Yes, they are more efficient once they are in the socket. The work needed to get an LED bulb made is phenomenal. ...
The whole thing is more of a question of where the energy is saved or lost. Who gets to feel like they are saving the world.

The issue has been studied by your department of energy who have produced a publication "Life-Cycle Assessment of Energy and Environmental Impacts of LED Lighting Products" :
Summary http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/10/f27/lca_factsheet_apr2013_0.pdf
Detailed reports: http://energy.gov/eere/ssl/download...d-environmental-impacts-led-lighting-products

I haven't read it in detail, but the simplistic comparison covering the issues they thought were the most significant, is the following spider graph where the impact of CFL and LEDs (2012 technology and assumed 2017 technology) is compared to Incandescents:


LEDs and CFLs seem to have a much reduced impact over their lifetime. I haven't read the report in detail, I'd be interested if you think there are any glaring faults.

From the conclusion:

"The greatest environmental impact after energy-in-use for the LED sources comes from manufacturing the aluminum heat sink, which would be reduced in size as the efficacy increases and more of the input wattage is converted to useful light (instead of wasted as heat). The heat sink is the main reason the LED currently exceeds the CFL in the category of hazardous waste to landfill, which is driven by the upstream energy and environmental impacts from manufacturing the aluminum from raw materials. Recycling efforts could further reduce the adverse impact of manufacturing the aluminum heat sink."

Who would have thought - that from all the things you mentioned, it was the aluminium heatsink that was the greatest issue!

 

The issue has been studied by your department of energy who have produced a publication "Life-Cycle Assessment of Energy and Environmental Impacts of LED Lighting Products" :
Summary http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/10/f27/lca_factsheet_apr2013_0.pdf
Detailed reports: http://energy.gov/eere/ssl/download...d-environmental-impacts-led-lighting-products

I haven't read it in detail, but the simplistic comparison covering the issues they thought were the most significant, is the following spider graph where the impact of CFL and LEDs (2012 technology and assumed 2017 technology) is compared to Incandescents:
View attachment 104002

LEDs and CFLs seem to have a much reduced impact over their lifetime. I haven't read the report in detail, I'd be interested if you think there are any glaring faults.

From the conclusion:

"The greatest environmental impact after energy-in-use for the LED sources comes from manufacturing the aluminum heat sink, which would be reduced in size as the efficacy increases and more of the input wattage is converted to useful light (instead of wasted as heat). The heat sink is the main reason the LED currently exceeds the CFL in the category of hazardous waste to landfill, which is driven by the upstream energy and environmental impacts from manufacturing the aluminum from raw materials. Recycling efforts could further reduce the adverse impact of manufacturing the aluminum heat sink."

Who would have thought - that from all the things you mentioned, it was the aluminium heatsink that was the greatest issue!

First, I am not anti LED, I like them and there is an important energy savings that few people consider. I'll get into that at the end.

Note that 10 references were used to write this report. Some issues to point out. The unproven HUGE lifetime was used as the lifetime of an LED and look how many dozen bulbs the study assumes make one LED. We now know that those lifetimes are bunk. Maybe a survey of this site could help us determine what fraction of this study's LED lifetime we should use as a reality. This report was written in 2012 based on data from earlier studies.

The only reference to list information on the acquisition of raw materials (back to mining) is a poster presented at a DOE conference. It seemed to astonish the authors of this review article so in page 17 (document numbering)/page 25 of PDF numbering) the authors conclude...

The high estimate from this study represents an outlier compared to estimates from other studies evaluated.​

I cannot find the reference they posted, the page is missing so I could not review the information in this poster.

Also, the study used some industry partners to figure all of this out but nobody from the chemical and mining industries. Cree (LED producer) and Osram-Sylvania (LED, incandescent and (possibly) CFL). However, the staff member selected was from the LED business.

As of now, I would say that the LED are lasting 3 to 10x an incandescent. Definitely not 80x an incandescent that the study uses as a basic assumption. So, from my point of view, all of the LED data can be multiplied by 8 to 25 (minimum). That 8 to 25 is WITHOUT the energy and other impacts that were discarded as "outlier" information which could increase the values even more.

I hope the lifetime of LEDs improves, I like the color spectrum and low heat load.

Now, back to the missed benefit that I mentioned above. You may remember the Carnot cycle from Thermodynamics class. The cycle shows that removing heat from a system take 2x the energy that is removed. So, if you have a retail store (high end clothing or jewelry, for example) with 200 spot lights at 75 W each to highlight various items. That is 15kW of heat generated. That takes a perfectly efficient air conditioner 30kW to keep that room from heating (Plus what ever air conditioning would be required of a dark room). These stores have to run air conditioners in the winter to keep the store cool. The need special heaters on the air conditioners for starting the AC compressor in extremely cold mornings (after the lights have been off all night).

