Hello I am in the final building stages of my house. I did geo thermal and flash n fill insulation based on alot of what is said here in the forums. thanks! I am getting ready to fill in a bunch of recessed cans inside (30 cans) and outside (12 cans) and the electrician is trying to talk me into upgrading to LED screw ins (with built in trim rings) for an extra $30 a pop, instead of traditional bulbs/ trim rings. He said there is also state and federal tax rebates out there. any idea? Im in Michigan should I even both at $30 extra each?

SFAIK there are no federal tax credits for residential high-efficiency lighting, while there are some commercial incentives.

Unless you need dimming quality or sharp shadows (reflector spot bulbs vs. floods), it's hard to rationalize the cost of LEDs vs. CFLs in teh same sockets. Efficiency-wise it's pretty much a wash, and if you're looking at 42 of the same size you can buy a case of 48 14-18W CFL floods (or a couple cases of 24) for the price of 5 10-12W LEDs. By the time they burn out the price of LEDs will have dropped by half, maybe even by 3/4.

The other place where LEDs can be worth the freight is in very awkard places where you literally never want to have to replace them. (Rare, in residential apps.)

Thanks Dana1, you seem to reply to all my posts!

The unique situation I am in right now, is that I dont need to purchase the trim rings, or light bulbs if I get the LED lights right off the bat, as opposed to getting them now, then throwing them out if I ever replace wth LED. I can get the CREE /ecosmart leds for $37 each shipped to my house. and Ill save roughly $7 per light by not getting trim/incandescent bulb.

So I'm looking at $30 to upgrade to LED, or $4 to upgrade to CFL.

I guess witout any more incentives, the LED just arent cheap enough yet....

I agree, and why should there be an incentive to use something that isn't more efficient?

Do CFL's allow the use of different cans because of the low heat output?

I opted for a pair of the 10.5W Cree MR6s (sold at the orange box store under their EcoSmart label) in a pair or cans in my living room for their more favorable dimmability, but the other dozen or so recessed fixtures in the house have CFLs or cold-cathode reflectors in the sockets. The efficiency is ~55lumens/watt, which is barely above a bargain-basement 50 lumens/watt R30 CFL flood, but since I can (and do, much of the time) run them at 10-25% power there's a net energy savings in "mood lighting" mode, but it was the light level control, not the energy savings I was after. A dimmable 4-pin CFL fixture & dimmer would have cost 3-4x as much but is capable of delivering 70lumens/watt. The Crees have very decent color rendering, and look nice a all dimming levels, and don't trend red the way incandescents/halogens do.

In a decade or so I anticipate LEDs hitting 75-80lm/w or better, and the price to fall by half.

CFLs don't put out as much heat as incandescent technologies and aren't nearly the fire hazard as the incandescent technlogies they replace, but they're susceptible to heat-degradation, reducing bulb life. This is more noticeable at 18W and higher versions. LED retrofits are typically lower power still, but are also susceptible to temperature- they put out less light at higher temp, and shift in color. The high cost of higher power LED retrofit bulbs is in the heat sinking and mini-blowers needed to keep them working well in a recessed can.

Posted By minkia38 on 20 Nov 2011 09:54 PM
Hello I am in the final building stages of my house. I did geo thermal and flash n fill insulation based on alot of what is said here in the forums. thanks! I am getting ready to fill in a bunch of recessed cans inside (30 cans) and outside (12 cans) and the electrician is trying to talk me into upgrading to LED screw ins (with built in trim rings) for an extra $30 a pop, instead of traditional bulbs/ trim rings. He said there is also state and federal tax rebates out there. any idea? Im in Michigan should I even both at $30 extra each?

Where in MI?

http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/...1&state=MI

Ray Twp ,MI 48096

Check out DSIRE site. The rebates are usually grouped by counties.

BTW: Cruising the aisles of the local big orange box store this weekend I noticed the MR6s R3- replacements going for $25/pop (quite a discount from internet pricing, but still not cheap.)

I am going to miss these when the idiot federal government goes into effect.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...01_KMJ.png

Think of a black market start up company...? 

Posted By WindowsonWashington on 05 Dec 2011 12:43 PM
I am going to miss these when the idiot federal government goes into effect.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...01_KMJ.png

Think of a black market start up company...? 

In Germany some enterprising folks have started selling them as "space heaters", to get around the regs.  

LEDs are pretty pricey, and some have pretty crappy color rendering, but they're getting better on both fronts. Unlike compact fluorescent retrofit bulbs many are dimmable to a nice low level with cheap dimmers.  Compact fluorescents are pretty cost-effective for non-dimming sockets and often have better color rendering than cheap incandescents. But CFLs suck for applications where you want sharp shadows and conical photometric (eg halogen spots and PAR bulbs), but there are some pretty good LED variants at the lower power end that are as-good-as halogens on color rendering.

