replacing CFLs with LEDs

I've changed out to LEDs are nearly every major socket for a couple of additional reasons:
1) I like the color balance of the LEDs I use.
2) Much harder to accidentally break an LED, and the mess of shattered glass is not possible if I did.
3) LED bulbs don't look goofy in exposed bulb holders, like ceiling fan fixtures, whereas the spiral CFLs were distracting.
4) No detectable flicker.

Those add up to a lot more than 75 cents of value to me. The price tag is important, but the quality of light makes more difference than I originally thought. Make dang sure the spreadsheet does not overshadow the reason for having nice room lighting in the first place.

 

I couldn't stand CFLs, so many shortomings and only a temporary bridge to LED. So, I skipped them going straight to LED way back in 2010.

Years later, I'm delighted with that choice.and am pleased to see how much price has come down.

Whether or not you can justify the cost is a personal decision. The reduced electricity consumption is something everyone will benefit from.

 

In general I calculate lifetime savings like OP did, but not for LEDs. The problem is two-fold:

1. If the light is used for only a couple hours or less a day, you simply are not going to reach 25k hours.
2. The reported long-life is the LED, while failure occurs from the electronics. So instead I multiply my hourly use by 5-10 years multiplied by the watt savings to estimate my kWh savings from a replacement.

I'll also point out that LED tech is dropping in price and increasing in lumens/watt very quickly. If the current setup is acceptable and substantial savings from an LED replacement is not obvious, waiting a year or two strikes me as a very reasonable choice.

My house is stuffed with CFLs, and 5 LED bulbs:
2 LEDs in the kitchen for immediate on and light quality
3 LEDs for very low watt situations.

 

The long-life estimates for LED is nutty. I had a high quality Philips LED 60-w equiv bulb die in 1-yr. They gave me a refund, but what: are you going to have to save your receipts for 10-yrs to get the refund? I've got some $30 Eco smart LED's from Home Depot not failed yet but sometimes they do not go on and sometimes they flicker.

 

I've got 3 LED's and the rest are CFL's. As each CFL bulb burns out, they will be replaced by LED. The minute wattage savings is not worth replacing a perfectly good bulb. The main reason is due to mercury in CFL. Also, there is a pollution cost to produce a light bulb. It's wasteful to constantly upgrade to the next best thing.

 

I fail to see the problem, if you are happy with the CFLs.

Home Depot would love to have your money, but that is not a very good reason to switch.

 

Do a mirror test. Look at your face in the mirror with the different light temperatures. That will make the reason apparent.

 

It seems clear (for now, at least) that LEDs will be the future, but for now flourescent is still leading by a long shot in the lumens/$ metric.

I bought T8 flourescent tubes last week. $5 a piece, 90 lumens/watt, 4100k, 70s(I think) CRI, and instant on.


As you say, LEDs of ~ 100 lumens/watt can be found, but there is a wide range that tends to parallel flourescent. I was a bit surprised to find a fancy display of LEDs by Sylvania being displayed in a kiosk last week that had 45 - 50 lumens/watt.

I'm personally looking forward to the day I can buy $5 LEDs that have 450 lumens/3 watts.

 

For me, it's not about the savings in cost that is driving the change to LED. In fact, it's quite the opposite. CFL's are subsidized by the utility company down to $0.25 a bulb. I haven't done the cost analysis but I'll go out on limb and say I just might not recoup that kind of cost versus a $10 LED. I'm doing the change for health and environmental reasons. The increased cost is easy to stomach at the slow rate my current bulbs are going out.

$5 LED bulbs started circulating recently. I'm wary of the quality, though. My original CFL purchased with gobs of money maybe a decade ago is still working. The cheap ones not so long.

 

mmmodem,

I hear you re: environment and health; and in general I think LEDs are awesome and have tremendous potential. I'm just skeptical of any real reason to only consider LED today Vs flourescent.

Health boils down to Hg. I at least do not dump these bulbs in my trash, and instead bring them to authorized disposal centers. So as long as the Hg is being recycled I am not adding to the problem. I'll agree that if society at large is handling the Hg poorly then that is a very good reason to phase them out.

Environment does not pan out because of opportunity cost. It just makes sense to spend one's green $ for the best green ROI.

 

Whoa, what I intended got misinterpreted. The "mirror" test was to show how lower temperature bulbs make faces look more appealing. There was absolutely no personnel inference intended, it was just intended as a simple example of why many folks like the the lower temperatures. My bad.

 

How about 2700, 3000, 4000, 5000 so we have a choice of a middle one that isn't icy?

What I personally have is 2700s everywhere except a 3000 at my desk. The 3000 is nice for desk work and makes an attractive but subtle contrast to the rest of the room.

I've seen plenty of living spaces lighted with 4100 or higher and personally it just sets my teeth on edge to be in them. Also I have a friend who had 4100 fluorescents in the kitchen and never knew how nice the wood cabinetry could look until those were changed.

Some of it could be generational; remember I grew up not only with incandescents at 2700, but incandescents on dimmers (which drop even further in color temperature when you want that cozy mood, as opposed to dimmable CFLs which just give you less of the same color). We also thought it cozy to sit around the fireplace. Partly what you're used to, I guess.

-Chap

 

Interesting discussion, Dhanson.
I also find myself thinking of fluorescent as whitish-blue, but perhaps I am blinded by preconception, or other aspects of light that play into the question.

Found this related to natural sunlight:
Before sunrise: 10,000 degrees K
Before sunrise the only illumination comes indirectly from a blue sky. This produces a characteristic strong steel blue color.
Dawn: 2,000-2,500 degrees K
The lighting will change to a very warm red color just as the sun comes up. Look for the first appearance of shadows.
Early morning: 3,000-4,000 degrees K
The color temperature will become more neutral as the sun continues to rise through the morning.
Midday: 5,500 degrees K
Overhead sun at noon produces neutral colors, though this may not be best pictorially.
Overcast: 7,500 degrees K
Overcast lighting conditions raise the color temperature noticeably. Your photographs will have much cooler colors.
Shade: 10,000 degrees K
The color temperature in shade on a sunny day is extremely high. All of the lighting will be coming from the blue sky.
Afternoon sun: 3,000-4,000 degrees K
The color temperature will fall as the sun goes down. The light effects become warmer and redder.
Sunset: 2,000-2,500 degrees K
Some of the reddest lighting conditions of the whole day will be at sunset.
Twilight: 10,000 degrees K
Just after sunset, the lighting will suddenly becoming very blue, for the same reasons as the shadows above.