Cree releasing 100W LED light bulb equivalent

141 posts / 0 new
Last post
leaftye
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 07/25/2012 - 17:43
Posts: 4278
Location: San Diego, CA

60W equivalent has a new lowered price of 9.97

The low mode should be lower.

allan d
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 09/01/2012 - 00:15
Posts: 338
Location: SW Florida & SoCal
leaftye wrote:

allan d wrote:
I also have three of the 100 W eq ones on a dimmer, and they will dim much lower than the competition (read Lowes Utilitech).

What dimmer are you using?

It is the Lutron Diva LED/CFL dimmer. DVWCL-153PH-WH

Allan

CheapThrills
CheapThrills's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: 07/02/2011 - 10:45
Posts: 3651
Location: Suomi

I can´t find from specs if these can take 240V?

A19 might just fit with a bit of luck to E27 socket…

ri chevy
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 11/26/2011 - 20:50
Posts: 782
Location: Ocean State

The 100 W Cree bulbs in 2700K state 1600 lumens.

atbglenn
atbglenn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 07/29/2011 - 12:04
Posts: 5766
Location: Long Island, New York

ri chevy wrote:
The 100 W Cree bulbs in 2700K state 1600 lumens.

My local Home Depot doesn't have any of the 100 watters in stock yet. That said, I'm not going to pay $19.99 for them. I'll wait until the price comes down

Boycott Nike

ri chevy
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 11/26/2011 - 20:50
Posts: 782
Location: Ocean State

I agree. Even $10 is too much.

atbglenn
atbglenn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 07/29/2011 - 12:04
Posts: 5766
Location: Long Island, New York

ri chevy wrote:
I agree. Even $10 is too much.

I don't even want to think how much I've spent on LED bulbs in the last year! I own over 20 of the CREE 40 and 60 watters, also a couple of the CREE BR30 flood hi-hat bulbs, and 10 of the Philips latest 60 watters...  My wallet is screaming at me "Glenn, you're retired living on a limited budget!" Does that stop me??? NO IT DOESN'T!!   

Boycott Nike

texaspyro
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 04/29/2011 - 12:43
Posts: 4593
atbglenn wrote:
I don’t even want to think how much I’ve spent on LED bulbs in the last year!

Meh… my house has over 300 light bulbs in it… and they are now all LED bulbs…

atbglenn
atbglenn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 07/29/2011 - 12:04
Posts: 5766
Location: Long Island, New York

texaspyro wrote:
atbglenn wrote:
I don't even want to think how much I've spent on LED bulbs in the last year!
Meh... my house has over 300 light bulbs in it... and they are now all LED bulbs...

you win!

Boycott Nike

dchomak
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 5 months ago
Joined: 03/17/2012 - 20:10
Posts: 4122
Location: Connecticut

The 100W equiv is rather large. Here it is next to the 60 for comparison. At $19.97, I’ll wait awhile before I get any.

Bort
Bort's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 12 min ago
Joined: 06/01/2012 - 17:15
Posts: 8361
Location: Holding the proverbial flashlight

dchomak wrote:
The 100W equiv is rather large. Here it is next to the 60 for comparison. At $19.97, I’ll wait awhile before I get any.

!{width:50%}http://i1166.photobucket.com/albums/q609/dchomak/F3782943-02BA-40D9-B77D...!

Interesting, i assumed they were the same size, but i don’t really care if they are a bit bigger, as long as they fit my fixtures and if i can afford it i will never buy a 60W for household use.

The Journal of Alternative Facts TM

"It is critical that there is a credible academic source for the growing and important discipline of alternative facts. This field of study will just keep winning, and we knew that all the best people would want to be on board. There is a real risk in the world today that people might be getting their information about science from actual scientists"

 

 

 

ri chevy
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 11/26/2011 - 20:50
Posts: 782
Location: Ocean State
atbglenn wrote:

ri chevy wrote:
I agree. Even $10 is too much.

