[Gunnair]

andyt andyt:

Gunnair Gunnair:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

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.

It seems like you're having some temper again because you've submitted a theory but can't actually back it up with anything more than "where do you think the heat from an incandecent bulb goes?"

Rhodes scholar, you are not.

[Public_Domain]

[Gunnair]

Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:

I should buy a bunch of old bulbs and smuggle them into BC

Swap 100watt bulbs for BC Bud. You'll be a millionaire!

[Brenda]

Why do you guys use 100 Watts anyway? 40 is my max!

[Public_Domain]

[Gunnair]

Brenda Brenda:

Why do you guys use 100 Watts anyway? 40 is my max!

I max out at 60w.

[andyt]

Gunnair Gunnair:

It seems like you're having some temper again because you've submitted a theory but can't actually back it up with anything more than "where do you think the heat from an incandecent bulb goes?"

Rhodes scholar, you are not.

You're good at sticking your fingers in your ears and going la la la I can't hear you, but so far you've not posited an explanation why you think the heat produced by incandescents is wasted if you're heating your house anyway. Just defies basic physics.

OK, here's an electrician making the same arguement, with a bit more detail thrown in: http://ezinearticles.com/?Incandescent-Light-Bulbs---More-Efficient-Than-You-Thought&id=3415693

$1:

How is the electricity not wasted? Well, when 90%-98% of it is not making light, what is it doing? Almost all of it is put out as heat! So in the cool seasons -- when you are using your lights the most -- they are helping to heat your home! In fact, when your lights aren't on, your heating system has to work a little harder. Your heating may use a fuel rather than electricity, but we are talking about overall energy efficiency and resources. Isn't that what we are concerned about?

In the cool seasons, all bulbs are in this sense very efficient, and maybe equally efficient. OK, in the summer, the heat of all bulbs is wasted, but we use our lights less then anyway. (Maybe in summer the lighting showrooms should "cool it.")

Or this: http://www.energyefficienthomearticles.com/Article/A-4163-sq-ft-Ecobuilt--Energy-Efficient-Home-heats-with-light-bulbs-winter-05-06/1207

$1:

In the end the 2005-06 winter heating source for the Ecobuilt™ home ended up being the electric incandescent light bulbs in the house.

Admittedly they also said this:

$1:

In the summer time the incandescent bulbs need to be changed to fluorescent light bulbs to save on air conditioning costs because the heat from the incandescent lights will have an adverse effect-too much heat in the summer time.

but I don't have or need air conditioning.

But it does sound like CFC bulbs have come a long ways - maybe I should pick one up and check out the new ones, see if the light it produces is now pleasant to live with. If so, I have no problem using them. But one "scam" I hear is that in real life they don't last nearly as long as advertised. This is because fluorescent bulbs do best when left or or off for long periods of time. Frequent on off is not good for them, and in fact draws a lot more power because the initial power draw of a CFC is off the charts compared to the steady state use.

[Gunnair]

Gunnair Gunnair:

It seems like you're having some temper again because you've submitted a theory but can't actually back it up with anything more than "where do you think the heat from an incandecent bulb goes?"

Rhodes scholar, you are not.

$1:

You're good at sticking your fingers in your ears and going la la la I can't hear you, but so far you've not posited an explanation why you think the heat produced by incandescents is wasted if you're heating your house anyway. Just defies basic physics.

No, I've asked you to back up your supposition with something more measurable than the "where do you think it goes?" argument you've painted yourself into a corner with.

$1:

OK, here's an electrician making the same arguement, with a bit more detail thrown in: http://ezinearticles.com/?Incandescent-Light-Bulbs---More-Efficient-Than-You-Thought&id=3415693

Well, he's an electrician that says the same thing you say and with no more empirical data to prove it than you.

I'd be curious to see two equal houses, one with incandescents and one with CFLs and do a real measurement as to whether the overall combined savings with both heat and electricity is with CFLs or incandescents. Until then, I can't say I'm convinced by the "where do you think it goes?" argument.

[andyt]

Gunnair Gunnair:

I'd be curious to see two equal houses, one with incandescents and one with CFLs and do a real measurement as to whether the overall combined savings with both heat and electricity is with CFLs or incandescents. Until then, I can't say I'm convinced by the "where do you think it goes?" argument.

In winter there won't be much difference, since the extra current used by the incandescents that's converted to heat will save in heating costs. Note the energy efficient house, that could not find a boiler small enough for it's needs, it just heated the house with incandescents in the winter. See's stupid to me, since you'd have to leave the lights on at night and would have no thermostatic control over your house temp. But the point is that the heat is heat, and that produced by incandescents qualifies as much as that produced by any other heat source.

I'm not saying that there would be an energy saving with the incandescents - that would be stupid. I'm saying that if you have to heat your house anyway, there is no net diff between the two types of lighting, because the extra draw of the incandescents is offset by the lesser use of the heating system. So your only energy saving is in the summer. Or if you're using geothermal or some such heat source - pretty exotic. In fact I could see how a slight advantage might go to the incandescents, because they heat the space you're actually using. If you're using a furnace, it will likely heat the whole house, and it uses electricity for a fan (air heat) or pump (water) to distribute that heat, so the balance might be shifted slightly in the incandescent's favor.

[ShepherdsDog]

Brenda Brenda:

Why do you guys use 100 Watts anyway? 40 is my max!

You aren't very bright.

[Brenda]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Brenda Brenda:

Why do you guys use 100 Watts anyway? 40 is my max!

You aren't very bright.

[Canadian_Mind]

andyt andyt:

Gunnair Gunnair:

I'd be curious to see two equal houses, one with incandescents and one with CFLs and do a real measurement as to whether the overall combined savings with both heat and electricity is with CFLs or incandescents. Until then, I can't say I'm convinced by the "where do you think it goes?" argument.

In winter there won't be much difference, since the extra current used by the incandescents that's converted to heat will save in heating costs. Note the energy efficient house, that could not find a boiler small enough for it's needs, it just heated the house with incandescents in the winter. See's stupid to me, since you'd have to leave the lights on at night and would have no thermostatic control over your house temp. But the point is that the heat is heat, and that produced by incandescents qualifies as much as that produced by any other heat source.

I'm not saying that there would be an energy saving with the incandescents - that would be stupid. I'm saying that if you have to heat your house anyway, there is no net diff between the two types of lighting, because the extra draw of the incandescents is offset by the lesser use of the heating system. So your only energy saving is in the summer. Or if you're using geothermal or some such heat source - pretty exotic. In fact I could see how a slight advantage might go to the incandescents, because they heat the space you're actually using. If you're using a furnace, it will likely heat the whole house, and it uses electricity for a fan (air heat) or pump (water) to distribute that heat, so the balance might be shifted slightly in the incandescent's favor.

Wood stove with a duct system for heating whole house, as well as using it to heat the water for heated ground floors. Way to go man! All it costs to heat our place is the oil and gas for the chainsaw.

[andyt]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

andyt andyt:

Gunnair Gunnair:

I'd be curious to see two equal houses, one with incandescents and one with CFLs and do a real measurement as to whether the overall combined savings with both heat and electricity is with CFLs or incandescents. Until then, I can't say I'm convinced by the "where do you think it goes?" argument.

In winter there won't be much difference, since the extra current used by the incandescents that's converted to heat will save in heating costs. Note the energy efficient house, that could not find a boiler small enough for it's needs, it just heated the house with incandescents in the winter. See's stupid to me, since you'd have to leave the lights on at night and would have no thermostatic control over your house temp. But the point is that the heat is heat, and that produced by incandescents qualifies as much as that produced by any other heat source.

I'm not saying that there would be an energy saving with the incandescents - that would be stupid. I'm saying that if you have to heat your house anyway, there is no net diff between the two types of lighting, because the extra draw of the incandescents is offset by the lesser use of the heating system. So your only energy saving is in the summer. Or if you're using geothermal or some such heat source - pretty exotic. In fact I could see how a slight advantage might go to the incandescents, because they heat the space you're actually using. If you're using a furnace, it will likely heat the whole house, and it uses electricity for a fan (air heat) or pump (water) to distribute that heat, so the balance might be shifted slightly in the incandescent's favor.

Wood stove with a duct system for heating whole house, as well as using it to heat the water for heated ground floors. Way to go man! All it costs to heat our place is the oil and gas for the chainsaw.

Try doing that in the city and see how fast you get shut down. You're just spewing pollution. There are wood pellet systems that are pretty efficient, but if you're burning straight wood, that's not good at all. Montreal has outlawed wood stoves, probably come to all bigger cities at one time.

[ShepherdsDog]

Growing up we had an electric furnace and a a wood stove in the basement. Like CM we had a fan to force heat into the ducts and we also had a few grills set in the floor. The floor was never cold. We burned poplar for the most part, but had a cord or two of maple, elm and oak when you needed something longer lasting.

[QBC]

Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:

I should buy a bunch of old bulbs and smuggle them into BC

OMG...how very capitalist of you.