December 8th, 2007 · No Comments

“There are significant energy savings in LED lighting,” she continues, in keeping with the chain’s bottom-dollar emphasis, “and that means money in our customer’s pockets. With this season being big for decorating with lights, our customers can save money on their energy bills by using LED Christmas lights, at a time when many people need it most.”

Any reason for people to make an eco-friendly lifestyle change is a good one, but one hesitates to push the money angle too single-mindedly. A recent Consumer Reports article ranks the new lights high in every qualitative department, then complains: “But it’s apt to take more than one holiday season for the savings to kick in.”*

That’s an odd twist that seems to suggest consumers shouldn’t deign to buy anything that isn’t going to save them money in less than a three-month cycle — never mind that, even if costs (purchase plus electric bill) for using LED and incandescent lights were perfectly equal, most of the money spent on the latter would be spent wasting natural resources.

If an august institution like CR can remain on the fence even after the data they gathered, there’s always one final important consideration: At least in the informal test conducted on the tree in my living room, the more virtuous, efficient, and durable bulb was also the prettiest.

(*We’re journalists, not mathematicians, but even so, the CR data is worth a critical look based on your own purchases. Their figures show that 10 strings of mid-size incandescents would run about $40 in electricity costs over 300 hours vs. $.70 for 15 strings (a comparable length) of LEDs. That’s a lot of electricity savings piling up in one holiday season, so depending on the purchase price differential, it looks like you could come close to making up the cost of buying LEDs in one season, and then compound that savings over the years.)

Copyright © 2007 | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Pages: 1 2 3