Efficient Lighting

By | January 14, 2013
It's ugly, but cool: a 100-Watt incandescent equivalent in LED lighting, with a consumption of just 12 Watts. I personally find 60W equivalents perfectly adequate for household needs, but for those few cases where more light is required, it's nice to know that there are alternatives. The next best bulbs at this lumen category clock in at 20-22W, from Siemens (Osram) and Phillips respectively. Definitely not the lighting you want in traffic lights on cold winter days (unless there's frost-melting technology installed in the light).

Now, when is the pretty version of these lights coming out?

/via +Randy Culler 

NanoLight claims to be world’s most efficient light bulb
NanoLight are introducing three LED bulbs that will demonstrate that true 75 to 100-watt equivalent LED lighting can be achieved, within this relatively sma…

6 thoughts on “Efficient Lighting

  1. Joseph Parker PMP

    I switched our all of my primary lighting in my house 1 year ago.  My electric bill did go down, to my surprise.  I didn't expect that, the cost was recovered within 2 months.  I saved money and become more efficient.

    Reply
  2. Sophie Wrobel

    +Christopher Taylor hm… a D20 skin might make it a game changer!

    We're slowly replacing our energy-saving lights with LED lights too. They aren't significantly more expensive than energy-saving ones, and other than that have no mercury inside them, which is another plus.

    Reply
  3. Martin Donnelly

    I've slowly been replacing my lights with led based ones. The best replacement I have at the moment is a single chip one in my bedroom which I think is a 100w equivalent. It's bright and I'm amazed that it can light the while room up effectively. Any time I see a new one that I haven't tried I usually pick one up regardless of cost. 

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.