re: Modern light bulbs - sick of the b.s.

quote:

---

You will never get the cost to savings even close to even. As typical, the government pushed for the energy efficiency of LED and approved/encouraged the fraudulent generic claims.

---

I don’t know where you guys are coming up with this crap. To duplicate a similar analysis by another poster...

This Philips LED A19 replacement is not particularly cheap. A 2-pack is $8.48, so $4.24 per bulb. It’s a 60W-equivalent, using an 8.5W LED.

So it uses 51.5W less than its incandescent equivalent. At a rate of $0.10/kWh, it pays for itself in ~824 hours. And that’s if the incandescent equivalent is free.

824 hours x 60 watts = 49,440 W*h = 49.44 kWh
49.44 kWh x $0.10/kWh = $4.94 (incandescent electricity cost)

824 hours x 8.5 watts = 7,004 W*h = 7 kWh
7 kWh x $0.10/kWh = $0.70 (LED electricity cost)

$4.94 - $0.70 = $4.24, the cost of the LED bulb.. again, assuming the incandescent bulb is free.

So how long is 824 hours? Considerably less than the lifespan of an LED. Hell, it’s less than the lifespan of most incandescent bulbs. If you only leave the light on for 6 hours per day, the bulb pays for itself in less than 5 months. If you leave it on for 12 hours per day, it pays for itself in just over 2 months.

Either way, the LED could fail after only 6 months and still be more cost effective. In reality the LED should last years. Maybe not 10+ years, but at least 1-2. And again, the example I used isn’t even a cheap LED. There are alternatives that are like 1/4 the cost of the Philips bulb I used in this example.

Blows my mind that people will immediately assume something is some kind of liberal conspiracy just because it’s more energy efficient. There’s a reason that LED’s were becoming the norm for a ton of different applications before being used for traditional light bulbs.