phosphorous technology and light distribution design, LUXEON LEDs were integrated from Philips Lumileds in San Jose, CA, and electronics for the bulb were built at Philips Color Kinetics in Burlington, MA and Philips Lighting Electronics in Rosemont, IL. From there, the bulbs were then sent to the Philips Quality Assurance team in Shanghai to be rigorously tested, ensuring they met exacting quality and safety standards.
For video, interviews and images, please visit www.newsinfusion.com/philips
Save the cheerleader, save the world.
@buoy You've been watching to much heroes haven't you.
@buoy
It's not at left, it's at top. Is that swiped from a differently formatted article?
By '60W' they mean 40W.
Although interesting concept, definitively worth the test, a $60 price point is a little steep if you ask me...take into consideration equipping your place with these, $60 a piece, it is quite an investment...but if it does consume the fifth of a comparable light bulb, perhaps it balances on the bills??
I'm looking forward for a review or some real life testing.
@serge
Only replace the 2 or 3 most used would be the most cost effective.
@serge It's a joke. A CCFL that consumes around 1.8x this can be found for around 1$. Cost effective my ass. If you are still using classical incandescence light bulbs you are an idiot anyway, but if you buy these led lights now you are an even bigger idiot.
@serge
I see not many people seem to realise an LED bulb will likely outlast a traditional incandescent bulb by at least 100 times.
Seems pretty reasonable value for money if u look at it that way.
@Heliosphan
Unless you drop it.
Whats the life of the bulb going to be with this technolgy?
Jesus, for $60 I could buy a normal efficient bulb and plant 5 trees.
@LockStock666
Jesus thanks you, hippy.
@cicada
Hippies.They're everywhere. They wanna save the earth, but all they do is smoke pot and smell bad.
According to the [url=http://www.core77.com/blog/technology/philips_unveils_cool-looking_light_bulb_replacement_16550.asp]core77.com[/url] article, this baby saves up to $120 throughout its lifetime.
So they are saying it is not really any better then a CFL. Those use around 15 watts for a 60 watt equivalent and this new LED light can do it for 13 watts... Wow that $60 is worth it...
@Adamd21
I mean 12 watts, at least it is brighter...
@Adamd21 It also doesn't contain any mercury like CFL's do.
@Adamd21
You forget that the light quality of these is very good! The problem with CF is that the light is really crap and therefore I personally only use it where light quality is not that important, like outside, but in e.g. my PH 3/2 lamps I still use old fashioned 40w :D
@Adamd21 My numbers are 13-14w for a CFL going 800+ lumens. nVision (http://www.nvisioncfl.com/products.aspx?CategoriesID=1) The only advantage this LED bulb has is dimming.
@Techtrino
Absolutely true! I have tried and tried to find a CFL bulb that doesn't have absolutely horrible CRI, and it's just impossible. Even the ones claiming a CRI of 99 look terrible. Half of the CFLs I've purchased have died very early, too. Taking apart the ballasts revealed some scary stuff. Some have bare wires, mosfets with no heatsinking which have apparently desoldered themselves, and so on.
I gave up on CFLs and only use them where I don't care much about light quality. I've replaced the rest of my CFLs and incandescents with 7W and 11W Philips lights -- 5 bulbs so far. Totally worth it!
According to core77.com, this baby saves up to $120 throughout its lifetime.
@bigredbus
To make economic sense, at $60 per piece, these bulbs need to outlive regular incandescents costing barely a $1 or so.. by a huge factor. And right now, the LED companies can hardly guarantee this kind of longevity. So, the LED bulbs have a long way to go - firstly they need to drive the prices southwards (relook at the cost-volume curve), then they need to build confidence about the longevity of the LEDs. Mere green talk will get them no where.
$6 is too much for a light bulb. $60...lol.
@Rod this isn't checkers....
@Rod
Depend on the quality of light you want, if you can make due with poor colors then dont spend 60usd
The questions is - how long do they last (I'm imagining a decade at least), and how much money will they save over the lifetime of the bulb? It might be worth the investment.
I wonder how well they hold up to ancient crappy wiring systems, as I know one that eats 'lifetime' CFLs like popcorn.
I find that head reflector light bulbs that I use and have always had a bit of a short life span are increasingly hard to get and are getting more and more expensive. LED is getting more appealing despite the price
Haters gonna hate, but early adopters are important catalysts in the improvement of new technology.