I don’t even want to think how much I’ve spent on LED bulbs in the last year! I own over 20 of the CREE 40 and 60 watters, also a couple of the CREE BR30 flood hi-hat bulbs, and 10 of the Philips latest 60 watters…  My wallet is screaming at me “Glenn, you’re retired living on a limited budget!” Does that stop me??? NO IT DOESN’T!!   

I own about a dozen of the CREE light bulbs from Home Depot in both 40W and 60W. I like the 2700K tint. They are nice. They will supposedly pay for themselves in the long run. Smile But I agree that they are priced too high for the average homeowner. I, like you are retired and living on a limited budget. Wink

luvlites
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 3 months ago
Joined: 02/29/2012 - 16:55
Posts: 354
Bort wrote:
EldoEsq wrote:
Doesnt a 100 watt CFL at 26 watts for $2 make more sense????? I CANNOT justify $100 for 5 lightbulbs!!!! I will consider them when the price comes down to something a bit more reasonable…

In many situations yes, but keep in mind you will buy many CFLs over the lifetime of this one LED.
If your using it for several hours a day of use the lifetime cost would be similar for each (say 5-8 CFLs and a bit more electricity vs 1 LED).
If your using it in a bathroom or hallway or other place where its only used a few minutes at a time then the economics favour LED (10-15 CFLs and a bit more electricity vs 1 LED) because CFLs only last their rated life if used for over an hour each time you start them.

Two things to note, most $2 CFLs are low quality and the LED price will continue to drop in the coming years.


Incorrect, you can’t just pull numbers out of the air like that. Let’s assume electricity costs 23.2 cents per kilowatt hour (about what it is on the east coast of the U.S. now) and increases by 2% per year. And we’re buying GE 26 Watt Energy Smart CFL – 100 Watt Replacement bulbs on Amazon and paying sales tax.

In your first scenario of several hours per day (let’s say three), the LED w/a rated lifetime of 25,000 hrs would cost more than the 4 CFLs w/a rated lifetime of 8000 hours each that it would take for the same period ($21.79 vs $10.40). However, electricity for the CFLs would cost 26 watts/18 watts = 44% more. Even so, the LED wouldn’t be cheaper until about the 8th year and then you’d only save less than $50 total after 23 years.

In your second scenario of a bathroom or hallway (let’s say a few minutes at a time for 30 minutes/day), even if the CFLs only last 1/6th their rated lifetime, the LED will not be cheaper because the cost of the bulb is greater than the cost of the CFLs plus electricity saved which would tiny (34 cents the first year). After 23 years the CFLs would be cheaper by about $1.60.

luvlites
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 3 months ago
Joined: 02/29/2012 - 16:55
Posts: 354

atbglenn wrote:

ri chevy wrote:
I agree. Even $10 is too much.

I don’t even want to think how much I’ve spent on LED bulbs in the last year! I own over 20 of the CREE 40 and 60 watters, also a couple of the CREE BR30 flood hi-hat bulbs, and 10 of the Philips latest 60 watters…  My wallet is screaming at me “Glenn, you’re retired living on a limited budget!” Does that stop me??? NO IT DOESN’T!!   


Glenn, how do the Philips bulbs compare to the Crees?
atbglenn
atbglenn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 07/29/2011 - 12:04
Posts: 5766
Location: Long Island, New York

luvlites wrote:
atbglenn wrote:

ri chevy wrote:
I agree. Even $10 is too much.

I don't even want to think how much I've spent on LED bulbs in the last year! I own over 20 of the CREE 40 and 60 watters, also a couple of the CREE BR30 flood hi-hat bulbs, and 10 of the Philips latest 60 watters...  My wallet is screaming at me "Glenn, you're retired living on a limited budget!" Does that stop me??? NO IT DOESN'T!!   

Glenn, how do the Philips bulbs compare to the Crees?

The 60 watt equivalent Philips is slightly brighter, 880 vs 800 lumens, uses slightly more electricity, 11 vs  9.5 watts. The biggest difference is the Philips dims much lower than the Cree. I bought 10 of the Philips 60 watters on sale at Home Depot for around $8.00 each. I Like them better than the Cree's simply because they dim better with the Lutron dimmers I'm using.. 

Check out this review on the Philips 60 watt LED bulb:

http://youtu.be/0I0YiXE-gtk

Boycott Nike

leaftye
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 07/25/2012 - 17:43
Posts: 4278
Location: San Diego, CA

CFL is delicate and the light output is nasty after a couple years.  Those are the two primary reasons I've been giving the Cree bulbs a shot.

The low mode should be lower.

Bort
Bort's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 12 min ago
Joined: 06/01/2012 - 17:15
Posts: 8361
Location: Holding the proverbial flashlight
luvlites wrote:
Bort wrote:
EldoEsq wrote:
Doesnt a 100 watt CFL at 26 watts for $2 make more sense????? I CANNOT justify $100 for 5 lightbulbs!!!! I will consider them when the price comes down to something a bit more reasonable…

In many situations yes, but keep in mind you will buy many CFLs over the lifetime of this one LED.
If your using it for several hours a day of use the lifetime cost would be similar for each (say 5-8 CFLs and a bit more electricity vs 1 LED).
If your using it in a bathroom or hallway or other place where its only used a few minutes at a time then the economics favour LED (10-15 CFLs and a bit more electricity vs 1 LED) because CFLs only last their rated life if used for over an hour each time you start them.

Two things to note, most $2 CFLs are low quality and the LED price will continue to drop in the coming years.


Incorrect, you can’t just pull numbers out of the air like that. Let’s assume electricity costs 23.2 cents per kilowatt hour (about what it is on the east coast of the U.S. now) and increases by 2% per year. And we’re buying GE 26 Watt Energy Smart CFL – 100 Watt Replacement bulbs on Amazon and paying sales tax.

In your first scenario of several hours per day (let’s say three), the LED w/a rated lifetime of 25,000 hrs would cost more than the 4 CFLs w/a rated lifetime of 8000 hours each that it would take for the same period ($21.79 vs $10.40). However, electricity for the CFLs would cost 26 watts/18 watts = 44% more. Even so, the LED wouldn’t be cheaper until about the 8th year and then you’d only save less than $50 total after 23 years.

In your second scenario of a bathroom or hallway (let’s say a few minutes at a time for 30 minutes/day), even if the CFLs only last 1/6th their rated lifetime, the LED will not be cheaper because the cost of the bulb is greater than the cost of the CFLs plus electricity saved which would tiny (34 cents the first year). After 23 years the CFLs would be cheaper by about $1.60.


Lets just say i pulled numbers form premium air, not exact but educated nonetheless.
Your first scenario just proves my point, less then $50 saved by going LED more then pays for that bulb and even another 2 bulbs, or even several flashlights with batteries!

Your second scenario is within the cost of one CFL at the cheap price, and your 1/6 is optimistic, i’ve had many people complain that CFLs last a few months to a year so they are actually just as bad or worse then incandescent, so my next question to them is which ones died, the washroom ones or your living room ones? Most people tell me it must be both but they are not sure because they never thought to keep track of it. The CFL industry does not like to advertise the many start/reduced life problem, they prefer to sweep it under the rug. So with such a low margin of error and even slightly less life then your using your calculations for you cannot confidently claim exactly $1.60 is saved by CFL, its too close to call, which favours the LED again, less waste, no mercury going to landfill, and less headache of burnt out bulbs. A place i was renting last year had an incandescent that burned out so i told the landlord get me some incandescent (60W) and i will replace it, an its cheaper then CFL for the washroom because you will get similar life from both for exactly this reason. He got a CFL, it lasted a few months, i moved during the lifetime of the next CFL so who knows how long it lasted.

