Right now I can get a small supply of Philips L Prize 60w Led bulbs at an attractive price. Is it worth switching my home and business over if I already have CFLs installed? The CFLs always seem to burn out early, for some reason. The one I can get is the 9290002097 model no. LED Bulb Test . Any thoughts or reliable calculators? Thanks in advance for your reply! Tom D
specific model: 9290002097 listed as 423244 on UPC
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.
Energy Conservation &
Dept of Human Services
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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-
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)
Thank you, 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.
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.