Incandescent light bulbs, a relic of the past

[Ryland]

Heat tape in a pump house would be the best tool for the job, a light bulb in there is going to do just as much to heat the walls of the pump house as it will do to heat the pipes and the built in thermostat that heat tape has will allow you to only have it come on when needed, paying for it's self in just a few months.
Better yet would be to insulate all around the pump house to keep the ground from freezing, then insulate the walls so the ground keeps it warm and you can skip the electric heat all together.

I don't think that incandescent bulbs will ever completely go away, you will always have a few locations where you want the heat as well as light, like for raising freshly hatched chicks, or where the light is used so seldom that you might as well stick an old bulb in there.
But if I am alone in never having bought a "standard" bulb, I don't think I will be for long, at least I hope not.

[GeneralAnarchy]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Heat tape, which doesn't waste 5% of the electricity as light

I see this concept pointed out from time to time tongue-in-cheek, but few actually realize that light just hits the walls turning into heat - just as almost all light energy turns to heat. I've even heard it said an electric space heater is not "100% efficient" because it has a pilot light! But that is ridiculous unless one supposes the light heads directly and only toward the nearest glass window. In any household sense a CFL is also a 100% efficient heater, just not all of the heat originates at the bulb, but some from the walls and furniture that absorb the light.

In propane-heated house in the winter with the curtains closed at night, unless your propane is cheaper than dirt, it is tough for propane to beat the efficiency of leaving every interior incandenscent bulb switched on. It is a bargain by almost any mathematical calculations. The incandescent bulbs on the inside of the average living room are just as good as electric heat, and I was surprised to learn this once I actually did the math.

It is my thinking that switching to CFL in those instances only makes the house less net efficient by virtue of more highly-priced smog producing propane needing to be burned to replace the BTUs the bulb throws out.

CFL is also a real bummer in some applications if you have to throw it out and replace it twice a year.

[Frank Lee]

I use halogen work lamps with the safety glass removed for "extreme zone heating". Not only do I get more than enough heat, I don't need to turn on any room lighting.

Another extreme zone heating strategy I just recently implemented is placing a three-headed floor lamp right next to the toilet, with the bottom two fixtures containing 75w "heat lamp bulbs" which are marketed as party lamps but appear to be identical in every way to heat lamp bulbs except for the low wattage. The idea was that since heat wants to rise, why in the world would I want my heat lamp in or near the ceiling??? Anyway, the little bulbs put out a pleasant heat for that zone and of course, I can also leave the room lights off.

CFLs in very cold rooms (45 deg. F) take many minutes to "crank up". Oftentimes I'm in-n-outta the room before the stupid CFL knows I'm there. Thus, in several fixtures I've reverted back to superior (for the application) incandescent. I do like CFLs in rooms where the lighting tends to be on for longer periods, like the kitchen.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by GeneralAnarchy

...unless your propane is cheaper than dirt, it is tough for propane to beat the efficiency of leaving every interior incandenscent bulb switched on. It is a bargain by almost any mathematical calculations.

I don't see how, unless your electricity is even cheaper than dirt. It just equates to electric resistance heating, which is about the most expensive heat there is.

In fact, I'd think it's less than half as efficient as burning the propane directly. If you're getting electricity from a fossil-fueled power plant, it's converting maybe 50% - often less - of the fuel's heat energy to electricity, then there are transmission & distribution losses on top of that.

[GeneralAnarchy]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

I don't see how, unless your electricity is even cheaper than dirt. It just equates to electric resistance heating, which is about the most expensive heat there is.

No calculations? I used to firmly believe what you said and paid many thousands too much for heating. Resistance heating is about 3412 BTU/kWh which for me is $0.06. That is per kWh as measured at the house (not kWh produced at the power plant) so losses are already factored in. So by dividing, I get 56000 BTU per dollar of resistance heat. Propane on the other hand, I have paid as much as $2.60 a gallon, each gallon is 92000 BTU (at 100% efficiency which a gas furnace is not). So at best propane is 36000 BTU per dollar at that price.

I know some people can get propane cheaper than $2 and electric is more than 8 cents off peak, but when you factor in gas furnace efficiency, even then it is very tough to calculate a scenario where propane wins. Plus electric heaters are easier to customize on timers for each room individually.

I have not seen a careful calculation of pollutants but I suspect they are close. The coal plants have scrubbers and other point-source mitigation, but the propane furnace is just vented from so many millions of houses. Sure if you neglect coal mining energy, petroleum subsidies/wars, energy for refinement, and the gasoline or diesel needed to transport to distribution facilities and deliver all the propane, there is surely additional "total energy" in the electric heating scenario due to thermal and transmissions losses, the physics says there must be. But even in that specialized measure of efficiency, that does not mean net effect of electric heating is worse either in dollars or pollutant level. I still burn propane during on-peak electric, of course, but switching to electric off-peak I think comes out far ahead.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by GeneralAnarchy

No calculations? I used to firmly believe what you said and paid many thousands too much for heating. Resistance heating is about 3412 BTU/kWh which for me is $0.06.

There's a difference between price and energy efficiency, you know. So assuming 50% efficiency at the generating plant (which is better than average) means you've already lost half of the heat energy in the fuel before it even gets on the grid.

On price, I think you're paying about half as much per KW as the national average - hereabouts it's 11-12 cents/KW.

And why would you use resistance heating, when with a heat pump you'd get 4X as much heat per KW?

[Frank Lee]

Cuz resistance heating is dirt cheap and heat pumps are not?

From the wall outlet in, resistance heating has gotta be real efficient.

[JasonG]

Originally Posted by GeneralAnarchy

No calculations? I used to firmly believe what you said and paid many thousands too much for heating. Resistance heating is about 3412 BTU/kWh which for me is $0.06. That is per kWh as measured at the house (not kWh produced at the power plant) so losses are already factored in. So by dividing, I get 56000 BTU per dollar of resistance heat. Propane on the other hand, I have paid as much as $2.60 a gallon, each gallon is 92000 BTU (at 100% efficiency which a gas furnace is not). So at best propane is 36000 BTU per dollar at that price.

I know some people can get propane cheaper than $2 and electric is more than 8 cents off peak, but when you factor in gas furnace efficiency, even then it is very tough to calculate a scenario where propane wins. Plus electric heaters are easier to customize on timers for each room individually.

I have not seen a careful calculation of pollutants but I suspect they are close. The coal plants have scrubbers and other point-source mitigation, but the propane furnace is just vented from so many millions of houses. Sure if you neglect coal mining energy, petroleum subsidies/wars, energy for refinement, and the gasoline or diesel needed to transport to distribution facilities and deliver all the propane, there is surely additional "total energy" in the electric heating scenario due to thermal and transmissions losses, the physics says there must be. But even in that specialized measure of efficiency, that does not mean net effect of electric heating is worse either in dollars or pollutant level. I still burn propane during on-peak electric, of course, but switching to electric off-peak I think comes out far ahead.

DANG !
We're paying over $3 for propane here !

FYI, we hicks know what heat tape is and use it. Try and get it to effectively go around a pump and bladder tank. By the way, it's also resistance heating, and it draws higher watts.

Frank, love the heat lamp idea. Works great in the garage, now I'll get one for the "outhouse"

Problem with heat pumps is you heat the whole house, not just 1 room. Ever see one work when the temps in single digits ? I've listened to mine spend nearly as much time de-icing as running and just shut it off for the night.
Still like an airtight stove the best.

What was the origional topic ?

Oh, yeah.

I hope the LEDs take off, I'm a bit worried about the mercury in CFLs. It's mandatory that flourescent lamps get properly disposed of by companies. I wonder what impact hundreds of CFLs in landfills will do to our water supply?

[Ryland]

Originally Posted by JasonG

I'm a bit worried about the mercury in CFLs. It's mandatory that flourescent lamps get properly disposed of by companies. I wonder what impact hundreds of CFLs in landfills will do to our water supply?

From what I've read, the amount of mercury in a CFL is still less over all then the amount that would end up in our air, then in our ground water if a incandescent bulb was used powered by a coal power plant, I can't remember the number it but it was a big reduction even if every CFL went in to the land fill and leaked in to our ground water and for that to happen the land fill water collection system would have to fail as well.

[GeneralAnarchy]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

And why would you use resistance heating, when with a heat pump you'd get 4X as much heat per KW?

Yeah, I know 50% or more energy is lost. The propane delivery trucks are pretty inefficient too. I just have not seen complete energy analysis that shows propane is better. For cost efficiency sure I know average electric is 11-12 cents. But for many people it's about half that "off-peak" and about double (over 25 cents) "on-peak". That's why I was careful to point out you can't beat propane automatically unless you use timers to take advantage of peak pricing and run it strictly at night and on the weekend. The power plants have surplus nighttime capacity which seems to go to waste.

I found "small" heat pumps for a single room that vent out a window but they are about 600 bucks. The are not rated for use below 40F. I would gladly pay if they could run down to -10F and had a 10 year warranty. It would probably beat resistance heat, but I think most heat pumps are freon-based and have moving parts and will fail too quickly for the average homeowner. Does that sound right?