General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsright wingers attack innovative $50 light bulb because they can't do math
http://www.nationofchange.org/right-wingers-attack-innovative-50-light-bulb-because-they-can-t-do-math-1331396115A slanted Washington Post story by Peter Whoriskey attacked the innovative $50 light bulb that won the Department of Energys $10 million L Prize for lighting innovation as being costly, exorbitant, and too pricey in comparison to a $1 incandescent bulb based on faulty math. The Philips LED bulb, which is assembled in Wisconsin with computer chips made in California, is a technical breakthrough, with high-efficiency natural-color light. At no point does the article which appeared online with the tendentious headline Government-subsidized green light bulb carries costly price tag compare the lifetime cost of the super-efficient (10-watt), long-lasting (30-year) bulb with that of traditional 60-watt light bulbs. An accompanying infographic prepared by Patterson Clark and Bonnie Berkowitz compared costs, asserting that the lifetime cost of the $50 bulb plus electricity would end up being $5 more than traditional bulbs:
Washington Post graphic incorrectly claims lifetime cost of $50 LED bulb is $5 higher than traditional incandescents.
Unfortunately for the Washington Posts credibility, the cost calculation was extremely wrong. Clark and Berkowitzs assessment assumes that the kilowatt-hour price of electricity is $0.01, instead of actual average retail price of $0.12 and rising. This factor-of-ten error demolishes the entire premise of Whoriskeys article. ThinkProgress Green has prepared a corrected graph, based on a low-ball estimate of $0.10/kWh electricity:
A corrected version of the Washington Post lightbulb cost comparison shows $50 LED bulb over $100 cheaper than incandescents. Prepared by ThinkProgress Green.
Cirque du So-What
(25,953 posts)You think the WP is going to actually fact-check the blurbs prepared by RW shills? When they're not trying desperately to turn back the clock on human progress, they're trying to keep technology hopelessly dependent upon wasteful devices dating back over a century. Thomas Edison, who - despite his genius - was an anachronistic holdover from the Age of Robber Barons, allowed his ego to dictate that DC transmission of electricity should be the standard, despite a limited range that would ensure that no one living more than a few miles from a power station would ever have electric power available in their homes. If not for the efforts of visionaries like Nicola Tesla and the industrialist whose mind he managed to change, George Westinghouse, Edison's ego would have carried the day.
Another thing: despite a $50 price tag currently, haven't the assclowns who prepared this specious cost analysis ever heard the term 'economies of scale?' The price would plummet dramatically once the lighting industry gets tooled-up to meet demand for the new bulbs. I wish the invisible hand of the free market would bitch-slap both of them upside the head.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)tech3149
(4,452 posts)To think I've been paying anywhere from 12 to 15 cents per Kwh. Either I'm stupid or they're delusional.
NutmegYankee
(16,201 posts)Mines $0.18 per kilowatt/hr
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)I never get the lifespan claimed by bulb manufacturers.
Mopar151
(9,992 posts)Maybe voltage spikes, maybe problems with heat or orientation in fixtures - but the "5-year" go about 9 months for me.
Lochloosa
(16,067 posts)And another added benefit is the lack of heat output.
quakerboy
(13,920 posts)And I do not believe the lifespan touted.
Virtually nothing lasts as long as advertised. CFL's certaintly do not. I believe that the burn time of the LED itself is 30 years. But, as with the CFL's before them, it will be the electronics in the base that will burn out long before 30 years has passed.
As to heat... every LED bulb for a standard socket that Ive seen have massive heat sinks on the base. Which indicates to me that there must be some heat buildup somewhere, unless you think they are adding that much weight just for appearances. My experience with the LED bulb I have is that its heat output is approximately equal to that of a CFL. Nowhere near incandescent, but still a fair bit of waste heat. Which is a big part of why I think the electronics will likely burn out long before that 30 year mark.
