Progress...
03-11-2014 | 09:10 AM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
From: 737 Right
I dunno….
Assume
• $0.66 and $12.97 to purchase an incandescent and LED bulb, respectively.
• $0.14/kWh, increasing at an annual rate of 2.5% per year
• Incandescent uses 60W, LED uses 12W
• The money saved by purchasing an incandescent can be invested at an annual rate of 10%.
• 5 hours of use per day, every day for 12 years
Ignoring the time value of money, the total cost of purchasing and operating the bulbs are $217 for incandescent and $56 for LED.
In consideration of the “investment” of $12.31 you make in the LED bulb and the time value of money, the LED bulb provides a return of about $75 through energy savings.
In this scenario, we are ignoring:
• The fact that nationwide electricity prices are higher than $0.14/kWh
• The fact that the incandescent bulb will likely need to be replaced several times throughout the 12 year period, whereas the LED bulb is advertised to last at least this long. (I admit that this remains to be seen.)
• Additional savings may be realized by households that use air conditioning in the summer, as incandescent bulbs throw off a good deal of heat.
• In theory, lower energy consumption means less pollution and other externalities that result from the production of electricity.
LED bulbs look alright to me.
Assume
• $0.66 and $12.97 to purchase an incandescent and LED bulb, respectively.
• $0.14/kWh, increasing at an annual rate of 2.5% per year
• Incandescent uses 60W, LED uses 12W
• The money saved by purchasing an incandescent can be invested at an annual rate of 10%.
• 5 hours of use per day, every day for 12 years
Ignoring the time value of money, the total cost of purchasing and operating the bulbs are $217 for incandescent and $56 for LED.
In consideration of the “investment” of $12.31 you make in the LED bulb and the time value of money, the LED bulb provides a return of about $75 through energy savings.
In this scenario, we are ignoring:
• The fact that nationwide electricity prices are higher than $0.14/kWh
• The fact that the incandescent bulb will likely need to be replaced several times throughout the 12 year period, whereas the LED bulb is advertised to last at least this long. (I admit that this remains to be seen.)
• Additional savings may be realized by households that use air conditioning in the summer, as incandescent bulbs throw off a good deal of heat.
• In theory, lower energy consumption means less pollution and other externalities that result from the production of electricity.
LED bulbs look alright to me.
03-12-2014 | 12:53 PM
#3
Thread Starter
Libertarian Resistance
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 0
From: 757 FO
I dunno….
Assume
• $0.66 and $12.97 to purchase an incandescent and LED bulb, respectively.
• $0.14/kWh, increasing at an annual rate of 2.5% per year
• Incandescent uses 60W, LED uses 12W
• The money saved by purchasing an incandescent can be invested at an annual rate of 10%.
• 5 hours of use per day, every day for 12 years
Ignoring the time value of money, the total cost of purchasing and operating the bulbs are $217 for incandescent and $56 for LED.
In consideration of the “investment” of $12.31 you make in the LED bulb and the time value of money, the LED bulb provides a return of about $75 through energy savings.
In this scenario, we are ignoring:
• The fact that nationwide electricity prices are higher than $0.14/kWh
• The fact that the incandescent bulb will likely need to be replaced several times throughout the 12 year period, whereas the LED bulb is advertised to last at least this long. (I admit that this remains to be seen.)
• Additional savings may be realized by households that use air conditioning in the summer, as incandescent bulbs throw off a good deal of heat.
• In theory, lower energy consumption means less pollution and other externalities that result from the production of electricity.
LED bulbs look alright to me.
Assume
• $0.66 and $12.97 to purchase an incandescent and LED bulb, respectively.
• $0.14/kWh, increasing at an annual rate of 2.5% per year
• Incandescent uses 60W, LED uses 12W
• The money saved by purchasing an incandescent can be invested at an annual rate of 10%.
• 5 hours of use per day, every day for 12 years
Ignoring the time value of money, the total cost of purchasing and operating the bulbs are $217 for incandescent and $56 for LED.
In consideration of the “investment” of $12.31 you make in the LED bulb and the time value of money, the LED bulb provides a return of about $75 through energy savings.
