Money saving light-bulbs

harshitguptaiitr

Not sure if I am posting on the right thread.
But would like to know valued suggestions on what are the most effective money saving light bulbs - considering initial cost and running cost

Neil_Jones

A lot depends on the socket type you need and prefer but they can be as low as half a penny a day.

Here's a calculator:
https://www.sust-it.net/lighting-energy-calculator.php

Raxiel

I did a full inventory of my lighting earlier this year, replacing the last of my 'old energy saver' compact fluorescents with LED. The whole house including external security lights is 156.4w

Works out at 1.7p an hour on my current tariff if I lit everything at once.

The absolute lowest running cost (and nicest looking IMO) lamps are the filament LED's, I have several 6w lamps in sockets that would have held 60w incandescents, and even some 2w lamps in bedside lamps that replaced 6.3w compact fluorescents (replaced because they look nicer and contain no mercury more than the energy savings, but that was nice too) that themselves were equivalent to 30w incandescents.

The up-front cost is a bit higher at £4-£5 a go, but you can often see them on multibuy at places like B&Q or Tesco. It can also be hard to find anything other than warm white in retail stores, I had to go to Ebay to find a cool white lamp for the bathroom.

Because they are so efficient, they run very cool and should last a really long time though.

The cheapest efficient lamps you can get that aren't a waste of money are the ones from Pound Land (Not Poundworld, there is a difference) but they (last I checked) only go up to 5w for a more 'traditional' LED lamp style, which is the equivalent of a 40w incandescent, not the best for lighting a room by itself. Their 3W GU10 halogen replacements are pretty good I hear.

reeac

I recently discovered Luxform led lamps available at the redoubtable Elmers shop in Kesgrave, Suffolk. They are £2.49 each in any power up to 9 watts (75 watts incandescent equivalent). One failed almost immediately and the shop replaced it without question ... no other problems. So far I've bought around 10 of them ..will buy more to replace compact fluorescents in due course.

matelodave

I replaced 10x50 halogens in my kitchen with 10 x 4 watt LEDs about 5 years ago - that saves's me around 6p for every hour that they are on. Say an average of 1 hour a day that's £22 a year, so I've save well over £100 since I've had them and they cost me around a fiver each so I'm in profit by about £60. The halogens used to fail quite often - these have been totally reliable.

If and when I need to replace them they'll be a lot cheaper.

All of our lamps are LEDs and I now get cheapies either as multipacks from ALDI or £1 each from poundland. Even my 300w halogaen security ligth has been replaced with two 10 watt LED units which give a better spread and save about 3.5p per hour.

footyguy

harshitguptaiitr wrote: »

Not sure if I am posting on the right thread.
But would like to know valued suggestions on what are the most effective money saving light bulbs - considering initial cost and running cost

Depends.

We have some lights we vvery rarely, if ever, use; I feel sure you probably do too!
In this situation, any investment in a new light bulb is not worth it.

However, for lights that are heavily used, then low energy lightbulbs can save you significant energy.
We still have a cupboard full of low energy lightbulbs the energy companies sent us for free a few years back. As these were either free, or sometimes cost us maybe 10p each, these are the cheapest option for us. Typically CFL.

Nowadays, LED bulbs are becoming more favourable. Not because they save much more (if any) energy than CFL, but they do come to full brightness quicker. However, the downside is the still the quite expensive capital cost (unless you find a cheap one offered) - look to pay £5-£10 each full retail price.
Be careful of buying cheap LED bulbs - reduced price ones would be a better option

If you want dimming capability, then it complicates matters even further.
We have not yet changed any of our dimming bulbs, but tend not to use them much nowadays either.

[Deleted User]

I decided to replace the 14 tungsten bulbs as and when they failed, but I still haven't used up the two spare bulbs I bought 16 years ago. The striplight in the kitchen has had one new tube in 28 years, but by comparison, the CFL in the lounge has been replaced 4 times in 11 years.

I bought a pack of 3 LEDs earlier this year when the last CFL in the lounge failed, so I now have three spare tungsten bulbs.

NineDeuce

The cheapest to run are those with the lowest wattage. You arent really going to see much difference however, between LEDs and CFLs in the grand scheme of things.

reeac

Although we're in the process of changing to led lighting our kitchen, laundry room and garage have the long tube type fluorescent lighting which is actually more efficient than CFL in terms of lumens / watt and, of course give a better spread of illumination which is suited to utility areas so I'll stay with them.

Raxiel

NineDeuce wrote: »

The cheapest to run are those with the lowest wattage. You arent really going to see much difference however, between LEDs and CFLs in the grand scheme of things.

The most important thing is lumens per Watt. The objective is still to provide illumination first and save energy second.
In my experience Filament LED's (in glass bulbs with a small metal cap like the old incandescents) give about 120-135 l/W
My older Ikea LED lamps (the type with the chunky plastic base and a light guide in the middle) get between 63-77 l/W
CFL's are around 50-60 l/W, and incandescents around 16 l/W.

You are right about the grand scheme of things, if you're replacing energy savers with better energy savers you are getting well into diminishing returns. The only low hanging fruit remaining in most homes is halogens either in downlights or external security lights.

NineDeuce

Raxiel wrote: »

The most important thing is lumens per Watt. The objective is still to provide illumination first and save energy second.
In my experience Filament LED's (in glass bulbs with a small metal cap like the old incandescents) give about 120-135 l/W
My older Ikea LED lamps (the type with the chunky plastic base and a light guide in the middle) get between 63-77 l/W
CFL's are around 50-60 l/W, and incandescents around 16 l/W.

You are right about the grand scheme of things, if you're replacing energy savers with better energy savers you are getting well into diminishing returns. The only low hanging fruit remaining in most homes is halogens either in downlights or external security lights.

The OP asked which is the cheapest to run. The lowest wattage lamps are the cheapest, logically. The subject of lm/W is really only relevant if you are designing something, and more so in a commercial environment. Nobody at home notices/cares too much the difference between the odd few lumens given that even the most basic CFLs now work well in almost any domestic environment.

We have been using incandescent bulbs ranging from 40-100W that differ much more in lm/W. The difference between CFLs and LEDs at home is no way as disparate.