LED Lighting - Use More Electricity?

[jebatty]

Saw an article in InsideClimate:

Looking at the current transition from incandescent lights to CFLs and ultimately LEDs, the authors concluded "there is a massive potential for growth in the consumption of light if new lighting technologies are developed with higher luminous efficacies and lower cost of light."

More Energy Use The assertion is that low cost LED lighting will lead to people lighting much more space or lighting brighter and that there may not be much of a reduction in actual use of electricity.

Anyone here lighting more space or lighting brighter when LED's are substituted for incandescent or CFL's? I replaced both incandescent and CFL's on a lumen equivalent wattage basis, i.e. 13 watt CFL is about a 60 watt incandescent equivalent which is about the same as 8-10 watt LED.

 

[Bret Chase]

I don't use any LED's... still too expensive for me, but I have noticed more and more commercial spaces going to LED for outside lighting.... Obnoxiously hurt your eyes bright... I am sure they're saving a bunch of energy going from 250W and 175W Metalarc fixtures to LED's but pulling into a gas station shouldn't be like driving into the surface of the sun.

As far as my own house.... I light it to my comfort, not to any certain wattage. My teens, however, want every light on in thee house at all times... and the door wide open with the AC on....

 

[velvetfoot]

I replaced all my cfls with 2700k leds. Can't tell the difference, but no warm up. I like the 2700 color.

On another note, a local school replaced their parking lot lumineres with led models. Doesn't seem as bright to me. Perhaps a safety tradeoff as well?

 

[maple1]

Well - there are times now when I won't bother to go to the other side of the house to turn off a light someone left on and I'll just leave it until the next time I'm over that way. Does that count? Otherwise, no.

I have yet to experience the obnoxiously bright LED light yet though. Maybe I just don't get out enough after dark?

 

[Bret Chase]

Well - there are times now when I won't bother to go to the other side of the house to turn off a light someone left on and I'll just leave it until the next time I'm over that way. Does that count? Otherwise, no.

I have yet to experience the obnoxiously bright LED light yet though. Maybe I just don't get out enough after dark?

No Irvings in NS? They are one of the worst when they upgrade their canopy lights over the pumps...

 

[maple1]

Yes, they are all over the place. I just haven't noticed the brightness. I don't do a lot of night driving though.

 

[Grisu]

That effect is called "Jevons paradox" and has been around for more than a century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

So far it has mostly proven true. Any technology that offers efficiency gains leads quickly to more consumption which negates the supposed savings from the efficiency gains. Ergo, the human population is net consuming more and more resources no matter how advanced our technology has become.

Keep that in mind when you hear someone utter the phrase "technology will save us."

 

[DougA]

A few local gas stations switched last week and I find the brightness the same, just a slightly colder color to them. There have been articles about energy consumption for the past decade looking at how the enormous TV screens and all the appliances people use have negated the efficiency that new technology has delivered. It's not just huge screens, it's that everyone now has 2 to 5 of them in their house and they are in use all the time. Same with computers. I leave most of my computers on constantly and they don't draw much in hibernate mode but it all adds up.

Still, even with the heat we've had this summer, our region is using less electricity than most previous years. We haven't been even close to voluntary power reductions like in past years.

In truth, if you want to worry about something, I would worry about the price and availability of food over the next few years. With record droughts in Calif., our food prices are already up 10% in the last few months and this is growing season locally. I hate to think of what things will be like this winter.

 

[EatenByLimestone]

I just swapped some T8s for LEDs. I think they are brighter, but use much less activity going from 32 watts each to 20 watts. Well, maybe not too much less.

 

[iamlucky13]

I haven't yet, but there's a few spaces where I will increase the lighting levels partially on the basis of LED's reducing the cost of doing so. Mostly I replace at equivalent brightness.

My living room has minimal permanent lighting - a single bulb sconce and a 100W floor lamp (both currently have 75W equivalent / 19W CFL's in them). Current maximum lighting level is 73 lux (lumens per square meter). Recommended for a living room is 150-300 lux. I can read in the current light, but I don't think many older people could.

I plan to keep the sconce, get rid of the floor lamp, and install 6 downlights on a dimmer. That should put me a little over 150 lux. Total planned power rating would be about 80 Watts, but would be dimmed down when watching TV. Were I instead to upgrade to a proper lighting level using an incandescent in the sconce and halogens in the downlights, it would take 360 Watts.

