More "Bang" for your buck than Solar PV!?

[nwdiver]

With the light bulb ban going into effect Jan 1... here is some interesting math: A single 60w incandescent bulb uses ~45kWh more than its CFL/LED counterpart over the 1000 hour life of that bulb. So, if you can buy that bulb (and destroy it) for <$0.45 then you're paying ~$0.01 to "save" a kWh. I paid ~$15000 for a 10kWp array that will produce ~360000 kWh over 20 years or ~$0.04/kWh.

So... it's a mathematical fact that buying the remaining incandescent inventory and destroying it is $/$ a more cost effective way of reducing CO2 than buying solar panels...

Once they're gone they're gone. Law states they cannot be manufactured or imported. Bulb smashing party?

 

[TEG]

 

[Dave EV]

Don't forget to add in the cost of a good bulb (Home Depot sells a great 60W equivalent Cree bulb for $10 which uses 9.5W), but since the LED is supposed to last 25,000 hours, at least in terms of use per hour, the LED is already cheaper than the incandescent ($0.40 / 1000 hours vs $0.50 / 1000 hours) ignoring the 50 kWh per 1000 hours of use you're saving.

I have a couple of these Cree bulbs and they work great. Just slightly directional towards the top compared to an incandescent or CFL. I'm just waiting for my CFLs to die so I can eventually replace them with these bulbs.

I'm still looking for a good LED motion-sensor outdoor floor light with good directional light output (so I can also avoid unnecessary light pollution, see Internal Dark-Sky Organization), though. Although since those outdoor lights are on motion sensors and rarely stay on for more than a few minutes, the energy savings from replacing those bulbs is minimal.