What's hard to imagine is that $40 is actually quite the bargain.
It can actually save significant money on energy costs. Philips says because its new bulb lasts 25 times longer than an incandescent, and reduces energy consumption by 80 percent, the owner will save $160 per bulb over the 25,000 hours (about 17 years) of the life of its new 17-watt LED bulb.For more information check out the Earth2Tech post here.
1 comment:
I have tried out an LED on a flood light location, and other than the approximately 1/4 second delay, there is no difference in appearance or light output. This is a big deal to me, the appearance of the light is far more important than any purported energy savings or longevity. The idea that we would have to lower our standard of living to "save the planet" is nonsense. The curly Q bulb (CFL) may have saved some energy, but at what cost? Diminished lighting? Never!! The CFLs could never match the brilliance of the good ol' incandescent bulb. And nothing was going to force me to switch to inferior lighting. But, the LED bulb provides at least equal lighting, and possibly even better lighting. It is in the center of a 3 light bank, and you have to look directly at it to discover the difference. So, with that, I whole heartedly endorse the LED light (at least the one that I have). I will test others, and if they are worthy of my praise, I'll say so, if they are not, I will say that too. I would like to note that the packaging states that the bulb will last a couple of decades plus some, but you have to pay attention to the packaging, that couple of decades is with only 3 hours of "on" time per day. That might be average, but may not be very practical. Still, it's better than a year or so. Lastly, there is a lot of good information on the packaging; a nice addition may be a comparison to the light and color of an incandescent bulb - the "gold standard.
Post a Comment