The garage has four 75W equivalent / 19W CFL's. That should be 75 lux. I can change the oil or rotate the tires in that light, but not much more, and partially by feel. I'd like to get that up to 300 lux, which replacing the cheap ceramic single bulb fixtures each with a 4', 2 bulb T-8 fixture or the LED equivalent should do. Total power rating should be 256 Watts. I'm hoping some better LED options come out before I get around to that project, because the current options aren't much better than T-8 fluorescents, but cost more.

I just swapped some T8s for LEDs. I think they are brighter, but use much less activity going from 32 watts each to 20 watts.

Which ones? Most of the replacements I've seen like the Philips Instafit or the Cree TW-series T-8's claim to be direct replacements, but actually compromise on the brightness. A standard T-8 gets 2800 lumens from 32 Watts (88 lm/W). The Philips Instafit gets 1600 lumens (110 lm/W). The Cree TW T-8 gets 1700 lumens from 18.5 W (92 lm/W, but slightly better rated color than the Philips).

So it seems the advantages over existing fluorescents are not very large. Because these are retrofit bulbs that plug into a standard electronic ballast, the ballast power consumption is also theoretically still a factor.

 

[iamlucky13]

A lot of the street lights around here are getting replaced with LED's. I think the brightness is about the same. Energy consumption is supposedly moderately less. The color quality is definitely better. However, the visibility is worse, because they cause worse glare.

They're all using 4000-5000 Kelvin LED's. The lights they're replacing are high pressure sodium, which are somewhere around 2200 Kelvin. The old lights had terrible color quality, but were very easy on the eyes.

I don't know why they're using such "cool" toned LED's. It's been known for decades that bluer light tones not only cause more eye strain and sense of glare, but reduce night vision.

 

[EatenByLimestone]

I haven't yet, but there's a few spaces where I will increase the lighting levels partially on the basis of LED's reducing the cost of doing so. Mostly I replace at equivalent brightness.

My living room has minimal permanent lighting - a single bulb sconce and a 100W floor lamp (both currently have 75W equivalent / 19W CFL's in them). Current maximum lighting level is 73 lux (lumens per square meter). Recommended for a living room is 150-300 lux. I can read in the current light, but I don't think many older people could.

I plan to keep the sconce, get rid of the floor lamp, and install 6 downlights on a dimmer. That should put me a little over 150 lux. Total planned power rating would be about 80 Watts, but would be dimmed down when watching TV. Were I instead to upgrade to a proper lighting level using an incandescent in the sconce and halogens in the downlights, it would take 360 Watts.

The garage has four 75W equivalent / 19W CFL's. That should be 75 lux. I can change the oil or rotate the tires in that light, but not much more, and partially by feel. I'd like to get that up to 300 lux, which replacing the cheap ceramic single bulb fixtures each with a 4', 2 bulb T-8 fixture or the LED equivalent should do. Total power rating should be 256 Watts. I'm hoping some better LED options come out before I get around to that project, because the current options aren't much better than T-8 fluorescents, but cost more.



Which ones? Most of the replacements I've seen like the Philips Instafit or the Cree TW-series T-8's claim to be direct replacements, but actually compromise on the brightness. A standard T-8 gets 2800 lumens from 32 Watts (88 lm/W). The Philips Instafit gets 1600 lumens (110 lm/W). The Cree TW T-8 gets 1700 lumens from 18.5 W (92 lm/W, but slightly better rated color than the Philips).

So it seems the advantages over existing fluorescents are not very large. Because these are retrofit bulbs that plug into a standard electronic ballast, the ballast power consumption is also theoretically still a factor.

http://www.totalbulklighting.com/led-t8-18watt-clear-g13-4-lamp-retrofit-kit-5000k.html


I'm using 20w while the literature states 18. On their site it says 20 in a few places. Maybe it's a typo, but maybe it's a driver. It equals out to 73.3 lumens/w. A bit less, but I figure the standard fluorescent fixture puts light out in every direction. The LED only puts it out in 1... straight down. While the white metal box does reflect it down, it's not perfect. It must be brighter just below the light.

 

[jebatty]

Although LED's are available in the warm colors, my wife and both like the 3000-3400K over the warmer incandescent or CFL's, and in some places we really like the 4000-5000K LED's, namely the garage and the basement. The bright white light makes it very easy to see, much better than the redder tones. In the basement I replaced twin 40 watt T-12's (actually energy draw was 100 watts/fixture) with circular LED fixtures rated at 14 watts (actual energy draw at 14 watts as measured by the Kill-o-watt). For five fixtures, 500 watts replaced by less than 100 watts.

