In message , Stuart Noble
writes
TheOldFellow wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:58:12 -0700
nafuk wrote:

Something has to be done,

IMO something has to be done about the recent reduction in underpass
lighting. Drive into one on a sunny day and you can see bugger all for
a few seconds until your eyes adjust.

Ruefully, "that's just age-related degeneration".

--
Si

On 28 Sep, 19:03, Lobster wrote:
Bob Mannix wrote:
cease. Anything less is tinkering really. How anyone can imagine that
banning our incandescent lights is going to have any effect alongside the
industrialisation of China and India is bonkers!

Well the Official Government Line is that we have to lead by example, as
in how can the West pontificate about the need for the Far East to
desist from belching carbon into the atmosphere if we aren't trying to
do so ourselves. Like it'll make any difference.

David

I'd like to see the figures - what savings from switching from
incandescent lamps to CFLs are projected to be, together with the
assumptions behind the figures. For comparison, I think the Chinese
are building about two coal powered power stations per week
(URL:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6769743.stm).

I suspect there are better ways of achieving more savings than
replacing incandescent lamps. For example, I would have thought that
improving the efficiency of electric hobs and heaters would save more
energy overall. There's an awful lot of resistance coil electric hobs
out there, and mandating the use of induction cookers would help on
the energy efficiency front. There's also a rather large number of
storage heaters - replacing them with air-source heat pumps (aka air
conditioners) would be more efficient (but have the effect from moving
the load from the night-time to the day, which might not be what is
wanted).

Banning architectural lighting would help, as someone has pointed out,
somewhat acerbically.

It's worth pointing out that switching electricity generation from
fossil fuel based to non-fossil fuel will reduce carbon emissions - so
powering incandescent lamps from renewables or nuclear is carbon
neutral. Perhaps one could require those who wish to use incandescent
lamps to use a 'green' electricity supplier. Norway generates more
power per year by hydro than it uses, so CFLs are not especially
popular there.

As someone else pointed out, if you really want to reduce consumption,
reducing the population is a good bet. Don't have kids. A rerun of WW1
would help, and an economic depression will reduce demand as well. A
rerun of the Black Death or the 1918 flu epidemic would also work
wonders. Avian flu anyone? The D-I-Y approach would be to commit
suicide - catchy tagline there - "Save the planet - kill yourself.",
but would be difficult to market. Asking committed environmentalists
to lead by example and drop dead might be taken the wrong way.

Sid

wrote:

assumptions behind the figures. For comparison, I think the Chinese
are building about two coal powered power stations per week
(URL:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6769743.stm).

If the west were serious, how about them donating free of charge our
clean coal technologies, and particulate scrubbers, and sequestration
technologies?



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Owain wrote:

George Orwell wrote about the effect of cheap food and clothing on the
contentedness of society in the 1930s and how they stopped the peasants
revolting. Not a lot has changed.

That a few more channels on TV to keep the masses quiet.....


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:22:53 -0700, wrote:

Asking committed environmentalists to lead by example

Would be as useful as asking committed politicians to do the same.
Both groups are committed followers of "do as I say not as I do".

No finer example can be found than the latest "expert" bit of
greenery producing fatuous "quality of life" reports - Zac Goldsmith.
His sole qualification seems to be that daddy bought him a magazine
to play with. His family has the carbon hoofprint of a medium sized
city. His report advocated carbon taxation and his brother owns a
company selling "carbon credits" allowing more pollution to those
that pay for it.
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

Lobster wrote:
I note that it's been announced today that incandescent lightbulbs are
to be phased out over the next couple of years:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7016020.stm
snip

Are they also going to ban gherkins?

--
Rod

On 28 Sep, 22:57, Rod wrote:
Lobster wrote:
I note that it's been announced today that incandescent lightbulbs are
to be phased out over the next couple of years:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7016020.stm

snip

Are they also going to ban gherkins?

You've just been watching QI, and I claim my £5.

Sid

wrote:

Are they also going to ban gherkins?

You've just been watching QI, and I claim my £5.

Wonder how long before we get "re filamenting" companies jumping to the
fore?

