The new halogen replacement bulbs I use (since the old regular ones are banned) cost roughly three-four times what the old ones did, wiping out any savings from the energy saved over the life of the bulb.
Are they really 3-4 times harder to make, or is something else going on? If they’re harder to make, doesn’t that increase the environmental impact that would offset the energy savings?
What lifetime, electricity rate and efficiency numbers are you using to arrive at this conclusion?
If you are really interested in the environment and energy savings, use LEDs.
I started buying LEDs for the halogens in our bathroom fixtures. The LEDs are more expensive but given the expense of the halogens, the LEDs will end up being much cheaper.
From here: LED Light Bulbs: Comparison Charts | Eartheasy Guides & Articles and http://www.topbulb.com/blog/whats-difference-halogen-incandescent-bulb/ and some rough calculation, each IC bulb cost about $8 to light during it’'s expected life, Halogen can do it that amount of light for $6.50, however Halogen should last 2x as long.
So take your initial cost of your IC bulb and multiply it by 2 (because you will need 2 of them to equal the life of a halogen.), and add $16 for the power, compare that to the cost of a single halogen bulb + $13.
So if halogen bulbs are 3-4 times as much that becomes 1.5-2 times as much (as you need two IC bulbs for one halogen), and you get a energy savings of apx $3.
Seems like a wash to me, so does not cost more as I can see.
Except Halogen bulbs do not last twice as long. Most of the replacements are rated at 1000 hours.
Assume $4 for a four pack of halogen, $1 for a four pack of standard. Electricity is 8.5 cents kwh where I live.
Cost of halogen: $1.00 + 1000 hours * .043 kwh *.085 = 4.65 lifetime cost Cost of incandescent: .25 +1000 hours .060 kwh.085= $5.35 lifetime cost
For 28/40 watts it’s $3.38 / $3.65, so almost a wash (assuming none of the halogens get bumped (they seem to take a lot less abuse than their older siblings) or their lives shortened by my dimmers. (the ones I use dimmed all night tend to blacken) For 53/75 watts it’s $5.51/ $6.63. I don’t have any 100 watt or equivalent lamps.
Hmm, looks like I’m wrong. Not like I have a choice to go back, but it looks like it’s slightly ahead to use halogens.
.
If longevity and energy consumption are your main concern then LED are the way to go.
I swapped out all my halogen kitchen spots for LEDs of equivalent light (and they indistinguishable for halogens). That cost me £30 and this was 6 months ago. My last two quarters of electricity use show a reduction of around £45 and I don’t expect to have to replace those bulbs now for at least 10 years.
On average I use to get through one halogen bulb every 2 months in the kitchen so thats an extra hassle I don’t have to deal with.
We’ve just changed all our CFL bulbs in the rest of the (small) house at a cost of £5 each for equivalent bulb. They are great, instant light and nice colour. The payback on those will be longer but the instant nature of the light and lower power consumption is a no-brainer
LEDs : $2.50 a bulb, 10k hour lifetime, 8 watts energy.
So over the bulb lifetime, compared to incandescent, it saves 52 watts. 520 kilowatt hours consumed over bulb lifetime. $52. So $50 in savings.
More expensive LEDs are $20 a bulb but as you can see they still pay for themselves.
Halogens, the difference is too small to be worth it. A halogen bulb might use 40 watts to produce the same light as a 60 watt incandescent. There’s your problem.
I don’t know where you buy your bulbs, but these 810 lumen, 25,000 hour, 92+ CRI bulbs are only $10.71 from that site, and I get them at $9.99 a three pack at Costco.
I am aware of the trade-offs of LED vs incandescent/halogen and aren’t interested in using LEDs for reasons I’ve commented on before; I was just curious as to why a halogen cost so much compared to an incandescent- is quartz that expensive, or are they making a lot more profit, or what?
What energy savings? I thought halogens were the worst possible wasters of energy. Am I mistaken? Quick research seems to show I’m not. Why use halogens at all, unless you have a heat lamp? LEDs would last much longer and use much less energy. I see that you said you’re not interested in LEDs and stated why, but I can’t find in the thread where you explained why.
Halogens are are about twice as efficient as regular incandescents, which means they are only 2x - 3x worse than LEDs, not to mention their much shorter lifespan.
Thanks.
But still, why not just use LEDs?
If you want light similar to halogens, you want a color temperature matching the halogen bulb (3k usually) and CRI over 90. Frankly, if you can’t see the bulb itself, you probably can’t even tell if someone made you do a blind - heh - test.
Doubtful. I’d suspect that since people won’t have to buy them as often, the higher price is to maintain profit margins.
Familiarity, cost, color rendition, and full spectrum lighting are usually cited the reason
Since someone asked (I was curious about the cost of halogens being quadruple that of regular incandescents, not trying to start another bulb debate thread) I don’t care about familiarity and cost, but color rendition, looking right in my fixtures as opposed to having no light coming towards the base, and dimmabilty are my issues with them. Cree has solved the directionality issue with the 4-Flow, and the color rendering with the TW series, but not in the same bulb.
Maybe this? High CRI, omni directional, cheap.
I’m curious about these enough to want to try them out.
Those are the bulbs that are available for $9.99 a three pack at Costco. I’ve got them all over my house and love them.