Personally I'm not going to miss incandescents at all. The only sockets at my house with incandescents are tiny ones in the refrigerator, and a PAR30 halogen on a motion/daylight detector in the driveway.  In a mostly fluorescent-technology household I rarely change more than one bulb in any calendar year- usually T5 under-cabinet linears used for task-lighting in the kitchen.  Seems the instant-on ballasts stress them when turned on/off a lot.  When LED versions get cheap enough (& good enough ) I'll probably swap 'em out, but it's pretty low priority.

Most of my home is CFL and LED at this point too. That being said, I don't think the Federal government should make incandescent illegal.

As the technology of CFL and LED gets better and more cost effective, people will naturally buy them.

Posted By WindowsonWashington on 13 Dec 2011 01:51 PM
Most of my home is CFL and LED at this point too. That being said, I don't think the Federal government should make incandescent illegal.

As the technology of CFL and LED gets better and more cost effective, people will naturally buy them.

They are not making incandescent technology illegal. They are placing a not super-severe minimum efficiency of 25 lumens per watt standard for all lighting, which CAN be met by better halogens, just not the crappiest of crappy incandescent bulbs.  (A $2 twisty CFL exceeds the Federal standards by more than 2x, as do some of the better LEDs, and is lifecyle cost-effective with the cheapie bulbs on replacement rates alone, independent of the power savings.) 

If they had set the bar at 40 lumens/watt, THAT would be making incandescents illegal.

CFLs are already cost effective in a 3 year NPV analysis everywhere in the US. (In high power cost areas high-duty cycle sockets can be cost-effective in 3 months. )  LEDs, not so much, but by the time your CFLs burn out they might be.  At the moment CFLs still hold an efficiency edge over LEDs, (with a few exceptions) but the trend on LED efficiency is favorable. The longer lifespan of LEDs makes them near-parity with CFLs on lifecycle cost, but it really depends on what you use for a discount rate in the analysis.  If you add ANYTHING for the labor cost of bulb procurement & replacement, LEDs win even at current pricing.  In hard-to-reach areas that make bulb replacement difficult (say, 18' from the floor in a mall atrium) that's been true in the commercial world for awhile.

CFLs are already cost effective in a 3 year NPV analysis everywhere in the US

Not "are", "can be". Completely depends on how much it gets used and what they cost. Replacing that spare bedroom closet bulb will never ever pay for itself.

Posted By Dana1 on 15 Dec 2011 10:46 AM

Posted By WindowsonWashington on 13 Dec 2011 01:51 PM
Most of my home is CFL and LED at this point too. That being said, I don't think the Federal government should make incandescent illegal.

As the technology of CFL and LED gets better and more cost effective, people will naturally buy them.

They are not making incandescent technology illegal. They are placing a not super-severe minimum efficiency of 25 lumens per watt standard for all lighting, which CAN be met by better halogens, just not the crappiest of crappy incandescent bulbs.  (A $2 twisty CFL exceeds the Federal standards by more than 2x, as do some of the better LEDs, and is lifecyle cost-effective with the cheapie bulbs on replacement rates alone, independent of the power savings.) 

If they had set the bar at 40 lumens/watt, THAT would be making incandescents illegal.

Tomato, tomahtoe at that point Dana.

If I want to pay for the gas to drive a Hummer but the government mandates that a car needs to get an aggregate fuel mileage of 18+ mpg, that is effectively making that car, and my choice to drive it, illegal.

I have CFL and LED throughout my home and it is my choice because I think we should be good stewards of the environment (minus the heavy metals in the cfls) and our resources.

I don't care for the light rendering in many of them but it is a choice...which is how it should remain.  Much like the propped up renewable industry, I don't care of the federal government backing of industry (i.e. GM, etc).  If a product is competitive and can occupy a place in the market on its own, by all means. 

I s'pose there's a libertarian argument for throwing out all building codes too...

Posted By Dana1 on 16 Dec 2011 07:29 PM
I s'pose there's a libertarian argument for throwing out all building codes too...

Depending on who you talk to, probably.  I don't see minimum codes intended for the protection of citizens as an infringement of liberty, but again I am sure it would depend on who you talked to.

I also don't liken the ability to choose a lesser efficiency incandescent is in the same category as minimum safety requirements for structures.

But minimum R values (and starting with IRC 2009, minimum air-tightness) have nothing to do with safety, and are also only about minimum efficiency- would you chuck those too?

How about minimum AFUE on boilers & furnaces?

Minimum SEER on air conditioning, anyone?

None of the standards are perfect, all have to do with the policy goals of the larger society (guaranteed to never have unanimous consent, even on safety issues), but are framed within a lifecycle cost analysis to keep them rational. eg: Requiring R49 walls in San Diego would be downright silly, but R49 attic insulation requirements in northern MN have a reasonableness factor that can be vetted by a long term net-present-value analysis on heating & cooling cost savings. With light bulbs the lifecycle NPV argument is FAR more favorable than code-min insulation requirements, so how is it a more onerous imposition on personal freedom?