Buckingham Palace is doing it and so are US cities like Ann Arbor and Raleigh. All these cities are installing LED lighting, that is. The New York Times article “Green Promise Seen in Switch to LED Lighting” and a blog post from the Times website discuss the potential benefits and some downfalls of LED lighting. Despite this article’s focus on both the pros and cons of LED lighting, it does not answer some of the most important questions regarding the sustainability of a transition to LED lighting. For instance, do LED lights require limited resources? What does a lifecycle assessment of a switch from incandescent and fluorescent lights to LEDs look like? Does the construction of new LED lightbulb plants and the disposal of millions of incandescent and fluorescent bulbs cancel out the CO2 benefits of the more efficient LED lighting? Kudos to Buckingham palace for only installing the new LED lights after the old lights had burned out.
A study cited in the article reports that if all lighting was provided by LEDs, CO2 emissions from electricity used for lighting could decrease by 50% in 20 years. Each bulb can last 100,000 hours compared to a fluorescent bulb that has a lifetime of about 3,000 hours. In addition they require about half the energy of a CFL, the lighting can be modulated, and they don’t emit UV light, which attracts insects. LEDs also do not contain mercury or any other toxic materials that have caused concern in consumers of CFLs. LEDs seem like a great way to decrease greenhouse gas emissions and save electricity without employing any futuristic technology. LEDs have been used for years in Christmas light strings and electronic score boards, among others.
Despite the numerous benefits of LED lighting, there are a few kinks to work out (not to mention a thorough study of the lifecycle impacts of a switch to LEDs). First off, LED bulbs are incredibly expensive at the moment; a new Philips LED bulb costs about $40. Though the purchaser will save considerably on electricity costs and replacement bulbs over the LED lights lifespan, the initial shock of purchasing a $40 lightbulb (when a CFL may cost only $2) will probably scare most would-be purchasers away. Another problem is that LED lighting is directional, meaning that most LED lights are only suitable for down-lighting or spot lighting applications. Currently, LEDs are grown on costly mediums such as sapphires. A new technology developed at Cambridge University allows LEDs to be grown on silicon wafers, which would be a much cheaper option. Laboratories at various universities are still working to develop more useable and cheaper LED lights.
In light of the many potential benefits, LED lighting could enjoy great success if the price is right.
Bottom line: LED lighting consumes less energy than traditional lighting sources and lasts much longer. Nonetheless they are costly and more R&D is needed to make them suitable for general purpose use and to ensure that they are truly an environmentally friendly alternative to incandescent lighting.
Our aim in this blog is to provide critique and commentary on world energy news in an effort to clarify the issues and allow the reader to reach an informed decision on energy issues.
The Next Big Green Thing: LED Lighting
Philips LED bulbs (Source: lighting.philips.com)
Buckingham Palace is doing it and so are US cities like Ann Arbor and Raleigh. All these cities are installing LED lighting, that is. The New York Times article “Green Promise Seen in Switch to LED Lighting” and a blog post from the Times website discuss the potential benefits and some downfalls of LED lighting. Despite this article’s focus on both the pros and cons of LED lighting, it does not answer some of the most important questions regarding the sustainability of a transition to LED lighting. For instance, do LED lights require limited resources? What does a lifecycle assessment of a switch from incandescent and fluorescent lights to LEDs look like? Does the construction of new LED lightbulb plants and the disposal of millions of incandescent and fluorescent bulbs cancel out the CO2 benefits of the more efficient LED lighting? Kudos to Buckingham palace for only installing the new LED lights after the old lights had burned out.
A study cited in the article reports that if all lighting was provided by LEDs, CO2 emissions from electricity used for lighting could decrease by 50% in 20 years. Each bulb can last 100,000 hours compared to a fluorescent bulb that has a lifetime of about 3,000 hours. In addition they require about half the energy of a CFL, the lighting can be modulated, and they don’t emit UV light, which attracts insects. LEDs also do not contain mercury or any other toxic materials that have caused concern in consumers of CFLs. LEDs seem like a great way to decrease greenhouse gas emissions and save electricity without employing any futuristic technology. LEDs have been used for years in Christmas light strings and electronic score boards, among others.
Despite the numerous benefits of LED lighting, there are a few kinks to work out (not to mention a thorough study of the lifecycle impacts of a switch to LEDs). First off, LED bulbs are incredibly expensive at the moment; a new Philips LED bulb costs about $40. Though the purchaser will save considerably on electricity costs and replacement bulbs over the LED lights lifespan, the initial shock of purchasing a $40 lightbulb (when a CFL may cost only $2) will probably scare most would-be purchasers away. Another problem is that LED lighting is directional, meaning that most LED lights are only suitable for down-lighting or spot lighting applications. Currently, LEDs are grown on costly mediums such as sapphires. A new technology developed at Cambridge University allows LEDs to be grown on silicon wafers, which would be a much cheaper option. Laboratories at various universities are still working to develop more useable and cheaper LED lights.
In light of the many potential benefits, LED lighting could enjoy great success if the price is right.
Bottom line: LED lighting consumes less energy than traditional lighting sources and lasts much longer. Nonetheless they are costly and more R&D is needed to make them suitable for general purpose use and to ensure that they are truly an environmentally friendly alternative to incandescent lighting.