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Si wrote:
In message , Stuart Noble
writes
TheOldFellow wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:58:12 -0700
nafuk wrote:

Something has to be done,

IMO something has to be done about the recent reduction in underpass
lighting. Drive into one on a sunny day and you can see bugger all for
a few seconds until your eyes adjust.

Ruefully, "that's just age-related degeneration".


No, I've had thirty something passengers who say the same

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:22:20 GMT, "clot" wrote:
I have
just one filament bulb in the house (which is there purely as the
best place for it to reside until it expires). Interestingly, I
can't recall when it was purchased - it will be decades ago

You mean you have carried this bulb from house to house since the
80's??


No - we have lived in our present house for almost 25 years.


You carry it from room to room with you then ? ;-)

DG

Stuart Noble wrote:
Si wrote:
In message , Stuart Noble
writes
TheOldFellow wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:58:12 -0700
nafuk wrote:

Something has to be done,

IMO something has to be done about the recent reduction in underpass
lighting. Drive into one on a sunny day and you can see bugger all
for a few seconds until your eyes adjust.

Ruefully, "that's just age-related degeneration".


No, I've had thirty something passengers who say the same

SAGA outing? ;-)

Derek Geldard wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:22:20 GMT, "clot" wrote:
I have
just one filament bulb in the house (which is there purely as the
best place for it to reside until it expires). Interestingly, I
can't recall when it was purchased - it will be decades ago

You mean you have carried this bulb from house to house since the
80's??


No - we have lived in our present house for almost 25 years.


You carry it from room to room with you then ? ;-)

Of course; doesn't everyone?

Bob Mannix wrote:
"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:58:12 -0700, nafuk
wrote:


Something has to be done,

Ah, the rallying cry of the Iron Age Restoration Society. If all the
passengers on the Titanic had been issued with teaspoons and told to
use them to bale after it hit the iceberg "something would have been
done". It would of course have had no effect whatsoever on the final
outcome nor would it have delayed it by any measurable amount.

Changing light bulbs has the same order of magnitude of impact as
issuing teaspoons on the Titanic would have. If the population of
the UK was entirely eliminated next Wednesday it would have no
measurable effect on the progress or otherwise of climate change. You
don't solve a problem by ignoring its causes and instead playing
around with stealth taxes in the margins with pious mutterings of
"every bit helps" or "everyone must do their bit" to rally the
ignorati.

If "something has to be done" then that something must involve
massive population reduction worldwide and I don't see any of the
greenygroups being brave enough to campaign for that. There is
nothing more hypocritical than green evangelists with children.


You reactionary old fart! Hooray! There is only one "solution" to the effect
we are having on the ecosystem. As you say, that is for 50% of the world's
population to die (at random). The developed countries' demand for fossil
fuel will collapse and food shortages in the underdeveloped areas will
cease. Anything less is tinkering really. How anyone can imagine that
banning our incandescent lights is going to have any effect alongside the
industrialisation of China and India is bonkers!

And to add to that, what about the deforestation of this world? Isn't it
that trees remove carbon dioxide from the the atmosphere and turn it
into oxygen. That was what I was taught in school.

Dave

Si wrote:

In message , Stuart Noble
writes

TheOldFellow wrote:

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:58:12 -0700
nafuk wrote:

Something has to be done,


IMO something has to be done about the recent reduction in underpass
lighting. Drive into one on a sunny day and you can see bugger all for
a few seconds until your eyes adjust.


Ruefully, "that's just age-related degeneration".

I might be getting on a bit these days, but I have suffered this all my
driving life.

I have very good night vision and I suffer the same problem. I sometimes
wonder if the good night vision is some compensation for being slightly
red/green colour blind.

At this time of year and at the equivalent sun cycle in spring, I find
it very difficult to drive with the sun to my right when passing trees.
My eyes are adjusting like mad to compensate.

Dave

"nafuk" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 27 Sep, 21:47, Lobster wrote:
I note that it's been announced today that incandescent lightbulbs are
to be phased out over the next couple of
years:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7016020.stm

I'm not unduly perturbed (as most of my home is fitted with CFLs anyway)
except that the kitchen and bathroom are fitted with low voltage halogen
downlighters.

