On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:48:54 -0400, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Maybe but the argument starts to fall apart if their average watt per
square foot is the same as other large malls. You would think there
would be an economy of scale.
I know a lot of buildings that do not need "heat" per se.
The National Geographic building north of DC generates so much waste
heat that they pump the excess into the lake out front and it has
never frozen. This is with virtually zero solar gain. The glazing is
about the same as most big office buildings. They are more interested
in rejecting the sun to lower A/C bills in the summer.
On Oct 29, 8:03 am, email@example.com wrote:
I'm still waiting for any credible reference that says the stores in
the mall do not have their own heating systems. I gave you a couple
that say they do in fact have their own heating systems. Besides
your own personal claim that these are limited to just small spot
heating, where's the proof?
I'm also waiting for an explanation of how this great energy savings
through solar heating via sunlights in the common mall area in winter
is not reversed in the summer with the need for more AC. In fact,
given the typical cost disparity between NG and electricity, it would
seem the entire economic gain could or more could be lost in summer.
And note, I'm not saying that passive solar can not be of benefit.
I'm must skeptical of many claims put forward as sound environmental
fact, when they are exagerated or don;t tell the whole story. Like
the "electric car" being put forth as some perfect green solution,
ignoring that the electricity still has to come from somewhere.
Exactly my thoughts. How by visiting the mall does one determine
whether or not the individual stores have a heating system that
consists of more than just spot heating? Let's forget about heat for
the moment. Clearly they need AC for summer and sa has claimed that
it gets so hot in the mall in winter that they must use AC then too.
So, the stores obviously will have HVAC ducting, vents, etc. and in
the malls I've been in, these tend to be in the ceilings and not
readily accessible. Do you bring a ladder with you when you go to
the mall and check what's coming out of the air vents? Or do you
ask for a tour of the store's HVAC system?
It sounds like sa's made a lot of assumptions here. What would help
convince me is some credible reference that says the stores do not
have their own conventional heating systems. We've provided some
references that say the stores do in fact, have their own individual
BTW, I'm still waiting for an explanation from sa of how the big heat
gain through acres of passive solar skylights in the common mall areas
roof is not largely or maybe even entirely reversed in summer by the
same sunlight pouring in and creating more heat. The one way this
could be done would be with some sort of shades used in summer to
limit the light. Those should be visible from a visit. Do they do
And once again, I'm not saying that passive solar cannot be used
effectively to help heat a building. But I get skeptical of claims
which seem to exagerate what is actually going on.
I don't even think the word "majority" belongs in that statement. That
makes the whole statement FALSE.
One of the major reasons that commercial lighting is almost all
florescent s that it turns a higher percentage of energy into light.
They give off a little heat, but not really very much. It counts, but
heat from bodies down at ground level probably does a lot more to keep
things warm. Heat rises. A single 100 watt incandescent bulb, or a
human, gives off a lot more heat than a 4 tube florescent fixture with
an electronic ballast.
Basically, I think you can scrap the Wikipedia article as a cite. It
contains too many problems.
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 08:12:31 -0400, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
That is why you really need to look at their energy bill. Every watt
of power going in ends up being 3.4 BTU.
I also question your "100w" bulb theory. A regular old F40 4'
fluorescent tube uses 40 watts, not counting the ballast. Even the
newest F032T8 electronic ballast system still consumes 130w or so for
four 8' tubes. The real power hogs will generally be window and
showcase lighting in each store since this will be selected by an
interior designer more interested in how it looks than how much power
it uses. You see lots of high wattage quartz and halogen lighting.
Those ubiquitous track lights are mini suns
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:47:53 -0400, email@example.com wrote:
The question is not how much power it consumes. The question is how
much of that power gets exhaled as heat, rather than as light.
The amount of light from 4 - 8' tubes compared to a single 100 watt
incandescent? Surely you can see what is wrong with that picture!
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 18:26:49 -0500, " firstname.lastname@example.org"
It matters greatly. See if you can figure out why you are wrong.
Start with: A 130 watt florescent fixture puts out as much light as
(insert number)____ incandescent 100 watt light bulbs.
And the light emitted does not magically turn into heat, either. Put
your hand on a florescent tube and tell us how badly you are burned by
all that light "turning into heat *very* quickly"
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 22:56:03 -0500, " email@example.com"
And clueless you shall remain.
Obviously a building using florescent lighting will use far, far,
fewer watts than the same one lit by incandescent lights.
It is not even close.
It is the height of stupidity to compare a 130 watt florescent fixture
to a 100 watt incandescent.
Like comparing an 18 wheeler to a pickup truck.
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:03:02 -0400, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
The reality is that every watt is exhaled as heat eventually. When I
was designing computer rooms we used the total electrical input as the
sensible heat number we needed to take away along with the latent heat
of the people.
Even the kinetic energy of motors eventually gets converted as heat
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 20:11:11 -0400, email@example.com wrote:
If you were going to use the lighting as primary source of heating, I
think it's pretty obvious that you would want incandescents, not
Light does not magically convert to heat. Light that is not reflected,
is absorbed. Florescent fixtures give off very little heat compared to
the number of incandescents needed to provode the same amount of
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 21:21:39 -0400, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
When it is absorbed, it heats the surface that absorbs it. That is
just a fact, unless you have repealed the conservation of energy laws.
The reality is, there is very little energy in light compared to the
heat, even the most efficient lights generate.
They do not select lights to heat buildings, that is just a byproduct
of the inefficiency. If you lit your average office building to the
foot candles we expect these days with incandescent, they would have
to open some windows in the winter. Florescent were the norm by the
time air conditioning was universal.
On Oct 30, 12:27 am, email@example.com wrote:
Good grief is dog confused. gfretw's point was that to compare the
amount of heat put into a building from lighting you need to compare
the electricity usage. That means the Kwh of energy going into the
building. It makes very little difference if you use incandescents
or florescents to generate heat. To generate the same amount of heat,
sure, you'd need a lot more florescents. But if building A which uses
florescents has 1000Kwh a day in usage for lighting, and building B
using incandescents has 1000 Kwh a day in usage, they are both
receiving almost the same amount of heat from it. There are some
second order effects I can think of to consider, but they aren't going
to be significant and would only further add to the confusion.
And I agree with gfretw that malls have a mix of lighting types.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.