Or imagine the ones who spent $50 for ONE bulb just last year.  They are all proud of this bulb that may last 10 to 20 years.  Now imagine them only 3 years in the future, crying in Walmarts because they are holding up a 3 pack of LED bulbs for $16.97..  I don’t want to be that fool.  Besides, the looks of the lighting and bulbs change as they improve.  First adopters will be eating their hearts out when they see the BETTER, soft light improvements that look even more close to other favorite classic bulbs.  Not to say all bulbs must be like this, but many people will react to this.  Then they will have to rebuy all their bulbs just to get the newer bulb with better looks and features.  Think back.  Some of the light patterns and color temperatures and colors on the 1st LED bulbs were truly ugly.  The latest thing is the frosted, warm look and diffuse light on some makes etc.  But who knows what they will have in 3 years.  Or how cheap they will be.  Obviously if a bulb is over $30, it’s just begging to fall in the next 3 years.

And what if a $50 LED bulb breaks?  OR starts getting flashers?  Think everyone will save their receipts oh so perfectly for 10 or more years?  Think again.   At least with a cheaper bulb I won’t be upset if one breaks.
That said, I’m going to wait just a little while longer before I buy a load of bulbs.  Maybe I’ll buy ONE of the under $10 ones at HD to amuse myself while I wait, if I see them in that stand again…

Watts
purchase purchase Equiv.
date price manufacture distributor model Watts Incan.
1/29/11 $39.97 Lighting Sci ecosmart PAR30 15 60
3/22/12 $29.97 Lighting Sci ecosmart PAR30 15 60
3/22/12 $27.97 Phillips same PAR30L 12 60
3/22/12 $24.97 Lighting Sci ecosmart BR30 14 75
3/22/12 $16.97 Phillips same A19 12.5 60
3/22/12 $9.97 Lighting Sci ecosmart A19 9 40

warranty
Lumens years rated life dimble outdoor location / manufacture pn
725 5 50,000 Yes Yes over sink, kitchen / 866 392
725 5 50,000 Yes Yes outside garage / 866 392
630 6 lmt 25,000 Yes No N. Fireplc / 12E26PAR30L-E2
800 5 25,000 Yes Yes S. Fireplc – couch / 409 440
800 6 lmt 25,000 Yes No outside front door / 12E26A60
429 5 50,000 Yes No Bedroom lamp / 864 680

No problems so far with any of these.

Obviously I like the Lighting Science PAR30 bulbs a lot. I will buy more when they get cheaper. CFLs get hot and fail in Can light mounts indoors. BR30 is even better. My wife complains about how bright they are and they are 1 less Watt of power use. These were all on the Home Depot web site before I purchased. I don’t see them on their now. Maybe they are selling too well right now? You’ll have to figure that out yourself.

LED bulbs, Solar PV, and EVs/EREVs (PHEVs) viva la revolucion!!!

As a foreign based (headquartered) corporation Philips was excluded from eligibility according to the law that established the L-Prize, in particular public law 110-140 section 655(f)(1). Under U.S. federal law the term “a primary place of business” that is used in the statute refers to the single headquarters location, which in the case of Philips is Amsterdam,Netherlands.

When this issue arose after the announcement of Philips as the L-Prize “winner” the CEO of Philips Lighting North America Zia Eftekhar went on record falsly stating that the L-Prize bulb was “conceived” and had its “origins” in the U.S. See http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4218797/Born-in-the-USA–Philips–L-Prize-LED-bulb The truth as evidenced in Philips patent application on the L-Prize bulb, is otherwise. See http://www.google.com/patents/about/ELECTRIC_LAMP.html?id=adH3AQAAEBAJ The patent application which was, originally filed in Europe in 2008, but published in the U.S. two months after the Philips executive made his misrepresentations, lists only Dutch inventors, no U.S. inventors and assignes the patent to the Dutch Philips entity, not to a U.S. entity.

Philips also spent $1.79 Million lobbying for appropriations for the L-PRIZE see http://freebeacon.com/wp-content//uploads/2012/03/Philips.LightBulb.pdf

Nonetheless “A House Appropriations Committee report issued in June slammed the department for announcing the $10 million prize without prior approval from Congress.” see http://freebeacon.com/obamas-dim-bulbs/

The L-Prize entry also failed to meet key technical requirements of the contest. The Philips entry does not meet the stated uniformity requirement of the contest. This is admitted in a document obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), see https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B25T0YFa8TKaMDFmYzZmNGItYTMyOS00YmM1LTgyZjAtZWJiNzQ2NmM1MWY3/edit The curt justification asserted in that document based on comparing uniformity to a standard incandescent lamp is factually (quantifiably) false. The L-Prize lamp submitted for evaluation was actually less uniform. See https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B25T0YFa8TKaTHVVbDVrLTVSSkNEcW5MaVNzVTI4dw/edit

The production L-Prize bulb also does not meet the published L-Prize uniformity criteria of +/-10% of average in the zone 0 to 150 degrees. See data on page 41 of http://www.usa.lighting.philips.com/pwc_li/us_en/lightcommunity/trends/l-prize/assets/EnduraLED_A19_Bulb_9290002097.pdf and https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B25T0YFa8TKaWExFamtJcG9nSUE/edit?pli=1

Whether the Philips lightbulb actually satisfies the L-Prize 25,000 hour lifetime with less than 10% failure requirement is put into question by the fact that in an independent laboratory evalutation conducted by the Southern California Edison 1 of 16 bulbs failed by changing color to red. See http://www.etcc-ca.com/component/content/article/48-Commercial/3044-l-prize-lab-evaluation

The Philips entry also failed to produce the required amount of light. In one test 62 out of 100 bulbs failed. (See above linked FOIAed document) Whether the commercialized version will consistently produce the required amount of light is an open question, HOWEVER the stated procedure for the contest was that if the entry failed a required test the entry would fail. See flowchart on page 15 of http://www.lightingprize.org/pdfs/LPrize-Revision1.pdf

What happened is that Philips wanted to submit prematurely to claim the prize (see http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/09/feds-pay-10-million-for-50-light-bulb ) and the Department of Energy did not want to follow the rules and fail them, rather they embarked on RIGGING the contest. They kept the failure secret and proceeded with other tests.

The result is that a bulb developed by Dutch inventors, built with some (possibly most) of its parts made in Shenzhen China (see http://www.dailytech.com/Philips+Wins+10M+USD+Govt+LPrize+for+Worlds+Most+Efficient+Light+Bulb/article24082.htm ) has been given a great initial advantage which may allow it to dominate U.S. competitors, even though the contest is RIGGED.

We may wind up with Dutch citizens enjoying social welfare benefits such as vacations for the unemployed, supported by Chinese workers working 16 hours a day and American consumers squeezed by $60 light bulb prices whether they pay that amount at the check out counter or indirectly pay for subsidies through their electric bill.

Looking forward to the price for LEDs coming down to $20 in the next year or 3 so I can afford to convert.