The Journal of Alternative Facts TM

"It is critical that there is a credible academic source for the growing and important discipline of alternative facts. This field of study will just keep winning, and we knew that all the best people would want to be on board. There is a real risk in the world today that people might be getting their information about science from actual scientists"

 

 

 

luvlites
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 3 months ago
Joined: 02/29/2012 - 16:55
Posts: 354
Bort wrote:
luvlites wrote:
Bort wrote:
EldoEsq wrote:
Doesnt a 100 watt CFL at 26 watts for $2 make more sense????? I CANNOT justify $100 for 5 lightbulbs!!!! I will consider them when the price comes down to something a bit more reasonable…

In many situations yes, but keep in mind you will buy many CFLs over the lifetime of this one LED.
If your using it for several hours a day of use the lifetime cost would be similar for each (say 5-8 CFLs and a bit more electricity vs 1 LED).
If your using it in a bathroom or hallway or other place where its only used a few minutes at a time then the economics favour LED (10-15 CFLs and a bit more electricity vs 1 LED) because CFLs only last their rated life if used for over an hour each time you start them.

Two things to note, most $2 CFLs are low quality and the LED price will continue to drop in the coming years.


Incorrect, you can’t just pull numbers out of the air like that. Let’s assume electricity costs 23.2 cents per kilowatt hour (about what it is on the east coast of the U.S. now) and increases by 2% per year. And we’re buying GE 26 Watt Energy Smart CFL – 100 Watt Replacement bulbs on Amazon and paying sales tax.

In your first scenario of several hours per day (let’s say three), the LED w/a rated lifetime of 25,000 hrs would cost more than the 4 CFLs w/a rated lifetime of 8000 hours each that it would take for the same period ($21.79 vs $10.40). However, electricity for the CFLs would cost 26 watts/18 watts = 44% more. Even so, the LED wouldn’t be cheaper until about the 8th year and then you’d only save less than $50 total after 23 years.

In your second scenario of a bathroom or hallway (let’s say a few minutes at a time for 30 minutes/day), even if the CFLs only last 1/6th their rated lifetime, the LED will not be cheaper because the cost of the bulb is greater than the cost of the CFLs plus electricity saved which would tiny (34 cents the first year). After 23 years the CFLs would be cheaper by about $1.60.


Lets just say i pulled numbers form premium air, not exact but educated nonetheless.
Your first scenario just proves my point, less then $50 saved by going LED more then pays for that bulb and even another 2 bulbs, or even several flashlights with batteries!

Your second scenario is within the cost of one CFL at the cheap price, and your 1/6 is optimistic, i’ve had many people complain that CFLs last a few months to a year so they are actually just as bad or worse then incandescent, so my next question to them is which ones died, the washroom ones or your living room ones? Most people tell me it must be both but they are not sure because they never thought to keep track of it. The CFL industry does not like to advertise the many start/reduced life problem, they prefer to sweep it under the rug. So with such a low margin of error and even slightly less life then your using your calculations for you cannot confidently claim exactly $1.60 is saved by CFL, its too close to call, which favours the LED again, less waste, no mercury going to landfill, and less headache of burnt out bulbs. A place i was renting last year had an incandescent that burned out so i told the landlord get me some incandescent (60W) and i will replace it, an its cheaper then CFL for the washroom because you will get similar life from both for exactly this reason. He got a CFL, it lasted a few months, i moved during the lifetime of the next CFL so who knows how long it lasted.


No, my numbers don’t prove your point, they refute it because you had it backwards. The first scenario favors the LED and the second favors the CFLs but is wash longer term (20+ years) … the opposite of what you said.
luvlites
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 3 months ago
Joined: 02/29/2012 - 16:55
Posts: 354

atbglenn wrote:
The 60 watt equivalent Philips is slightly brighter, 880 vs 800 lumens, uses slightly more electricity, 11 vs  9.5 watts. The biggest difference is the Philips dims much lower than the Cree. I bought 10 of the Philips 60 watters on sale at Home Depot for around $8.00 each. I Like them better than the Cree’s simply because they dim better with the Lutron dimmers I’m using..Check out this review on the Philips 60 watt LED bulb:

http://youtu.be/0I0YiXE-gtk


Thanks, that was a great video. Always wanted to take one of these apart. The same guy also did an interesting review of one of the Crees. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6DDFRBrSas
Bort
Bort's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 12 min ago
Joined: 06/01/2012 - 17:15
Posts: 8361
Location: Holding the proverbial flashlight
luvlites wrote:
Bort wrote:
luvlites wrote:
Bort wrote:
EldoEsq wrote:
Doesnt a 100 watt CFL at 26 watts for $2 make more sense????? I CANNOT justify $100 for 5 lightbulbs!!!! I will consider them when the price comes down to something a bit more reasonable…

