Hypothesis: UK domestic Energy Saving bulbs are bad
Discussion
I was having a pub discussion today with some friends, and the following interesting scenario was suggested:
In the UK Domestic environment, using "Energy Saving" bulbs is worse for the environment because most UK houses are gas or oil heated, most lighting is used at similar times to when most heating is required, and therefore the swap to bulbs that emit less heat, means, for any given fixed room temperature (thermostat setting) more load must be required from the heating, which is has a bigger carbon footprint than our electricity mix these days.
And, well, i couldn't actually find a valid reason why that wasn't the case!
Discuss! :-)
90% of houses heated by Gas & Oil: ukHeating
In the UK Domestic environment, using "Energy Saving" bulbs is worse for the environment because most UK houses are gas or oil heated, most lighting is used at similar times to when most heating is required, and therefore the swap to bulbs that emit less heat, means, for any given fixed room temperature (thermostat setting) more load must be required from the heating, which is has a bigger carbon footprint than our electricity mix these days.
And, well, i couldn't actually find a valid reason why that wasn't the case!
Discuss! :-)
90% of houses heated by Gas & Oil: ukHeating
A ‘typical’ home in a mild climate uses between 5,000 kWh and 30,000 kWh of energy a year for its heating.
Soooo say your only running a few lights in your house conservative say 6 100w
6 100w lamps running all year gives a kwh rating of 8,760kwh But....
the lamps don't run all the time say 7 till midnight that's 5 hours. or around 1000kwh.
Lamps are not designed to be used as heaters primarily they are used for lighting so the heat isn't used effectively so derating could be a factor and that 1000kwh would be a lot less.
So no the heating effect is negligible.
Soooo say your only running a few lights in your house conservative say 6 100w
6 100w lamps running all year gives a kwh rating of 8,760kwh But....
the lamps don't run all the time say 7 till midnight that's 5 hours. or around 1000kwh.
Lamps are not designed to be used as heaters primarily they are used for lighting so the heat isn't used effectively so derating could be a factor and that 1000kwh would be a lot less.
So no the heating effect is negligible.
what?
it's got nothing to do with the magnitude of the effect, just the overall impact. ie better or worse!
And lightbulbs are designed to give off light, the heat they produce is a side effect, but you cannot produce heat from electricity with anything other than 100% efficiency (P = I^2 R ). So irrespective of how much heat is produced the process is 100% efficient (in terms of the heat production)
it's got nothing to do with the magnitude of the effect, just the overall impact. ie better or worse!
And lightbulbs are designed to give off light, the heat they produce is a side effect, but you cannot produce heat from electricity with anything other than 100% efficiency (P = I^2 R ). So irrespective of how much heat is produced the process is 100% efficient (in terms of the heat production)
Australians pay more in pension fees (superannuation, as it's known here) than they do for electricity. I just thought I'd add that little factoid into the environmental mix here...
BTW, the problem with using light bulbs as heaters for housing is, unless they're floor mounted, they tend to put the heat in the most useless place. Perhaps incandescent bulbs but only on the ground floor...?
BTW, the problem with using light bulbs as heaters for housing is, unless they're floor mounted, they tend to put the heat in the most useless place. Perhaps incandescent bulbs but only on the ground floor...?
Most light bulbs are on or in in the ceiling.
So 100w bulbs in close proximity to the ceiling heats it up and increases heat leakage due to the higher temp differential etc.
If the bulbs were at a lower level you would derive more benefit through dispersal of heat in the room before the heat disappeared upstairs or into the loft.
So 100w bulbs in close proximity to the ceiling heats it up and increases heat leakage due to the higher temp differential etc.
If the bulbs were at a lower level you would derive more benefit through dispersal of heat in the room before the heat disappeared upstairs or into the loft.
It's more that they keep shutting power stations and not replacing them, the efficiency gains are more for their usage than their side effects. Shifting to gas decreases the load on these.
Plus not all light bulbs are inside!
Lighting is also used when the building does not require heating and sometimes require cooling, incandescents increase this load.
Plus not all light bulbs are inside!
