December 1, 2009
LEDs Beat Incandescents in Lifecycle Assessment Energy Use
An Osram study shows that LED lamps are more energy-efficient than light bulbs even when the energy used during the manufacturing process is factored into the equation, reports the New York Times. Some critics of LEDs had pointed to the amount of energy used to manufacture the lights.
The study also finds that LED lamps will save more energy and achieve even better lifecycle assessment (LCA) results in the future as they become more efficient.
Even green LEDs are becoming more efficient. 3M recently unveiled a green LED with a rated 181 lumens per watt efficiency at a drive current of 350 mA/mm2, which was achieved by bonding an Osram blue ThinGan LED with a proprietary color-converting material that absorbs the blue light and re-emits it as green, reports an EDN blog. LED expert Doug Leeper told EDN that this is six times more efficient than a green LED has ever achieved and because green is the major energy consumer used in backlights it could cut power consumption in half and make RGB LEDs more efficient than white LEDs.
The OSRAM report, “Life Cycle Assessment of Illuminants” (PDF), shows that over the entire life cycle of an incandescent bulb from manufacturing to disposal, the energy it uses is almost five times that used for compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) and LED lamps.
Another key finding reveals that CFL and LED lamps use less than 670 kWh of energy during their entire life compared to about 3,302 kWh for incandescent lamps, which translates into an 80 percent energy savings.
The lifecycle assessment of LED lamps included all components and production processes of the lamps during five life cycle stages, which are raw material production, manufacturing & assembly, transport, use and end of life.
In addition to the energy used for each process, the assessment also looked at the emissions created in each stage, and calculated the effect of six different global warming indexes, reports the New York Times.
This included the amount of greenhouse gas emissions created by each process, the acid rain potential, eutrophication (excessive algae), photochemical ozone creation, the release of harmful chemical compounds, and the resultant scarcity of gas, coal, and oil, reports the New York Times.
The methodology met the requirements set by industry standard ISO 14040/44, and was certified by three university professors in Denmark and Germany as adhering to the standard, according to the New York Times.
With the push for energy efficiency, LEDs are being used in a variety of products ranging from general illumination to electric signs, reports Underwriters Laboratories. As a result, the new technology is used in newer high-voltage and light-output applications, which raises several safety concerns including the risk of overheating, electric shock and fire, according to the product safety certification organization.
To address these concerns, UL recently released the first global safety standard for LED lighting products and their components, called ANSI/UL 8750, Safety Standard for Light Emitting Diode (LED) Equipment for Use in Lighting Products.
Advertisers
Pew Center Conference: Corporate Energy Efficiency
Reduce energy consumption, lower emissions and save money. >>
Join the Discussion
Recent Daily News [ see all ]
- 02/09/2010
- 02/08/2010
- 02/05/2010
- Caterpillar Puts Weight Behind $1.5B FutureGen CCS Project
- WR Grace Targets 20% Energy Intensity Cuts
- As UK Cap and Trade Falters, Government May Prop Up Carbon Prices
- Federal Government Proposes Climate Change Office
- University of Florida Football Complex Uses 25% Less Energy Than Similar Buildings
- 34% of Execs Cite Economy As Impediment to Adopting Sustainability
- Energy Storage Project Aims to Extend Utility of Solar Power
- Ford to Debut Electric Commercial Van
- SF OKs $150M in Property Tax Financing for Energy Efficiency, Renewables
- BNSF Signs Deal for Measuring Energy Efficiency
- Roundup: GE, IBM, Audi ‘Green Police,’ EU Carbon
- Accidental to Purposeful Sustainability: Using What You Already Have to Grow Sustainability
- Holiday Inn Express, Bardessono Boast Energy Efficiency, Renewables
- Massachusetts Adds $20M in Solar to 12 Wastewater Plants
- Novo Nordisk Cuts CO2 Emissions by 32%, Water Use by 20%
- Roundup: Dr. Suess Cease-and-Desist, Philips, EPA, Melting Drywall
- Canadian Environment Minister Denounces Quebec Vehicle Emissions Regs
- Energy-Efficient Lighting Saves Canadian Tire $6M in 2009
- Pixar Data Center Saves Money Via Cold Aisle Containment
- HVAC Software Helps University of Texas Save $500K a Year
- Data Centers Can Apply for Energy Star Rating in June
- Rytec’s Fast Cold Storage Door Helps Save Energy
- Burt’s Bees Decreases Waste to Landfill by 51.5% in 2009
- National RES Would Benefit Southeastern, Manufacturing States
- TBR Evaluates Sustainability Strategies at Dell, CSC, Cisco
- CEO Report Envisions $6 Trillion in Sustainable New Business Opportunities
- IBM ‘Cloud Computing’ Data Center Saves 15% in Energy Costs
- Bipartisan Senatorial Effort Seeks Cap and Trade for non-CO2 Emissions
- Collapsible Ocean Shipping Container May Help Reduce Emissions
- To Ensure Future Compliance, Utility Asks for CO2 Limits
- Analyzing Energy-Efficiency Metrics Can Reduce Energy Use in Data Centers
- Goose Island Touts Low-Carbon Brew
Charts [ see all ]
Popular Topics
Energy Efficiency
Data Center
Emissions
Facilities
Electricity
Sustainability
Water
Supply Chain
Efficiency
Green Marketing
Strategy & Leadership
Research
Fleets & Transportation
Carbon Finance
Conventional Energy
Clean Energy
Waste & Recycling
Paper & Packaging
Policy & Law
Utilities
Construction
Comments and Discussions
John Bergdoll on Accidental to Purposeful Sustainability: Using What You Already Have to Grow Sustainability
"I was following the logic your article..."
Liz Amason on Clorox Comes Clean With Chemical Content on Web Site
"But look at their ingredients listings. For example, their regular liquid bleach..."
Rigidflexibility on Companies Going Green Should Ignore Green Consumer
"I was about to market a metal working fluid that is 98>% Soybean oil and..."
Stuart on Canadian Environment Minister Denounces Quebec Vehicle Emissions Regs
"Canadians have been waiting for the feds to act on climate change for..."
Steve Wolford on Sports Teams Embrace Sustainability
"Hello Environmental Leader, We just returned from the National Sport Forum in Baltimore. Team and..."
Mauibrad on Bipartisan Senatorial Effort Seeks Cap and Trade for non-CO2 Emissions
"Finally some enlightened ideas out of Congress!"
Cameron Green on Data Centers Can Apply for Energy Star Rating in June
"I did a blog post about this. Essentially PUE doesn’t give you very much..."





Reader Comments
This “study” is not “comprehensive” or complete because it omits to consider (1) the heat replacement effect, and (2) the effect on electricity generation and pollution. They deliberately do not tell the whole story.
In any buildings that require heating, lower wattage lighting or any other “more efficient” electric appliances use less electricity, but also produce less heat. This heat then comes from the building heating system. Where electric heat is used, the building owner saves zero energy and money. Where less expensive heat is used, such as gas, the savings are the difference between the cost of electricity and the cost of gas. Therefore, the “advertised” energy cost savings are never achieved.
Electric generating plants do not produce watt-hours. They make volt ampere-hours. Energy Star CFLs must have a 0.5 power factor. This means that utilities must produce and supply 50-volt ampere-hours for a 25-watt CFL. Unless the utility meters for these, which some do for commercial buildings, they only meter and charge for watt-hours. Thus, with CFLs, utilities must generate, pollute, and produce twice the carbon emissions than the wattage indicates. In the end, consumers pay for this in the form of higher electric rates.
In summer months, less heat from lighting also means less cooling. However, much of that cooling (1) is not simultaneous with lighting, and (2) is achieved without using energy by using economy cycle, as required by building codes.
Larry Spielvogel, PE, FSLL | December 1st, 2009
Larry – While I agree that these items are not accounted for in the study, I don’t understand why you seem to be bashing CFL’s instead of LED’s? Isn’t the article discussing the benefits of LED’s? Sure, they don’t produce heat, but I would rather control where the heat is directed and control both heating and cooling through the system meant to maintain it: HVAC. Why complicate things? As far as the volt amp-hour argument…..really….remember we are talking LED’s? Power factors aside, which is more efficient during use and manufacturing?…..LED’s or incandescents? I really don’t understand why you would argue against LEDs….they are most definitely the future.
You stick with Edison and I’ll stick to Tesla. Let’s move forward and not battle new technologies that improve both the environment and the pocketbook.
Paul
Paul | December 2nd, 2009
Larry, I find the argument that heat loss from incandescent lighting should be factored into the equation to be short sighted. Yes, you should consider LEDs and CFLs to be neutral in terms of heat release. And during winter, you could argue that the incremental heating needed to bring a building up to comfortable temperature would be higher. The flip side is that incandescent lighting releases heat regardless of wether conditions, and during the summer months, additional AC would have to be used to offset the heat generated by the lightbulbs. Soyour argument is not valid unless you are willing to consider both sides of the equation.
Isabel Santis | December 3rd, 2009