The picture won't reveal the answer, except maybe it's in DC and blue. This Christmas tree is greener than ones in years before - how so?
I was thinking about getting some this year. Turns out, we already have more than needed, so I'll just use what's on hand. Next time I'm shopping for lights, though...
We switched to all LEDs on the xmas tree last year. One reason is I got tired of trying to trouble shoot the incandescent bulbs that always seem to have one burned out or loose in the string and impossible to find I bet most people throw out a few sets each year. They generate almost no heat so the tree seemed to last longer. I expected to see a difference in the electric bill but it was not apparent. (Too many variables.) The blue LED bulbs are way cool.
I'm going to led's next year on a new unlit tree. I put our current tree up for the 4th time this year and it has been pain every year. It is pre-lit and those are tough to troubleshoot. It took 3 hours last year to get a couple sections burning and about an hour this year. I plugged the killawatt into it and it used 578 watts in 2.75 hours.
The Rockefeller Center tree uses LEDs too this year, and is partially solar-powered: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/rockefeller-tree-is-green-but-is-it-green/ We're hitting up Manhattan next weekend and will stop by to check it out.
Reminds me of this guy down the street whose lighting display is reminiscent of the Griswold's... I saw him on the news claiming at least 50,000 bulbs. 50,000 * .5 watt * 6 hours / night * 31 nights in Dec = 4.65 MW-hour At $0.08 per KW-h here in TN, only $372 to annoy the neighbors for a month. And that is an optimistic calculation, I'm sure they are on longer than 6 hours a night, and at least 10k of those bulbs are larger than the .5 watt assumption for the mini-bulbs. And that's not including the motorized garbage.
