LED lamps last longer |
I didn’t realize that Phillips was the world’s biggest lighting maker, but apparently they are, and they have a new type of lighting technology that makes street lamps burn longer:
With 50,000 light hours, LED lamps do not have to be changed for 12 years when lit for an average 11 to 12 hours a day.
I was talking with my wife just the other day about how shameful it is that we don’t see lights that last a lifetime. The same could be said for gas powered engines with 100-200 miles per gallon fuel efficiency.
Is money the main reason we don’t see these longer lasting, more efficient products because anybody that comes up with these ideas has their patents bought by the companies who stand to lose the most from such inventions? That’s what I’ve always believed.
Did this post make you go hmm?
(Hmm, no ratings yet)
Loading ...
[…]
Continuing the subject of energy conservation, congress should read my last post, but instead they have other ideas. Currently daylight savings time is the first Sunday in A […]
Pingback by Make You Go Hmm: » Proposed daylight savings time changes — July 20, 2005 @ 9:39 am PST
Depending on what type of lamps LEDs are replacing, they also consume less enegery. However, LED lamps cost significantly more than traditional lamps, even with the money saved from less energy consumption. Give it a few years and you should start seeing better adoption.
Comment by Andrew Ferguson — July 20, 2005 @ 11:29 am PST
I don’t think it’s money, I think it’s that the companies make what customers want.
If you’re old enough to remember the early 70s, you’ll recall that one of the ways that the Japanese car makers were successful was bringing in cheap cars that were very fuel-efficient. They did quite well doing that, and if there were 100 MPG cars (or even 50 MPG cars) to be developed at competitive prices with the features that people want, you could be sure somebody would build them. Honda and Toyota are certainly putting enough effort into hybrids that they would do something else if it were easy to do.
Overall mileage potential is mostly a function of vehicle weight and aerodynamics, with a bit of engine design thrown in. In around-town driving, the aero factor isn’t terribly relevant, so it depends more on how much weight you have to get moving, and how much gas you burn during idle. For freeway (non rush-hour), it’s mostly about the size and aerodynamics of the car.
Gas engines are somewhere around 25% efficient, and there’s not a lot of ability to improve them, given the basic constraints of heat engines. Turbines are more efficient because of their higher temperatures but don’t lend themselves well to vehicle applications.
You might want to read:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_150.html
Comment by Eric Gunnerson — July 20, 2005 @ 2:24 pm PST