Same efficiency and energy savings as a CFL, which costs $1.35. I thought LED was supposed to provide another leap in efficiency over CFL?
Better stick those babies in a locked cabinet!!
Second light bulb story on Engadget in a week. Neither mentioned if these bulbs dim. Is it assumed that they do or is it that no one cares? I do.
If you dim a halogen it becomes much more efficient an gives you an infinite number of 'moods.' CFL is bad mojo for your computers, hifi and TV (apparently.) Give me an efficient bulb that can dim and doesn't flicker. Let me believe it'll last the rest of my life and I'll buy it even if it's $60.
@bobAcrossThePond
I'm in the same boat as you. All LED bulbs that I have found at retain so far state that they are NOT dimmable. However there are some very expensive ones online which state that they are. I haven't been willing to risk my money on any of them though.
@bobAcrossThePond True, the Engadget articles don't mention it, but the press release from Philips about this bulb does say the bulb works with standard dimmers. Of course, I've heard that before and how WELL it works will be what ultimately convinces me whether or not to go LED. I'm ready to make the jump, but too many other bulbs I've tried work on some dimmer settings, make strange noises when dimmed or tend to suddenly stop dimming - and these are not cheap bulbs.
If Philips can make a bulb with the right quality electronics and lighting characteristics, then I'm sold...just waiting to see if this bulb makes that a reality (and then start demanding 40 & 100 W equivalents).
Even without considering the price I'd want to see the light output before buying. LEDs tend to send light in a very tight beam.
They're great as flashlights but not so good for lighting an area.
Besides, we don't want you to buy these. The manufacturing plant that makes these LEDs is already turning away customers because it can't expand fast enough. The LEDs coming out of this same plant are used in backlighting, camera flashes, etc.
This is only a good investment if the cost of the bulb never drops. Since the cost of the bulb WILL drop, at both a faster pace than both inflation and the rise in cost of electricity combined, then this is a very BAD financial investment.
I saw in the news in just the last few days that one of the big chains (Lowe's? Walmart?), is going to start selling a similar 40w LED bulb for $25, half the price of the nearly identical GE bulb that came out last year. In 2-3 years tops these things will be under $10-15. In 5-10 they'll be a few bucks a piece like CFs are now.
Since CFs are rather close in comparison in efficiency, and you can get "full spectrum" CFs for about $6-8 a bulb which are VERY comperable compared to LED (as opposed to the 2400k cheap ass CFs people complain about, you DO get what you pay for with CF), it simply is not worth the extra expense for 3-5w savings...
Buy some GOOD quality CF bulbs for the rooms you use heavily. Buy some cheap ass CFs for odd rooms. Don't bother replacing any bulb that's on less than 2 hours a day (especially closets, guest rooms, etc) until the bulbs wear out.
first and foremost: SEAL your house! This is quick, and cheap to do. Also flush your hot water heater if you have not done that in at least a year.
Next, add more insulation to the attic, and properly seal/insulate your crawlspace if you have one next, this only costs a few hundred dollars typically for most homes.
Light bulbs for the whole house should come next, but you probably want to do the heaviest used bulbs first before you got to this point.
Have your windows checked for efficiency and decide if they should be replaced. Replacing some may already have been done as part of sealing the house if they're real bad or single pane.
Get a good refrigerator, washing machine, dryer, hot water heater, and dishwasher as soon as you are able. If they're aging, look to replace them as soon as possible. If they're under warranty, consider their current efficincy rating to what's available, it may still be a good investment to replace even a relatively new unit. Don't let them "haul away" for $10, sell the old unit to a used unit shop (unless it's really inefficient, in which case, ensure it's destroyed)
Finally, If your AC system is out of warranty, aging, or below 11 SEER, get it replaced with the highest SEER system you can reasonably place on the house. If you don't have central air, look into it...
