Are efficient LED bulbs worth the price?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Marco Mazzoni on November 30, 2012 at 9:14am

It is a basic math/spreadsheet exercise but off the cuff, going from a CFL to an LED is a very long term payback equation.

 

Cost of bulb x cost of electricity to run the bulb over a year x years of service = total cost per lifetime of the bulb.

 

If your CFL lamps are not lasting their rated life, then the cost to use them goes up.

 

Compared to an incandescent bulb, the payback of switching to an LED can be as short as 2-3 years depending on the cost of the bulb and how many watts you are saving.

 

Cheers,
Marco Mazzoni

Energy Conservation &
Repair Analyst
Snohomish County
Dept of Human Services

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tom Delconte on November 30, 2012 at 1:24pm

Hello Marco,

You're right! when I converted to CFLs 20 years ago, it was a long payback. Many died early, even if in a vibration proof location. Your equation reminds me that I can use spread sheets designed for CFL vs incandescent. My experience is telling me that the MTBF data that we're seeing for LEDs is optimistic, given the various electronics they contain: microprocessor, capacitors, etc. Thanks. See you in Snohomish, Tom D

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bud Poll on November 30, 2012 at 10:52am

Hi Tom,

As Marco said, the off the cuff calculations (intuition) are still telling us that the switch isn't a real winner.  However, if we apply the same decision points as we did back when CFLs were being introduced, like difficult locations, high use, color rendition, or other, there are places where they fit now.  The difficult part from my perspective is that technology is outpacing the longevity of the bulbs.  Any bulb designed to last 20 years will long be obsolete before it reaches its end of life, especially in a low use application. So in essence the calculations might project a nice savings, but in 5 years the bulb will be tossed in favor of a new set of numbers.

Buy only what you need for those "right place" applications and see what tomorrow brings for the rest.  IMO

Bud

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tom Delconte on November 30, 2012 at 1:34pm

Hello Bud,

Thanks for your input. Please see my reply to Marco, above. I've decided to peel off six bulbs, which didn't cost much, from a large shipment that a reseller sent for re-packaging. I will submit the six to rigorous usage, testing, and analysis. Already I can see a lot of confusion in the field. Maybe this forum can shine a light on the subject! Tom D

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bud Poll on November 30, 2012 at 2:14pm

I have replaced 6 of my CFLs with 40 watt LEDs ($9.95 ea) to get a feel as to how the perform.  Instant on is nice.  I would prefer 60W or higher in some locations, old eyes.  Color temperature looks good. And I really don't like the CFLs as I believe 90% of them will end up in our land fills.

If memory serves me, the 10 watts is a bit better than other 60 watt LEDs so that's a plus.  But IMO, still more than it needs to be.  Dennis will probably be along and comment, he stays very current on Lighting technology.

Bud

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Curt Kinder on December 1, 2012 at 9:14am

There is no doubt that LEDs enjoy clear advantages over CFLs, as has been written here and elsewhere.

However LEDs still have a ways to go as to both quality and price.

While I was one of the CFL "early adopters", paying $20 per lamp back when that was serious money, my advice to clients continues to be "Buy CFL, keep an eye on LEDs" When the current crop of CFLs burn out in 2-5 years, LEDs will have come way down in price and improved yet more in quality.

A reasonable exception may be small accent lamps that stay on 24 / 7. Low Watt LEDs perform that task admirably.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tom Delconte on December 4, 2012 at 10:40am

Hello Curt,

Thanks! I didn't really intend to be an early adopter. It really makes no sense to go into LEDs for regular size bulbs at this time, I just decided to test six. Most people's closets are full of used CFLs that they pulled out due to not being able to stand them! Hope your experience with CFLs is better than ours. t

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dennis McCarthy on December 4, 2012 at 11:10am

Tom-

 Help me understand the sense in using a lamp using 60 watts to produce 850 lumens

with its typical short lifespan ,AS Opposed to use of a LED luminare that uses 12 watts to do

the same task ( producing 850 lumens of light) & will last for many  years . 

 

I mean its 2012, you used a solid state product to make your post as opposed to

a typewritten letter - to me you" use the technology thats contemporary to the times you

live in".Why deride solid state lighting- "paraphrasing"making no sense for migrating to SSL

at this time ( for lighting) but using solid state devices for computing,communicating &

doing other assorted tasks.

The logic eludes me-

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Curt Kinder on December 4, 2012 at 11:59am

Here's help:

If I operate a 50 cent 60 Watt bulb 2 hours per day at $0.12 / kwh I spend about $5 in electricity. A 12 Watt LED, perhaps costing $20, would only cost $1 per year. OK, 5 year simple payback in electricity

However a $2 CFL using 13 Watts pays back in 6 months.

I'm also quite certain that today's $20 LED will soon cost $10, and then $5. So why should I invest in something likely to lose value at 30-50% per year when CFL is a viable alternative with nearly the energy savings?

(I'm not particularly swayed by the mercury argument, so save your cyber-breath)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tom Delconte on December 4, 2012 at 1:17pm

Thank you, Curt.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dennis McCarthy on December 4, 2012 at 3:18pm

Curt -

The math becomes a moot point when the incandescents are no longer available-

The production of 60 watt lamps are in their last few seasons - 3 or 4 so they wouldn't

be part of the conversation going forward.

Other reasons ( excluding the Hg issue *) it is still a neurotoxin but aside from that

Dimmable CFL - extremely poor quality - not worth mentioning if dimming is indicated.

The CRI on almost all CFLs is in the 60 -80 range the CRI for LEDs 80 - 95 think of

 the  ghastly color fidelity from CFLs - it's widely reviled !!

The stobostropic flicker of CFL s induces migranes ( esp in females) + worsens w/ lifespan

The whole concept of using a 20th century solution in 2012 or beyond -- very odd

I could go on about CFL's numerous shortcomings but why belabor the point.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Curt Kinder on December 4, 2012 at 8:47pm

I don't specifically disagree with any of those points...all that said, though, 2700K CFLs are reasonably pleasing in all but the most sensitive applications. I understand the CRI issue but don't believe it to pose the crisis of rejection you posit.

I agree that dimming is a weakness of CFL, but I wasn't real jazzed by the dimming performance of a $60 LED flood I recently evaluated. To replicate incandescent dimming performance, color temperature needs to fall with decreasing brightness...that ain't happening yet.

I agree (and applaud) that incandescent lamps are on the way out, but that reinforces my stance that LEDs are scantily more efficient than CFLs but presently command an unjustifiably premium price.

Grab hold of a current production LED lamp that has been on for ten minutes or more...but be ready to let go FAST - that sucker is HOT! Furthermore, the lamp is heavy, weighted down by thick metal heat dissipating shell and fins...all of which tells me that LEDs aren't yet ready for prime time. The heavy shell and evident waste heat suggest that the product is still very much in "Beta" mode...in other words "Let's ask early adopters to fund continuing product refinement.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 5
• Next ›
• Page