<DrumBeat: October 11, 2007 The Oil Drum DrumBeat: October 12, 2007>

368 comments on The Marie Antoinette Syndrome

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

xeroid on October 11, 2007 - 4:35pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I live at a latitude where I need heat and light at the same time - the cheapest way (and simplest by far) to do this is with an incandescent lamp.

Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs) aren't always a good idea, it depends how you currently provide heat and electricity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp

Xeroid.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Bob Wallace on October 11, 2007 - 4:50pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

From your link...

"If incandescent lamps are replaced by CFLs and all other factors are kept constant then the temperature inside any building will reduce. At times when the building requires both heating and lighting, the occupiers might then increase the space heating in order to bring the temperature back to a desired level. Depending on the source of this alternative heat compared to the local source of electricity, this may result in either a small increase or a small decrease in the total cost and environmental impact of changing to CFLs."

So what makes your particular housing situation so unique?

Spending winters at the North Pole and summers at the South?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Nick Rouse on October 11, 2007 - 8:40pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Even if you use direct electrical heating you will in practice use less electricity for heating and lighting combined with CFL's. The waste heat from incandescent bulbs emitted near the ceiling and largely staying there is much less efficient at heating the inhabitants, the only thing that really matters, than heat from electrical heaters lower down.

Even in theory, you could only finish up using the same amount of electricity at times when you need both heating and lighting and there can be very few places that do not need lighting without heating at some time. If you are heating your house with a source that is more expensive or polluting that direct electricity, allowing for for all the losses in generation and transmission of electricity, then you should change to electrical heating.

If you require cooling and lighting at the same time then the advantages are multiplied as with incandescents you are using electricity to produce waste heat end then more electricity to get rid of it.

The longer life of CFL's means the overall cost will always be cheaper unless you are foolish enough to heat your house with some means more expensive than electricity when you have this available to use.

As for 'simplest by far' what is complex about changing a light bulb?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
whit on October 12, 2007 - 9:18pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Okay, let's say I'm in Vermont, with most of the power from Hydro Quebec (flooding First Nations land which incidentally releases a lot of mercury as it's flooded), a substantial chunk from the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant (terrible record on basic safety measures), and a small dose of more local hydro and even wind - no coal in the mix. I should heat with "clean" electricity - even through my light bulbs? For minor space heating, sure, but like most people around here I notice that it's still only half the cost to burn oil, which a typical boiler does fairly efficiently. Like many here, I significantly supplement with wood. But Northern New England's likely to stay on oil until the last drop, or radical new tech, whichever comes first. However, at least one neighbor is considering putting a coal stove in his basement.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

368 comments on The Marie Antoinette Syndrome

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version