Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

First, to settle the question about this particular lamp: I found some specs on their website, and they claim a CRI (color rendition index) of 65 for their "neutral" version and 85 for the "warm" version. This is poorer than most modern fluorescents (which people complain about), and the better CRI for the warm version is at the expense of making the light yellow, which many people also don't like. So we're not looking at the at the coming of the savior of efficient light bulbs.

For the question of the law, I agree that the savings in electricity are barely measurable, which is why I think it's theater. The huge growth in residential electricity use has been driven by increase in average home size, and by the explosion in the use of air conditioning. Also, it's not even clear that bulbs like this save energy over their lifetime. Sure, one of these theoretically replaces 20 incandescents and uses less electricity, but an incandescent light bulb is just a tiny tungsten wire + steel leads + glass + aluminium base + a drop of epoxy, all made in one factory with extraordinary efficiency that has been polished through 100 years of manufacturing. This thing has 20 LEDs + mounts + cooling tubes + cooling fins on the outside + "non-toxic" liquid + a bunch of electronics for control and dimming + enclosures and wiring for all of the above, made out of plastic and ceramic and glass. All manufactured in probably 20 factories and transported to be assembled in yet another place. If there is a win here for the environment, it's super-tiny.



If there is a win here for the environment, it's super-tiny.

Presumably the higher environmental costs of the LED bulbs are reflected in their higher retail prices, which are still offset by the savings in electricity (the price of which should eventually come to reflect the environmental cost of generating the electricity).




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: