BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

Earl[_85_]

wrote:
On Thu, 02 May 2013 19:33:20 -0400, Earl wrote:

Tim wrote:
On May 1, 5:10 am, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 5/1/13 12:58 AM, wrote:

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:10:08 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
A study out Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences examined attitudes about energy efficiency in liberals and
conservatives, and found that promoting energy-efficient products and
services on the basis of their environmental benefits actually turned
conservatives off from picking them. The researchers first quizzed
participants on how much they value various benefits of energy
efficiency, including reducing carbon emissions, reducing foreign oil
dependence, and reducing how much consumers pay for energy; cutting
emissions appealed to conservatives the least.
The study then presented participants with a real-world choice: With a
fixed amount of money in their wallet, respondents had to “buy” either
an old-school lightbulb or an efficient compact florescent bulb (CFL),
the same kind Bachmann railed against. Both bulbs were labeled with
basic hard data on their energy use, but without a translation of that
into climate pros and cons. When the bulbs cost the same, and even when
the CFL cost more, conservatives and liberals were equally likely to buy
the efficient bulb. But slap a message on the CFL’s packaging that says
“Protect the Environment,” and “we saw a significant drop-off in more
politically moderates and conservatives choosing that option,” said
study author Dena Gromet, a researcher at the University of
Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business.
Got that? With all other factors being equal, conservatives were less
likely to buy the exact same lightbulb if you told them it would help
the environment. They didn't have any more aversion to buying
energy-saving lightbulbs than anyone else, unless the package pointed
out that this particular lightbulb was slightly less earth-screwing than
the other one. Tell them that, and they were more likely to go for the
other one.
http://tinyurl.com/c6pmf4b
A lot of people assume "save the planet" equates to "too expensive to
sell on it's own merits"
In the case of CFLs I think they were poorly marketed in the first
place. People bought them for luminaires that they were not suitable
for and they got a bad reputation.
They don't "dim", they don't like living "base up" in an enclosed can
and they don't work well in load powered switching applications like 2
wire motion detectors or timers.
The ironic thing is these are the things energy aware customers are
likely to have.
The study demonstrated that conservatives and liberals were equally
likely to buy either bulb, but conservatives were less likely to buy the
energy savings lightbulb if you told them it would help the environment.
*That* is the point here.
I have a bunch of the newer bulbs. I have them all over my shop. about
16 100 watters. I don't know if they really save that much over an
incandescent, but I don't have to change them out nearly as often.

But the cost of the bulb over the cost of energy isn't really a
savings. when you figure it costs somewhat more to make one than it
does an incandescent it also costs more to buy, so... I really
dont' think they're that great of an all around 'bargain'. over a
standard or a florescent .

But they work...
100W incandescent bulbs are still available. Look for "rough service"
or "commercial duty".
Lowes.com says they have 100w A19s in stock at my local store. 8 for
$3
http://tinyurl.com/d8m6n4j
I guess that light bulb ban was as effective as the 1994 high cap
magazine ban. They keep finding "pre ban" old stock to sell.
The alternative reason might be that they changed the specs a little
to avoid the ban, again, just like the 1994 clinton AWB law.
Exactly.