It wasn’t too long ago when CFL bulbs were all the rage. Even though they contain small amounts of mercury, they were and are still one of the easiest ways to reduce energy consumption. According to the EPA, if every American home replaced just one incandescent bulb with a CFL, Americans would save enough energy to light 3 million homes, more than $600 million in annual energy costs, and prevent greenhouse gases equivalent to the emissions of more than 800,000 cars. Federal legislation passed in 2007 effectively banned incandescent bulbs after 2014. It seems that the CFL bulb has won the battle against the mighty, yet now antique incandescent bulb, but is there another battle looming on the horizon? CFL bulbs are still the darling of many in the environmental movement, but is there honeymoon nearing an end?

The competitor is the LED, or light-emitting diode, which was first conceived in Russia in the 1920’s, but are only now beginning to be available for a variety of business and residential applications. Although LEDs have their own problems that need to be worked out, they have some clear advantages over CFLs. First, they don’t contain any mercury. Second, the light they emit is more similar to incandescent bulbs than CFLs, which is usually a plus to most consumers. Third, on average, they use less energy than a CFL and can last up to twenty years. And fourth, they can be used in large scale applications where CFL installation is difficult. Simply put, as Energy Star states, “LED lighting is more efficient, durable, versatile and longer lasting than incandescent and fluorescents lighting.”

On top of all that, recent studies have confirmed that the production process for LEDs uses less energy than production of CFLs, which seems to tip the argument undeniably in favor of LEDS… except for the fact that they can cost anywhere from $5-50.  LEDs seem to be in the same debacle that CFLs were a decade ago. They are incredibly expensive, but the amount of energy they save is enormous, even compared to CFL’s advantage over incandescent bulbs.

A recent New York Times article highlights the advantages of LEDs for large-scale business applications. Sentry Equipment Corporation in Oconomowoc, Wis., was in the process of lighting one of their new factories last year and eventually chose LEDs for the majority of their outside and inside lighting. Although Sentry spent $18,000 total, $12,000 more than they would have with traditional lighting, they save $7,000 a year in lighting costs, which will have a return of investment in just two years.

Not everyone is convinced that LEDs will dominate the lighting market in the future. In the same New York Times article, Mark Rea, director of the Lighting Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, said, “L.E.D.’s will gain dominance in downlighting, outdoor and track lighting… I do not see a major step toward change in general illumination without transforming the infrastructure. To say L.E.D.’s will change everything, I don’t buy it. I think a lot of it is hype.”

Regardless of whether LEDs will dominate the market, it is clear that businesses and municipalities interested in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions and cutting costs at the same time will be on the lookout for LED technology. It seems unlikely that LEDs will be a huge presence in the residential lighting market, but who knows what future technological advances will bring.

For more information on how you and/or your business can benefit from LED lighting, check out Energy Star’s guide to the LED.