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?
