backtop


Print 81 comment(s) - last by jamesmay2182.. on Mar 20 at 8:16 PM


  (Source: Philips)
Bulb will debut at $50; nobody said "perfection" was cheap

Nearly four years have passed since the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced the "L Prize", a $20M USD reward to the first company who successfully produced a light-emitting diode (LED) bulb meeting a special set of criteria in terms of energy efficiency and lighting performance.  The prize took money from allocations made by the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007, signed into law by former President George W. Bush.

I. Koninklijke Philips Wins the L Prize

The years have passed and at last there is a winner.  The prize has been awarded to a design from Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (AMS:PHIA), an Amsterdam, Netherlands-based global electronics company.

The winning design is dubbed the "Philips Award Winning LED Bulb".  Its specs easily meet the L Prize criteria:
Philips L Prize

A video on the testing process is seen below:



The Philips bulb survived all the tests, emerging with flying colors.  It did particularly well in longevity testing, showing almost no performance degradation after predicted at 25,000 hours (1041 days, or almost 3 years of continuous operation).

II. For $50 is the L Prize Bulb Worth It?

The bulb trims over 2.5W off Philip's previous generation LED bulb designs, a power savings of roughly 20 percent.  Unfortunately those savings come at a cost -- where as Philip's previous generation models are retailing for around $33 USD, the new bulb retails for $49.95 USD, nearly 50% more expensive.  The bulb is assembled in the U.S. from components manufactured in Shenzhen, China with LED chips made in San Jose, Calif.

L Prize award
Philips Professional Luminaires CEO Zia Eftekhar (left) and Philips Lighting North America CEO Ed Crawford accept the L-Prize award from Dr. Arun Majumdar, a senior DOE official.
[Image Source: DOE/Koninklijke Philips]

The pricey bulb has a 29 percent wall-plug efficiency ratio -- compared to the 60W incandescent lamp’s 12% and a CFL’s 19% wall-plug efficiency.  The new design delivers 90 lm/W (an efficiency measure) –compared to an average 60W incandescent with about 13 lm/W or a CFL with about 53 lm/W.

Detailed information about its color and luminosity performance is available here [PDF], direct from Philips.

The bulb carries a distinct yellowish hue when powered off, but Philips assures that the "remote phosphor" (yellow) disappears when the bulb is powered on.  The emitted light is white with a slightly yellowish hue (as with the standard off-the-shelf incandescent bulbs).

Philips L Prize Bulb
The L-Prize winning bulb design [Image Source: Koninklijke Philips]

Philips is offering a 3-year warranty on the bulb.  And it rates it at 30,000+ hours of life.

Given a $0.10 USD per kWH cost of electricity -- a "middle of the road" scenario in the U.S. [source] -- the bulb would save approximately $150 USD over its lifetime ($0.10 USD/kWh * 3e4 h * 0.050 kW) versus an incandescent design.  However, the additional 2.5 watts of power savings over previous generation models only represents approximately $7.50 USD more in savings.

Aside from the cost savings, the LED lights also offer smoother dimming than incandescent bulbs, with less impact on longevity.  And unlike compact fluorescent lighbulbs (CFLs), a rival energy efficient design, they lack toxic compounds like mercury.

Thus the bulb may be sought after by LED lighting enthusiasts, but will likely be overlooked by businesses, which would tend to prefer cheaper, more mature LED designs.  However, the technology should eventually fall into line with current generation models price-wise, offering the best of both worlds.

We're still a long way from the promises of some LED researchers -- a 60-year light bulb that costs $2.85 USD -- but the industry is starting to get to the point where LED lighting makes sense for businesses and consumers from a financial perspective.

You can order the bulb from various sources, such as Light Bulb Emporium.  It should ship in March.

For its win, Philips receives $10M USD, and free promotion from the DOE.  The DOE still has more money to give to other L-Prize winners.

Note:
Be careful when browsing sites or shops looking for this bulb as there's many different models out here.  Note this is the <10 W Endura series model.  This should not be confused with the last-gen 12.5W Endura series model (linked above) or the (last-gen) 8W Ambient Light series.

Note 2:
While the bulb design was an international effort based on the multi-national Koninklijke Philips company, the award winning design was submitted by Philips Lighting North America, who will be producing and marketing the bulb in the U.S.

