90 Watt Incandescent Light Bulbs ?

Paul,

I thought that they outlawed all incandescent bulbs. There are much more important things in Washington that they need to fix without mandating what types of light bulbs we use. They need to get a grip.

I have noticed that they last time I went to get a 25 watt bulb for a small lamp I have in my office, that the package said 22 watts or something like that. It was an off the wall number.

Jimmy

Those florescent bulbs have mercury in them too. I saw a photo of a guy's foot after stepping on one. He dropped it while trying to install and when he got off his ladder stepped on a few pieces. Long story short his foot was amputated after being in the hospital for a week. They seem a bit dangerous to save a few pennies in electricity. They also are very expensive compared to incandescent. Try a Google search on the subject. http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=71917 there is the link to the pictures.

I don't know why anyone would want to use incandescent lights. They are cheaper at the store, and but you pay thousands more in the long run. Plus, they are bad for the environment, using up to 10X the amount of energy you need for the purpose. Here is a cost analysis I found on the net, that I'd guess it a bit outdated. I just bought out Lowes, who were having a sale on Samsung LEDs for $10.00 each. They are supposed to last 30 years, and cost less than $1.00 a year to run, on average. They are nice bright bulbs, too. Plus, this chart is factoring energy at 0.10 per kwh, when it's more like 0.12 or 0.13 around here.

The problem with the outrageously expensive bulbs is it will only take you probably twenty years to recoup their initial cost, a fact oft overlooked by greenies whether purposefully or not.

I'll keep gobbling up energy with my incandescents until prices become much more reasonable.

Well, with the LEDs, I don't think $10.00 is that expensive for something that is supposed to last 30 years. I can easily afford 33 cents/year/bulb, on average, but I understand that everyone's financial situation is different. Plus, at least in Florida, there is an offset of heat production vs. cooling costs with the CFLs and LEDs. And, of course, that chart I posted is in today's dollars, at today's energy rates. I'd expect energy prices will outpace regular inflation for many, many years to come. And, of course, the fire safety problems with incandescent are reduced with CFLs and LEDs

I switched to mostly 100 watt equivalent florescent (actual 23 watt sunlight version) bulb years ago.

They are not that safe for the environment either.

The most noticed difference is there is much less heat output and they barely burn the skin when on.

Using a CFL or LED in a redneck microwave is useless.

The oven is the only place I still use incandescent bulb.

My understanding of incandescent light bulb rule is that they must be manufactured in your home state.

That price list for bulbs does not reflect what I have seen for the cost of CFL bulbs, I'd say they were twice that much and probably more of the LED bulbs also from what I have seen around here. In local shops everything is marked up fairly high.

0.02

I wish I could find someone who would guarantee that life span of a CFL bulb.

Well, with the LEDs, I don't think $10.00 is that expensive for something that is supposed to last 30 years.

The ten buck ones put out an intolerably low level of light and simply won't work for me. I've always used 100 watt bulbs indoors for ample lighting, brighter for outdoor.

I can easily afford 33 cents/year/bulb, on average, but I understand that everyone's financial situation is different.

It's not about affordability, it's more about stupidity, and I'm not stupid. I can afford a hundred dollars a bulb or whatever as far as that goes, I'm just not going to give money away. Let's do some real math TPR, the stuff the greenies don't want you to know: I have approximately 50 light bulbs in my home, all but two being incandescents. Given that the cheapo ten buck led's simply won't work for me I'd have to spend 50.00/bulb to "upgrade" to the greenie garbage. That's a cost of 2500.00!!! If I were to put that same 2500.00 into an interest bearing account it's obvious that I would never recoup my initial investment.

Remember that the green movement is more about taking your green than about environmental concerns.

My first ridiculously expensive LED bulb lasted all of 6 months.

Ben, just for fun, I reworked the spreadsheet based on what you provided (i.e. $50 per LED bulb, 100w eq., 50 bulbs, etc.). I looked up the cost/specs on a 100w eq. CFL. As I expected, the savings of someone using 100w incandescents, switching to CFLs or LEDs, were much, much more than the chart above indicates.

Talk about giving money way ... sheesssshhhh. You must have a heck of a bank if your "interest bearing account" can turn $2,500 into $25,000 during the lifetime of a lightbulb...

We have not been getting anything like a long life out of our fluorescent bulbs. They are much less expensive to operate, and they do put out much less heat, but they don't seem as bright. Plus, since they don't last as advertised, much more expensive to buy and use.

Not to good at math I see. In the scenario you provide I would have to use all fifty lights in my home for 4.5 hours every day for thirty years. That's ridiculous, I don't use ANY lights in my home 4.5 hours a day much less ALL of them!

I'm correct in the assertion that I would not recoup the initial cost of the expensive bulbs for a very, very long time, sorry bout that.

Actually, the costs for CFL bulbs have gone way down since your chart was current, at least at

Home Depot

CFL bulbs are under a dollar each now, and I've been using them and saving money for years now. The only place I use the old incandescent bulbs are in dimmable fixtures.

Haven't tried the LED bulbs yet, but costs will eventually come down on those as well.

The are dangerous (CFL) if broken, fail to meet the as advertised life, the mercury is more dangerous for the environment. I wonder how soon we'll need special landfills for them, with an outrageous disposal cost. Typical green idea. More damage to people and the environment, high cost for little return. I guess obozos buddies at GE are laughing at you guys all the way to the bank.

I'm not up to speed on the LED except the outrageous cost, so I can't speak on their environmental impact.

Ben. $5 X 50 bulbs is only a whole $250 "initial investment", if you want to calculate it that way. But really, if you wait for incandescent to burn out, it's really only paying $3.75 more per bulb, or $187.5 to upgrade to more environmental friendly and money saving bulbs. I bet most people would recoup that $3.75 in less than a year, especially when using 100w bulbs. No matter how you slice, the cost/benefit of CFLs and LEDs are far superior to incandescent. Short term, long term … doesn’t matter. People who use incandescent are literally burning their money.

> The are dangerous (CFL) if broken, fail to meet the as advertised life, the mercury is more dangerous for the environment. I wonder how soon we'll need special landfills for them, with an outrageous disposal cost. Typical green idea. More damage to people and the environment, high cost for little return. I guess obozos buddies at GE are laughing at you guys all the way to the bank.
>
> I'm not up to speed on the LED except the outrageous cost, so I can't speak on their environmental impact.

Mark, have you ever heard of recycling? Every hardware store around here has a place where you can drop off your CFLs for recycling. Do they not do that in Kansas?

We prefer not to have poisonous light bulbs here. [sarcasm]Reminds me though I need to go burn some plastic jugs and tires.[/sarcasm]

Well, around here, we properly dispose of our light bulbs when they burn out, NOT EAT THEM!

Typical you. Will back a failed idea until the end of time. Seems your the minority. Try breaking a couple and enjoying the fumes. See if you gain some common sense, on your way to the hospital.