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".

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.

On 5/1/13 11:27 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2013 06:10:24 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


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 understand that and I explained it. If you just say it helps the
environment without actually showing it saves money, people assume it
is more expensive.
There are also questions about just how much it "saves the
environment" when you start talking about mercury and the extra
manufacturing pollution. Fortunately for the US, that all happens in
China. (unless you were a light bulb factory worker here).
You still have the disposal problem and the issues with a broken bulb
in the home.
Maybe liberals simply blow all of that off because they are "saving
the planet". It says so right on the non-biodegradable bubble pack.


I think you are again overanalyzing. I posit that the reason the
conservatives didn't buy the energy saving bulbs is because they don't
give a damn about the environment.

On 5/1/13 1:49 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2013 11:41:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 5/1/13 11:27 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2013 06:10:24 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


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 understand that and I explained it. If you just say it helps the
environment without actually showing it saves money, people assume it
is more expensive.
There are also questions about just how much it "saves the
environment" when you start talking about mercury and the extra
manufacturing pollution. Fortunately for the US, that all happens in
China. (unless you were a light bulb factory worker here).
You still have the disposal problem and the issues with a broken bulb
in the home.
Maybe liberals simply blow all of that off because they are "saving
the planet". It says so right on the non-biodegradable bubble pack.


I think you are again overanalyzing. I posit that the reason the
conservatives didn't buy the energy saving bulbs is because they don't
give a damn about the environment.

... But you said they would buy the more expensive bulb if the thrust
of the puffing was that they saved money.
Price is still king.
For purposes of the survey, the bulbs were priced the same. Price was
not a factor, only the pro-environment factor.

On 5/1/13 2:47 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2013 14:09:52 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 5/1/13 1:49 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2013 11:41:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 5/1/13 11:27 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2013 06:10:24 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


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 understand that and I explained it. If you just say it helps the
environment without actually showing it saves money, people assume it
is more expensive.
There are also questions about just how much it "saves the
environment" when you start talking about mercury and the extra
manufacturing pollution. Fortunately for the US, that all happens in
China. (unless you were a light bulb factory worker here).
You still have the disposal problem and the issues with a broken bulb
in the home.
Maybe liberals simply blow all of that off because they are "saving
the planet". It says so right on the non-biodegradable bubble pack.


I think you are again overanalyzing. I posit that the reason the
conservatives didn't buy the energy saving bulbs is because they don't
give a damn about the environment.

... But you said they would buy the more expensive bulb if the thrust
of the puffing was that they saved money.
Price is still king.
For purposes of the survey, the bulbs were priced the same. Price was
not a factor, only the pro-environment factor.

I would like to see the actual study, Do you have a link to the
source data but I will agree some people are skeptical of "green"
products, simply because of their experiences with them.


I think the original article had a reference to the source material.

In article , says...

On Wed, 01 May 2013 06:10:24 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


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 understand that and I explained it. If you just say it helps the
environment without actually showing it saves money, people assume it
is more expensive.
There are also questions about just how much it "saves the
environment" when you start talking about mercury and the extra
manufacturing pollution. Fortunately for the US, that all happens in
China. (unless you were a light bulb factory worker here).
You still have the disposal problem and the issues with a broken bulb
in the home.
Maybe liberals simply blow all of that off because they are "saving
the planet". It says so right on the non-biodegradable bubble pack.

You can't just throw them in the trash. They are hazardous waste.

http://www6.montgomerycountymd.gov/a...ial_detail.asp
?categoryID=36

On 5/1/2013 9:17 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2013 20:03:28 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article , says...

On Wed, 01 May 2013 06:10:24 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


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 understand that and I explained it. If you just say it helps the
environment without actually showing it saves money, people assume it
is more expensive.
There are also questions about just how much it "saves the
environment" when you start talking about mercury and the extra
manufacturing pollution. Fortunately for the US, that all happens in
China. (unless you were a light bulb factory worker here).
You still have the disposal problem and the issues with a broken bulb
in the home.
Maybe liberals simply blow all of that off because they are "saving
the planet". It says so right on the non-biodegradable bubble pack.

You can't just throw them in the trash. They are hazardous waste.

http://www6.montgomerycountymd.gov/a...ial_detail.asp
?categoryID=36

How many people are going to drive 15-20 miles to drop off a light
bulb?
99.9% of these are going to end up in the land fill.


100%...

In article ,
says...

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.

Dimmable CFL's dim! They've come a LONG way in the technology, but of
course, somehow to the right wingers, that's a bad thing. I like them,
have them everywhere in the house except for some LED's.

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 1 May 2013 09:12:13 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

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.

Dimmable CFL's dim!

I agree you can find a few CFLs that dim. I had to go 3 pages down in
the CFL list at Lowes to find the first one.

http://tinyurl.com/cr58szt

They cost 7 times what a regular CFL costs, last 80% as long and burn
7% more power for the same output. (actually worse than that dimmed)
You also do not get the color shift that most people want when you dim
them.
The reviews give a regular CFL 5 stars, the dimmable gets 3
In my experience they don't even last as long as an incandescent if
you keep them dim most of the time.

Please give cite to those numbers.

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 1 May 2013 14:29:13 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 1 May 2013 09:12:13 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

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.

Dimmable CFL's dim!

I agree you can find a few CFLs that dim. I had to go 3 pages down in
the CFL list at Lowes to find the first one.

http://tinyurl.com/cr58szt

They cost 7 times what a regular CFL costs, last 80% as long and burn
7% more power for the same output. (actually worse than that dimmed)
You also do not get the color shift that most people want when you dim
them.
The reviews give a regular CFL 5 stars, the dimmable gets 3
In my experience they don't even last as long as an incandescent if
you keep them dim most of the time.

Please give cite to those numbers.

Did you look at the link?

The dimmable is 14w v 13w for a 60w equivalent.
The dimmable is 8000 hours the regular 10,000 hours MBTF
The consumer rating is what it is.

I'm sorry, where does that say that the cost is "7 times what a regular
CVL costs"? And while the dimmable doesn't last as long, 4/5ths of the
life of a standard CFL isn't bad, and better than an incandescent by a
LONG shot. You've been hoodwinked by FOX, like the Mercury in them,
which is 100 to 600 times less than a fever thermometer.