Re:No, you can’t save £30 per year by switching off your “st...
by gregable on Wednesday April 27, 2022 @11:34AM
(#31181267)
Yes, but. There are few places that need heating 100% of the year and fewer people living there. During the non-heating hours/days, that's just waste heat.
Depending on where the bulbs are located, they may be emitting into a ceiling cavity that exits the building's envelope more quickly than the location of the heating coil. Some bulbs are actually outside the building.
And of course, the heating system can supply 0.5kW for less than 0.5kW of power with heat pumps or (net including generation and transmission) natural gas.
Re:No, you can’t save £30 per year by switching off your “st...
by D13Fd on Wednesday April 27, 2022 @01:50PM
(#31183372)
This really only applies where the heat is frequently so low that heat pumps cannot function. Antarctica, or maybe Siberia or northern Alaska.
Beyond that, heat pumps are still much more efficient than direct electric heating.
Also, if you have air conditioning at any point in the year, those incandescent lights are just going to make your air conditioner work that much harder.
Re:No, you can’t save £30 per year by switching off your “st...
by post-it on Wednesday April 27, 2022 @11:44AM
(#31181430)
Resistive electrical heating is typically the most expensive heating option available, at least here in Canada. A heat pump uses much less power to provide the same amount of heat, and fossil fuel heating (gas in the west, oil in the east) is often much less expensive than electric.
Switch to LED and your heating system will need to supply that extra 0.5kW.
In a climate where you are almost always running heating, this makes the benefit of switching to LED much smaller, and considering that they are much less environmentally friendly to produce, it may even tip the scale the other way.