[Yogi]

I've been using CFL's throughout my home and shop for about the last 10 years. They do last much longer than incandescent. The energy savings are considerable when you take into account that a 23 watt CFL puts out the same light as a 100 watt incandescent. I'm quite satisfied with the 'brightness' and can't say as I have experienced any ill effects.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Absolutely incandescents generate heat and lots of it. A good 90% of an incandescent lightbulb's energy is heat.
I have 2 table lamps at my computer and when it's a little chilly in my library, the lamps give off some extra noticable heat.
And for reading, nothing is better than the warm glow of an incandescent lightbulb.
The flouresecents give me friggin' headaches!

[bootlegga]

I have both in my home and I find that incandescent bulbs do make a difference in heating. I usually take out several from the multi-light fixtures in my bathrooms in the summer and put them back in the winter, but that's because the fixtures only use special 100W bulbs the size of your pinky.

I have also used CFLs to replace incandescents, and while they are fine, I worry about the environmental impact they have.

If only the LED bulbs they have in stores now were bright enough to replace CFL/incandescent bulbs...

[andyt]

The light from CFLs makes me want to puke. They'll have to pry the last incandescent out of my cold, dead fingers.

[Yogi]

andyt andyt:

This is utter bullshit. When you're heating your house, (ie winter) incandescents are a net savings of energy because of the heat they put out. Also, compact fluorescents have a much shorter real lifespan than advertised - so they cost way more to use than incandescents. And as the article points out, fluorescents are very polluting when disposed of - and nobody is going to recycle them. Also their light is fugly and way too dim, way too hard on the eyes. Have to convert to halogens I guess, assuming they will still be sold.

I'm just finishing up building my new bedroom. I purchased and installed 4 halogen light fixtures. The bulbs are 50 watt. They are pretty pricey at 3 gor $9.95. They are also pretty darn bright! To counter that, I wired them to dual 3-way switches. That's another $60.00! I don't think there will be any savings with the bulbs, rather, it will be because of the dimmer switches, which the manufacturer claims will be 'substantial'. Another thing I have done, specifically towards energy saving is to use 'night lights' with a 7 watt 'christmas tree bulb' plugged in around the house, on the landing, and in the kitchen by the coffee pot, for example, Right handy, and rather than turning on the 100 watt over head light.

[Gunnair]

andyt andyt:

Gunnair Gunnair:

andyt andyt:

This is utter bullshit. When you're heating your house, (ie winter) incandescents are a net savings of energy because of the heat they put out.

I've heard this argument before and I'm rather curious to see the proof of this.

Pretty simple. The "waste" from a light bulb is heat - it's going to be the same cost as using electricity to heat your home. Maybe a bit less efficient since the bulb will be on the ceiling, not where you want the heat to originate.

So, no proof, just a guess?

Of course the bulbs produce waste heat, but where is demonstrable proof of the measurable savings in a heating bill by using them?

[GreenTiger]

I never thought there would ever be such a push for a Politically Correct light bulb, BFD IMHO.

[GreenTiger]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Absolutely incandescents generate heat and lots of it. A good 90% of an incandescent lightbulb's energy is heat.
I have 2 table lamps at my computer and when it's a little chilly in my library, the lamps give off some extra noticable heat.
And for reading, nothing is better than the warm glow of an incandescent lightbulb.
The flouresecents give me friggin' headaches!

Optically you are correct, the light from florescent bulbs are very hard on the eyes and that where you get the headaches, but keep in mind that it is a politically correct bulb !. Isn't it great.

[andyt]

Gunnair Gunnair:

andyt andyt:

Gunnair Gunnair:

I've heard this argument before and I'm rather curious to see the proof of this.

Pretty simple. The "waste" from a light bulb is heat - it's going to be the same cost as using electricity to heat your home. Maybe a bit less efficient since the bulb will be on the ceiling, not where you want the heat to originate.

So, no proof, just a guess?

Of course the bulbs produce waste heat, but where is demonstrable proof of the measurable savings in a heating bill by using them?

It's very simple - where do you thin the heat that the bulbs produce goes, into an alternate universe? It heats your house as surely as any other electric heating does. As I said, having them on the ceiling certainly isn't ideal, and as Khar pointed out, in the warmer parts of BC, there won't be as much of a saving because we heat our houses less even in winter. (OTOH, much of our housing stock is built to very poor insulation standards.)

