Cost of CFLs to Triple in UK After Incandescents Banned

[roo_ster]

In hindsight the Poll Tax is now seen as a very inequitable tax that was defeated by a popular public protest, which included rioting, there were no deaths but there was destruction of property. Very blunt weapon rioting, and comes with it's attendant problems of looting and indiscriminate violence.

Are we pretending innocents don't get killed in armed insurrections, or that the violence is actually any more focused? Human nature being what it is, any breakdown of law and order is an opportunity to loot, destroy and settle old scores.

The circumstances that justify either are very rare, and nearly never respectively.

Private property is not done by nameless third persons, but by individuals who decide, in their infantile way, that destruction of some innocent person's property is fun and/or profitable. 

I will not willingly destroy an innocent person's private property, which is one of the characteristics of a riot.  Others have different opinions & values.

Any who want to riot near myself or my neighbors had best be advised that we don't take kindly to seeing our property damaged and (having discussed this with several neighbors) would use our firearms to protect each others' property from rioters.

The law (as in written law and as practiced by local DAs) is on our side in this matter.

[tyme]

I can only explain it as a distinctly cultural difference. Most of us here from the US can't understand why anyone would happily roll along with it.

I DON'T like sitting in a smoke filled restaurant. Banning smoking in restaurants (in my state) is good for me, and I like being in a smoke free restaurant. However, I despise the law. If a restaurant owner wants to make their eatery smoke free, they should be able to. If a restaurant wants to allow smoking, they should be able to. People should then go to whichever restaurant they prefer.

Pass a law banning smoking from public restaurants and while it aggravates smokers, they can't blame individual establishments for banning it because the ban wasn't voluntary, so they have no reason to boycott.

In order for it to make more economic sense to run a voluntarily smoke-free restaurant, there would have to be more non-smokers willing to boycott a smoke-filled establishment than there were smokers willing to pass over a smoke-free establishment.  That is a sociological question, not a question of "make the market more free and everything will work itself out".  It could very well be that at a point in time, banning smoking will hurt profits.

It could be that some restaurant owners will ban smoking on principle anyway, but that would be in opposition to the free market principle of maximizing profits, so at best you can say that psychological quirks allow a free market solution to work even when that solution flies in the face of rational capitalistic decisions.  That is not the same as saying that the free market always works in the end.

[roo_ster]

Pass a law banning smoking from public restaurants and while it aggravates smokers, they can't blame individual establishments for banning it because the ban wasn't voluntary, so they have no reason to boycott.

In order for it to make more economic sense to run a voluntarily smoke-free restaurant, there would have to be more non-smokers willing to boycott a smoke-filled establishment than there were smokers willing to pass over a smoke-free establishment.  That is a sociological question, not a question of "make the market more free and everything will work itself out".  It could very well be that at a point in time, banning smoking will hurt profits.

It could be that some restaurant owners will ban smoking on principle anyway, but that would be in opposition to the free market principle of maximizing profits, so at best you can say that psychological quirks allow a free market solution to work even when that solution flies in the face of rational capitalistic decisions.  That is not the same as saying that the free market always works in the end.

It works, but may not come up with the solution you'd prefer.

[makattak]

In order for it to make more economic sense to run a voluntarily smoke-free restaurant, there would have to be more non-smokers willing to boycott a smoke-filled establishment than there were smokers willing to pass over a smoke-free establishment.  That is a sociological question, not a question of "make the market more free and everything will work itself out".  It could very well be that at a point in time, banning smoking will hurt profits.

You apparently don't understand markets.

In order to have business success, you have to have enough of a client base to turn a profit. There don't have to be more non-smokers interested ¹ in a smoke free establishment. There just have to be enough non-smokers who wants to go to a non-smoking restaurant to justify the restaurant. The numbers of one versus another make no difference. If there are no "non-smokey" restaurants, there's a HUGE market for a non-smokey restaurant.

Let me change your statement to illustrate your error:

In order for it to make more economic sense to run a voluntarily smoke-free restaurant shotgun company, there would have to be more non-smokers shotgunners willing to boycott a smoke-filled establishment rifle company than there were smokers riflemen willing to pass over a smoke-free establishment shotgun company.  That is a sociological question, not a question of "make the market more free and everything will work itself out". 

Obviously people who shoot shotguns might also have rifles. People who enjoy smoking might actually prefer a smoke-free environment for eating, too. People who aren't smokers might not mind or even like the smell of cigarette smoke.