Presumably these will go the same way as conventional lightbulbs, won't
they? If so, is there an alternative 'bulb' I'll be able to use, or
will I need to replace the fittings? (and therefore my ceilings :-( )

David

Something has to be done, unless you do not believe in climate change,
or that the tons of particulates and gases we pour into the
environment have no effect on health. Australia has already banned old
style light bulbs.

For me, the change to CFLs is not an inconvenience at all compared to

I'd agree if the people that make these bulbs didn't persist
in the fiction that an 11W bulb gives the same light as an 60W.

As it is now, you go out and buy some bulbs, find that they
aren't bright enough and have to re-arrange your lighting.

tim

On 27 Sep, 22:29, John wrote:
In article , Lobster
writesI note that it's been announced today that incandescent lightbulbs are
to be phased out over the next couple of years:
////snip/////


Me thinks a bulk order to Screwfix will be in order!

you are too late. mate.

latest Screwfix catalog (no 88 page 271) contains statement that
Screwfix has stopped selling GLS lamps for your own good


enjoy the dim mercury laden world of our future

wrote in message ...
On 28 Sep,
nafuk wrote:

For me, the change to CFLs is not an inconvenience at all

I just changed as bulbs were replaced. I haven't had a GLS lamp for over 5
years, possibly 10.

This doesn't work if you are renting a place for a year.

Why should I spend 100 pounds on light bulbs that
the next tenant is going to get the benefit of?

tim

In article ,
"tim....." writes:

wrote in message ...
On 28 Sep,
nafuk wrote:

For me, the change to CFLs is not an inconvenience at all

I just changed as bulbs were replaced. I haven't had a GLS lamp for over 5
years, possibly 10.

This doesn't work if you are renting a place for a year.

Why should I spend 100 pounds on light bulbs that
the next tenant is going to get the benefit of?

Take them with you and put the originals back.

Reminds me of a storey someone posted here many years ago.
Moved into a new house, only to find the previous owners had
packed up and taken all the light bulbs with them, so a quick
trip to the shops was required. A couple of weeks later,
peered up into the loft, and was surprised to see there was
a lightbulb left behind -- they'd missed one. So he carefully
removed it, packed it up, and posted it on the the previous
owners...

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"tim....." writes:

wrote in message
...
On 28 Sep,
nafuk wrote:

For me, the change to CFLs is not an inconvenience at all

I just changed as bulbs were replaced. I haven't had a GLS lamp for over
5
years, possibly 10.

This doesn't work if you are renting a place for a year.

Why should I spend 100 pounds on light bulbs that
the next tenant is going to get the benefit of?

Take them with you and put the originals back.

and if the new house has no need for 16*E14 candle bulbs? :-(

tim

In article .com, jim
wrote:

On 27 Sep, 22:29, John wrote:
In article , Lobster
writesI note that it's been announced
today that incandescent lightbulbs are
to be phased out over the next couple of years:
////snip/////


Me thinks a bulk order to Screwfix will be in order!

you are too late. mate.

latest Screwfix catalog (no 88 page 271) contains statement that
Screwfix has stopped selling GLS lamps for your own good


enjoy the dim mercury laden world of our future

But you can still get them at

http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/tcl/sear...s&Submit=Searc
h

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 07:58:12 UTC, nafuk
wrote:

Something has to be done, unless you do not believe in climate change,
or that the tons of particulates and gases we pour into the
environment have no effect on health. Australia has already banned old
style light bulbs.


Another government nonsense - the same government that is banning
tungsten lightbulbs is catering for airport expansion that will wipe
out any saving from the use of CFLs many times over.

--
Jim Backus running OS/2 Warp 3 & 4, Debian Linux and Win98SE
bona fide replies to j dot backus the circle thingy jita dot
demon dot co dot uk

Dave wrote:

And to add to that, what about the deforestation of this world? Isn't it
that trees remove carbon dioxide from the the atmosphere and turn it
into oxygen. That was what I was taught in school.

Its not as true as they would have you believe... the large forests are
mostly balanced ecosystems, so they neither contribute or take away, the
flora produces O2, the decaying vegetation and fauna however consume it.

