New bulb on the block

Spendy mercury-free LED bulb supposedly lasts 50,000 hours 9

Somewhere, in school or on the job, every engineer learns about tradeoffs -- that there is no free lunch, and that, once a design is at all reasonable, gains in one dimension come at the cost of compromises in others.

The shorthand statement of this is the pithy evergreen in design classes: "Good, fast, and cheap. Pick two!"

There's a new bulb out: a 13-watt LED array bulb with an integral diffuser, so you don't see the annoying space-craft look of little tiny rows of LEDs like the first-generation LED lamps offer. It has no mercury, a boon, and lasts about five times longer than its 13-watt compact-florescent competitors, while being much faster-acting and producing a warmer light.

It costs a boatload, at least now ($90). But I still have my first compact florescent bulbs from 1989: huge, heavy ballasts, barely "compact" at all. I'll buy one of these whenever I need a new bulb and gradually switch over all the hard-to-reach spots.

An interesting video comparison with 100-watt incandescent bulbs and 13-watt compact florescent bulbs is available at the link.

Let’s live on the planet as if we intend to stay.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. Gar Lipow's avatar

    Gar Lipow Posted 8:13 am
    24 Apr 2008

    2 year warranty?50,000 hours 12 hours a day should translate into 11 years. Even if they want to make sure not be taken by people who stick the bulbs where they will burn 24 hours a day, they could give a five year warranty. Two year warranty? So just how much faith to they have in that lifespan?
    OK other than that pretty cool.

    Permalink

  2. GreenEngineer Posted 9:22 am
    24 Apr 2008

    lifespanYeah, the LED's will probably last a good long time as long as they don't overheat.  But the unit includes a (supposedly noiseless) fan, which allows them to pump enough juice to get the lumens they need without using more LEDs.  That's fine, but fans are mechanical devices, and mechanical devices fail.  I suspect that is what's behind the measely warranty.

    Permalink

  3. bigTom Posted 1:06 pm
    24 Apr 2008

    A bit pricey for most.  At least if I take their specs at face value 900 lumens/13 watts is 70 lumens per watt, which does beat CFLs. Most LEDs are still not as efficient as CFLs, but this one could be an exception. But in any case, given the high price tag, unless your application has a very difficult to change bulb, it makes sense to wait for the next generation. I'm afraid those of us on limited budgets are better off to suffer through one more generation of CFLs, before switching.

    Permalink

  4. sindark's avatar

    sindark Posted 12:50 am
    25 Apr 2008

    Totally impractical$90 a bulb? I would rather read in the dark.

    a sibilant intake of breath

    Permalink

  5. lessismore Posted 2:35 am
    25 Apr 2008

    Source for LED informationAnyone wanting access to the most up to date information on Solid State Lighting (including LEDs) should be visiting DOEs website http://www.netl.doe.gov/ssl/technetwork.htm.  A ton of great stuff on the latest products and a caution that many of the claims that manufacturers are claiming right now are not accurate.  Fortunately an ENERGY STAR specification is coming out this fall that will force LED products to meet certain quality levels.  Educate yourself.  This technology is very exciting but not ready to be applied to all general lighting applications.  

    Permalink

  6. mihan's avatar

    mihan Posted 2:37 am
    25 Apr 2008

    fluorescent (adj), fluoresce (v), fluorescence (n)

    Permalink

  7. Delay And Deny's avatar

    Delay And Deny Posted 2:41 am
    25 Apr 2008

    Am I Missing Something?

    Why is it Grist always finds the most expensive product when it comes to Green Tech ...
    http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Produc ...
    Home Depot Led Bulb from C. Crane -- $35

    J. Bailo

    Participant

    Texeme.Construct()

    Permalink

  8. JMG's avatar

    JMG Posted 2:54 am
    25 Apr 2008

    Yes, you seem to be missing many thingsjbailo, I would say a 100w equivalent at $90 is a lot better deal than an all-but-useless 15w equivalent at $35.
    p.s.  mihan -- I think $90 for a bulb is quite expensive, and I expect that very few will sell at that price.  However, I also think that, if you think about true costs of externalities, most made goods that we get to enjoy would probably cost a lot more like that (if they didn't get to ignore the externalities).  We in the West are used to not having to pay anything like the true cost of things.  This is going to change, one way or the other.  I'm occasionally hopeful that it can be through people with the means voluntarily downscaling their consumption and buying many fewer things of much higher value and smaller footprint (such as no use of mercury, etc.).  But most of the time I am not so hopeful.

    Save your community: Cut greenhouse gas emissions 5% per year.

    Permalink

  9. spaceshaper's avatar

    spaceshaper Posted 2:18 am
    26 Apr 2008

    Thanks, Lessismorefor the link to the very excellent DoE website. I recommend it to anyone who wants to find it more about LED's than just the manufacturer's hype. It explains how LED's work, why heat management is such an issue for them, why standards for like-for-like comparisons with other light sources have been so difficult, and how such standards are being developed.
    It also LED me (hah!) to Cree's LR6, designed specifically for those ubiquitous recessed can lights. I don't particularly like cans, partly because CFL's do not perform well in them, but if you have to have 'em, this seems definitely the way to go. Spendier yet than JMG's offering, it nevertheless represents the first commercially-available LED I've seen that if the supplied data is to be believed actually outperforms a standard CFL in both color rendering and energy efficiency.
    http://l2i.stores.yahoo.net/creellflr61.html
    Or go to the Cree website for full photometric data.



    The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement