|
[DPRG] RBNO discussion of light bulb efficiency
Subject: [DPRG] RBNO discussion of light bulb efficiency
From: Chuck McManis
cmcmanis at mcmanis.com
Date: Wed Jan 9 19:38:36 CST 2008
At 01:06 PM 1/9/2008, R. Steven Rainwater wrote:
>This is a little off-topic perhaps but there was some discussion of how
>efficient various types of light bulbs are last night's at the RBNO. I
>ran across a couple of sites with some info on bulb efficiency and it
>breaks down something like this:
>
>
>Incandescent bulbs: 10-20 lumens per watt (higher power bulbs are more
>efficient) and a 750 to 1,000 hour lifespan. See table of power vs
>lumens here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb
>
>
>Compact fluorescent bulbs: 50-60 lumens per watt and a 6,000 to 15,000
>hour lifespan - if you don't mind destroying the environment with toxic
>mercury, anyway. ;) Efficiency chart can be found here:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp
The mercury in flourescent bulbs does not pose the toxic hazard some
would have you believe.
>LED bulbs: 100+ lumens per watt and 100,000+ hour lifespan. Also ran
>across a article claiming the luminous intensity of LEDs doubles every
>18 months, which would mean LEDs could replace even the long flourescent
>tube lamps by 2010. see this Gizmodo article mentioning a 130 lumen per
>watt white LED that set a new record back for a commercially available
>LED in Jun 2006:
>http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/ultra-high-efficiency-led-created-182241.php
There is a paper on the DOE sight that talks about efficiency as
well. LEDs with > 100lumen/watt efficencies are a new phenomena (last
12 - 18 month) prior to some of the new ones LEDs were down around
50/60 lumens per watt.
But CFLs still lead in terms of $/lumen-watt lifetime.
--Chuck
More information about the DPRG mailing list
|
