11 ms·

I would argue LED lighting does increase the demand for all sorts of lights rather a lot. It is due to increased efficiency, but that is not directly what creat

I would argue LED lighting does increase the demand for all sorts of lights rather a lot. It is due to increased efficiency, but that is not directly what creates the demand. The increased efficiency means light bulbs are no longer a fire hazard, allowing lights to be strewn just about anywhere and left on indefinitely.

wickawic 9y ago
Ageeed. Also seeing as LED bulbs are ~10x more efficient per lumen than incandescent, people are not installing 10x as much brightness in their homes
- pouetpouet 9y ago
  Perception of brightness is not linear. The human eye response is not linear. So x10 the luminous flux (power output) will be perceived as brighter but far from x10.
  - Dylan16807 9y ago
    k. People are still not installing 10x as much light.
    - pouetpouet 9y ago
      not in their home, but I can see many more historical and institutionnal buildings being illuminated, commercial use also. It may still not amount to 10x though.
- lozenge 9y ago
  Streets, offices and shops are now better lit.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - user5994461 9y ago
    Offices and shops used neon lights. It lits as well as LED or better, but consumes a lot of power.
    - pfdietz 9y ago
      Do you mean fluorescent bulbs? They do not use neon, but rather use mercury vapor. The UV light from the mercury excites a fluorescent layer on the inside of the tube, causing broadband emission of visible light.
manyxcxi 9y ago
Just because it’s LED doesn’t mean it doesn’t use any power at all, so it’s still a waste of energy. Every light in our house is LED and I still teach my kids about not wasting energy and turning things off when not in use. Maybe it’s because I grew up with incandescent bulbs, but I can’t stand the thought of random lights being left on for no good reason, even if it costs 40 cents a year to keep lit. EDIT- ADDITIONAL THOUGHT I was going to add that it’s not like I went around my house adding lights that didn’t exist, but as I think about it... The house I grew up in was built in the early 70’s and every room had a single ceiling light that had two bulbs in it. The hallways had 1 or two ceiling lights. My current house, built two years ago has 8 can lights in the living room, 6 cans in the kitchen and 3 pendants over the island, 8 in the dining room, etc... So maybe you’re on to something with the thought of putting in a lot more lights than we used to.
- eadmund 9y ago
  > Every light in our house is LED and I still teach my kids about not wasting energy and turning things off when not in use. Are you certain that it's wasting energy, though? You have to account for the time spent actually turning the light off, as well as for the psychic cost of having to think about whether to turn it off or on. I'm reminded of one of my old offices, where some office busybody turned off the lights in the bathroom. They were fluorescent and took awhile to brighten up, so of course this meant that one would enter a darkened room, turn them on, and then slowly get some light. Was it a huge deal? No. Did it make our lives worse than just leaving the lights on? Yes. > Maybe it’s because I grew up with incandescent bulbs, but I can’t stand the thought of random lights being left on for no good reason, even if it costs 40 cents a year to keep lit. At 40¢/year, leaving it lit costs .11¢/day, or .0046¢/hour. At any reasonable rate for your time & mental energy, it makes sense to just leave it lit.
  - rsynnott 9y ago
    > They were fluorescent and took awhile to brighten up, so of course this meant that one would enter a darkened room, turn them on, and then slowly get some light. Was it a huge deal? No. Did it make our lives worse than just leaving the lights on? Yes. LEDs don't do this. At absolute worst, you'll have a fraction of a second before they light up at all, but once they light up, they light up immediately.
CJefferson 9y ago
Electricity is not the only cost -- LED light bulbs are quite expensive, which puts a natural limit on how many I want to fit in my house.
- matwood 9y ago
  My local utility has an online store for customers with amazing deals on LED lightbulbs (not as cheap as normal bulbs, but not as high as you see at a Home Depot). I've replaced every bulb in my house.
  - mark-r 9y ago
    I've seen utility subsidized bulbs at Costco.
- skrap 9y ago
  I'm gonna have to call you on that one. Even high-end brand LED bulbs are so much more cost efficient than incandescent bulbs, it's the rational act to immediately replace nearly every single incandescent. Whether you're interested in saving energy or saving money, you should remove and smash your incandescents. Here's a blog entry I wrote with some of the simple math: https://blog.sense.com/articles/smash-incandescent-bulb-switch-led/ https://blog.sense.com/articles/smash-incandescent-bulb-swit...
  - azeotropic 9y ago
    Where do you find 100 watt equivalent LED bulbs in 2700K for $1/bulb?
    - lodi 9y ago
      You won't find LED's for $1/bulb, but the total cost of ownership over X years is massively in favor of the LED. Also I simply find it convenient that LED's just. don't. die. I haven't had to change a single bulb since I upgraded ~4 years ago.
rsynnott 9y ago
That's true to an extent, but if you had 16000 lumens previously, using about 1000W, you probably don't _want_ ~100,000 lumens now, just because it uses the same amount of power. That's far too much light.
gascan 9y ago
In support of your argument, just about every damn device these days is covered in LEDs that run 24/7. Look around your house at night. Microwave, electric kettle, stove, phone chargers, smoke detectors, routers, modems, electric toothbrushes, and that's just what I remember off the top of my head. Yes, not exactly the same as LED light bulbs, but illustrates the point. LED's are cheap and the power is a rounding error, so they go in everywhere. (This is infuriating to me because I would like my house to be dark at night)

