Are FL bulbs actually "greener" than incandescents?

A few things to keep in mind: On average my furnace is only on October-March (6 months, and I live pretty far North in Northern Ontario). 8 months would be Fort McMurray and points north.

Gas is more efficient (environmentally) than electric heat. So your argument only works is your house is heated via electric heat. Much electricity comes from burning coal, which is a 30%-40% efficient process. Add to that transmission losses and you're getting much less "green" by the kilometer.

As stated previously, heat rises. To heat a room at human level it is more efficient to heat from the bottom than the top. Much of the lightbulb heat is wasted as it is heating space that is not occupied by people (assuming electric heat, the heat has to radiate through the floor before heating the above story - much heat will be lost compared to turning on an equally sized baseboard heater).

Originally Posted by Bazooka Joe

A few things to keep in mind: On average my furnace is only on October-March (6 months, and I live pretty far North in Northern Ontario). 8 months would be Fort McMurray and points north.
...

Don't know what you do for heat in April and May, but here in "balmy" Toronto, I have to have my furnace on at least till mid-May or otherwise my kids get the sniffles from getting too cold at night, followed by a cold or flu.

Furthermore, I tend to use my lightbulbs only for a couple of hours a day during the summer, while in the winter, when the heat given off by them is most usefull, they're on for 5 or 6 hours. Secondly, heat does not just "dissipate" or get "absorbed" by the ceiling, it has to go somewhere. If I stand on my bathroom floor, which is above my incandescent kitchen potlights, I can feel the tiles are nice and warm. The only way that the heat from the lightbulb is actually wasted in the winter (that is, gets OUTSIDE the house) is when it is installed in an un-insulated ceiling on the top floor of the house.

Originally Posted by notanexpert

Don't know what you do for heat in April and May, but here in "balmy" Toronto, I have to have my furnace on at least till mid-May or otherwise my kids get the sniffles from getting too cold at night, followed by a cold or flu.

Furthermore, I tend to use my lightbulbs only for a couple of hours a day during the summer, while in the winter, when the heat given off by them is most usefull, they're on for 5 or 6 hours. Secondly, heat does not just "dissipate" or get "absorbed" by the ceiling, it has to go somewhere. If I stand on my bathroom floor, which is above my incandescent kitchen potlights, I can feel the tiles are nice and warm. The only way that the heat from the lightbulb is actually wasted in the winter (that is, gets OUTSIDE the house) is when it is installed in an un-insulated ceiling on the top floor of the house.

So your house is electrically heated to begin with?

Also, do you use AC in the summer?

There is space between the ceiling of the floor below and the floor of the floor above which is not often insulated. This space is actually somewhat "insulated" by the floor above, due to flooring. In the case of pot lighting much of this space is removed and tile has few insulating properties. Under normal cictumstances, it would be easy for that heat to migrate through internal walls and up to your attic and outside. Unless your internal walls and floors are insulated, but this would be very unusual for your average home.

If heating the ceiling were such an efficient way of heating a home, why have they not put registers or baseboard heaters on the ceiling?

If you want to use incandescents, enjoy them while they're still on the shelves. But 4 months out of the year it's a total waste, and the other 8 months (look into more insulation if you're running your furnace 8 months a year in TO) it's a significantly less efficient way to hear your house. Is it as good as the manufacturers claim? Of course not. But it is definitely "greener".

As for the energy put into producing them, that is an excellent question that I don't have the answer to. It would be interesting to see how much additional energy is required to make these vs. the traditional. I've heard that CFL lights last 10x as long as incandescents though, so if the energy is less than 10x to make them you'll break even there too.

Originally Posted by notanexpert

requiring ballasts to turn them on

Anyone can shed some light on this process? I saw people focused on the difference on the wattage that the bulb used while they are on 24/7. Is that true it will be a better choice to have incandescents in those places you only need it on for short period of time, like cool room and garage?

Originally Posted by tomtong

Anyone can shed some light on this process? I saw people focused on the difference on the wattage that the bulb used while they are on 24/7. Is that true it will be a better choice to have incandescents in those places you only need it on for short period of time, like cool room and garage?

http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/12/e..._fall_lig.html

According to mythbusters calculations, the energy used to turn on a CFL equates to 0.015 seconds of use. For an incandescent, it's 0.36 seconds. It is a spike, but a really, really small spike.