In many situations yes, but keep in mind you will buy many CFLs over the lifetime of this one LED.
If your using it for several hours a day of use the lifetime cost would be similar for each (say 5-8 CFLs and a bit more electricity vs 1 LED).
If your using it in a bathroom or hallway or other place where its only used a few minutes at a time then the economics favour LED (10-15 CFLs and a bit more electricity vs 1 LED) because CFLs only last their rated life if used for over an hour each time you start them.

Two things to note, most $2 CFLs are low quality and the LED price will continue to drop in the coming years.


Incorrect, you can’t just pull numbers out of the air like that. Let’s assume electricity costs 23.2 cents per kilowatt hour (about what it is on the east coast of the U.S. now) and increases by 2% per year. And we’re buying GE 26 Watt Energy Smart CFL – 100 Watt Replacement bulbs on Amazon and paying sales tax.

In your first scenario of several hours per day (let’s say three), the LED w/a rated lifetime of 25,000 hrs would cost more than the 4 CFLs w/a rated lifetime of 8000 hours each that it would take for the same period ($21.79 vs $10.40). However, electricity for the CFLs would cost 26 watts/18 watts = 44% more. Even so, the LED wouldn’t be cheaper until about the 8th year and then you’d only save less than $50 total after 23 years.

In your second scenario of a bathroom or hallway (let’s say a few minutes at a time for 30 minutes/day), even if the CFLs only last 1/6th their rated lifetime, the LED will not be cheaper because the cost of the bulb is greater than the cost of the CFLs plus electricity saved which would tiny (34 cents the first year). After 23 years the CFLs would be cheaper by about $1.60.


Lets just say i pulled numbers form premium air, not exact but educated nonetheless.
Your first scenario just proves my point, less then $50 saved by going LED more then pays for that bulb and even another 2 bulbs, or even several flashlights with batteries!

Your second scenario is within the cost of one CFL at the cheap price, and your 1/6 is optimistic, i’ve had many people complain that CFLs last a few months to a year so they are actually just as bad or worse then incandescent, so my next question to them is which ones died, the washroom ones or your living room ones? Most people tell me it must be both but they are not sure because they never thought to keep track of it. The CFL industry does not like to advertise the many start/reduced life problem, they prefer to sweep it under the rug. So with such a low margin of error and even slightly less life then your using your calculations for you cannot confidently claim exactly $1.60 is saved by CFL, its too close to call, which favours the LED again, less waste, no mercury going to landfill, and less headache of burnt out bulbs. A place i was renting last year had an incandescent that burned out so i told the landlord get me some incandescent (60W) and i will replace it, an its cheaper then CFL for the washroom because you will get similar life from both for exactly this reason. He got a CFL, it lasted a few months, i moved during the lifetime of the next CFL so who knows how long it lasted.


No, my numbers don’t prove your point, they refute it because you had it backwards. The first scenario favors the LED and the second favors the CFLs but is wash longer term (20+ years) … the opposite of what you said.

Edit:
I reread the posts, i think you should go for the CFL because the LEDs will drop in price in future. Your saying its already better, so either way your not losing, buy LED now you save money, use CFL now and buy cheaper LED later your saving. (I can’t 100% quantify it because i don’t know what the cost will be in the future)
The second scenario you now agree is a wash so where are we differing, i’m not arguing you will save boatloads of cash, but you will save some money. Ifg you went tfor the 60W which is apparently the most popular brightness then you will save even more. I won’t be doing that, but other people apparently will

I also think LEDs will get cheaper over time do you also want to disagree there too?

