[EQAB-list] LEDs versus Fluorescent Bulbs

[Robert G Kennedy III, PE]

LEDs could provide the same lighting effect as incandescent lamps for  
only a a percent or two of the cost. In addition, they can be so  
long-lived (30K to as much as 100K hours) that they could  
fundamentally change the ways lights are designed and installed.  
Basically a fixture can become a permanent part of a structure, with  
no need to change (saving the maintenance and new lamp costs) until  
the building itself is renovated or demolished. (100K hours @  
8-out-of-24 duty cycle means 30 years service.)

While I love that dramatic *potential* they offer, LEDs have one  
serious liability right now - being semiconductor devices, they do not  
tolerate "dirty" power at all. Just one voltage sag can reduce the  
life by a factor of 10,000. So, either the grid needs to become a lot  
more reliable, or LEDs have to have minature power  
conditioners/supplies engineering into their tiny little bases.

I learned this, and a lot more, at a engineering-society-sponsored  
dinner/tour of EPRI over on Pellissippi Parkway. Very eye-opening. It  
would be a good idea for EQAB to take that tour next year. I can set  
it up - we can accompany other technical clubs.

Robert

PS. I may have said this before to you-all, but I am not very  
impressed by CFLs either. I have never had one last as long as the  
package said it would.

-- 
Robert G Kennedy III, PE
www.ultimax.com


Quoting Fred L Stephens <freds7 at dancingcreek.com>:

> And do not have disposal problems of mercury that florescent bulbs  
> have. - Fred
>
> lAt 11:37 AM 12/19/2008, GatorWoodPile at comcast.net wrote:
>> Of note as we develop recommendations for reducing energy  
>> consumption, LEDs will require 20 times less power than today's  
>> conventional light bulbs, and five times less power than compact  
>> fluorescent bulbs.
>> See linked article for details.
>> http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2008/2008-12-18-03.asp
[snip]