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.
Stay Up-to-Date On Environmental Management, Energy & Sustainability News with EL's Free Daily Newsletter
Advertisers
100% Online Lean & Green Supply Chain Courses
Attain proven tools and strategies to boost your career! >>
Demystifying EPA’s Final GHG Tailoring Rule
Download webinar to learn the key provisions of the new Rule. >>
Trends in Sustainability Performance Management
Take the lead on sustainability. - Take the lead in your industry. >>
Can you be a sustainability leader?
Learn how from one of the world's leading retailers >>
Recent Daily News [ see all ]
- 09/02/2010
- 09/01/2010
- 08/31/2010
- CPUC Report: Smart Meters are Accurate
- Manufacturers to Pay for E-Waste under New Wisconsin Law
- Cisco, Itron Partner to Boost Smart-Grid Development
- California Rolls Out Zero Net Energy Plan for Buildings
- Greenpeace: 500,000 Facebook Users Tell Social Network Site to Get Off Coal
- EPA Rejects Texas Air Pollution Rules for Third Time
- Schwarzenegger Vows to Revive Renewable Energy Bill
- Norfolk Southern to Cut Carbon Footprint 10% by 2014
- California Rejects Ban on Plastic Shopping Bags
- REACH Regulation: The 5 Most Commonly Asked Questions
- Roundup – Fujitsu, Whirlpool, Metlife
- Largest Solar Rooftop Project in U.S. Planned For Salt Palace
- Reid Seeks Renewable Provision in Energy Bill
- NJ Business Park Proposes 6.5-MW Solar Power System
- Alfred Music Launches Initiative to Reduce Carbon Footprint
- Green Buildings Drive BIM Adoption
- Plug-In EV Market to Sell 3.2M Units by 2015
- Citywide Textile Recycling Program Best Practices
- Small Biz to Benefit from $1.5M Grant to Expand ‘Green’ Building Tech
- Foothill Transit Adds All-Electric Buses to Fleet
- EPA Proposes Fuel Economy Stickers
- Streamlining Environment Health and Safety Programs, Part I
- Supermarket Installs 400-kW Fuel Cell
- Carton Package Reduces Carbon Footprint 28%
- Banks Target ‘Greener’ Lending
- Vanguard,Coca-Cola, KFC Top Greener Package Awards
- Oracle Launches Smart Meter Data Management Software
- Roundup – Microsoft, Bloom Energy, FedEx
- Report Calls for UN Climate Panel Reform
- Small Businesses Add Solar to Save Money
- Diageo CEO Discusses Responsible Business, Sustainability
Charts [ see all ]
White Papers [ see all ]
- Building Sustainability in Hard Times: Integrated EHS Platforms Support Cost Savings
- Get Green Powered and Lower Your Energy Costs
- Eco-Competitiveness: Safeguarding Profitability and the World's Natural Resources
- The Revolution in Warehouse Lighting: LEDs and Intelligent Lighting Systems
- Global Trends In Sustainability Performance Management
- The EPA's Mandatory Reporting Rule
- A Business Framework for Excelling at Enterprise Carbon Management
- What's On Your Sustainability Dashboard?
- 9 Ways to Reduce Energy Costs
Comments and Discussions
Doug on Cap and Trade Makes a Comeback
"You’re right, we probably will never convince eath other. But I still maintain that we are in basic..."
Blorg on Mojave Desert Solar Project One Step Closer to Powering 20,000 Homes
"“if 160,000 acres of land would cover 1/3 of Californians..."
Uncle B on Largest Solar Rooftop Project in U.S. Planned For Salt Palace
"We witness the conversion of the USA to solar electricity and the tacit..."
Lance Abney on Greenpeace: 500,000 Facebook Users Tell Social Network Site to Get Off Coal
"In the Northwest, it is a good idea to cooperate with all..."
Mac Medina on Citywide Textile Recycling Program Best Practices
"Very timely and ascertained article. The time has arrived when Textile Recycling in no..."
Jonathan Fink on Largest Solar Rooftop Project in U.S. Planned For Salt Palace
"Congratulations to SLC. Arizona State University is covering nearly all..."
Eco Mama on Foothill Transit Adds All-Electric Buses to Fleet
"The CNG-electric hybrid buses made my Trans Teq 10 years ago and still in use today in..."







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