LED's are not cost effective yet. You can get a bulb for less than the $50 advertised. And they are massive savers compared to incandescent energy use. But LED savings compared to CFL is fairly minimal. And if you watch sales, you can get CFL's for a buck or two. $30 vs $2, when there is only a watt or two difference is a much harder sell than when there is a 45 watt difference.
quakerboy
(13,920 posts)Looking at 60 watt equivalents, readily available in your local HD:
The CFL is 14 watts, 900 lumen, with an estimated operating cost of 1.69/year, cost of $1.74/bulb
http://www.homedepot.com/h_d1/N-5yc1v/R-100687000/h_d2/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10053&langId=-1&keyword=cfl&storeId=10051
The LED is 13 watt, 850 lumen, with an estimated operating cost of 1.57/year, cost of 23.97/bulb
http://www.homedepot.com/Electrical-Light-Bulbs-LED-Light-Bulbs/h_d1/N-5yc1vZbm79Z12kz/R-202668646/h_d2/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10053&langId=-1&storeId=10051
Quick math says that it takes 185 years to break even on the cost via energy savings.
I cant prove this, but I believe that we can make LED lighting that is far more efficient. Right now, we make them to stick in standard light sockets. I assume this is a big part of why they need the big heat sinks. Waste heat means wasted energy. Find a better way to power them, and I would assume that they could be far more efficient than what we currently have available.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)LEDs are solid state devices. Mercury vapor (which includes CFLs) and incandescent lights use tungsten filiments and aren't that far removed from vaccum tube technology.
Ter
(4,281 posts)The short run is the problem.
Lochloosa
(16,067 posts)Robb
(39,665 posts)...You'll never have to change any of those. Or a realtor talking about a house.
Or a plant manager pointing at the lights above the assembly line!
eridani
(51,907 posts)They pay more for everything because they can't afford to save money. No big freezers to store big quantities of sale items, no space to store 8 months worth of toilet paper and paper towels, no cars to haul big piles of sale items, etc. Subsidies would go a long way to help out here.
Lochloosa
(16,067 posts)jmowreader
(50,561 posts)This bulb lasts 30 years. I assume it's got surge suppressors and all that good stuff to keep America's Crappy Electricity from beating the hell out of it. So you get a ladder, go up there, screw the thing in and you're done.
Depending on where you live, you will go through anywhere from two to 12 incandescents per fixture per year. (I'm not kidding--in Fayettenam, incandescent bulbs last a month because of voltage spikes.) Let's be kind and say you use two light bulbs a year. This gives you, over the 30 year lifespan of the LED bulb, sixty opportunities to fall off a chair and break your damn fool neck changing bulbs, sixty opportunities to drop a blown-out bulb and wind up with a shard of glass in the sole of your foot, sixty opportunities to run out of bulbs when the store is closed and fall down the stairs in the dark...
Also think: there are a LOT of places in the modern home where installing new bulbs is very hard because of ceiling heights or what have you.
Besides, when the LED bulb gets popular (if for no other reason than you don't ever have to change it) Philips will ramp up production in their own factories and also license the design to other light bulb companies. Compact fluorescents used to be very expensive and now they are very cheap--because people are buying them more now.
unkachuck
(6,295 posts)rufus dog
(8,419 posts)Put LEDs in the high use areas and CFLs in others. Cost was high, but the savings have already covered the costs. Was careful not to use off brand CFLs to make sure I didn't have poor quality and have replacements within a year.
In hindsight it might have been a mistake not to go 100% LED but didn't want to take the risk until the cost was covered. When the CFLs burn out I will replace with the LEDs.
Only downside is the CFLs take a bit of time to come up when it is cold. (In Southern Cal not a huge issue)
quakerboy
(13,920 posts)That easily paid for itself, quickly, in electricity savings.
I only have one LED, from a store going out of business sale that made it almost affordable. Where did you get LED's that were affordable?
rufus dog
(8,419 posts)One kid has a ceiling fan with five lights that she leave on way too often, replaced all of those with LEDs and they were expensive. Got some $40 spot LEDs for the kitchen, (the other high use area) and bathroom at Home Depot during a sale. Did see a post that Phillips has a $25 to $30 LED now so when the CFLs burn out hopefully I can get some $15 to $20 LEDs as replacements.
edit to "low cost" from "affordable" in Reply