Announcing the $50 light bulb

I don't mind the price...i just they made a higher output screw in bulb

Really?
In what month is the break even?

Text me when ky jelly hits $50 tube......

I guess when you are old you need a light to find your penis.

i don't really care about the break even. for me, it's more about the environment. Also, I find LED lights better than flourescent. I got a floor lamp from IKEA to replace one with halogen - I love that LED lamp!

Light bulbs didn't ruin the environment in the 1880s ... 1890s ... 1900s ... 1910s ... 1920s ... 1930s ... 1940s ... 1950s ... 1960s ... 1970s ... 1980s ... 1990s ... 2000s.

I don't understand this rush to create a "green" lightbulb that costs the consumer ten times as much, requires the burning of many times more fossil fuel in its production, generates more waste in its packaging ... and in the end creates much more of an environmental hazard in its disposal than the "regular" light bulb we've been using for 130 years.

I WANT expensive cool light bulbs..to match my expensive phone, expensive stereo, expensive TV, expensive towels, expensive shirts, expensive shoes, expensive.........

I am CHEAP but somethings are worth it....including the environmens. i am happy to reduce my footprint.

"I am CHEAP but somethings are worth it....including the environmens. i am happy to reduce my footprint."

But in the long run, you're not, as I explained above.

The first company to produce an automobile in the US listed them for the equivalent of about $60k today. They sold about 15 of them. Then they went out of business. Good thing Henry Ford understood economies of scale or I'd be stepping through horse feces to hail a carriage home tonight.

LED bulbs are not an environmental hazard. You are thinking of CFL bulbs. Got any support for any of those other assertions?

LED bulbs cost much more (and require more electricity) to produce and package. My assertions stand.

Ok. Now that you have dropped the assertions about fossil fuel use, generation of waste and environmental hazards, you are left with "They cost more.", which I think was pretty apparent from the title of the thread. Stay with me now ...

whether you should buy them depends on whether the delta in consumption costs over time outweigh the delta between the costs of the initial capital outlay. If regular bulbs consume 6x as much power and burn out 10x as fast it might be worth buying. But that would depend on your power costs and how long you expected to be there or have the lamp in question.

I have light bulbs in my apartment that are at least 8 years old and still going strong. REGULAR light bulbs. They cost virtually nothing to operate.

Shh. Don't tell ConEd. They are charging the rest of us 24 cents/kWh.

Re: I have light bulbs in my apartment that are at least 8 years old and still going strong.

Maybe you're just a "lights off" kinda guy Matt

"LED bulbs cost much more (and require more electricity) to produce and package. My assertions stand"

except that's not what you said.

Your assertion was: "and in the end creates much more of an environmental hazard in its disposal than the "regular" light bulb we've been using for 130 years"

you backtracking on that one? admitting you were wrong about LED disposal?

Matt really gets his money out of every bulb.
Since Matt doesn't have kids and I'm never having any , I think I can speak for us both:
We like our regular light bulbs.
We already reduced our carbon footprint.

http://www.greenbuildingnews.com/articles/2011/02/25/led-bulbs-pose-health-hazards

> Maybe you're just a "lights off" kinda guy Matt

Good one

How many using the $50 light bulb and driving an SUV?

Good one Truth!

you too, rent stabilizer. no progeny, i hope.

Do they use light bulbs on Columbia county, or just torches?

why?

Actually Matt raises a good point as well. If the energy saving light bulbs increase our exposure to hazardous metals are we really better off? The goal should be saving money not using less fuel.

who's money? yours, rent stabilizer?

Hi CN!

you're getting desperate.

Riversider.

How much cream cheese and light bulbs can you possibly fit into that 500sq ft coop you bought in 1979 for $10k? I understand you get zero natural light but jeez.....

And btw we the taxpayers gave you a cola adjustment of 3% this year so stfu.

Is w67thstreet now a taxpayer?
http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/18080-its-official-the-irs-are-morons

"Actually Matt raises a good point as well. If the energy saving light bulbs increase our exposure to hazardous metals are we really better off? The goal should be saving money not using less fuel."

Thank you, Riversider.

My point is this: at the end of the day, these bulbs use more fuel and energy (which are essentially the same thing) in their production, once you factor in the production of the micro-components, shipping them in from all over the world, assembling them, etc. Not to mention the hazardous materials we're now being exposed to when we eventually throw them away.