Sources: DOE, Philips, Light Bulb Emporium [order]



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I would buy this over CCFL any time.
By AnnihilatorX on 2/27/2012 11:09:16 AM , Rating: 1
$50 sounds a nice deal. In theory LED would never break. I have reasons to believe it will last much much longer than the rated figure. It will also be much better than CCFL in terms of cold-start performance (CCFL is dimmer the moment you turn them on and gradually improves).

Good for the enviornment not in terms of the tiny savings, but halogen, mercury free.




RE: I would buy this over CCFL any time.
By chmilz on 2/27/2012 11:17:12 AM , Rating: 5
I'd consider these as they drop in price. CCFL, while cheap, seem to be less reliable than good 'ol incandescent bulbs, but are full of nasty stuff that makes me cringe when I have to throw them out.


By GulWestfale on 2/27/2012 11:48:13 AM , Rating: 2
i've been thinking of switching s well, and while i'm not going to buy 50 dollar light bulbs anytime soon, i hope that these philips' bulbs will help to lower the cost and improve the performance of other, 'lesser' LED bulbs.

oh, and at the top of the article it says the prize was 20 million, why did philips on get half of that?


By fic2 on 2/27/2012 12:07:58 PM , Rating: 3
You should recycle them. The very few times that I have had one burn out I put it in a ziplock bag and take it to home depot which has a recycling box.

BTW, they aren't "full of" - the amount of mercury in an average CFL is about the size of a period (.).


RE: I would buy this over CCFL any time.
By Schrag4 on 2/27/2012 12:12:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd consider these as they drop in price. CCFL, while cheap, seem to be less reliable than good 'ol incandescent bulbs, but are full of nasty stuff that makes me cringe when I have to throw them out.


I, too, am considering switching to LEDs, but I don't understand why you cringe at that "nasty stuff". Where do you think the mercury in CFLs came from? It's not like we imported it from a different planet. Not only that, but many areas have a place you can drop off old CFLs if you're really that worried about it (and if you're really REALLY worried about it, you can send them somewhere).


RE: I would buy this over CCFL any time.
By AnnihilatorX on 2/27/2012 12:25:31 PM , Rating: 2
Mercury is either mined or from recycled material. That's irrelevant though, mineral mercury is not harmful, but the metallic form is.

The problem is, not everyone does bother to recycle, and some do end up in landfills and ultimately ground water.

Even if everyone recycles, CCFL is still not as good as LEDs for handling. If you drop one, it's still a health hazard. There's absolutely no advantage to them apart from efficiency and cost. The latter is only due to economy of scale. Once LEDs fill the shelves, they will become dirt cheap.


By mindless1 on 3/3/2012 12:18:45 PM , Rating: 2
Answer this: Do you eat fish? The average person who uses CFL bulbs ingests more mercury from fish than they come in contact with from CFL bulbs. Personally I've never come in contact with any mercury from CFLs. None.

There are lots of things in your home and life which are potentially "toxic", you merely have to act accordingly. Don't rub fertilizer all over your body. Don't put drain cleaner in your soup. Don't lick the circuit boards from old electronic equipment.

To put down something because it's not compatible with the human body is irrelevant when it's not meant to be worn or eaten. PS - don't rub your hands all over broken shards of CFL glass either, since you seen to think this is likely enough to mention.


By VahnTitrio on 2/27/2012 1:08:59 PM , Rating: 2
There should be bulbs at the $20 price point that aren't quite as efficient. I think most are about 800 lumens for about 12 watts of power. Also if the bulb meets energy star there should be a mail in rebate.


RE: I would buy this over CCFL any time.
By othercents on 2/27/12, Rating: 0
RE: I would buy this over CCFL any time.
By JasonMick (blog) on 2/27/2012 12:23:00 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
1000bulbs has this one listed at $34.71 each

http://www.1000bulbs.com/product/58963/LED-409946....

Be careful -- that's the previous generation model. Amazon has it listed for ~$33 (as linked in the article):
http://www.amazon.com/PHILIPS-Endura-Dimmable-inca...

The new bulb is <10 W.

If you see a Endura 12.5 W bulb, it means that it's the last-gen design.