What they are however is vast stores of carbon. The real problem comes
when you cut em down and burn them, that releases it.

A good proportion of the O2 is produced by algae.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In message , Dave
writes

At this time of year and at the equivalent sun cycle in spring, I find
it very difficult to drive with the sun to my right when passing trees.
My eyes are adjusting like mad to compensate.

have you tried folding the sun visor over to the side window?

--
Si

Dave wrote:
Si wrote:

In message , Stuart Noble
writes

TheOldFellow wrote:

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:58:12 -0700
nafuk wrote:

Something has to be done,


IMO something has to be done about the recent reduction in underpass
lighting. Drive into one on a sunny day and you can see bugger all
for a few seconds until your eyes adjust.


Ruefully, "that's just age-related degeneration".

I might be getting on a bit these days, but I have suffered this all
my driving life.

I have very good night vision and I suffer the same problem. I
sometimes wonder if the good night vision is some compensation for
being slightly red/green colour blind.

At this time of year and at the equivalent sun cycle in spring, I find
it very difficult to drive with the sun to my right when passing
trees. My eyes are adjusting like mad to compensate.

Not quite the same problem, but to me those clowns who have not only
headlights on but foglights as well, make me seriously concerned that I
might hit a pedestrian due to their inconsideration. I could genuinely
count on one hand the number of times that I use full beam in a year. I
drive more than 20k per annum.

It is possible to make dimmable fluorescent lamps by separating the
control gear from the tubes. One can see this with larger fittings,
but this has been difficult to reproduce with a small lamp that has
the control gear and tube integrated in one unit.

We had dimmable fluorescents in the lecture theatres at university, back in the
early 80s. It's not like it is a new technology, but you are right about it
being more difficult to handle over just two wires, when the control gear is in
the lamp fitting. I think the ultimate solution would be sending signal and
power separately to the bulbs, i.e. full power piggy-backed with a signal to
tell the bulb what brightness to set itself to. It would work kind of like those
X11 home automation systems, with the receivers built into the bulbs.

-- JJ

John Rumm wrote:
Dave wrote:

And to add to that, what about the deforestation of this world? Isn't
it that trees remove carbon dioxide from the the atmosphere and turn
it into oxygen. That was what I was taught in school.

Its not as true as they would have you believe... the large forests are
mostly balanced ecosystems, so they neither contribute or take away, the
flora produces O2, the decaying vegetation and fauna however consume it.

So who are 'they' that would have you believe they are not balanced eco-systems?
I've never heard otherwise.

clot wrote:

I could genuinely
count on one hand the number of times that I use full beam in a year. I
drive more than 20k per annum.

How much of that is on unlit roads after dark?

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

At this time of year and at the equivalent sun cycle in spring, I find
it very difficult to drive with the sun to my right when passing trees.
My eyes are adjusting like mad to compensate.

Can't say I've experienced that, but the underpass thing is spooky, and
I've only noticed it this year (mainly on the northern approach to the
Blackwall Tunnel). I'm pretty sure they've changed the lighting

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 07:23:08 GMT, Jason
wrote:


It is possible to make dimmable fluorescent lamps by separating the
control gear from the tubes. One can see this with larger fittings,
but this has been difficult to reproduce with a small lamp that has
the control gear and tube integrated in one unit.

We had dimmable fluorescents in the lecture theatres at university, back in the
early 80s. It's not like it is a new technology,

In the '80s (potentially installed in the '70s) it would have been
done using a large saturable reactor, or maybe a large variac. I've
never seen one but potentially the size and weight of a volkswagon
beetle.

but you are right about it being more difficult to handle over just two wires,

That can be done easily enough using semiconductor ballasts by varying
the AC power input. Our equipment can be dimmed down to about 15% that
way. Eventually there is not enough energy going into the tubes to
keep the filaments up to temperature, and the tube may not start very
well if it's switched on at a low power setting. Lower outputs can be
achieved by feeding the ballasts with a seperate feed of full mains
power and driving the filaments from this via a filament transformer.

when the control gear is in
the lamp fitting. I think the ultimate solution would be sending signal and
power separately to the bulbs, i.e. full power piggy-backed with a signal to
tell the bulb what brightness to set itself to.

Eg Osram/Sylvania quicktronic :

http://www.sylvania.com/ConsumerProducts/LightingForHome/Products/BulbType/Fluorescent/Quicktronic/

It's a simple 0-10v analogue control system which makes it possible to
achieve automatic balancing of light output in display signs as tubes
age.

It would work kind of like those
X11 home automation systems, with the receivers built into the bulbs.

I've not seen any addressable ones - yet.

DG

In article ,
Derek Geldard writes:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 07:23:08 GMT, Jason
wrote:
We had dimmable fluorescents in the lecture theatres at university, back in the
early 80s. It's not like it is a new technology,

In the '80s (potentially installed in the '70s) it would have been
done using a large saturable reactor, or maybe a large variac. I've
never seen one but potentially the size and weight of a volkswagon
beetle.

Transtar were making triac dimmable fluorescent ballasts
in the 1970's. They were the main manufacturer of dimmable
fluorescent control gear at the time. They provide a continuous
heating supply to the tube filaments. I rather wanted one
at the time but couldn't afford them, so I made my own.
Don Klipstein has captured an old usenet article I wrote
about designing my own on his web pages...
http://members.misty.com/don/f-dim.html

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In message , Stuart Noble
writes

At this time of year and at the equivalent sun cycle in spring, I
find it very difficult to drive with the sun to my right when passing
trees. My eyes are adjusting like mad to compensate.

Can't say I've experienced that, but the underpass thing is spooky, and
I've only noticed it this year (mainly on the northern approach to the
Blackwall Tunnel). I'm pretty sure they've changed the lighting

They do seem to have increased the lighting in the south tunnel.

--
Si

Chris J Dixon wrote:
clot wrote:

I could genuinely
count on one hand the number of times that I use full beam in a
year. I drive more than 20k per annum.

How much of that is on unlit roads after dark?

Much! Commuting to and from work in the winter - as of about now
requires lights in both directions but only some of which is on unlit
roads. I just wish motor manufacturers would stop putting these silly
bulbs in their headlights and "fog lights". It seems that we are now
conditioned to use lights to announce our presence which increase the
difficulty for others to see pedestrians.

Si wrote:
In message , Stuart Noble
writes

At this time of year and at the equivalent sun cycle in spring, I
find it very difficult to drive with the sun to my right when
passing trees. My eyes are adjusting like mad to compensate.

Can't say I've experienced that, but the underpass thing is spooky,
and I've only noticed it this year (mainly on the northern approach to
the Blackwall Tunnel). I'm pretty sure they've changed the lighting

They do seem to have increased the lighting in the south tunnel.


Nothing wrong with the tunnel, it's the bloody underpass shortly before
it that concerns me. Perfectly fine at night but an accident waiting to
happen in sunlight.

In message , Stuart Noble
writes
Si wrote:
In message , Stuart Noble
writes

At this time of year and at the equivalent sun cycle in spring, I
find it very difficult to drive with the sun to my right when
passing trees. My eyes are adjusting like mad to compensate.

Can't say I've experienced that, but the underpass thing is spooky,
and I've only noticed it this year (mainly on the northern approach
to the Blackwall Tunnel). I'm pretty sure they've changed the lighting
They do seem to have increased the lighting in the south tunnel.


Nothing wrong with the tunnel, it's the bloody underpass shortly before
it that concerns me. Perfectly fine at night but an accident waiting to
happen in sunlight.

I'll be aware of what you've said next time I go through (may not be for
a week or two) & come back to you.

--
Si

"tim....." wrote in message
...


I'd agree if the people that make these bulbs didn't persist
in the fiction that an 11W bulb gives the same light as an 60W.

As it is now, you go out and buy some bulbs, find that they
aren't bright enough and have to re-arrange your lighting.

tim

The small print on some CFLs I was given used soft-light bulbs for
comparison of their brightness. They are nowhere near as bright as
conventional tunsgten bulbs, especially in the minute after switch on, which
generally is when I need the most light.

