LED light bulb, 7.5 watts and it lasts 10 years

The ordinary light bulb in your house consumes around 60 watts depending on the application. C. Crane Company is hoping to change that with their newly announced LED light bulb dubbed GeoBulb that uses only 7.5 watts of power while providing the same output as a traditional 60 watt light bulb.

Unfortunately, like most new technologies, the GeoBulb does not come cheap with a price tag of $120.00 it will take some time before the GeoBulb or any other LED based light bulb will receive mass market adoption. Like any other new technology the price should drop dramatically as the bulb is produced in larger quantities and as the manufacturing process gets refined.

The GeoBulb is expected to last 10 years and provides an eco-friendly option to other light bulbs that may contain mercury. It may not be cheap to go green this year but in the near future, hopefully, all of our light bulbs will be LED based.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Windows 7 reaches Build 7070

Next Story

Controversy over new Pirate Bay Facebook feature

54 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Aside from electrical consumption and mercury hazard, I think the LED bulbs easily win aesthetically. The CCFLs still produce an ugly light even when the color temperature has been warmed up a bit. I've replaced my fluorescents with LED tubes, and although I have a few CCFLs, the LED bulbs produce a much less "sickly" light. You can get cheaper LED bulbs (like I did) at other sources on the net.

10 years? Thats shorter than the life of some of the original CFL bulbs. I've still got one from 1990 that works just fine. Some flickering, but not like todays bulbs where you might get a year out of them. Nah, not worth the money

here in new zealand we have a guy who has an incandescent bulb in his dunny (toilet) thats been there since WWII it gets turnded on and off 3~5 times a day thats a 59yr life span and it's still kickin along

Atlonite said,
here in new zealand we have a guy who has an incandescent bulb in his dunny (toilet) thats been there since WWII it gets turnded on and off 3~5 times a day thats a 59yr life span and it's still kickin along

interesting

Atlonite said,
here in new zealand we have a guy who has an incandescent bulb in his dunny (toilet) thats been there since WWII it gets turnded on and off 3~5 times a day thats a 59yr life span and it's still kickin along

Sure and my name is Myckey mouse

I remember when CFL's first came out, they were in the 25 dollar (U.S.) and up range and everyone was bitching and moaning how expensive they were. Now look at the price.......you can buy 4 for 2 bucks or less. I bought some that are "bright white" and put out the same (at least to me) brightness as a 75 watt incandescent. I bought them for one reason. I @#^!#$#~@!@@ when light bulbs burn out..... not for the "energy savings".
Eventually the LED lamp price will fall just like the CFL's did.

we already use LED bulbs at work, each of which is 1.8W and is quite bright for what it is. Each bulb does cost over £12 GBP though!

These are lies. Bull marketing.

Current LED technology is about 2x less efficient than CFL's, look it up. The fact is that their 7.5 watt bulb puts out about half the light of a 60 watt equiv. CFL - its just the light is directional unlike a CFL or incandescent.

Notice that they don't ever quote the lumens of the bulb.

That's a good chart and I do support nuclear power but one should remember that the uranium mining/refinement process is CO2 emission-intensive and thus should be included when you look at the total CO2 cost (something that is conveniently left out when it helps make a point).

One should also remember that the other 71 watts (100w incandescent minus 29 watts for a CFL) is not totally wasted (for at least part of the year) in a cold country like Canada. That 71 watts that doesn't produce light is given off as heat. If every Canadian switched to CFL bulbs then we would end up burning more heating fuel in the winter (which unlike electricity pretty much always comes from fossil fuels) to offset that lost source of heat. That isn't to say that CFL bulbs are bad. They certainly save money and electricity in the summer but you won't get near that "up to 75% savings" unless you live in Nevada.

Fred Derf said,
That's a good chart and I do support nuclear power but one should remember that the uranium mining/refinement process is CO2 emission-intensive and thus should be included when you look at the total CO2 cost (something that is conveniently left out when it helps make a point).

One should also remember that the other 71 watts (100w incandescent minus 29 watts for a CFL) is not totally wasted (for at least part of the year) in a cold country like Canada. That 71 watts that doesn't produce light is given off as heat. If every Canadian switched to CFL bulbs then we would end up burning more heating fuel in the winter (which unlike electricity pretty much always comes from fossil fuels) to offset that lost source of heat. That isn't to say that CFL bulbs are bad. They certainly save money and electricity in the summer but you won't get near that "up to 75% savings" unless you live in Nevada.


