by William Teach | February 22, 2011 9:33 am
This article is from back on the 17th, but Treehugger links it up today, with a survey, which we’ll get to in a few. Marc Gunther at Greenbiz asks Would You Buy a $40 Light Bulb?
Maybe you should.
This week, Philips Lighting said that its AmbientLED 12.5-watt bulb – which, just to confuse you, is also sold under the Philips EnduraLED brand – has qualified for a EPA’s Energy Star rating. That means that it’s an efficient and, quite possibly cost-effective alternative to the 60-watt bulb, even with a $39.97 list price at Home Depot.
Here’s how the math works, at least according to Philips:
A conventional 60-watt bulb lasts about 1,000 hours, uses 60 watts of electricity (duh) and costs $180 to run for 25,000 hours.
The LED equivalent lasts 25,000 hours (nearly three years if you left it on 24/7), uses 12.5 watts and costs $37.50 to run for 25,000 hours.
That assumes electricity costs of 12.5 cents/kwh, slightly higher than average across the U.S. but a lot less that you pay in high-cost states like California.
Practically a bargain, no?
You can actually qualify for rebates from Phillips and government for purchasing these bulbs.
On the surface, this doesn’t seem that bad. You actually save some money, and these LED bulbs do not run as hot as a incandescent bulb (something I like down here in the hot South). But, still, $40? In the real world, 25K hours is 20 years of regular use. What about if the lamb gets knocked over and the bulb breaks? Or, a power surge blows it out? Money down the drain.
Anyhow, Treehugger has a survey, and, as of posting time, 59% of Huggies will stay with their cheaper CFLs, only 35% say they’re great and will save on their carbon footprint.
(poll inside the individual post)
| Feedback Tab
Source URL: https://rightwingnews.com/climate-change/what-say-to-a-40-led-lightbulb/
Copyright ©2020 John Hawkins' Right Wing News unless otherwise noted.