The Journal of Alternative Facts TM

"It is critical that there is a credible academic source for the growing and important discipline of alternative facts. This field of study will just keep winning, and we knew that all the best people would want to be on board. There is a real risk in the world today that people might be getting their information about science from actual scientists"

 

 

 

luvlites
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 3 months ago
Joined: 02/29/2012 - 16:55
Posts: 354

Bort wrote:
I argue for the LED, you now argue for the LED, how are we in disagreement about the first scenario?
The second scenario you now agree is a wash so where are we differing, i’m not arguing you will save boatloads of cash, i am saying you won’t be out many dollars if any

I also think LEDs will get cheaper over time do you also want to disagree there too?


Huh? You had it exactly backwards and now you’re backpedaling by changing your position while pretending I changed mine.

You claimed “the lifetime cost would be similar for each” in the first scenario when in fact it favors the LED (for “the lifetime cost”), and “where its only used a few minutes at a time then the economics favour LED” when in fact it favors the CFLs but is wash longer term (20+ years).

Bort
Bort's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 12 min ago
Joined: 06/01/2012 - 17:15
Posts: 8361
Location: Holding the proverbial flashlight

luvlites wrote:
Bort wrote:
I argue for the LED, you now argue for the LED, how are we in disagreement about the first scenario?
The second scenario you now agree is a wash so where are we differing, i’m not arguing you will save boatloads of cash, i am saying you won’t be out many dollars if any

I also think LEDs will get cheaper over time do you also want to disagree there too?


Huh? You had it exactly backwards and now you’re backpedaling by changing your position while pretending I changed mine.

You claimed “the lifetime cost would be similar for each” in the first scenario when in fact it favors the LED (for “the lifetime cost”), and “where its only used a few minutes at a time then the economics favour LED” when in fact it favors the CFLs but is wash longer term (20+ years).


Your right, i reread the posts and mixed things up
I still think future LED prices will make long use per start will favour the CFL but i can’t predict future pricing, if you can then chime in.

I still will argue the LED favours CFL for few minutes per use, since your saying the cost difference is within one CFL bulb i will say that means one premature failure and your over optimistic CFL life means your not getting ahead by going CFL.

The Journal of Alternative Facts TM

"It is critical that there is a credible academic source for the growing and important discipline of alternative facts. This field of study will just keep winning, and we knew that all the best people would want to be on board. There is a real risk in the world today that people might be getting their information about science from actual scientists"

 

 

 

Pinetreebbs
Pinetreebbs's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 1 week ago
Joined: 07/29/2012 - 10:39
Posts: 588
Location: South Carolina, USA, Earth

We purchased six Feit Electric 60 watt equivalent bulbs at Costco for $8.64 each. The are working very well in a bathroom fixture with bell shaped glass shades.

atbglenn
atbglenn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 07/29/2011 - 12:04
Posts: 5766
Location: Long Island, New York

luvlites wrote:
atbglenn wrote:
The 60 watt equivalent Philips is slightly brighter, 880 vs 800 lumens, uses slightly more electricity, 11 vs  9.5 watts. The biggest difference is the Philips dims much lower than the Cree. I bought 10 of the Philips 60 watters on sale at Home Depot for around $8.00 each. I Like them better than the Cree's simply because they dim better with the Lutron dimmers I'm using..Check out this review on the Philips 60 watt LED bulb:

 

http://youtu.be/0I0YiXE-gtk

Thanks, that was a great video. Always wanted to take one of these apart. The same guy also did an interesting review of one of the Crees. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6DDFRBrSas[/quote]

I've been subscribed to his youtube channel for some time now. I love his videos. Smile 

Boycott Nike

Shadowww
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 12 min ago
Joined: 01/20/2012 - 19:09
Posts: 1343
Location: Northern Europe

texaspyro wrote:
All the LEDs are wired in series… too much rewiring to be practical for battery mods.

Ehh..
http://www.taskled.com/hboost.shtml Silly
luvlites
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 3 months ago
Joined: 02/29/2012 - 16:55
Posts: 354

Bort wrote:
Your right, i reread the posts and mixed things up
I still think future LED prices will make long use per start will favour the CFL but i can’t predict future pricing, if you can then chime in.

