incandescent lights not *that* bad?

Incandescents are widely maligned for making much more light than heat; but if I'm correct, in a centrally heated home that extra heat produced by incandescents would be recycled, by helping heat the home (and reducing heating oil bills slightly)? Of course this means incandescents are doubly wasteful in air-conditioned homes, although they're rare in Europe.

Seb

Reply to
silicono2
Loading thread data ...

itym 'more heat than light'?

quite so, they are only wasteful when the heat is not 'useful' in heating the surroundings.

Though bear in mind that electricity is rather more expensive per kWh than gas.

Reply to
Alistair Riddell

Electricity generation is less than half as efficient as a modern gas boiler. Heating with electricity is like heating with a 40% efficient gas boiler, so the larger part of the energy consumed as a result of running a light bulb goes up the flue or out of the cooling towers at the power station. This isn't useful, ever.

Reply to
Andrew Gabriel

Sticking a heater near the ceiling is not an effective use of energy. Yes, they are widely maligned because using 'lighting' as a source of heat is stupid. The heat is in the wrong place and its made using a particularly inefficient method.

Replacing an incandescent bulb with a low energy bulb saves about £50 over the life of the low energy bulb. It's as simple as that.

Reply to
OG

The 'old' incandescent Gas lights were certainly very effective as a heat source in my youth - - before ceilings were insulated, too.

Reply to
<me9

Yes, gas burned in the house has c100% efficiency at producing light+heat (though the heat _was probably in the wrong place_). However, burning gas in your not-so-local power station to produce electricity at +/- 50% efficiency (which then produces 20% light and 80% heat (in the wrong place)) is not the best use of energy.

Reply to
OG

its far from the biggest problem we face, but its one that can be fixed elementarily, and to your financial advantage by using CFLs.

Much of the year that heat isnt wanted, and for several months it only increases indoor temps. They add to bills, are a greater fire risk than CFLs, and need replacing around 10x as often.

NT

Reply to
meow2222

Where incandescent lamps do score is that, unlike low energy lamps and fluorescent tubes, they are not classed as hazardous waste and do not need specialist disposal facilities.

Colin Bignell

Reply to
nightjar

In message , nightjar writes

. . . and you can use them with electronic time switches

Reply to
bof

Thanks sorry for typo. Yes you're right about electricity being less efficient, although I'm in France and our rather new apartment block uses electric heating only (probably cheaper than the UK: France got loads of nuke stations). So no difference compared to gas. But the other guys are right, most of the heat from incandescents go right to the top of the ceiling (not many people up there). About the better lifespan of fluorescents, I'd assume that it's more or less exactly offset by their greater purchase cost?

Seb

PS You guys have been much more helpful than another environmental newsgroup--don't wanna put down others but my posting on this topic attracted a great big flamewar between a few others about being "Green Goblins" but no useful answers.

Reply to
silicono2

Wait, are halogens hazardous?

Seb

Reply to
silicono2

That energy efficiency could probably be upped a lot (In the winter anyway) if they installed underground pipes to local houses, shops, businesses around the powerstations to provide them with the waste heat (At least in the UK, because they seem to site thermal powerstations in the middle of towns here... e.g. Slough. Although it's probably the best looking think in slough. Maybe they did it to make the place nicer).

Would also keep the roads clear of ice if they were in tunnels under the road...

I know they do this for some factories in NZ... e.g. The buge Anchor milk powder factory just north of Hamilton provides hot water to local houses... IIRC back in the early 90's they had a wee accident with caustic soda in the water... Not so good...

Reply to
Hamie

| Thanks sorry for typo. Yes you're right about electricity being less | efficient, although I'm in France and our rather new apartment block | uses electric heating only (probably cheaper than the UK: France got | loads of nuke stations). So no difference compared to gas. But the | other guys are right, most of the heat from incandescents go right to | the top of the ceiling (not many people up there). | About the better lifespan of fluorescents, I'd assume that it's more or | less exactly offset by their greater purchase cost?

Over the years, fluorescent and Energy saving lights are **much** cheaper, especially as the price of energy saving lights has fallen to GBP3

Reply to
Dave Fawthrop

Halogen gases (e.g. Cl, Fl, Br etc) are pretty reactive... But I suspect there's not enough in a bulb to hurt you. probably more Cl in your toilet cleaner...

H
Reply to
Hamie

Both types of lamp contain toxic metal. Filaments contain thorium (iirc), flouros contain mercury. Modern fls use a tiny fraction of the amount of mercury used in older tubes, some old tubes can be a genuine toxicity issue.

Bear in mind politics and history factor into disposal decisions as much as anything. Metal filaments have been with us since the 1920s, whereas CFLs are relatively modern.

NT

Reply to
meow2222

You can with cfls too, but there are restrictions. Its short on times and slow warm up CFLs that are the problem combination. Also cold outdoor conditions cause slow warm up with most types. Electrodeless CFLs dont suffer from these issues but they cost more. And last way longer, 10s of 1000s of hours. Although =A320 a pop, they still work out cheaper in the end.

And a few PIRs that dont have a neutral path can cause bulb flicker while off - this applies to the all in one fittings, not to separate PIR units.

NT

Reply to
meow2222

I had a CFL go wrong and overheat, charring the fitting. Fortunately we caught it in time before the paper lampshade caught fire.

Returned it to the importer who "Couldn't find anything wrong" despite the fact it had melted!

sponix

Reply to
--s-p-o-n-i-x--

In Scandinavia it is commonplace to have pavement deicing from the district heating systems. Nice to have as your shoes last a lot longer with no salt stains to worry about but when it stops you fall ass over tit.

But it's not going to happen on a big scale in the UK. Most of the significant generation is remotely located and no one really wants to live next to a power station of virtually any type. Plus the costs of piping and distribution of the heat only make sense when applied on a long term basis. With a hurricane force following wind long term planning in the UK power industry might extend to early next week.

The only way this is taking off in practice is in small scale distributed generation with heat recovery. In effect combined heat and power stations on the scale of a few hundred kW(e) and above.

100kW of gas fired electricity generation with waste heat recovery costs around GBP 30k in basic capital costs, achieves around 90%+ efficiency, is almost totally silent in operation and requires next to no maintenance. For a large block of flats or a new commercial building they make a lot of sense IF a long term view is made.
Reply to
Matt

In message , snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com writes

Ahh, but not only do they have a much longer life span, but the running costs are a lot less - about 25%

Reply to
chris French

Many years ago I was told the overall efficiency of generating power was in the order of 25% taking into account generating and transmission efficiencies. Does anyone have a link for overall electricity generation efficiency in the UK.

Reply to
Fred

HomeOwnersHub website 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.