Also the Endura model is different from the AmbientLight model.


RE: I would buy this over CCFL any time.
By OCedHrt on 2/27/2012 12:25:41 PM , Rating: 2
Not available at that link anymore, but 27.59 here:

http://www.amazon.com/Philips-409904-Dimmable-Ambi...


By TheRequiem on 2/27/2012 2:22:40 PM , Rating: 2
Here's a link to the actual new bulb, they are listed for $55, but there is a 10% off coupon from retailmenot that lower's it down to about $48 + free shipping + no tax. So still below msrp.

http://www.bulbamerica.com/philips-enduraled-10w-a...


By Spuke on 2/27/2012 2:49:36 PM , Rating: 2
The 12.5W is what I'm using currently. Excellent lighting.


RE: I would buy this over CCFL any time.
By tastyratz on 2/27/2012 4:16:26 PM , Rating: 2
Jason,
You compared cost savings to incandescent bulbs but that means very little when comparing green/energy efficient lighting. Why didn't you compare to typical cfl bulbs as well? wouldn't that have made more logical sense?


RE: I would buy this over CCFL any time.
By JasonMick (blog) on 2/27/2012 5:04:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Jason,
You compared cost savings to incandescent bulbs but that means very little when comparing green/energy efficient lighting. Why didn't you compare to typical cfl bulbs as well? wouldn't that have made more logical sense?

That's a harder figure to solidly pinpoint.

While LEDs and incadescent bulbs both have relatively well-established lifetimes, CFLs life spans are being found to be quite a bit shorter than promised in the field (see linked article).

Thus it'd be hard to give numbers without being misleading.

Clearly CFLs represent some cost savings too, with a lower buy-in price. However, they are quite toxic and also prone to certain early failure issues, in current form.


RE: I would buy this over CCFL any time.
By tastyratz on 2/28/2012 10:39:12 AM , Rating: 2
Harder yes, but not impossible.
800 lumens on a good cfl is 13 watts, 61.5 lumens per watt (src wiki)

If that bulb costs only around 3 dollars when purchased in a multipack, even if it were to have a shorter lifespan... it does not have 16+ times the lifespan considering cost.

LED is great and I hope it certainly gets there, but even with the simplest of calculations not getting into detail it is glaringly much more expensive still, even with a cheaper run cost.


RE: I would buy this over CCFL any time.
By OCedHrt on 2/29/2012 12:04:18 PM , Rating: 2
It's not that straightforward. Since this bulb is 90 lumens/watt, it uses 1/3 less energy for same lumens.

The expected life in the case of this new bulb is also about 6x rated vs CFL. Meaning the cost of equivalent CFLs would be $18.

Which bulb makes sense also depends on your cost of electricity.

For a 10W LED, after 30000 hours the electricity cost at 10cents/kwh would be $30. It would be $45 for the CFL. Meaning it would be cheaper for the CFL at $78 LED vs $63 CFL. But if electricity cost you 20cents/kwh, the LED would be the same at $108 LED vs $108 CFL.

There are also the better dimming, instant full brightness, cfl brightness decay issue, etc to consider.

And also the $3 CFL is subsidized, if LED was subsidized by your local energy provider it would likely be cheaper.


By lagomorpha on 2/29/2012 9:39:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But if electricity cost you 20cents/kwh, the LED would be the same at $108 LED vs $108 CFL.


Currently I pay 6.79 cents/kwh for electricity ... guess I'll keep CFLs in most places, and LEDs in the most common sockets because CFLs give me headaches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing

Denmark pays 40.38 cents/kwh so LEDs make sense there...
Germany 36.48
Brazil 34.18

Iceland 3.93 gotta love plentiful geothermal and hyrdo


By mindless1 on 3/3/2012 12:09:05 PM , Rating: 2
$3 per CFL is high, I get them for closer to $1 each in multipacks without subsidization.


RE: I would buy this over CCFL any time.
By HrilL on 2/27/2012 1:03:24 PM , Rating: 2
thats not the same bulb. That one is only 800 lumens. The on in the article states it is 910 lumens.


By lennylim on 2/27/2012 3:44:22 PM , Rating: 1
And according to the Amazon link, 80 CRI. The new generation is supposed to have a CRI of 93.

