LEDs to the Rescue? Not So Fast

News Analysis

There is an industry consensus that solid-state LED lights will play an increasingly important role in energy reduction programs. Light-emitting diodes use as little as one-tenth the power of an incandescent bulb, produce pleasing light and last for up to 20 years of normal use. So the prospects for light sources powered by LEDs looks to be, well, bright.

LED lights. (Credit: Jim R. Bounds/Bloomberg)

LED lamps are already used in street lights, office buildings and, less frequently, homes. The inventor Dean Kamen recently lighted an island and the structures on it solely with LED products.

But even as strong an LED booster as the Department of Energy, which maintains its own Web site on solid-state lighting, cautions that the road to the LED revolution will be rocky, littered with products that don’t perform as advertised and delayed by an inability to surpass the output of today’s conventional lighting sources.

Simply put, many of the LED products now available are not worth buying.

That’s evident even to the most casual observer who can see off-brand and poorly assembled LED replacement bulbs for sale in the nation’s largest home improvement chains.

As James Brodrick of the Energy Department put it in a recent e-mailed newsletter, “In the flurry of hype and excitement that comes with many new products, it’s easy to get carried away by what’s cool.”

Mr. Brodrick was commenting on the department’s latest test of LED replacement for standard fluorescent tubes. The DOE discovered that LED “fluorescents” were not ready for prime time. They don’t produce enough light to be adequate substitutes for standard tubes, although they do use energy efficiently.

Similarly, despite all the hoopla, you can’t light a warehouse by using LEDs; based on their current light output, you’d need so many LEDs, it would defeat the purpose of saving energy.

The DOE has a program to test LED products and report on the manufacturers’ claims of light output. And there’s even a labeling scheme that’s been devised that spells out how much light a particular LED product produces, the color temperature of the light, the amount of power it uses and other facts.

The label will be familiar to consumers, because it has taken its design cues from the standard government nutrition label found on most foods. But this one won’t be seen on LED products; it’s aimed at professionals, who can use the information to decide which products to purchase.

Meanwhile, experts recommend that customers approach LED replacement products with caution. And consumers might want to consider Mr. Brodrick’s advice when it comes to purchasing an LED product: “sit tight for now.”

Comments are no longer being accepted.

I have been experimenting with using LED Christmas lights for several years. My latest invention is to put a string or two into a clear glass jar to make a ‘lamp’. I have LEDs strings in one form or another in every room and find that I rarely have to turn on the lights. This has cut my electric bill significantly. I like the blue ones especially. Yes, they do dim somewhat over time but still provide enough light to navigate, make tea and so forth.

I was an early adopter of the light washer plug in variety but they broke in about a year leaving only red light which not only does not provide enough illumination to see by and also has traditional connota-tions I did not want to deal with.

Instead of using so much lighting, why doesn’t everyone wear night vision goggles? That could reduce the amount of lighting used by 99 percent. Call me an out of the box thinker, but it works. Many already wear glasses. All of us can.

We were sold a bill of goods with the CFCs, too. They are expensive and they do NOT last a long time. We have yet to have one last any longer than an incandescent. They are also too dim. And I have to make a special trip to the waste station to get rid of them, because we can’t put them in the recycling bin or the trash. So whatever energy I save by using these things is then used by having to drive nearly 30 miles to and fro the waste station to dispose of hazardous waste. Meanwhile, my neighbors continue to burn porch lights all night, even though we have insanely bright street lights flooding the fronts of our homes with light…ordinary, old-fashioned measures like turning off lights we don’t need could probably save as much energy as using CFCs or LEDs.

Look to pc companies like Apple to lead the way; the next generation laptops include LED technology in their screens. Anyone out there hve any other current/near current apps?

//bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/leds-to-the-rescue-not-so-fast/

For home users, you can get almost the same energy savings as LEDs by switching to compact fluorescent bulbs, which in CA are available for about the same price as incandescents, as they’re subsidized by PG&E at stores like Walgreens and Costco. A spiral bulb can cost as low as $0.50 in a pack of 4 at retail. Elsewhere they can cost $6/bulb or more.

