LED's are a wonderful system. Especially with how long term durable they are. And they don't give some people migraines like fluorescents do.
The high price of LED units is there for a reason. And the same goes for the low quality of the cheaper ones. LED's that are bright get especially hot. LED's that get overheated burn themselves out. For this reason, they need a very good heat sink. Provided it has one, a LED system will work reliably for decades, and if you really want to go nuts, you can get one that will make a traditional halogen bulb look dim. All this for much less electricity and hassle than a regular incan bulb.
And what if you don't like what's available at your local home center? That would be a good reason to build a unit you do like.
LED technology has been advancing at an astonishing rate lately, and with a little research and effort, you can have a sincerely kick ass LED rig going, and that goes for both home and portable lighting.
Not that I like the idea of losing freedom of choice, but the choices we have now are pretty close to ideal.
An 800 lumen LED/heatsink bulb that fits into the space of a light bulb runs approximately 30 bucks (
25 online). A pack of 4 100W GE reveal bulbs costs about 8 bucks in the store, or
7.50 online, and provides 1300 lumens.
The 100W bulb uses 8 times as much power per unit of time. At approximately 8.75 cents per kWh, a single 100W bulb costs .875c/hr to run, and a 12.5W LED costs .109c/hr. Assuming I use the bulbs 4 hours a day (quite a bit, but let's just assume), and that the MTBF for the incandescent is 1500 hours (I bought the long life bulbs), that means I would have to replace the incandescent roughly once a year, at the cost of $12.78 in power. The LED is 1/8 that, at $1.60, a savings of 11.18. However, the LED is also providing only 61% of the brightness as my lovely 100W bulbs. Modulating the cost by that results in the LED being ~$2.62/year, a savings of $10.16. The total yearly cost, then, is approximately 12 bucks per incandescent. That means each LED has a time horizon of two years before they come close to making sense, assuming no time-value of money.
In addition, LEDs tend to be much more poor at producing a quality white light (extra blue), due to the fact they operate by causing photon emission as electrons jump bands (thus limiting them to a single wavelength - lambda = hc/E for this type of emission). Even the newest and best GaN/Phosphor still have a blue intensity which is almost twice the next closest color. Since my fixtures only hold so many bulbs, the lack of luminosity for the LEDs is problematic. Combine that with the unnatural color and the current generation of bulbs don't make sense.
Since the technology is improving, I expect that before the next two years are up, there will be better LED bulbs on the market that cost half the price of current offerings (less once you consider inflation). That means I would have paid a penalty to be an early adopter, rather than using what works until the cost/benefit ratio improves significantly. About the only way that LEDs make sense in the present is if you're redesigning your house lighting and incorporating them from the ground up. Using LEDs in existing fixtures just doesn't provide enough illumination, especially in the PNW during the winter.