I put in one twin tube LED (32 watts) in the garage to replace a 200 watt incandescent. The LED puts out much more, brighter light than did the 200 watt bulb. And at Deep Portage where I volunteer, it is installing direct replacement LED tubes in about 150 twin tube T-8 fixtures, with economic payback estimated in 3-4 years. These are fixtures that are "on" up to around 16 hours/day. It too has found that the LED tubes, with all light shining down, are brighter in space lighting than the 28 watt T-8's being replaced. Longevity of the LED tubes remains to be seen, but based on stated life expectancy, the LED tube fixtures also will have much less maintenance cost than did the T-8's. T-8 light output degrades significantly over time. A common degrade factor is 40% over an 8,000 hour lifespan, while LED degrade is about 30% over a 50,000 hour lifespan. But different numbers from different sources.

 

[woodgeek]

I read an article last week (can't find it now) that said that US electricity demand has dropped by a few % in the last couple years. While such things happen during a recession, the lack of a recession in the last couple years suggests it was most likely the effect of lighting substitution.

Moreover, while a few % is not a huge number, given the overall slow growth of US electricity demand (due to efficiency effects offsetting population and GDP growth) the effect of the step change from lighting was to delay about a decade of time. That is, our projected 2025 demand is now about what we used to project our 2015 demand to be a few years back.

AS for my household....my family doesn't turn off the lights, and never has. Of course, we were all CFL since 2000.

As for Jevon's paradox...this was a right-wing bugaboo some years ago....arguing there is no point in trying to increase efficiency. The best studies I have read distinguish two rebound effects....

1. Cheaper light means you use more light, as Jim hypothesized. This sort of rebound is real, but more like a 20-30% increase in demand. Obviously varies with the tech...I don't do more laundry after I buy a HE washer.

2. The bigger rebound is that is people save money in one area (their elec bill) they tend to spend it somewhere else. IF a family saves $100 a year on lighting electricity, do they save the $100, or do they increase their spending by $100 on things that also demand electricity, emit carbon, etc.? This is a much more slippery issue, but you might assume that if the family saved 20% of income before, they will save $20 of the $100, and spend the other $80. Economists will then tell you how much elec/carbon that $80 will entail.

The second rebound effect is considered bigger than the first. In some economic scenarios, money saved in higher efficiency goes completely to higher GDP that wiped out the savings. Indeed, all the winger stories a couple years ago were talking about rebound 2, which is subject to econ assumptions.

In the end, we need to have slower GDP growth per capita, slower pop growth, or lower energy use per $ of GDP. Lighting eff contributes to the last of these three, which is also the most popular.

 

[andrewjoseph]

I feel like switching has only saved me money. However, I only swapped out my old incandescent/halogen cans for the retrofit led cans. I got them in a four pack for $70 approx at Menards during a sale, then got 11 percent back credit.

Ive been very happy with them, got 3000k I believe, and then was able to put cheaper dimmers on them due to the low output. The trims are very basic, but so were my other ones.

I could see a person start to add lighting where tbey might not need it. Im not to that point tbough.

Saw an article in InsideClimate: More Energy Use The assertion is that low cost LED lighting will lead to people lighting much more space or lighting brighter and that there may not be much of a reduction in actual use of electricity.

Anyone here lighting more space or lighting brighter when LED's are substituted for incandescent or CFL's? I replaced both incandescent and CFL's on a lumen equivalent wattage basis, i.e. 13 watt CFL is about a 60 watt incandescent equivalent which is about the same as 8-10 watt LED.

 

[jebatty]

One thing about gaining a habit (of turning out lights when not needed) is that just switching bulbs does not automatically change the habit. My wife and I turn off lights just as much now as we did before, which means uncommon for any light not needed to be on.

 

[velvetfoot]

As for Jevon's paradox...this was a right-wing bugaboo some years ago

How about this scenario:
A lot of a potential solar installation is paid for by 'others'. However, to maximize your 'gain' from these 'others', you need to increase your electric load. So, you add heat pumps and drive an electric car, again, subsidized by 'others'. I can't help but wonder if this shift in energy usage to electric will ultimately result in more generating capacity. Never-mind, whether the the ultimate results will be so fantastic that 'others' should pay for it. Government wasn't paying for the shift from water to coal in Jarven's day.

 

[DougA]

One thing about gaining a habit (of turning out lights when not needed) is that just switching bulbs does not automatically change the habit. My wife and I turn off lights just as much now as we did before, which means uncommon for any light not needed to be on.

I agree. I always had a problem when our daughter was a teen and she lectured me on environmental issues but left every light on when she was home and used tons of hot water. Even though it wasted pennies, you can't be an environmentalist when you pick which issues to care about and which ones to abuse.