Other bulbs for reference:

Incandescent: 0.36 seconds
CFL: 0.015 seconds
Halogen: .51 seconds
LED: 1.28 seconds
Fluorescent: 23.3 seconds

(turning the light on uses that many seconds worth of running power)

Thanks for the information. Found the following from a different perspective for the operating life of the CFL, part of our cost.

http://www.mnenergychallenge.org/ask...c2d785e31f8#q5

I have heard that it is not energy efficient to turn flourescent lights on and off a lot- that it takes more energy to start them up than it does to leave them on for half an hour when you are not in the room. Is this true? What rule of thumb would you reccomend for maximum efficiency? Is this also true of compact flourescent bulbs?

It is a popularly held belief that fluorescent lights (including CFL's) use a "lot" of energy to get started, and thus it is better not to turn them off for "short" periods. There is an increase in power demand when a light is switched on, and the exact amount of this increase depends on the type of ballast and lamp. The ballast provides an initial high voltage for starting the lamp and regulates the lamp current during operation. This relatively higher "inrush" current lasts for half a cycle, or 1/120th of a second. The amount of electricity consumed to supply the inrush current is equal to a few seconds or less of normal light operation. Turning off fluorescent lights for more than 5 seconds will save more energy than will be consumed in turning them back on again. Therefore, the real issue is the value of the electricity saved by turning the light off relative to the cost of relamping a fixture. This in turn determines the shortest cost-effective period for turning off a fluorescent light.

All types of lights have a nominal or rated operating life, which is the total number of hours that they will provide a specified level or amount of light. However, the operating life of all types of light bulbs is affected by how many times they are turned on and off. The more often they are switched on and off, the lower their operating life. The exact number of hours that switching lights on and off reduces the total operating life depends on the type of light and how many times it is switched on and off.

For most areas of the United States, a general rule-of-thumb for when to turn off a fluorescent light is if you leave a room for more than 15 minutes. In areas where electric rates are high and/or during peak demand periods, this period may be as low as 5 minutes. Fluorescent lights are more expensive to buy, and their operating life is more affected by the number of times they are switched on and off, relative to incandescent lights. Therefore, it is a cost trade-off between saving energy and money by turning a light off "frequently" and having to replace the bulbs "more" frequently. This is because the reduction in usable lamp life due to frequent on/off switching will probably be greater than the benefit of extending the useful life of the bulb from reduced use. By frequent we mean turning the light off and on many times during the day. Lighting manufacturers should be able to supply information on the duty cycle of their products. In general, the more energy-efficient a bulb/light is, the longer you can keep a light on before it is cost effective to turn it off.

For more information visit - http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumer/.../mytopic=12280

Originally Posted by Bazooka Joe

...
If heating the ceiling were such an efficient way of heating a home, why have they not put registers or baseboard heaters on the ceiling?
...

Actually, I do have heating "registers" between my floor and the ceiling below in my kitchen and bathroom on the ground floor. There is a hose with hot water from the furnace running all over between the joists below my tile floor and there is no other heating in those rooms. In western Europe a floor heating system is used extensively in newer buildings, so I'm guessing it is a very efficient way to heat the home. I think Europe is way ahead of us in terms of efficiency.

In terms of electric heat versus natural gas - gas may be cheaper but for the amount of greenhouse gases released to heat the home, there is not that much difference, so it does not matter for the purpose of this discussion.

Originally Posted by notanexpert

In terms of electric heat versus natural gas - gas may be cheaper but for the amount of greenhouse gases released to heat the home, there is not that much difference, so it does not matter for the purpose of this discussion.

This is not true when you consider both how and where the electricity is generated. A high end condensing furnace can get 95% efficiency, which is 20-40% more then the overall combined cycle efficiency one sees in a power plant. So unless all of your power is from none hydro-carbon based power plants burring gas at home vs. electric heat makes sense.

Never mind line losses and the use of gas turbine generators to deal with peak loads which have even lower efficiency.

