There are a few numbers bandied about, the closest is shown here:
Date of LUM Announcement: 24 Oct 2003:
Extract:
"Moreover, the signs will gain unrivalled exposure from the ubiquitous presence of Times Square and New York skyline throughout world media: film, television, newscasts, postcards, art, sport, entertainment, New Year’s Eve coverage, etc.
Location: 4 Times Square: The 48-story Conde Nast Building at the ‘Crossroads of the World’ – Broadway and 42nd Street. _______________________________________
Energy consumption kwh/m2:
LED sign leader: 12
LUMA Panel: 0.6 ______________________________
Co2 emissions per 80 m2 (t):
LED sign leader: 390
Luma Panel: 20
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So, as far as power is concerned, the LED leader uses 20 times as much as LUM's screen does.
The 90% *less* is often used in articles; it is somewhat better than that.
The CO2 number is also staggering, that of the LED leader is also 20 times greater.