The beauty of the market isn't that it is a either/or choice. That's government bans. Without the government bans you get smoke-free restaurants, smoke-filled restaurants and restaurants that have sections for each.

Now, to take it back to this stupid incandescent ban: the CFL's are not superior in every way. They have benefits and drawbacks. BANNING incandescents because you think the drawbacks of that bulb are so bad they cannot outweigh the benefits is the height of foolishness. If CFLs are generally superior, they will eventually be the majority of bulbs. Trying to accelerate their adoption by the majority by banning their main competitor is foolish and will cause unintended harm (much of it unknown currently, though some have already pointed out consequences of this stupidity).

(1) Not "boycotting" smokey establishments. Even a small preference for smoke-free over smokey would be enough, all other things equal, to make people chose the smoke-free establishment. Look up some of the behavioral economics on the effects of even small preferences.

[tyme]

Take a specific restaurant.  Are you saying that banning smoking could never cause a restaurant's profits to go down because non-smokers will always seek out that restaurant?  Non-smoking is not the main product/service that such restaurants offer.  They offer food and sometimes social interaction.  Even if the restaurant tried to advertise heavily to capitalize on its non-smoking policy, sociological factors and/or a local penchant for smoking could undermine that, and the restaurant could still lose money  -- and a major advertising campaign would alienate even more smokers.  The economic consequences are entirely dependent upon tendencies of the local population.

With CFLs there's a similar irrational choice going on, but for different reasons.  The opaque nature of electric bills and the cheap cost of incandescents frequently cause consumers to overlook the long-term economy of CFLs.  Publicity campaigns explaining the economics reaches some people, but not others.  People are not entirely rational agents.  Traditional economics depends on their being rational, in particular being able to exert arbitrary amounts of analysis looking into everyday problems to choose optimally.

1. Lack of information. ("Where is the nearest smoking or non-smoking restaurant that meats my desire for X type of food?" for instance.  That's easier today, but still not everyone has a smartphone and familiarity with restaurant info websites.)
2. Lack of willingness to process information about the market area in question - the best example of this is voting, where issue ads and attack ads litter the political field with so much garbage information that people are not willing to expend the energy of sorting out worthless information from important information in order to make the best, most rational decision.
3. Social network effects.  If my friends are going to a smoke-filled restaurant, I'll probably go there even if I hate smoking.

[Regolith]

In my experience, where smoking is legal in restaurants, most restaurants will have a smoke-free section. It was that way in Nevada before the state .gov dropped the ban hammer.

[makattak]

Take a specific restaurant.  Are you saying that banning smoking could never cause a restaurant's profits to go down because non-smokers will always seek out that restaurant?  Non-smoking is not the main product/service that such restaurants offer.  They offer food and sometimes social interaction.  Even if the restaurant tried to advertise heavily to capitalize on its non-smoking policy, sociological factors and/or a local penchant for smoking could undermine that, and the restaurant could still lose money  -- and a major advertising campaign would alienate even more smokers.  The economic consequences are entirely dependent upon tendencies of the local population.

With CFLs there's a similar irrational choice going on, but for different reasons.  The opaque nature of electric bills and the cheap cost of incandescents frequently cause consumers to overlook the long-term economy of CFLs.  Publicity campaigns explaining the economics reaches some people, but not others.  People are not entirely rational agents.  Traditional economics depends on their being rational, in particular being able to exert arbitrary amounts of analysis looking into everyday problems to choose optimally.

1. Lack of information. ("Where is the nearest smoking or non-smoking restaurant that meats my desire for X type of food?" for instance.  That's easier today, but still not everyone has a smartphone and familiarity with restaurant info websites.)
2. Lack of willingness to process information about the market area in question - the best example of this is voting, where issue ads and attack ads litter the political field with so much garbage information that people are not willing to expend the energy of sorting out worthless information from important information in order to make the best, most rational decision.
3. Social network effects.  If my friends are going to a smoke-filled restaurant, I'll probably go there even if I hate smoking.

1) If there are no other smoke-free restaurants, the profits of that restaurant will go up so long as people actually have a preference for smoke-free restaurants, even a small preference.

2) If CFL bulbs are superior, they will eventually become the majority. If they are actually (a) longer lasting and (b) more energy efficient, people will eventually move to mostly CFL bulbs, low initial price of the incandescent notwithstanding.

