http://pleasantonweekly.com/square/print/2013/10/09/opt-for-led-lights-and-save-everything-at-home


Town Square

Opt for LED lights and Save Everything at Home

Original post made by gracedan, Livermore, on Oct 9, 2013

It is a known fact that saving money will not just happen when a business or home reduces the amount of power that they consume. Always bear in mind that savings must include environmental awareness as well as the overall future on financial savings. In any home, there are many appliances and electrical equipment present. All of these contribute to your monthly energy bills. If you want to save energy and your money, it is best to start with the www.lightingever.co.uk in your home. Throughout the years, finding lighting solutions that are both cost-effective and helps save energy was made possible with the introduction of the energy-saving LED lights.

This story contains 505 words.

If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.

If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.

Comments

Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Oct 9, 2013 at 7:57 am

I like LED lighting and have quite a few LED bulbs in my house, particularly in heavily used locations. LEDs do use significantly less power than incandescent lights (about 5x less). However, the claim made in this article that LED lights use less electricity than fluorescent lights is inaccurate. The amount of electricity used by current LEDs is about on par with fluorescent lights. I still prefer LEDs over fluorescents but because of the better lighting color, faster startup, and longer life, and not because of any energy savings over fluorescents.


Like this comment
Posted by Bill
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 9, 2013 at 12:46 pm

Agree with Sam. Fluorescent and LED are about the same as far as energy usage goes. The one thing that is bad about fluorescent lamps is that they contain mercury, which is of course toxic to the environment and makes fluorescent lamps harder to dispose of. Also it can be difficult to start fluorescent lamps in cold weather. LED lamps are environmentally cleaner, both in manufacturing and disposal, and are not sensitive to temperature. Also LED lights, unlike fluorescent and incandescent lights, do not give off ultra violet(UV) radiation. In fixtures used outside this is a plus for LED lamps because most noturnal insects are attracted to UV light.


Like this comment
Posted by right
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 10, 2013 at 2:14 pm

LED's are great, provided you purchased the right color spectrum, choosing one as close to incandescent bulbs as possible.

Sam, you're wrong about the energy usage versus fluorescents. LED lights are twice as efficient as the dreaded mercury filled lights the govt was promoting until recently. Please see the comparison chart at this URL: Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Oct 10, 2013 at 5:59 pm

"right" wrote: "Sam, you're wrong about the energy usage versus fluorescents. LED lights are twice as efficient as the dreaded mercury filled lights the govt was promoting until recently. Please see the comparison chart at this URL"

"Right", thanks for the link. It does appear that the tables on the website you provided show that LEDs are about twice as efficient as CFL's (compact fluorescent lights), but this is the first website I've ever seen to make that claim. I checked out various sources of information when first investigating the possible use of LED's in my house, and they consistently indicated that the energy usage of LED lights are in the same range as CFL's. For example:

Web Link (See LED vs. CFL comparison of lumens-per-watt in the middle of the page).

Web Link (See "white LED" vs. "Compact Fluorescent" comparison in the graph.


Of course, fluorescent lighting is a mature technology, whereas the technology behind LED lighting is improving from year to year, so it would not be surprising if future LED lights significantly outperform CFL lights in terms of lumens-per-watt. Also, it's possible that some manufacturer currently has some ultra-efficient LED (which is also probably ultra-expensive). But for common LED lights that you are likely to get at Home Depot, I think that you'll find that the energy efficiency is about on-par with CFLs.

(P.S: It's interesting to note, though, that the Madison Gas & Electric website given above shows linear fluorescent style bulbs outperforming both LEDs and CFL's in terms of lumens-per-watt. Of course, linear fluorescents are more often found in industrial settings than in homes.)


Like this comment
Posted by LED supporter
a resident of West of Foothill
on Oct 10, 2013 at 8:00 pm

I'ven recently purchased LED bulbs at costco for about $29 (I think for 3 bulbs) and the expected light is 22.7 years or something like that. I've used them to replace canned lights and regular lamp fixtures through out our home. I actually really like them and the color spectrum is not bad either. Also, we use LED lighting in our business in Pleasanton and have had sophisticated modules installed that use LED lights so we have seen a tremendous savings on our energy bill there (used Xicato lighting modules). The fixtures where not inexpensive but the technology is better for the environment, it is better than fluorescent lighting and the effects it has on one's health, including the skin--we're in the day spa business--and the lighting effect is lovely. What can I say, we're LED all the way!!


Like this comment
Posted by Lessismore
a resident of Amador Valley High School
on Oct 11, 2013 at 12:04 pm

At some point moving to LED's is the way to go.
But not for the political correctness.
1.6 mil to save 200k per year.

I ask why now.
If the cost of LEDs continues to drop as it has over the last few years could we do the same project in 2 years 800k?





Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Oct 11, 2013 at 12:49 pm

Lessismore wrote: "At some point moving to LED's is the way to go. But not for the political correctness. 1.6 mil to save 200k per year."

$1.6 million to switch to LED streetlights with a resulting savings of $200K per year doesn't sound too bad to me. That means that changing to the LED streetlights should about pay for itself after 8 years. And after 8 years, it means about $200K per year in savings to the city up until the life expectancy of the streetlights.

As for delaying the project, I don't think that the prices of LED streetlights are going to drop by 50% in two years. Even consumer LED lights (for which there are a lot more manufacturers and a lot more price competition) are probably not going to drop by 50% in just two years. Also, remember that putting off installing LED streetlights for two years means that the city would not be getting the $200K in annual savings for those two years. Delaying the project by two years would only make sense if one expects that the cost of the $1.6 million streetlight system two years from now will be less than $1.2 million (i.e., at least 25% less than the present cost).