Comments on: Will LED Christmas Lights Really Save You Money?

By: M

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:41:48 +0000

Well, we replaced all of our outdoor lights this year with LEDs. We liked the look better, actually, and used less lights than last year. Just got the utility bill from SDG&E. What a rip off! It was almost exactly the same as the same period last year when we didn’t have LEDs and had the lights on more often! We only saved 10 kwh! What? We did not use our power more on anything else, if anything, we used less. I called them to complain and make sure they didn’t estimate. They said it was an actual reading. Bah hambug! I told them what was the point if our bill was going to be the same? How stupid! I think maybe this LED thing is a scam? My husband just had to have them…I’m thinking this was a costly mistake. Could it be because they were plugged in all the time and “bled” a little after we ‘turned them off’ at night? They still glowed a bit–my husband said this was ok. I’m thinking it wasn’t…and we should pull the plugs out when we switch them off? Help!

By: Darrin

Darrin — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 21:17:09 +0000

I was in this situation this year as well and decided to go for the LED’s to give them a chance at surviving the year. Also as a first time home buyer we needed to buy lights to start out so there was no wasting of old lights (a reason that seems to be completely lost on many of the green crowd when considering buying a new car etc). I was thinking similarly to Brian as we would have to replace fully half the lights every year when pulling out the old strings at my parents house (perhaps the lights we bought were too cheap to begin with, unknown). Reading a little info it seems that the cause of failure of the smaller lights is that when the light bulb goes out there is a little metal shunt that is meant to bridge that gap (assuming this string of lights is in parallel) that very often fails because of bad manufacture or what have you. My thought was that hopefully the LED bulb would not fail in the first place making the shunt relatively unneeded. I didn’t buy a ton, and the lights were a little cooler than I’d like even after careful selection. I have a timer but we left our lights on until my wife leaves in the morning so our time of use was longer than yours by at least 2x. I will say that the lights themselves didn’t seem as bright and twinkly, but there is nostalgia for that yellow glow playing into that as well. Hopefully LED’s come down in price and up in brightness which seems likely enough with all the R&D being put into LED tech in general. Ultimately, more options, competition: consumers win. Good luck to us all.

By: Tom Coffee

Tom Coffee — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 11:13:06 +0000

Brian,

Thanks for the bitter and angry reply! ‘Tis the season! :-) Sorry I didn’t do a cost analysis for your specific Christmas light usage and needs.

Most of my neighbors use timers for their lights. Ours go on at around 5 or 6 pm and go off around 10 or 11pm. That’s approximately 5 to 6 hours. Also, we put our lights up usually a weekend or two after Thanksgiving. That’s about 25 days until Christmas. Another week or so to New Years. About 30 days. It sounds like you’re one of those people who has his lights on until February.

If you have your lights on for 12 hours a day then you are wasting a lot of electricity for lights people don’t see or use.

As for brightness? That’s kind of a matter of preference, but Consumer Reports has stated that incandescent bulbs are often brighter. There are too many brands, bulb sizes and configurations to do a “real” analysis of that. I do know that you usually spot the LED Christmas lights on outside decorations. They’re the homes that are not as bright as their neighbors.

We have little kids. We say “No” when they put light bulbs in their mouths. I guess you don’t do that.

If your one primary concern is saving money over a 12 year period then maybe you should not buy or use ANY Christmas lights at all. That SAVES THE MOST MONEY!!!

For the rest of us? There are lots of things to consider with LED Christmas lights… Cost is just one of the many factors.

By: John C

John C — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 15:07:32 +0000

I am so frustrated with the incandescent lights going out so quickly, I am ready to try LED lights. I end us throwing away 1/2 my lights every season. The worst is the $300 pre-lit tree I bought a couple of years ago that now has 1/2 the lights out. It is all driving me so crazy that I am starting to think it’s a plot by the Chinese (who manufacture these lights) to make us all give up on Christmas and become atheists while they make enough money on all the lights we keep buying to take over the world!!!

So I am ready to try the LED lights. The question is whether the connections on the LED lights are so poor that those light also have a high failure rate.

Regarding the “green” analyses above, don’t forget to consider the huge difference in the environmental impact caused by folks re-buying their lights yearly. If LEDs prevent that they will be much more green friendly than the incandescent lights!

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 23:31:08 +0000

Sorry this article is full of misinformation.

First. Who only uses their lights for 5 hours a day. If that’s all you are using them for why bother. 8-12 hours is more typical. Also 30 days? Some people have lights up as long as 45 days.

So someone using LEDs 12 hours a day for 45 days would save $25 per season based on your example.

Second. You have the price difference being double but the LEDS will last at least twice as long so isn’t the cost the SAME?

Thirdly brightness. We have a tree with 600 pre-lit LED bulbs. It’s so fricken bright we don’t need any other light on in the room. So much for the “less bright” theory.

Also if you have little kids, guess what, sometimes they want to touch the pretty lights. Or even stick them in their mouths. You people rather have your kid stick a GLASS bulb that is very HOT in their mouths? Burns AND glass cuts. What a nice trip to the ER that will be.

I never get the pro-incandescent people. It’s like they hate saving money. They don’t see that dispite the higher upfront costs they will save money in the long run. These same people are mostly broke and have no savings because of their failure to see the “big picture” in things.

By: Synthetic Oil

Synthetic Oil — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 22:04:55 +0000

Thanks for doing all the math for me, i was going through this same analysis. I decided to not spend the extra money on LEDs right now.

By: Fred

Fred — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 05:23:02 +0000

Yes, the initial up front cost is twice as much, so then to break even the LED lights would have to last twice as long. If they did this, then anytime they lasted after this time, they would saving you money. (not to mention the price to run them is less as well). So the ultimate question is, “What are the average life spans of the LED lights and the traditional lights?” If the LED lights last at least twice as long, you have your answer.

By: SJ

SJ — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 21:02:20 +0000

We have had our old strands of lights for years and finally started replacing them last year when we noticed some wires were looking a bit frayed. The Home Depot here runs a recycle promotion that you can receive a coupon for $3.00 for every incandescent strand of Christmas lights that you turn in towards the purchase of a LED set, up to 5 sets.

By: kaetra

kaetra — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 02:52:20 +0000

Two years ago when we had all regular Christmas lights my electric bill went increased by about $40. Last year, I replaced all of our lights with LED’s – indoor and outdoor and my electric bill went up only about $5. The LED lights I purchased were only 2 dollars or so more per comparable box than the regular lights. BUT – They definitely aren’t as bright or glowing as the old lights. Our tree with the old lights used to light up the room. But with the LEDs I have to turn a lamp on or it’s dark in here! LEDs also don’t make tree ornaments sparkle as nicely as the old lights either. I like the $$ savings for sure, but I do miss my old lights on the tree. I think this year I’ll get regular lights for the tree and use LEDs for everything else.

By: City Mom

City Mom — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 22:00:17 +0000

Thank you for doing the research to my question! With recent store promotions to exchange regular Christmas lights for a discount coupon off new LED Christmas lights, I was tempted to turn in my perfectly functional regular Christmas lights for LEDs. But I thought like you, what a waste and addition to the landfill. Plus, generally consuming less “stuff” is a green way to go anyways. Thanks again!!!

By: Sheldon

Sheldon — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:41:51 +0000

Thanks for your review and comparison. Currently weighing out whether to go LEDs or incandescents. You make a good point in regards to the durability of the lights. In my experience with incandescents, it’s not the lights that give out after a few seasons of an Alberta winter, but the wiring of the lights. This forces me to throw out the lights after 3-4 years, regardless of the bulb quality (ie., lights would still work, if not for the wiring failure). Would get pretty expensive if you had to do this with LEDs (likely the very same quality of wiring….).

By: Janell

Janell — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 02:54:09 +0000

I bought LED lights to replace my halogen MR16 bulbs the other day from a website called Eaglelight.com that I would recommend enthusiastically. They had good service (good phone and email support), great FAQs so I knew what I needed, and competitive prices; also, their shipping was fast and the LEDs were as good as advertised. http://www.Eaglelight.com. Excellent online shopping experience.

By: John

John — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 21:28:50 +0000

I thought I would try the GE LED bulbs this year. It turned out to be a big mistake. These things are crap! About ten percent of the bulbs had the plastic covers/lenses fall off. I’m going back to traditional lights.

By: gwdMaine

gwdMaine — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:44:26 +0000

Think straight lines with lighted length. Bushes are one thing, but if you’re outlining windows, a porch, roof lines, etc. lighted length is pretty important. It’s an issue with mini-lights between manufacturers – they’re all different. You replace a set and all of a sudden you can’t get there from here. . .

Part of it also has to do with length between lights. That usually varies at 4″ 5″ or 6″ – But – When’s the last time you bought a true half gallon of ice cream? Everyone’s downsizing but keeping the price the same to hide the price increase. It’s a real pain with Christmas lights – what you once could cover with 300 lights now takes 500. . .

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 01:30:17 +0000

Thanks for the comments! Hmm, I don’t know if I have two Christmas light boxes around to compare “lighted length”… it’s an interesting point. Driving around my neighborhood tonight I saw a lot of different decorations and while the LED Christmas lights might be “bright” I noticed they don’t really “glow” or give off any light around them. I noticed this while driving around looking at lights from inside my car:

If you cover a bush with regular Christmas lights it will be bright enough to actually see the leaves and branches. If you use a similar LED Christmas light strand you just sort of see a bunch of glowing dots floating in darkness.

I don’t know why the LED lights are so much more expensive. Sure, the LEDs might be a little more costly, but they’re showing up in just about every electronic device and even toy on the planet, so you’d figure their real cost to produce and manufacture has got to be pretty darn low by now.

By: gwdMaine

gwdMaine — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:32:44 +0000

Excellent post. Thanks for quantifying the payback – I knew it was bad, but hadn’t taken the time to figure it myself. It’s hard to go against the “Green” movement these days, but the only legitmate “geen” savings here are electricity savings. But even those are not what you think. Take a look at the overall or “lighted” length of your LED string. It will be less than the standard mini-light one. If you are using a lot of lights, you will need to by more LEDs to get the same coverage. Less electricity, more plastic, no reasonable payback. Until the cost comes way down, there is no reason to go to LEDs. I wonder what the profit margin is on a string of LEDs?

By: Lynne

Lynne — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:37:15 +0000

I am sure that the savings are great for the LED lights, but I am seeing some in my neighborhood and they just plain look strange. The only way I can describe them is “plasticky” or fake looking. They aren’t as pretty as the traditional lights and I don’t know that I believe all the hype about the “green” movement anyway. Someone is getting rich off of all the transition. I am saving A LOT of money by not switching. Has anyone determined how much it would cost to go out and replace the bulbs that you use for 1 month, with the lights you have had for the past 2-5 years that cost you NADA!? Then determine the savings. Maybe $8.00 per month for pretty lights compared with $100.00 to go out and buy 10 news sets of LED lights is better savings for todays economy.

By: Gene

Gene — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 03:39:54 +0000

“A lot of environmental websites like to claim that LED Christmas are good for the environment…”
As you point out, making new lights takes plastic, energy, etc. so replacing existing good lights would be a waste. The only Christmas lights that ‘good for the environment’ are no lights, unless they invent some that create energy and/or absorb carbon. At best, Christmas lights are likely to be ‘less bad for the environment’ than some other lights.