CFL vs LED
Posted on October 13, 2007
Filed Under All, Green Tech, Photos, Technology |
Here’s one of the 6 fluorescent fixtures in my kitchen. They each have a 24″, 1200-lumen fluorescent bulb in them, and cost around 50 bucks, I think. 2 of them have begun to buzz loudly enough that spouse and I want to replace them. I’m thinking of replacing them with the next wave of energy-efficient lighting - a white LED array. A quick Google search turns up a bunch of fixtures and vendors: you can have 180 lumens for about $100 or 1680 lumens for $129 (plus a $35 power supply). As usual, early adoption means paying a price.
But then, LEDs last 4 times as long as fluorescents, appear to have similar efficiency (or better depending on the model) and don’t have mercury in them (which both Greg and Lamar pointed out when I said we were greening up here at gulker.com). Even though LEDs are more money, they may already be cost-effective if you figure in environmental costs. CFLs are 8 to 12 times longer lasting than incandescents, and use one-quarter the power: LEDs may use half as much power as fluorescents and last 4x as long. So I guess we just bite the bullet, pick a fixture and order it…
Comments
2 Responses to “CFL vs LED”
Leave a Reply
Chris, only on the great generality of the green revolution in which we are all responsible. I am having a bit of “send regret” (only a little). I vented (only a little) to Tom Abate of the SF Chron on his article yesterday on Charlie Rose taping two future show segments at Berkeley this week. See the article and here is my response:
Mr. Abate:
Hello, I read your Friday article on Charlie Rose at Cal with interest. As you reported, all the progressive, successful, right minded, rich movers and shakers were there to offer their wisdom on solving this global crisis. I focus on the statement of John Doerr, that 800 votes in Florida in 2000 is the root cause (in effect) of the current energy fix. Please convey to Mr. Doerr that politizing the issue and pointing the fingers at the obvious bad guys not in the room works against a global solution, We are going to have to all the player on board the ship, blue and red, if we are going to have a prayer of getting somewhere. Mr. Doerr in his righteous, progressive indignance might take a look at his own responsibility. Having made “millions and millions and millions” (a nod to Carl Sagan here) on high tech Internet companies, he might visit a few of Bay Area server farms consuming mega-watts of power with our “new thing”, the Internet , from which he has profited so hansomely. He also might turn in his private jet and start lining up with the rest of us at SFO queues for our coach seats.
Incidently, Mr. Doerr visited Woodside Elementary School on the Peninsula several years ago and made a presentation to the teachers (one of whom was my wife) on improving academic performance. His solution was to equip all teachers with cell phones and PDAs. A true technologists’ view of the universe: summon more watts to the problem. It was also a completely wrong-headed approach to the issue, but that’s another article and another letter.
Lamar Van Gunten
lamarvg@mindspring.com
LEDs vs fluorescents. THere is one other lifespan point, which is that fluorescents lose a piece of lifespan for each startup - 3 hours has been quoted. Depending how you use your kitchen and lights, LEDs coming on instantly rather than with a short delay and going to full brightness rather than partial may be better than fluorescents.
We are getting a mixture of lights, and at the risk of adding too many switches, that may also be an answer.