Green Options › Forums › Sustainable Living Discussions › Home & Garden › LED lamps versus CFLs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

LED lamps versus CFLs

post #1 of 40
Thread Starter 

(I posted this elsewhere on the internet and thought I would also share it here . . . )

 

Why Choose LED lamps over CFLs?

LED lamps typically use less power (watts) per unit of light generated (lumens). A good LED lamp can generate twice as many lumens per watt as a CFL (50-100+ versus 40-80).
  - less greenhouse gas emissions from power plants
  - lower electric bills

LED lamps last much longer than CFLs, as much as 10x longer (50,000 hours versus 5,000 hours).
  - fewer spent lamps in the landfill
  - less frequent lamp purchasing/changing, especially important for hard-to-reach lamp locations

LED lamps generate less heat than CFLs.
  - decreased load on Air Conditioning systems
  - reduced danger of burns from touching lamps
  - reduced fire hazards

LED lamps typically are RoHS compliant, meaning that they have no or at most negligible amounts of hazardous substances within the scope of that compliance (lead, cadmium, mercury, ...). CFLs on the other hand all have 1mg-5mg of Mercury (even more in tubular fluorsecent lamps), and no doubt many people are not properly disposing of spent CFLs, resulting in Mercury making its way into the environment, with serious consequences. And if a CFL were to break in your house you might be exposed to Mercury.
  - virtually no risk of environmental contamination
  - no risk of personal exposure to hazardous materials

LED lamps tend not to have unpredictable failure modes. There are stories of CFLs catching fire, emitting smoke and odors, exploding, etc. The ballast circuitry in CFLs can fail in a variety of ways, some not so pleasant for anyone in the same room/house. This is especially the case when market pressure causes the designers to cut corners to save production costs. LED drivers are not nearly as unstable and usually fail by just no longer supplying power to the LEDs themselves.
   - virtually no risk of fire/smoke/odor

LED lamps emit no Infrared or Ultraviolet radiation. CFLs (and tubular fluorescent lamps) generate light by exciting the Mercury vapor inside the lamp with electricity, generating Ultraviolet radiation, which stimulates the phosphor coating on the inner surface of the glass bulb, causing it to re-radiate most of the Ultraviolet radiation as visible light. LED lamps generally create "white" light by using blue LEDs and a phosphor coating which re-radiates some of the blue light as longer wavelength light (yellow range of the spectrum), together appearing as white.
  - no personal exposure to Ultraviolet radiation, which can cause cell damage
  - artwork and other sensitive items are not degraded as a result of exposure to Ultraviolet radiation

LED lamps are not sensitive to frequent power cycling. The lifetime of CFLs (and tubular fluorescent lamps) is reduced by turning them on/off more than a certain number of times per day. The "rated" lifetimes of such lamps are usually based on assumptions that they will be left on, say 3-4 hours, each time they are turned on, rather than having that 3-4 hours be spread out over many on/off cycles. The actual lifetime of a fluorescent lamp will suffer compared to its "rated" lifetime if this "on-time" assumption is not adhered to. This can lead to people thinking they should not turn off their lights as often as might be best for energy conservation purposes, leading to wasted energy.
  - no concern about how often you turn on/off your lights

LED lamps have better control over the direction(s) in which their light is emitted. This is advantageous in applications where you only want the light to go in one general direction (unidirectional) rather than in all directions (omnidirectional). Think of recessed ceiling lighting where any light not directed downward is wasted. LEDs tend to generate light in one direction. By using lenses in the LED lamp, this light can be spread out to achieve various specified beam angles. To do that with incandescent or fluorescent light sources, which emit light in all directions, a reflector must be used (the 'R' part of 'PAR38' for example), and these reflectors are never perfect, causing some light loss in the process. This further increases the efficiency advantage of LED lamps over traditional light sources.
  - less wasted light
 

LED lamps turn on instantly (reaching full brightness immediately).  CFLs tend to have a warm-up period which may range from a few seconds to over a minute.  During this warm-up period they are not as bright as they eventually become.  This can lead to problems ranging from having to wait for light levels to increase to a useful level, wasting your time, to turning the lights on before you really need them, in anticipation of the warm-up period, wasting electricity.
  - no wasted time or electricity
 

LED lamps can be used in colder temperatures than CFLs.  Most CFLs will not turn on or will only emit very low levels of light in the cold (near freezing).  I have not heard of a low-temperature limit for LED lamps although there may be one, but I'm sure it's much lower than that of CFLs.

