energy saving bulbs - now ripoff

cyclonebri1

Kernel_Sanders wrote: »

Save them, they will eventally rise in value as they are a cheap way of installing a heater in a vivarium.

Or a propogator or incubator for seeds or hatching eggs;);)


No, not those sort of seeds:D:D

elstimpo

ic wrote: »

T LED are still prohibitively expensive in my opinion. A decent LED can cost £20+, anything cheaper and you'll probably wind up with something that is dim, the wrong colour, or likely to fail quickly.

This is not accurate at all. You can get quality LED Bulbs that replace 40w and 60w incandescents for under £10 and come with a 3 year warranty.

You can also get incredibly good LED Spotlights for the same price that replace 50w Halogens and dimmables that are not much more than £10.

elstimpo

Farel01 wrote: »

I LOVE my LED's, they stay cool to the touch

Unless some brand new technology has been invented that i'm not aware of no LED lamp stays cool during use. They don't get nearly as hot as halogens but they still get pretty warm.

This is one of the misconceptions of LED lighting.

elstimpo

Chrysalis wrote: »

yeah I guess you stockpiled before the hyper inflation.

Loss of government subsidies. CFL's are only 50% more efficient than incandescent and halogen lighting and they contain mercury which is highly toxic.

cyclonebri1

elstimpo wrote: »

This is not accurate at all. You can get quality LED Bulbs that replace 40w and 60w incandescents for under £10 and come with a 3 year warranty.

You can also get incredibly good LED Spotlights for the same price that replace 50w Halogens and dimmables that are not much more than £10.

And do you think a £10 light bulb is cheap, given this is a money saving forum?

elstimpo

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

And do you think a £10 light bulb is cheap, given this is a money saving forum?

Do i think a £10 light bulb that will last 25,000 hours (11.5 years with average usage) and reduces energy consumption by 90% over standard incandescents and 40% over CFL's will save me lots of time (going to get and replace failed lamps) ,money and help protect me from energy prices continuing to rise? Um, yes.

lstar337

Not sure about your figures elstimpo.

Last time I checked, the margin between incandescent and CFL's was larger, and the margin between CFL's and LED was smaller.

elstimpo

lstar337 wrote: »

Not sure about your figures elstimpo.

Last time I checked, the margin between incandescent and CFL's was larger, and the margin between CFL's and LED was smaller.

It completely depends what you are replacing with what, surely?

Replace a 12w CFL with a 7w LED Bulb and you reduced wattage by 5w or 42%.

Brand name CFL's can be £4 to £6 and the LED is £10, take in account the lifespan probably being triple for the LED and you've saved money and time.

Chrysalis

the 3 year warranty is what got my interest.

also I assume there is no mercury in led which has my interest also.

It would seem without the subsidies energy saving bulbs would never have taken off else why subsidise?. Those who had the foresight stocked up before the hyper inflation.

I did find led bulbs for not much more than what the energy savers cost but when I searched for bayonet leds the price jumps up.

This site has an interesting view on lifespan

http://www.designrecycleinc.com/led%20comp%20chart.html

elstimpo

Chrysalis wrote: »

the 3 year warranty is what got my interest.

also I assume there is no mercury in led which has my interest also.

It would seem without the subsidies energy saving bulbs would never have taken off else why subsidise?. Those who had the foresight stocked up before the hyper inflation.

I did find led bulbs for not much more than what the energy savers cost but when I searched for bayonet leds the price jumps up.

This site has an interesting view on lifespan

http://www.designrecycleinc.com/led%20comp%20chart.html

I don't see why a B22 fitting should cost anymore than E27? That seems odd. A lot of manufacturers in Asia won't do a B22 fitting as they are not interested in that market, they purely want the US and Asian markets that don't use B22. But this doesn't make the fitting more expensive for those that do make them.

Also, clicking on that link and seeing 50,000 hour lifespan for an LED makes me cringe. I own an LED company and have been in the LED Lighting industry for coming up to 13 or 14 years now and there is still a problem with stats being exaggerated and purposely misleading.

An LED will easily last 50,000 hours, however, as every LED loses brightness, the level of brightness of the LED at 50,000 hours is probably going to have diminished substantially, to the point where it's pretty useless. Also, depending on the design and quality of raw materials used to make the product, the vital components of the LED will fail a long time before 50,000 hours is reached.

I've seen one LED product that would probably last 50,000 hours properly and it's very expensive. It's an LED Spotlight and the product has won international design awards and crafted using the finest raw materials properly. This means a proper and effective heat dissipation system, as if the heat is not dissipated properly, this will be the main cause of failure for the other components. We only put 40,000 life on this expensive product.

So when you see 50,000 hour lifespan, take it with a huge pinch of salt, especially when the product is at the cheaper end of the market.

The light output figures on that link are also not accurate !

Hope that helps.