Less power, more light, higher CRI... might be worth the price premium after all. I won't change many of my bulbs at that price, but I might get a couple for testing.


RE: I would buy this over CCFL any time.
By Reclaimer77 on 2/27/12, Rating: -1
RE: I would buy this over CCFL any time.
By ChronoReverse on 2/27/2012 1:54:48 PM , Rating: 3
Did you notice that one of the requirements for the prize was >70% light output at 25000 hours? And that this bulb still got over 99%?


RE: I would buy this over CCFL any time.
By Reclaimer77 on 2/27/12, Rating: -1
RE: I would buy this over CCFL any time.
By tayb on 2/27/2012 2:55:21 PM , Rating: 4
What if I am using this for a facility where the lights are to remain on 24 hours a day and 365 days a year. This will pay for itself several times over the course of a few years.


RE: I would buy this over CCFL any time.
By Reclaimer77 on 2/27/12, Rating: -1
RE: I would buy this over CCFL any time.
By tayb on 2/27/2012 3:28:40 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe a diamond showroom with overhead lights that always remain on? Car showroom? I can think of plenty of cases where a light like this, even at $50, could save you a lot of money long term.


RE: I would buy this over CCFL any time.
By Reclaimer77 on 2/27/12, Rating: -1
RE: I would buy this over CCFL any time.
By tayb on 2/27/2012 4:49:59 PM , Rating: 2
You're absolutely right. Please continue telling me how right you are.


RE: I would buy this over CCFL any time.
By Spuke on 2/27/2012 6:57:06 PM , Rating: 2
I think he has a point but might not be coming across very clear. You wouldn't be using this type of bulb in a commercial setting. Or maybe I'm reading him wrong. I would not pay $50 for a LED bulb BUT I have two of the older 12.5W and they cost me $30 each. As bulbs have blown out, I have replaced them with these.

A bit OT but maybe not, I have a RV and have replaced all of the interior lighting with LED's mainly for power savings while camping off grid. Saved 260W total there. Lots of RVers are switching to LEDs for the same reason (solar installs are popular too...primarily the off grid RVers).


RE: I would buy this over CCFL any time.
By Reclaimer77 on 2/27/12, Rating: -1
RE: I would buy this over CCFL any time.
By mcnabney on 2/27/2012 11:25:07 PM , Rating: 1
$50 for a 60W equivalent bulb. That might be fine for a lamp or a ceiling fan with five of them, but these are nowhere near what the market needs. The damn prize was pathetically easy to win - no minimum costs and the light output doesn't meet typical household needs.


By Spuke on 2/27/2012 11:47:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
no minimum costs and the light output doesn't meet typical household needs.
Actually they do which is why I have these (the older one's mentioned). There's been a ton of blatant false advertising on LED's (CFL's too) but they finally meet (at least Philips does) incandescents. Actually, you don't need these $50 one's, the older $30, 12.5W versions work perfectly (and are TRULY 60W equivalents) and have been coming down in price. You can get a 4 pack of these on ebay for $84.


By mindless1 on 3/3/2012 12:14:28 PM , Rating: 2
No it won't, because those situations are not using 60W incan bulbs otherwise.

Everyone keeps overlooking the obvious answer. 4' long tube fluorescent bulbs. 40W type has higher lumens /watt and cost about $1 each. Incredibly they've been around for years and lots of homes use them and yet everyone wants to pretend they don't exist or something.

Madness! If we're not sticking with incan bulbs there is no reason to continue to gravitate to the edison incan bulb socket, ESPECIALLY if the bulb itself costs more than the average fixture does.


RE: I would buy this over CCFL any time.
By McDragon on 2/27/2012 3:03:09 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, go buy a 1$ lightbulb...Just don't use your brain to calculate how much that will cost you over the lifetime of the bulb.


By someguy123 on 2/27/2012 3:24:06 PM , Rating: 2
The cost of these LED bulbs are more likely to drop with manufacturing improvements over the course of a year than the cost savings of having an LED bulb plugged in 24/7. So yeah, it would be better to buy a dollar bulb and swap them out once these bulbs become cheaper.

That said these are also pretty damn expensive, even for LED. You can purchase 2-4 similarly rated LED bulbs at $50, though obviously their lifespan not quite as proven as philips at this point. At this price these things only make sense in areas difficult to maintain.


