Are LED Tubes Ready for Prime Time? – Survey Results

We recently asked our blog readers and other industry professionals to participate in a short survey on LED vs fluorescent tubes. The survey was part of our article, "Are LED Fluorescent Tubes Ready for Prime Time?" We wanted to find out if LEDs are becoming the standard replacement for fluorescent tubes. In our survey, we asked three questions:

1. Have you used, or are you using LED tubes instead of fluorescent tubes?
2. Do you think LED tubes are ready for commercial use? Why or why not?
3. Do you think LED tubes will become a standard replacement for fluorescents, eventually outnumbering fluorescent lights? Why or why not?

As expected, LEDs still make up a minority of lighting systems. The majority of building owners, electrical contractors and other industry professionals use fluorescent tubes or some form of lighting other than LEDs.

While only 29% of respondents have used LEDs, nearly everyone had an opinion on whether they are ready for widespread commercial use. Clearly there is still a lot of contention over the two technologies: 46% of respondents think they are not ready for prime time, 43% think they are, and another 11% voted "not sure."

We asked these respondents to provide an explanation to support their answers. Of those who voted yes, energy savings and cost savings were the two most cited reasons for why LEDs are ready for widespread use. For those who answered no, poor quality, lower strength of light and higher upfront costs were the most common responses. Here are a few of our better responses:

Yes, the pricing continues to decrease and UL or ETL approved options are available. The payback is there and all led products are RoHS compliant (no mercury).

Yes, I have had no problems yet and have seen a 74% decrease in electrical usage with the same illumination.

No, why would I? LED's in the market place are typically 40-60 lumens/watt. We use T5s with electronic ballast at 100+ lumens per watt.

No, most building owners are going to balk at a payback over 5 years.

I'm not sure. At the moment the tubes are expensive and not all meet the promises (age, light output, safety).

We also wanted to find out if people think LED tubes will become a standard replacement for fluorescents in the future. Sixty-eight percent of respondents said yes, 21% said no and another 11% voted "unsure."

Again, we asked respondents to support their answers with an explanation. Energy efficiency and long-term cost savings were the most common answers for why LEDs will replace fluorescent tubes. For those that answered no, their explanations varied. Here are some of their responses:

Yes, the price will fall, quality will improve and people will adopt technology. LEDs are easy to dim, there is no flickering at startup, and different temperature whites are available.

Yes, LED's produce a cleaner, more human friendly light. They cost less to operate and they contain no hazardous materials. The better question is why wouldn't they outnumber fluorescents?

Yes, when the price comes down to account for a less than 10 yr payback compared to fluorescents.

No, something better will be invented (printable OLED on "wallpaper"?).

No, unlike incandescents, fluorescents are relatively energy efficient to start with, so the energy and financial gain by going to LED tubes is much less dramatic.

I'm not sure, it depends on light output and initial cost questions.

Thank you to all who participated in our survey, and to our blogger friends who helped spread the word about this!