Wait, wait wait, you're telling me canadians huddle round light bulbs in order to get warm? The warmth given off by incandescent light bulbs is negligible compared to that of a heater/gas fire... I don't think you're going to lose out on that much heat by switching to CFL or LED bulbs...

Just my thoughts, im probably wrong, but I've never thought of an incandescent light bulb as a heat source before! :P

I've also considered the "incandescent bulb" as heat source. Since I live north of the 60th parallel, heat (or the lack thereof) is a significant issue.

Yes, incandescents can be a heat source. The bathrooms in my home have 6x200W arrays that can keep these rooms quite toasty.

Even so, I'm not convinced that this is the most efficient heat. For one thing, the lamps tend to be fairly high, so they're heating air near the ceiling. How much of that heat descends to warm the rest of the room is questionable.

Secondly, and maybe more importantly, how efficient (and CO2 intensive) is this heat compared to the slight additional load my oil-fired furnace might incur if I had no incandescents at all? I suspect the difference is negligible.

BTW, almost all of my home is lit with CFLs, but if these LED bulbs made it down to, say,

Luis Mazza said,
Suddenly, without that Bush "monkey president", good green products start to emerge.

Crawford Ranch vs. Al Gore's home. Enough said.

A 100 watt incandescent lightbulb provides about 1700 lumens of light for a efficacy (lumens/watt) of 17.
The same amount of light can be produced by a CFL that uses only 29 watts for a efficacy of 60.
The best case scenario for a 7.5 watt GeoBulb would be an efficacy of 59. In order to get this, you'd have to choose the cool white bulb that produces 446 lumens. The warm white bulb produces only 260 lumens (a efficacy of only 35).

Regardless of the purchase price, these GeoBulbs bulbs are not going to save you any operating expenses over the costs of using CFL bulbs. In order to get the same amount of light as a 100w incandescent (or a 29w CFL) you would need to get 3 GeoBulbs (that's $360!).

This LED bulb has an efficacy of 83. They claim it is a replacement for a 100 watt bulb but, at only 1075 lumens for the cool white, it really isn't. It is also much cheaper than the GeoBulb ($80 instead of $120*2).

I've replaced 90% of normal bulbs with Energy Saving ones, not LED, but still a saving to be had. Especially when the electric companys puts them through your door for free and neiburghs who are too stuborn to use them give you theirs

Only thing I had to do was replace a dimmer switch....which was simple and was never used anyway

In the UK you can pretty much go by a rule of the watt. 1 Watt worth of energy if left on 24/7 will cost you 1 pound.

So.. if you have a 60W lightbulb and leave that on for 10 years (incl. replacing it) you'd be paying around 600.00 pounds (60.00 per year), whilst with the LED lightbulb over ten years you'd be paying 75.00 pounds (7.50 per year)

So cost difference between ten years is 600.00 - (75.00 + 120.00) = 405.00 pounds Worth of savings.

I think it could very well be worth it :P

Why is this news? LED bulbs have been available for years. I thought this was some new breakthrough that would lower the price, not yet.

I don't like CFLs because they are dim, the light is too white/blue -not yellow enough-, take a long time to charge -the Philips I have in the wierd cieling fixture in my bedroom that requires "pear-shaped" bulbs takes 2 minutes to reach maximum brightness-, and vary a lot even in the same brand. I have bought 3 different CFLs models, 2 from the same manufacter, all rated at 2700K, all rated at the same light output as a 75W incandecent bulb and they are nothing alike in use.

120? Hell, maybe some other company... maybe: EarthLED, has a bulb with ~ the same light output, same lifespan (if not longer) minus the expensive Apple-esque fancy-pants design, and less than half the price... hmmm..... just maybe they do?

jimbo2150 said,
120? Hell, maybe some other company... maybe: EarthLED, has a bulb with ~ the same light output, same lifespan (if not longer) minus the expensive Apple-esque fancy-pants design, and less than half the price... hmmm..... just maybe they do?

I've never seen such horrific design style in anything apple have made... mindless apple-bashing only goes so far...

Great! Lets go back to candles, we can all sit in the semi dark Theses LED light-bulbs will be as good as the low energy fluorecent lamps, good for your outside porch in winter, but useless for anything else.

More Climate Change, green, New World Order agenda. Meanwhile the rich head off into the sunset with our money!

Keep drinking the Kool Aid, nothing to see here!

Isn't the beauty of a free market economy just that... a free market?

You can opt out of buying anything you see as worthless. So, in short, the rich guy only runs off with your money when you believe he has given you something of value.

Why is that a bad thing? If you believe it is valuable shouldn't you be allowed to buy it?

why are people complaining about the prices? As soon as other companies realise the technology behind this product, it will be mass produced and you'll be paying 2 a penny.
Take Flat screens, LCD/Plasma TVs 2-3 years ago, they were very expensive and not many people had them.

Mark my words, you'll be buying these off ebay for less than 10 bucks in a year or two from now

current energy saving bulbs arent any where near as efficient as led.

Not sure if these are led bulbs are based off something i read but a scientist figured out how to make led bulbs on some kind of silicon, whereas normal led lights are supposed to be printed on sapphire which costs alot more. energy saving on the led lights he showed was like upwards of 80% i think and can be produced for $1-2 each straight off.

Dunno if its right but seems like led is a lot more energy efficient than the bulbs ya get now.

psionicinversion said,
current energy saving bulbs arent any where near as efficient as led.

Untrue. No mass-manufacturable LED has a luminous efficacy as high as a standard tube CFL.

The only advantages LEDs would have over CFLs are lifetime and maybe better spectral outputs (Though CFLs have gotten good enough at this point). They are less efficient except in a few devices that can only be built in labs.

psionicinversion said,
current energy saving bulbs arent any where near as efficient as led.

Not sure if these are led bulbs are based off something i read but a scientist figured out how to make led bulbs on some kind of silicon, whereas normal led lights are supposed to be printed on sapphire which costs alot more. energy saving on the led lights he showed was like upwards of 80% i think and can be produced for $1-2 each straight off.

Dunno if its right but seems like led is a lot more energy efficient than the bulbs ya get now.

Here is part of an article:

A report from London based Metro newspaper indicates that scientists have discovered a new method for producing the man-made material on silicon, instead of costly sapphire. In turn the cost of the light bulbs will be cut from £20 ($28) per bulb to just £2 ($2.80).

I have made some LED lighting of my own. Soon my computer room will be lit by LED's and using no electricity from the grid. I have to finish a remodeling job of the room before I permanently install the LED lighting. The LED lighting pulls 20 watts max and lights the room far better than two 25 Watt daylight CFL's (equiv to 100 watt light each). Look at http://hacknmod.com/ for some ideas. They are all over the net.

What are the current energy saving lightbulbs? The ones philips makes?
We've got loads of them in our house and they never, ever die. My only "gripe" with them is they take a few seconds to fully light up but that's not a problem for me at all. I believe they have similar power usage as well.

Mhm... I know technology doesn't come cheap, but $120 for a light bulb ? That's really crazy!!

Like Juski814 said:

i can get 4 bulbs for $2 at my local grocery store... i recycle and such, but i can't justify that kind of cost for a single bulb.

MafiotuL said,
Mhm... I know technology doesn't come cheap, but $120 for a light bulb ? That's really crazy!!

Like Juski814 said:


I can get 10 for £1 at robertdyas. They are energy saving bulbs.

Powergen give you 4 for free, you fill an online form in and viola something for nothing, free postage. Phillips I think offer the same service.

The LED ones were on TV and never said they would cost a fortune, they just said they would last 25 years and cost around £2. The running cost would have been around 1 penny per day.

leesmithg said,
Powergen give you 4 for free, you fill an online form in and viola something for nothing, free postage.

But, I don't know how to play the viola.

Costco has the new 3rd gen LED bulbs, R30 for $10.99, R38 for $13.99, both 45 watts, using 3.5 watts for R30, and 4.5 watts for R38. They give a excellent white light. I have already got 6 of them.

There are some new bulbs coming with the 1 watt, square LED units, and the will lower prices and increase quality.

Interesting, they're not so available in the UK yet sadly.
If the ones you mention are so low power, and so cheap, whats the game with the one in the article ?

yakumo said,
Interesting, they're not so available in the UK yet sadly.
If the ones you mention are so low power, and so cheap, whats the game with the one in the article ?


