Andy Burns wrote:

I understand that due to the 110/230 voltage differences, fluorescent
tubes and their ballasts are wired differently on each side of the
Atlantic, but over here converting a fluorescent fitting to LEDs usually
involves removing the ballast and starter, is that not the case over there?

You've hit upon the major flaw of my "retrofit".

I wanted to get rid of the fluorescent, especially since one of them buzzes
loudly. But I don't want to spend hundreds of dollars just now.

People suggested LEDs for two reasons:
a. Energy cost
b. Convenience

I think the solution I came up with, which fits into a fixture with T8
ballast, is hitting me on both:

A. I don't see how it saves energy yet, since it's the same ballast
B. The T8 LEDs may burn out far more quickly since it's a T12 ballast

On the first point, I admit I'm confused.
How can it save *any* energy, if the ballast is the same?

The LED box says "Uses 47% less energy" where it clarifies that in the small
print saying "47% energy savings is based on the difference between using a
17W LED replacement lamp, compared to using a 32W fluorescent lamp with an
electronic ballast. Performance varies based on ballast type. Your savings
will depend on your rates, fluorescent lamp (sic) you are replacing and
actual hours of operation.

In my case, I have the non-electronic ballast, and it's 40Watts.
I'm confused.

Plus my energy costs are three times the 11 cents they seem to use in the
LED light numbers.

So, I'm confused.

Does any of this mean I'll get more or less than the roughly half savings of
energy costs?

How?