  - effective in cold temperatures

 

LED lamps are typically far more robust than CFLs.  CFLs, with their thin glass tubing, are easily broken, such as by dropping them on a hard surface from just a few feet up.  LED lamps are solid-state devices, and as such can handle impacts with far less risk of breakage/damage.

  - much less easily broken


Why Choose CFLs over LED lamps?

LED lamps are still quite expensive compared to CFLs of similar light output ($50-$100+ versus $5-$10). This initial expense is not as bad though, if you consider both the extended lifetime of LED lamps over CFLs, and their efficiency advantage, allowing them to generate more light from less electricity. I have developed a formula that takes all those factors into account and can give you a cost-per-million-lumen-hours number for any lamp for which you have all the necessary specifications (and the cost of electricity). Recently I ran the numbers on some newly-introduced LED lamps and it is getting closer and closer to being able to justify the use of LED lamps over CFLs purely on the basis of total cost of ownership, without even considering any of the other advantages listed above.

LED lamps are still not as bright and/or small (for their brightness) as you can get CFLs. This means that some applications simply will not have a bright and small enough LED lamp available to fit them (when the lamp must fit in an enclosure).

Very few LED lamps currently available are dimmable. There are dimmable CFLs on the market now, at a somewhat higher price than their non-dimmable versions.

LED lamps are not as commonly available for omnidirectional applications (the classic "light bulb" shape). Due to the unidirectional nature of the light emitted by LEDs, it is a more difficult design challenge to build an LED lamp that can emit light in all directions.

LED lamps do not tend to emit so-called "Full Spectrum" light. Incandescent light by its nature is full spectrum, fluorescent light can be made to approximate full-spectrum light by appropriate use of different phosphors (at increased cost). This approach to achieving full-spectrum light could also be used for LED lamps, but I have yet to see it. People generally cannot see the difference between full-spectrum light of a given Correlated Color Temperature (CCT) and more narrow-spectrum light of that same CCT. Our eyes just average out all the frequencies of light they see and arrive at a single color, whether that color was achieved through many small levels of widely-spread-out frequencies of light (bell-shaped curve) or a couple of large spikes.
 


Edited by bobkart - 12/7/09 at 1:00am
post #2 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobkart:

I ran the numbers on some newly-introduced LED lamps and it is getting closer and closer to being able to justify the use of LED lamps over CFLs purely on the basis of total cost of ownership, without even considering any of the other advantages listed above.

That is the tipping point right there, the only think that matters to the majority of consumers, IMO.

 

As my CFLs burn out, I plan to replace them with LEDs.

post #3 of 40
Thread Starter 

Whoops I forgot about another advantage LED lamps have over CFLs: they turn on instantly.

I've edited the earlier post to include this point.

post #4 of 40

?

 

only my really old CFLs don't turn on right away, all of the more recent one's I've purchased (within the last 2 years) turn on immediately.

post #5 of 40
Thread Starter 

I added some clarification in the first post about LED lamps turning on immediately: yes usually light will come out of a CFL fairly quickly (within one second) but the brightness can be significantly less than what it is once they have warmed up.  Even recently-purchased CFLs (within one year) that I have are like this.

post #6 of 40
Thread Starter 

I just remembered another advantage LED lamps have over CFLs, related to the "warm-up" issue: LED lamps can be used (more effectively) in the cold.  Original post edited to include this point.

post #7 of 40

Great post, and I pretty much agree with everything said.

 

LEDs are also very robust. We are working with a medical company to use our LED strip lights in their MRI machines since LEDs are not effected by the highly magnetic environment.

 

I don't quite understand what you mean by full spectrum. Do you mean wavelength? White LEDs are full spectrum in that they cover 450nm - 700nm. We are working with an energy company to use our white LEDs to grow microalgae in a climate controlled tube that is several miles long.

post #8 of 40
Thread Starter 

The term "Full Spectrum" applied to a light source refers to the spectral characteristics of the light emitted by that light source.

 

First, a little background.  Apologies to anyone who already knows this stuff.

 

A spectrogram is a chart that describes, for each frequency of light within the range of the chart (across the bottom of the chart or X axis), how much light intensity is measured at that frequency (vertically on the chart or Y axis).  If you look at a spectrogram of an incandescent light, it will be a smooth curve, starting out low near the ultraviolet end of the spectrum (shorter wavelength, higher frequency), making a rounded peak in the near infrared, then slowly tapering off a long ways into the far infrared (longer wavelength, lower freqeuncy).  This is the classic shape of a spectrogram for light emitted by a so-called Black Body Radiator, and is pretty much as "Full Spectrum" as you will ever see.  The point being that every frequency of light within the range of frequencies of light emitted is present, with more in the middle and less near the edges.