[andyt]

Yogi Yogi:

andyt andyt:

I'm just finishing up building my new bedroom. I purchased and installed 4 halogen light fixtures. The bulbs are 50 watt. They are pretty pricey at 3 gor $9.95. They are also pretty darn bright! To counter that, I wired them to dual 3-way switches. That's another $60.00! I don't think there will be any savings with the bulbs, rather, it will be because of the dimmer switches, which the manufacturer claims will be 'substantial'. Another thing I have done, specifically towards energy saving is to use 'night lights' with a 7 watt 'christmas tree bulb' plugged in around the house, on the landing, and in the kitchen by the coffee pot, for example, Right handy, and rather than turning on the 100 watt over head light.

I don't care about the cost. I want bright, warm light. I'm very good with turning off lights I'm not using, but if I turn on a light, I want to bright. I save lots of energy in other ways, but in this particular way I'm a retro grouch. Actually for tube style fluorescents they make bulbs that mimic the daylight spectrum. They are very bright and easy on the eyes. If the mini fluorescents had something like that I'd be OK with them.

[ShepherdsDog]

Gunnair Gunnair:

So, no proof, just a guess?

Of course the bulbs produce waste heat, but where is demonstrable proof of the measurable savings in a heating bill by using them?

That's all we used to heat our ice fishing shack.

[Gunnair]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Gunnair Gunnair:

So, no proof, just a guess?

Of course the bulbs produce waste heat, but where is demonstrable proof of the measurable savings in a heating bill by using them?

That's all we used to heat our ice fishing shack.

Fishing shacks and houses have subtle differences - just like the definition of 'heating' between a house and drunks in a shack.

We just used a fire.

[Gunnair]

andyt andyt:

Gunnair Gunnair:

andyt andyt:

Pretty simple. The "waste" from a light bulb is heat - it's going to be the same cost as using electricity to heat your home. Maybe a bit less efficient since the bulb will be on the ceiling, not where you want the heat to originate.

So, no proof, just a guess?

Of course the bulbs produce waste heat, but where is demonstrable proof of the measurable savings in a heating bill by using them?

It's very simple - where do you thin the heat that the bulbs produce goes, into an alternate universe? It heats your house as surely as any other electric heating does. As I said, having them on the ceiling certainly isn't ideal, and as Khar pointed out, in the warmer parts of BC, there won't be as much of a saving because we heat our houses less even in winter. (OTOH, much of our housing stock is built to very poor insulation standards.)

Just establishing that this is really just opinion and not measurable fact. Got it.

[andyt]

Gunnair Gunnair:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Gunnair Gunnair:

So, no proof, just a guess?

Of course the bulbs produce waste heat, but where is demonstrable proof of the measurable savings in a heating bill by using them?

That's all we used to heat our ice fishing shack.

Fishing shacks and houses have subtle differences - just like the definition of 'heating' between a house and drunks in a shack.

We just used a fire.

Care to explain the diff? Either way you're heating a space. Either way, any heat source contributes to that heating. Light bulbs contribute a small amount of heat to your heating input that would otherwise have to be supplied by your heating system. The heat the bulbs contribute is the "waste" ie the energy that's being put into producing heat instead of the desired light. But if that heat from the bulbs is needed because you're heating the house, then it's not wasted. Then the only question is the relative efficiency of your heating system vs the heat the buld is producing. Gas heat might be a tad more efficient, but of course gas has other environmental impacts that hydro doesn't.

Maybe the answer is halogen. They produce more light per watt than incandescents. Or LED's if they get their act together on those. Certainly the LED's on my bike light throw a lot of light for the wattage.

[andyt]

Gunnair Gunnair:

andyt andyt:

Gunnair Gunnair:

So, no proof, just a guess?

Of course the bulbs produce waste heat, but where is demonstrable proof of the measurable savings in a heating bill by using them?

It's very simple - where do you thin the heat that the bulbs produce goes, into an alternate universe? It heats your house as surely as any other electric heating does. As I said, having them on the ceiling certainly isn't ideal, and as Khar pointed out, in the warmer parts of BC, there won't be as much of a saving because we heat our houses less even in winter. (OTOH, much of our housing stock is built to very poor insulation standards.)

Just establishing that this is really just opinion and not measurable fact. Got it.

What ever keeps your mind at peace - keep believing that. Please explain where you think the heat from incandescents goes in a house, and why it's not the same as any other heat input?