It's a pity Einstein isn't still around. - "Energy cannot be created or
destroyed" etc. My 100w bulb may only supply 7 watts of light but it
provides 100 watts of heat. If I reduce the power consumed by light bulbs
in my lounge, the central heating switches on, heating my whole house, using
more energy. In the UK we heat our houses for a large part of the year,
especially when it's dark, why not allow the light bulbs to do it?

On 2007-09-30 21:24:26 +0100, "Scruff" said:

"tim....." wrote in message
...


I'd agree if the people that make these bulbs didn't persist
in the fiction that an 11W bulb gives the same light as an 60W.

As it is now, you go out and buy some bulbs, find that they
aren't bright enough and have to re-arrange your lighting.

tim

The small print on some CFLs I was given used soft-light bulbs for
comparison of their brightness. They are nowhere near as bright as
conventional tunsgten bulbs, especially in the minute after switch on, which
generally is when I need the most light.

It's a pity Einstein isn't still around. - "Energy cannot be created or
destroyed" etc. My 100w bulb may only supply 7 watts of light but it
provides 100 watts of heat. If I reduce the power consumed by light bulbs
in my lounge, the central heating switches on, heating my whole house, using
more energy. In the UK we heat our houses for a large part of the year,
especially when it's dark, why not allow the light bulbs to do it?

That is simple enough logic isn't it.

Why not drop an email to Hilary Benn about it. Don't exceed two
syllables in any word. The person who reads it to him should be able
to explain it in a way that most people should be able to understand.

It's doubtful that he will though.

In uk.d-i-y, Scruff wrote:
In the UK we heat our houses for a large part of the year,
especially when it's dark, why not allow the light bulbs to do it?

advocacy client=devil

For the same reason we don't hang radiators from the ceiling?

/advocacy

--
Mike Barnes

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 21:40:50 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:


It's a pity Einstein isn't still around. - "Energy cannot be created or
destroyed" etc. My 100w bulb may only supply 7 watts of light but it
provides 100 watts of heat. If I reduce the power consumed by light bulbs
in my lounge, the central heating switches on, heating my whole house, using
more energy. In the UK we heat our houses for a large part of the year,
especially when it's dark, why not allow the light bulbs to do it?

That is simple enough logic isn't it.

Why not drop an email to Hilary Benn about it. Don't exceed two
syllables in any word. The person who reads it to him should be able
to explain it in a way that most people should be able to understand.

It's doubtful that he will though.

I trained as an engineer, and for me what I find most disheartening
about this country is that a useless tosser of a bloke like that is
making technical decisions.

I don't know whether or not it's a fundamental tenet of democracy that
people who are completely unqualified make the decisions or it's just
the way we do it. I don't even imagine the way he got the job had
anything to do with democracy, who voted to give him it?

DG

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 22:54:48 GMT, Tony Bryer
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 21:24:26 +0100 Scruff wrote :
If I reduce the power consumed by light bulbs in my lounge, the
central heating switches on, heating my whole house, using more
energy.

If you only need heat in your lounge then using a local heat source
may be more economical, but much less so if you put it a foot below
the ceiling!

In the UK we heat our houses for a large part of the year,
especially when it's dark, why not allow the light bulbs to do it?

Firstly, for a good part of the year you're not heating your house,
and this includes the times in the heating season when it's up to
heat and the thermostat has switched the heating off

Bzzt. Heat input from lamps will still contribute to reduced (gas )
consumption by delaying the time when the thermostat energises the
boiler again.

and secondly electricity is a high CO2 fuel

But it could come from renewables or nuclear. then it wouldn't be.

so the environmental pressure is to
cut the use of electricity - why do you think that electricity is
something like 3x the price of gas per delivered kWh?

Inefficiency, bad organisation, too many people in the distribution
chain (Stood in Sainsbury's with clipboards or walking round housing
estates) taking a cut ?

DG

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 22:43:49 +0100, Mike Barnes
wrote:

In uk.d-i-y, Scruff wrote:
In the UK we heat our houses for a large part of the year,
especially when it's dark, why not allow the light bulbs to do it?

advocacy client=devil

For the same reason we don't hang radiators from the ceiling?

/advocacy

I've seen it done, I don't think it's even that uncommon.

DG