LED home lighting; not quite ready or ready for prime-time?

[Clone]

We just built a new house. Standard practice here is lots of recessed can lights. We used Cooper/Halo SLD6 LED lights instead. They do not have the big recessed can which was frequently a source of air leaks and a 'hole' in the upper level insulation. The SLD6s install in a standard (perhaps a std deep) electrical box. Initially the builder and electrician thought we were nuts. After they figured it out, there was less cost installing the LEDs rather than the recessed cans. We used a lot of them, and really like them. Instant on, good color, dimmable. The GC was getting ready to build a house for himself, he made a phone call and changed over all of his recessed cans to the LED SLD6 lights also.

Regarding cost, they made sense for us because we were looking at total installed cost.

Regarding using them in a pole building- I encouraged my brother to look into installing them in one of his machine sheds. The flourescent lights don't come on well and are short lived in the cold environment. If the building was heated, that might be different. Our experience with the tube lights in his shop is luke warm at best. The shop is kept pretty cool in the winter, and it seems the fixtures and lights do not last well.

[EastWest Gal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Running_Man http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...bulb-concerns/ From the Scientific American on LED solution issues as possible worse than CFL: LEDs do have a dark side. A study published in late 2010 in the journal Environmental Science and Technology found that LEDs contain lead, arsenic and a dozen other potentially dangerous substances. LEDs are touted as the next generation of lighting,” says Oladele Ogunseitan, one of the researchers behind the study and chair of the University of California (UC)-Irvine’s Department of Population Health & Disease Prevention. “But as we try to find better products that do not deplete energy resources or contribute to global warming, we have to be vigilant [about] toxicity hazards….” Ogunseitan and other UC-Irvine researchers tested several types of LEDs, including those used as Christmas lights, traffic lights, car headlights and brake lights. What did they find? Some of the worst offenders were low-intensity red LEDs, which were found to contain up to eight times the amount of lead, a known neurotoxin, allowed by California state law and which, according to researchers, “exhibit significant cancer and noncancer potentials due to the high content of arsenic and lead.” Meanwhile, white LEDs contain the least lead, but still harbor large amounts of nickel, another heavy metal that causes allergic reactions in as many as one in five of us upon exposure. And the copper found in some LEDs can pose an environmental threat if it accumulates in rivers and lakes where it can poison aquatic life.

OK, so what about all the nickel found in costume jewelry and even white gold? Also, nickel is a contaminant found in titanium, which is used in medical implants artificial joints, and plates and screws for repair of broken bones. Last I checked, I wasn't planning to take those LEDs and eat them or rub them on my body!

The article doesn't make comparisons between LEDs and incandescent bulbs, CFLs, or other kinds of light sources.

Lead exposure and poisoning decreased significantly when they stopped adding it to paint and gasoline in the '70s. There is lead in our car batteries and in our computers. However, lead remains in the soil for years and it remains a huge problem in older homes, where there are layers and layers of old paint to contend with, especially when remodeling.

Not to mention arsenic in pressure treated lumber (decks, wooden playground sets.)

So we always will find alarmists with everything but it would be nice if we quantify the exposure. The metal in an LED is encased in plastic except for the leads. And you can't realistically have electricity without wiring, so I don't understand the article's points about copper.

The reporting in the article is sloppy, no matter the quality of the research done. At this point one needs to look at relative risk, energy usage, price, along with real potential toxicity, as well as a comparison with other lighting systems. With articles like the one that was quoted, we are not provided with adequate information about true toxicity, just alarmist hyperbole.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

[aja8888]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EastWest Gal OK, so what about all the nickel found in costume jewelry and even white gold? Also, nickel is a contaminant found in titanium, which is used in medical implants artificial joints, and plates and screws for repair of broken bones. Last I checked, I wasn't planning to take those LEDs and eat them or rub them on my body! The article doesn't make comparisons between LEDs and incandescent bulbs, CFLs, or other kinds of light sources. Lead exposure and poisoning decreased significantly when they stopped adding it to paint and gasoline in the '70s. There is lead in our car batteries and in our computers. However, lead remains in the soil for years and it remains a huge problem in older homes, where there are layers and layers of old paint to contend with, especially when remodeling. Not to mention arsenic in pressure treated lumber (decks, wooden playground sets.) So we always will find alarmists with everything but it would be nice if we quantify the exposure. The metal in an LED is encased in plastic except for the leads. And you can't realistically have electricity without wiring, so I don't understand the article's points about copper. The reporting in the article is sloppy, no matter the quality of the research done. At this point one needs to look at relative risk, energy usage, price, along with real potential toxicity, as well as a comparison with other lighting systems. With articles like the one that was quoted, we are not provided with adequate information about true toxicity, just alarmist hyperbole. Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

+1 on the above post. Alarmists are everywhere these days, but seem to forget to include any supporting human health effect data. Heavy metals are everywhere, especially in the soils and earth's crust. Without them being processed into consumer goods, we would be sharing tree leafs to eat with the dinosaurs. We used to take a lot of soil samples in my previous work and arsenic and other metals are prevalent in almost every sample as natural background constituents.

If you want to worry about toxicity, have a look at the air you breathe for starters. Between regulated pollutants and volatile organic compounds, there is a whole laundry list of toxics and even some known carcinogens in the atmosphere, especially if you live in a very populated area.

[AllDone]

Well Erd, you would know a lot more about my electric bill than I would!

[daylatedollarshort]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EastWest Gal The article doesn't make comparisons between LEDs and incandescent bulbs, CFLs, or other kinds of light sources.

+1. I think between LEDs, CFLs, incandescents, kerosene and whale oil, LEDs are still the most environmentally correct choice we currently have for lighting today.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AllDone Well Erd, you would know a lot more about my electric bill than I would!

Well AllDone, I guess so! It seems obvious to me that the 'number of cans' has little to do with your electrical usage, it's about how many are ON, how long they are ON, and the wattage rating of the ones that are ON.

What is your point?

-ERD50

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by daylatedollarshort +1. I think between LEDs, CFLs, incandescents, kerosene and whale oil, LEDs are still the most environmentally correct choice we currently have for lighting today.

One of my odd little diversions recently has been reading some old books from archive.org or other sources. I read one about the history of illumination, written about 1910. It was kind of interesting to read about the comparisons of all those old methods, one thing I didn't realize was that they sometimes add 'stuff' to the old flame systems, because alcohol for example, burns so clean, it gives off very little light. The added impurities are what give off the light.

They also said that the development of the gas mantle gave new life to gas lighting. It increased the light output so much (the mantel itself would become incandescent), that gas lighting became competitive with electric lighting again.

I'm looking forward to new approaches to LED lighting. I probably mentioned this in one thread or another (maybe even this one?), but trying to shoehorn new technology (LEDS) into old formats for filament bulbs usually is not the way to go.

LEDs produce less heat, but it is concentrated at the LED junction. For many applications, we like diffuse light. So it would be better to make a wide surface to spread the LEDs and the heat out. And also mount the electronics away from the LEDs. The electronics aren't producing much heat, but trying to put all this is an Edison style bulb puts the electronics in close proximity to the LEDs which are in close proximity to each other, creating high temperatures in this small area.

But the market is in replacements for now. But when we are buying fixtures with LEDs from the start, they could come up with a standard set of modules for the drivers, and a separate standard set of LED-only arrays to fit a few applications. Then we might really get the 20,000 hour life out of them, as the heat would be almost a non-issue, and heat is what is killing the electronics long before the LED reaches the 70% dimming figure ( a poor way to measure 'life').

-ERD50

[jazz4cash]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gindie OT - interesting thing about LEDs in traffic lights. Since they don't emit nearly as much heat as the incandescents, snow doesn't melt off the bulbs. It's a big problem and has led to many serious accidents.

Airport authority is my customer and they were adding heaters to the new snow plows equipped with LED headlights. These are massive plows mostly made in Canada and other cold weather regions and the engineers missed this issue.

[GTFan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunset That is correct, a CFL is about 5% less efficient than an LED, so there is not much of an energy savings difference. When LED's are 35 cents each, I'll switch out all my CFL's as I can buy CFL's for 22 cents each everyday. I will use LED's for specific reasons, outside in winter they work better than CFL's which dim down. Also for immediate light turn on ability, the LED's still win. Finally if I was going to replace a light really high up (like on a ladder) I'd use an LED as it will outlast a CFL.

100% this, excellent post if you already have CFLs (I do). Little benefit except in specific conditions or you don't like your CFLs.

[stephenson]

Sorry, daylatedollarshort, didn't mean to be offensive ...I've been pretty fortunate with my CFLs ...have had maybe 2-3 failures out of perhaps 150 CFLs. Even the ones outside in street lights and on house lighting have done really well. The two bulbs at the street have been in for 6 years running about 6 hours a day.

Re why I think electrical service sizes will decrease is a bit of LEDs, a bit of better insulation, a bit of better a/c with higher efficiency, more efficient refrigerator and freezers, more gas hot water, etc ...was thinking that but didn't get the rest of it in the note. Other great CFL and LED artifacts include being able to put them in lamps or overhead fixtures with higher lumens than what would have been possible with incandescent bulbs ...more light!


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

[mh]

I have some LIFX wifi controllable led lights. I was wondering how useful they would actually be but now that I've had them for a while I'm really happy with them. I've always got my phone close by at home since I use if for the tv remote , air play music speakers , alarm clock, etc. so it makes sense for me. Plus my house isn't that big so I don't need a ton of them


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

[samclem]

I recently purchased these LED replacements for use in some shop lights, and I like them. They are the color I wanted (5K--other colors available), they cost only $10 each ( ), they use less energy than the florescent bulbs (important due to circuit limits in my application), and they can (optionally) bypass the ballast in the fixture (easy rewiring), which is great because I have some lights with bad ballasts that are now usable. They are more efficient than a traditional T8 florescent bulb (LED =123 lumens/watt vs 89 for the florescents)

Initial impressions are very favorable. Though they put out less total lumens than the old tubes (2200 each vs 2800 for the florescents), they seem brighter. I think this is because I chose LED bulbs that are focused down in a 120 deg angle (which is what I wanted, others have different spreads) so the lumens are where I need them. They should last longer (guaranteed for 5 years, estimated 50K hour life), they give off less heat, and they are definitely cheaper than buying a new florescent fixture and bulbs, and they were cheaper than buying a dedicated LED shoplight fixture (and if one crumps out I'm only out $10, not the $40+ for one of these LED fixtures).

My only gripe: These particular bulbs are also supposed to work in the "direct replacement" mode (just remove the old florescents and pop in the new LED tubes, leave the ballast in place). Mine didn't function in that mode, I got about 1 second of light and then they blinked off. It's not a problem for me (I would bypass the ballast on any installation--why leave a known unneeded failure point in the device?), but it might bother some folks. This might have been unique to the ballast in the fixture I was using for testing (it operated fine with T8s).

I think this LED technology is now ready to economically replace T8/T12 florescent tubes even for relatively low utilization applications, especially if a ballast has died in an existing fixture.

[Zathras]

We are just completing building a Net Zero house.
We went with all LED bulbs everywhere. Some are "smart" bulbs, others specific LED fixtures, and others standard recessed fixtures that use replacement LEF bulbs.

The bulbs do cost more up front, but will so rarely need replacement, they will easily save us money over time.

The light quality is great, and the bulbs are resilient enough that even all the carpenters, cabinet guys, plumbers, painters, etc haven't managed to break a single one.

They also made it easier for us to produce as much energy as we use on an annual basis. This would have been much more difficult with less efficient lights.

One note for anyone using "smart" bulbs. Many/most/all of these will continue to use a bit of energy even when "off". To truly bring that power use to zero, use the wall switch.

[Just_Steve]

Samclem thanks for the link those are good prices.
Since I have bought my house I have had an issue with the florescence lights in the garage turning on in the winter, looks like a good solution.

[RobbieB]

I just replaced the incandescent bulbs (mini candelabra base flames) with LED, was very happy to see these are available. Last POS filaments now gone.



Looks good too!



200 watts now 22 watts. And the light doesn't get dimmer as the tungsten boils off and darkens the glass.

[travelover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobbieB 200 watts now 22 watts. And the light doesn't get dimmer as the tungsten boils off and darkens the glass.

These are the first LED candelabras I've seen that look nice.

[Bobw235]

We've been slowly converting to LED as CFLs burn out. Last year I tried converting my recessed 35 par halogens in the kitchen with an LED equivalent, but my wife didn't like the quality of the light, so I'll have to look for something else. I particularly like the LEDs because they burn cooler and that means less cooling needed from the central a/c.

[Zathras]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobw235 We've been slowly converting to LED as CFLs burn out. Last year I tried converting my recessed 35 par halogens in the kitchen with an LED equivalent, but my wife didn't like the quality of the light, so I'll have to look for something else. I particularly like the LEDs because they burn cooler and that means less cooling needed from the central a/c.

LEDs may still work well for you. There is a large variety of light quality.
In general, I find the ones that have a light "temperature" around 3000 to be a very nice "daylight" quality.
Others can be anywhere from a very stark blue light to a much deeper, but dimmer red light.

[Bobw235]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zathras LEDs may still work well for you. There is a large variety of light quality. In general, I find the ones that have a light "temperature" around 3000 to be a very nice "daylight" quality. Others can be anywhere from a very stark blue light to a much deeper, but dimmer red light.

I'd love to replace them. The halogens in the kitchen throw off a lot of heat. I'll take a look for something in the temperature range you mentioned. Anything I can do to lower my electric bill is a good thing. Thanks for the suggestion.

[UpAnchor]

I would very much like to switch over to LEDs throughout but I'm very picky about color temperature. I like the warm color of tungsten incandescents for table and floor lamps and halogen for track lights. But man do I have trouble finding LEDs that come close enough to emulating those colors to make me go all in (and it's not that I haven't tried a bunch.) When I do, I'll want all the tracklights to be consistent and same with table lamps so the quest goes on until I feel I have it right.