Overall efficiency of LED bulbs

[Flocomotive]

Bonjour.

An article in the science and the future magazine of June 2009 on the different alternatives to conventional incandescent bulbs asserts that as it is, LED bulbs are not generally a good solution, because although their energy efficiency is excellent, they cost a lot of energy to produce and their production is very polluting.

I have often asked myself this question, because I see the interest of replacement bulbs only in their overall life cycle and not only in their energy efficiency.

Personally, I plan to equip myself with LEDs for bedside lamps to avoid the radiation of CFLs (but that is not the subject of my post) and for places where the light is not on for a long time but needs to be at full power from the start.

What do you think?

Flocomotive

[Christophe]

they cost a lot of energy to produce and their production is very polluting.

Did they make the same comparison with ... the car or other object of "consumption" which, unlike LED bulbs, are "pure losses" econologically speaking?

Car if it was so energyvore than that, it would never be profitable because the price of energy is "universal" (or almost) ... and is included in the "price" of sale! The share of embodied energy is generally much lower than ... VAT!

Here is a generic method of calculating gray energy: https://www.econologie.com/forums/methode-de ... t4897.html

You can also use this calculator: https://www.econologie.com/calculateur-ampoules.html

An energy-saving bulb (fluorescent and led), provided it has the advertised lifespan, is therefore ALWAYS economically profitable (and therefore on embodied energy because energy and money are linked)

Otherwise yes for the bedside lamps and if you want quality led bulbs, you will find some quality ones on the site shop: https://www.econologie.com/shop/ampoules-led-c-90

ps: for magnetic fields, watch this video: https://www.econologie.com/ondes-magneti ... -3832.html

[Flocomotive]

First of all thanks for the reply.

they cost a lot of energy to produce and their production is very polluting.

Did they make the same comparison with ... the car or other object of "consumption" which, unlike LED bulbs, are "pure losses" econologically speaking?

I'm not sure I'm following you. But know that I completely agree with the pure loss aspect of the automobile.

Car if it was so energy intensive that it would never be profitable because the price of energy is "universal" (or almost) ... and is included in the "price" of sale! The share of embodied energy is generally much lower than ... VAT!

Perhaps I did not specify my intentions enough, in reality the economic aspect, although important, is not the main one for me. And the economics argument is a double-edged sword. Today, Argentinian apples (with all that that implies) are cheaper than those of local farmers. However, it is much worse from an environmental and societal point of view. The problem is that precisely, energy is cheaper than our social protection (but again, this is not the subject of my post).

Here is a generic method of calculating gray energy: https://www.econologie.com/forums/methode-de ... t4897.html

You can also use this calculator: https://www.econologie.com/calculateur-ampoules.html

An energy-saving bulb (fluorescent and led), provided it has the advertised lifespan, is therefore ALWAYS economically profitable (and therefore on embodied energy because energy and money are linked)

Like I said, I don't just look at economic profitability. But I am convinced that what you are saying is true.

Otherwise yes for the bedside lamps and if you want quality led bulbs, you will find some quality ones on the site shop: https://www.econologie.com/shop/ampoules-led-c-90

ps: for magnetic fields, watch this video: https://www.econologie.com/ondes-magneti ... -3832.html

I'll watch this loan.

Goods.

Flocomotive

[I Citro]

In this area, as in many others, disinformation is raging ...
Yes, LEDs require embodied energy ...
Glass bulbs would therefore require no or much less.

A product that will have an increased life cycle will significantly reduce its environmental impact at the end of its life.
On this point alone, LEDs are incomparable. My incandescent bulbs lasted less than 6 months (1000 hours).
Quality LEDs last ten times longer (at least).
Finally, energy efficiency has no impact on other consumption. For example, the heat not given off by an LED bulb will reduce the need for air conditioning ...

[Flocomotive]

: arrow: In this area, as in many others, disinformation is raging ...
Yes, LEDs require embodied energy ...
Glass bulbs would therefore require no or much less.

Yes it is certain, moreover the article in question does not say the reverse.

A product that will have an increased life cycle will significantly reduce its environmental impact at the end of its life.

Totally agree.

Finally, energy efficiency has no impact on other consumption. For example, the heat not given off by an LED bulb will reduce the need for air conditioning ...

In summer yes ...

What I especially wanted to say is that we lack visibility on the thing, moreover the article underlines it: for the moment it is quite new and it is a bit of a jungle.

Flocomotive

[I Citro]

What I especially wanted to say is that we lack visibility on the thing, moreover the article underlines it: for the moment it is quite new and it is a bit of a jungle.

Actually no.
We have been making LEDs for decades ...
The technology evolves, is optimized, but it is perfectly reliable and controlled as long as the "correct" manufacturing standards are respected.

The MAJOR problem comes from the flood of badly designed and badly built products that do not meet the most basic quality standards ... (Chonois problem well known).

The second problem lies in the generally deplorable design of LED lights which are made to replace incandescent bulbs ... This is nonsense.
The specificities of LEDs and in particular their lighting angle is very poor for the integration of LEDs into conventional format bulbs ...
On the other hand, they have the advantage of being compact to allow the production of ultra-flat light sources (less than 10mm). This asset is not or little exploited.

Modern homes with low ceilings (2.5m) are still waiting for the lighting that suits them best.
Certainly, the chandeliers and other suspensions of the past are no longer suitable for our contemporary homes.

In my opinion, if there is a jungle, it is the jungle of largely excessive prices, especially given the qualities offered.
Finally, if we have to clear the land, it is in the field of lighting concepts that we have to rethink based on new technologies and not old ones ...

The automobile suffers from the same ailments.

[Christophe]

The MAJOR problem comes from the flood of badly designed and badly built products that do not meet the most basic quality standards ... (Chonois problem well known).

The ban on conventional light bulbs will only worsen the phenomenon.

I thought it was from September 1, 2009 but today at JT (again) zon says that it was from today that stores would no longer be delivered in bulbs over 100W (excluding halogen ).

[Flocomotive]

What the article meant by jungle is that, although the technology is not recent, its application for lighting as a substitute for incandescent bulbs is recent for the general public, and as a result we find anything and everything. What you confirm. And I completely agree: today, there is no real standard on light bulbs. The packaging does not necessarily specify the angle, the temperature ...

We can assume that when the market matures, improvements will be tangible. We can also hope for regulatory action.

As proof, I think that today, it is quite easy to choose a compact fluorescent. It was much less easy 5 years ago (I had some setbacks ...).

In any case, today, I find it difficult to choose the products I buy, when I am very knowledgeable and fully understand the advantages / disadvantages of technologies. But I realize that this problem is not specific to light bulbs: we do not give information if we know that it does not sell!

Flocomotive

[Flocomotive]

I thought it was from September 1, 2009 but today at JT (again) zon says that it was from today that stores would no longer be delivered in bulbs over 100W (excluding halogen ).

The article in question (I am a real traveling pub ...) takes stock of this. In fact, in France, following the Grenelle de l'Environnement, we have our own schedule for eliminating incandescent bulbs, often a few weeks before that common to the entire EU.

Why make it simple when you can make it complicated...

Flocomotive