FIRST Fundraiser: Selling LED "Lightbulbs"

[Ether]

Originally Posted by TD912

Interesting you should mention that. Reminded me of another Engadget post about traffic lights retrofitted with LEDs that were covered by snow:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/17/l...use-accidents/

One of the "tech" fixes mentioned in the article that is being considered is adding a heating element to the LED fixture. How ironic.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by Ether

One of the "tech" fixes mentioned in the article that is being considered is adding a heating element to the LED fixture. How ironic.

Haha, oh that is funny!

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by Ether

One of the "tech" fixes mentioned in the article that is being considered is adding a heating element to the LED fixture. How ironic.

But at least that heating element doesn't need to run all the time, as the lights do. It can be intelligent enough to know when its cold and has to turn on and off.

-Brando

[Ether]

Originally Posted by Brandon Holley

But at least that heating element doesn't need to run all the time, as the lights do. It can be intelligent enough to know when its cold and has to turn on and off.

Of course.

[pfreivald]

I think a big, not-to-be-underestimated selling point of these light bulbs is the green aspect. Green technology is hot right now, and whether or not you buy into anthropogenic global warming or not, I think we all pretty much agree that dependency on fossil fuels is a Bad Thing(TM). If we can reduce this Bad Thing(TM) while saving ourselves money and supporting a local club that does lots of great stuff, that is a Good Thing(TM).

Yeah?

[Ether]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I think we all pretty much agree that dependency on fossil fuels is a Bad Thing(TM). If we can reduce this Bad Thing(TM)...

Yeah?

The argument you presented above is not valid, of course, if you live in an area where electricity comes from nuclear, and heating fuel is a fossil fuel.

[EricH]

Why would you say that? Is it the "lesser of two evils" (fossil fuel vs radiation risk), the fact that the fossil fuel is being used for heating, not electricity generation, or something else?

You're not making sense here, Ether.

[Ether]

Think it through logically Eric. Patrick stated that using LED bulbs reduces use of fossil fuels. If your electricity is being generated by nuclear, then if you replace incandescents with LEDs it does not reduce fossil fuel consumption. Don't read anything more than that into it.

[EricH]

Maybe not all of us live in an area powered by nuke plants. San Onofre hasn't been producing in quite a while to the best of my knowledge. You could also make the same argument for hydroelectric, and to a lesser extent, wind and solar. But if most of your power comes from coal, natural gas, or oil, then it does make sense.

The part that didn't make sense was that you simply quoted the part that read, in effect, reducing dependency on fossil fuels is a good thing, then said that it didn't make sense--and the rest of the post didn't specify anything about LED bulbs reducing use of fossil fuels. It took way too much thinking to be able to make that connection easily.

Then you get the marketing part, which has a grain of truth in it. What is being pushed more than anything else right now? "Green" technology, good for the environment, stuff like that. Your average consumer might not know that most of their power comes from renewable sources or nuclear power, and would then figure that this is going to help save the planet, whether or not they eventually decide that it'll save them money. Ignorance is not always bliss...

[Ether]

Originally Posted by EricH

Maybe not all of us live in an area powered by nuke plants.

Demonstrably true indeed. But orthogonal to the specific point being made.

The part that didn't make sense was that you simply quoted the part that read, in effect, reducing dependency on fossil fuels is a good thing, then said that it didn't make sense

I did not say "reducing dependency on fossil fuels does not make sense". I said that the generalized argument that fossil fuel use can be reduced by using LED instead of incandescent technology "is not valid if you live in an area where electricity comes from nuclear." Nothing more, nothing less.

It took way too much thinking to be able to make that connection easily.

Perhaps. I will keep that in point in mind.

What is being pushed more than anything else right now? "Green" technology, good for the environment, stuff like that. Your average consumer might not know that most of their power comes from renewable sources or nuclear power, and would then figure that this is going to help save the planet...

To each his own, but to me this is dishonest. Vive la difference

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Ether

To each his own, but to me this is dishonest. Vive la difference

I was thinking the same thing, except "unethical" instead of "dishonest". It's like the lottery: a tax on people who don't understand math. Except that in this case it's more a lack of information than a lack of math understanding. I would advise teams who are thinking of using that line of marketing to check where their power typically comes from beforehand and adjust accordingly. There's already enough misinformation, deliberate or not, in commercials--why add to that misinformation just because your team needs to raise money?

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by EricH

Maybe not all of us live in an area powered by nuke plants.

You're reading into it more than he intended. He made the post to say that the "uses less fossil fuels" argument is based on an assumption that isn't always true depending on your electricity arrangement, so the sweeping general statement is invalid (as sweeping general statements tend to be).

If you have alternate heating and want to cut down on fossil fuels, a space heater is probably a lot more efficient.

[Ether]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

You're reading into it more than he intended.

I think we worked that out amicably Chris, thanks.

FWIW: Sometimes when multiple users are posting to the same thread within a small time window, the individual posts do not always appear exactly in the order they were submitted.

[JesseK]

The argument about fossil fuel usage while using an LED bulb, in the context of trying to sell said LED bulbs, is irrelevant because of the fact that "Green" marketing sells. LED bulbs are on the market because they reduce consumption of electricity over time -- regardless of whether that reduces fossil fuel usage or not, the average american will see that as a "Green" thing to do. Consumers who like buying things because they're "Green" will buy the bulbs regardless of what actually happens in regards to fossil fuels. My favorite depiction of the power and ridiculousness of such marketing schemes is here.

Good points for techies though.

edit --

Ironically enough, slashdot just pointed to an article about how some regions may be 'powered' by alkali fuels rather than fossil fuels. Heh.

[Robert Cawthon]

Two comments. First, can one of the moderators move this to the General Forum? It seems to me that it has matured out of the rumor stage and would be better served there.

Second, since I tend to be cynical and don't trust venders very much, I wouldn't feel comfortable selling these bulbs for any reason until I have tried them out for a year or two. My experience with LED lights has not been very good. I have no problem selling Worlds Finest Chocolate for a buck a bar since I have 'tested to the extreme' and found them worthy of trust. I just don't have the trust for a brand I am not familiar with and a general product I have not had success with. Sorry!