I thought LED lights were efficient?

[Northy]

Hi all,

I was about to pull the trigger on some new batton lights for the garage, then I saw the energy rating on them and was shocked! I know they won't be really on very often or for very long, but I'm quite keen on things being efficient especially after energy prices have just gone up a lot in the UK.

I was going to buy these, but they are out of stock:
https://www.toolstation.com/v-tac-led-batten-cw-tubes/p33970
Energy rating F (out of a possible A->G).
Am I missing something here?

As that one is out of stock, I started looking at others:
https://www.toolstation.com/integral-led-lightspan-ip20-ik08-batten/p16505
https://www.screwfix.com/p/lap-oxbo-single-4ft-led-batten-18w-2100lm-220-240v/465pp#BVQAWidgetID
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ceiling-Surface-Mounted-Natural-Garage%EF%BC%8CWarehouse/dp/B0921N9L11/ref=sr_1_2?m=A2P55RBX0AFDJE&marketplaceID=A1F83G8C2ARO7P&qid=1648893162&s=merchant-items&sr=1-2
Are these things just a load of SMD LEDs behind a plastic cover? If so does it really make much difference which one you buy as long as it's not so badly made that it's not safe?

Does anyone have any recommendations for anything like these in the UK that they think are worth buying?

Thanks,

G

[harerod]

<rant>
We got new 24" monitors the other day, with an efficiency rating of "D" for a consumption of 14kWh/1000h. 14W average? Remember when a 17" tube slurped >100W?
</rant>
The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_energy_label was updated in 2021, with the goal of eliminating A++ ratings. The most parsimonious devices barely make it to "B".
Since the label is based on law, for once we get free access to the actual texts (no obolus to (Aus-)Beuth-Verlag (German joke) required). The calculation scheme is given for each device.

[eti]

They're VERY efficient... for the manufacturers, since every time the supposed "40,000hrs!!" rated life falls WAY short, you bin them and buy more.

[BrokenYugo]

I mean, that first one is under 100 lumens/watt, miles more efficient than an old T12 florescent tube, but kind of crappy for a modern 80CRI (I assume) LED light.

[tom66]

The energy rating scale changed a while back, so what was pretty much A+++ became 'C' or something like that.  It's just to promote improvements beyond the previous maximum.

One result was this odd disagreement between EU and post-Brexit UK ratings:-



... Though I believe this was harmonised recently (not to get too political, but everyone knew that this would be the end result of Bx-it).

[John B]

The problem will always be the driver circuitry. Low component count, low BOM cost and manufacturing cost are always top priority.

I prefer to use commercial style 1200x300mm lights now as they are passive devices (ie you can supply them will power however you see fit, to whatever standard you wish), plus they have a large volume and surface area to power dissipation ratio, giving them a better ability to dissipate heat compared to compact LED retrofits, which will inevitably give them a better lifespan.

The light quality has benefits too: you can get higher CRI panels, low glare etc...

[james_s]

The problem is that those consumer-oriented energy efficiency ratings are comparing to other similar products. LED lighting generally speaking IS efficient, but when you're comparing it to other LED lighting some of it is better than others. Personally I would ignore those ratings and look at the lumens per watt, a good baseline is conventional linear fluorescent lamps which are IIRC around 60 lm/W once you factor in ballast losses, or 50 lm/W for the compact lamps intended to replace incandescent. Those old incandescent lamps are only 10-15 lm/W.

[themadhippy]

Installed a load of v- tac led stuff about a year ago and not had any  problems with it,the biggest hassle was some down lights,but the batons (https://cpc.farnell.com/v-tac/667-vt-8-40/grill-fitting-40w-led-120cm-6400k/dp/LA07398 )  impressed me enough to fork out for a couple.One 40w 4 ft baton made the old twin 4 ft florry look like a candle and the 10w 1 ft version makes a great light for the work bench

[SiliconWizard]

<rant>
We got new 24" monitors the other day, with an efficiency rating of "D" for a consumption of 14kWh/1000h. 14W average? Remember when a 17" tube slurped >100W?
</rant>
The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_energy_label was updated in 2021, with the goal of eliminating A++ ratings. The most parsimonious devices barely make it to "B".

Yep. Bureaucracy at its best.

[wraper]

Don't look on those efficiency ratings, calculate lumens per Watt (divide lumen rating by power consumption in W). Really good stuff has > 130lm/W. Half decent should have at least 100lm/W. Also as was already said, that efficiency scale got updated.

[SiliconWizard]

Personally I would ignore those ratings and look at the lumens per watt, a good baseline is conventional linear fluorescent lamps which are IIRC around 60 lm/W once you factor in ballast losses, or 50 lm/W for the compact lamps intended to replace incandescent. Those old incandescent lamps are only 10-15 lm/W.

Yes, the only metric to consider is how much power a given lamp draws for a given luminous power.

Ultimately, in particular for "mundane" home lighting purposes, what matters is whether a given lamp gives you "adequate" lighting by your appreciation, and at what power from mains. Meaning that efficiency is only part of the question for your average use.

If a given LED lamp is more efficient than another kind of lamp, yet draws the same power from mains, but outputs a lot higher luminous power (that you may not need), then it's more efficient, but you gain nothing. Just a thought.

[AndyC_772]

If you're reading EEVblog, chances are you don't need to worry about arbitrary letter codes for efficiency - you'll understand the basic concepts of light output and wattage.

I've just replaced all the old 58W fluorescent tubes in my garage with these:

https://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/LTT524HDL.html

Less than half the power (24W vs 58W), and considerably brighter than the old tubes they replaced. I could probably have got away with only fitting one tube per fitting instead of the original two.

[wraper]

Also with higher lm/W figure means you get more LED per lamp. For example I purchased Ikea Solhetta bulbs with 470lm luminous flux and only 3.4W power consumption while most of the similar bulbs have the same 470lm luminous flux but on average about 5.5W consumption. Took them apart and IKEA bulb had more than 3 times more LEDs inside. As running LED at lower current increases efficiency.

[Siwastaja]

EU energy labels are a complete joke, anyway. Just categorically ignore them, and for each type of gadget, learn enough to understand how actual energy efficiency needs to be calculated. There is no shortcut.

Like wraper said, for illumination, the relevant figure is simply lm/W. Since both lm and W are reported for most types of lighting, it's easy to calculate.

LED itself does not guarantee anything. Many many LED bulbs and fixtures on the market are around 90lm/W. While somewhat better than fluorescent, it's very crappy for LEDs by modern standards, this was maybe state-of-the-art in 2005. But this is what the cheapest stuff is - and sometimes, even expensive stuff is actually the cheapest crap in disguise!

If efficiency matters to you, try to find at least 110-120lm/W LED bulbs, IMHO. This should not break your bank, unlike true state-of-the-art (>150lm/W).

[tom66]

Part of the reason so many LED bulbs have poor lm/W is because the LED chips run super hot, which shortens lifespan and reduces efficiency.

[Ice-Tea]

What pisses me off a bit is the whole "oh, all those fluorescents have got to go" as if it's written in the Bible. 

The really good fluorescents are at least on par with poor LED replacements.

[Gyro]

I am still contemplating what LED replacement to use for the 8ft T12 125W florescent that I have in my garage. Centrally placed, the light it puts out is so bright and even that I'm loathed to retire it.

I've added a PIR LED for trips to the freezer and washing machine, so the florescent only goes on when I'm actually working on something.

[james_s]

I am still contemplating what LED replacement to use for the 8ft T12 125W florescent that I have in my garage. Centrally placed, the light it puts out is so bright and even that I'm loathed to retire it.

Why not just keep using it? My house is almost all LED but I still have fluorescent in the laundry room and garage. It works and it's not particularly inefficient.,

[Gyro]

Yes, that's pretty much the conclusion I've come to for the foreseeable future. I don't think they make 8ft tubes any more but I still have a spare, which should see me out. With an electronic starter, blackened ends seem to be a thing of the past anyway.

[james_s]

Even if they don't make the tubes anymore you should be able to find one, now may be a good time to start looking for a spare. I collect lamps and have some fluorescent tubes from the 1940s so even old lamps turn up now and then.

[SeanB]

Still have a lot of 2ft and 4ft tubes, and installed one this week, because you do not get as much flicker from them compared to the LED, and the CRI on the Phillips Reflex tubes is really good.  Still have a box of incandescent lamps though, with a good number being pre 1939 made.

[SteveyG]

Don't look on those efficiency ratings, calculate lumens per Watt (divide lumen rating by power consumption in W). Really good stuff has > 130lm/W. Half decent should have at least 100lm/W. Also as was already said, that efficiency scale got updated.

Lumens per Watt is a highly abused figure and rarely measured by a lamp manufacturer after integration. You are unlikely to get 100 lm/W in any retrofit style lamp after taking into account the temperature they run these things at and the power put through the LEDs.

[wraper]

Don't look on those efficiency ratings, calculate lumens per Watt (divide lumen rating by power consumption in W). Really good stuff has > 130lm/W. Half decent should have at least 100lm/W. Also as was already said, that efficiency scale got updated.

Lumens per Watt is a highly abused figure and rarely measured by a lamp manufacturer after integration. You are unlikely to get 100 lm/W in any retrofit style lamp after taking into account the temperature they run these things at and the power put through the LEDs.

Even if your claim was true, do you think it's better to use a bulb that has 100lm/l or 140lm/w in ideal conditions? Those numbers don't come from nowhere. Higher efficiency bulbs have way more LEDs inside them and a switch mode ballast, not just a linear or capacitive dropper.

[f4eru]

The really good fluorescents are at least on par with poor LED replacements.

So they are still worse in general.

What pisses me off a bit is the whole "oh, all those fluorescents have got to go" as if it's written in the Bible. 

One huge factor to phase them out is the mercury content, and also it's bad habit to be inhaled when the tube is broken...

[madires]

What pisses me off a bit is the whole "oh, all those fluorescents have got to go" as if it's written in the Bible. 

The really good fluorescents are at least on par with poor LED replacements.

Is anyone forcing you to change them? If you're happy with your fluorescents keep them running.

I'm in the process of changing old style fluorescents with ballast and starter to LED. Most are converted to LED and some are replaced with new lamps for damp environments (the cover also provides some protection from mishaps). No specific brands, a mixed bag. So far the LED tubes are brighter, need less power and the instant-on is great too. I know, good electronic ballasts provide similar power-on times, but they aren't for free.