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body

 

Electrically exciting mercury vapor in a sealed tube (fluorescence) will emit ultraviolet radiation (shorter wavelength and higher frequency of light than is visible to the human eye).

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescent

 

Phosphors are chemicals that are excited by radiation/light and after they absorb that energy they then release the energy, again as radiation/light (photons), but at a frequency that is not related to the frequency of the light that they absorbed, but rather to the specific chemical makeup of the particular kind of phosphor involved.

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphor

 

Fluorescent lamps use a combination of fluorescence and phosphors to emit light in the visible spectrum, but the spectral distribution of that light may or may not be considered Full Spectrum.  Whether that is the case will depend on how much effort went into formulating a mixture of several different kinds of phosphor, such that the range of frequencies of each of the kinds of phosphors combine to give an approximation of a Full Spectrum spectral distribution.  Some fluroescent lamps claim to emit Full Spectrum light while others do not, and it is the complexity of the phosphor mixture that makes the difference.

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescent_lamp#Phosphor

 

Still, the spectrogram of a fluorescent lamp will have spikes and dips as opposed to the smooth curve of a true Full Spectrum light source such as an incandescent lamp or the sun:

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature#Spectral_power_distribution

 

LED emitters typically emit very narrow-band spectrums of light centered around their color (red, blue, green, etc.).  Even if you created a white LED lamp using red, green, and blue LEDs, you would not get Full Spectrum light although the light would appear white:

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LED#RGB_Systems

 

But few LED lamp designers use this approach, partly because of the extra cost involved, and also due to the "rainbow fringe" problem: because the red/green/blue light is not coming from exactly the same point, the edges of the shadows of objects illuminated are not crisp but instead have some combinations of red/green/blue appearing in the transition from light to shadow.  Instead they use phosphors just as in fluorescent lamps:

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LED#Phosphor_based_LEDs

 

and this solution typically yields the same kind of "spikey" spectrogram as with flourescent lamps, even more so due to the very narrow-spectrum nature of LED light emissions.  Look at the spectrogram on that page and you can see how unlike a classic Full Spectrum spectral distribution it is; there are spikes and valleys indicating "too much" of some light freqeuncies and "not enough" of others.  It still looks white but hardly has the nice even spectral distribution associated with incandescent sources or even fluorescent sources where they have taken the trouble to create a wide/full spectrum of light by using a complex mixture of phosphors.  As I mention in the first post, LED lamps could utilize the same approach of complex phosphor mixtures to achieve a more Full Spectrum of light, but I have only seen that done once in over a year of researching LED lamps.  But perhaps it will catch on.

 

I found more discussion of these issues here:

 

www.gnurple.net/2008/04/27/cfl-vs-incandescent-the-bulb-shoot-out-continues/

 

 

post #9 of 40
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LEDWaves View Post

LEDs are also very robust.

 

Indeed.  I don't know how I forgot that one.

 

First post updated to include that fact.

post #10 of 40

On the brightness issue, LED's ARE actually brighter (per watt) vs. CFL's in some applications. Many people are still comparing Lumens (on the box) to LEDs, when it's just not an accurate way to measure. It really depends on the application.

Here's a great writeup I found: LED bulbs vs. CFL Lumens Comparison

 

post #11 of 40
Thread Starter 

That article makes a good point, and such reasoning is probably behind some of the what-could-be-considered overstated claims of "incandescent equivalent wattage" for LED lamps.  I prefer to have the total output in lumens of any bulb/lamp I buy, then consider for myself the application, along with the beam angles of the bulbs/lamps under consideration, to help judge how effective they will be.  There's no way the bulb/lamp manufacturer can know what kind of fixture you will use it in.  Of course there's no substitute for actually installing the bulb/lamp in the intended application and taking light measurements, I've made many CFL versus LED lamp comparisons this way.

 

Do note however that the article is making something of an apples-and-oranges comparison, by comparing a directional LED lamp with an omnidirectional CFL, with the CFL installed in a fixture intended for a directional lamp (such as an R30 or PAR38 lamp).  There are directional CFLs, I have several in my kitchen (PAR40's), in recessed lighting cans ("downlights"), and I would call it a mistake to use an omnidirectional lamp in a fixture intended for directional lamps, for the very reason pointed out in the article, it wastes much of the light.  I do consider it appropriate to compare "lumens to lumens" when comparing lamps of relatively equal beam angle.  The efficacy of "reflector" CFLs is notably less than that of the omnidirectional variety, due to reflector inefficiencies, so LED lamps do well in such comparisons, since they don't have reflectors.