By Skywalker123 on 2/28/2012 8:19:31 PM , Rating: 1
Your boyfriend and you take turns sucking each others johnson for free, thats why you won't pay 50 bucks.


By erple2 on 2/27/2012 2:26:02 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
LED's themselves die hard, but they DO fade away.


Then I'll just go buy some incandescent bulbs. I've heard that it's better to burn out than to fade away.


RE: I would buy this over CCFL any time.
By kmmatney on 2/27/2012 4:01:37 PM , Rating: 2
I've already begun switching to LEDs, starting with my recessed lights (R30). I have 34 6" light cans in the house, and have put in Cree CR-6 bulbs in 10 of them so far. They are $40 each from Home Depot, so I've been buying them only as my CFLs burn out. The CR-6 has a built-in trim kit ($12 value), are dimmable, and the color is perfect. In total I have 92 light fixtures in the entire house so it will be a few years to convert everything. I will be pissed if they don't last at least 15 years, though.


By JediJeb on 2/27/2012 4:31:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In total I have 92 light fixtures in the entire house


Wow, I have 16 fixtures in my whole house, including the lamp on my nightstand. Well 18 if you include the ones outside at the front and back door.


By mindless1 on 3/3/2012 12:29:43 PM , Rating: 2
No. In theory, in practice, and factually speaking, LEDs all degrade in light output. "IF" philips has actually made one that maintains 99.3% luminous flux over 25K hours, this alone is most impressive of any spec because I doubt even the LED manufacturer claims this high.

It makes me wonder about the power supply too. They could supply *perfect* power for the test, instead of real world power with spikes and noise from other electrical appliances particularly those with motors like a refrigerator compressor.

You have no reason to believe it will last much longer, in fact based on science and available data there is every reason to believe most won't achieve the results stated by the data. It makes me wonder if these bulbs were cherry picked for the test. Go look at LED datasheets, they contradict the idea of infinite LED lifespan.

Who really cares about cold start performance? Are you posing some end of the world scenario where it might save your life if your bulb is 50% brighter within the first few seconds it is on? Most CFL bulbs are plenty bright enough by the time your eyes have adjusted to the sudden light increase.

I find your "good for the environment" claim a bit dubious too unless they are made with 100% recyclable materials AND they commit to, and actually do, recycle them all at no cost to the customer.

To be fair that could mean "less bad for the environment" instead if it were an ideal world but it is not - presently there are places you can recycle CFL bulbs, but where can you ACTUALLY recycle this bulb? In the real world we can't assume this bulb won't go into a landfill while the CFL can be recycled.


nice
By Soulkeeper on 2/27/2012 11:46:25 AM , Rating: 2
The cheap spiral 13W bulbs burn out on me as often as cheap CCFL 60W bulbs. I've burnt out atleast 5 of them over the last few years. This new stuff looks interesting.




RE: nice
By fic2 on 2/27/2012 12:09:14 PM , Rating: 2
Either I am lucky on mine or you are unlucky. I have some that are going on 10 years. These are the generics from Home Depot.


RE: nice
By Ringold on 2/27/2012 12:23:51 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder what causes such variable lifespans? Like the OP, mine last 1-2 years of occasional use.


RE: nice
By SublimeSimplicity on 2/27/2012 1:02:44 PM , Rating: 2
Look at that list of "Stress testing". Could be any of those. For CFLs it's almost always the transformer that goes bad, not the bulb itself.


RE: nice
By JediJeb on 2/27/2012 1:39:37 PM , Rating: 3
One of the big killers of the CCFL bulbs is power cycling(turning it on and off). I blow them pretty quickly in places like the bathroom, but the one outside the back door that I leave on 24/7 has yet to die.


RE: nice
By Ringold on 2/27/2012 2:19:54 PM , Rating: 2
That'd make sense to me, the only place I don't burn through them quick is in a fixture next to my sliding glass door that, like you, I leave on just about 24-7, so it looks like I'm home.

The other places I use them tend to burn through my cash quicker in replacement costs then whatever they save me in electricity.