So, that is a total of 45kW to light and cool that retail space.

If LEDs were used, a 20W spot light (or smaller) could light the same area for a total lighting and cooling load of 12kW.
=========
Note that any correction of claims about an LED emits a higher fraction of light vs heat than an incandescent light is a moot point because all of the emitted light eventually gets absorbed by a surface and is converted to heat.

 

That is 15kW of heat generated. That takes a perfectly efficient air conditioner 30kW to keep that room from heating.

That doesn't sound right - I think you multiplied by two instead of dividing. Most air conditioners remove and exhaust quite a bit more heat than they consume as electricity.

But I agree that the fancy spider graph gives the illusion of completeness while being based on nonsensical "data".

 

That doesn't sound right - I think you multiplied by two instead of dividing. Most air conditioners remove and exhaust quite a bit more heat than they consume as electricity.

But I agree that the fancy spider graph gives the illusion of completeness while being based on nonsensical "data".

The data for the LED is probably okay it is the associated circuitry and assembly process that is keeping them from meeting their goals. But having said that I think those will be easily overcome by maturity and specific chip designs for high voltage lighting. I bet the first incandescent lamps didn't last to long either.

 

The data for the LED is probably okay it is the associated circuitry and assembly process that is keeping them from meeting their goals. But having said that I think those will be easily overcome by maturity and specific chip designs for high voltage lighting. I bet the first incandescent lamps didn't last to long either.

I don't think they lasted very long in 1900 but nobody was promising that they would last until the Great Depression either. The key sell message was, "no whale oil needed".

 

Hello,

Do you remember the first compact fluorescent bulbs, the Philips SL?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp

Now the leds can have all kinds of size and shapes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LED_lamp

Bertus

 

Hello,

Do you remember the first compact fluorescent bulbs, the Philips SL?

View attachment 104028

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp

Now the leds can have all kinds of size and shapes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LED_lamp

Bertus

Yes, I lived in Germany for a short time. Everyone thought it was an incredible advancement but they weighed about 600 grams each and took forever to light completely when cold. Using them in standard table lamps made the table-lamp top-heavy and the lamp would tip over just from the breeze of a quick passer-by.

 

That is 15kW of heat generated. That takes a perfectly efficient air conditioner 30kW to keep that room from heating

I believe you are mistaken. Right now, the minimum legal efficiency for an air conditioner in the U.S. is 13 B.T.U.s per watt hour.
A watt hour from the LED produces 3.413 BTUs of heat
With an efficiency of 13 BTUs per watt hour, the air conditioner has the advantage.
And, no, they don't need heaters on the compressor since the Copeland scroll compressor was invented. It's immune to liquid slugging. You can use hot gas bypass to get things started on a cold day.
Crankcase heaters probably still exist, but that's the "cheap and dirty" method and I haven't seen one in a new design since about 1985. On larger machines, the hot gas method is reasonable by efficiency of scale.

 

I believe you are mistaken. Right now, the minimum legal efficiency for an air conditioner in the U.S. is 13 B.T.U.s per watt hour.
A watt hour from the LED produces 3.413 BTUs of heat
With an efficiency of 13 BTUs per watt hour, the air conditioner has the advantage.
And, no, they don't need heaters on the compressor since the Copeland scroll compressor was invented. It's immune to liquid slugging. You can use hot gas bypass to get things started on a cold day.
Crankcase heaters probably still exist, but that's the "cheap and dirty" method and I haven't seen one in a new design since about 1985. On larger machines, the hot gas method is reasonable by efficiency of scale.

Thanks for the correction (I should have divided by 4 instead of multiplying by 2.
Also, I worked in a retail space in North Dakota in 1989 - the compressor had a heater but apparently more common then than now. Days below -20 were great for sales. All the people with poor heating at home when to the malls. The malls were cold in the morning except for the Jewelry store - it got really warm in there until we turned on the AC so we didn't turn into roasted hams.

 

I believe you are mistaken.

As noted in #83.

 

I just lost one of my 65 watt Crees. Probably a circuit failure as I can still see all the leds - just very dim. Being stubborn, I'm going to see if the guarantee works.

That's not being stubborn; it's being a good consumer. If a product doesn't meet expectations, the manufacturer should be expected to replace it.