Originally Posted by dark169

This is not true when you consider both how and where the electricity is generated. A high end condensing furnace can get 95% efficiency, which is 20-40% more then the overall combined cycle efficiency one sees in a power plant. So unless all of your power is from none hydro-carbon based power plants burring gas at home vs. electric heat makes sense.

Never mind line losses and the use of gas turbine generators to deal with peak loads which have even lower efficiency.

I think you're ignoring the fact that well over 50% of the electricity generated in Canada comes form nuclear or hydro-power stations, which have virtually zero greenhouse gas emissions. That easily makes up for the poor efficiency of the gas and coal fired generating stations and the line losses.

Yup, if you live in an especially cold climate, and do not have natural gas as a heating option, moving to CFL's actually will make very little difference in money savings and being "green".

As for saving money, using a regular lightbulb for heating is pretty well just as good as using an electric heater (an average incandescent putting out 95% heat and 5% light) There are some small advantages to actual electric heaters though - mainly being that you can place them much lower to the ground. Heat rises, and you want to "create and trap" the heat as low as possible (heated baseboards are the best example)

If you want to save money, actually a incandescent lightbulb or an electric heater is a bad choice as they have a power factor of basically .99 (which means almost perfect VA to watts)

The power companies usually charge you based on wattage, and if you have old appliances that are "dirty" meaning less than .75 power factor, then you are actually getting 25% more heat for the same paid wattage. IE: They are very power inefficient for the wattage, which actually works to the consumers advantage if electrical heating is your only option.

Every single porchlight however, which does not contribute to the heat of the house should be a CFL. There is a national drive to get every external lighbulb on a house converted over to CFL's for this reason.

Originally Posted by ZenOps

If you want to save money, actually a incandescent lightbulb or an electric heater is a bad choice as they have a power factor of basically .99 (which means almost perfect VA to watts)

The power companies usually charge you based on wattage, and if you have old appliances that are "dirty" meaning less than .75 power factor, then you are actually getting 25% more heat for the same paid wattage. IE: They are very power inefficient for the wattage, which actually works to the consumers advantage if electrical heating is your only option.

I am interested in this info... are you saying you can somehow get heaters that use the same amount of electricity, but because they use less wattage, cost less to operate?

Where can you get these?

Every single porchlight however, which does not contribute to the heat of the house should be a CFL. There is a national drive to get every external lighbulb on a house converted over to CFL's for this reason.

Problem is I have yet to find a CFL that does well in -20 degrees.

When I spend ~ $2 on a light bulb and see it burn out or break after the first cold day, my wallet aches :/ Makes me not want to risk that again.

Originally Posted by ZenOps

Yup, if you live in an especially cold climate, and do not have natural gas as a heating option, moving to CFL's actually will make very little difference in money savings and being "green".

As for saving money, using a regular lightbulb for heating is pretty well just as good as using an electric heater (an average incandescent putting out 95% heat and 5% light) There are some small advantages to actual electric heaters though - mainly being that you can place them much lower to the ground. Heat rises, and you want to "create and trap" the heat as low as possible (heated baseboards are the best example)

If you want to save money, actually a incandescent lightbulb or an electric heater is a bad choice as they have a power factor of basically .99 (which means almost perfect VA to watts)

The power companies usually charge you based on wattage, and if you have old appliances that are "dirty" meaning less than .75 power factor, then you are actually getting 25% more heat for the same paid wattage. IE: They are very power inefficient for the wattage, which actually works to the consumers advantage if electrical heating is your only option.

Every single porchlight however, which does not contribute to the heat of the house should be a CFL. There is a national drive to get every external lighbulb on a house converted over to CFL's for this reason.

I'd never thought of this before, but you're absolutely right. Do they have a way of measuring your house power factor? If not, you could very cheaply heat your home with inefficient compressors

I wouldn't exactly call this "green", except for the fact that it would save a ton of money over electric heating

Edit: I'm trying to come up with an appliance that you would need to use for winter use only or an incredibly inefficient engine - perhaps some sort of energy creating device. There has to be a way to get free heat out of this somehow.

Originally Posted by ZenOps

If you want to save money, actually a incandescent lightbulb or an electric heater is a bad choice as they have a power factor of basically .99 (which means almost perfect VA to watts)

The power companies usually charge you based on wattage, and if you have old appliances that are "dirty" meaning less than .75 power factor, then you are actually getting 25% more heat for the same paid wattage. IE: They are very power inefficient for the wattage, which actually works to the consumers advantage if electrical heating is your only option.