 

[begreen]

Being an environmentalist means being mindful, but does not have to include wearing a hair shirt. Being youthful on the other hand is bound to be full of contradictions.

 

[jebatty]

Velvet and Doug - I agree in part and disagree in part. As to the part on which I pretty much agree, "you can't be an environmentalist when you pick which issues to care about and which ones to abuse." ... except that conserving on something is better than conserving on nothing, the more things conserved the better. My wife and I are pretty good at conserving on many things, the big exception being the use of our (high mpg) cars and maybe some air travel.

Also partial agreement here: "to maximize your 'gain' from these 'others', you need to increase your electric load." ,,, except that increasing the electric load from a solar installation which supplants a fossil fuel load is a net environmental gain. In my own case, an electric car is in the foreseeable future, "fueled" substantially by our own solar PV. Our use of such a car would not result in more use of a car than now, and to the extent fueled by PV, the result would be a net environmental gain.

To the extent that our PV or other environmental efforts are paid for or subsidized by 'others,' my answer is that in most cases we pay for and subsidize gains by 'others,' from basic to applied research, from agriculture to fossil fuel extraction, from roads and bridges to health care, and the list goes on. In all of these cases, as a political society we make these choices, one gains, another loses, and the political choice may or may not result in greater benefit to society as a whole. All alternatives have gainers and losers. Unfettered capitalism is famous for this as all choices are made based on profit (greed). And gainers in the profit game usually also end up gainers in the power game to skew results in their favor. Time will tell whether or not a greed based society is better than alternatives.

One other point. I too am bothered by activists in any area not living the life they espouse. Yet as we know, none of us are perfect or can be perfect, and the road to perfection is arduous and full of pitfalls. In the end I choose my battles, try to do better in most areas, try not to be discouraged by my failings or the failings of others, and hope that as a society we look forward to and build a better future based on the best science and facts available at the time and not by belief systems that deny reality as we can know it. Galileo faced this a long time ago as he advanced his heliocentric view of the universe as then known, and he suffered derision from powerful others whose belief system required that the universe be earth centered. I am very glad that the earth centered view of the universe did not win the struggle between science and beliefs.

 

[velvetfoot]

except that increasing the electric load from a solar installation which supplants a fossil fuel load is a net environmental gain.

The sun doesn't shine at night and during a lot of the winter, around here anyway. Current solar systems supported by 'others' do not supply energy during these times. It seems to me that enough generating plant capacity needs to be available for these times. These plants need to be dispatched, and are not base loaded, so, will be gas fired, although with the price of oil...

 

[mustash29]

My Craftsman garage door openers used to EAT bulbs. Even 50w rough service did not last that much longer than normal bulbs. I switched to 100w CFL's about 15 yrs ago, they last forever and don't blow from the vibrations.

Since xmas, we have switched just about everything over.

CFL's - 24/7 outside security yellow bug light, 2 garage, 3 basement, 2 rec room, 2 LR lights (3 way), 4 LR ceiling fan (low/hi pull chain), 7 recessed kitchen, 3 on all 3 BR ceiling fans (low/med/hi pull chains), 2 bathroom vent fans.

LED's - 6 dining (computer) room chandelier, 5 kitchen tiffany, added 4 kitchen under cabinet strips, 4 & 6 bathroom vanity strips, 2 recessed hallway, recessed rec room foyer.

We used to sit and walk around in the dark most of the time, guided by nightlights. Now we enjoy equal or better lighting, but with 75% energy savings and 90% heat savings. Now we can make a sandwich, shave and apply makeup without getting a sunburn or having your head start sweating from the radiated heat. Huge bonus during A/C times.

We haven't seen much in the electric bill, but we added a 60" LED TV, 8 cuft chest freezer and run the A/C a lot this summer.

 

[velvetfoot]

My Craftsman garage door openers used to EAT bulbs

Funny you should say that. I've gone through two led bulbs on one of my three openers. Have no idea why.

 

[mustash29]

Cheap at Wally world:

I just bought three 4 packs of GE 60w equivalent LED bulbs for 9.88 each. That's 2.47 each.

I also got three 65w equivalent GE r-30 recessed bulbs for 2.84 each.

 

[7acres]

We never liked CFLs. We got some deals on highly subsidized LED bulbs through our power company. This year we switched out every bulb they had an equivalent LED option for. Which covered every fixture except for the chandelier in the dining room. We do not run more lights than before. We like the energy savings.