Is LED lighting really economical?
Is LED lighting really economical?
(OP)
I have the task of going through the lighting technical standards for my company, and I've been focusing a lot on LED lighting.
Everywhere I do research, I get blasted with info on how economical LED lighting systems are. But, when I do a simple calculation, they extra cost of an LED fixture is NOT offset by its energy efficiency.
For example, I could replace a 250W HPS fixture with a 100W LED fixture. The initial cost of HPS is $300, and the initail cost to replace it with an LED is $1300.
Obviously, the LED is more of an initial investment, but its energy savings of 150W should eventually pay for the difference, right?
But, when I take into account the lifetime of each fixture the HPS is always cheaper. It takes 24,000hrs for a HPS bulb to reach 70%, and it takes 60,000hrs for an LED fixture to do the same. To replace the luminaries, the HPS costs $30 for a new bulb, but for the LEDs I need to buy a whole new fixture at $1300. When taking these three factors (up-front cost, energy consumption, luminarie maintainence) into account, LEDs are not cheaper....ever.
Does this make sense? Or did I screw something up? Why are LED lights considered the long-term $$$ saving alternative?
Everywhere I do research, I get blasted with info on how economical LED lighting systems are. But, when I do a simple calculation, they extra cost of an LED fixture is NOT offset by its energy efficiency.
For example, I could replace a 250W HPS fixture with a 100W LED fixture. The initial cost of HPS is $300, and the initail cost to replace it with an LED is $1300.
Obviously, the LED is more of an initial investment, but its energy savings of 150W should eventually pay for the difference, right?
But, when I take into account the lifetime of each fixture the HPS is always cheaper. It takes 24,000hrs for a HPS bulb to reach 70%, and it takes 60,000hrs for an LED fixture to do the same. To replace the luminaries, the HPS costs $30 for a new bulb, but for the LEDs I need to buy a whole new fixture at $1300. When taking these three factors (up-front cost, energy consumption, luminarie maintainence) into account, LEDs are not cheaper....ever.
Does this make sense? Or did I screw something up? Why are LED lights considered the long-term $$$ saving alternative?





RE: Is LED lighting really economical?
One thing that can markedly improve the numbers is if you have to pay to remove the heat released at the fixtures, as now you are paying for more refrigeration.
Keith Cress
kcress - http://www.flaminsystems.com
RE: Is LED lighting really economical?
PC (power compacts) are a good replacement for household lights and possibly even some larger into the 150W range.
RE: Is LED lighting really economical?
As you explained and calculated, the LED lights would always look like a bad investment. But the most important thing that goes in the favor of LED lights is that they emit much less heat compared to those HPS.
As far as the cost of fixtures is concerned, it is repeatedly coming down.
And not in all cases, you would have to buy a new fixture for replacement.
Thanks
Pumping Equipment //sourcing .indiamart .com/engin eering/pum p-pumping- equipment/
http: