Replies

1. 
   citycarpenter | Jan 17, 2008 06:04am | #1

   Good question, I ws just in Europe and they are everywhere.

2. 
   andyfew322 | Jan 17, 2008 07:03am | #2

   All I know is they have a more "natural" light, and cost way too much

    

   "I'd rather be a hammer than a nail"

3. 
   dpsours | Jan 17, 2008 05:09pm | #3

   We used it for under-cabinet lighting in our kitchen remodel, specifically American Fluorescent's Diode28 model.

   It is expensive, and the amount of light it kicks out is not huge.  Due to budget constraints, we bought one fixture for each approx. 3-foot section of cabinetry (one section on either side of the stove).  It's not quite adequate, but you can daisy-chain the fixtures, so when our checkbook recovers, we'll add one more to each side.  So, that's about $160 to light a 3-foot section of countertop.

   On the other hand, they draw only 5 watts per fixture, do not generate any noticeable heat, and will supposedly last for 50,000 hours (but I think that's with a dimmer).

   The light is kind of bluish-white.  I'm attaching a pic of our kitchen that shows the lights.  The ones on top of the cabinets are fluorescent.

   I just did some rough calculations comparing LED to fluorescent, halogen and xenon.

   Assumptions:

   • Attempting to light a 3-foot section of cabinet adequately.
   • LED fixture will last 25,000 hours without a dimmer (being conservative).
   • Fixtures are used 2 hours/day.
   • Fixtures come with bulbs.
   • This means 34 years of operation, which is what the calculations are based on.
   • Electricity cost (plug your figure in here): $0.11/KWh

    

   LED

   2 fixtures: $160

   Bulb life: 25,000 hours

   Cost of replacement bulbs to reach 25,000 hours: $0

   Total Watts for all fixtures: 10

   KWh/year: 7.3

   Electricity cost: $27.30

   Total cost for 34 years of operation: $187.30

   Fluorescent

   1 21" fixture: $30

   Bulb life: 10,000 hours

   Cost of replacement bulbs to reach 25,000 hours: $10.50

   Total Watts for all fixtures: 16

   KWh/year: 11.68

   Electricity cost: $43.68

   Total cost for 34 years of operation: $84.18

   Halogen

   1 fixture (don't know if that's adequate): $30

   Bulb life: 2,500 hours

   Cost of replacement bulbs to reach 25,000 hours: $36

   Total Watts for all fixtures: 35

   KWh/year: 25.55

   Electricity cost: $95.56

   Total cost for 34 years of operation: $161.56

   Xenon

   2 fixtures: $30

   Bulb life: 8,000 hours

   Cost of replacement bulbs to reach 25,000 hours: $25.50

   Total Watts for all fixtures: 40

   KWh/year: 29.2

   Electricity cost: $109

   Total cost for 34 years of operation: $164.50

    

   So, from a strictly economic sense, for our usage and at our price of electricity, fluorescents are the best choice and LEDs are, by a small margin, the worst choice.

   If you envision using them more than 2 hours a day, or if your electricity costs are higher, the LEDs become a better choice, although fluorescents would be hard to beat.  Fluorescents make your food look weird, though.

   From an environmental perspective, LEDs are the best choice, which is why we bought them:

   • They use less electricity.
   • No resources consumed in manufacturing, packaging, transporting, selling and buying replacement bulbs.
   • No mercury to dispose of in used bulbs.
1. 
   gstringe | Jan 17, 2008 08:04pm | #4

   Nice comparison work dp. The real issue here is the fixture cost. $80 for a fixture is insane. The fixture should be priced at $15, and, it will be in the near future. Putting the fixture at a reasonable cost changes the comparisons and moves the LEDs form last to first by a wide margin.Kinda makes a guy want to get out the ol soldering iron and build his own, but even then you really can't compete with the Chinese.....Nobody gets in to see the wizard...not nobody...not no how!

2. 
   DanH | Jan 17, 2008 08:07pm | #5

   To be strictly accurate you do need to include the air conditioning costs as well. This can easily double the electrical costs of a device, if you assume 100% AC usage.
   If your view never changes you're following the wrong leader

3. 
   Biff_Loman | Jan 17, 2008 08:31pm | #7

   The mercury in flourescents isn't a good thing, but it's really minor. FWIW, the greatest contributor of mecury into the environment is the burning of coal for power. A lot of coal contains some mercury, and we burn quite a lot of coal. So consuming less electricity is a good idea on that front.New Scientist had an article on compact flourescents, comparing the mercury content to other commonly used items. It is really insignificant. One old thermostat has more mercury in it than several complete bulb changes for my house, and I haven't thrown out my old thermostat yet. ;-)

4. 
   semar | Jan 17, 2008 10:43pm | #8

   thanks for the update.
   It was for costs for the leds that made us go with fluorescent light strip.
   In the near future we probably see the cost coming down. Also the choice of fixtures is somewhat limited at present.
   The next project will be to replace the 2 150W each halogen lights in the living room and switch to a 8' fluorescent with a glasscovering custom made with colored glass accents. For reading I saw a very attractive (to me) LED floorlamp with a flexible arm.

4. 
   Biff_Loman | Jan 17, 2008 08:27pm | #6

   LEDs are the way of the future. Until then, they cost too much. ;-)

   
   

   ---

   Edited 1/17/2008 12:27 pm ET by Biff_Loman

5. 
   RobWes | Jan 18, 2008 01:01am | #9

   I was at my sparky shop today and he had 4 bulbs for me that were from a sales show that was at his place. Med base S-71/2 bulbs for 30 a piece is kinda steep.

   PARs are 80.00 bucks a copy.

6. 
   EricGunnerson | Jan 19, 2008 10:52pm | #10

   White LEDs are really blue LEDs with phosphor that absorbs the blue light and then radiates white light. Different manufacturers use different phosphors, so the quality of the light version to version can be very different - just like flourescent lights.