Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I understand that these supposedly save energy by reducing the amount of heat output, while still maintaining a high light output. However, the heat that is put out by these bulbs would serve to add to the heat that we need for our homes in the winter. While it would also add to our costs in the summer, wouldn't it seem that the overall costs would balance out? I can see that these high-efficiency bulbs would be a good thing for the outdoors (where all the heat would be lost) and in hot climates, but in Northern climates, are they really saving energy when used indoors?
I understand that these supposedly save energy by reducing the amount of heat output, while still maintaining a high light output. However, the heat that is put out by these bulbs would serve to add to the heat that we need for our homes in the winter. While it would also add to our costs in the summer, wouldn't it seem that the overall costs would balance out? I can see that these high-efficiency bulbs would be a good thing for the outdoors (where all the heat would be lost) and in hot climates, but in Northern climates, are they really saving energy when used indoors?
It depends what your electricity costs. Here in New England, we pay $0.17/kWh... that is ridiculously more expensive than most other forms of heat... (one kWh is 3412 BTU, at 100% efficiency).
CFL's are about 4X more efficient than incandescent, and LED's are about 10X more efficient.
You can only apply this argument if you're using electric for heat to begin with. A lot of home still do in the NE and for them switching to CFL's is negligible impact on the electric usage at least in the winter but just like oil they become less and less each year because of the outrageous cost of using electric for heat.
Efficinecy ratings for heating units are based on how many BTU's is in the "fuel" and how much you place into the living space. Electric is 100% becsue there is no loss. If you take gas for example since you need to vent flue gases you lose some heat during this process so the efficieny is not 100%. Air sourced heat pumps on the other hand are the oddball because they base efficiency on the electric they use compared to what would have been used using standard elemental electric heat so you'll see efficiencies like 200%, 250% etc.
That's not the whole story though because the production and delivery system for electric is very inefficient. If you're using electric for heat switch to coal heat like me and be very environmentally friendly because the overall efficiency is much greater. I'm using a local product in a very efficient boiler. There is very little energy expended to get that fuel to my house.
Efficinecy ratings for heating units are based on how many BTU's is in the "fuel" and how much you place into the living space. Electric is 100% becsue there is no loss. If you take gas for example since you need to vent flue gases you lose some heat during this process so the efficieny is not 100%. Air sourced heat pumps on the other hand are the oddball because they base efficiency on the electric they use compared to what would have been used using standard elemental electric heat so you'll see efficiencies like 200%, 250% etc.
That's not the whole story though because the production and delivery system for electric is very inefficient. If you're using electric for heat switch to coal heat like me and be very environmentally friendly because the overall efficiency is much greater. I'm using a local product in a very efficient boiler. There is very little energy expended to get that fuel to my house.
The reason I stated kWh (i.e. 3.6 MJ), is because I was referring to electricity. BTU's are just another unit of measurement for energy.
Not to digress, but I use a geothermal heat pump, with electricity generated by a nuclear power plant. The environmental damage is extremely small and localized (the reactor produces a golf-ball sized spent-fuel rod, and heat). The heat pump essentially never runs, as the house is mostly passive solar. My environmental footprint is about as big as the head of a pin (and it is 1 degree F outside now, and the house is at 74F, with no energy consumption). I want to thank you for heating with coal (I am sure you measure the sulphur content of what you burn, as we all love sulfuric acid rain ). The burning of coal in China has such wide-sweeping effects, that it is contaminating the air in the Western hemisphere.
If I had were the 'energy czar' of the world, I would make the burning of coal a class-A felony.
You can only apply this argument if you're using electric for heat to begin with. A lot of home still do in the NE and for them switching to CFL's is negligible impact on the electric usage at least in the winter but just like oil they become less and less each year because of the outrageous cost of using electric for heat.
What I heat with is irrelevant. My electric bill went down by $50/month by switching to CFL's (instead of the 90W R40 reflectors). I currently have no incandescent lights. $50 is $50.
Quote:"switching to CFL's is negligible impact on the electric usage at least in the winter but just like oil they become less and less each year because of the outrageous cost of using electric for heat."
Perhaps percentage-wise, but in absolute dollars, the savings is always the same. Again, $50 is $50.
I understand that these supposedly save energy by reducing the amount of heat output, while still maintaining a high light output. However, the heat that is put out by these bulbs would serve to add to the heat that we need for our homes in the winter. While it would also add to our costs in the summer, wouldn't it seem that the overall costs would balance out? I can see that these high-efficiency bulbs would be a good thing for the outdoors (where all the heat would be lost) and in hot climates, but in Northern climates, are they really saving energy when used indoors?
If you're heating your house with resistance electrical heat, never mind CFLs. Get a more cost effective heating system -- heat pump, high efficiency gas, anything.
Efficinecy ratings for heating units are based on how many BTU's is in the "fuel" and how much you place into the living space. Electric is 100% becsue there is no loss. If you take gas for example since you need to vent flue gases you lose some heat during this process so the efficieny is not 100%. Air sourced heat pumps on the other hand are the oddball because they base efficiency on the electric they use compared to what would have been used using standard elemental electric heat so you'll see efficiencies like 200%, 250% etc.
That's not the whole story though because the production and delivery system for electric is very inefficient. If you're using electric for heat switch to coal heat like me and be very environmentally friendly because the overall efficiency is much greater. I'm using a local product in a very efficient boiler. There is very little energy expended to get that fuel to my house.
Actually with coal-fire electricity the loss is well over 60%. Coal-to-electricity is about the most inefficient generating process we have. Strictly 19th century.
I understand that these supposedly save energy by reducing the amount of heat output, while still maintaining a high light output. However, the heat that is put out by these bulbs would serve to add to the heat that we need for our homes in the winter. While it would also add to our costs in the summer, wouldn't it seem that the overall costs would balance out? I can see that these high-efficiency bulbs would be a good thing for the outdoors (where all the heat would be lost) and in hot climates, but in Northern climates, are they really saving energy when used indoors?
Or if you want to follow your own logic, if an incandescent saves you 1.00 in the winter, but costs you 1.00 more in the summer, you are a wash. Except you have used 60 watts of energy for a certain amount of light. the CFL would have done the same job with 13 watts.
Kind of a backward way of looking at it, but as Sparkle said, 50 cents is 50 cents.
I doublt these new lightbulbs are going to make our electric bills lower.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). The burning of coal in China has such wide-sweeping effects, that it is contaminating the air in the Western hemisphere.
