Has your electric bill gone down if you have a lot of LED bulbs?
- Thread starter sixdogs
- Start date
- Views: 7763
NoTrespassing
Veteran Member
Ours went down a considerable amount when we switched to compact florescent light bulbs. We probably saved 10% on the total bill. It went down another 10% when I got rid of the old fridge. We're slowly changing to LED now but they aren't much more efficient than CFL. Incandescent actually put off quite a bit of heat so depending on the time of year they are either helping you heat the house or fighting the AC unit.
Kevin
Kevin
Looking4new
Super Member
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2012
- Messages
- 9,862
- Location
- Northern Ontario, Canada
- Tractor
- 2012 Kioti CK27HST w/cab
At considerable expense I changed the whole house over to LED. I've been on LED for two years and my bill went up.
I think it is mainly because the hydro rates went up, because people are using less hydro and the profits were going down.
JD 4520
Platinum Member
your power consumption couldn't have increased due to the LED conversion so either you are looking at $$ not usage or you are using electricity in ways you weren't before. LEDs use less power without a doubt.
Bird
Rest in Peace
It's a little hard to quantify exactly because climate changes might mean more or less A/C usage, electric rates change, etc., but I changed out nearly all the bulbs in our house in 2015 and yes, my electric costs have gone down a couple of hundred dollars per YEAR the last couple of years.
Oldoak
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2013
- Messages
- 1,817
- Tractor
- Kubota L5060GST, J D X758 GT, J D 855D XUV
We haven't switch in LED lighting in our house. We did go from incandescent lights to all florescent bulbs about four years ago. What we saved then, I couldn't tell you. Too many variables in electricity usage, rates and surcharges to accurately assess.
To switch lighting again, this time form florescent bulbs to LED, wouldn't be worth the expense which would negate what little savings may be gained.
Someone brought out a good point. Sometimes less usage, could eventually mean higher rates to make up the profits for the electricity generators/suppliers. A consumer just can't win!
To switch lighting again, this time form florescent bulbs to LED, wouldn't be worth the expense which would negate what little savings may be gained.
Someone brought out a good point. Sometimes less usage, could eventually mean higher rates to make up the profits for the electricity generators/suppliers. A consumer just can't win!
EddieWalker
Epic Contributor
I'm still switching over on an as needed basis and I haven't seen any change in my bill, but during the cooler, winter months, my bill is pretty low. We heat with a wood stove and the AC in summer is when my bill goes up. I have added several LED lights that are now on all night that we didn't have last year and I haven't noticed any increase in my bill from that. Seems about the same, so whatever energy they use, it's so small as to not be enough to be noticeable on the bill.
According to the energy calculator I just checked, it costs in rough terms, $1/month to run a 60 watt bulb 5 hours a day.
An LED bulb would use 1/6th of that, or 10 watts. A savings of .90/month
If I had 5 bulbs, running 5 hours a day, or an average of 50 hours of combined use of lighting in a day, I could save roughly $2.25 a month.
My bill averages about $185/month, so $2.25 would be a 1.25% difference.
The price of LED bulbs has come down, making the investment needed to do do that, more worthwhile.
But, the actual life span of the replacement bulbs, in my experience, has been disappointing, making it less attractive.
Almost all of my lights are on dimmers, (even the outdoor ones), and kept dimmed most of the time. Some LED's can't be dimmed. And, most LED bulbs, do not warm in color, like an incandescent does, as they dim. Which is something that I prefer. I would rather not give up, to save a couple of bucks a month.
"Warm on dim" LED bulbs are being offered now, but they are of course, even more expensive. Those are far superior to those which don't warm at all, but when I tested them, still not quite the same. So, the majority of my light bulbs are still incandescent.
An LED bulb would use 1/6th of that, or 10 watts. A savings of .90/month
If I had 5 bulbs, running 5 hours a day, or an average of 50 hours of combined use of lighting in a day, I could save roughly $2.25 a month.
My bill averages about $185/month, so $2.25 would be a 1.25% difference.
The price of LED bulbs has come down, making the investment needed to do do that, more worthwhile.
But, the actual life span of the replacement bulbs, in my experience, has been disappointing, making it less attractive.
Almost all of my lights are on dimmers, (even the outdoor ones), and kept dimmed most of the time. Some LED's can't be dimmed. And, most LED bulbs, do not warm in color, like an incandescent does, as they dim. Which is something that I prefer. I would rather not give up, to save a couple of bucks a month.
"Warm on dim" LED bulbs are being offered now, but they are of course, even more expensive. Those are far superior to those which don't warm at all, but when I tested them, still not quite the same. So, the majority of my light bulbs are still incandescent.
buickanddeere
Super Member
only if incandescent lamps were the majority of the electrical consumption. Here with an electric water heater, electric heat in both the garage and house, electric stove, fridge, two freezers, heat lamps, heat trace and electric clothes dryer . Lights are a minor load.
Mendonsy
Veteran Member
The other consideration is how much of your bill is actually for electricity. Around here it is only about 30%. The other 70% is for taxes, fees, service charges, etc. that are not related to how much electricity is used.