I still will argue the LED favours CFL for few minutes per use, since your saying the cost difference is within one CFL bulb i will say that means one premature failure and your over optimistic CFL life means your not getting ahead by going CFL.


“Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
– John F Kennedy
luvlites
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 3 months ago
Joined: 02/29/2012 - 16:55
Posts: 354

EldoEsq wrote:
Doesnt a 100 watt CFL at 26 watts for $2 make more sense????? I CANNOT justify $100 for 5 lightbulbs!!!! I will consider them when the price comes down to something a bit more reasonable…

Interesting question which motivated me to put some numbers to it with these facts & assumptions:

1) We’re buying the bulbs today because we don’t know future bulb prices or specifications.

2) We’ll analyze cumulative costs for two scenarios: Scenario #1 where each bulb is used continuously for 3 hours/day and Scenario #2 where they’re used intermittently for 30 minutes/day.

3) Cree 100 watt equivalents cost $21.79 each after taxes, use 18 watts, and will last their rated lifetime of 25,000 hours when used in Scenario #1.

4) GE Energy Smart CFL 100 watt equivalents cost $2.60 each after taxes, use 26 watts, and will last their rated lifetime of 8,000 hours when used in Scenario #1.

5) In Scenario #2, due to the on and off usage, CFLs will only last 1/6th of their rated lifetime (1,333 hrs) and LED bulb lifetime will be equally degraded or less so.

6) Electricity costs are from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for two cases and assumed to increase by 2% per year: east coast starts at 23.2 cents per kWh and the national average starts at 13.4 cents per kWh.

Muto
Offline
Last seen: 26 min 6 sec ago
Joined: 09/04/2012 - 16:42
Posts: 2684
Location: Southeast, PA

And I live on the East Coast.
Don’t know anyone paying 23 Cents per Kilo hour.
It may have spiked in Jan. to near those levels somewhere on the East Coast, But I do not have variable rate, so was unaffected.

Regardless, As LED’s come down in price I will upgrade them as needed. I got CFL 60 watt equivalents a couple years ago, 8 for $2.78.
Still have some in stock. Shoulda bought more, same old story.

Later,
Keith

The difference between Hoarding and Collecting is the illusion of Organization
.

“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it sometimes rhymes,” Mark Twain

After the Apocalypse there will be only 2 things left alive, Cockroaches and Keith Richards

dchomak
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 5 months ago
Joined: 03/17/2012 - 20:10
Posts: 4122
Location: Connecticut
Shocked
Muto wrote:
And I live on the East Coast. Don’t know anyone paying 23 Cents per Kilo hour. It may have spiked in Jan. to near those levels somewhere on the East Coast, But I do not have variable rate, so was unaffected.

Regardless, As LED’s come down in price I will upgrade them as needed. I got CFL 60 watt equivalents a couple years ago, 8 for $2.78.
Still have some in stock. Shoulda bought more, same old story.

Later,
Keith

I should of bought LESS, same old story. Shocked

What everybody misses is that it is wrong to use that stated 23 year life span in their cost analysis of the LED bulbs. Those bulbs will NOT last 23 years, not necessarily because they burned out, but because there will be improvements made in the bulbs of the future that will render them OBSOLETE. Yesterday I replaced 6 LED bulbs that I had in exterior lamp posts. I bought them less than 1 year ago at COSTCO. I replaced them with the Crees’ that I just got at Home Depot. They emit more light towards the ground and the color is warmer. I will reuse those “older” bulbs someday, but my point is that it is bad economics to prorate the initial cost over 23 years. It will most probably NOT be recovered.

We pay about 9 cents per kwh for the generation electricity. There is another line item charge of about 9 cents per kwh, that is for delivery.

leaftye
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 07/25/2012 - 17:43
Posts: 4278
Location: San Diego, CA

I bet texaspyro will use many of his LED bulbs until they burn out because he really hates having to access some of them. 

The low mode should be lower.

Pages