Money saving light-bulbs

PixelPound

This tends to be more a question when a new energy saving comes along, not established ones. New technologies tend to be higher priced until volume manufacturing brings the cost down.

Incandescent bulbs were the normal, the CFL came along and it was initial cost vs saving over the lifetime. Then there was a promotion and subsidies by BG - I remember them being sold for 1p each. Then we had LED which would often cost a lot more but lasted a lot longer than CFL and a lot less wattage, so it was initial cost vs lifetime savings.

Costs of LED bulbs have come down to almost same as any other bulb type. You can pick up 2W or 4W bulbs for a quid or two and you can even get dim-able ones now.

the act that you can now get filament style bulbs mean there should be no reason to get anything other than LED for 240v installations

[Deleted User]

NineDeuce wrote: »

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.

If you're going to disregard the brightness of the lamp the cheapest option is to switch off and live in the dark. The only way to make any meaningful comparisons between lamp running costs is by comparing them on a like for like basis.

Raxiel

NineDeuce wrote: »

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.

Come on, by that metric, the cheapest is to do away with lighting all together. [Edit: Jack_pott beat me to it]

It's implicit in the question (and pertinent to the overall discussion regardless) that the OP still wants to be able to see things. Putting 1w pygmy bulbs in SES fixings all over the house will use very little electricity but will be very gloomy.

You're right that most people can't discern a couple of hundred lumens, the human eye is wonderfully adaptable to light levels, but they can discern the difference between 800 and 200.

I don't have a light meter, so I'm going off manufacturer provided numbers and subjective opinion, I have an 8w Filament LED lamp in my bathroom that is a lot brighter (950L according to the manufacturer) than the 12w CFL it replaced. Elsewhere 6w lamps replaced 18w at the cost of (an unnoticeable) 200 less lumens.

The extra efficiency comes from the fact these lamps have a large number of smaller diodes than earlier models, meaning the internal voltage once divided among them all is much closer to mains voltage and less is wasted as heat from the driver in the cap.

I already acknowledged that comparing energy savers is dealing with fractions of fractions. Replacing a working CFL with any type of LED doesn't make much sense based on total cost, but the tech has improved a lot since it was first introduced. Something that those who are holding out because of how terrible the first generation of energy savers were (as lamps) would benefit to discover.

As for Incandescents, according to Wiki (feel free to rebut if you have a more authoritative source) a 40w has an efficiency of 12.6 lm/W, 60w 14.5 lm/W and 100w 17.5 lm/W, so a 100w bulb puts out a bit more light than a 60w + 40w paired together, but it's hardly a big spread.

NineDeuce

jack_pott wrote: »

If you're going to disregard the brightness of the lamp the cheapest option is to switch off and live in the dark. The only way to make any meaningful comparisons between lamp running costs is by comparing them on a like for like basis.

Thats a rather silly comment. How about we do a survey and we see if sitting the dark is more akin to sitting under a CFL lamp than an LED?

Oh.... we already know that 60lm/W is closer to 65 than 0lm/W.....

AndyPK

I can't recommend energizer LEDs enough.

They are bright (brighter than incandescent)
Perfect colour match (can't tell the difference!)
Instant start being LED
Inexpensive. Less than £5 each

b&m sell them.

I've tried candle, GLS, GU10, shaving light.

[Deleted User]

NineDeuce wrote: »

Thats a rather silly comment.

Reductio ad Absurdum

How about we do a survey and we see if sitting the dark is more akin to sitting under a CFL lamp than an LED?

Oh.... we already know that 60lm/W is closer to 65 than 0lm/W.....

You weren't comparing lm/W in post 11, you were rejecting that in favour of comparing power consumption alone.

I repeat again if you don't compare lamps of equivalent brightness the comparison is meaningless. What would you say if Tesco told you their bags of potatoes are half the price of Lidl's whilst neglecting to tell you they're also half the size? Why do you think there's legislation requiring that the package must tell you how much light (or potato) you're getting for your money?

Cardew

AndyPK wrote: »

I can't recommend energizer LEDs enough.

They are bright (brighter than incandescent)
Perfect colour match (can't tell the difference!)
Instant start being LED
Inexpensive. Less than £5 each

b&m sell them.

I've tried candle, GLS, GU10, shaving light.

IMO £5 each is not inexpensive, Firms like Screwfix are selling a variety of LEDs - including dimmable - for £2 each.

PixelPound

Cardew wrote: »

IMO £5 each is not inexpensive, Firms like Screwfix are selling a variety of LEDs - including dimmable - for £2 each.

The cheapest LED in the likes of screwfx tend to be for fairly dim bulbs, below 300lm. Most of my bulbs tend to be 1100-1600lm since I want to be able to see. lol

You can get them in supermarkets too. I was looking for a filament style LED golf ball for 450lm and Asda was cheaper than screwfix.

AndyPK

I said less than £5 each.

They are certainly a lot brighter than the ones I got from screwfix.

The energizer one always impress me by being brighter than incandescent.
It must be their goal, to ensure the customer isn't put off the brand/LED products it makes.

To see some of them:

http://www.bmstores.co.uk/search?q=energizer

more fitments are available.

NineDeuce

jack_pott wrote: »

Reductio ad Absurdum

You weren't comparing lm/W in post 11, you were rejecting that in favour of comparing power consumption alone.

I repeat again if you don't compare lamps of equivalent brightness the comparison is meaningless. What would you say if Tesco told you their bags of potatoes are half the price of Lidl's whilst neglecting to tell you they're also half the size? Why do you think there's legislation requiring that the package must tell you how much light (or potato) you're getting for your money?

Oh for goodness sake. Do I have to repeat? If you are asking what is cheapest to run (i.e. regardless of lm/W) then the lowest wattage is cheapest.

Now you can choose to really pedantic and say that it would be cheaper to sit in darkness, but do you honestly come on to a forum without common sense and without presuming that the OP wants to know which would lamps are best from those easily or commercially viable.