LED lighting isn't always a bright idea
While LEDs last decades and sip electricity, replace the wrong bulbs and you could be dead before you break even.
This post comes from Stacy Johnson at partner site Money Talks News.
A few years ago I spent close to $5,000 to replace an old central air system. I've installed extra insulation, a programmable thermostat, dimmer switches and energy-efficient appliances. You name it, I've done it.
So when one of my buddies opened a business specializing in LEDs, I lit up. My home is now awash in low-energy lighting. The dark side: My bank account is lighter by more than $400.
Worth it? Well, let's say I wish I knew then what I know now.Don't do what I did
Before I replaced my lighting with LEDs, I knew what you probably know: They use a fraction of the electricity of incandescent bulbs, last a lot longer and generate less heat. How can you go wrong?
Here's how: not prioritizing.
The bulbs I replaced were the ones I could point to and say, "Look! I just put in LED lighting!" In other words, I put LEDs where you can see the exposed bulbs -- in the recessed ceiling fixtures in my kitchen, along with similar fixtures in the living room and master bedroom. Altogether, eight bulbs in the kitchen ($15 each), six in the living room ($20 each), and four in the bedroom (two at $20, two at $15). Total cost? $310.
The bulbs I didn't replace were the main light in the middle of my kitchen ceiling, the light in the laundry/pet room, and the light below the ceiling fan in the master bedroom. Those bulbs don't show. They're within glass fixtures.
As you saw in the video above, the more a bulb is used, the more LEDs make sense. The bulbs I should have changed were the ones I didn't -- the primary lights in the kitchen, the laundry room and the master bedroom. These are the lights that are on most often. The ones I changed aren't on nearly as much. They're basically accent lights.
To rub a little salt in the wound, I also learned after the fact that LEDs require different dimmer switches than those I was using. I had to replace six, at a cost of $22 each.
Computing break-even on LEDs
Shortly after installing my new LEDs and dimmers, I read an article called "Are LED and CFL bulbs worth the money? Don't be left in the dark" from Simple Family Finance.
In this post, author Chris Tecmire did what I should have done -- computed exactly how much LEDs save and how long it takes for those savings to offset the cost of the more expensive bulbs.
To do his comparison, he first computed the cost in both electricity and bulbs for 25,000 hours' worth of incandescent, compact fluorescent and LED light.
- Electricity cost -- 13.5 cents per KwH (you can get the price you pay from your electric bill).
- Incandescent -- Cost is 50 cents a bulb, life 800 hours.
- Compact fluorescent -- Cost is $2 a bulb, life 4,000 hours.
- LED -- Cost is $20 a bulb, life 25,000 hours.
His results for the total cost for 25,000 hours of electricity, including the bulbs:
- Incandescent -- $218.50.
- Compact fluorescent -- $64.63.
- LED -- $53.75.
Conclusion? LEDs cost 40 times more than incandescent, but since they use about 75% less electricity, they win in the long run.
But, as my accounting professor used to say, in the long run we're all dead.
If you use a light five hours a day -- as I do for the ones I didn't replace -- 25,000 hours translates to 5,000 days or about 14 years. But if you use the light only 30 minutes a day (like the ones I did replace), 25,000 hours becomes 50,000 days or 137 years.
Let's rearrange Chris' math to reveal the break-even cost:
- At 30 minutes a day, an incandescent bulb uses $1.48 in electricity annually. The LED bulb uses only 25 cents' worth. So the LED saves $1.23 per year. Since it costs $20, it will take 16 years to recoup the cost in electricity savings.
- At five hours a day, the incandescent uses $15.42 in electricity annually. The LED bulb uses only $2.42 worth. So the LED saves $13 per year in electricity, meaning you'll break even in less than two years.
The bottom line
Granted, there's more to LEDs than breaking even. All of us presumably want to reduce our carbon footprint and be a pal to Mother Earth. But if you're focusing on cost, the conclusion is inescapable: If you're going with LEDs, forget aesthetics. Replace the incandescents you use the most.
Unless, of course, your goal is lowering the power bills for your heirs.
More on Money Talks News:
Copyright © 2014 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Morningstar Inc. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Morningstar Inc. Quotes delayed by up to 15 minutes, except where indicated otherwise. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by Morningstar Inc.
ABOUT SMART SPENDING
LATEST BLOG POSTS
The Internet helps broadcast dubious remedies and phony "cures." These unproven treatments take your money and sometimes your health, too.
VIDEO ON MSN MONEY
BLOGS WE LIKE
MUST-SEE ON MSN
- Video: Easy DIY smoked meats at home
A charcuterie master shares his process for cold-smoking meat at home.
- Jetpacks about to go mainstream
- Weird things covered by home insurance
- Bing: 70 percent of adults report 'digital eye strain'