Either you miss understand what power factor is or your attempting to apply it to things which it doesn't apply.

PF is the ratio between real and apparent power.
VA is always watts.

The way to get a power factor other then 1 is to have an induction machine. Your furnace motor would be one such beast, but odds are has a capacitor installed for starting/pf correction.

PF refers to the fact that current can lag (or lead) voltage in an AC system where large induction machines still draw high power but the peak voltage (120V) times the current at that peak equals less then the average power drawn. Typical power meters can't measure this power but industrial sites do and it costs the power company to generate that energy.

Your never going to get more heat then what you pay for. The best you could try is to get a 1500watt motor, hook it up to a break and run it you'll just have a noisy 1500watt heater that will burn up and light your house on fire one day all so you can cheat the power company out of a few %...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_factor

Power companies usually tend to charge residential customers in Watts, not VA. VA does not equal Watts unless it has a near perfect power factor.

A regular lightbulb or heating element should have a power factor of .99 or 1.

An alternating electric motor or a compressor (like what is usually found in a fridge or freezer) is less than that, often around .80

Since the electric company supplies VA, but bills watts, its always in the best interest of the consumer to have "dirty" appliances if they live in cold climates and only have electrcity as a heat source. IE: The power company must supply more VA to dirty appliances, but they are not allowed to charge you any more. Using a perfect power factor heating element means you are paying exactly what you are using. Using low power factor appliances means the power company must supply more VA (which does result in more heat due to the mechanical inefficiency) but can still only bill you for the watts.

Its a *dirty little secret* that the power companies try to discourage users from figuring out. A perfectly out of phase motor would have a power factor of .50, although there are many other appliances that are very power inefficient, including UPS battery backups. A specially made heating element that cycles out of phase at 50/60 hz would also have a power factor of .5 Although if it gets too bad, the power company will hate you and are well within their rights to charge you more $ per watt if they find out your household is under 90 percent or so efficient (In Canada, it rarely happens that a power company will care about power factor losses, in Japan and California, they will nail you for it)

Canadians should be far more concerned with insulation and retaining the existing heat, than changing out to electrically energy efficient appliances. People who live in for example Texas and California should be far more concerned with changing out to electrically efficient appliances.

Originally Posted by ZenOps

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_factor

Power companies usually tend to charge residential customers in Watts, not VA. VA does not equal Watts unless it has a near perfect power factor.

A regular lightbulb or heating element should have a power factor of .99 or 1.

An alternating electric motor or a compressor (like what is usually found in a fridge or freezer) is less than that, often around .80

Since the electric company supplies VA, but bills watts, its always in the best interest of the consumer to have "dirty" appliances if they live in cold climates and only have electrcity as a heat source. IE: The power company must supply more VA to dirty appliances, but they are not allowed to charge you any more. Using a perfect power factor heating element means you are paying exactly what you are using. Using low power factor appliances means the power company must supply more VA (which does result in more heat due to the mechanical inefficiency) but can still only bill you for the watts.

Its a *dirty little secret* that the power companies try to discourage users from figuring out. A perfectly out of phase motor would have a power factor of .50, although there are many other appliances that are very power inefficient, including UPS battery backups. A specially made heating element that cycles out of phase at 50/60 hz would also have a power factor of .5 Although if it gets too bad, the power company will hate you and are well within their rights to charge you more $ per watt if they find out your household is under 90 percent or so efficient (In Canada, it rarely happens that a power company will care about power factor losses, in Japan and California, they will nail you for it)

Canadians should be far more concerned with insulation and retaining the existing heat, than changing out to electrically energy efficient appliances. People who live in for example Texas and California should be far more concerned with changing out to electrically efficient appliances.

It sounds good in theory but you'd have to run a HELLOVAS lot of waste-heat generating things to get the equiv. of evenone baseboard heater.

And I think o are overlooking the other point. If an appliance has 50% smaller PF than a heater, it isn't "50% cheaper", it is only a small amount cheaper because most of the power the appliance is using is going toward whatever it was meant to do in the first place.