The payback period for spiral fluorescents is under 1 month for each $1 you spend on the bulb, as you’ll save $1-3 month electric costs for each bulb you change. Double that if any portion of your bill is over baseline. So a typical customer might pay $6 per bulb and save enough energy to cover that cost in 3-6 months, after which all the energy savings is profit until the bulb burns out. 5000 hours bulb lifetime should be good for 2-5 years in typical use.

Changing out 20 bulbs will cost $10-20 subsidized, or $120 unsubsidized, and save you about $600-1000 before the bulbs have to be replaced. It is by far the best return on investment most people will get in their lifetime.

LED bulbs are more like $50+ each. While they are a great energy savings compared to incandescents, they only save maybe 10-20% energy compared to fluorescent. So they’re not worth considering unless the cost of changing the bulb is very high. LED bulbs last 10x as long as fluorescents. If the fixture requires sending a worker up a 20 foot ladder at $30/hour, an LED bulb can pay for itself in maintenance costs, as it’ll only need to be changed once every 5-10 years.

Most businesses are comparing the energy efficiency of LEDs to fluorescents, not incandescents, as that’s what’s already in the ceiling fixtures. Businesses willing to accept a 5-10 year payback period can install LEDs today. Probably in a recession they’ll be looking for shorter payback periods, but in a few years when capital is available again, LEDs will have gotten much cheaper and the decision will be an easy one.

Thanks for this and the link.

I have been exploring LED lighting for my home. I switched to the fluorescents and saw a reduction in electric usage. However, the LED mess is confusing and I have been disappointed in the extremely limited products I have bought to try.

Some LED flashlights are excellent, others pathetic. There doesn’t seem to be a standard out there and I have yet to find a seller who compares LED to flourescent output (As the packaging for the fluorescents do).

I haven’t seen a column that’s so irresponsibly ignorant and incorrect in some time.

“…You can’t light a warehouse by using LEDs; based on their current light output, you’d need so many LEDs, it would defeat the purpose of saving energy…

So long as one LED puts out more light per watt than the source that’s being replaced, the efficiency and savings are not lost as more LED’s are added.

But your most egregious omission regards the dollop of mercury needed in fluorescent bulbs – even compact ones – to make them operate. Of all the green concerns, heavy metal poisoning should be at the top of the list.

And, you conclude:

“… experts recommend that customers approach LED replacement products with caution…

Now there’s substantive fact-based advice.

But what irks me the most – you’re completely silent (and ignorant?) on the specifics of the current state of LED lighting.

I have owned a bicycle store for 14 years and have been selling LED front and back lights since they were introduced and never had a problem with them. They are durable, bright and last a long time so why can’t we get the same quality for home and industrial use.

THANK YOU!

I’m a professional lighting designer and I am constantly telling my clients these very facts. At this point there are a limited number of applications I am comfortable using LEDs in, and they are mostly places where a small amount of light is needed and maintaining lighting fixtures would be difficult.

LEDs hold a lot of promise, but mature LED-based products just aren’t widely available yet.

We bought a three pack of LED light bulbs from Costco with 20 LED’s in each bulb that uses only 1/4 watt per bulb; they are perfect to leave on 24/7 as used in an entrance foyer. While the light is less, it is adequate for its purpose, and it’s good to know that I won’t have to change one of the three lights in the ceiling fan light for twenty years. Also my grown children have complimented their appearance.

Fluorescents are a BIG problem because they release a hazardous form of mercury into the air (when disposed of or broken) so the faster we transition to LED the better.

This is unfortunate news. I have a neurological condition that renders me allergic to fluorescent light. I’d been hoping that LED technology would supplant fluorescents in the public sector so that I could visit (or maybe even get work in) offices that wouldn’t give me blinding headaches. I guess I was right to guess that I’d be a senior citizen by the time this happened.

LEDs are vertical market applications for now.

