Selling Incandescent Light Bulbs As Heating Devices 557
Csiko writes "The European Union has banned by law trading of incandescent light bulbs due to their bad efficiency/ecology (most of the energy is transformed into heat). A company is now trying to bypass this restriction by offering their incandescent light bulb products as a heating device (article in German) instead of a light device. Still, their 'heat balls' give light as well as heating. So — every law can be bypassed if you have some creativity!"
Re:This ban could be shourt sighted. (Score:5, Informative)
Making lighting more efficient could increase energy use, not decrease it [economist.com]
But precedent suggests that this will serve merely to increase the demand for light. The consequence may not be just more light for the same amount of energy, but an actual increase in energy consumption, rather than the decrease hoped for by those promoting new forms of lighting.
check the answer from the paper's author in this week Economist. they clearly state that the journalist misunderstood the conclusions...
ez bake oven (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So? (Score:1, Informative)
There are certain cases where you actually want the device to produce heat as well as light. Has anyone ever raised baby chickens? They require both heat and light, which an incandescent bulb is a perfect device. Also, in cases where you need a only small warming device, there isn't many things as simple as a light bulb.
and lava lamps (Score:3, Informative)
The heating effect is important here too.
Re:Is it just me? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:So? (Score:3, Informative)
It goes into magnetic energy and heat generated in the power lines and transformers along the miles and miles between the point of production (usually a coal plant far outside of town or even clear across the state) and the point of use (your livingroom, for example). The rule of thumb I have seen is that over half of produced energy is wasted in this way. Contrast this with natural gas or even heating oil, which requires a pretty light energy burden to travel to your home and it's efficiency is determined by the sophistication of your heating device (most are 90%+ efficient, some furnaces extract so much heat that the exhaust isn't warm enough to rise in a conventional chimney.)
Re:So? (Score:5, Informative)
It's 100% efficient at the home, but the power plants that generate are limited by the laws of thermodynamics to converting only around 30% - 40% of the energy into electricity.
Obligatory wikipedia link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_Engine#Efficiency [wikipedia.org]
Re:I hate the new bulbs. (Score:3, Informative)
God, this is tiresome (Score:5, Informative)
Right, because lots of people want the freedom to waste all kinds of money and generate a lot more pollution. The only reason the government needs to get involved in the first place is because the sticker price on an incandescent was lower than that of a CFL - the lifecycle cost of the CFL was considerably less. And we're getting to the point, because of economies of scale, that even the sticker price on a CFL is not much more than an incandescent... which wouldn't have happened if the gov't hadn't kicked off demand. Not to mention that incandescents aren't even banned - they've just instituted performance standards for light bulbs, and many specialty types of incandescents have been exempted from that.
The government has the right to regulate light bulbs because the use of electricity has very significant negative externalities, which no one is paying for. So could we please stop with the "OMFG teh socialists are coming for our light bulbs! Man the battlements!" crap already?
Nope (Score:5, Informative)
The rule of thumb I have seen is that over half of produced energy is wasted in this way.
Most of the loss is within the power station. Where the heat energy is converted to electricity. Only 35-60% of the energy produced is converted to electricity int the first place (depending on generation system).
Transmission is relatively efficient in comparison.
Course in some countries (like Finland or Denmark), they distribute the "waste" heat produced by power plants and people use that in industrial processes, space heating, hot water production etc. So they have (relatively) close to 100% efficiency.
Re:So? (Score:3, Informative)
They really don't though.
A good heat pump would have an effective efficiency of 230% or so - delivering 230 watts of heat for every 100 watts of electricity. Incandescent bulbs are still a poor choice in general if you want heat regardless of the situation.
My comment was that an incandescent bulb a few inches over my hands - which are the only things that need heat - is better than a space heater. The efficiency here comes from the focus of energy where it's needed, not the source. (For example, LED lighting and heated gloves would be even better for efficiency)
=Smidge=
Re:Hmmm Incandescent vs CFL (Score:3, Informative)
What's sad is that the newer incandescents may only use 25% of the energy but the laws are based on the technology- not on the energy consumption and they ignore the mercury poisoning aspects.
Lie repeated often are still lies. The law in this case is based upon watts per lumen. If there were incandescents that used 25% of the energy, they would be legal. Also the mercury released to the environment from an incandescent is worse than the exposure from a CFL. [popularmechanics.com]
You may now go back to being a crybaby.
Re:I'm buying what are considered decent CFLs (Score:1, Informative)
The annoying light from CFL's is NOT due to color temperature. It's because the spectrum is horribly incomplete.
Read up on metamerism [wikipedia.org] to understand why everyone hates CFL's regardless of color temperature.