wickawic 9y ago

Ageeed. Also seeing as LED bulbs are ~10x more efficient per lumen than incandescent, people are not installing 10x as much brightness in their homes

pouetpouet 9y ago
Perception of brightness is not linear. The human eye response is not linear. So x10 the luminous flux (power output) will be perceived as brighter but far from x10.
- Dylan16807 9y ago
  k. People are still not installing 10x as much light.
  - pouetpouet 9y ago
    not in their home, but I can see many more historical and institutionnal buildings being illuminated, commercial use also. It may still not amount to 10x though.
lozenge 9y ago
Streets, offices and shops are now better lit.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- user5994461 9y ago
  Offices and shops used neon lights. It lits as well as LED or better, but consumes a lot of power.
  - pfdietz 9y ago
    Do you mean fluorescent bulbs? They do not use neon, but rather use mercury vapor. The UV light from the mercury excites a fluorescent layer on the inside of the tube, causing broadband emission of visible light.

manyxcxi 9y ago

Just because it’s LED doesn’t mean it doesn’t use any power at all, so it’s still a waste of energy. Every light in our house is LED and I still teach my kids about not wasting energy and turning things off when not in use. Maybe it’s because I grew up with incandescent bulbs, but I can’t stand the thought of random lights being left on for no good reason, even if it costs 40 cents a year to keep lit. EDIT- ADDITIONAL THOUGHT I was going to add that it’s not like I went around my house adding lights that didn’t exist, but as I think about it... The house I grew up in was built in the early 70’s and every room had a single ceiling light that had two bulbs in it. The hallways had 1 or two ceiling lights. My current house, built two years ago has 8 can lights in the living room, 6 cans in the kitchen and 3 pendants over the island, 8 in the dining room, etc... So maybe you’re on to something with the thought of putting in a lot more lights than we used to.

eadmund 9y ago
> Every light in our house is LED and I still teach my kids about not wasting energy and turning things off when not in use. Are you certain that it's wasting energy, though? You have to account for the time spent actually turning the light off, as well as for the psychic cost of having to think about whether to turn it off or on. I'm reminded of one of my old offices, where some office busybody turned off the lights in the bathroom. They were fluorescent and took awhile to brighten up, so of course this meant that one would enter a darkened room, turn them on, and then slowly get some light. Was it a huge deal? No. Did it make our lives worse than just leaving the lights on? Yes. > Maybe it’s because I grew up with incandescent bulbs, but I can’t stand the thought of random lights being left on for no good reason, even if it costs 40 cents a year to keep lit. At 40¢/year, leaving it lit costs .11¢/day, or .0046¢/hour. At any reasonable rate for your time & mental energy, it makes sense to just leave it lit.
- rsynnott 9y ago
  > They were fluorescent and took awhile to brighten up, so of course this meant that one would enter a darkened room, turn them on, and then slowly get some light. Was it a huge deal? No. Did it make our lives worse than just leaving the lights on? Yes. LEDs don't do this. At absolute worst, you'll have a fraction of a second before they light up at all, but once they light up, they light up immediately.

CJefferson 9y ago

Electricity is not the only cost -- LED light bulbs are quite expensive, which puts a natural limit on how many I want to fit in my house.

matwood 9y ago
My local utility has an online store for customers with amazing deals on LED lightbulbs (not as cheap as normal bulbs, but not as high as you see at a Home Depot). I've replaced every bulb in my house.
- mark-r 9y ago
  I've seen utility subsidized bulbs at Costco.
skrap 9y ago
I'm gonna have to call you on that one. Even high-end brand LED bulbs are so much more cost efficient than incandescent bulbs, it's the rational act to immediately replace nearly every single incandescent. Whether you're interested in saving energy or saving money, you should remove and smash your incandescents. Here's a blog entry I wrote with some of the simple math: https://blog.sense.com/articles/smash-incandescent-bulb-switch-led/ https://blog.sense.com/articles/smash-incandescent-bulb-swit...
- azeotropic 9y ago
  Where do you find 100 watt equivalent LED bulbs in 2700K for $1/bulb?
  - lodi 9y ago
    You won't find LED's for $1/bulb, but the total cost of ownership over X years is massively in favor of the LED. Also I simply find it convenient that LED's just. don't. die. I haven't had to change a single bulb since I upgraded ~4 years ago.

rsynnott 9y ago

That's true to an extent, but if you had 16000 lumens previously, using about 1000W, you probably don't _want_ ~100,000 lumens now, just because it uses the same amount of power. That's far too much light.

gascan 9y ago

In support of your argument, just about every damn device these days is covered in LEDs that run 24/7. Look around your house at night. Microwave, electric kettle, stove, phone chargers, smoke detectors, routers, modems, electric toothbrushes, and that's just what I remember off the top of my head. Yes, not exactly the same as LED light bulbs, but illustrates the point. LED's are cheap and the power is a rounding error, so they go in everywhere. (This is infuriating to me because I would like my house to be dark at night)