When they started doing Energy Star ratings for LEDs, they tried really hard to avoid the CFL fiasco; see http://www.gizmag.com/energy-s... As a result, Energy Star rated LED bulbs are pretty reliable. I have about 60 (!) in my house, bought over the last 9 months. None of the Energy Star bulbs has failed yet. Two non-energy-star LED bulbs that were several years old (from vendors not around anymore?) did fail.
I'm now slowly converting the bulbs in the house I rent out to LEDs, with the tenant's cooperation. The only two bulbs she has liked so far are the Cree 40W TW http://www.creebulb.com/Produc... (for bathrooms only - it hums too much for living room) and the Phillips 40W A15 ( http://www.homedepot.com/p/Phi... ) for everywhere else. Her dimmers are old, and most LED bulbs flicker with them; I should get her newer dimmers. Haven't had that problem much at my house.
I'm quite happy with the LEDs so far, and am writing up my experiences at http://kegel.com/energy/lights... Your mileage may vary.
So it's 67 GWh annual savings in US vs. 19 TWh annual savings in EU, then? Seems like one or both of those estimates is still way wrong.
"[Assuming efficiency improvements of 16% to 33%...] Estimated per-unit annual savings for residential vacuums are on the order of 10-19 kWh/year... Considering there are approximately 28 million vacuums sold in the U.S. each year, the national energy savings opportunity would be on the order of 67,000-135,000 MWh per year if 25% of products sold were replaced with energy efficient models"
Contrast that the the document linked in TFA:
"[Vaccuum cleaners sold per year in 2005 and 2020: 54 million and 92 million]... [Energy consumed by vacuum cleaners under business-as-usual by 2020: 29.7 TWH/year]... by 2020, the annual electricity consumption
So, 67 TWh annual savings in US vs. 19 TWh annual savings in EU in spite of twice as many vacuum cleaners sold per year in the EU. Is there just more dirt in the US? Or was the Energy Star scoping report just overoptimistic?
Me, too. I get mine at Home Depot (they have Cree, which I like better than the ones at Lowe's). Replacing frequently-used incandescents with LEDs pays for itself in about 9 months (at $10/LED, 4 hr/day, and $0.15/kwh; your milage may vary, see http://www.lektroninc.com/payb... )
Doing this (and a few other things) cut my power usage from 40KWH/day to 25KWH/day. Still too high... I need to dig some more to see where it's all going.
I'm blogging the experience at http://kegel.com/energy/lights...
Just how broken is it? Let's find out.
I tried creating an account early Sunday morning and failed.
I tried again Sunday evening, and it worked... on Firefox, anyway. On Chrome, logging in took me to a blank screen.
( See https://plus.google.com/u/0/113779301404424240904/posts/2mxh2wPTein )
If you try creating an account on healthcare.gov, reply here with what happened. Let's see how broken it is.
The original report of "For many employees, it has become too difficult to take time off from their day jobs to work on independent projects." can be explained well like this: people who are below average productivity in their team can't spare the time to work on 20% projects.
I don't think this is a harsh thing; it's just a fact of life.
By the way, the Google version of stack ranking (if I recall correctly from my time there) is something like "If you're a manager, and there's a guy on the team who isn't being very productive, make sure he knows about the problem, so he can do something about it."
Also not a harsh thing.
Google doesn't want to become a Cisco, where all the good ideas come from buying up little companies. I suspect that people of above average productivity at Google still have plenty of freedom to try experiments 20% time.
What has changed a bit is that since the mantra of the company became "Features, not products", those 20% experiments are almost always going to involve adding features or other improvements to existing products, not wholly new products.
And that's ok, too. There is a whole lot of room to add features and make things better under the hood.
"The fundamental principle of science, the definition almost, is this: the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment." -- Richard P. Feynman