On 4/24/2015 9:42 AM, Mayayana wrote:
| Compare real cost and you will change your mind. Those cheap bulbs are
| more expensive than the $2,50 LED. At my rate, 1,000 hours of operation
| for the cheap bulb is $11.40. The LED will cost $1.90 to operate. Look
| at the life of the bulb for say, 10,000 hours and it is even worse as
| the same LED bulb is still burning while you've repaced a bunch of those
| quarter bulbs. .
|
| OK. you can brag about your cheap bulbs, but I'll put the money in my
| pocket.
This came up awhile back and it turned out
that some of the people focused on saving
money were also in the habit of leaving lights
on unnecessarily.
I'm com paring an hour of use versus and hour of use. It may not pay to
change out that closet bulb that is use 20 minutes a year, but the
kitchen or living room lights make quite a difference. The one in our
nightstand in the bedroom gets a few hours a day. Bathrooms get a few
hours a day.
There are numerous factors involved, so that
calculating savings is a sketchy business. In
addition to the fact that we really don't know yet
what the life of a given bulb will be,
We have some fairly accurate information. Even if off 15%, it still
shows a lot of savings.
there are
also aesthetic factors. (Quality and color of light.)
And if you leave the lights on all day, are you
actually saving money just because you use LED
bulbs?
Quality of light is rather good. What difference does it make if you
leave lights on all the time or not? The savings is based on the same
use. Using LED does not change my habits, be they good or bad. I don't
see how yhou came up with that nonsense.
Why would someone counting pennies so
carefully waste electricity like that? And $2.50 for
an LED is not yet realistic. A particular cheapo LED
bulb will be going on sale for $2.50. Is that a bargain?
Again, it's not easy to calculate definitively.
Does not seem all th at difficult. You make some silly argument about
leaving lights on that makes no sense at all.
But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume
that you're really saving a few dollars per year, buying
LED bulbs on sale and only turning on lights when
absolutely necessary. I'll further assume that you apply
that frugal philosophy to your life in general.
Yes, I do.
You don't
have a dishasher or garbage disposal.
I have both. The dishwasher not only does a great job of cleaning the
dishes, it does it with lass hot water and at lower cost than doing it
by hand. The machine itself cost money, but I'm willing to pay for the
convenience of just pushing a button for clean dishes.
You keep your
thermostat at 50F. You don't own a TV. You're posting
these posts from the Public Library because you don't
own a computer. And you'll be using your few dollars
savings to buy dried navy beans on sale.
After all, if you go to Starbucks or go out for dinner,
you've just blown through years' worth of savings on
electricity. And ESPN on cable? Don't get me started!
Don't have ESPN, but I do have a TV and DirecTV.
Just because I have those niceties and spend money on them does not mean
I should waste money on electricity. Your argument is extremely dumb, IMO.
I could buy 75 incandescent bulbs for the cost of one
month of just ESPN alone. For the cost of a month of
cable TV I could probably buy several hundred bulbs. 
Any if you save enough money on electricity, you can use that extra
money for dinner out or a Grande at Starbucks.
Some other things that I save on. I live in CT but work in MA. I buy
my gas in MA because it averages 25¢ a gallon less. Works out to about
$250 a year for me.
Last week I went to Yankee Spirits and bought a 1.75 liter bottle of
Hendrick gin for $49. If I bought the equal amount in CT it would have
been about $72. My wife was with me so we had a nice lunch covered by
my liquor purchases that day.
I enjoy a lot of luxuries because I don't waste money. I choose where
my money goes to give me the best value. LED bulbs are one of those
factors.