3 ms·
Nobody is advocating a bad insulation. You said it yourself, P ~ ∆T: I think the rationale here is to lower ∆T and provide heat to your "spot" as needed. It's p
by darkmighty 12y ago
Nobody is advocating a bad insulation. You said it yourself, P ~ ∆T: I think the rationale here is to lower ∆T and provide heat to your "spot" as needed. It's probably not going "mainstream" quickly either, but it can save you some energy: it's not so wild to imagine lowering your thermostat a few degrees and get a localized heat source if you seat in that one spot most time.
- jjoonathan 12y agoRight, as long as heating has a nonzero cost you will be able to forego it and save money. The more interesting question is whether or not you can maintain the same level of comfort (same interior temperature) in a small region of the room with a local heater and save money. Since exterior temperature and comfort temperature are fixed, this is the justification for ∆T=const. Most people decide that heating is worth the price as it stands; the real question is "can we make it cheaper via spot heating?" Alricb and I think the answer is "no." Over the lifetime of a house, I would guess that the money you would spend on spot heater(s) and their electricity would net a better return if you invested it in insulation. After all, insulation keeps heat out during summer and air conditioning is much less efficient than heating :)