if you left it on 24/7 for a year you would use up 78.84kwh. at 9cents per kwh that means you spent about 7 bucks for the year to light this bulb. contrast that with 1 60w bulb which would be about 47 bucks a year to light. So just with the electricity you dont use it will pay for the bulb... granted if you dont leave it on constantly it'll take longer to pay for itself but eventually it will.
My problem with the thing is they say its as bright as a 40w bulb... who uses 40w bulbs in their home for general lighting? I thought the standard was 60w? can we please get either 50 or 60w replacements so we dont have to walk around in dimly lit rooms or buy 2 $50 bulbs to light the same room that 1 60w incandescent bulb can do for 47 cents. Then on top of that its GE who are walking all the way to the bank arm in arm with the obama administration when it comes to health care reform, green energy, and home appliances (new DoE regulations coming out soon that means you might have to get all new appliances).
The problem with both the article and all the comments so far is everybody keeps comparing LED to incandescent. We know the advantages. What's much less apparent is the serious price disadvantage when compared to CFLs. Maybe in a few years LEDs may become a viable choice. But for now - stay with CFLs. I've been using them for years and don't plan on switching to LED any time soon. (With one exception - bike lights should all be switched to LEDs! No bike CFLs that I know of...)
This is not impressive at all. First of all this uses the same amount of energy as (9W) as a 40W equivalent CFL. LEDs are supposed to be 50% more efficeint than CFLs.
Secondly, there is already a better LED bulb available. The guys at C.Crane sell the geobulb, which emits 520 lumens of light at just 7W. Thats more than the 450 lumens of the GE bulb. Oh and its rated at 50,000 hours, double the life of GE's bulb.
LEDs are the future, but not necessarily the
"household" future......most of the true advantage
of LED is in a 12 hour a day commercial use cycle
with products that have been built not to sell for
40 bucks....and not competing with products
that sell for 60 cents.....
These are not economically viable compared to CFLs which are much brighter and much cheaper. And, the mass of people who buy light bulbs are still going for the dollar-store 4-packs (only 3 will be good) of incandescent bulbs that last for five years, or at best they're buying the $9 3-packs of CFLs at places like Wal-Mart. I think they're a great idea, but I won't buy LED bulbs (except for flashlights!) until they're at least as bright as CFLs, aren't bluish, and cost no more than $10.
It depends on how old fashioned he is claiming his light to be. I personally know of an old light in a firehouse that has been on constantly for 50+ years. Look it up. Anyways, just some trivia for you.
As for this LED: Not enough for to much cash. I'll stick with a more cost effective solution (CFL) for now. As stated before me, $10 would be a decent price point. Also: what is up with plastic fins? This looks like the crystal on a wizards staff (as stated before!)
[citation][nom]TunaSoda[/nom]Incandescent bulbs are the best, sorry.[/citation]
You can't put a CFL (or LED) in an oven, most aren't dimmable (and those that are, tend to adjust poorly); for some applications, the incandescent bulb does not yet have competition. I've considered them in some places during the winter months, but in my house only three bedside touch lamps, appliances, and a motion sensor floodlight are still incandescent.