I've had my LED's for some time now. Started just over a year ago. Every bulb inside and outside is now LED except the small ones in my microwave, refrigerator, oven, dryer, etc.
I have had three of my LED bulbs wink out when there were power fluctuations. Maybe 10%. most of mine are the Cree brand, and most 100 watt. I have four pairs on dimmer circuits.
Interesting.
I wonder if the reviewer that had all burn out had inconsistent power. I'll bet the one that said they had off-color for dimming had an old style dimmer instead of the newer dimmers made for LED's? The shadow... Not good.
I haven't tried any of the new Cree design. I like the original version better, but for the robust feel.
I have some Cree recessed lights that I've been really happy with. I just haven't found a decent LED replacement for my standard light bulbs.
Are LED bulbs worth it? We shed some light on the subject.
http://enews.cnet.com/hostedemail/em...3&ei=s3WZSL1aN
Philips' newest LED: a five-buck bulb
It's only been a few years since LED light bulbs sold for thirty bucks a piece or more, but -- thankfully -- prices have since fallen steadily. These days, you'll find plenty of strong options that cost $10 or less, but Philips is pushing things a step further, with a new 60W equivalent LED that'll retail for less than $5.
At that price, Philips' new bulb is already the least expensive big-brand LED we've seen, but to further sweeten the deal, the Dutch manufacturer is offering two bulbs for the price of one at Home Depot for the first ninety days of its shelf life. That brings the cost per bulb down to something less than you'd pay for a morning latte -- and makes outfitting a whole home's worth of bulbs seem a lot more feasible.
http://www.cnet.com/products/philips...tag=CAD1acfa04
The bulb could cost $100 and it would still be a better deal than the incandescents.
This pretty much seals it, even setting aside the massive amounts of money spent on electricity, LEDs now win on the cost of the bulbs alone.
Boom.
The LED bulb could cost $300 a piece and would STILL be a better deal than incandescants.
But, LED's are getting set to be obsolescent.
Something more efficient, and longer lasting is in the works.
(full article here, mainly about the aweness of graphene: http://www.economist.com/news/scienc...ghtbulb-moment )PHYSICISTS Andre Geim and Kostya Novoselev have been rightly feted for their isolation, in 2003, of graphene—sheets of pure carbon a single atom thick—whose existence had been pondered for decades, but which theory suggested was too unstable to survive. The two Soviet-born researchers won the Nobel physics prize in 2010 for their groundbreaking work, carried out at Manchester University, which involved peeling layers of graphene from blocks of graphite. Both men, now British citizens, were knighted in 2012 for their contribution to science. Their work has won generous support from the British government and the European Union—in particular, the construction, at a cost of £61m ($92m), of the National Graphene Ins ute, which was opened by George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer, in March.
The researchers now have another distinction to their credit: their discovery is about to become a commercial product. A graphene-based lightbulb, said to be longer-lasting, more efficient and cheaper to make than today’s domestic LED lamps, will go on sale in a few months’ time. Though graphene flakes have already been incorporated into tennis racquets, skis and conductive ink, the new lightbulb is claimed by its manufacturer—Graphene Lighting Plc, a spin-out from the National Graphene Ins ute and Manchester University—to be the first commercially viable consumer product based on the material.
That may be splitting hairs. Even so, going from discovery to commercialisation in little more than a decade is quick. Many entrepreneurial companies find turning an invention into a successful innovation can take 20 years or more.
I already addressed that earlier. I'm sorry you don't see past advertisers BS.
And this too:
Look at the specs of that bulb. It is actually an A21 size.Careful now... some say A19 shape, and are not A19 sized.
Bulb Shape A19It says "bulb shape." Not "bulb size." An A19 would be no larger than 2.375" diameter.Bulb Diameter (Inches) 2.7
Besides. The angle of light coverage is limited also.
This bulb will not replace many applications of a standard A19 100 watt, because it's too large in diameter.
