Sunday, December 7, 2008

Not the brightest

I was at the store looking at some LED lights to replace our current energy-sucking conventional C9 lights. They are more expensive than regular lights. I overheard an employee explaining to a customer that, "they are more expensive because they last longer." That's just dumb. The fact that they last longer, combined with the energy savings, mitigates the fact that they cost more; however, just lasting longer is not justification for charging more. It may be that they cost more to make, which is fine, but that's not how she explained it. Chances are neither the employee nor the customer would have even understood the difference between what she said and reality, though, so maybe it doesn't matter.

Combine the savings mentioned above with Logan City rebates of $5 per string of old lights that you turn in, and it makes sense to go LED, right?

Well, I can't get a good photo that really shows how bad the LED lights are, but they're a weird color and not very bright. So much for trying to go green, as an extra trip to the store is now in order to return the new lights, plus any future temptation to purchase LED lights will be met with skepticism.

It did give me an excuse to play around with the shutter speed setting on my camera that I've never had a reason to learn how to use before. The bottom shot was the longest exposure. It's not as obvious as seeing it in person, but you can tell that the mini incandescent lights are brighter than the C9 LED lights.


Brenda said...

Good for you for bucking the green trend. :-) I'm all for green I guess, but we don't have LED lights because they're a weird color too. Plus I've never seen anyone who has been able to hang them perfectly straight (crooked lights are a hang-up of ours).

Rest easy knowing you have some energy-sucking friends to the south.

robmba said...

The problem is they're still on the roof, because it was late Saturday that I got them up, before realizing they look bad. Now it's snowing.