For example, if you use night lights (5 watt), it is hard to argue with replacing them with LEDs that last indefinitely and consume negligible amounts of power even if left on 24/7.

LEDs also do well for outdoor light fixtures whose goal is not to illuminate an area, but to show, “occupancy” and deter crime.

Older and proven technologies like florescent lighting still beats LEDs hands down for “bulk” lighting like offices, warehouses, etc.

I think the author is very right.
Living in Italy, where electricity is expensive, I have replaced all the bulbs with compact fluorescent lamps several years ago, and I am quite happy of the saving.
But the LEDs are not very appealing as of today. They are great in portable lamps, can be nice for accenting, but definitely what is available now is not usable to light a workplace or a room at home.

I bought an LED night light a few months ago at my local home improvement center (which happened to be out of incandescent night lights). I paid around $5 — about 2 1/2 times the price of an incandescent — and received a product that gives off the same amount of light as the screen of my mobile phone. The color of the light was freakishly white as well. LED lights for consumers obviously have a long way to go.

LEDs require well developed thermal management to maximize their efficiency. Without proper thermal management LEDs are unable to produce their advertised light output and, more importantly, will not live up to their claimed lifetime of over 50,000 hours.

Thermal management for LEDs takes serious design work and research, and is not as simple as slapping a heat sink on the back of it and calling it a day.

Furthermore, many companies measure the light output of LED bulbs from the instant they turn on. The problem is that when LEDs warm up to operating temperature their light output goes down. So there are a couple different ways to measure the output of LED lights, and its important that the advertised measurement is of the operating state light output, not the instant on light output.

For these reasons it is important to buy LED lights from respected lighting companies who perform actual research, development, and engineering.

The cheap ripoff LED light bulbs made by nameless Chinese companies are giving LED lighting a bad name.

Here’s a clue, if a bulb uses “through hole” LEDs, instead of the more modern high power surface mount LEDs, its probably not worth the money.

But despite these problems, well designed LED lights are efficient, long lasting, and very practical, but still expensive (for the time being)

So are we being mis-LED ?

I agree with the article, but love the led lights i use for low light siturations. I have one for my computer keyboard for use at night, another makes a great night light.

Still most of my home lights are now cf .

My own experience in trying to substitute LED’s for fluorescents and incandescents mirrors this article. At present, the lumens of LED’s are paultry compared to other light bulbs. And the warm colors needed in home settings just have not been achieved by LED’s yet. So, in my experience at least, for home lighting LED’s are only useful for accent lighting and other specialized uses.

I agree with that, I’ve been trying to find nice lamp or under-cabinet light and I’d like to use LED. I saw something pretty cool at ABC Carpet, but I’m looking for more stuff.

Until LEDs can exceed the light output (lumens) of a 75 to 100 watt incandescent bulb, they probably won’t be practical for replacing incandescent/compact florescent bulbs in homes and businesses.

Then of course, there is the price factor.

I can confirm Eric Taub’s conclusion that most lights made with LEDs are not yet ready to replace incumbent lighting solutions. Manufacturers using LED’s must learn from the history of the CFL. When CFL’s were launched they were promoted as replacements for all lights – instead of picking areas where light quality was not so important. Had they launched CFLs first in laundry rooms, closets and basements, the technology might have been accepted earlier.

LEDs do make sense in specific applications right now: Christmas lights; Dark areas around the house where hard-wiring is not practical and batteries can suffice (see //www.mrbeams.com for examples); some recessed cans (Cree and Cooper); and cove lighting (see //www.bocaflasher.com). The large number of companies trying to mimic existing light bulbs and tubes with LEDs are doing more to hurt the adoption of LEDs than they are helping.

This is a very sloppy article; short on specifics, groping for the distinction between consumer and commercial but not quite getting there, and failing to say anything about the likely path that successful spread of LED lighting technology will take.

Almost a smear, I would say.

“pleasing light?” they’re not as bad as fluorescents, but i’d never call them “pleasing.” incandescents still emit the most comfortable light.

An inferior performing, Chinese-made product? Say it ain’t so!