RE: nice
By fic2 on 2/27/2012 4:24:46 PM , Rating: 2
I've wondered that, too. I think either my bathroom or closet are the oldest CFLs I have. Both are used "incorrectly" - both in an enclosed fixture and upside down. I use the bathroom light way more than the closet and a lot of its use is pretty quick in/out (on/off) as you would probably expect with a bathroom. I am not sure but I think they are both 100w equivalent bulbs which might be why they have lasted.


RE: nice
By fic2 on 2/27/2012 6:50:39 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, also I live in Denver which is a very dry climate. I have no idea if this has anything to do with the lifespan of CFLs though. Just thought I would mention one environmental factor.


RE: nice
By mindless1 on 3/3/2012 12:42:36 PM , Rating: 2
A dry climate would have only positive effects, though actually only an extremely humid environment would be an issue, far more-so the temperature is a factor.


RE: nice
By kmmatney on 2/27/2012 4:15:55 PM , Rating: 2
CFLs have been hit-or-miss with me. I 96 light fixtures in total in my house (13 of them now converted to LED). When I first moved in, they were all incandescent, and there was a bulb burning out, somewhere, every few days. Then I gradually converted to CFL, and a bulbs only goes out every 1-2 months. Most CFLs have lasted about 4-5 years, although some burn out in 1-2 years, and some are still going after 7 years. I started writing dates on them a while back. The older ones are noticeably dimmer than they used to be, such that I get a lot more light when I replace them with an LED with theoretically lower brightness.

While I'd hesitate to buy a $50 standard lighgt bulb replacement, certain LED lights like the Cree CR-6 are $40 and come with a built-im trim kit, and are worth the cost.


RE: nice
By Sidian on 2/28/2012 2:04:52 AM , Rating: 2
Heat dissipation also affects CLFs. I had installed 2 of the brightest, and largest, CFLs that put out 1800 lumens. One received regular blasts of cool A/C air being next to the vent while the other didn't. The one w/o A/C tended to burn out about every six months while the cooled bulb lasted close to 2 years.

Also, due to the construction of the glass spirals, they can easily suffer from hairline cracks; particularly the larger CFLs. This also leads to short life, and the heat/cool cycling eventually opens up the sealed tube.


Math
By TSS on 2/27/2012 4:32:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Given a $0.10 USD per kWH cost of electricity -- a "middle of the road" scenario in the U.S. [source] -- the bulb would save approximately $150 USD over its lifetime ($0.10 USD/kWh * 3e4 h * 0.050 kW) versus an incandescent design.


You forgot to factor in the cost of purchasing the bulb.

While you save $150,90 in electricity, the endura costs $50 per bulb and incandecents cost $1,50 for a 4 pack (have to use 1000bulbs.com, don't live in the US). You need 30 of those to make the rated 30,000 hours, so to get to 30 you'd have to buy 8 4packs, for a total of $12.

So you actually save more like $112,90 over it's lifetime. As cost of purchase is included in lifetime costs.

Compared to it's older brother though, it depends. If you use 25,000 hours, it'll save you around $7 on elecricity, but cost $15 more to purchase the bulb. Go for 30,000 hours, and you'll need 2 of the older bulbs (provided they break on time) which knocks it back into positive savings territory for ~$27 saved.

Then there's CFL. For $4 you can get a 4 pack with 10,000 hours per lamp, 60watt equivalent. Uses 14 watts. So you save $12,90 on elecricity, but it costs you $46 more to buy the bulb, and you don't have a spare to get to those 30,000 hours.

So basically, this baby needs to drop from $50 to $15, to compete with CFL price/efficiency wise. Enviromentally, you can name whatever price you want. But economically, this isn't a big acievement so far.




RE: Math
By Sidian on 2/28/2012 2:25:36 AM , Rating: 2
Your math would work out under perfect conditions.

An incandescent bulb's 10,000 is an overly optimistic life span that can be cut short by rough handling, excessive power cycling and even finger oil residue on its glass.

An LED's bulb's 30,000 (some have 50,000) life span is a conservative estimate. The majority of them will work well past that.

There's also the heat generation of incandescent bulbs which can increase home cooling costs during hot weather.

As prices of LED's come down, they are the best options for fixtures that see extended or heavy use.


