3 ms·

"e.g., contra the green movement, CF bulbs do not save energy during heating season, so are net polluters" Not so much: """It's true that incandescent bulbs g

by wooster 17y ago

"e.g., contra the green movement, CF bulbs do not save energy during heating season, so are net polluters" Not so much: """It's true that incandescent bulbs give off heat that can help to keep your home warm. But, Rubinstein[0] points out that it's only a tiny amount. There are a number of factors that can impact the amount of money and energy you save by switching to CFLs (or other more efficient lighting). If you live in a cold climate (in an insulated house), losing ambient heat from those old inefficient incandescent bulbs may increase your heating bill slightly, but you'll save more on overall energy costs because of the electricity you'll save on lighting. If you live in a warm climate, you might even rack up more savings since you won't need to use as much air conditioning. Rubinstein's bottom line: You're almost always going to save money when you replace an incandescent with a CFL, but you may not save quite as much during the heating season in a cold climate.""" http://green.yahoo.com/blog/the_conscious_consumer/70/three-cfl-myths-busted.html http://green.yahoo.com/blog/the_conscious_consumer/70/three-... [0] http://lighting.lbl.gov/ http://lighting.lbl.gov/

CWuestefeld 17y ago
Do you have a better citation than Yahoo!? Because this one offers absolutely no explanation. And since it flies in the face of what I know about conservation of energy, I think it needs a pretty darned good explanation. You'll note that your citation says "energy costs", rather than "energy consumption". This is likely true because the cost of energy is higher when delivered in the form of electricity than when delivered in the form of fuel oil. But that's a pure cost saving question. It says absolutely nothing about how "green" this is: the net effect on the environment of using the two types of bulbs independent of costs. There is the possibility that the heat generation by my furnace is much more efficient than that from the electricity by way of the bulb, but I doubt that is significant (unless I have a heat pump and live in a temperate area where that can work very well?).

by wooster 17y ago

CWuestefeld 17y ago

Do you have a better citation than Yahoo!? Because this one offers absolutely no explanation. And since it flies in the face of what I know about conservation of energy, I think it needs a pretty darned good explanation. You'll note that your citation says "energy costs", rather than "energy consumption". This is likely true because the cost of energy is higher when delivered in the form of electricity than when delivered in the form of fuel oil. But that's a pure cost saving question. It says absolutely nothing about how "green" this is: the net effect on the environment of using the two types of bulbs independent of costs. There is the possibility that the heat generation by my furnace is much more efficient than that from the electricity by way of the bulb, but I doubt that is significant (unless I have a heat pump and live in a temperate area where that can work very well?).