That these figures are complete nonsense...., there are far too many websites & people stating that using it for so many hours a day is the same as years of life, but that is what you get from websites that are advertising 'shills'.
Lets take this nonsense to an absolute extreme, if I use my LED light for 1 minute a year then it will last 25,000 years...., and if I never use it, then it will last for longer than the age of the Earth.
Unfortunately many of these so called 'experts' have no background or understanding of electronics, they fail to take into account, aging of components and industry standard mortality figures, not to mention most of these designs contain electrolytic capacitors, these capacitors are liquid based technology, as a result they tend to dry out, especially when subjected to the extremes of heat and cooling.
Simply taking the lifetime figures of a single components and then applying it to al the other parts in a product design is ludicrous, the reality is that in its simplest form the product has a lifetime equivalent to the component with the LOWEST lifetime in the design minus any aging effects due to power cycling & temperature conditions.
Today I saw a blog post on LED lights. The writer concludes that LED lights are worthwhile and likes the idea of not having to change a light bulb for 23 years: If you add this up over the 23 year lifespan of the LED bulb, it looks pretty compelling. The LED bulb would cost $20.70 to operate while the incandescent bulb would cost $110.40 over the same 23 year period.
One other benefit of LED lighting that may be overlooked (though obvious) is that the heat output is reduced requiring less cooling. On the other hand, we won't get to turn on all our incandescents to stop the pipes from freezing when the furnace dies (once LED lighting is ubiquitous).
For example, one person I know of was hired to replace the fluorescent lighting in the refrigerated displays at a grocery store - which prior to the changeover required a substantial amount of energy to remove the heat generated by the lighting. It turned out that after the lighting had been replaced with LED lighting, the cooling costs were reduced dramatically - so much more than expected that the pay-off is expected to occur within a much shorter time than originally calculated.
Of course, there's drawbacks - LED based traffic lights for instance won't melt snow - there's already been accidents reported due to not being able to see which light was on - but this is just a re-engineering problem.
A typical household tube-light is rated to be between 30 and 40 Watts as opposed to 18 W for the LED light. There doesn't seem to be much savings in the cost through reduced power consumption especially if you consider the ultra high initial cost. What would make customers buy LED based lights then?
As I mentioned, LED replacements for fluorescent T8 still need a lot of improvement before they are truly viable replacements.On the other hand, LED replacements for PAR halogen have become commercially viable.Though still relatively expensive, the cost has dropped nearly 50% in the past 12-18 months from many of our suppliers.Of equal importance is the improved performance.A 17 watt LED PAR from Philips delivers 930 lumens and is arguably equivalent to a 75 watt PAR halogen.The LED costs ten times more than the halogen but lasts 18 times longer.
When we run the numbers it still doesn’t make much sense for a residential customer who may have the light on for just 10 hours per week – the payback is over 10 years.On the other hand, Bulbs.com services retail and restaurant clients who are burning lights for 90-100 hours per week – their payback on a $70 LED PAR is less than 18 months.
The cost is coming down and it won’t take long for even higher performing LEDs to drop in price by another 50%.As a consumer I’d wait a little longer to make the purchase.However, if I’m operating a commercial property where the lights are on more than 10 hours per day, I’m sampling some LEDs now and talking to my utility provider to learn if any rebates are available to offset some of the cost.
Thanks Mike for your comments. I am curious about LED future. Everywhere i read, there is so much talk about LED being the future replacement of bulbs and flourescent tubes. And that future is predicted in next 2-3 years. Most of todays LED growth is due to LCD backlighting as manufacturers can cover the additional costs of LED. But if the LED lighting solutions are comparatively expensive than the currently available lighting solution then there will not be much demand. Right?
I think the largest issue facing the LED change over is cost. Until manufacturers can come up with a better technology to reduce the manufacturing costs, consumers are going to pay very steep prices. If prices don't fall considerably, many consumers that took on the added cost of conversion to LED's risk losing their investment if the products aren't mass produced. I do know there are a few companies that are looking at organic substances that can produce the equivalent output of LED's at a fraction of the cost. Of course this is in R&D and could take years to even take hold on the market.
EBN Dialogue enables and encourages you to participate in live chats with notable leaders and luminaries. Not only editors and journalists, but the entire EBN community is able to comment and ask questions. Listed below are upcoming and archived chats.
Thailand Stages a Comeback Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Microsoft Surface: Potential Winners & Losers What are the implications for the electronics industry supply chain of Microsoft Corp.'s decision to launch its own tablet PC? Join industry veteran and EE Times' systems and OEM expert Rick Merritt on Tuesday, July 3, at 12:00 pm EDT for a Live Chat on this subject.
Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Peter Drucker famously said "Trying to predict the future is like trying to drive down a country road at night with no lights while looking out the back window." Yet in the razor's-edge world of electronics—with a lean supply chain and just-in-time demands—the need to know the future is vital.
You've heard the saying "the No. 1 supply chain risk is your people." That hasn't always been the case. But today's complex global supply chain requires a new type of multitalented employee. It's one who understands, finance, marketing, economics, is savvy with technology, graceful with relationships and can think analytically.
Where are these people? Are universities properly preparing the next generation supply chain professionals? How do train your existing workforce for these new, demanding positions?
Brian Fuller, editor-in-chief of EBN, will lead a 60-minute Avnet Velocity panel discussion that will ask and answer these and other questions swirling around today's supply-chain talent challenges.