 

I point out this situation in the first post of this thread, in the paragraph starting with "LED lamps have better control over the direction(s) in which their light is emitted."

post #12 of 40

I agree with that.The led lamps is the trends.

post #13 of 40

Currently, the LEDs are much more expensive than the CFLs, but LEDs are much more brighter, and long-life. Though the commercial use of LEDs are quite wide, the private use of LEDs are comparatively small. Anyhow we believe LEDs will be the final replacement of the traditional lights.

 

We are manufacturer of LEDs in China, with a R&D center. The cost from our company is higher than the tradiational lights' cost. We are trying to reduce the cost, so that common family can use our LEDs. Hopefully, we can achieve this goal in 2015.

post #14 of 40

For children's room LED can be an excellent choice because it's free of mercury and lead.  Breaking a CFL in the room can be a headache to clean up. (Check  the EPA advice on how to clean up a broken CFL at http://www.epa.gov/cfl/cflcleanup-detailed.html )  LED prices have come down and there are some good buys on quality LEDs (check it out  at  http://www.tuwago.com/   or  http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=tuwago+&x=0&y=0).   

post #15 of 40

We just replaced a few of our CFLs in the bedroom with LEDs. Call me strange, but I sort of miss the slow to warm up. It was nice first thing in the morning that the lights didn't blind me when I turned them on.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobkart View Post

I added some clarification in the first post about LED lamps turning on immediately: yes usually light will come out of a CFL fairly quickly (within one second) but the brightness can be significantly less than what it is once they have warmed up.  Even recently-purchased CFLs (within one year) that I have are like this.



 

post #16 of 40

Good for you. That's how I do it, too.  

It looks like a good web store for crystal chandeliers.  Are the prices good comparing to a brick-and-mortar shop?  For Tuwago LED candelabra, there is a promotion code (uwbwpd2730217230) for 5% off if you use Google checkout. http://www.tuwago.com/28-candle-led  I think the code is good through the end of the month.   Good luck. 


Edited by GreenMinds - 7/9/11 at 10:06pm
post #17 of 40

I never knew there were so many light bulb options until I began designing my new home. I am not an avid environmentalist, but I do think it is important to be concerned. After coming across this post I decided to do a little more research before choosing CFLs or LEDs for my home----LEDs it is! Bobkart really seems to know his stuff, but I found a more condensed version of the information in an a couple articles at http://gogreenledbulbs.com/topic/18-articles-about-led-bulbs.aspx  . Incase anyone else is like me and needs some tables and figures to help explain things.

post #18 of 40

Great posts on this topic. Nice thorough comparison, Bobkart. I've heard that quality does make quite a bit of difference with LEDs. Since there seems to be a wealth of knowledge on this forum, I was wondering what you people look for when purchasing LEDs or any other eco friendly product for your home? EnergyStar? Ecologo? What are the organizations that you trust to provide honest info on green products and companies? Trying to do the research on green products and companies can be overwhelming.

post #19 of 40

I realize this is an old thread, but after reading some similar threads I checked into LEDs at local stores. I was dissapointed to find that in comparing output (lumens) Vs, power consumption, with CFL's they were all almost identical. They are supposed to last longer, but frankly I haven't had a CFL burn out, and I am using them in places that some say are not good such as can lights. So I can't find an advantage.

 

Am I just not looking for the LEDS's in the right place? I checked the big box stores.

post #20 of 40
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcs06278 View Post

Great posts on this topic. Nice thorough comparison, Bobkart. I've heard that quality does make quite a bit of difference with LEDs. Since there seems to be a wealth of knowledge on this forum, I was wondering what you people look for when purchasing LEDs or any other eco friendly product for your home? EnergyStar? Ecologo? What are the organizations that you trust to provide honest info on green products and companies? Trying to do the research on green products and companies can be overwhelming.