Regular light bulbs are made from glass and metal. That's it.

I find it ironic that the humble light bulb is being attacked for it's "carbon footprint" by an increasingly power-hungry society whose appetite for electricity is growing exponentially by the year.

A generation ago, each household had one primary television set, and maybe one secondary set in Mom and Dad's bedroom. Today, we have large-screen sets that suck as much electricity as a second refrigerator, and thanks to how cheap they've become (to own, not necessarily to operate), we now have them in nearly every room of the home, including the kitchen and bathrooms.

A generation ago each home had, if it was lucky, a computer. Today homes have multiple computers; Mom, Dad, kids -- everyone needs their own, and not just one, but two when you factor in the laptops as well.

A generation ago, our phones did not require extra electricity to operate; they were powered by the 6 volts or so of juice provided by the phone company. Not anymore. If you have a land line, chances are it's a cordless that needs to be plugged into an electrical outlet as well as the phone jack.

And that's another thing: cell phones. Blackberries. iPods. iPads. Kindles. Each household now has an average of FIVE electronic devices that are constantly in "charge" mode, sucking juice from the power company.

How about the home entertainment system? A generation ago, it was called the "television set", with only one plug going into the electrical outlet. You also had your "stereo", and depending on its sophistication, usually required only one plug, but if you got fancy with it (separate tape deck, maybe even an equalizer), depending on how many outlets your amp or receiver provided for your components, you might have needed two plugs going into the wall. THREE at the very most. Today, however -- fuhgettabout it! Most of us have two POWER STRIPS plugged into each outlet to allow for TV, DVD, DVR, VCR, cable box, cable modem, yadda yadda yadda.

And what the kitchen? In 1970, Mom probably made coffee on the stovetop. Today's homes, however, often have a lineup of coffee-making devices that could rival Starbucks. And don't forget the toasters ... mixers ... blah blah blah. And unlike our parents and grandparents who worried about fire hazards, in our age of auto-shutoff, we blithely leave everything plugged in. All the time. Even when they're off, they're slowly drawing a tickle of juice from the power company, second by second, day by day, year by year. It adds up.

And let's not forget all that fancy under-counter (and indirect above-counter) lighting we all have now that our parents saw no need for. How many bulbs are burning there, in addition to your primary lights in the kitchen?

Household finances. Our mothers and grandmothers kept track of them with pad and pen; yet today we can't do it without software and "apps" on devices that require either a battery or a plug.

In short, every American home of this generation has -- at MINIMUM -- at least TWO DOZEN more *things* plugged into the wall than the American homes of the 1970s and '80s.

Indeed, even outside our homes, our entire way of life is big footing "carbon footprints" all over the place. People obsessed with going "cashless" who insist on paying for every little thing with a credit or debit card leave a footprint every time they swipe those cards into electronic devices that need yet more electricity.

If it beeps, buzzes, lights up, or sends a signal farther than you can spit, you've just burned a little more coal and oil that even 20 years ago you otherwise would not have.

And today, we're blaming our carbon footprint on ... light bulbs???

That's like Congress -- ignoring the 800 billion dollars we spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars -- blaming our budget woes on the annual $500 million subsidy to Amtrak.

Gov't over-touts these things. If these devices were as good as they were advertised to be, we wouldn't need gov't to subsidize or force the decisions down our throats.

Same thing with cars..

-----------------------------
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/03/obama-auto-rule-saves-k-a-year-hmm-116728.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------

A verbal typo by President Obama at today’s Mt. Holly, N.C. speech, but a self-serving one that warrants a quick correction:

“Now, because of these new standards for cars and trucks, they're going to -- all going to be able to go further and use less fuel every year. And that means pretty soon you’ll be able to fill up your car every two weeks instead of every week -– and, over time, that saves you, a typical family, about $8,000 a year,” Obama said.

“We like that!” shouted an audience member.

“You like that, don't you?” Obama replied.

Except it’s not true.

The new White House CAFE standards would save owners about $8,200 over the life of the car in 2010 dollars, with the per-year savings in the high hundreds – nothing to sneeze at, but not quite eight large a year. In fact, all but the most voracious gas consumers spend a fraction of $8k a year on gas.

