7A – Testing the Hypothesis, Part 1

Opportunity: LED lights have become cheaper than other lights, use less electricity, can now reproduce neutral temperature lights, lack mercury as in CFLs, and can be shatterproof but going through my daily life I still often see inferior lighting systems being used.

Who: Businesses and Consumers who use legacy light systems
What: They are using inefficient incandescent lights and CFLs, wasting electricity and thus money.
Why: They are using legacy systems that have yet to fail so aren't replaced.

Testing Who: Public institutions could use this as well. Really any institution of any sort that uses legacy lighting would be able to use it as well.
Testing What: Some people have talked about preferring the color temperature of incandescent lights and the electricity costs may be worth it to them.
Testing Why: They could be using legacy systems because of the upfront costs, and hassle of replacing the lights.

Interview 1: In this interview I talked to a friend who is a Computer Engineering student living in an apartment. I asked him why his bathroom lights were still incandescent and he felt that it didn't make sense for him to replace the lights on a rented apartment. He didn't want to give his landlord free lights or juggle around lights as he eventually moved out.
Interview 2: In this interview I talked to another friend living in a rented house. Their rented house was older but the landlord had mostly switched their lights to LEDs. They said only ones that weren't were in the laundry and in the chandelier hanging in the kitchen. They said that they used the laundry lights for such limited times that efficiency wasn't important. They also said that the chandelier used an old style of base that there weren't new LED lights for and that even if there were they wouldn't buy such specific lights that they would likely never use again.
Interview 3: In this interview I talked to a dorm student and asked him about the lights. He said he technically didn't have the ability to change the lights. He also said that he read about UF investing in a new college wide LED system.
Interview 4: In this interview I talked to the apartment manager where the legacy light systems were still being used. She said that they were still being used because they were too expensive to replace all at once and that the tenants paid the electricity costs so it wasn't in their financial interest to pay for their replacement before they had to. The street lights were still sodium lights because of the upfront costs of replacing them.
Interview 5: In this interview I talked to a home owner, where they were still using CFLs. They said shape of the house made it so the skylights were difficult to replace and would require a ladder and time to do. They said the hassle and there lack of time made it so they wouldn't replace them until they went out. Although they had replaced them in the easily accessible areas like the rooms.

Summary/Reflection: The boundaries of my hypothesis were tested. It made me expand my thinking to public institutions being potential consumers as well. It also made me think about the incompatibility some systems have with LED systems. I learned a lot of consumers live in rented areas and thus don't control the lights they use or don't see a benefit to improving someone else's property. I also learned about the upfront costs being a barrier to replacing them, because from my interviews people tend to think about the present moment and small future benefits tend to be neglected. To a lot of people the cost of the hassle of replacing the lights is more expensive than the electricity savings they are expected to receive.