Sorry to have taken so long to respond to your question.  Unfortunately I don't have any easy answers.  My approach has been mainly trial and error.  Certainly the claimed specifications enter into the decision, but I've found there's often a huge gap between those claims and reality.  Typically I'll buy just one LED lamp from a given source and evaluate it.  If it measures up I'll get more (assuming I need more for the given application I'm trying to solve).  What isn't addressed by that approach is longevity, since I can't wait years to decide if I want to buy more.  Another obvious downside to this approach is when the one LED lamp doesn't measure up . . . returns/refunds are not always available or practical.  Suffice it to say I have numerous one-off LED lamps with less-than-hoped-for performance; I try to use them in less critical applications (closets, utility/storage rooms, ...).

 

One bit of feedback from my efforts that I can offer is to avoid the LED lamps made from discrete LEDs (as opposed to surface mounted).  I've had an inordinate number of that style of LED lamp fail prematurely.  The SMD-style LED lamps have been much more reliable and long-lived.

 

(More about discrete-versus surface-mounted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LED_display )

post #21 of 40
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by whirnot 

I realize this is an old thread, but after reading some similar threads I checked into LEDs at local stores. I was dissapointed to find that in comparing output (lumens) Vs, power consumption, with CFL's they were all almost identical. They are supposed to last longer, but frankly I haven't had a CFL burn out, and I am using them in places that some say are not good such as can lights. So I can't find an advantage.

 

Am I just not looking for the LEDS's in the right place? I checked the big box stores.


I have yet to buy an LED lamp from an actual store, all mine have been purchased online (easily over one hundred of them).

 

A CFL has efficacy around 60 lumens per watt (Wikipedia says 50-70: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp#Energy_efficiency ).

 

Efficacy numbers for LED lamps are less easy to characterize, with the technology still being rapidly developed.  Certainly there are some LED lamps out there with less than 50 lumens per watt.  But there are also some available with over 100 lumens per watt:

 

http://www.lednovation.com/products/A19_LED.html
 

That kind of performance can only be approached by T5 and T8 fluorescent lamps.

 

Regarding the claim of superior longevity of LED lamps over CFLs, your experience with CFLs doesn't disprove it.  But obviously this is one of the tougher specifications to verify.

 

And don't forget the other nine entries on my list in the first post.  Granted they are less important than the first two to the economic bottom line.  Still, just considering the quantifiable factors, I've seen recent price drops that have brought some LED lamps right about even with CFLs from a cost-effectiveness standpoint, here's one example:

 

http://www.ccrane.com/lights/led-light-bulbs/geobulb-3-led-light-bulb.aspx

 

When I crunch the numbers for that LED lamp I get $2.71/MLh (not counting shipping, at $0.1/KWh).  That's on par with many CFLs, which I typically see in the range of $2.5-$3/MLh.

 

By the way, I have examples of both the LEDNovation and the GeoBulb LEDs, and can recommend them without hesitation.


Edited by bobkart - 12/24/11 at 12:51am
post #22 of 40

Bobkart,

 

Thanks for your response. I did not do as technical a comparison as you have, but I can see that the Lednovation bulbs are far more efficient than what I am finding in the stores. I looked at the 60w Equivalent bulbs, Approx 800 to 900 lumens. Most LED and CFL are in the 13 watt range. Lednovations are in the 8 watt range. that would be the saving I am looking for.

post #23 of 40

Forgot to mention they were in the 5000 hours life range which also disappointed. Guess I need to look elsewhere.

post #24 of 40

Hi Guys,

 

I was Goggling (Is that correct?) about the differences between CFLs/LED/Incandescent lamps and I got this forum. I got hooked by discussion.

Q.

Has anyone looked into considering not only the energy saved using these types of bulbs, but also how much it cost to manufacture these types of bulbs.

I am just saying for the incandescent one you would need a few things: a spiral of wolfram, some wires, some glass and a vacuum sort of machine. How much energy you would spend for all of these, going to the basic.

Compare then with the LED ones: Al heat sink, LEDs, PCB, glass, etc.

 

I’m just saying, maybe, just maybe the difference wouldn’t be so impressive... like I got it from here:

http://www.designrecycleinc.com/led%20comp%20chart.html

 

Bulake

post #25 of 40

Hi,

 

I don't fully agree with you bobkart.

 

First off, the efficiency of CFL's and LED's is very similar right now. You state a good LED lamp can be twice as efficient as a CFL, but then your numbers do not show this (50/100 vs 40/80). Does this mean you compare a good LED lamp with a good CFL one (100 vs 80) or a good LED vs a bad CFL (100 vs 40)? I would compare 50 vs 40 or 100 vs 80, of course. However, this is not usually the case, the difference is typically negligeble when compared to the variation.

