LED vs Non-LED Christmas Lights Comparison

In this video I’m comparing LED vs. non-LED lights from a cost, durability, coverage and electricity usage perspective.

LED lights cost twice as much, at least in Dec 2017 for 1/4th the electricity usage. These LED lights cover 100 feet whereas the non-LED lights cover 75 feet or so. LED lights don’t yield hardly any heat, so they are safer. And finally, LED lights should last much, much longer than traditional Christmas lights which seem to need to be replaced every few years.

BUT, with the price of electricity at 8 cents a kWh it’s awful tough to make a cost effectiveness argument in favor of LEDs. Running the non-LED lights would use 3kWh in a 24 hour period, thus costing all of 24 cents. The LEDs would use .7 kWh in that same period, costing all of a nickel.

Let’s say you use these lights for 30 days and you run them 24 hours. You’d save $6 in electricity with the LED lights. Yet, the LED’s cost you $25 more to purchase.

Secondly, you’re most likely NOT going to run your lights 24 hours a day. Hopefully, you’ll put them on a timer and run them for 5 hours a day which means it’ll take even longer to recoup your cost for the LEDs.

Now, I do like LED’s better. I personally am willing to pay a bit more upfront for the durability, the reduced electricity usage and the lack of heat emitted. However, its your call.

What I’d recommend is you get your Electric Bill and see how much your usage jumps in December and into January. If it’s pretty significant, you may want to think LEDs, even for a higher front end cost.


Leave a Comment