My issue here isn't as much environmental as it is economical, but it seemed to apply better to this topic than any other... I been slowly replacing the 48" flourescents in my shop with ballastless LEDs as the flourescents/ballasts go bad. Yet it seems theres by far more inventory space in hardware/electrical stores provided for flourescent than there is for LED. Why is this? Who is still putting in flourescent systems and why? The LEDs last longer and don't rely on an expensive/complicated ballast that eventually has to be replaced as well. 4x flourescents + ballast is more expensive and more difficult to install than 4x LEDs, and probly has the same or less of a lifespan. And the LEDs are brighter. Is there any benefit at all to flourescents? Also flourescents hum/buzz annoyingly, are easier to break and contain mercury...
At this point, fluorescent is rapidly becoming, and will soon become, an obsolete technology. However, it is not obsolete yet. The main reason is cost; fluorescent is simply much cheaper (at least the initial cost of the fixture). Another little point of trivia: The most efficient T12 size (thinner) long fluorescent tubes used in industrial warehouse settings, with the most up-to-date high efficiency ballasts, are actually a little more efficient than your average lower cost LED screw-in retrofit type bulb you can find at a good price. In certain settings where huge amounts of light are required, LED can be very expensive because with LED the cost of the fixture is more in proportion to the amount of light output. (That is, if you want 10 times the amount of light, you are going to be paying about 10 times as much) Another little trick (or maybe we should say complicating factor) is that an LED option is not quite as efficient if you want "softer" more diffused light. See, they might say an LED fixture is "40 percent more efficient" than some other alternative option, but the thing is that a bare LED light source is also going to consist of little pin-prick points of concentrated light that could cause glare and might not be the most aesthetically pleasing to look at. A diffusion cover could be placed over the light to spread it out more, making it look softer, but that also will block some of the light. Then your LED fixture might only be 20 percent more efficient than the other option. Furthermore, because LED is newer and more expensive, it is (generally) available in fewer options, and if those special options are available they are far more expensive, so in certain niche and specialty applications, a fluorescent might be the preferred choice. There are numerous trade-offs, and possible trade-offs, many of them seemingly rather subtle and not obvious to most people.
It could also depend very much on the setting. Are we talking for the home, commercial, or industrial warehouse settings? The answer to your question is complicated. It doesn't necessarily have a simple answer if you want the full and complete answer. However, to try to answer your question , yes, at this point fluorescent is pretty much obsolete compared to LED in the home. And if they are constructing a new office building, they should probably use LED. However, there are numerous other possible energy-saving measures, like automatic timed or programmed shut-off switches, or having overhead lights in a large space on separate switches, so different sections can be turned off if only part of the room is being used. These could, in some cases, reduce energy use more than using LED. Some of the really cheap LED fixtures can have all the same type of bad issues as fluorescent (flicker, annoying hum), but then again not all fluorescents have these issues.
If you are talking about office and retail spaces, usually the builder will put in the cheapest system (initial cost), and lighting is not really something the buyer will think about.
It is hard to find LED lights here. But I admit I’m not looking that hard. Regular old incandescent lights are hard to find too which is ok cause they regularly burned my fingers.
I do not like our new LED street lights at all. As for your other point, if someone has recessed tube lighting, it might be easier and cheaper to replace a ballast than having someone come in and have to redo the ceilings while installing new fixtures.
A ballast costs around $50 ime. Ballastless LEDs cost around $15ea. If one is strapped for cash, replacing 4 flourescents and a ballast with 3 LEDs is still on average cheaper both in the short and in the long, and the 4th bulb can be added later, and I doubt theres any difference in cost of labor between bypassying a ballast and replacing a ballast as they both take the same amount of time (at least ime). Agreed on the street lights, but thats just a result of going overboard on the LEDs, prolly as a result of them being so much cheaper and more efficient. The goal should be making it just light enough to see, not trying to make it like daytime at night
No doubt about it, if a person currently has florescent tube fixtures, the best solution is to ditch the ballasts, rewire the fixture (which is a simple procedure for most fixtures, obviously this, er, should be, er, done be a, er, licensed electrician) and replace with LED tubes. And, a little searching on the net can get a case of 25 for less than $5 per lamp. Me personally, I prefer the 5000K lamps which give off a nice bright white light. The lower K lamps tend to give off a more orange-ish light that affects colors, for example, my living room is painted light gray and the lower K orange-ish light makes the gray look like an awful light brown hue.
I was gonna say the same, we use led in the house, but in the garage we still have the tubes, just don't want to climb up and rewire all that not to say I would not like to upgrade someday....
I have the fluorescent light bulbs from ten years ago that are still working. I bought some LEDs for the flood lights though but haven't used them because the long life ones I have are still working after seven years,,,