The standards, bumping MPG requirements to 54.5, would save 12 billion barrels of oil, reduce oil consumption by 2.2 million barrels a day by 2025, according to White House calculations.

liar

lol. As more bulbs are produced, prices will fall. The first cfls were quite expensive too

Matt: Your argument would be interesting if Congress was fining people for using old light bulbs. Alas, they are not. Nobody is blaming anyone in the original article. People are trying to find multiple solutions for multiple problems. It's not just carbon emissions. It's energy security. It's grid reliability. So they offered a prize for a solution. And somebody won it. What a scandal.

I have 6 spots in my living room that are on ALL the time.
I replaced with $40 LEDs that "seem" to have reduced my electric (wasnt a double blind study) around $75 per month. So you do the math.
Im not crazy about the spectrum(s) of light or the look of the bulbs but that will improve in time of production.

And the macro-picture, from last week's Economist:

"SUMMER in Texas last year was the hottest on record. Demand for power spiked as air conditioners hummed across the state. The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), the state grid operator, only narrowly avoided having to impose rolling blackouts. To do so, it had to buy all the electricity it could find on the spot market, in some cases paying an eye-watering 30 times the normal price."

Connect the dots now on why the government should encourage energy efficiency, whether light bulbs, appliances, etc.

have 6 spots in my living room that are on ALL the time.
I replaced with $40 LEDs that "seem" to have reduced my electric (wasnt a double blind study) around $75 per month. So you do the math.
Im not crazy about the spectrum(s) of light or the look of the bulbs but that will improve in time of production.

-------------
Yes you save money because the bulbs produce no light for the first 1/2 hour

Riversider, the WaPo CORRECTED chart attached the story. They COMPLETELY got wrong the cost of electricity!!!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rw/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/03/12/Health-Environment-Science/Graphics/w-bulb-g.jpg

Over the life of the LED bulb, the consumer will pay a TOTAL of $83! $50 for the bulb, $33 for electricity. FOr a standard bulb, its $228! For a homeowner or landlord, the breakeven is at less than 4 years!

This is something that all of you rent versus buy people should understand perfectly well.

Read the damn chart.

What is more amazing is that the fucking reporter did not even MENTION the data in his own fucking chart. If you are going to live somewhere or be a commercial tenant for at least 4 years, this bulb will save you money. If you live there for $10, it will cost you over 70% less.

Right Wingers Attack Innovative $50 Light Bulb Because They Can’t Do Math

Unfortunately for the Washington Post’s credibility, the cost calculation was extremely wrong. Clark and Berkowitz’s assessment assumes that the kilowatt-hour price of electricity is $0.01, instead of actual average retail price of $0.12 and rising. This factor-of-ten error demolishes the entire premise of Whoriskey’s article. ThinkProgress Green has prepared a corrected graph, based on a low-ball estimate of $0.10/kWh electricity:

Whoriskey’s attack on the innovative, money-saving light bulb was promoted by the Drudge Report and picked up by right-wing blogs as further evidence that American clean-tech innovation is an Obama boondoggle. At Michelle Malkin‘s blog, Doug Powers complains about the “$10 million in prize money taxpayers are on the hook for in order to pay a company to create light bulbs people either can’t afford or won’t want.” Gateway Pundit screams: “It’s an Obama World… Gas Reaches $5 a Gallon & “Green” Light Bulbs Cost You $50 Each.” “The same people who can afford to drive a Volt (and have the limo pick them up when it runs out of charge) will be the ones purchasing this idiocy,” Pirate’s Cove blathers. American Enterprise Institute scholar Kenneth Green blasted the “Ludicrous Prize” as one of “epic energy-failures.” At Ricochet, George W. Bush speechwriter Troy Senik asks, “What lost? A bulb powered by the hoofbeats of unicorns?”

One of the strangest phenomena of modern-day politics is the right-wing antagonism toward American clean-energy manufacturing, a consequence of the fossil-fuel industry’s stranglehold on our nation’s conservatives. The Washington Post shouldn’t be aiding and abetting this ugly trend.

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/03/10/441919/right-wingers-attack-innovative-50-light-bulb-because-they-cant-do-math/

Getting the Whole Story Right at the Washington Post

The Washington Post published a front-page story today on the economics of buying an advanced light bulb. The Post included a graphic (PDF below) to illustrate that owning the “L Prize” LED light-bulb will cost consumers more than if they owned less efficient incandescent light bulbs.