RE: Math
By Dorkyman on 2/28/2012 11:03:02 AM , Rating: 2
And you also have to figure out the labor cost of changing bulbs. Even if you are doing it yourself at home, it still takes your time away from some other activity. How much do you value that time?

With incandescents, you will be burning (hah!) a lot of time just changing bulbs. With CCFL, a little time. With LED, hardly any.


RE: Math
By mindless1 on 3/3/2012 12:39:39 PM , Rating: 2
I find that argument invalid in a home lighting scenario because you are surfing the internet posting on a forum, and I equally reading posts. That's not /valuable/ time.

lol, how many dailytechers does it take to change a lightbulb? Over 70 replies so far.


RE: Math
By mindless1 on 3/3/2012 12:36:41 PM , Rating: 2
You forgot to include the fact that rough enough handling or different usage scenario may also affect this LED bulb. Perhaps not as much but it could easily be enough to skew the numbers quite a bit which is very significant given the much higher replacement cost.

This was an isolated test which probably had ideal power and temperature and they ran continuously. This is not real world proof of much, LOTS of things seem to last forever and a day in such testing.

Ever notice the insanely high MTBF ratings for things like computer hard drives when tested in a similar way? I have to assume you would concede everyone's hard drives aren't lasting dozens of years?


I like the progress
By Dug on 2/27/2012 12:44:52 PM , Rating: 3
I have a 1/2 dozen of the current gen Phillips bulbs that have the yellow surroud. (Not the ones posted here).

I've tried many LED bulbs and after getting these, I wouldn't buy any other LED. Well worth the price.

The 40w equiv is very bright, about same as 60w incan. The color is spot on as I like the warm light, not the bright white. I can dim these and use them in 3way switches. And no flickering that I always experienced with fluorescent.

I hope these new ones come down in price too. With a coupon from Home Depot you can get the current gen less than $19 a piece.




RE: I like the progress
By donxvi on 2/27/2012 2:14:11 PM , Rating: 2
What coupon? Come on, pass along the hot deal! Or is it something like a California deal?


Very ugly
By tayb on 2/27/2012 1:10:10 PM , Rating: 2
The yellow on the outside is obnoxious. I don't think my fiance would like having those up unless the bulb was completely concealed.




RE: Very ugly
By geddarkstorm on 2/27/2012 1:31:23 PM , Rating: 2
But it looks so futuristic!

I know, maybe you could paint them to look like the radiation warning symbol.


Philips getting even more public funds...
By lighthouse10 on 3/15/2012 2:15:18 PM , Rating: 2
Re Philips getting bulb prize and, as reported onm other sites subsidies and rebates to "lower the price of that prize"

That's not all the public money have been involved in getting...

Philips, Osram, the UN and the World Bank:
How we will "en.lighten" the World in 2012

The worldwide en.lighten program:
Public subsidies to allow major manufacturers to dump otherwise unsold bulbs on developing countries
freedomlightbulb blogspot com/2012/02/philips-osram-and-un-how-we-will.html.




By lighthouse10 on 3/15/2012 2:17:29 PM , Rating: 2
The link perhaps more easily via
http://freedomlightbulb.com


wow
By jwcalla on 2/27/2012 2:54:56 PM , Rating: 1
What a waste of money. The US federal government must be rolling in endless cash to just throw 20 mil at these huge corporations. Talk about corporate welfare.

Meanwhile, a 100-watt light bulb costs a quarter for those of us little people who aren't hooked onto the government gravy train.




RE: wow
By Philippine Mango on 2/28/2012 1:10:50 AM , Rating: 2
A 100 watt lightbulb is horrifically inefficient. You can't look at just unit cost unless you plan on using it very sparingly.


Home Depot
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/27/2012 11:38:14 AM , Rating: 2
Has these, to expensive for my taste right now!




Boo for 2727K CCT
By A5 on 2/27/2012 12:31:28 PM , Rating: 2
I know they have to do it to get people to switch from incandescent bulbs, but I much prefer the more neutral 5000+K CCT LEDs.




wow
By mosu on 2/27/2012 2:15:36 PM , Rating: 2
wow and wow for both performance and price.Expecting evolution in opposite directions, hopefully the price going down!