Solar hot water is a good option for many homes. Solar power however, even in NJ where subsidies for it are the best in the nation, is simply NOT a good investment yet. I looked HEAVILY into doing this 2 years ago while building a house in the south. With a near ideal roofline, and near ideal facing, the installation costs alone would have taken more than 20 year to recoup, and that did not include insurance hikes, tax increases, hail deductibles (it hail here every few years) and routine maintenance, nor did it account for panel efficiency losses over time. Best case scenario, after 40 years, we'd have lost about $10K installing it, and that assumed less than 1 panel replaced per year and none for 5 years. We had quotes from 4 companies, and they were within 5% of each other. Solar price is still dropping, rapidly, so in 5-10 more years, it might be viable in places subsidies are high, or in places where power costs are extreme, especially where the power company is nice enough to run your meter backwards allowing you to swap power for peak vs offpeak at a wash (here the power company give $0 credit for solar power you put into the grid when you're overproducing)
@zelannii
Hehe yep you americans are finally catching up
@zelannii
CF's don't very long for me, so I sure wouldn't trust an LED bulb's electronics to last. I'll try an LED bulb when they are $5.
I live in a 110 year old house, and it would cost a lot to replace the windows. I would have to replace 9 6ft tall 12 5ft tall, and 3 3ft tall windows. Plus you want me to replace a fridge and washer and drier that all work fine? Install central air for the month or two it's hot enough to use it?
Yes, I know that my house is not efficient, but I need proof that it will pay off, not hearsay.
The Netherlands yeahhh!
Guess I should buy a truck load of Reveal light bulbs before Big Brother deems it time to "keep our boot on the neck of" people who prefer a certain quality light.
Someone forgot what a light bulb looks like.
"brighter, more efficient, not cheap" ...and you forgot to add ugly too.
I really like LEDs but $60 just isn't something I could justify for something that sits in a socket. I have an LED flashlight that was over $100, but at least that's portable. When they come down in price I'll surely jump on them, but for now, I'll stick with incandescent. I can't stand CFLs or any fluorescent because they all flicker. I'm not concerned with energy efficiency because electricity is dirt cheap.
@Mr Pips
your cpu sits in a socket - i bet that cost more than $60
I dunno if anyone else said this as I'm too lazy to read through all that, but Home Depot already sells Phillips LED lights for $60 and then some. They just don't look like this particular model. Last time I looked, the cheapest Phillips LED light was like $45 or something. I asked why it was so expensive and lady in the orange jacket told me to not ask so many questions... Seriously.
@sydcinema Let me add that I have yet to see that $20 version they linked to
I am still concerned about longevity. I have an LED flashlight - granted it was cheap - in which one of the 9 LEDs stopped working after a few months. We use it to walk the dog once in awhile in winter. That's a lot less usage than it would get in my house. That is an astonishing failure rate for LEDs, considering my stereo amp that I've had for 15 years has LEDs in it that still work (as one would expect). They are cheaply and poorly made now, like everything else, which is very sad. Show me one that actually lasts a long time (or at least provide a really nice warranty for my $60), one that really offers the brightness that was promised, with a warmer color temp than most of the LED lights I've seen so far, and I'm game.
In terms of energy savings, though...if you've already switched to CFL I'm not sure there's any long term cost advantage for you.
One advantage over CFLs is that CFLs take awhile to come up to full brightness, which is frustrating at times. For that, there are some rooms I am definitely considering LEDs at some point (pantry, bathroom, etc.); outdoor sconce lighting will remain CFL until the price of LED comes down to match and the CFLs stop working (what, 10 years from now?).
Engadget definitely has a weird political agenda whenever it comes to "green" products. You'll rarely get a critical examination of them on this site. I'm all for saving energy, and when the technology gets to the point where I can replace incandescent bulbs with something else without sacrificing either quality or cost, I'll be the first to jump on board. I'm sure it will happen sometime in the next decade. CFL's sucked. These LED bulbs are way too expensive. Some day we'll get there, but sticking our heads in the sand and pretending does nobody any good.
I'll care when these are $0.50 to $1
These really aren't economically feasible at the time for residential applications ( it's a 5.7 year payback period for the average household in the US), but they are a great alternative for places like hotels and restaurants that have the lights on for a long time, but can't use CFLs because they need better dimming capabilities and the best color rendering.
These lamps were submitted as part of the L-Price competition, meaning they have to meet some pretty lofty light requirements, not just brightness, but color rendering and temperature as well as life. I can guarantee these $60 bulbs will look a hell of a lot better than those $20 bulbs Home Depot just announced. The company that makes those bulbs is known for making cheaper products. In other words, don't expect to pay Fuji prices and get a Sony quality.