This is bogus.

The problem with the graphic is bad “info.” It is based on electricity costing 1 cent per kilowatt-hour. That’s way off from the actual price of electricity -- by a factor of 10! The U.S. average retail cost of electricity, according to the Energy Information Administration, is about 11 cents per kilowatt-hour. The Washington Post’s graphic indicates that the 1800 kilowatt-hours needed by old-fashioned incandescent technology costs $18, while the 300 kilowatt-hours needed for the replacement LED bulb costs $3. Both work out to 1 cent per kilowatt-hour.

But when applying actual electricity prices, the old-fashioned incandescent bulbs cost the consumer $198 in electricity over the life-span of an L-Prize LED bulb (1800 kW-hr times 11 cents per kW-hr). Over that same period of time, the electricity cost of an L-Prize light bulb is only $33 (300 kW-hr times 11 cents per kW-hr).

So, an L-Prize bulb actually saves the consumer $165 in electricity costs for each bulb. Even when you figure in the Post’s estimate that one $50 LED bulb is replacing $30 worth of incandescent bulbs -- and therefore, is $20 more expensive in terms of the costs of the bulbs themselves -- that is still a net savings of roughly $145 per L-Prize bulb. It’s not a higher overall cost to the consumer, as the Post erroneously calculated.

That error goes to the heart of the Post story. Is it fair to say that a bulb that the Post reports will cost $50 is unaffordable, while failing to mention that the savings on monthly electricity bills will far outweigh that cost? A key premise of the story -- the affordability of advanced lighting -- is based on a significant, misleading error about electricity prices. The Post has now deleted from its website the part of their graphic that contained its erroneous cost comparison. But the story that remains on its website is still lacking in balance. Even though advanced lighting costs more upfront, each advanced light bulb actually saves its owner a very tidy sum of money.

http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/democratic-news?ID=a92ac848-0e7a-4ad4-a8f9-32625592d66e

I'm going to get a good supply of regular lightbulbs. I'll share them with Matt when he runs out of his supply.
Good to know that the gov't isn't going to fine us for using them. Would that go on forever?
Should I hoard 30 years worth of bulbs? In case I die before Matt should I bequeath the bulb supply to him?
Will there be money in black-market regular light bulbs?

I don't leave lights on when I go out. I'm all for the gov't encouraging energy efficiency. I like to watch t.v. in the dark. I recycle, don't own a car, and I don't have kids by choice.
I've done all I can do.

Anyone caught using a regular light bulb will be visited by a Predator Drone. The predator drone has special technology that allows it to lock ont to the heat source coming from your illegal light bulb and fires a hell fire missile at it.

anyone know where i can buy led bulbs in bulk at good prices. hopefully, led will be more reliable than cfl which don't last as long as advertised.

Truth can you get me one of those high flow toilets?

This is assuming that the damn bulbs actually last four years.

I've had four of them in my apartment, none lasted more than a year. So much for THAT experiment.

So your the regular bulbs that normally last one year last eight years in your apartment and the long-lasting ones that usually make it 10 years last less than a year? I'd say either:

a. you mixed up your bulbs;
b. you live in some sort of alternate universe;
c. you're full of it; or
d. all of the above.

Matt lives in a dangerous neighborhood. He also takes in unemployed strays with bad credit scores.

Um, don't you wish.

I've had the best luck with the good old-fashioned light bulbs.

"So your the regular bulbs that normally last one year last eight years in your apartment"

Sounds like a Hannukah story to me. :)

If you use regular bulbs, but dim them down, say, dim a 100 watt bulb to the equivalent of 75 watts they really do last a VERY long time, much longer than the 75 watt bulb always used at full power.

huntersburg: I can sneak one out of Canada for you the next time Levon plays a concert up there.
We can bring it back in the van hidden in drumset covers.

Don't worry Matt--I'm stocking up:
I got some 20's, some 40s, some 60s, lots of 75s and some 100s.
We're good.

Interestin article from the BBC

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120314-the-end-of-the-lightbulb

>If you use regular bulbs, but dim them down, say, dim a 100 watt bulb to the equivalent of 75 watts they really do last a VERY long time, much longer than the 75 watt bulb always used at full power.

Penthouselady, come on, what do you save over te course of a year? $10?

