Here is improved LED technology that involves Mercury.

As shown at http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/43417/135/

So, what else is new? 

OLED suffer from very fast deterioration, i doubt their product would be better, mainly when operated at high power levels required for normal lighting.

Btw: Light sources with nearly twice the efficacy of CFL already exist quite some time, with the bonus of at least twice (or five times for newest generation) the lifetime, less then 10% lumen depression, excellent color quality with the choice from at least 5 color tones, costing about the same as lower-mid class CFL, all at the same time.
Their name is "linear fluorescent"...

I wounder how long that will last?

Here is improved LED technology that involves Mercury.

As shown at http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/43417/135/

So, what else is new?  

rjluna2: You became confused. According to what i read in this article, they meant to say, that the CFLs contains mercury, and that the improved LED technology don't contains mercury.

OLEDs have the advantage that you can cover surfaces with them, so get quite low load for area, maybe they'll last longer that way

Greener product than CFLs - it could be, basically anything except incandescents is greener than CFLs

Greener than fluorescent and HID - i guess no

Ash: I really don't love the idea of replacing fluorescent lamps with LEDs, except in applications with cold environments (Refrigerators and freezers lighting).
In most applications, fluorescents and PLs will outperform LEDs and will have longer life.
But in refrigerators and freezers, this will be just the opposite.
In cold environments, fluorescents are dim, suffers from mercury migrations, flickers and have very short life.
On the other hands, LEDs, will have increased light output while consuming the same power and will have long life (Exacly like CPUs, which have increased performances and speed in very low temperatures).

Tiny correction :

CPUs dont have higher speed in cold temperatures. Instead, they have the speed you require them to run at. In cold temperatures you can push them harder before they malfunction or get damaged

Also, to get the CPU to run at speeds above its  design it may be required to connect higher voltage to it. This will increase the heat output in square to the voltage, so requires much better cooling to slow down damage byt eliminating overheating (damage will still happen due to electromigration, breakdown etc)

CPUs have protection that drops their speed if they overheat (thats why cooling the computer can increase its performance), but this is not normal condition. If this protection in your CPU kicked in and reduced performance, you have a problem that causes this, since the CPU should run at its maximum speed with the normal cooling of the computer

@Ash: Cold temperature does slow down the electromigration (it is very strongly dependent on the temperature) and speed up the CMOS logic circuits without increasing the supply voltage, so do allow higher speed of CPU's in some extend.

But such overclocked setup usually become very unstable anyway. Higher load usually overload (both statically and dynamically) the core supply regulator, what is then not able to maintain the output voltage in required tolerance as the load change in bigger steps (the processor does not consume constant current) and the usual implementation of "supercooling" by overclockers cool down only the processor chips, but keep components of the regulator with severely insufficient air flow (mainly the "famous" capacitors)...