In this scenario, we are ignoring:
• The fact that nationwide electricity prices are higher than $0.14/kWh
• The fact that the incandescent bulb will likely need to be replaced several times throughout the 12 year period, whereas the LED bulb is advertised to last at least this long. (I admit that this remains to be seen.)
• Additional savings may be realized by households that use air conditioning in the summer, as incandescent bulbs throw off a good deal of heat.
• In theory, lower energy consumption means less pollution and other externalities that result from the production of electricity.
LED bulbs look alright to me.
--The gov't website says the US residential average is less than $0.12/kWh
EIA - Electricity Data
--Why does the price increase at 2.5%/year? It has been largely flat for decades
Table 8.10 Average Retail Prices of Electricity, 1960-2011 (Cents per Kilowatthour, Including Taxes)
--If you can invest the annual savings from the LED bulb, can't you also invest the money you didn't spend on the LED?
--I don't think you can assume the same usage. People drive more miles on fuel efficient cars.
--If LED usage would reduce AC costs in the summer, wouldn't they increase heating costs in the winter?
These reservations notwithstanding, the LED is clearly is a nice technological advance over the traditional bulbs. But whether or not to use an LED is an economic decision that is best made by individuals and not bureaucrats or politicians.
WW
03-12-2014 | 09:20 PM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
From: 737 Right
You make good points, and I have no sensible rebuttal for most of them. (I did modify the assumptions in my model in accordance with your recommendations (ie energy price, no price inflation) and LEDs still look better economically, despite the high purchase price. Now the CFL-LED argument might be a closer case, economically speaking.)
On this point we certainly agree.
On this point we certainly agree.
04-07-2014 | 08:04 PM
#5
Thread Starter
Libertarian Resistance
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 0
From: 757 FO
You make good points, and I have no sensible rebuttal for most of them. (I did modify the assumptions in my model in accordance with your recommendations (ie energy price, no price inflation) and LEDs still look better economically, despite the high purchase price. Now the CFL-LED argument might be a closer case, economically speaking.)
On this point we certainly agree.
On this point we certainly agree.
WW
04-07-2014 | 09:21 PM
#6
Bracing for Fallacies
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,543
Likes: 0
From: In favor of good things, not in favor of bad things
But whether or not to use an LED is an economic decision that is best made by individuals and not bureaucrats or politicians.
I personally like the swirly bulbs and the LED bulbs, but I do agree with your sentiment. I don't think that the government should force incandescent bulbs into extinction. Let people buy them if they want.
What is really peeving me off is the whole ethanol push. I have heard (and need confirmation) that the government is going to push for even higher ethanol amounts in our auto fuel. F that!
I like non oxygenated fuel for a number of reasons, not least of which is *better* fuel economy. I have been thinking of starting a thread on ethanol versus non oxygenated fuel.....
I personally like the swirly bulbs and the LED bulbs, but I do agree with your sentiment. I don't think that the government should force incandescent bulbs into extinction. Let people buy them if they want.
What is really peeving me off is the whole ethanol push. I have heard (and need confirmation) that the government is going to push for even higher ethanol amounts in our auto fuel. F that!
I like non oxygenated fuel for a number of reasons, not least of which is *better* fuel economy. I have been thinking of starting a thread on ethanol versus non oxygenated fuel.....
04-08-2014 | 10:19 AM
#7
Flies for Fun
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
From: CE-172 Heavy
I put six Cree LED lights in our master bath sometime last year at a cost of about $10/ea. Last weekend I noticed one doesn't work and quickly see the bulb glass had 'disconnected' from the base of the bulb (the glass didn't even break). Instead of 22.1 years as indicated on the package, it only lasted one year. 
Don't get me started on that ethanol garbage. I fill both of my cars up each week using non-ethanol 93 octane, which is running about $4.29/gal here.
Don't get me started on that ethanol garbage. I fill both of my cars up each week using non-ethanol 93 octane, which is running about $4.29/gal here.
04-08-2014 | 04:04 PM
#8
On Reserve
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 148
Likes: 2
From: Q400 FO
Both my wife and I actually prefer incandescent to both CFC and LED lighting... If you don't leave your lights on when you don't actually need them, the savings aren't that big. (most people don't use their lights for 5 hours a day). Also my understanding is that with CFC bulbs it takes time for the ballasts to warm up, and during that time they are inefficient.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
