LED compared with fluorescent savings

[Telegram Sam]

My gut feeling is that at the present level of fancy prices LED lighting is being over-hyped by comparing the savings with old style tungsten bulbs rather than with low energy fluorescent. That if one is able to do the calculations (I am not) the break-even point from a change-over is much longer than most folk realize. And that for all practical purposes the 25 year claimed life is irrelevant (I lose my receipts after 1 month).

I have an 8 w low energy compact fluorescent bulb which is on for lengthy periods each evening (in winter). The light output is satisfactory. How can I calculate if there are savings to be made from going LED - which would only make sense, I suppose, if I installed a lower than 8 w LED bulb?

In another room I have a relatively high power 30 W daylight fluorescent bulb which is on for even longer and gives excellent results. I have yet to find an LED equivalent at a price that gut feeling tells me would be justifiable on a swap basis.

Would folk advise me to stay as I am and ignore the LED hype?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I agree to an extent.
The trouble comes when certain new fittings are required.
Fluorescents are becoming harder to source and often the only choice is for LED.
As for Halogen, I would opt for LED wherever possible.

 

[Telegram Sam]

In local stores (which for me are mainly the North Eastern supermarkets and Wilkinsons) the choice of LED's is not great though gradually ousting the other types. Retailers' own brands are gradually appearing at prices which are on the radar screen (as opposed to branded bulbs which are not). But how to calculate what the equivalent / like for like savings would be now that tungsten are all but an endangered species???

 

[dmxtothemax]

Fluorescents are already an efficient light
Changing to LED would in most cases not be justified
And most LED lights have there outputs exagerated.
You would have to compare lumens to lumens
Then consider change over costs
if your comparing LED to incandesant well thats different
But fluorescents are already efficient.

 

[snowhead]

You won't get payback in any reasonable time, if at all, in Domestic use for CFL or Fluorescent.

In Commercial uses full payback for a conversion from fluorescent to LED can be as little as 4 years with the added bonus of almost zero failures and no reduced output.
That's why lots of shops are converting.

If the CF lamp fails then replacement with LED is likely to produce a saving but will still probably not pay back.
If you're replacing a fitting of any type LED would be the first choice but not at any price if it's for financial reasons.

 

[Pat H]

The initial purchase cost of the new type LED lights is still too high to be cost effective but the light they produce is so much nicer then CF lights.
I use CF lights where they need to be functional and not turned on and off too much. For rooms like bedrooms etc I prefere LED lights. Instant on at full output and a nice light. And yes always look at actual lumen outputs and spread of light.

 

[The Ghost]

I do a lot of commercial refits to LED with sensors. In this context there is a "cost of ownership" survey done. There is tax incentives and literally no maintainence for up to five years. (So they say!) In 6 months I have replaced at least 180 tubes over four largish buildings and at averagely £10 each that is £1800 plus labour. For a commercial setup, there is no argument LED is the way to go. With sensors saving more Kwh as well in communal areas as people dont know how to use a switch. For the home... there is just no comparison really. I mean how often do you change tubes. It is quite hard to match lumens with tubes x LED. It is a matter of aesthetics in the home you can get RGB and play with mood lighting which a lot of people like. Notionally there is some saving.