Lighting is also used when the building does not require heating and sometimes require cooling, incandescents increase this load.
Given the fact that I have a wife and two small children who have no concept how to turn a light off once it's on...
Multiplied by the former own being ceiling light crazy...
I can tell you energy saving is significant.
We've something like 25 spots in our kitchen, so 25 x GU10 @ 50w and now 25 @ 5w must be a saving Shirley and they're ALWAYS on.....even in the summer!
Multiplied by the former own being ceiling light crazy...
I can tell you energy saving is significant.
We've something like 25 spots in our kitchen, so 25 x GU10 @ 50w and now 25 @ 5w must be a saving Shirley and they're ALWAYS on.....even in the summer!
Max_Torque said:
what?
it's got nothing to do with the magnitude of the effect, just the overall impact. ie better or worse!
And lightbulbs are designed to give off light, the heat they produce is a side effect, but you cannot produce heat from electricity with anything other than 100% efficiency (P = I^2 R ). So irrespective of how much heat is produced the process is 100% efficient (in terms of the heat production)
But what of the loss between generation through the transition system and bits in the way until it arrives at the bulb, I bet all those losses would power that house for years. it's got nothing to do with the magnitude of the effect, just the overall impact. ie better or worse!
And lightbulbs are designed to give off light, the heat they produce is a side effect, but you cannot produce heat from electricity with anything other than 100% efficiency (P = I^2 R ). So irrespective of how much heat is produced the process is 100% efficient (in terms of the heat production)
I'll tell you one thing, at this time of year I like having my 250w halogen lamp next to me when I'm working outside on the car after work. Light bulbs might have a small affect on the house warmth but the halogen lamp helps keep me less frozen.
Still hurts when I whack my fingers on cold metal though.
Still hurts when I whack my fingers on cold metal though.
In office buildings heat from lights cause additional air-conditioning load, so you are using energy to create heat, then using energy to remove that heat.
In domestic property you would get some small benefit in the winter but none during the summer, it's all lost.
Also bear in mind that while heat from electricity is 100% efficient, making electricity may not be.
In domestic property you would get some small benefit in the winter but none during the summer, it's all lost.
Also bear in mind that while heat from electricity is 100% efficient, making electricity may not be.
Electricity costs several times more than gas so the 100% efficiency vs c.80% pales into insignificance. You are right in that the savings from swapping from incandescent to fluorescent or LED are less than the crude calculation would suggest, but whether the carbon footprint is larger or smaller doesn't bother me at all. The over cost to me does however. When HMG and the climate lobby show any interest in my costs I might show some interest in their religion but not before.
Tempest_5 said:
I'll tell you one thing, at this time of year I like having my 250w halogen lamp next to me when I'm working outside on the car after work. Light bulbs might have a small affect on the house warmth but the halogen lamp helps keep me less frozen.
Still hurts when I whack my fingers on cold metal though.
I think it best to have frozen hands. During a kit car build I had to modify a gearbox mount. I'd left some rough edges. I had lots of problems getting one bolt in and I ended up getting my hand caught. It was a choice of pulling my hand out and cutting on the rough metal or removing the bolts and starting again, wasting about 5 hours work. I pulled out my hand, tied a handkerchief around the injury, and continued working for another hour or so.Still hurts when I whack my fingers on cold metal though.
I could not have done that if I had warm hands. Mind you, I didn't sleep much that night. Still got the scars, some 38 years later.
On subject; I had an LED light in my bathroom. It was fairly expensive, £46 a couple of years ago. The energy saving lamp on the landing blew and took the bathroom light with it. I can't get a replacement for the LEDs.
In theory, there should be an initial voltage surge resistor in the light.
Derek Smith said:
On subject; I had an LED light in my bathroom. It was fairly expensive, £46 a couple of years ago. The energy saving lamp on the landing blew and took the bathroom light with it. I can't get a replacement for the LEDs.
In theory, there should be an initial voltage surge resistor in the light.
There should be, but they have a limit. Alternatively, it could just be an internal fuse in the LED unit.In theory, there should be an initial voltage surge resistor in the light.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff