Consumer Technology

Published on May 20th, 2014 | by Zachary Shahan


Philips LED Down To $1.97 Some Places, CREE LED Down To $6.97 At Home Depot

May 20th, 2014 by  

Home Depot Cree LED

Before too long, I’m going to publish reviews of three CREE LED bulbs. But before getting to that I wanted to pass along a quick note regarding the rather big news that you can now get CREE LEDs in Home Depot for a mere $6.97. That’s for a bulb that is equivalent to a 60W incandescent soft white bulb. It’s also a dimmable bulb.

One of our readers actually passed this Home Depot LED link along just before Earth Day and noted that the price was down to $4.97. I guess that was an Earth Day special, but $6.97 is still super low. With a bulb that uses 85% less energy, your “payback time” is going to be quick. And it comes with a 10-year warranty.

And this isn’t even as low as it goes. Another story we’ve been meaning to cover for a while is that the Philips SlimStyle LED bulb (which is in the middle of our studio apartment), has achieved ENERGY STAR certification, which means that it can qualify for Energy Efficiency Program rebates nationwide. Efficiency Maine customers, for example, can get it for as little as $1.97!

The Philips SlimStyle again cuts energy use by about 85%. It will save consumers $136 in electricity costs alone over its lifetime, a Philips rep told me in an email. Of course, that all depends on what type of bulb you’re replacing, though. If you’re replacing a CREE 60W-equivalent LED, I guess your savings are more like $5.

philips SlimStyle LED

philips LED

Consumers in states such as CT, HI, IN, MA, ME, MI, NJ, NV, RI, UT, and WA, as well as Washington, DC, could see pricing as low as $3.97 on shelf at Home Depot. You can check out a full listing of the 600 utilities Philips has worked with to offer rebates on its ENERGY STAR–certified bulbs if you want more info.

The age of incandescents is obviously over, but I think the age of CFLs is on its way out as well. Your thoughts?

Check out our new 93-page EV report, based on over 2,000 surveys collected from EV drivers in 49 of 50 US states, 26 European countries, and 9 Canadian provinces.

Tags: , , , , ,

About the Author

is tryin' to help society help itself (and other species) with the power of the typed word. He spends most of his time here on CleanTechnica as its director and chief editor, but he's also the president of Important Media and the director/founder of EV Obsession, Solar Love, and Bikocity. Zach is recognized globally as a solar energy, electric car, and energy storage expert. Zach has long-term investments in TSLA, FSLR, SPWR, SEDG, & ABB — after years of covering solar and EVs, he simply has a lot of faith in these particular companies and feels like they are good cleantech companies to invest in.

  • Ronald Brakels

    Looking at a Compact Flouorescent Light box I found beneath my kitchen sink, I see that this LED bulb is about 12% more efficient than an run of mill Coles brand CFL. (Note that is Coles brand, not Coal brand. Prime Minister Tony Abbott has not yet renamed everything in Australia after his dark, carboniferous god.) Now 12% may not sound like that much, but every little bit helps. The reduced heat output will lower your air conditioning bill in summer (or your lying motionless on the linoleoum trying not to move bill if you don’t have air conditioning), and the savings and benefit to the evironment will certainly add up over the 2+ decades the LED light will last for, and it doesn’t cost much more than a cheap CFL. So all up it’s a pretty good deal, even though it apparently is possible to get LED bulbs that produce over 100 lumens per watt.

  • Jake Flaming

    The change is necessary and the change comes from the home first. The change is what the require energy and for that everyone researching to get it at cheap cost.
    The Led is one of the unique source of light to enjoy at cheap cost because of the price down as high manufacturing rate. This all happens due to awareness…Have a look stylish lights for home and industry with this Commercial Led lighting website.

  • elhigh

    Please note that there is more than one lighting technology, and compact fluorescent is significant enough that the 85% lower power consumption claim could be viewed as wildly mistaken.
    I use CFLS exclusively in my home, a typical Philips CFL 60-w equivalent pulls 13 watts and delivers a nominal 900 lumens. That’s nearly 70 lumens per watt, only slightly off the mark of the “SlimStyle’s” 76 lumens per watt, and the LED barely saves 20% vs. CFL.
    That said, the longevity of the LED and the only slightly higher first cost means it’s likely to be an economic winner in the long run. When the third CFL dies and the first LED is only one-third of the way through its predicted life, a higher purchase price starts to look pretty unimportant.

  • jeffhre

    “If you’re replacing a CREE 60W-equivalent LED, I guess your savings are more like $5.”

    $5? Oh well, replacing an LED bulb with an LED bulb doesn’t net you the 85% energy savings for 10 years like it does with the old incandescent. But at these prices, at least it pays the price of the bulb.

  • Calamity_Jean

    The photo of the card on the Phillips bulb is clear enough that I could read the “warnings and cautions” on the back. Among them was this:

    “This lamp is not compatible with photo controls, occupancy sensors, or timing devices.”

    So if I have a light that I want to be on a timer, I must use a CFL there. Bummer. Unless there are LED bulbs that are compatible with timers.

    • Bob_Wallace

      I’d like to know why. Occupancy sensors and timers just turn the current on and off, do they not? Why would LEDs not like that?

      CFLs have a larger problem with frequent on/off.

      • Steven F

        Some on off switches also have a secondary dimming feature. The same may be true for some occupancy sensors. I put some track lighting in my place and connected it to radio controlled switches.. In addition to the on off function they can also dim the lights. None of the LEDs and CFLs these switches control are dimmer compatible. If you don’t use the dimming feature of a switch timer or occupancy sensor your OK. But if you accidentally use the dimmer the bulb might not work well or fail.

        Most LEDs on the shelves are not compatible with dimmers. only withing the last year or two have dimmer compatible LED become available.

    • Ronald Brakels

      Maybe they just have to include that warning so they can boast about it lasting 22.8 years on the front? If you used it with a timer and it only lasted 11.4 years I doubt you’d be heart broken, so I’d say it would probably be okay.

  • agelbert

    I think you are right. The only reason CFLs have been used instead of LEDs is because they were (are still, mostly!) cheaper. For example, there is no chance of an LED light source being affected by submersion in water as long as the contacts are secure. There is no hollow, fragile, filled with polluting chemicals inside a glass container that will burst forth when the glass cracks. LEDs , because they are semi-conductors, can’r be beat at durability and selectivity in the light band area. They can be “tuned” for x number of nanometer wave length for growing certain veggies and other plant life in green houses. Yep. The LEDs are going to take over. I believe they are hated by a lot of the lihhting CEOs out there because they go against the old (stupid, polluting but greedy) planned obsolescence baloney invented in the USA in the 1930s (light bulbs were deliberately de-engineered for much shorter MTBFs to “keep the factories running” – there’s a video out there with chapter and verse on that).
    So watch them. They are going to try to de-engineer LEDs too when they realize it won’t take long for everyone on the planet to have all they need…

    • Peter Gray

      You’re repeating a few things that deserve a bit more thoughtful examination. The “polluting chemicals” issue of CFLs is the mercury content that has been relentlessly overblown by the anti-efficiency/anti-renewables folks. CFLs have gone to lower mercury anyway, but even for the worst of them, you’d have to break a bulb in a small unventilated room, not clean up the mess, and stay there for many hours before you’d get a mercury dose similar to what comes in one serving of typical tuna. Yeah, it’s there, but not really an issue if you have the slightest common sense. And how often does this happen? I’ve been using CFLs since they first came out, more than 20 years ago, and have maybe broken one of them.

      The “de-engineering” is a myth a lot like the supposed 200-mpg carburetor that the oil companies suppressed. That was purely a figment of someone’s imagination.

      I worked my way through undergrad college in what was the world’s biggest tungsten mill for many decades. I was often in the section where we separated tungsten from chemically similar molybdenum. When I took a sample to the lab, if it came back with more than 3 parts per billion molybdenum, that meant we had a chemistry failure or a leak in the filter presses. A 3-ppb limit means the tungsten had to be at least 99.9999997% pure! At considerable expense, we would have to re-run the whole batch if it didn’t meet that spec. Why? Because in case the tungsten was to be used for lightbulb filaments, a small amount of moly would make the bulbs burn out sooner.

      There was never any conspiracy to make the bulbs burn out faster to keep the factories running. Don’t put too much stock in videos someone posts on the internet. There are countless urban legends out there with no evidence to support them.

      • A Real Libertarian

        The light bulb conspiracy was the Phoebus Cartel.

        It was was about fixing the lifespan at 1000 hours.

        • Peter Gray

          Thanks! I stand corrected about the light bulb cartel. How interesting! Apparently it began and ended in the 1920s and ’30s, so doesn’t have much to do with recent history, other than the 1,000-hour standard. Cartels are hard to hold together, esp. if they’re illegal.

          I couldn’t access your second link, but here’s something to note on the Wiki page: “The cartel claimed that 1000 hours was a reasonable optimum life expectancy for most bulbs, and that a longer lifetime could be obtained only at the expense of efficiency, since progressively more heat and less light is obtained, resulting in wasted electricity.”

          That may be self-serving, but they had a valid point. Even without competition, an incandescent quickly burns its own price in electricity, so a lower-temp, less efficient bulb could last a lot longer and still not be economical. It really is cheaper for consumers to run them hotter and burn them out quicker, despite benefiting the mfrs at the same time.

          • agelbert

            “Apparently it began and ended in the 1920s and ’30s, so doesn’t have much to do with recent history”…

            Boy, are you in need of some education! I suppose planned obsolescence and MTBF are “myths” too.

            Everything is just fine. Nobody sets anybody up to do damage and profit from an inferior product, and Santa Claus and the Fairy Godmother are real. Here’s a “fun” video for you to look at if you are interested in cold hard facts instead of wishful thinking about what predatory polluting capitalism is really all about.

            Taken for a RIDE: How GM screwed up the US Public Transportation System


          • Peter Gray

            Next time you might try reading what I actually wrote and responding to that, instead of making up stuff that you imagine I would believe or say. There must be a fancy name, with a more impressive-sounding Latin version, for this kind of false debating tactic. “Argument by conflation with generalized or remotely analogous concepts,” maybe?

            I never suggested that planned obsolescence in general is a myth, although competition often makes it backfire. As for MTBF being a myth, it’s a physical/statistical construct that can be verified by anyone, so the idea of it being a myth makes no sense.

            I stand by my claim that regardless of whether the original few light bulb mfrs _tried_ to rig the market, they did not succeed for more than a few years, almost a century ago. On top of that, by the late 1930s, fluorescent tubes were on the market, so deliberately making incandescents even less economical would have backfired. By the early 1950s, fluorescents produced more U.S. light than incandescents.

            MTBF for an incandescent is a physical matter of sizing the tungsten filament for the rated wattage, trading off higher temperature and efficiency for shorter life. I wouldn’t be surprised if the 1k hours set by the industry was actually too high as an economic optimum.

            I still say that light bulb mfrs have gone to extra effort and expense to make their product last longer, or why would they pay more for super-pure tungsten? If you believe they were doing the opposite, show us some evidence.

            I’m under no illusions about “predatory polluting capitalism,” which can be related to cartel behavior even if it’s not the same thing. I’ll “see your GM video and raise you by a factor of 100” with the story of leaded fuel. Read this if you’re interested in a little-known story of health, economic, and social effects that dwarf whatever GM did to public transportation:

          • agelbert

            Oh, I read your post quite well. It’s the old, don’t believe in the “myths” of this that and the other. t’s also the old, and really tired, ridiculously pollyannaish view of modern civilization as the product of the “best and most competitive” technologies winning over “inferior” technologies.

            That’s inaccurate, to put it mildly. And, yeah, that is what you believe. Why don’t you quote me some Voltaire (“We live in the “best” of all possible “technology product” words). I know we don’t. I know the facts. If you want to turn a blind eye to conspiratorial business practices as the default setting of predatory capitalism, that’s your problem, not mine. Enjoy your fantasies.

            LED is better than CFL. It’s more cost effective, can be totally recycled, lasts multiples of years longer, can be tuned to various frequencies for boosting greenhouse plant growth, something absolutely vital to human future. Of course CFL is a better technology than the incandescent light bulb! Think about that for a moment. Why did CFLs get put in all the office buildings from the 50s until now but generally stayed out of the household only until about a decade ago? Huh? Think!

            Damnant quodnon intelligent.

            Castigat ridendo mores.

          • agelbert

            The Light Bulb Conspiracy

            Planned Obsolescence is the deliberate shortening of product life spans to guarantee consumer demand.

            As a magazine for advertisers succinctly puts it: The article that refuses to wear out is a tragedy of business – and a tragedy for the modern growth society which relies on an ever-accelerating cycle of production, consumption and throwing away.

            The Light Bulb Conspiracy combines investigative research and rare archive footage to trace the untold story of Planned Obsolescence, from its beginnings in the 1920s with a secret cartel, set up expressly to limit the life span of light bulbs, to present-day stories involving cutting edge electronics (such as the iPod) and the growing spirit of resistance amongst ordinary consumers.

            This film travels to France, Germany, Spain and the US to find witnesses of a business practice which has become the basis of the modern economy, and brings back disquieting pictures from Africa where discarded electronics are piling up in huge cemeteries for electronic waste.


          • Peter Gray

            From Wikipedia: “By 1951 more light was produced in the United States by fluorescent lamps than by incandescent lamps.” So I am right about that, unless you can point to a better source.

            In terms of the market, which is what we were discussing, the amount of lighting, not energy, _is_ the issue. Yes, we all know about planned obsolescence. But you haven’t shown how it could possibly work for an industry that is rapidly losing market share, to make its product even less competitive than necessary

            You’re blowing lots of nice smoke, but it still amounts to diversions and refusal to address more than 3 or 4 words out of what I wrote. This is not conducive to learning or constructive argument. It’s just grabbing a handy soap box.

            Libertarians observe that free markets often succeed, and government actions often fail (to improve societal and individual welfare). From that, they jump to the conclusion that markets are always the answer, and government action never is.

            You seem to make the converse observation and reach a diametrically opposite conclusion. Both extreme approaches are deeply naive, and neither is of much help for understanding the real world.

            In teaching university intro economics, I spend more time on market failure than on anything else. I try to show students why a properly regulated free market is the best known alternative. Whether we can ever approach such a system, politically, is another question. But at least we should understand why that’s a good objective – not some imaginary “pure capitalism” or its opposite.

            And yes I know about leaded avgas. That’s in the page I sent you, among numerous other sources. Fortunately this amounts to ~1% of U.S. aviation fuel, much less than 1% of all transportation energy, and it’s being slowly phased out. Still not perfect, but a huge improvement over the public health disaster of the 20th Century.

          • agelbert

            Peter, Peter. Peter! Light, as in “lumens” is the reason that more light with less energy made flourescents cost effective for business. However, the incandescents producing less overall light in American households were still using more energy. The issue is energy use, Peter. And LEDs provide still more light than CFLs with even less energy. What pat of that do you not get?

            So you are a “Libertarian”? Now I understand. Libertarians believe in the myth of the “free market”. There never has been a “free market” in the USA. Just Google that phrase and you will get ample evidence. I won’t provide sources because you obviously are not viewing the ones I gave you. Study, like I did, the 19th and early 20th century when your Libertarian pals claim the US grew to “greatness” because of the “free market”. Study the death rate in railroad accidents forcing regulations from lighting to brakes to car construction to boilers. Study the suicides from engineers who’s railroad bridges failed with fully loaded (with people) trains on them. Learn about wood rails with steel straps nailed on them (because the were cheaper) that would come off under the weight of a train and rip up the seats and the people. Despite many thousands, I repeat, thousands of deaths, absolutely nothing was done about the above and head on and rear ending train collisions until the government forced regulations on them. And by the way, those railroads were on the government subsidizing gravy train from the start, just like fossil fuels later on, with land given to the railroads after taking it from Native Americans or the settlers. Free Market, my arse!

            As I said at the beginning, boy do you need an education. Good luck with your fantasies. You are going to need it.

            damnant quodnon intelligent

            Getting “Libertarians” to reason objectively, clearly and honestly is ab asino lanam!


          • Peter Gray

            I’m not going to waste time arguing with someone who can’t be bothered to read anything I write, and then is obnoxiously condescending about positions he/she imagines I took, but clearly never did.

            For just one example, read what I _actually_wrote_ about Libertarians. I called them “deeply naive,” and of little help for understanding the real world. From that you get the notion that I’m a Libertarian? Huh?

            I also pointed out that I spend a lot of time teaching students about MARKET FAILURE (maybe I need all caps for you to hear that). If nothing else unifies Libertarians, it’s the non-existence of market failure. Therefore, if I accept and describe and promote the idea of market failure, I must _not_ be a Libertarian. What part of that do you not get?

            But most likely I’m wasting my time here. You’ll just pluck out “non-existence of market failure” and claim that’s my position.

            You’re only making a fool of yourself, and I have nothing to gain from ranting lectures on topics I’m already very familiar with.

            If you have the slightest interest in a constructive, mutual discussion, you need to listen, not just shout.

          • agelbert

            Have a nice day.

  • Jouni Valkonen

    The government push of mercury polluting CFLs delayed the LED light revolution perhaps by some two years. We should have gone directly from incandesce light bulbs to LED light bulbs.

    Although it is good to be wise retrospectively, this error tells something how notoriously bad people are predicting the future of technology. CFLs are like hydrogen vehicles and LED lights are like battery electric vehicles. People choose CFLs although there is very little possibilities to improve the safety and cost performance, instead of LED lights that are first expensive but there is enough potential for technology to push the cost down to zero.

    And if the inherent cost of LED lights is zero, it is absolutely certain that this zero level is eventually reached. It is just matter of time and how rapidly the markets are expanding — i.e. initially we must create artificial markets. Same goes of course solar panels and EV batteries. There are no inherent costs associated in solar panel and battery manufacturing. It is just that we master the engineering of manufacturing solar panels and battery cells.

    • Bob_Wallace

      “The government push of mercury polluting CFLs delayed the LED light revolution perhaps by some two years.”

      What’s the source of your claim?

      • miserableoldfart

        Probably the same source where I read just the other day that the Gulf Oil disaster happened because the government wouldn’t let BP drill closer to shore.. Can’t make this stuff up..

    • Ronald Brakels

      I don’t know what went on in America, but we had CFLs long before we had light bulb efficiency standards here in Australia and they seemed to be much more common than in the US, probably because of our higher electricity costs and hotter climate. (Trust me, you do not want incandescent bulbs in your house during an Australian summer.) It was Europe that led the way in more efficient lighting and the development of CFLs. After all, surely everyone knows CFLs development was spearheaded by the filthy Dutch. (And the clean ones too.) And once we did have light bulb standards in Australia they did not push any particular bulb, but merely eliminated from store shelfs those that did not meet the efficiency standard – which were really only incandescents.

      • Steven F

        CFLs were on the market in America long before the government passed any laws about efficiency. CFLs appeared were introduced because teh lighting manufacturers realized there was market for a efficient lighti that could be used in lamps that used standard incandescent lbulbs. I purchased my first CFL over 15 years ago LED lights were simply not available.

        The government didn’t push CFLs . They state governments pushed for more efficiency., some specified CFL;s, others pushed occupancy sensors or standard T8 and T12 fluorescent bulbs. This patchwork of regulations cause people manufactures to push for a national standard. That occured in l 2007 tefficiency standard. laws. IThe laws don’t doesn’t push CFLs or LEDs . It just specifies more efficient lighting.. Manufactures as a result have made more CFLs while they worked on LED lighting and improved more efficient incandescent bulbs.

      • I voted liberal

        It was the liberal that give the CFL and Solar and Its the liberal taking solar away…..

    • jeffhre

      Two years is not much. I started putting in compact fluorescents nearly 20 years ago. I have only felt comfortable to begin replacing them with LED’s for about 3 years.

      • Jouni Valkonen

        The point was that governments should have started subsidizing LED bulbs some 5–7 years ago. Similarly as Germany started subsidizing solar panels in 2008 and since the the cost of solar panels has gone down 90 %.

        But they failed to see the potiantial of new technology.

        • jeffhre

          Government will likely not get the timing of all subsidies right – that is the nature of the process.

    • elhigh

      CFLS started to really hit the market about 20 years ago, LEDs didn’t really start gaining traction until about 2008.
      Fluorescent lighting technology is over 100 years old, it makes sense that it would be quicker to achieve a smaller, more efficient form factor.

    • Benjamin Nead

      Interesting. I always made the analogy of a CFL being more like a hybrid or PHEV, with the LED bulb being like an EV. The hydrogen fuel cell of light bulbs would be . . . hmm, lemee see here . . . a candle burning inside an airless jar!

      What the government did was force the move away from incandescent bulbs and CFLs happened to be technology that was ready in terms of affordable price and with a manufacturing infrastructure ready to go. It was only a matter of time before engineers would get to work on LED bulbs and manufacturers would crank up production, all with the goal to both improve performance and big down prices. Had an attempt been made to skip over CFLs, with reasonably good LEDs still costing $30 to $40 per bulb (as they did just a few short years ago,) consumer blowback would have killed off any transition away from incandescents.

    • jeffhre

      CFL’s are not at all like hydrogen vehicles, since CFL’s are actually more efficient than the incandescent lighting they replaced. I alone have deployed CFL’s for the last 20 years. Should I view the last 24 months of CFL use as a tragedy when, CFL’s had kept billions of pounds of carbon out of the atmosphere during the previous 18 years? And I doubt I will soon be buying a $90,000 FCEV to replace a gas powered car, then quickly replace it with an under $40,000 EV – an analogy that doesn’t appear to hold water.

  • Bruce Porter

    A newer company called Illuminer has a 60W dimmable bulb that is excellent. We installed them in our church replacing standard 60W and they are much brighter. $10 each but I hear they are going to sell for around $20 for a pack of 3. They also have T-8 replacements too. Excellent company.

  • Ronald Brakels

    Last time I checked we pay around $15 US for the cheapest LED with similar light output. Why is there such a difference? Well, since electricity is so much more expensive here people are willing to pay more for an energy efficient light. Secondly, the example given in this article isn’t very energy efficient and doesn’t really perform better than our current Compact Fluorescent Lights (CFLs) and so I guess the LED bulbs on sale in Australia are the more efficient sort, otherwise people wouldn’t have much of an incentive to buy them, and so are more expensive for that reason. I get the impression that the US has sort of skipped over CFLs and instead of comparing LED efficiency to them people compare it to incandescent bulbs.

    And finally a spelling Tip – Remember, CFLs smell like stuff dug out of a mine that someone with the flu sneezed on: Flu-ore-scent.

  • spec9

    I find that IKEA is one of the best places to go to get low-priced LED bulbs. I’ve gone ahead and replaced all my bulbs with LEDs.

  • I don’t know how the reviews are so good in that screen cap there. Most cheap LED bulbs are reviewed quite badly. There’s a lot of people complaining about an audible buzz that you can hear in other rooms. Particularly if it’s on a dimming circuit. I suspect they have a less than ideal dimming switch for this application.

    I’d love to pick up that Phillips bulb, but they’re over $10/bulb in Canada, and they can’t be in enclosed fixtures, which is almost every light in my house. They also don’t fit some A19 (standard) fixtures because the outside ring is too wide.

    • Really? Don’t recall seeing notes about that with LEDs. That review was publish not terribly long after I got the bulb. But it’s still the main bulb we use and I don’t have any complaints about it.

      • CSA

        The buzzing is quite common in some cheap bulbs. I have a couple of Feits that do that and I hate them. Switching to a LED dimmer switch will help but not a lot. The key is to get a better bulb. The Crees do not buzz at all.
        I also agree with the problem of enclosed fixtures. Every LED bulb I have looked at specifically says they can not be enclosed. I suspect the excess heat buildup causes premature failure.
        Finally I got so excited about the price cuts that I immediately checked my local stores. No change. They are still $10. I’ve seen a couple of Denver stores with lower prices in the past though so maybe it’s just a regional thing.

        • I’ve heard the exact opposite – that Cree bulbs are the cheap ones and you’d better buy Philips if you don’t want horrible buzzing. Perhaps all those reviews are just Phillips and Cree employees trolling each other.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Only three a points. I’ve got three Crees (2-60s, 1 – 100).

            Zero buzz.

          • CSA

            I don’t put the Cree bulbs in the cheap category. I think their bulbs are actually outstanding.

            The ones that I have heard a lot of buzz were the Feit ones. Not only that but the Feit bulbs take about a half-second to light up which drives me crazy. Never will I buy one of them again.

        • jzmacdaddy

          The buzzing mostly occurs with the electronic dimmers (click up for brighter, down for dimmer). I have one on a rotary dimmer…it doesn’t buzz at all.

    • Steven F

      Dimmer compatible LED bulb only came on the market the a couple of years ago. Most CFLs and LEDs on store shelves are still not dimmer compatible. If the bulb is not compatible with a dimmer it will buzz when it is on a dimmer circuit or may fail.

      • miserableoldfart

        I bought an outdoor light fixture that has an automatic motion sensing 50% power cutoff, which was said to be switchable, but turned out to be “off” only if you left the light ON all the time. A regular LED bulb performed very strangely in this fixture – it wasn’t a case of buzzing, but non functioning, period. Just a dim flashing of some kind. Anyway, replaced it with a dimmable LED (should have said to do it on the package of the fixture) and it works perfectly. It it buzzes, I can’t hear it.

  • JamesWimberley

    Current IKEA prices in Spain for own-brand E27 bulbs: 400 lumens, €4.99; 600 lumens, €6.99. Always quote the lumens when discussing LED bulbs, the rating makes a lot of difference to the price.

    • Thanks. I will try to start focusing more on the lumens.

  • MarTams

    We live on a different planet. The planet of Callyforniah! Our Home Depot price is way jacked up compared to the prices displayed in this article. The same item light bulb at local store, the prices are 50% higher:

    • Hmm, wow. The price of nearly perfect weather. 😀

    • spec9

      Go to IKEA . . . they have good prices and light from the bulbs is good. Home Depot is pretty hit & miss. The Cree bulbs were cheap awhile ago there. They also have lots of no-name bulbs that are sometimes cheap but often don’t have very good light.

      • jeffhre

        Going all the way to Ikea would cost more than the difference in the bulbs. And it’s at the edge of the Volt’s electric range!

Back to Top ↑