Man at B&Q wrote:
On Jan 10, 12:28�am, "OG" wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in nder.co.uk... Mike Scott wrote:
I'm curious. "Low energy" bulbs are very much in the news - but how
much extra energy is expended in their manufacture compared to a
standard incandescent? I assume it's more - so is there a real net
/overall/ saving over the bulb life? If so, how much?
Assuming that low energy bulbs are more efficient & give off less heat for
a given amount of light, would you not have to replace that heat in order
to maintain the same room temperature?
Yes but

No buts about it.

If your room needs heating, use a heater and put it where the heat needs to
be. It's madly inefficient to put a heater about 10 inches from the ceiling

Why? Give us the science.

(which is in effect what you are doing with incandescent bulbs).

Where do you think the air warmed by a heater ends up? If there's
already warm air there because it's been warmed by a bulb, what
happens to the heat from the heater? Think of the bulb as providing
the heat that would anyway dissipate through the ceiling to save the
heater from having to do it.

Same applies to TVs on standby.

MBQ


Anyway, its all ********. With enough nuclear power stations we can all
use incandescent bulbs to heat our houses without feeling guilty about it.

There is no *energy* shortage, just a fossil fuel shortage. And s
shortage of stuff upstairs in many peoples heas, and an overabundance of
money in certain industrial sectors that can see the writing on the
wakll and want to erase it before everyone else sees it.