|Registered:||Aug 04, 2012|
|Given in last 30 days||0|
|Received in last 30 days||0|
|Last 30 days:||0|
paul wheaton wrote:.
Overall, I think the value of LED is marginal at best. I forsee a lot of subsidy and planned obsolescence for LED.
In ten years there might not be any, and you know darn well industry has no interest in producing high quality. You would have to have a glass blower and a electrical tinkerer to make you one. Then the cost advantage goes out the window.paul wheaton wrote: I think ten years from now, a long life incandescent will still be the best choice. In fact - i would like to see an incandescent with a thicker glass and a way to replace the filaments. Something with a tiny garbage footprint.
paul wheaton wrote:What toxic gick?
The electronics that are in the LED. capacitors, resistors, etc. Plus - so much plastic. There is simply much more material and sophistication in one bulb. And how does it compare in the waste stream to an incandescent.
Granted, an LED is about 50 times less toxic than a CFL. But an LED is about 15 times more toxic than an incandescent.
I think that at $8 per year for electricity for light, combined with the idea that it is a heat source in winter .... for me, the incandescent is a clear winner.
Is it more or less toxic gick (I like that new word) than making incandescent?R Scott wrote:LED bulbs have way less toxic gick than CFL's. But there was all kinds of toxic gick used to make the LED's, it just stayed in China...
paul wheaton wrote:I spend $8 per per year on electricity for light. In 20 years that works out to $160. I don't think I'm going to see an ROI in 20 years.
Plus, I find the light quality of the LED poor. And the LED is loaded with toxic gick.
The heat that comes off the incandescent is a bonus in the winter. In the summer, I rarely turn on the lights due to natural sunlight.