Has anyone installed LED lighting in their shop?

[Steve Milito]

Assuming LEDs are 25% more efficient than fluorescent lamps, last 4x as long, and electricity is 10 cents per kilowatt/ hour it's still a wash over the life of the bulbs because of the price differential of the lamps.

[Marc Ward]

No doubt about it, LEDs are more expensive than many alternatives. Time to payback will vary by usage, but I am sure most home shops will NEVER see a savings. But, dollars are not the only component of the decision. I just took out 32 four foot fluorescent tubes out of a paint booth in a custom cabinet shop. Replaced them with 32 four foot Titan LED tubes. He did NOT do this to save money. One of his customers has a habit of rejecting items due to painting issues, and he has to routinely take things outside to see them under sunlight to make his final paint decisions. This is Wisconsin and we don't always have sunlight.

Now, his daywhite clear LED tubes obviate the need to to that. He is very happy with the result.

[Greg R Bradley]

Assuming LEDs are 25% more efficient than fluorescent lamps, last 4x as long, and electricity is 10 cents per kilowatt/ hour it's still a wash over the life of the bulbs because of the price differential of the lamps.

Even assuming it would be a wash is a HUGE assumption. As Brian Effert stated early in this thread, about the only time you can assume LED will always have a payback is when you replace incandescent. When you do what we have done and setup a test where you look at the light with a light meter, check the power with an ammeter, many of the LED replacements use more power than the Lithonia I-Beam T-8 I'm using now in a manufacturing facility. They would NEVER have a payback even if the lamps and installation labor was free. This seems to be a replay of the assumption that T5 would always have a payback over T8. A few years later, it is generally true as long as you are talking about new installs and not spending a bunch of money to retrofit.

[Steve Milito]

Greg,

I agree with you, but I'm not assuming break even. The math indicates that given the above assumptions and a LED bulb at about $60 and a fluorescent bulb at about $2 there is no substantial savings over the life of the LED bulb. Factoring in the difference in initial cost there is no way it makes financial sense to replace a T8 tube with an LED at current prices.

Marc,

I agree that there may be reasons to replace a limited number of bulbs with LEDs for reasons like you stated, especially in a commercial setting. Warehouses with high ceilings are likely another example, where the labor and liability issues raise the cost of replacement, and a 4 fold decrease in labor cost to replace the bulbs represents a real savings.

I've been replacing incandescent spots in my house with inexpensive LEDs as they fail; mostly because they fail all the time, I'm lazy, and dimmable LEDs spots have fallen to about $10. The curly fluorescent tubes just don't compare in that application.

[Marc Ward]

Even assuming it would be a wash is a HUGE assumption. As Brian Effert stated early in this thread, about the only time you can assume LED will always have a payback is when you replace incandescent. When you do what we have done and setup a test where you look at the light with a light meter, check the power with an ammeter, many of the LED replacements use more power than the Lithonia I-Beam T-8 I'm using now in a manufacturing facility. They would NEVER have a payback even if the lamps and installation labor was free. This seems to be a replay of the assumption that T5 would always have a payback over T8. A few years later, it is generally true as long as you are talking about new installs and not spending a bunch of money to retrofit.

Greg,

I replaced 64 8' HO fluorescent tubes (pulling 110 watts each plus ballast) with 64 8' LED tubes pulling 34 watts each with no ballast. The light is significantly better, and the customers comment on it. Payback is about 30 months. But then, here's the key, they are burning them 18 hours a day, 365 days a year. They were also interested in replacing their parking lot lights, but in the summer, they turn them at about 8PM and off at midnight. Numbers did not work. I think payback was 10+ years or something silly.

[Steve Milito]

Greg,

I replaced 64 8' HO fluorescent tubes (pulling 110 watts each plus ballast) with 64 8' LED tubes pulling 34 watts each with no ballast. The light is significantly better, and the customers comment on it. Payback is about 30 months. But then, here's the key, they are burning them 18 hours a day, 365 days a year. They were also interested in replacing their parking lot lights, but in the summer, they turn them at about 8PM and off at midnight. Numbers did not work. I think payback was 10+ years or something silly.

The other key is that 110 watt fluorescent tubes put out 3x as much light. The quality of the LEDs may be more pleasing but the quantity of light from a 34 watt LED tube is less.

[Marc Ward]

The other key is that 110 watt fluorescent tubes put out 3x as much light. The quality of the LEDs may be more pleasing but the quantity of light from a 34 watt LED tube is less.

Where do you get the 3X? Also, perceived light on the surface needing illumination is greater with LEDs (usually, thought not always, but in this case). Why? Because fluorescent tubes radiate light 360 degrees. A lot of the light you pay for is going up, or out. The LED tubes concentrate all their light into 120 degrees. The measured foot candle readings on the subject area went up, not down.

Also, he went from a CRI of 60, to 80. He went from 4,200, to Day White (5,500 - 6,000K). He went from a ballast pulling 25 watts and lasting 30,000 hours to no ballast pulling no watts and lasting forever. He went from a tube lasting lasting 12,000 hours to a tube lasting 50,000 with no noticeable color shift over its rated life.

[Art Mann]

It isn't surprising to learn that there are circumstances in which LED lighting makes sense and may be more economical than fluorescent lighting. This situation is pretty far removed from a guy trying to decide how to light his home shop. I can't imagine a practical situation in which LEDs are more economical than fluorescent in that context.

[Albert Lee]

I am upgrading my workshop's lighting while getting the 3 phase installed, the electrical engineer(also a light engineer) who did the design conformity for me(it seems any electrical upgrade for a residential house in NZ requires an electrical engineer to provide a design of conformity before physical work can commence) commented that I wont gain much from the installation of LED because the LED illuminance is too low, I am going for the fluorescent lighting.

[Marc Ward]

It isn't surprising to learn that there are circumstances in which LED lighting makes sense and may be more economical than fluorescent lighting. This situation is pretty far removed from a guy trying to decide how to light his home shop. I can't imagine a practical situation in which LEDs are more economical than fluorescent in that context.

That is very true. I only did it because I could and it looks cool. Certainly not to save money.

[Art Mulder]

Personally, I replaced all the interior lights in my minivan with LEDs, not to save money, but to reduce the wattage consumed, so that there is less chance of a dead battery if someone leaves a dome light turned on... Automotive LEDs are now MUCH cheaper than they used to be on amazon.

(and yeah, going a lot OT, but just going with the theme of "sometimes you have different reasons for replacing lights"... )

[Art Mann]

I replaced the 12Vdc incandescent bulbs in my travel trailer with LED equivalents because they use only a tiny fraction of the battery power. I frequently camp "off grid" in National Parks and elsewhere. It drastically reduces the amount of time I have to run the generator to charge batteries. This is also a very practical application.

[Steve Milito]

Where do you get the 3X? Also, perceived light on the surface needing illumination is greater with LEDs (usually, thought not always, but in this case). Why? Because fluorescent tubes radiate light 360 degrees. A lot of the light you pay for is going up, or out. The LED tubes concentrate all their light into 120 degrees. The measured foot candle readings on the subject area went up, not down.

Also, he went from a CRI of 60, to 80. He went from 4,200, to Day White (5,500 - 6,000K). He went from a ballast pulling 25 watts and lasting 30,000 hours to no ballast pulling no watts and lasting forever. He went from a tube lasting lasting 12,000 hours to a tube lasting 50,000 with no noticeable color shift over its rated life.

I wasn't going to respond, but . . .

First the amount of light:
LED and t8 fluorescent bulbs produce the about the same amount of light per watt. Only the most modern generation of highly efficient LED lamps are 25% more efficient than T8 lamps per the examples listed above. Thus you lose flux going from a 110W HO T8 bulb to a 34 watt LED.
The CRI of 60 to 80 is a quality of light measure could easily be achieved by going to a slightly more expensive T8 lamp.
Ditto for the color temperature.
The omnidirectional nature of a fluorescent tube is easily mitigated by a reflector or even using reflective paint if the fixtures are mounted on the ceiling..
T8 ballasts don't consume 25 watts.
The life expectancy of a T8 ballast is 50,000 hours or better.
The LED clearly lasts longer but the the price of T8 bulb is somewhere in the $5 - $10 range where LED 8' replacement bulbs are $60 - $80.
A good quality T8 ballast that can power multiple bulbs is in the order of $15 - $20.

[Curt Harms]

Re automotive applications, I'd think it's a lot cheaper to produce a fixture that have 12 v. input, rather than 120 v. that has to be stepped down. Do all LED's also require D.C.? The ones on a tape do. If so, I presume that one would also need a rectifier. So a transformer & rectifier for each bulb or fixture.

[Greg R Bradley]

There are many kinds of LEDs. The "white" ones used for general lighting are mostly 3.6 volts DC.