No, it's just not all the story.
In order to energize all of those incandescent lights, you need (at least) 10x the energy output. Burning fossil fuels releases: uranium, thorium, arsenic, lead, thallium, mercury, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen, etc. It's not just the cost of production, you have to examine the entire life cycle from conception to disposal, and all of the energy inputs in-between.
You also neglected lifespan: on average LED's last considerably longer for the same light output, and are vastly more shock resistant. The standard longevity factor is about 20x, meaning you are comparing a single LED bulb with 20 incandescent ones.
This report tries to calculate the various inputs, etc.
http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/OSRAM_LED_LCA_Summary_November_2009.pdf
Analog Packrat seems to have responded on my behalf and I will try not to repeat the points he picked up.
However, as you have also said it is indeed not the whole story, as that is a very light weight and pleasingly written report. There are good entry level information and I actually have saved it, but it does not go nowhere deep enough. Particularly end of life cycle. How much energy is used in incinerating the waste? I am not talking about only the fuel for the furnaces here but the peripheral support to incineration. Sifting, sorting, vehicles, offices, staff, maintenance and so on.
A big however, the report claims;
' The life cycle assessment proves that LED lamps are amongst the most environmentally friendly lighting products '.
Really? We shall see that.
Just to state again that I am not questioning the energy efficiency here. I am not that stupid. I am merely trying to discuss whether the amount of energy we save is worth the amount of waste generated. Otherwise, I certainly save from my energy costs and somebody else also makes money from it. But are we really saving the planet?
I'll continue with my example. If I had time I would put it into spread sheet with graphs and fancy language, and pretend that I know something but I won't. So, here is something in layman's terms.
The tungsten filament bulb on the left is 40W and the LED bulb on the right gives equal light but rated at 5W. So, as I mentioned before it is supposed to have consumed 8 times less energy. This is what the label says on the packaging and not necessarily the truth. On the other hand the Osram report gives a rating of 8W for the same light output. So more like 5 times the energy saving. But it really does not matter. I'd like to concentrate on the number and type of materials used in each bulb type, hence the use of natural resources, and end of life cycle. Also to mention that this is a quick comparison. So, allow a bit of give and take on the figures quoted.
The materials used for the tungsten filament bulb are;
1. Glass (bulb)
2. Tungsten (filament)
3. Molbydemium (support wires)
4. Copper (connecting lead wires-nckel plated)
5. Brass or aluminium (screw base)
The materials used in LED bulb are;
1. LED x 32
The type of materials used in LED are below.
Indium gallium nitride
Aluminium gallium indium phosphide
Aluminium gallium arsenide
Gallium phosphide
2. Flexible PCB for the LED cluster
3. PCB for the driver circuitry
4. TH resistor x 1
5. SMD resistor x 3
6. Electrolytic capacitor x 1
7. Driver transistor x 1
8. Bridge Rectifier
9. Copper wires
10. Plastic body
11. Clear plastic housing/lens
Now, let me direct your attention to page 11 of the report.
For the end of life cycle it assumes disposal in domestic waste hence incineration. This of course would not only be like entrusting the cat with the meat, but also to conveniently absolve the company from any responsibility.. I have not heard of any local authority, at least here in Scotland, that incinerates electronic waste. Crushed at best and dumped in landfills.
So, in the case of tungsten filament bulb, we extracted five, 100% perfectly recyclable materials from the earth. But in the case of LED bulb we extracted, all of that sh*t then incinerated the eff out of it.
????????????????????????????????
Let me get it right.
Are you still telling me that the LED lamps are amongst the most environmentally friendly lighting products?
Not only the whole natural resources went up in smoke, but what happened to the ashes? Worse, in my case we incinerated a cluster of perfectly working 32 LEDs as only the electronics failed. Isn't that a waste? I know the LED technology is advancing and will get even better. But the question still remains. Is the saving we make from energy production worth sending natural resources up in smoke?
I do not expect my case to fit into others'. But from this portion of the earth that's my point.