Long Term Value
By shine22 on 2/27/2012 3:41:47 PM , Rating: 2
Initial cost of $50 may seem pricey at first. But, considering this replaces a 60W bulb (which only lasts about a year),you'd have this bulb for about 30 years. In the long run, you're better off with this LED bulb.




finally
By undummy on 2/27/2012 6:39:28 PM , Rating: 2
Of all the LED A19-sized bulbs released in the market in the past couple years, this is the 1st worth buying.

I hope that Philips updates their 75w equivalent(its an A21 sized bulb). It would be a dream if they could also use the same tech in R30 and PAR38 sizes.

Stress testing is great. I've had several earlier LED bulbs fade or burn out. Stress testing should be mandatory for ANY LED product released to the consumer.

I wish that the 'competitor' results were posted too. Love to see how well GE, Cree, Tess, Ecosmart, Sylvania, Osram, LightingScienceGroup...and all the other LED bulb manufacturers, would do with the same type of torture.

Since 2700k isn't my preferred lighting color, I would also hope that they'd produce something around 4500k, even if it sacrifices a few points in CRI and isn't fully L-prized certified. Can only dream.





quite simply...
By Philippine Mango on 2/28/2012 1:03:33 AM , Rating: 2
If your bulbs are burning out prematurely, 95%+ of the time, it's for two reasons.
1. You're using the bulbs wrong, either on the wrong light switch (non dimmable bulb on dimmer switch, frequent on-off cycling, using bulbs in the wrong place or installed in a way it's not suppose to be installed (instructions would say)
2. You have electrical problems, bad wiring, either the socket is corroded and or the center pin in the socket is bent in too far.




A few other benefits.
By Sidian on 2/28/2012 2:17:59 AM , Rating: 2
Aside from the energy savings and longevity benefits, here's a few other considerations for LED bulbs that resulted in my slowly changing over to all LED's for my small business.

1. LED's estimated bulb life is a conservative estimate. Chances are very good that LED bulbs will work well past their 30,000-50,000 hour lifespan.

2. LED's do not produce as much UV wavelength light. For businesses with display products, this mean less fading and deterioration of their demo units.

3. LED bulbs do get hot, but no where near incandescent bulbs nor do they project heat through their light. This results in electricity savings by not having to run the A/C as much.

4. Due to their longevity, the first places to use them are in high or difficult to reach fixtures. This saves time and headaches, which is well worth the LED's cost. How much do you get paid per hour at work?

5. Durability. LED's will take a licking and keep on ticking. I had a Philips brand PAR30L LED bulb take a fall from 12' to a barely padded concrete floor. Aside from a scuff to its metal housing, its still going strong after 2 years. Lets see any incandescent or CFLs do that.




Give it to the people...
By RabidDog on 2/27/12, Rating: -1
RE: Give it to the people...
By ebakke on 2/27/2012 11:53:22 AM , Rating: 3
Alternatively, they could have not taken your money in the first place (or, more accurately, borrowed money from someone else and put you on the hook to pay it back in the future) and each of us could have spent our own money on whatever light bulbs we saw fit.


By SublimeSimplicity on 2/27/2012 11:59:03 AM , Rating: 1
That's old school thinking. They should have immediately nationalized the production plant, engineering, etc and given us all bulbs. That way no one has to worry about which bulb is better. Every one wins!


RE: Give it to the people...
By The Raven on 2/27/2012 12:44:09 PM , Rating: 2
Yes. I find it funny that people think that:
1. Philips is a struggling company that needs such incentives
2. That we need to subsidize the ones who have the most potential to make the money on their own (Philips is now the LED light leader, technologically speaking).


RE: Give it to the people...
By JediJeb on 2/27/2012 1:45:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Alternatively, they could have not taken your money in the first place


The best choice, since for them to give $10M in the prize, they probably spent $50M in "administrative" expenses paying for the collection, handling, and distribution of the prize money while passing it through 10 layers of governmental bureaucracy.


RE: Give it to the people...
By djc208 on 2/27/2012 11:53:53 AM , Rating: 3
Or better yet start using them in government facilities. Then we get better return on our money in both the short and the long term.


RE: Give it to the people...
By mindless1 on 3/3/2012 12:45:02 PM , Rating: 2
Just the man hours and paperwork to make that happen would totally negate any savings.


"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki