I think the primay advantages are supposed to be color temperature (2700K so very similar to the light from an incandescent) and lifespan. It's also dimmable which is still quite a big issue with CFL bulbs.

All in all, it's fairly expensive but does address what are probably the three biggest complaints about CFLs for use in the home.

"Philips Releases 100W-Equivalent LED Bulb, Runs On Just 23 Watts"

They last longer than a fluro tube, they have no mercury in them, they are way smaller, they are more robust and dont break as easily.

Please... $16.99 buys you three, dimmable, 2700k, 24W, 100W equivalent CFL bulbs. So I'm going to spend an extra $30 per bulb to save one watt?

http://menards.com/main/lighting-fans/light-bulbs/fluorescent/24-watt-dimmable-2700k-spiral-bulb-multi-pak-3-bulb-box/p-1738410-c-6337.htm [menards.com]

A 100W light bulb consumes 100kWh over its rated lifetime, which is 1000 hours. Depending on the price of electricity in your part of the world, that's probably between $8 and $30. Assuming a dismal lifetime of just 5000 hours for the LED bulb, you'd need five $1 incandescent bulbs for a total cost of ownership between $5+5*$8=$45 and $4+5*$30=$154. The LED bulb (let's say $35) consumes electricity for $9 to $35, for a total cost of ownership between $35+$9=$44 and $35+$35=$70. So unless the LED doesn't last 5000 hours or your electricity costs less than $0.08, the LED bulb is cheaper, and you don't need to change the bulb as often. The law exists because most people couldn't do a simple calculation if their life depended on it.

So far, none of the Philips "Ambient LED" bulbs I've purchased has failed. I have several, in 40 and 60 watt equiv. The 60's (around 850 lumins) are not the latest prize winners, but are still quite efficient.

I --HATE-- the CFL bulbs. I have found them to be unreliable as well as uncomfortable to use for reading or working. These new LED bulbs, however, have a very nice color to them, a fairly wide spectrum, virtually no flicker at all, and as I said -- so far, I have yet to have one fail.

I actually prefer these new ones to incandescent bulbs for reading and lighting a room -- I would never have said that for any form of CFL or long tube fluorescent.

Now here's some REAL math based upon real world experience (almost 20 years of CFL usage).

CFLs and LEDs don't live any longer than incandescents because of many factors. Simply put: The electronics are sensitive to heat, electric spikes, or frequent on/off cycles by the users. These factors lead to early death. In my experience CFLs don't live any longer than incandescents... and in some annoying cases, actually die sooner (within days). Therefore assuming equal lifespans across all these bulbs:

incandescent == $10 at 10 cents/KWh + 50 cents initial purchase.

LED == 1000 hours times 20 w == 20 kWh or $2 plus $60 initial cost == very very costly

CFL == pretty much the same: $2 electricity + $4 initial cost

BUT the math is not done yet. Next you need to add in the cost of transport. Incandescents are built right here, and they can be thrown into any trashbag or landfill, so transportation costs are neglibile. BUT CFLs and LEDs are only built in China, and only recycled in China, so you need to add ~20,000 miles of fuel usage. (And also consider that in China, they just dump the mercury-laden bulbs on the ground. They don't care about the environment.) Plus the extra expense of driving the dead CFL to the landfill because you can't just throw it away & the garbage truck refuses to take them. Bottom Line:

I'm sticking with incandescents, until
the U.S. or EU outlaw them (2014?).

LEDs without phosphor are monochromatic, as in "one wavelength". That's really useful if you need a backlight for a screen, but in a room light you want a mixture of all visible wavelengths, ideally resembling a "black body" spectrum at a given temperature (2700K for lightbulb-yellowish light). If you mix just three wavelengths instead, you can get perfectly white looking light, but only if you look directly into the light or if the light is reflected by a surface that happens to reflect these three wavelengths evenly. Many colors will look "off" under RGB lighting. That's because the perceived color is three integrals over the product of the emitted light, the reflectivity and the sensitivity at each frequency. If you multiply most reflectivity by zero, because your RGB light emits only a few wavelengths, you don't see the right color.

As others have noted, you're forgetting the cost to power the bulb. Standard incandescent lasts 1000 hours, the LEDs should last 10K (some claim 20K, but we'll go with the lower figure). So for a 100W equivalent, you buy 10 incandescents for 20 cents a piece, or $2. Let's say the LED costs $60.

Next up is the cost of power. Over 10K hours, the incandescents consume 100W * 10K hrs = 1Mwh (1000 Kwh). The LED consumes 23W * 10K hrs = 230 Kwh. At 10 cents per Kwh (I pay about 12 cents; prices in the U.S. range from 8-25 cents), that's $100 to power the incandescents. And $23 to power the LED.

• LED total cost = $60 to buy + $23 to power = $83 over total lifespan
• Incandescent total cost = $2 to buy + $100 to power = $102 over total lifespan (plus whatever cost you assign to the hassle of changing bulbs 10x as often)

That said, a fluorescent would get roughly the same power cost as the LED, and cost less than a tenth what the LED costs up front. But they're not well-suited to dimmable fixtures, they require special disposal, and they frequently have a delay before they reach full brightness (and some claim they get less "natural" light). If none of that bothers you, then go with fluorescents. But if it does, then your fallback option would be the LED, which is cheaper over its lifespan than even 20 cent incandescents.

Chances are you don't live in a newer house or maybe not in California. California building code requires dimmable switches to be built in as the first switch in most rooms. CFL's are horribly unreliable "even if you spend $12.00 for the good dimmable bulbs" at working with dimmable switches.

  In the areas where I have on/off type switches they seem to work fairly well "not sure if equal to most incandescent or not but at least on par" I have multiple lights in my house that bleed through electricity if I am using fluorescent lights. You turn them off.. and the light either flickers or you can see a dim glow. This does not happen with incandescent. So California in it's ever so insane stance to control anything they can fucks me from using cheaper "power wise" bulbs in every fixture. I end up running about half and half between the two.

Soon I won't even be able to buy incandescent lights and will probably be unable to find a simple on/off switch do to some other policy they'll enact to save beavers.

Why would you think that LEDs are bad because you have a poor experience with CFLs?

You're right, many CFLs do have the issues you describe. That makes it a great argument FOR the LED bulbs, which don't have most of the issues you describe. One of the worst characteristics of CFLs is that their lifetime is hit hard by frequent on/off cycles. LED bulbs care about frequent on/off cycles even less than incandescent bulbs.

I also get the advertised life. I sometimes wonder why some people have such bad luck with CFLs. Power quality is the most likely cause, I think; as we have excellent power quality here and I have friends whose power is constantly having little issues. At one particular friend's place, the UPS beeps around once every visit.

Also, when CFLs end up lasting far longer than their advertised life, they need to be replaced for another reason: They start getting dim. I replaced about three bulbs that get a lot of use and were over six years old when I noticed a brand new bulb of the same wattage was twice as bright. If you're getting really long life out of your CFLs you might want to check this, as you don't notice them getting dimmer since it happens so gradually.

245 V is the Root Mean Square voltage. That number is approx 70% of the peak voltage. Your 10% over is even higher peak.

Mind you Australia runs at 240v not 230v so 2% higher than that shouldn't be bad.

Philips does indeed say what their warranties are. I don't have that bulb, but I do have 3 AmbientLEDs. The warranty says "Philips warrants that this bulb will be free from defects in material and workmanship and will operate for a period of 6 years under normal usage..." and then goes on and on as such things do. They also state they expect it to last 15 years or more under normal usage and specify what that qualifies as (as in how many hours a day and so on).

Seems like they are willing to back it up. Philips isn't some fly-by-night company either, they've been around for quite some time, reasonable bet they are around to deal with claims, if they need to.

I'm willing to throw my money in on their bulbs. They look good, work good (they run in a regular dimmer no problem), are efficient, and so on. I'm fairly confident they'll replace them if they break, and I'm fairly confident they won't break so they are worth the money to me.