Re: Time to stock up?
- From: Alex Heney <me8@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 20:39:32 +0100
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 08:53:36 +0100, "Norman Wells"
<norman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Alex Heney" <me8@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:r318g39tugl56va8g3s05e1hj3s66ftk27@xxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 09:44:48 +0100, "Norman Wells"
<norman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm sorry, but I just do not accept the argument with regard to the
heating.
Even in the unlikely event that you live in a household where
electrical heating makes up a substantial part of the overall heating,
I *still* do not believe that "normal" bulbs reduce the heating bill
by anywhere near as much as the cost of the electricity going into
heating the filament.
Where do you think the energy goes to then? A 100W bulb uses 100W of
energy, that's what it means. And all such energy ultimately resolves to
heat.
I think most of it is just wasted. there is so much inefficiency
already in the system that a few extra watts are just going to be
dissipated without making any difference to the amount the boiler
produces.
But most people heat their houses by much cheaper methods than
electricity, so any savings in the amount of energy used are not
equivalent to a similar proportion of energy *costs* saved.
That is true of course, under current economics. But who knows what the
price of gas will be when the Russians decide to turn off the tap?
True.
But historically, electricity has pretty well always been the most
expensive way to heat a private house.
If you replace just one of your average use incandescent bulbs with a CFL,
the annual saving will be about the price of half a pint.
I know it isn't much, but considering that it comes with (for me)
virtually no downside, and *less* effort (in that bulbs don't have to
be changed as often), I might as well do it.
If that makes for a happy Christmas in the Heney household, good luck!
I presume that was meant to be some sort of insult, but it failed
miserably.
No, not really, just an illustration of reality and a bit of fun-poking
based on the pitiful amounts anyone can really save.
I certainly agree that if it was *any* inconvenience to me, that would
outweigh the financial savings.
But since it is in fact, slightly *more* convenient to me, any
financial savings that may accrue are pure bonus :-)
If we really do want to save large amounts of energy to save the planet,
there are easier and better ways of doing it than through lighting. Cutting
down on energy used for space heating and wasted by poor isulation would be
far, far more effective, as would eliminating all unnecessary travel.
Indeed.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Without Time, everything would happen at once.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Time to stock up?
- From: Derek Geldard
- Re: Time to stock up?
- References:
- Re: Time to stock up?
- From: Alex Heney
- Re: Time to stock up?
- From: Cynic
- Re: Time to stock up?
- From: Alex Heney
- Re: Time to stock up?
- From: Norman Wells
- Re: Time to stock up?
- From: Alex Heney
- Re: Time to stock up?
- From: Norman Wells
- Re: Time to stock up?
- Prev by Date: Re: Memory Chip Embarrasses Politician
- Next by Date: Re: Memory Chip Embarrasses Politician
- Previous by thread: Re: Time to stock up?
- Next by thread: Re: Time to stock up?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|