 

Another thing: the lamp life. I do not agree with the 10x factor. LED's and CFL's do not yet use the same end-of-life definition (and one is not easy to obtain) so direct comparison is not easy. Anyway, many of my older CFL's still live on, after 15 years. They are not on 24/7, but who cares? For the initial 10 EUR cost they still work. Some more recent CFL's at 5 EUR usually don't last as long, but I will let you know in 13 years if they lasted, at least, 15 years! :-)

 

Also there is an important thing to note. Consumer laws typically consider lamps as consumables, with a 6 month warranty. So I will sooner buy cheaper lamps that last less ime than 5x more expensive lamps that last 5x longer. Its just common sense, I guess, if one 50 EUR LED fails after 1 year of operation it will already be out of warranty, at that point I would wish I would have bought a 5 EUR CFL lamp instead.

 

Check out this site (dated Sep 2011): http://cleantechnica.com/2011/09/01/led-vs-cfl-which-light-bulb-is-more-efficient/

 

Their results match all the tests and measurements I've done so far, so I do believe their data to be accurate.

 

post #26 of 40

Bulake,

 

Your point about how much energy (and also how much negative environmental impact, toxic waste, etc.) is expended to manufacture LEDs or CFLs compared to incandescent is a good one. It's also true with all products. I struggle with that issue on many products because most of it is so unknown.

 

Also, how far do you go in analyzing this? Do you find out where the product is made, what type of energy is used in manufacturing it, where the raw products come from and how they’re mined, how are they transported, etc.? It can get extremely complicated. Some products use material bought from many different companies in different countries. How do you figure out the true costs in energy, water usage, CO2 emissions, toxic waste, disposal, etc.?

 

I read somewhere that there are more than 2,000 materials used in the production of a microchip, and that’s just a small component in many products.

post #27 of 40

Sheesh nothing's simple. It appears now that LEDS do contain a number of pollutants.... "lead, arsenic, and a dozen more potentially hazardous substances"

 

There are plenty of posts on the net following a study from the University of California last year, here's an example http://www.enn.com/pollution/article/42345

 

To add further complications to the comparison I am now considering the fact that, here in Ireland at least, CFL bulbs CAN be disposed of safely (though at considerable expense and I suspect few people do it although sellers are required to accept spent ones in return on a one-for-one basis) whereas there are no procedures in place for diverting LEDs from landfill.

 

Can anyone tell me just how bad these LED pollutants are? I can't find the actual levels of pollutants per bulb, but they do say that coloured ones tend to be worse.

post #28 of 40

Both CFL's and LED's contain elements which can be toxic if ingested. But so do lots of the rocks on the side of any hill, as long as those elements remain in the rocks there's no contaimation and no problem. If the case of CFL's these toxins are in the form of a fine power contained in a fragile glass container, which it doesn't break in you home is almost sure to do so during disposal. Where as in the case of LED's these toxins are present in much smaller quantities as the actual "LED" is almost microscopic and encased in tough plastic almost impossible to break and lightly to contain the toxins for geological lengths of time in the case of inappropriate disposal. 

Point 2 efficiency CFL's run off 220-240V just what come out of the walk LED's 6-12V what come out of a battery. Grid power is 100/1000's of time more efficient then battery power so to run the LED you'll need a transformer (though you could run them in series but that's not as easy as it seams) in which case the week link is the transformer. I'd use an old 12V mobile charger cut of the end and wire in the LEDS in parallel.

post #29 of 40

The post by nickibopp regarding LEDs and their pollutants is disturbing.

 

In the article on enn.com that was referenced in nikibopp's link, the article states: "The problem, they say, is that there was insufficient product testing before LED bulbs came onto the market. There was a law that was supposed to take effect on January 1 that would have mandated such testing, but it was opposed and blocked by industry groups, and has been put on hold."

 

Does anyone know what industry groups opposed and blocked this law? I'll do some research on this and post back if I find it.

 

I don't want to blow anything out of proportion, especially since I don’t know all the facts, but it's news like this, after promoting a product as efficient and safe, that frustrate and discourage consumers from making changes in their lives that would help stop the waste and environmental damage we do. Adequate testing needs to be done before releasing products on the market.

post #30 of 40

Just a wee note @ Darren - the LEDs I was referring to (not obvious I know) are these fancy new bulbs that use LEDS but can fit into any normal socket like this one http://www.ledbulbs.ie/sockets-shapes/edison-screw-large-e27/led-globe.html

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Home & Garden
Green Options › Forums › Sustainable Living Discussions › Home & Garden › LED lamps versus CFLs