3) Economics doesn't require people to be rational. It only requires that people act rationally. It also doesn't require that people have full or complete information. IF a product is "superior" (including a good bargain), it will win out. Period. Enough people will research which bulb is better. Being that people love to brag when they've found a bargain and are saving money, others will try out the "superior" product. If it is truly a superior product, it will become the majority.

That's the beauty of the market. I don't have to know everything about every potential item I will buy. Knowledge is dispersed and is aggregated by the economy.

It won't happen overnight which is what make statists angry. They know what's better so we'll just force people to do it. Nevermind that it isn't better in every situation, we'll still force it's acceptance.

[tyme]

1) If there are no other smoke-free restaurants, the profits of that restaurant will go up so long as people actually have a preference for smoke-free restaurants, even a small preference.

2) If CFL bulbs are superior, they will eventually become the majority. If they are actually (a) longer lasting and (b) more energy efficient, people will eventually move to mostly CFL bulbs, low initial price of the incandescent notwithstanding.

3) Economics doesn't require people to be rational. It only requires that people act rationally. It also doesn't require that people have full or complete information. IF a product is "superior" (including a good bargain), it will win out. Period. Enough people will research which bulb is better. Being that people love to brag when they've found a bargain and are saving money, others will try out the "superior" product. If it is truly a superior product, it will become the majority.

That's the beauty of the market. I don't have to know everything about every potential item I will buy. Knowledge is dispersed and is aggregated by the economy.

It won't happen overnight which is what make statists angry. They know what's better so we'll just force people to do it. Nevermind that it isn't better in every situation, we'll still force it's acceptance.

1. Not if the restaurant is already frequented by smokers and only a smaller non-smoking clique would descend on the restaurant if it went non-smoking-only.

2. There are no objective criteria for superiority.  Some people like incandescents (and a particular brand and type at that) because they're used to a very specific color temperature or because they've always gotten a certain type of bulb for the past 10 years.  I'm sure you've encountered people like that, who adamantly refuse to change their habits based on no rational thought process other than resistance to change.

3. I understand that being rational and acting rationally are different, but you're relying on social effects to enforce rational behavior in a population that isn't very rational.  Social effects can just as easily lead people down the wrong path to some other local optimum, or a population can be split into groups, each following a different path to a local optimum based on the facts as they perceive them.  That might not happen in the case of CFLs, because the rational issues -- while most people don't consider them at first -- are fairly straightforward: 1. energy cost;  2. bulb cost;  3. bulb life; 4. color temp.  The general question modern liberalism poses is this: are you willing to bet the future of Earth's natural resources and the future of the environment that people will be smart enough to suss out true facts about issues from the metric gigatons of noise on the interwebs and in the news?  And are you willing to bet that social effects will spread those facts until they dominate public discussion of an issue?

Not everyone is affluent enough to listen to perspectives outside their small social community.

You only have to look at politics to see masses of people being lead astray based on rhetoric and skewed "facts" that are sometimes difficult to distinguish from more objective facts.  I'm not talking about political decisions and laws made by lawmakers (which are obviously not free-market-based, but rather constructed by interest groups and cabals without the benefit of free market forces), but rather the political opinions of individuals -- which are subject to the free market (of ideas).

Is the problem incandescent bulbs or the powerful lobbies that have slowed to nearly a full stop the building of new nuclear power plants?

Both.  But politics won't give us more nuclear power plants next year, or the year after that.

I'd rather find some solution other than a ban or tax on incandescents; is there a way to rig things so that people who are not really looking for one type or another of bulbs end up picking CFLs (and soon LEDs) instead of incandescents, while keeping incandescents available?  Because right now people who wouldn't know CFLs from LEDs go into hardware stores, see a $7 or $10 pack of 4 CFLs, see a 4-pack of incandescents for <$2, and make a decision based on that.  And unless you confronted them about it, they'd probably think their decision was rational.

[makattak]

1. Not if the restaurant is already frequented by smokers and only a smaller non-smoking clique would descend on the restaurant if it went non-smoking-only.

2. There are no objective criteria for superiority.  Some people like incandescents (and a particular brand and type at that) because they're used to a very specific color temperature or because they've always gotten a certain type of bulb for the past 10 years.  I'm sure you've encountered people like that, who adamantly refuse to change their habits based on no rational thought process other than resistance to change.

3. I understand that being rational and acting rationally are different, but you're relying on social effects to enforce rational behavior in a population that isn't very rational.  Social effects can just as easily lead people down the wrong path to some other local optimum, or a population can be split into groups, each following a different path to a local optimum based on the facts as they perceive them.  That might not happen in the case of CFLs, because the rational issues -- while most people don't consider them at first -- are fairly straightforward: 1. energy cost;  2. bulb cost;  3. bulb life; 4. color temp.  The general question modern liberalism poses is this: are you willing to bet the future of Earth's natural resources and the future of the environment that people will be smart enough to suss out true facts about issues from the metric gigatons of noise on the interwebs and in the news?  And are you willing to bet that social effects will spread those facts until they dominate public discussion of an issue?

You only have to look at politics to see masses of people being lead astray based on rhetoric and skewed "facts" that are sometimes difficult to distinguish from more objective facts.  I'm not talking about political decisions and laws made by lawmakers (which are obviously not free-market-based, but rather constructed by interest groups and cabals without the benefit of free market forces), but rather the political opinions of individuals -- which are subject to the free market (of ideas).

Both.  But politics won't give us more nuclear power plants next year, or the year after that.

I'd rather find some solution other than a ban or tax on incandescents; is there a way to rig things so that people who are not really looking for one type or another of bulbs end up picking CFLs (and soon LEDs) instead of incandescents, while keeping incandescents available?  Because right now people who wouldn't know CFLs from LEDs go into hardware stores, see a $7 or $10 pack of 4 CFLs, see a 4-pack of incandescents for <$2, and make a decision based on that.  And unless you confronted them about it, they'd probably think their decision was rational.

1. Some restaurants would be stupid to enact a non-smoking rule. How does it then follow that EVERY restaurant would be stupid to enact a non-smoking rule?

2. As I've said many times, CFLs aren't superior in every way. Some people will simply prefer the light from an incandescent. However, how many people will persist in that preference if using a CFL is truly cheaper? I don't see any indication that some vast majority of people are so irrationally opposed to a cheaper lightbulb that we need the government to force it on them for their own good.

3. I'm not relying on social effects, I'm relying on the dispersal of knowledge. Further, I am FAR more willing to bet the earth's resources on the market than I am on government. Government will get captured by special interests and political fads. Irrationality is punished by the market. Irrationality is rewarded in politics.

Your statement of people voting irrationally and ignorantly is PRECISELY why these should not be decided by politics. Again, politics rewards irrationality, the market punishes it.

As for politics not giving us more nuclear power plants next year, that is true. However, politics has for the past 40 years ensured that there will be no new nuclear power plants this next year. Politics can't drive progress, but it SURE does a good job stopping or impeding it.

[Iain]

In my experience, where smoking is legal in restaurants, most restaurants will have a smoke-free section. It was that way in Nevada before the state .gov dropped the ban hammer.

Only once did I go into a pub/bar that had a no smoking section and the air conditioning to make it more than a gesture. Probably more common over there.

roo_ster - not sure what you're trying to achieve in this conversation. I'm a latent destroyer of property, or perhaps I'm someone who can forsee an extreme circumstance where I would take to the streets and resist attempts to be broken up, corralled, arrested, beaten or driven over by a tank, because after all that's what most who get labelled rioters are actually doing. I see that as a less extreme possibility than initiating a holy civil war. For whilst both of us were being holy in the name of our cause, hangers on would be looting and shooting.

[MicroBalrog]

Only once did I go into a pub/bar that had a no smoking section and the air conditioning to make it more than a gesture.

Now relevant for this thread.

[Seenterman]

I will say I hate the ones with white or bluish light.  I look for ones with a warmer light.  It's easier on my eyes.

AHHHH! I can't say how much I agree with you. I replaced the lights in my room with CFL's and had to swap em out after about a month because they just annoyed the crap out of me. I can't say why exactly, I just don't like them and shouldn't be forced to buy what I feel is an inferior product.

(Don't care about the $ or energy savings the lights piss me off for some reason so their an inferior product to me.)

[tyme]

1. Some restaurants would be stupid to enact a non-smoking rule. How does it then follow that EVERY restaurant would be stupid to enact a non-smoking rule?

