New light on new light

Regular readers know that we have a particular issue with  the <5% of people who have a particular issue with CFL lighting.  Stirred up by journalists who look for an issue that should be ignored where it even exists, a few saddoes have been convinced that actually making the break from incandescent lighting (circa 1880) to to CFL lights (circa 1998) is the death of free choice and civilisation as we know it.

We have a particular issue with those journalists too lazy to point out that CFL is so 1998, and that today's choice is between incandescent and LED.

News from Japan that LEDs are nearing mainstream:

Panasonic has launched a new household LED lightbulb in Japan that it says lasts 40 times longer than incandescent bulbs.
The screw-in bulbs are part of the EverLed line, and they're scheduled to hit stores in Japan on October 21, with monthly production at 50,000 units. No changes to lighting equipment used for incandescents are required.
If used an average of five and a half hours per day, the new bulbs can last up to 19 years, according to Panasonic. That's 40 times longer than incandescent bulbs.
The bulbs use only an eighth the power of incandescents. That means a 60-watt-equivalent LED bulb would cost only 300 yen (about $3) a year instead of 2,380 yen ($25.80)--a significant savings over a lifetime.

The 60 watt replacement is advertised as having a 6.9 watt consumption.  Early adopters in Japan can expect to pay 40,000 yen or $40.  But as there are many early adopters out there with $4000 Panasonic plasma screens, we're pretty sure that the light bulbs will be <10% of today's price  within five years.

Let's do some math here.  If we can save 87% of the 25% of home energy bills spent on illumination that adds up to

a) a whole lot

b) a 20% total drop in electricity demand

c) all nuclear generation.  Plus a further 15% of coal fired generation.  Or half of all coal fired generation, we get to keep the nukes and meet 2020 targets years early

d) all of the above

The answer is d of course.  But what's the more important story to get out to the British Public?  Good news (all of the above) or journalists catering to  old ideas instead of creating new ones?

Comments

[MCrab]

"d) all of the above"

.... would be true if home electricity demand = 100% of electricity demand. As it is only 30% you need to temper your enthusiasm by at least two-thirds.

And while we're at it can you tell me when the law banning traditional CRT televisions came in. Surely the only way of achieving the mass transition to LCD and plasma that has occurred in the past few years is by government diktat. After all, it's not like the poor idiots would make the change on their own when a better technology came along.

[Guru]

You're right. Home Electricity demand (in the UK) is about a third of total use. 20% of electricity for illumination is probably low, but we'll stick to that. So basically, we're talking an eighty percent drop of the twenty per cent of one third. Still not chopped liver. Add in similar drops in the illumination element of the one third of electricity used on business use and it's higher still.
As for CRT, never heard that there was any law banning them. It seems to me that flat screens are: cheaper, smaller, produce less heat, provide a better picture, probably use less power, take up less space and are generally overall much niftier. And you don't do your back in on the way home with them. Why would any government need to ban them? Maplin were recently selling a B+W tv, my kids thought it was amusing.This doesn't have anything to do with government diktat. They might as well bring in laws banning steam trains, propellor airliners and antimacassars. Just as there are some consumers out there who prefer bowler hats, there may be a niche market for those who prefer CRT, but if anyone could make any money on it I would be astounded....