Reader comments
Getting the green light: LEDs can provide a viable lighting alternative

This is probably the most overlooked new technology that could save billions a year in energy cost of power generating plants. All new homes should be required to have these LED lights installed. Although more expensive now the prices would come down with increased production and demand. The high cost now would save all homeowners hundreds of dollars a year in elcectical bills, a loss to power companies, and the bulbs last for years actually making them less expensive in the long run. I think power companies are holding back on home owners and businesses by not endorsing or supporting the use of LED bulbs. Any home swithing over to LED lighting should get energy credits just as they do for installing other energy efficient appliances and structural modifications. With LED lighting it would make it more feasible for the use of solar panels as well. Public Service agency's need to also be on the side of consumers if the demand for electricty declines and prevent power companies increaseing rates to cover less demand. The PSC's need to put reduced demand over utility company profits lines. What good is conservation if consumers lose every time they conserve?

LED's are a great technology of the future, but prohitively expensive for now. But maybe with some incentives, the production numbers could go up and the costs down.

I will NEVER pay $50/bulb!

This whole green movement is earth worship, and "going green" is its law of sacrifice to the earth god.

Truth teaches me that God will have no other gods before him.

This is the kind of technology that needs a subsidy to get it quickly mass manufactured and lower its cost. If every American house replace one ordinary bulb by one of these LED's, a good number of coal plants would be instantly not needed and stop burning fossil fuels.

Wow, the comments are really running the gamut today!

One person thinks spending more money now to save more money later is akin to worshipping mother earth. Another wants the government to step in and subsidize the cost of them, overriding free market with more government failure.

Let's cut to the chase with some actual facts. One, I don't have a single incandescent bulb in my house. They've all been replaced by LED and fluorescents.

By spending a little money now, I can save a lot of money later. Being fiscally responsible is certainly not against God's will. LED lights are good for task lighting, but are not bright enough to be used to light large rooms brightly.

You don't have to spend $50 per LED "bulb". Look up SuperBrightLEDs or TheLEDLight.

Some bulbs, like in the refrigerator, are just a few bucks. And since they're such a hassle to change, it just makes sense to do it, and never have to do it again.

Sometimes, LEDs make sense for safety reasons- for example, night-light bulbs and children's lamps, because they're cool to the touch and won't shatter and expose 120v.

"I will NEVER pay $50/bulb!"

This is why regular people are regular and many people who are rich are rich.

If I read this article correctly, buying LED bulbs what ever the price, pay back 20% per year, and this is almost risk free.

The fact that your paradime is frozen in the way things have been done in the past, shows that unless you learn to think outside the box, you will never excell economically on your own.

I see that math and philosophy were never your strong subjects. Why don't you borrow a calculator or have a kid in your neighborgood show you how LED bulbs will save you money. The current cost will slowly come down, but even at $50 it's a deal. As for your extremist regressive drivel that conserving natural resources for our children is somehow creating a "God" I have just one question; where's the cave you call home?

You may want to try checking your facts. Both Rocky Mountain Power and Questar have demand-side management (DSM) programs that agressively promote and subsidize energy efficiency and associate proven technologies. RMP DSM is responsible for having saved millions of kWh's of baseload consumption as well as reducing costs related to the most expensive power to produce known as "peak demand".

Pacific Power (RMP sister company) in Oregon has promoted and paid for large scale LED lighting projects to help bring visibility to this emerging technology.

One caveat to utility and PSC support has to do with cost effectiveness. It would be irresponsible and contrary to the utilities lowest possible cost mandate to pass through to ratepayers costs for technologies that did not/will not pay for themselves.

Both companies also have open RFP processes. I'd suggest that if you have an idea to promote LED in a cost effective way that you present your ideas to all the electric utilities you can find. Mr. Schumer may want to consider the same.

You can find information about their energy efficiency and demand reduction efforts and programs at their respective websites.

Btw, RMP and Questar do not profit from energy sales or sales volumes directly. They only get a "capped" % return on their infrastructure investments meaning your profit logic is flawed.

I would also encourage you to thoroughly investigate green technologies. For example solar panels on average need to operate ~15 years to simply generate the amount of energy it took to build them in the 1st place. When one adds materials and labor costs the return on investment is worse than poor. In their current form they are part of the problem not the solution. Current costs for solar panels are going up because of mis-placed demand because of those that make money by appearing to be green or don't own a calculator.

Our enthusiasm for some unproven "green technolgies" is simply not rational when you explore the facts. Mindless adoption of any technolgy that is not green womb to tomb may make a few people rich, but will not result in reduced overall emissions, dependenacy on foreign oil or improve standards of living.

Worse, real meaningful change is overlooked. In my opinion most energy issues begin and end with people not government or utilities.

As more manufacturers have come online with solar panel production the time needed to produce the energy equivalent to that used in manufacture has diminished to just over a year.

The free market will ultimately outpace the skeptics.

I firmly believe, when GOD, saw it was time for man to get the light bulb. GOD, gave us Mr. Edison. Now it' time for the LEDs. I pray I live to see the day, when our cars and trucks will will run on anything but gas.

I like LEDs. They are very effecient.

I like fiber optics better. Just run some fiber optic cables from outside to where the lighting is needed on sunny days and you have light without electricity.

Most businesses operate durring the day and much if not most of their lighting needs could be met with piping light in from outside.

Fiber optic cable, the light pipe, need not be expensive like data firber optics. It just needs to be able to carry the light to where you need it.

From the Sun, imagine that! God said "let there be light" and there's FAR more than we could EVER use in the lifetime of this planet. Let's see, light, heat, photosynthesis, the miracle of vision. All with the free light we get every day. Now, if we could just figure out where/how to store it....