WHY dont people switch to energy saving lightbulbs?? i need help fora speech.?

Question

I need to give reasons why people wont switch. I am doing my speech FOR switching but i need some points to b like... just because people are to cheap to spend the extra $4 blah blah blah ..what are some other reasons??

Answer 1

People are too cheap to pay that extra $4--it's human nature.  Awareness can be a factor--some people just see energy-saving bulbs as a more expensive version of the same thing and go with the incandescents.  They don't know what the energy-savers can really do.  It's the same principle as why people throw their aluminum cans into the regular trash when there is a recycling can right next to it.  They just don't care enough or think it's important enough to bother.  Also, energy-savers are more fragile than regular bulbs.  I myself have broken two bulbs, one before I got to even use it.  But this is a minor problem compared to the awareness/not caring problem.

About, global warming, it can contribute since less energy will be used so less energy will need to be produced from fossil fuels, thus creating less CO2.  Energy-savers do last longer than incandescents if you don't break them.

Answer 2

I went out when these pieces of c**p first came on the market.  I paid an ungodly price for two of them.  I took them home and installed them in the floor and table lamp in my living room.  When I turned them on they didn't make a third the light of the other bulbs.  They wouldn't work on the three way sockets I use.  But the clincher was, as long as they were on the remote control for my TV was just so much plastic.  IF I wanted to use the remote I had to turn at least one of the d**n things off and some of the time it was both of them.

I have a few installed now but only in places where it doesn't matter what color the light is or how d**n weak it is.  And anybody who thinks these things outlast incandescent bulbs at some outlandish ratio, well I have to change them about half as often as the old bulbs.

So I can pay $5.00 a bulb for something that puts out very little light, of the wrong color, hoses up the remote control and only has to be changed about once a year.  Or I can pay $1.00 for 4 bulbs that I can see by, read by, watch TV by and I have to change it twice a year.

I don't need a PhD in mathematics or some degree in ergonomics to figure out this isn’t the best way for me to go.  But not to worry, if my state legislature has its way the inventor of darkness will reign supreme in the state where I live.  It seems they have a habit of outlawing anything that works or perhaps the Governor’s brother-in-law makes the d**n things.

Answer 3

They don't know the savings that energy saving lightbulbs can do. They just look at the price of the bulb as the bottom line they don't look at the saving on the energy bill as it is harder to see as you have to do more calculating. If they would see this they would pay more up front for better bulbs than the el cheapos

Answer 4

I have switched some of mine and have noticed that they do last much longer.  Some I have not changed because they are not as bright, and they do not fit into my current fixtures.

Answer 5

Not an answer, but they don't cost $4 any more.

$1.50 at Home Depot and Lowe's.

Answer 6

by energy saving bulbs, we do understand "cold" or non filament using bulbs....

They use fluorescent material, applied to the glass walls of the small tubes...(generally, beryllium bromocyanide) that will react with electrons giving luminiscence...

Yes, they are cheaper, however they end up costing the same, because they LAST LESS than common filament bulbs...

Contribution to lessen global warming?

Negligible, for they also consume energy derived from fossile combustion (oil, etc), and the differente of emission of CO2 to the atmosphere is minimal.....

Answer 7

It saves energy so less coal is used in a power plant.  Some people don't like the color of the light.  Some are just used to the old ones and ignorant of the savings.  A few may be worried about the tiny amount of mercury.  Most are probably penny wise and dollar foolish.

Answer 8

Energy saving lights are not a one size fixes all solution.

They DO last longer than filament bulbs (even than halogen bulbs) and they use much less energy. But they produce less light and the light is of a different quality to that produced by other sources - it is flatter (so hard to work by) and green.

When lighting a room it is important to consider these things. Generally, low energy bulbs are useful only for background light - other sources are needed to add mood, warmth or to work by.

They are also not always the best to save energy. For instance I can work at a desk very easily by a 10W halogen bulb, but struggle with a 12W low energy bulb.

Answer 9

Perhaps their light switches use rheostats, which are incompatible with (most) flourescent lights.  Dimmable flourescents are available, but very difficult to find.

Some (perhaps all?  I dunno'...) flourescent lights are made with mercury, which is quite toxic, leaving consumers in the unenviable position of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

The rationale for switching to flourescent fixtures is that they require less energy to operate.  Missing from this equation is the energy required to manufacture them, and the environmental impact of their manufacture compared with the impact of the use/manufacture of incandescents.

Answer 10

well see  people are more used to using the normal ones, and the energy saving ones  are also  not easily available in all stores and they being 4$ more expensive why by them .That the thinking