Within the last couple days, I had 2 more Cree failures. One became dim and the other became intermittent. Since I now had 3 defective under warranty, I decided to contact Cree. It took a few days for the initial response, but the process was relatively painless. Replacements are supposed to ship on 4/15.

 

That's not being stubborn; it's being a good consumer. If a product doesn't meet expectations, the manufacturer should be expected to replace it.

Within the last couple days, I had 2 more Cree failures. One became dim and the other became intermittent. Since I now had 3 defective under warranty, I decided to contact Cree. It took a few days for the initial response, but the process was relatively painless. Replacements are supposed to ship on 4/15.

I'm sure the "Check is in the mail", I mean, "The Cree is in the mail."

 

That's not being stubborn; it's being a good consumer. If a product doesn't meet expectations, the manufacturer should be expected to replace it.

Within the last couple days, I had 2 more Cree failures. One became dim and the other became intermittent. Since I now had 3 defective under warranty, I decided to contact Cree. It took a few days for the initial response, but the process was relatively painless. Replacements are supposed to ship on 4/15.

That's interesting. I mailed mine back... Cost me $3.

 

I am seeing LED bulbs for $2.00 a bulb. Admittedly, that is a promotional price but if the big box stores can afford to sell them for that, I propose that it won't be long before we see LED prices down to "reasonable".

 

I just re-lamped my kitchen with 4 LED spotlights I got on sale at Menard's for $10. They're cheap Chinese and not Cree's but they do claim to offer a 3-yr warranty. Whatever.

I have cans in the ceiling and the reflector bulbs have always been costly compared to standard bulbs. So an LED alternative for just $2.50 each is actually cheaper than other bulbs I've tried. I chose the "daylight" LEDs and they look great. Much better than CFLs ever looked. It's completely changed the look of the room. It'll be interesting to see how they last.

 

That's interesting. I mailed mine back... Cost me $3.

That really affects the "value" of the warranty. Did you just mail it with proof of purchase to the warranty return address?

I went to the Cree website and used the contact us form. I wanted to find out if they paid for return shipping or had a local replacement option.

 

That really affects the "value" of the warranty. Did you just mail it with proof of purchase to the warranty return address?

That's what I did.

I went to the Cree website and used the contact us form. I wanted to find out if they paid for return shipping or had a local replacement option.

Did they just send you a new one? Double

 

Did they just send you a new one?

Three. I had one that went dim and 2 that became intermittent. I don't know if my case was an exception or the norm. I was just relieved that I wouldn't have to pack and ship the bulbs back; even if it was on their dime. But sending 3 back probably wouldn't have cost much more than sending 1; that's why I waited until I had several.

 

I am seeing LED bulbs for $2.00 a bulb. Admittedly, that is a promotional price but if the big box stores can afford to sell them for that, I propose that it won't be long before we see LED prices down to "reasonable".

Thats a bit misleading. These are not fullpower LED lamps means 100W equivalent

I just checked yesterday for a CFL replacement. They didnt have any LED lamps with a 100W equiv lumens output
The largest LED lamps are fairly expensive.
So, opted for a 20W CFL at 6.98 euro

I do have a 20W LED floodlight and a 60W plants growlight for my ants.
I wish to forget how much the 20W floodlight costed in a local homestore. A lot.

Then I made a lamp with 2x10W chips as well, battery powered with a booster.

Not a all must be DIY freak so I bought a CFL though I could make a LED lamp myself.

LEDs if not run at full current last a very long time, are flat and dont break easily like CFLs. Obviously they need much less parts. The 10W chips need around 10 volts, so easy to power. The electronic converter can be kept even if the chip fails.

Screw lamps are bad of course, the LED chips nonstandard and the LEDs non replaceable.

Yes some day CFL will be obsolete currently its still cheaper.

Its hard to believe how easy it is and how cheap to construct a LED lamp.

I bought small starlight projectors they have 4 RGB LEDs and surprise, an E10 socket.
3x AA batteries. Maybe to teach people what a waste incandescent really is!
Soldered a USB yoke to it result the e10 bulb was burned out the next morning.
Then I replaced with a 12V bulb of course dim, but guess it will keep glowing for many years.

By the way dont throw away broken USB yokes. They can be used for battery powered gadgets many can be made working from 5 volts.

 

Did they just send you a new one? Double

Received my 3 replacement bulbs; about 2 weeks from the time of my initial contact.

The bulbs that failed were the original design with a 10 year warranty. The replacements are the 4flow design with a 5 year warranty.

I didn't have to return my bulbs, but they could ask for them to be returned and/or require proof of purchase.