It is just a press thing. These bulbs have been available from the CCRANE company for about 2 months. They sell a lot of the 'high tech things' and this is one of the newer ones that looks like a normal bulb. It really is not new news, but more press, special with Earth Hour happening over the weekend.

this is hopeful technology, but honestly... i can get 4 bulbs for $2 at my local grocery store... i recycle and such, but i can't justify that kind of cost for a single bulb. but at least the technology is there, and if it comes down, this is so very promising.

Juski814 said,
this is hopeful technology, but honestly... i can get 4 bulbs for $2 at my local grocery store... i recycle and such, but i can't justify that kind of cost for a single bulb. but at least the technology is there, and if it comes down, this is so very promising.


What you need to work out is the cost of electricity... Is the cost of electricity you would use over those 10 years significantly less than if you bought the LED lights?? It may seem expensive in the short term but in the long term it could be saving you alot of money.

Why not be "a little" idealistic and buy it!!! Damn, it's like im saving $30 a year and oh thats too much, give me the energy wasting glow pear, or a directly environmental hazard with mercury. FFS it will only be the first few, then mass production would probably make them cheaper then a cfl. The same thing with electric cars, a good enough tech is there, and it would advance quick if more people where just a little more idealistic. But when I talk about idealistic things, people seem to look at me like i'm out of place, almost like it's the group instinct warning them about any deviation or different thinking. Or they just don't wanto stress with it, lazy.

Ok im done

Well, GamblerFEXonlin, I agree with you in principle. But I'd have to say for the vast majority of people things of this nature are just unaffordable.

And to say that electric cars are good for the environment is just wrong, considering most electricity is backed by coal, and the material that the battery in those cars is made of sure can't be good for the earth. Perhaps its not as bad as burning gasoline, but it is far from idealistic.

Grandaevus said,
But then you are kinda missing the point...

How would I be missing the point? so the lightbulb would take 3 - 7 watts less then a cfl bulb. not wort the extra $100 .

majortom1981 said,
How would I be missing the point? so the lightbulb would take 3 - 7 watts less then a cfl bulb. not wort the extra $100 .

I'd love to see a CF bulb that is only 3-7 watts more then this... and still gives you the same amount of light... we have to use 20 watt GE bulbs to get what this one puts out... and the LED bulbs do not have mercury in them so no disposal costs.... some places charge to dispose of CF bulbs because of mercury! and no risk at home if one breaks also

neufuse said,
I'd love to see a CF bulb that is only 3-7 watts more then this... and still gives you the same amount of light... we have to use 20 watt GE bulbs to get what this one puts out... and the LED bulbs do not have mercury in them so no disposal costs.... some places charge to dispose of CF bulbs because of mercury! and no risk at home if one breaks also


I dont know about that the 13 watt cfl that i got puts out the same amount of light that the 100 watt incadecent that it replaced.

Also have they done full tests to show that each led on the bulb lasts the 30,000 hours? I doubt that they have had 1 bulb on for 30,000 hours to do the test.

majortom1981 said,
I dont know about that the 13 watt cfl that i got puts out the same amount of light that the 100 watt incadecent that it replaced.

Also have they done full tests to show that each led on the bulb lasts the 30,000 hours? I doubt that they have had 1 bulb on for 30,000 hours to do the test.


I dont know what brand you're using major, but all the CFL (just called Energy Saving Lightbulbs here in UK) have the same rating.

8 watt = equivalent to brightness of 40 watt incandescent.
11 watt = equivalent to brightness of 60 watt incandescent.

So by extrapolation, to get the same light as a 100 watt incandescent, you'd need a 17 watt CFL, not 13 watt. Like I said though, maybe the ratings are different where you are and you get more light per watt out of your CFLs.

Edit: I've just done a little research into this, and it seems that 100w equavalent CFLs actually use 20-25w. not the 17w that I extrapolated above. See the below table from http://www.energy-saving-lightbulbs.com/pa...uorescent_light for the details:

Let me see if I understood that correctly... so to replace a massively energy wasting old 60W bulb, you can either use an 11W energy saver bulb or a 7.5W "GeoBulb".

An 11W energy saver bulb is £2.14 at the next Tesco:
http://direct.tesco.com/q/R.100-4318.aspx

A 7.5W "GeoBulb" is £84.17 (used xe.com for exchange rates).

Thus you pay £82.03 more for a single bulb for saving an enormous 3.5W in consumption.
For the same money, you could buy 38 energy saver bulbs and still have change.

Do they actually expect people to buy this!?