|
This is probably a case
where it's good to start with the basics. Yes, we can
go into photon physics but really, the basic case for LED
lighting is much simpler (Thank goodness!). Let's
start then with our goal and by "our", you can easily
include the business owner, individual, us, and the United
States in that big grouping. The goal is rather simple
so we'll work up from there. We want to get the most
lumens (measure of light) for the lowest wattage (measure of
electric energy) with the least amount of toxic by-products
and at the highest quality color (of light) possible.
Low energy, good light, nothing that requires HazMat (that's
only partially a joke). That's our goal. Now
let's look more closely at LED lights and how it reaches
that goal better than the other available technologies.
Let's first demystify the
jargon a little. LED stands for Light Emitting Diode.
In layman's terms, a diode is an electrical component that
allows electricity to pass in one direction. That's
the "D" in our LED. The "LE" is the important part.
Some materials will emit photons (light) when electricity is
applied to them. We're turning electric current into
light but very efficiently. LED lighting has been in
the works for years now but there are some significant
developments both within the LED technology and in our
business/environmental orbits that have really made this
form of lighting a no-brainer. It's probably
best to discuss LED lighting in relation to the other kinds
of lamps available on the market, all with the above goal in
mind.
There are three basic
types of light technology in mass-production and commercial
availability at this time. The oldest technology
(dating back to the industrial revolution) is incandescent
which essentially heats up a thin metal that glows when
electricity is passed through it. This is the oldest
technology and we're all pretty familiar with it. It's
been around for so long that the costs have been reduced to
almost insignificant amounts for the actual bulbs but that's
increasingly a very small and misleading portion of the
total cost or our stated goal above. Incandescent
bulbs lose a great deal of their energy in the form of heat
and ultimately, we're turning electricity into heat and heat
into light. Heat is the boogeyman of energy systems
everywhere as it's essentially lost energy (or misdirected
energy as the case may be). We're now a century into
this technology and the time has come to find better option.
We're not still driving model T's with cranks so lighting
has some what been stagnant in this regard. Enter
fluorescents and CFL's.
We're all pretty familiar with fluorescents in office
spaces. They're the long tubes that buzz, flicker, and
were the next wave towards our original goal mentioned
above. Essentially, electricity excites a gas in the
tube which then converts the electrons to photons in the
form of light. The lumens per wattage improved which
is why you find these where large scale, industrial or
commercial lighting is needed. It came with a cost.
The problem is that only certain chemicals or gases have
this property of "flourescence" and phosphorus (by name
sake) is the best at it. Phosphorus is also incredibly
dangerous for humans. If you've ever seen one of the
tubes break, you'll see that whitish powder. Believe
it or not, you're now suppose to have HazMat or a licensed
company clean up such as spill. It's that bad.
CFL's were a condensed version of fluorescent bulbs
basically to fit a smaller and more ubiquitous form
factor...the light bulb. These are those spiral tubes
you see as replacements for the old incandescent bulbs.
Better efficiency on the electricity to light front but with
the nasty toxicity we'd rather avoid. How dangerous
are they? Well, they're being phased out in the next
few years in spite of huge capital investments and the
lobbyist that protect these companies so that's pretty
serious stuff. We just can't handle all the phosphorus
and mercury needed for this technology. Can't we have
something with the efficiency needed without wearing special
suits in our offices or houses? I think you know the
answer.
Yes. Yes.
and Yes. You can still wear the suits but LED's
address our goals above in spades. LED's directly turn
electricity into light with a much high efficiency than the
other technologies and has not of the toxic baggage
associated with CFL's and fluorescents. Why isn't this
everywhere? Two reasons. The technology is still
relatively new and major advances allowed for color tuning
fairly recently. Let's face it...we have to like the
light. Original LED's were to bright or bluish/white.
We can now "color" the light to match almost any color or
Kelvin you like with warm yellows now available (and very
popular by the way). The other issue is the initial
cost of the bulb is higher than incandescent and fluorescent
since those are much older technologies and there are
economies of scale that result from decades of production
design and capitalization. Again, that's only
part of the equation since the energy needed to power your
lights must be factored in. When you do so, the LED
lighting is significantly (can't emphasize this enough) less
expensive in watts to lumens. You can either pay the
bulb supplier a lower amount up front and pay the
electricity provider significantly higher amounts of money
over the long term. It's a sucker's bet but we're
about to turn the table on the house. Run your
LED lighting quote to find out how it plays out for your
situation. |