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

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:10:08 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


Another troll.

John H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

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.

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...

On 5/1/13 7:26 AM, 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...


I have a couple of what I guess are CFL bulbs in places where changing
out a bulb is a pain in the ass. I don't like the color of the light
they produce, but they're okay in my opinion for the attic or in our
garage, which has a 16' ceiling.

We bought a pkg of 4 small chandelier type LED bulbs a couple months ago at Costco.
The wife likes running numerous floor type lamps and I balked at the energy use of the standard bulbs.
I believe they are about 4 watts but throw the light of a 60.
Anyway, now we're both happy...she gets her light and I save on our expensive electricity.

On 5/1/2013 9:05 AM, True North wrote:
We bought a pkg of 4 small chandelier type LED bulbs a couple months ago at Costco.
The wife likes running numerous floor type lamps and I balked at the energy use of the standard bulbs.
I believe they are about 4 watts but throw the light of a 60.
Anyway, now we're both happy...she gets her light and I save on our expensive electricity.

Lowes had them on sale last year for $10. I bought about 40 of them. my
savings for a year were more than $300 in Elec. cost.

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:49:07 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

You can get CFLs in a number of different colors from cool white to a
warmer almost red/yellow. I use them where they will work but a lot of
my interior lighting is on occupancy sensors and they don't like CFLs.
The "off state" load is not enough to power the occupancy sensor
properly and you end up with a flickering light that burns out
quickly.
They had to change the National Electric Code on the last code cycle
to force people to bring a neutral to every switch so you could use a
3 wire switching device. That is another cost for this "saving".


That code change has nothing to do with CFL's. It's to cater to
lighting control freaks who think using a simple switch is too arduous.
Know anybody like that? So basically it's your lighting desires which
might add costs to those who were happy just flipping a switch.
And NEC was no doubt lobbied for the code change by the special
interests who will financially benefit from the code. NEC should stay
out of design, especially for this type of frill.
Further, nobody is being "forced" to use the neutral unless they're
having inspected switch work done, or they're putting in fancy lighting
control devices that need it. It doesn't apply to existing switches.
And some states have their own exceptions. NC excepts most residential.
Lighting control outside of commercial building timing and entertainment
venues is about the most prissy and self-indulgent crap I can think
of...wait...isn't there a toilet that costs about 5 grand and wipes your
ass? Maybe that wins.

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 1 May 2013 13:26:54 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:49:07 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

You can get CFLs in a number of different colors from cool white to a
warmer almost red/yellow. I use them where they will work but a lot of
my interior lighting is on occupancy sensors and they don't like CFLs.
The "off state" load is not enough to power the occupancy sensor
properly and you end up with a flickering light that burns out
quickly.
They had to change the National Electric Code on the last code cycle
to force people to bring a neutral to every switch so you could use a
3 wire switching device. That is another cost for this "saving".


That code change has nothing to do with CFL's. It's to cater to
lighting control freaks who think using a simple switch is too arduous.

It has everything to do with CFLs and LEDs. They do not support line
powered switching devices. It is to allow smart switching devices so
lights turn off when you leave a room. I believe they are mandated in
the newer energy codes.

Know anybody like that?

Me, I have occupancy detectors all over my house.

So basically it's your lighting desires which
might add costs to those who were happy just flipping a switch.

and the energy code

And NEC was no doubt lobbied for the code change by the special
interests who will financially benefit from the code. NEC should stay
out of design, especially for this type of frill.

This actually came from the IAEI (electrical inspectors) who were
concerned that installers were using the EGC (safety ground)
That was actually allowed if the standby current was 500 ua.

Further, nobody is being "forced" to use the neutral unless they're
having inspected switch work done, or they're putting in fancy lighting
control devices that need it. It doesn't apply to existing switches.

It applies to any circuit extension and all new construction.

And some states have their own exceptions. NC excepts most residential.

There are a lot of states that cave in to builders and write code
exceptions.

Lighting control outside of commercial building timing and entertainment
venues is about the most prissy and self-indulgent crap I can think
of...wait...isn't there a toilet that costs about 5 grand and wipes your
ass? Maybe that wins.

Maybe you should talk to the people who write the energy codes.

Which addition of the code is this in and what section? Does it specify
that the addendum was because of CFL's?

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 1 May 2013 13:26:54 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:49:07 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

You can get CFLs in a number of different colors from cool white to a
warmer almost red/yellow. I use them where they will work but a lot of
my interior lighting is on occupancy sensors and they don't like CFLs.
The "off state" load is not enough to power the occupancy sensor
properly and you end up with a flickering light that burns out
quickly.
They had to change the National Electric Code on the last code cycle
to force people to bring a neutral to every switch so you could use a
3 wire switching device. That is another cost for this "saving".


That code change has nothing to do with CFL's. It's to cater to
lighting control freaks who think using a simple switch is too arduous.

It has everything to do with CFLs and LEDs. They do not support line
powered switching devices. It is to allow smart switching devices so
lights turn off when you leave a room. I believe they are mandated in
the newer energy codes.


Right. It's about lighting controls, not CFL's per se.
I run 95% CFL's on 2-wire. No problems, no extra cost.
And I'm not "forced" to do anything differently.
That's you political spinning.

Know anybody like that?

Me, I have occupancy detectors all over my house.


So you need 3-wire. I don't. Because you have lighting controls.
Can't help you with that. Your choice.

So basically it's your lighting desires which
might add costs to those who were happy just flipping a switch.

and the energy code


Oh, really? What energy code mandates lighting controls on residences?
3-wire on all switches is pure NEC.

And NEC was no doubt lobbied for the code change by the special
interests who will financially benefit from the code. NEC should stay
out of design, especially for this type of frill.

This actually came from the IAEI (electrical inspectors) who were
concerned that installers were using the EGC (safety ground)
That was actually allowed if the standby current was 500 ua.


Baloney. A code for lighting controls requiring 3-wire would fix that.
No need to make every switch 3-wire.


Further, nobody is being "forced" to use the neutral unless they're
having inspected switch work done, or they're putting in fancy lighting
control devices that need it. It doesn't apply to existing switches.

It applies to any circuit extension and all new construction.


Right. Padding the accounts of special interests, as I already said.

And some states have their own exceptions. NC excepts most residential.

There are a lot of states that cave in to builders and write code
exceptions.


Good for them in this case. Electricians generally think it's a stupid
code from what I've read. Steps over the "design" line.

Lighting control outside of commercial building timing and entertainment
venues is about the most prissy and self-indulgent crap I can think
of...wait...isn't there a toilet that costs about 5 grand and wipes your
ass? Maybe that wins.

Maybe you should talk to the people who write the energy codes.

Nothing to do with the energy code. Just NEC.
Besides, it doesn't affect me. And since I'll never buy new
construction or use lighting controls, it never will.