PDA

View Full Version : better lights, higher heating bill


Ancalagon
03-04-2009, 11:31 PM
ha!

When it's really cold, I sometimes turn on all the lights to heat up the place a little more. This story doesn't surprise me at all. I would suspect it is true of many energy efficient device.

Mind you, "cold" lights are a god sent in summer!

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/03/04/mb-light-bulbs.html?ref=rss

Efficient lighting equals higher heat bills: study

Questions are being raised about whether so-called energy saving light bulbs might cause cold-weather Canadians to burn more energy to heat their homes than if they were to use regular light bulbs.

CBC News has found that in some cases compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs) can have the adverse effect of increasing greenhouse gas emissions, depending on how consumers heat their homes.

Physics professor Peter Blunden at the University of Manitoba said CFL bulbs are certainly more energy efficient than older incandescent bulbs.

But in cold-weather climates such as Canada's, Blunden said older incandescent bulbs do more than just light our homes. During the long winter months, they also generate heat. The new CFL bulbs on the other hand produce minimal heat so the loss has to be made up by fossil-fuel burning gas, oil or wood to heat your home.

“To some extent, the case [in favour of CFL bulbs] has been oversold” because of the offset in higher heating costs, he said.

In fact, a recent report by BC Hydro estimates new lighting regulations will increase annual greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia by 45,000 tonnes annually as consumers use more energy to heat their homes after switching to more energy efficient — but cooler — lighting.

"The replacement of inefficient lights with efficient lights that produce less waste heat will lead to increased fossil fuel use for non-electric space heating," says the report, part of a submission BC Hydro made to the B.C. Utilities Commission last month.

Another study, by the Canadian Centre for Housing Technology, also concluded that actual dollar savings by using CFLs depend on the climate in which a home is located. In Canada, in winter, "the reduction in the lighting energy use was almost offset by the increase in the space-heating energy use," the study said.

But Canadians, depending on where they live and the severity of the winter, may still benefit from using CFL lighting, despite the higher cost of the new bulbs and the additional heat energy consumed, said the CCHT study, conducted in 2008.

Some proponents of the CFL bulbs claim the new bulbs use only about 25 per cent of the energy of old incandescent bulbs.

"In Winnipeg you are going to lose a significant amount of those savings," said Blunden.

Indeed, when everything is factored in, Blunden says the real energy saving for Winnipeggers using CFL bulbs is probably closer to 17 per cent. Blunden said energy saving results will vary across the country, depending on how consumers heat their homes.

If you live in Newfoundland, for example, where many people use expensive heating oil “it might even cost you money" to use the new, cooler, efficient, CFL bulbs for lighting, Blunden suggested.

"If your advertising campaign says you’re going to save money, then you’ve kind of shot yourself in the foot,” he said, noting CFL bulbs were originally designed for use in warmer climates.

Freedom Canadian
03-05-2009, 06:13 PM
Plus super efficient bulbs are usually very polluting to dispose of.

there_is_no_bob
03-05-2009, 06:19 PM
Indeed, when everything is factored in, Blunden says the real energy saving for Winnipeggers using CFL bulbs is probably closer to 17 per cent. Blunden said energy saving results will vary across the country, depending on how consumers heat their homes.
Nifty.

The actual savings is only around 17%, instead of 25%, but that's near the end of the article. I sure do love journalists.:grey:

Ancalagon
03-05-2009, 08:35 PM
Plus super efficient bulbs are usually very polluting to dispose of.

Because of the mercury. I think we may have "jumped the gun" on this one - same as with corn ethanol. The LED lights that will be ready in 5-10 years don't have the mercury problem at least.

Pigs in Space
03-10-2009, 07:12 AM
The good news is you guys are in the prime spots for when global warming gives you an actually liveable climate.

doc
03-10-2009, 12:24 PM
Plus super efficient bulbs are usually very polluting to dispose of.

The CFLs has mercury in them so thier listed as hazardes waste

Megamieuwsel
03-10-2009, 01:07 PM
Because of the mercury. I think we may have "jumped the gun" on this one - same as with corn ethanol. The LED lights that will be ready in 5-10 years don't have the mercury problem at least.
LED lights are quite available right now.I bought my first LED-"bulb" about half a year ago.
It's a 1Watt, supposed-to-be-equivalent-to-40Watts and quite good.
Just a little expensive, but prices are dropping fast.

SpikeyFreak
03-11-2009, 07:43 AM
That's a pretty retarded article. The only way what they're trying to make you believe makes any sense is if the old bulbs are more efficient at heating than your heater, and if were the case we'd be heating with bulbs instead of heaters.

-- :rolleyes: Spikey

Edena_of_Neith
03-11-2009, 07:06 PM
LED lightbulbs, the way to go.
More efficient than CFBs, no poisonous waste byproducts, no heat, and they last practically forever.

If they work for Christmas lightning, they should be used for everything else. Bring em on, I say! (but right now, a 60 watt (equivalent) LED lightbulb costs $80, so they are a tad expensive ...)