E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Mary Altaffer / AP
Workers hold the cables for the New Year's Eve ball today during a test on top of One Times Square in New York.
As you head out to ring in the New Year, take a cue from that iconic ball in Times Square. It sips its juice rather than guzzling it, and glows brighter than ever.
The ball, which drops 77 feet down a pole as New Yorkers count down the final minute to 2011, is lit by 32,256 Philips LEDs (light-emitting diodes), with each 48-diode module using just 22 watts of electricity. As a result, the lights consume about the same amount of energy per hour as it takes to operate two traditional home ovens.
But that energy frugality doesn't mean New York is skimping on the bling: Each light can be digitally controlled to create a palette of more than 16 million colors and billions of possible lighting effects.
The ball is a geodesic sphere, 12 feet in diameter and weighing 11,875 pounds. It's covered with 2,688 Waterford crystal triangles that are cut in different patterns. This year, 288 of the triangles are emblazoned with a new heart-themed glass pattern called "Let There Be Love." (The other 2,400 triangles feature patterns from past years.)
Times Square's first New Year's ball drop took place in 1907, with 100 light bulbs mounted on an iron-and-wood frame. Philips has been lighting the ball for 11 years, beginning with an array of specially designed halogen bulbs for the 1999-2000 celebration. The company replaced the halogen with LED technology for 2008, and used even more efficient LEDs starting with the New Year's celebration for 2009.
"Today's ball is lit all year round and uses just 12 percent of the energy that would have been required to light it with the original technology," Philips said in a press release.
The numerals that light up to display "2011" are also all-LED, and consume about as much power as a 40-gallon home water heater, Philips said. Over the past month, visitors to New York have been stopping by Duracell's Smart Power Lab to pedal a stationary bike and generate electricity for the "2011" numerals. The "Final Pedal" celebrity event took place just today. On New Year's Eve, all that stored-up pedal power will help ring in the new year.
How would you make things even more energy-efficient for 2012? Do you have some "green" resolutions for the new year? Feel free to discuss the alternative energy outlook for the next 12 months in your comments below.
Update for 5:45 p.m. ET by Alan Boyle: It almost takes an electrician to figure out the wattage of the Times Square ball — and compare it to household electrical use. When Philips says it takes 22 watts to produce the light level that previously required 180 watts, it's talking about the 48-LED modules used in the ball. That's 12 LEDs each for red, blue, green and white. The ball has 672 of those 22-watt modules, which means the entire ball would require 14,784 watts of electricity. The comparison to traditional home ovens would be valid if you were running two 7.5-kilowatt cooking appliances continuously at full blast — which would make the kitchen blazing-hot.
John Roach is a contributing writer for msnbc.com. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by hitting the "like" button on the Cosmic Log Facebook page or following msnbc.com's science editor, Alan Boyle, on Twitter (@b0yle).
Leave a Comment:
The 196 old bulbs were charity auctioned on ebay for up to $900 each.
These new bulbs are not more energy efficient. They required energy to produce, transport, and install.
Considering they are only used for 1 night a year, the end result is more total power used than just leaving the old bulbs.
It's just like putting a CFL bulb in an infrequently used closet. You are better off with an incandescent for applications that are rarely used.
We frequently forget that the power used when the product is on, is not the only power used by a product.
I have nothing against LEDs, I use them myself in certain applications.
If they really wanted bright, they should use Metal Halide lights. Per lumen, they are much more cost effective.
This is not an advertising site. As a matter of fact, most of the commentors here will probably never visit your site as we are all sick of advrtisements seen everywhere.
To the subject. I am pleased that more people are aware of the importance of energy conservation as the world is quickly running out of fossile fuels. I am disappointed though that the lighting used for the NY times square ball relies on a foreign company to supply the new lighting technology (Philips is based in Holland) vs General Electric which is an American company and could have employed a few Americans for the project.
Happy New Year Everyone. Let's get it together and each of us make a contribution for a better world.
Ryan in Texas, what light bulb doesn't require energy to produce, transport, and install?? The fact that they are only used once a year is also irrelevant, as that would also be the case no matter what type of bulb is used. The point is that while they are in use, the LEDs will use a lot less energy than the old type of bulb that they are replacing. And metal halide lights are bright and efficient, but they have nowhere near the diversity and usefulness of LEDs. If all they wanted was a big bright light that shone steadily, metal halide wouldn't be a bad choice.
So that was a very good post. Except for the fact that you were wrong on all points.
The Philips press release is full of errors too, so I'm not sure what to believe. The press release claims the new more efficient ball uses 140,000 kWh or 140 megawatts each hour...and that is a lot more than 22 watts times 672 modules. The number in the press release is 10,000 times the 14 kilowatts that 22 times 672 implies. Where are proofreaders for these press releases?
Okay -- my mistake - I figured it out...the redesigned ball uses just under 130,000,000 watt hours in a year, operated 24/7.
what about the energy needed to keep snooki's butt warm in the drop
Oldcavscout,
Thanks for the good laugh! Needed it today.
