Switching to LED bulbs

[Deleted User]

telemarks wrote: »

Nonsense is far,far too strong a word, the maths all stacks up.

Do the sums yourself, even with bulbs that are "only on for minutes at a time", you will find less evil bulbs would have paid for themselves several times over the years.

I have done the maths. As I said, the problem with your argument is not that the maths is wrong, but the assumption that all my tungsten bulbs are on for several hours a day when they aren't.

As I've already said, the lamps that are on for hours are not tungsten, and of the ones that are tungsten, none of the following bulbs will pay for themselves in my lifetime:

Pantry (70 years)
Shed
Patio
Cupboard under the stairs
Back bedroom
Small bedroom
Loft (800 years)

Compare that with the bulb in the lounge, which was changed 12 years ago, and paid for itself in a few months.

Finally, it's also worth noting that the energy saving lamps in the lounge have lasted 3 years, 9 months, 2 yr, and 6yr. None of them anywhere near the claimed 10 years, which also impacts on the economics of changing bulbs that are little used.

telemarks

Methinks someone does protest too much.

Doing the maths if you only use a bulb for seconds a day, as you say it will take many years before the energy costs warrant a replacement bulb.
However what I said before is true

even with bulbs that are "only on for minutes at a time", you will find less evil bulbs would have paid for themselves several times over the years.

Going back to the OP, I wonder if they will return. Perhaps if they do they could save what wattage/type/and fitting bulbs they are using in their "5 bulb chandelier", then we would be better place to comment on LED equivalents