the change from filament to LED has immediate energy savings in the range of 3 - 5 percent.
Only on electrical energy, that is. If you factor in other energy sources, it's less.
How much household electricity consumption is actually saved by replacement with Light-Emitting Diodes (LEDs)?
Many countries have promoted the replacement of conventional lamps with next-generation lamps to reduce electricity usage for lighting. In Japan, the …www.sciencedirect.com
The rest of your post I can only qualify as conjecture and selective reasoning. I don't quite agree, even though there are aspects that certainly warrant further research. I'm afraid though that the argument would ultimately end at s rather silly conclusion like "all artificial lighting is bad because we didn't evolve that way".
Anyway, have at it. It's a debate I'm not going to participate in at this point. It's interesting in its own right, but there's too much activist noise to it in the direction adopted here, and that's not a way I'd personally enjoy exploring the topic in.
And of course as always they places that would really matter like heavy industry and container freight get off the hook for another couple of decades.
Helge, with all due respect (and I mean that), here's why I feel it's not sensible to have this debate:
In your previous post, two notions (CRI and a policy choice) are qualified as nonsensical. This is a very firm position to take; it's a conclusion that effectively can result only from (1) well-established facts that preclude any other view or (2) a very firm belief that exists regardless of any basis in facts.
Since there is no compelling evidence about the influence of LED lighting on human wellbeing, (1) cannot be the case, which leaves (2): a very firm belief. Personally, I don't see much benefit in discussing people's beliefs, especially if they are presented in a way that comes across with me as a non-debatable position. In my native language, we have a football-derived saying that translates into "goin in with an outstretched leg". It's generally not conducive to a very meaningful altercation - especially on a topic that is very complex and requires attention to detail and nuance.
Furthermore, I believe that in terms of an exchange of knowledge, certain rhetoric devices are counterproductive. I'd like to highlight your mention of overall energy savings in your earlier post, as well as the mention of effects that (in your formulation) are supposedly 'well established'.
The former example (the energy savings figure) is fairly reasonable guesstimate that's indeed substantiated with credible evidence. However, it in itself does not support the position/conclusion presented earlier in your post, i.e. the sensibility of a certain policy. For instance, the worldwide final electricity consumption in households is around 6000TWh. If you save let's say 3% of that by adopting LED lighting, that's a 180TWh energy savings. As a basis for policy, that seems to make good sense, although it becomes a different story if the 180TWh advantage is offset by disadvantages (in terms of energy, resource use, human wellbeing etc.) and the net balance turns out to be negative. Since such a comparison is essentially impossible to make, the argument about an ostensibly small energy savings in the end does not amount to anything - it does not allow for a conclusion either way, and as a support for the crass positions put forth in your earlier post, it only ends up working as a rhetoric device that holds minimal merit in terms of true knowledge exchange or generation.
The latter example of certain effects being 'well stablished' function as a similar ruse - by waving in a general direction of fields of research and summarizing the overall outcomes in a handful of words, the suggestion of a foundation to your claims is given, but the consistency of that foundation remains implicit. And, I dare say, upon further investigation, it will turn out to be not as firm as suggested.
In conclusion, I feel that your former post does highlight a relevant issue that an interesting discussion could be conducted on. However, the rhetoric and logical foundations the topic is introduced on in my view make such a discussion very difficult. It would require that a wide range of implicit assumptions, but also personal beliefs/convictions need to be made explicit, and in part isolated from a more factual exchange of views. That in itself might make for an interesting exchange - provided that the parties involved are willing to engage in it on a constructive basis. However, it's also very labor-intensive, and frankly not my idea of having a nice time socializing with like-minded spirits on a forum.
So again, have at it, but know that I personally feel that as a way to put this topic on the public agenda, this start is a very unfortunate one, that I moreover feel will in the end be counterproductive.
What can you do with 10000 burnt-out LED bulbs?
The same, at a considerable expense of energy. The latter is proportional to how fine-grained the separation is done. Quite similar to incandescent bulbs. The problem is that we have not yet set up most of the recycling infrastructure for this. Do you know how long it took before we did that for incandescent bulbs? In fact, have we actually done this? Ah!
The same, at a considerable expense of energy. The latter is proportional to how fine-grained the separation is done. Quite similar to incandescent bulbs. The problem is that we have not yet set up most of the recycling infrastructure for this. Do you know how long it took before we did that for incandescent bulbs? In fact, have we actually done this? Ah!
Recycling has been set up to gather the most easily reused and profitable materials - like copper and aluminum - from the cleanest sources.
Glass will become sand and metal will corrode. No need to really that concerned with incandescents.
What I write has very little, to nothing to do with selection bias.
personal freedom to make decisions
the choice of a nanny in form of a government
I've got a box of Velvia 100 to sell you.Well, not to go near the stinky pit of politcs, I fleel that the same goes for drugs (including alcohol; Dry Law anyone that created organized crime as an entity?) - one should be allowed to take risks and engage in risky bodily behaviour, it's their choice not the choice of a nanny in form of a government. If skydiving is legal, so should be many way less harmful things. But no, we as species hit everything with hammer these days - be it nail or a screw, or toddler.
I can understand the savings argument, but with LED's that run out of steam before my incandescent does - who did save what at the end, more diverse landfill material and that's about it.
Hehehehe, what's your markup, where did you source it, did you cut it with something else? : D
...a very firm belief. Personally, I don't see much benefit in discussing people's beliefs...
...not to go near the stinky pit of politcs...
That's where this thread has been for the last couple of pages. Sad.
Lucky you. Quality might be market/region dependent. I installed some 12 LED's about 3 years ago, have already replaced 3 of them: transformer and its parts just go out.Not a single LED has failed during the last six years.
Where 220V is present, LED lights have to do more of that transformation work to power the LED's inside, more work requires better parts, more work means wearing out faster.
Folks on 120V have better experience with LED's I guess.
Latvian market being flooded with shitty LED's?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?