Its really about convenience, security and impressing your friends... Most people that buy these systems or go for these projects have enough money that they really don't have to worry about lighting energy costs. CFL's are a government boondoggle, they don't last as long as advertised, are a poor choice where you need light quickly for a short period of time (especially in cold places)and really don't dim well if at all. Incandescents will be around long enough to get us to the better solution which are dimmable LED's. Dimmed incandescents often use about the same power as full brightness CFL's and in most cases the CFL's are giving you more light than you want or need. CFL's are good for business where you have 75 bulbs, fixed brightness and in a shopping area.
When talking to them don't entertain or go on and on about what you beleive to be nonsense... correct their impression with your own strong opinions and reasonable explanations... BE THE EXPERT!
Even people who are just trying to be GREEN are willing to take it step by step and recognize that the technology to do that is evolving. Just dimmers AND turning things off when not needed (automatically) is enough for now.
Brian
I'm gonna take issue with a few of your statements, BKLLC.
One, CFL's are hardly government boondoggle. The massive adoption rate has been market driven from day one. Governments (such as Australia and California) have LAGGED behind consumers spending habits when it comes to CFL's. Don't take that the wrong way. I disagree with those two example's pushes to ban incandescents. I like and use dimmed incandescents in both my own home and in my clients (as well as halogen, CFL's, LED and low voltage).
Two, if CFL's been shown to last some eight times longer than a comparable incandescent, what makes you say they don't last as long as advertised. If you mean the advertising of the manufacturers, rather than studies, shame on you. Since when do you have reason to believe the claims of ANY vendor?
Three, your claim that dimmed incandescents match the savings of a CFL, you've been listening to Lutron's propaganda. There are savings to be had via the use of dimmers but, it's a NONLINEAR relationship. In order to match the average 25% compared power usage of CFL's (I'm tracking at 22% in my own home) you would need to keep the dimmer at approx. 15% output. That's hardly comparable and likely not a "standard" lighting level.
Four, you claim that CFL's generally output "more light than you want or need". That is as subjective a statement as I have ever read. Not to mention that CFL's are both dimmable and can be down rated for lower out put (and consequently, even higher savings).
Five, you claim, "Most people that buy these systems or go for these projects have enough money that they really don't have to worry about lighting energy costs." Wow, that is simply not the experience I have had in working in this industry for the last 8-10 years. Yes, many of my clients are super wealthy. Like own a helicopter wealthy. They also happen to tend to be smart, thrifty and progressive thinkers who are specifically looking to utilize technology to both their's and their wallet's benefits. The understand that ROI is difficult to quantify with HA but, they also benefit from feeling good about "doing the right thing". I've never had a client mention to me that they don't care about their utility costs. Conversely, we tend to focus on many of the ways that conservation can be affected via technology. Hell, that's my job. Of course, many of those benefits are shot all to hell by the ubiquitous AV systems that go hand in hand with HA...e with your statements...
Lastly, a point that I do agree on is the future of LED lighting. There is little doubt that we are both right when we agree that it is by far and away the best lighting technology available and will only get better over time. I hope I don't come across like a jerk (although most people who know me would state point blank that I am). I just don't see eye to eye with the statements you made earlier...