They could make it more energy efficient if they used the Light proton absorbing paint that is used on the International Space Station, to light the signage. The signs stay lit for up to 48 plus hrs. Maybe you would be interested in doing a story on that, Science makes us what we are today!
it after could....
Philips makes the LEDs, but not the modules. Those are made by Lighting Science in Satellite Beach, Florida.
http://lsgc.com/corporate/installations/projectinfo/10
Lighting design: Focus Lighting
Technology integration and fixture manufacturer:Lighting Science Design Works
Thermal and optical engineering: Lighting Science Design Works
Lighting control systems supplier: E:Cue
LED manufacturer: Philips Lighting
Structural engineering design and development: Hudson Scenic Studio
Ball operator: Landmark Signs
Power & control cables: Lapp Group
Thanks for the info. I would have hoped that more American companies were involved in this project. I was led to believe that the entire lighting project was Philips (of Holland). American Government, state governments, American businesses and the American people need to "support" American business and technologies. US air-carriers buying more Airbus aircraft (European consortium) vs. Boeing (USA) is an example.
I hope for a new year that will bring back skilled jobs for us all including myself (a former airline worker and aerospace employee) that now works at a fast food restaurant.
does anyone really give a rats azz ?
Let's not forget it was Union labor (I.B.E.W.) that set up the lighting for the evening's show.... All the technology in the world will still rely on skilled labor to get it all done.
Love it!!!!
OOOOOh they're saving the world. Good grief, quit patting yourself on the back and do something meaningful. A ball that is not lighted consumes no electricity.
Nothing but a PR feel good. If they were serious about saving energy they wouldn't celebrate New Years at all. Imagine the savings if everybody stayed home.
Energy-savings (if there truly are any) aside, I have a problem with the reported weight of the ball:
11,875 pounds?!?!?! That's just shy of 6 TONS!
I find that extremely hard to believe.
Yeah. They could just hoist up Joy, Rosie, and Michelle at a savings of at least 3 tons.
Don't forget the billions of watts used by TVs that people all over the globe will be using to view this "event".
What a god-awful waste.
After reading this article, the only thing I can take away is that the 2010 ball is not as energy efficient as balls of the past.
Let's start with the 1907 ball. 100 light bulbs mounted on a iron and wood frame. It does not mention the wattage so let's assume 100 watts each. That's 10k watts for the 1907 ball. Also, the Times Square balls were only lit for a few hours each year, on New Year's Eve. The new ball is 14.8k watts with LEDs, making it less efficient than the 1907 ball. Even if the 1907 ball was using 150 watt bulbs, its basically a break-even.
Let's move on: "Today's ball is lit all year round...". WHAT???! Any arguments in support of energy efficiency of the 2010 ball compared to past balls has just been negated. Year-round vs 6 hours per year is a HUGE difference in energy consumption.
Not to knock the Times Square tradition of the ball drop (I do think it's worth continuing) but let's not make it out to be a "hey we're saving energy by using LEDs" promotion, because its completely false.
Keep the LEDs, stop changing them out every year (run the same ones for 10 years at least), and run it only on the night it was built for, and then you will realize energy efficiency from it.
Brightly lit balls streaking down a tall pole at midnight... God, it's the N'Sync reunion all over again...
John Roach said: "The ball has 672 of those 22-watt modules, which means the entire ball would require 14,784 watts of electricity. Thecomparison to traditional home ovens would be valid if you were running two 7.5-kilowatt cooking appliances continuously at full blast — which would make the kitchen blazing-hot."
Not all bulbs in a module are on all the time, so the actual usage is much lower. If you believe their numbers, you'd conclude that on average, one of the bulbs is on at a time, which seems reasonable.
That may be but at least we wont be seeing an appearence from Britney Spears any time soon. Cause her career went bye-bye-bye. :)
Is the wattage reported the power into the LEDs or the power emitted by the LEDs in visible light = (total - heat released)? I think LEDs convert about half of the incoming power to light.
@ Ryan in Texas: They ARE more energy efficient because they are lit year round. We have CFLs all throughout our house and we have saved $5000 since installing them 5 years ago. LEDs use less energy in the long run and last a lot longer than incandescents.
Very nice. Yes, LED bulbs use less electricity to generate light. Yes, they are mercury free compared to the compact flourescents now being used to save electricity. Yes, they are available at your local Home Depot or Lowe's. Yes, they last a really, really long time. Yes, they cost about $30.00 for a single household bulb. No, people won't pay that when offered a choice...I wouldn't. How about trying to make the technology less expensive too? Green guys are money grubbing corporate whores like everyone else. Peddle your lies elsewhere.
This is merely greenwashing. How much energy would have been saved by using the 2008 LED ball for the next few years instead of manufacturing 32, 256 LEDs?
Are these LEDs or other parts of the ball going to be recycled into something else? Something useful, maybe?
See, what they don't tell you is what sort of mechanism is used to slowly drop the almost 12 ton ball. It might have just been more electricity.