2. As I've said many times, CFLs aren't superior in every way. Some people will simply prefer the light from an incandescent. However, how many people will persist in that preference if using a CFL is truly cheaper? I don't see any indication that some vast majority of people are so irrationally opposed to a cheaper lightbulb that we need the government to force it on them for their own good.

3. I'm not relying on social effects, I'm relying on the dispersal of knowledge. Further, I am FAR more willing to bet the earth's resources on the market than I am on government. Government will get captured by special interests and political fads. Irrationality is punished by the market. Irrationality is rewarded in politics.

Your statement of people voting irrationally and ignorantly is PRECISELY why these should not be decided by politics. Again, politics rewards irrationality, the market punishes it.

As for politics not giving us more nuclear power plants next year, that is true. However, politics has for the past 40 years ensured that there will be no new nuclear power plants this next year. Politics can't drive progress, but it SURE does a good job stopping or impeding it.

1. Some would ban smoking, and would be successful at it.  However, that wouldn't help a non-smoker visitor to London in 1990 who wants to find a smoke-free place to eat.  It would not help a coworker who hangs out with mostly smokers who frequent a restaurant that allows smoking.  The market has failed those people.  Not everyone can choose where to live based on where restaurants can profit by banning smoking.  And why should someone have to choose between hanging out with work colleagues vs being anti-social just to escape smoke-filled restaurants?  Or is someone's health not worthy of being considered an externality?

2. I guess we won't know.  Like in most areas of social policy, it's impossible to set up good, controlled, scientific experiments without violating people's rights.

3. I consider dispersal of knowledge to be a social effect.  Regulatory capture is obviously an ever-present concern.  However, on the issue of CFLs, is there any real doubt that banning incandescents, forcing people to buy CFLs (or LEDs) would, overall, 1) save money and 2) reduce electricity demand?  Some people who have lighting needs that don't fit well with CFLs would not get the same benefits from CFLs, but even if CFLs had slightly shorter average lifetimes in those unusual use cases, those people would still come out ahead based on decreased electricity costs.  Very few people would lose money, and as illogical as it might seem, leaving CFLs on for longer periods rather than turning them off and on frequently would probably end up moving those outlier customers from the "losing money from CFLs" category into the "saving money from CFLs" category with everyone else.

I just noticed that Ikea is going to stop selling incandescents.  http://solar.coolerplanet.com/News/800322723-ikea-to-discontinue-sales-of-incandescent-bulbs.aspx
What is a free market capitalist to do when foreign governments ban things, and international corporations stop selling those products in this country because of those foreign laws?  :)

[Iain]

Now relevant for this thread.

Yes. The world of "I want, I want I want". I want to be able to go into pubs at all, because smoking pubs are no go zones for people with chronic lung disease. Doesn't mean I support the smoking ban particularly either. Funny thing life, full of compromise.

What did you make of the the Libertarian Alliance press release I linked to earlier? Drink driving laws as prior restraint? I knew that such view points were out there, but man, they are really out there. You probably won't view it that way, but I'll pass on Sean's world where a man can drink a bottle of whisky and drive a car, as long as he doesn't do so dangerously (his example). That's living in the real world right there.

[MicroBalrog]

Funny thing, this compromise.

It's always people arguing for people like me giving up slices of freedom. It's always people talking about how there's a completely non-regulated market in X, so we need to ban X, or control X, or be scared of X.

So because of this 'compromise', tomorrow I need to submit three pages of forms and documents and travel to a different city.

Because, you see, I cannot receive the knife I paid good money for until I provide these forms. No, I kid you not.

As for repealing drunk driving laws: frankly, that goes in the same department as anarcho-capitalism, seasteading, and armed airline passengers. Maybe it's a good idea. MAybe it's not. I certainly don't think people who argue for it are automatically wrong or stupid (unlike, say, people who argue for an abolition of private property, or racial segregation), but it seems to me the stuff of libertarian seminars, not political reality. It's not that I believe it's entirely unrealistic, I just feel it's unrealistic in the present discourse.

Sean, of course, is one of the brightest individuals in England. His writings on class politics (and his early 90's stuff on pornography) are very incisive.

[RocketMan]

LEDs simply do not burn out when fed the proper power.

Not entirely correct.  High power LEDs suffer from diminished light output over time.  They suffer from a higher incidence of failure once they lose, IIRC, about 30% of their output.
This is a well known and understood phenomena, and is something that is factored into the lifespan prediction.
It is an especially important consideration when LED light sources are used as specialized illumination sources.

