Compact fluorescent bulbs use about one fifth as much energy as regular bulbs, but LEDs are even more efficient. Current models use about one seventh the energy of regular bulbs and experimental models are even more efficient.
Better still, they don’t contain any chemicals and they cast much nicer light than compact fluorescent (which, admittedly, cast much nicer light than regular fluorescent lights).
All these advantages, The New York Times notes, have some people claiming that LED’s will soon become a major part of the lighting industry.
LEDs may make sense in the commercial market, but there’s one little problem in the residential market:
A standard 60-watt incandescent usually costs less than $1. An equivalent compact fluorescent is about $2. But in Europe this September, Philips, the Dutch company dealing in consumer electronics, health care machines and lighting, is to introduce the Ledino, its first L.E.D. replacement for a standard incandescent. Priced at $107 a bulb, it are unlikely to have more than a few takers.
The price difference isn’t quite as big as it seems because LEDs last five to ten times longer than compact fluorescents (which, in turn, last ten times longer than incandescent bulbs).
Theoretically, then, a $10-$20 LED would be more cost efficient than a $2 CF but I can’t really see people shelling out that much extra money knowing that they’ll be able to hand the bulb down to their kids.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Entries (RSS)