On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:02:14 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
wrote:

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
...

There _are_losses with using electricity for heating............

The losses are all in the generating plant and the transmission system.
These losses come to maybe 2/3 of the energy used. This is likely to be a
lot less than the losses in your gas boiler - so it's better to heat with
gas.

Indeed. But this illustrates the point I've been trying to make: switching
"off" instead of to "standby" does, often, save energy, but HOW MUCH energy
is a complicated matter and it is rarely anything like as high as the green
pundits claim.

Standby electricity turns into heat, which is valuable except during the
summer months. That is a subtlety many greenies don't understand.

Only if you would otherwise use another form of heating. If not the
electricity is wasted.

Two
thirds of the energy entering the power station never makes it to your home,
so electricity for heating is arguably a poor choice. But don't forget that
your domestic gas boiler wastes maybe half the energy going into it,

1/2? Modern boilers are more efficient than this.

so
again we have a complex and subtle situation, which in any case will vary
greatly from house to house. And, of course, gas production and
distribution also has a CO2 overhead.

I just wish the green pundits would acknowledge that their claims are
questionable and rely upon several massive over-simplifications. Yes,
savings are there to be had, but not of the scale they claim. It would
actually INCREASE their credibility.

We live in an oversimplified world because our illustrious leaders
think we cannot cope with any detail. :-(

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]