Spending $ now to eliminate recurring costs?

No, it isn't equivalent light. The numbers are all there in my post.

The 32 watt tube produces 2850 lumens.
The 9 watt LED produces 800 lumens.

Efficiency (Pout/Pin) is lumens per watt.

The Fluorescent tube comes to 81 lumens/watt (2850/32),
The LED comes to ~ 89 lumens/watt (800/9).

Maybe the "60 Watt equivalent" phrase I copy/pasted threw you off, but that's just a description of the LED compared to a filament bulb of similar lumens. It isn't part of the fluorescent tube to LED comparison.

-ERD50
Yeh, but . . .
The "tube" florescent bulbs also require a ballast/transformer of some type (which uses energy/creates heat), and this isn't included in the above comparison. If we compare total in-use input energy and similar form factor (Edison-type bulbs rather than linear florescent tubes), we'd need to compare the LED bulb and the incandescent 60W bulb to a CFL (which has the transformer built into the unit). A CFL requires 14 watts to make 900 lumens (per this Home Depot product page, SKU#423599), or 64 lumens/watt. It is 72% as efficient as the LED bulb you cited (LED = 89 lumens/watt).


So the LED bulbs (89 lumens/watt) are appreciably more efficient than the CFLs (64 lumens/watt), but both are LOT more efficient than traditional incandescent bulbs (7 lumens/watt).
 
Last edited:
Even with the cheapest LED bulbs I've found I'm much happier with their color than I was with any of compact fluorescent (CF) bulbs I had installed to re-lamp from incandescent.

Except for one (shielded) closet light I've now replaced all CF bulbs with LED bulbs in my home.

Only a few incandescent bulbs are left, primarily in a few chandeliers that are rarely used.

Yeah, I really disliked all of the fluorescent lights. They were junk in my opinion, and having to drop them off at a recycling center to get rid of them was a pain.

I’m a big fan of the LED lights for pretty much everything now. They’ve come down to a very affordable price, although they never seem to last as long as they are supposed to ( neither did the fluorescents ).
 
Yeh, but . . .
The "tube" florescent bulbs also require a ballast/transformer of some type (which uses energy/creates heat), and this isn't included in the above comparison. If we compare total in-use input energy and similar form factor (Edison-type bulbs rather than linear florescent tubes), we'd need to compare the LED bulb and the incandescent 60W bulb to a CFL (which has the transformer built into the unit). A CFL requires 14 watts to make 900 lumens (per this Home Depot product page, SKU#423599), or 64 lumens/watt. It is 72% as efficient as the LED bulb you cited (LED = 89 lumens/watt).


So the LED bulbs (89 lumens/watt) are appreciably more efficient than the CFLs (64 lumens/watt), but both are LOT more efficient than traditional incandescent bulbs (7 lumens/watt).

According to this source:

https://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/NLPIP/lightingAnswers/t8/02-t8-light-output.asp

the ballast is included (I assumed so, it doesn't work w/o some sort of drive circuit - it would seem odd to try to measure power at the high voltage side), and eyeballing the average measured of their 32 W T8 tubes at ~ 2950 lumens, that's 92 lumens/watt.

NLPIP measured the initial light output of 12 T8 lamp models with CCTs of 3500 K and 4100 K, which are the most common CCTs sold. Three samples of each model were operated on a low-frequency reference ballast following the procedure described by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI C82.3-2002).

But even your CFL comparison is far far from the claimed 1/3rd to 1/4th the consumption of florescent, which was my original question. Maybe Aerides meant "1/4 to 1/3 lower consumption" (67% to 75% the consumption), rather than "1/4 to 1/3 the consumption" of florescent? It's easy to get the denominator and numerator mixed.

Regardless, I'm with those who prefer the newer LEDs to any old CFL/tube fluorescent. But I still prefer the old filament bulb for some cases.

-ERD50
 
Surprised to hear people are tossing incandescent bulbs. I have enough seldom used bulbs that make the payback on LED replacement way too long, and some enclosed fixtures that can't take many LED bulbs. I replace with LEDs only where it make sense. As LED prices come down, more places make sense.
 
I'm not tossing mine, I'm just using them up in standalone locations. If I've got something like a set of recessed ceiling lights I've gone all LED to get matched intensity and color. But in a bathroom ceiling light I'll stick with the incandescent until they're gone. I did discover, though, that mixing a single incandescent with a bunch of LEDs in recessed cans allows the dimmer to work better. These are cans that still use the original dimmer, not the new ones designed for LEDs.
 
According to this source:

https://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/NLPIP/lightingAnswers/t8/02-t8-light-output.asp

the ballast is included (I assumed so, it doesn't work w/o some sort of drive circuit - it would seem odd to try to measure power at the high voltage side), and eyeballing the average measured of their 32 W T8 tubes at ~ 2950 lumens, that's 92 lumens/watt.
Thanks for that info, I didn't know that the nominal bulb wattage included power for the ballast. That's surprising, since the wattage consumed by the ballast is independent of the bulb (i.e. an old 60 hz magnetic ballast is less efficient in its own operation AND it decreases the efficiency of the bulb compared to a newer, higher-frequency electronic ballast) . The efficiency of the ballast to be used with the bulb can't be known by the bulb manufacturer.

I won't miss CFLs at all--good riddance. I don't intend to dump all my incandescent bulbs, though.

One result of the success of LEDs is the large reduction in available ceiling fixtures that take replaceable bulbs (incandescent, LED or any other type). I went to Menards to buy a surface mount light fixture the other day, and fixtures with built-in LEDs have largely supplanted fixtures with replaceable bulbs. I really don't want to replace the entire (perfectly good) fixture when a capacitor blows, but that's what is largely being offered for sale. I still wish manufacturers would come up with a standard LED light element for use in fixtures so we could avoid the cost, hassle, and extra landfill waste of throwing away entire fixtures rather than the electronic elements when they fail. I absolutely do not believe we'll see the claimed multi-decade service life for those circuits, but even if we do--why throw the whole thing away?
 
Surprised to hear people are tossing incandescent bulbs. I have enough seldom used bulbs that make the payback on LED replacement way too long, and some enclosed fixtures that can't take many LED bulbs. I replace with LEDs only where it make sense. As LED prices come down, more places make sense.

+1

You just never know when they can come in handy.

My one son is away at college and he is responsible for replacing bulbs in his apartment, but the electricity is included in the rent. The living room has 4 separate fixtures controlled by a single dimmer. The previous tenants put in non-dimmable LEDs and they flickered badly. No way I'm paying for dimmable LEDs for his apartment, especially since I know I'm never getting them back. Glad I have a stash of incandescent bulbs.
 
....
One result of the success of LEDs is the large reduction in available ceiling fixtures that take replaceable bulbs (incandescent, LED or any other type). I went to Menards to buy a surface mount light fixture the other day, and fixtures with built-in LEDs have largely supplanted fixtures with replaceable bulbs. I really don't want to replace the entire (perfectly good) fixture when a capacitor blows, but that's what is largely being offered for sale. I still wish manufacturers would come up with a standard LED light element for use in fixtures so we could avoid the cost, hassle, and extra landfill waste of throwing away entire fixtures rather than the electronic elements when they fail. I absolutely do not believe we'll see the claimed multi-decade service life for those circuits, but even if we do--why throw the whole thing away?

Agree. I've designed a solution to this (in my head only). The LED element and driver would be separate. The LED elements would have a standard base with 3 pins. One pin is common ("ground"), one is power in, and the third would be a resistor to ground, the value that would indicate to the driver circuit the max current current to provide.

The driver would be a constant current source (which is what LEDs 'want'), with the max current determined by that resistor, and optionally, a dimmer could reduce the current below max.

This would physically separate the driver from the LEDs, so heat from one doesn't affect the other, extending life (more on this below). Placing the driver in the base would actually give the manufacturers more flexibility as the LED element would be smaller, and everyone would benefit from standardization and economy of scale. LED or driver or fixture could be replaced, w/o having to replace any other component. That is good for the environment. I bet those fixtures that get thrown away took more energy to make than was saved by the LED.

LED life - those 'lifetime' numbers on the box are bogus. That's not life at all as we would think of it, that advertised number is based on how long it would take an LED to dim to 80%, based on a short term test (weeks?). That might predict 20,000 hours, but if the driver circuit goes bad after, say 1000 hours (usually because a capacitor goes bad from the localized heat), sorry Charlie, that doesn't count. And that's why it's good to separate the LED element from the driver - w/o needing to cram it all in the space of an old bulb style, they can manage heat much better.


Thanks for that info, I didn't know that the nominal bulb wattage included power for the ballast. That's surprising, since the wattage consumed by the ballast is independent of the bulb (i.e. an old 60 hz magnetic ballast is less efficient in its own operation AND it decreases the efficiency of the bulb compared to a newer, higher-frequency electronic ballast) . The efficiency of the ballast to be used with the bulb can't be known by the bulb manufacturer.

I won't miss CFLs at all--good riddance. I don't intend to dump all my incandescent bulbs, though. ...

And they mention those tests were done at low frequency, so I assume 50/60 Hz line frequency, and they probably haven't updated the test since the old days, so just use the magnetic/transformer ballast. I'd imagine there are newer test for the new ballasts in addition. I'm reading that the electronic 'ballast' are ~ 10% more efficient, considerable since the tubes with old ballast are already rated pretty high (10% of 60%~70% is significant, 10% of 5%, not so much!).

I have some CFLs left, but they get replaced with LEDs as they die.

Another place I need the old filament bulbs is where we have the LEDs on dimmers. Even with dimmable LEDs and LED/CFL rated name brand dimmers, the LEDS act weird on some dimmer settings, the output randomly fluctuates. The manufacturer "solution" it to put their resistor in the fixture (which wastes power!). I had multiple bulbs on each dimmer, so I replaced one of the 2 or 3 with filament, and that created the load the dimmer needed to function correctly.

Makes me appreciate the simplicity of the old filament bulb, but the LED efficiency is nice. And actually, the processes of making that "simple" filament bulb are amazing - they have really engineered and dome materials science to develop that filament and the gasses. The filament is actually a coiled-coil, which gives more surface area/light. It's amazing, if you are into those sorts of things.

-ERD50
 
Agree. I've designed a solution to this (in my head only). The LED element and driver would be separate. The LED elements would have a standard base with 3 pins. One pin is common ("ground"), one is power in, and the third would be a resistor to ground, the value that would indicate to the driver circuit the max current current to provide.

The driver would be a constant current source (which is what LEDs 'want'), with the max current determined by that resistor, and optionally, a dimmer could reduce the current below max.

This would physically separate the driver from the LEDs, so heat from one doesn't affect the other, extending life (more on this below). Placing the driver in the base would actually give the manufacturers more flexibility as the LED element would be smaller, and everyone would benefit from standardization and economy of scale. LED or driver or fixture could be replaced, w/o having to replace any other component. That is good for the environment.
Yep, that's the way to go. Maybe the actual LED component would be modular and at a fairly small size and low light output so the fixture designer could use as many as needed to get the total output and directionality desired (maybe 250 lumens each?). Also, if the LED component and the driver are separate, both should be easily accessed by the consumer and it should be readily apparent which one has failed. Nobody wants to repeat the situation of old-style florescent fixtures ("what do I need to replace--one tube, both tubes, the starter, or the ballast?").
 
According to this source:

https://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/NLPIP/lightingAnswers/t8/02-t8-light-output.asp

the ballast is included (I assumed so, it doesn't work w/o some sort of drive circuit - it would seem odd to try to measure power at the high voltage side), and eyeballing the average measured of their 32 W T8 tubes at ~ 2950 lumens, that's 92 lumens/watt.

But even your CFL comparison is far far from the claimed 1/3rd to 1/4th the consumption of florescent, which was my original question. Maybe Aerides meant "1/4 to 1/3 lower consumption" (67% to 75% the consumption), rather than "1/4 to 1/3 the consumption" of florescent? It's easy to get the denominator and numerator mixed.

Regardless, I'm with those who prefer the newer LEDs to any old CFL/tube fluorescent. But I still prefer the old filament bulb for some cases.

-ERD50

Just to nitpick, those figures are for T8 lamps, not likely to be in residences.

Homes would have the less efficient T12 fixtures instead.

I've already replaced the ballasts in both of my T12 fixtures once & that was enough.

When the next bulb dies I've got LED tubes waiting, well, at least once I remove the ballast & wire line voltage direct to the tombstones. :)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom