Local Authority Lunacy

[robgil]

if i used two 100 watters in my living room i would be more worried about sun burn.

what you have to ask your self is , even though the difference is minuscule and even opening a door would blow it all out of the water , what is best for the environment? heating your home with lightbulbs or heating it with an oil fired boiler?


thinking about it i would probably say lightbulbs.

 

[Flyfisher]

What's best for the environment is to use the minimum amount of fossil fuel, but the whole energy-cycle has to be considered, not just the point of use.

For example, a modern boiler might be 85% efficient at turning gas into heat in your home. But, in your home, electrical heaters will be 100% efficient at converting electricity into heat, so perhaps they are best for the environment. Except that the electricity comes from a big power station that might only be 50% efficient at converting fossil fuel into electricity, which is not so good. Or perhaps you buy electricity from a company that only generates renewable energy, in which case that's good for the environment. Except that it's all mixed in with gas, coal and nuclear generated electricity so it can't really be separated (a bit like unmaking a cake). Filament lightbulbs may be very inefficient in terms of light output but the 'wasted' electricity is not really wasted at all because it contributes to heating the house. With less heat sources in the house, more external energy is needed to compensate. If you have 20 people round for a party you may find you don't need any heating at all, although you will have to wine and dine them, which might be even more inefficient than burning fossil fuel in the central heating system.

It's complicated. And then, as you rightly say, you answer a knock on the front door and hours-worth of relatively tiny heat savings go straight up in the air anyway.

 

[biffvernon]

We'll all be using LEDs before some dinosaurs are willing to give up cuddling their incandescent tungsten filaments.

 

[Flyfisher]

. . . which are even more efficient at producing light, really do last (almost) forever, and won't fail prematurely if switched on for short durations (like CFLs).

How long before CFLs are banned in favour of LEDs I wonder? :roll:

 

[Pford75]

Biff - Where practical, we've already moved to LED...but I still have an issue with certain lights.

You invest a lot of time in your joinery to ensure that the finished product is sympathetic to and looks right in period settings. Likewise, our house has a number of 18th/19th century chandeliers. I have tried alternatives, but there is just nothing which provides the same aesthetics as incandescents.

To continue your argument on dinosaurs....i'm sure some feel the same about double-glazing.....why don't we all stick DG units in our period properties? :wink:

 

[AMc]

The heat/light argument is a bit bizarre to me unless you only turn on lights when you're also running the heating. Mine is off for about 1/3rd of the year so the bulbs would be producing heat I actively don't want for 1/4 of the year.
Electricity is also more expensive watt for watt than any other fuel by a significant margin - twice oil the last time I had a figure to check.

In my lounge the dimmable 4x100W incandesants fitted by the previous owners were expensive enough for me to switch them out for CFLs. Even at 4x£10 each for dimmable CLFs I worked out that the bulbs would pay for themselves after 15 months using the room for 3 hours a day. One failed after 3 months and has been replaced by the manufacturer.

 

[Inspector John]

We ocasionally use candles...Nothing romantic just a power cut
Now they give off heat (place your hand over one) but not much light
Any advance on candles anyone? :wink:

 

[MdB]

1 candle approx = 12 lumens approx = 0.18W CFL
i.e. 100 candles approx = one 18W CFL.

 

[Inspector John]

I want Fork handles please (two Ronnies sketch)

Gas lamps? (fixed)

 

[FamilyWiggs]

I find that my massive 42-inch TV provides plenty of heat and light (or is that the wrong thing to say). Next you'll be telling me not to leave it on standy-by... although the little red light is very helpful to navigate by at night.

 

[robgil]

my telly wont switch off , at all.
it will switch to stand by but if i want to shut it down altogether there isn't an on/off switch so i have to pull the plug.

i would rather shut down mrs robgil though , if i have to watch another episode of e'enders , corrie , b'brother , hollyoaks ..........

 

[biffvernon]

our house has a number of 18th/19th century chandeliers. I have tried alternatives, but there is just nothing which provides the same aesthetics as incandescents.

Don't you mean candles?

 

[worms]

there isn't an on/off switch so i have to pull the plug.

You need one of these.

 

[Philip_I]

Not sure asking for further information counts as lunacy but case my friend has with a rooflight comes pretty close. He lives in listed Georgian "hall" that he bought 4 years ago as a wreck and has restored beautifully. They are in the process now of adding a small two storey extension to the rear. In the process of doing this a small Velux type rooflight put in by previous owners quite some time ago seemingly without permission will be completely obscured by the new extension roof. The conservation officer was generally happy with the extension (and even said they could put another single storey one on the side if done properly although they don't want it) but insisted that the old Velux had to be replaced by a new "conservation rooflight" more in keeping with building. This is going to cost about £1000 and the only people who will ever see it will be people flying overhead in a helicopter. The conservation officer was flexible on details regarding the extension but not the rooflight. So adding one or even two extensions is ok but leaving a Velux rooflight in place that nobody will ever see is not. My friend sees this as lunacy but the price he has to pay to keep the CO on his side for bigger matters.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Not sure asking for further information counts as lunacy but case my friend has with a rooflight comes pretty close. He lives in listed Georgian "hall" that he bought 4 years ago as a wreck and has restored beautifully. They are in the process now of adding a small two storey extension to the rear. In the process of doing this a small Velux type rooflight put in by previous owners quite some time ago seemingly without permission will be completely obscured by the new extension roof. The conservation officer was generally happy with the extension (and even said they could put another single storey one on the side if done properly although they don't want it) but insisted that the old Velux had to be replaced by a new "conservation rooflight" more in keeping with building. This is going to cost about £1000 and the only people who will ever see it will be people flying overhead in a helicopter. The conservation officer was flexible on details regarding the extension but not the rooflight. So adding one or even two extensions is ok but leaving a Velux rooflight in place that nobody will ever see is not. My friend sees this as lunacy but the price he has to pay to keep the CO on his side for bigger matters.

"God sees," as Lutyens once pointed out to an office boy who said a particular detail didn't matter as no-one would see it.

I do think the "nobody can see it" argument is problematic, because it's actually very subjective (regardless of what hard-pressed owners might think) - a consistent approach (of the sort we COs are accused of not taking) would surely be that all new rooflights in listed buildings should be of the conservation type, thus making life easy for everyone - you want a rooflight, it has to be discreetly placed, and conservation type.

Mind you, your friend might be able to recover the cost of correcting the previous owner's "mistake" from them, as they presumably didn't declare the unauthorised work to his solicitors when the house was sold.