>huntersburg: I can sneak one out of Canada

legal only here, thanks

those said wanna reduce footprint, why don't you find a chance to beat up a republican senator or at least throw some rotten eggs? they are all against public transportation

Are you threatening a sitting United States Senator?

>hunter - I like having the higher wattage for reading, etc. Dimming down is not to save money, but rather to illuminate the rooms in a pleasing way - sort of like "stage lighting". Also is nice to be able to change bulbs very infrequently.

And yes, mea culpa, I am guilty of having bought a large backup stock of 85/100 watt spot and flood reflector bulbs (and some regular 100 watt incandescents).

ph41, do you look down on apt23?

no need to answer,,... I know, I know, mom said the golden rule.

ph41
Have a friend who has a stellar laserdisc collection.
Of course a different scenario as it was a new product that went by way of betamax.
Incandescent has been the staple.
Still Im sure there are those out there who stocked up on great VHS movies.

Just saying, as unappealing as LEDs may be to some, it certainly looks to be the format of the future.
Bulbs were basically left alone forever but technology now seems to have it's sight on the category, environmentalism aside.
I think 5 years from now LEDs may advance to a a point where incadescent looks like an analog tv
Hope your inventory isnt too big as you may find yourself trying to sell it on ebay to a village in Zimbabwe.
Hope your stock isn't

ignore "hope your stock isnt"

I've replaced all my lights on my sailboat to LEDs. Yes the combination steaming and flood lights atop the mast is $500 versus the old $100 halogen. But it costs me $300 to send someone up there to change the bulb or I can go up myself for free and have my wife yell at me.

Less electricity use, which lowers my battery replacement in the long run, no need to replace bulbs for at least 10 years... I'm thinking it's deflationary. Riversider would have you believe the same govt that gives him his Cola adjustment is stealing from him with this massive conspiracy to steal money from the SS check cashing populous one light bulb at a time.

>truth - but if you've read the various articles on the LED's , you might have noticed that not only is the quality of the light an issue, but the light output is also an issue. LED bulbs can only produce light equivalent to a 60-70 watt bulb. Can't do the equivalent of a 100 watt because of the heat produced. So if it takes 5 years to improve the current LED's so that the light is more appealing and the bulbs less expensive, it could take even longer to get the light output up to the level of a 100 watt incandescent.

When they've finally managed to improve the LED bulbs both in quality of light and light output (and who knows the real time frame for that?) I will gladly buy them. Until then, I'm really happy I have my stash.

I hear ya. Im just saying I wouldnt be stocking for 10 years worth of light.

Im guilty myself. I hate this Netflix-esque digitized movie watching system now. I like(d) going to the store for movie shopping, walking out the door with the physical movie.
The Best Buys of the world are not benefiting as Im sure store traffic must be down considerably.

(Of course there was a time where we all preferred record albums and their album cover artwork.)

But truth - haven't you read about all the audiophiles going back to vinyl?

Because the audiophiles love the snap crackle and pop.

So should I only stock 9 years worth of bulbs, truthskr?

I think there are even more pedophiles than there are audiophiles.
The greatest improvement to quality of music sound ever for the average joe was the introduction of the Sony Walkman's headphones.

Truthy I think if you stock 9 years worth you'll end up with 4 years worth of cool,vintage, mint condition collectables.
Maybe a prop for an Uncle Fester halloween costume?

I really really used to love my Sony Wega Trinitron TV. I thought those new LED tvs were horrible. In less than 5 years with the addition of hi-def Im sure a Sony Wega is nearly unwatchable (to me).

lol, truthskr.

Wbottom, are you also an audiophile?

Another brilliant gov't subsidy.
--------------------
http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Why-did-a-Train-Carrying-Biofuel-Cross-the-Border-24-Times-and-Never-Unload.html

A cargo train filled with biofuels crossed the border between the US and Canada 24 times between the 15th of June and the 28th of June 2010; not once did it unload its cargo, yet it still earned millions of dollars. CBC News of Canada was the first to pick up on this story on the 3rd of December 2012, and began their own investigation into the possible explanations behind this odd behaviour.

During their investigation CBC managed to obtain an internal email which stated that the cars of the train were all reconfigured between each trip but that the cargo was never actually unloaded, because “each move per car across the border is revenue generated”, the sale of the cargo itself was inconsequential.