[Perd Hapley]

  And why should someone have to choose between hanging out with work colleagues vs being anti-social just to escape smoke-filled restaurants?

Life is filled with such choices. My wife cannot in good conscience patronize restaurants that serve alcohol. This leads to much the same situation for her. She does not demand that the law crack down on restaurants that don't meet her own personal standards. Neither should anyone else.

Or is someone's health not worthy of being considered an externality?

If a restaurant were serving poison to unsuspecting diners, that might be the restaurant's problem, and a matter for legal involvement. Second-hand smoke is not the same situation. But that should be obvious.

[CNYCacher]

Not entirely correct.  High power LEDs suffer from diminished light output over time.  They suffer from a higher incidence of failure once they lose, IIRC, about 30% of their output.
This is a well known and understood phenomena, and is something that is factored into the lifespan prediction.
It is an especially important consideration when LED light sources are used as specialized illumination sources.

It's my understanding that the "high power" LEDs are ridiculously overdriven in order to create a high output PER LED.  You see it in LED flashlights where there is a single LED being driven at 5 watts!  Since you aren't constrained for space in a light fixture like in a flashlight you don't need to drive 5 LEDs at 5 watts each. I don't see why you can't make a light fixture with 100 or more properly-driven LEDs which will last as long as the LED display on my clock radio, which has been plugged in for 22 years.

[KD5NRH]

That might not happen in the case of CFLs, because the rational issues -- while most people don't consider them at first -- are fairly straightforward: 1. energy cost;  2. bulb cost;  3. bulb life; 4. color temp.

Missed a big one; warm up time.  Even the best CFLs don't come up to full power right away.  For example, our bedroom hall light has gone back to being a 32W incandescent for the simple reason that it's rarely on for more than the 10-15 seconds it takes to traverse the hallway.  We use a fair number of CFLs, but that one would never get to full output, and even with a 27W (actual) 100W equivalent CFL in there, it rarely exceeded the light output of the incandescent that use a whole 5W more than the CFL did.

That's another issue that's rarely addressed; excessive light output in areas where it's just not needed.  I'd be hard pressed to guess the wattage of that bulb if I didn't already know.  In a 4ft wide, white walled hallway, it looks just as bright as the total effect of the 5 50W bulbs in the bedroom fixture.  (I'm not a darkness junkie either; my bedside lamp is a 3-way 150W max, and my desk lamp is a 100W equivalent daylight CFL.)  I suspect most people could reduce their power consumption pretty dramatically just by taking a more sensible approach to the specific needs of each area in their home.  
That issue compounds itself badly, too; an excessively bright light in one area makes another area appear too dark, which lead to most people putting more wattage into the perceived dark area.  One of the nicest features of that hall light is that, even though it seems quite bright, I do notice that it doesn't hurt my eyes when I wake up and turn it on to go check on our toddler.  Turning on the 250W bedroom overhead is pointless at those times, since it renders me incapable of keeping my eyes open.

[KD5NRH]

I don't see why you can't make a light fixture with 100 or more properly-driven LEDs which will last as long as the LED display on my clock radio, which has been plugged in for 22 years.

Get 99 more clock radios, hang them from the ceiling, and read a book.  Amazingly, it won't even have to be a book about photometry or LEDs for you to find the answer in it under those conditions.

[RocketMan]

It's my understanding that the "high power" LEDs are ridiculously overdriven in order to create a high output PER LED.

Again, not exactly correct.  There are true "high power" LEDs, designed to operate continuously at higher power levels.  They have been around for quite some time, often used in specialty industrial illumination applications.
Do a little research on them, you'll probably find it interesting.

[zahc]

My apartment is heated with electric, so there is no efficiency difference between CFLs and incandescents in the winter time, and incandescents are obviously superior in every other way.

[sumpnz]

Been looking into the LED's a bit.  Seems like, right now, the break even time is still too long for the average light bulb.  Average seems to be around 4 hours of use per day.  If one has a particular light that's on nearly 24/7/365 they'd pay back in about a year.  But to do a whole house that would average out to more like a 6+ year break-even.  That's just too long.  If they can cut prices in half and solve a few of the more common problems (some don't work well with dimmers, the light tends to be more focused than incandecants or CFL, comparitive brightness, and some color issues - all of which have been improving) then they'll be ready for prime time.  And the non-cost issues aren't really even showstoppers anymore.