That's awesome. So, over the course of 17 years or so, I can save a couple hundred bucks?
I was definitely wrong in this thread, but the economic benefit is a bit of a stretch. There's a reason the incandescent bulb was basically unchanged for so many years. They were cheap and produce good light.
And lighting is a tiny fraction of your electricity bill.
For the record, I've switched to LED in my recessed lights and external lights. Cree for both. I had a couple of failures with another brand, so take the 20,000 hr lifespan with a grain of salt.
[facepalm]
20,000 hours is the average life span, over a large number of bulbs, and it wasn't a "couple of hundred of bucks" it was thousands of dollars.
The costs of the electricity to run the incandescents was still SIX times the cost of the bulbs themselves.
That doesn't change, no matter how long the LED's last or don't.
Your call I guess, as long as you don't mind spending four to seven times more for the light you get out of it. That isn't a "stretch", that is simply reality and evidence, period.
Easy enough to do an update, the other post is four years old after all.
Just to get some hard facts:
Cost of a 100W incandescent equivalent (assume they are measuring lumens, the measurement of light): $15.00, life span 25,000 hours.
I found a cost comparison here:
http://eartheasy.com/live_led_bulbs_comparison.html
I looked up the actual cost of electricity in San Antonio:
https://www.cpsenergy.com/content/da...alElectric.pdf
6.9 cents plus a almost 2 cents for peak usage. Call it 8 cents to be fair.
The cost comparison assumption of the price of electricity is the most critical assumption.
Re-running their analysis, using San Antonio rates means that running the same 25,000 hours of illumination gets the following costs for a 100w equivalent:
LED:Bulbs: $75/5= $15 each
Electricity: $36
Total cost: $51
Incandescant:
Bulbs: $19.83 (1.19 at about 1500 hours life each)
Electricity: $200 (.08*100watts*25,000 hours /1,000 to cancel our kw unit)
Total cost: $219.83
(edit)
Incandescent - LED = $168.83
Most houses have more than one light bulb. Our little house has about 14, by my mental count.
If you have just ten in your house, then that is a total difference of some $2,363.62 over that time period.
LEDs currently cost about 23% of an incandescent, compared to about 24% a few years ago.
Still holds up. Looks like the cost per unit has come way down, but that has been at the expense of lifespan, balancing out.
The electricity is still the expensive part.
Ok, I see that you were multiplying by 10 bulbs. I get it, but it's not like regular bulbs and the cost to run them were breaking the bank. It's your AC and large appliances that make up the vast majority of your utility. The LEDs make sense at the current price point. Back when they were more expensive, the time to break even didn't make sense.
Got it. You are right about that. Looked again and found the dimensions.
Still, 1/3 of an inch doesn't seem to be much of a difference to me.
Yes, they did. Still do. That was the point of the entire analysis, although I'm not surprised you didn't read it then, or now.
14 bulbs at 100 watts each is a space heater, a hair dryer, or a microwave oven running constantly. Again, we have a small house.
How many bulbs do you generally run at night?
Point is, mandating 100 watt incandescent to be obsoleted, means using $40 bulbs in some fixtures, paying an electrician to change the fixture, or using 60 watt equivalents instead.
The original argument for 100 watt replacements costing $50 was still valid until about 2 years ago. This thread is four years old in a few days.
bull . stopping production of tungsten bulbs had years of forewarning, and CFLs were even then widely available. Your 'hate govt' ideology is totally transparent, and easily refutable.
Do you know of a CFL that fits a fixture requiring the A19 size or smaller?
Meh. Doing that is a lot cheaper collectively, than building, maintaining, and fueling new power plants.
Fungibility. Think about it enough, it will come to you.
If you *really* want me to lay it out I can. Lunch time is up though, so you will have to wait until later if so.
If you still want incandescent bulbs, you can still buy what are called "rough service" bulbs. They are exempt from the ban.
https://www.1000bulbs.com/category/r...e-light-bulbs/
There are currently 6 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 5 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
