Thanks! I've been on that theme for a few years now and they dont like it here -- it will become an ever more important consideration as time goes on.

Although the low energy bulb is saving you energy it is not saving as much as it cracks itself up for some of the "saving" has to added back.

Additionally the real price of gas and oil is the cost of replacing it --- huge any way you like to think of it.

In cost terms for the vast majority here in the UK who do not have heat pumps (or the where with all to buy them) and so the logic becomes different and the factor smaller.

I agree that in your circumstances it makes good sense to heat with the heat pump and to use low energy lighting.

Suppose that one didn't need a heating or cooling system, then how would the argument go?

Hi Paul - nice to put a face to the name!

Posted By: tom.harrigan100kWh a day, and no CO2 emissions! Do you generate all that energy yourself?

No, Quebec is >98% hydroelectric - the 2% that isn't is in local diesel generating stations but 100% of the power supplied to Montreal is hydro. BTW, that 100kwh a day sounds a lot - but when it's -20C outside a lot of heating is required. The heat load at -20C is around 14kW so usage on those sort of days is closer to 140kWh (you would think it would be 330kWh but we have a GSHP so the actual usage is closer 125kWh. [ These are all measured figures BTW - I've been a religious meter reader since the GSHP was commissioned in 2005].

Paul in Montreal.

[update: this week's meter reading is showing an average of 101.6kWh per day over the past week - but we've had daytime highs as low as -12C ]

I've read all the responses to my post and I understand most of it. Precise control of heating may be the iobjective but cannot be achieved because of input from other sources such as visitors, cooking, electrical appliances and bulbs. So why single out bulbs as a big problem when the vacuum cleaner churns out more heat than suck?
You pay for heat whether you want it or not and a thermostat controls the cumulative temperature.
Why is it preferable to use your fossil fuel boiler to generate heat rather than utilise by product heat from an incandescent bulb? It may be cheaper to use gas but is cheap what we really want? Houses should be adequately lit during the summer without bulbs.
I won't be fitting a fossil fuel boiler because gas and oil supplies will become unreliable and eventually non existent. As far as I know electricity is the only practical renewable energy source we have so perhaps all things should be electric. If you're worried about carbon dioxide emmissions then electricity will be the only alternative. Using cost as an argument against using electricity is a bit like saying insulation is too expensive. Shouldn't we anticipate the end of fossil fuel .

Each Kwh of electricity produces 0.73Kg of Co2
Each Kwh of heat from a gas boiler produces 0.21Kg of Co2.

So if we follow the line put forward by David and Tony we would triple the amount of co2 emissions.
Also if we extend the logic we should be buying the most energy inefficient appliances throughout the house to "benefit" from the extra heat.

Its a deeply flawed concept.

Electricity is a very co2 intensive form of energy and we should be minimising its use and avoid using it for heating (be that direct or indirect).

Posted By: nigelIts a deeply flawed concept.
Electricity is a very co2 intensive form of energy and we should be minimising its use and avoid using it for heating (be that direct or indirect).

In the UK perhaps, but not necessarily in general. In the future, electricity will be the only flexible fuel that can be delivered to the home efficiently - we shouldn't be burning fossil fuels since they are too useful to waste as heat and are much more useful for providing transport - where they have a far higher energy density than anything else that's been conceived so far.

I and 70% of my compatriots use electricity for heating without producing any CO2 emissions - though I use it rather more efficiently than most since I get over 3kWh of heat from every 1kWh of electricity delivered. The only CFLs I have are for lights that are in places difficult to reach to change the bulb or are left on for extended periods. In the summer, I don't use lights much as I'm outside enjoying the warmth :)

Paul in Montreal

Posted By: nigelLikewise Paul in Montreal claims his consumption is fine because its from hydro but in reality he is using electricity which could be exported and used for to offset other sources of generation.
Therefore on a global scale there is still no excuse for using electricity inappropriately. Whilst I agree that Heat Pump technology can offset some of the inefficienices of electricity generation and production it expensive (in the uk) and its benefits often do not meet stated expectations.

Actually Nigel, I agree with you in a certain way.

I'm trying to think long-term and it seems to me that electricity is the only fuel that is easily delivered and can be made from many sources. Here in Quebec, hydroelectricity is dominant and I agree that more could be exported. Currently the production price is around 0.53p per kWh and the residential selling price is about 2.54p per kWh whereas the export price (to New England states) is around 4.87p per kWh - so it obviously makes sense to export. However, HydroQuebec was a politically inspired creation and it is politically very difficult to raise the domestic price to match the export price. HydroQuebec is finally getting a clue in realizing the less people use at home the more money they can make by exporting - already profits are in the Can$2billion per year rang - all of which gets plowed back into the Province since it is wholly owned monopoly (a good thing IMHO). Around 70% of people use electricity for heating and 98% of those use straight resistance heat with a COP of 1.0. If these people switched to heatpumps, the demand would go down by 2/3 (for the portion that is used in residential heating - I'll see if I can find the figures somewhere as a percentage of total consumption) - and, of course, this would all be available for export. So now there are grants available of up to Can$6800 for fitting a GSHP system (part of this is federal, part of it from HydroQuebec).

The gas supply is Quebec is owned by HydroQuebec so the rate differential with respect to electricity is more limited than elsewhere. I don't think switching to gas heating is a good thing - I'd rather the gas be used as a chemical feedstock or for transport rather than burning it for heat.

I built a new house recently and the only heat source I considered as being sustainable longterm was a GSHP for the reaons I've stated. I know the situation in the UK is presently different due to all the coal and natural gas plants but, long term, electricity is the only viable solution IMHO and, that being the case, it should be used as efficiently as possble: something an air-source or ground-source heatpump offers. Of course, if everyone in the UK switched to using heatpumps it would be a disaster - but it will have to happen eventually since natural gas is inevitably going to be exhausted.

Paul in Montreal

Paul you say, "Around 70% of people use electricity for heating and 98% of those use straight resistance heat with a COP of 1.0."

I the case of those 98% low energy lighting is almost certainly not saving anything is it?

I cant understand how using CLF's can save building a power station as the total heat demand would be the same ( less 2/3 of 2 % ) as nearly everyone uses resistance heating over there. Cant see how there was a saving unless the weather was milder?

Dave, I don’t normally like to quote point by point, but there were quite a few of your points that I wanted to comment on, so in this instance I’ve made an exception.

Posted By: david why single out bulbs as a big problem when the vacuum cleaner churns out more heat than suck?

Incandescent lighting is singled out because it represents a significant proportion of electricity use in the home and there is an energy saving alternative readily available.

SAP2005 Appendix L
In UK houses, the average energy consumption for lighting is taken as 9.3kWh/m2 annually if no low-energy lighting is used.

I have a small flat, approximately 40m2, so that would be 372kWh/year on lighting.
I vacuum for say, 30mins a month (probably far less in reality) with a 2kW cleaner. This equates to 12kWh a year.

So it's simply (excuse the expression) reaching for the "Low hanging fruit" first. The other common one which is often talked about is standby power, I'd be interested to know your thoughts on that. Do you leave your TV on standby in order to help heat your lounge?

You pay for heat whether you want it or not and a thermostat controls the cumulative temperature.

You pay for heat in the summer because you have incandescent bulbs and they will produce heat that you don't want, the thermostat will not be able to help you out in this situation. In the summer my heating is off and my CFLs produce little heat, therefore I don’t pay for that heat unnecessarily.

Why is it preferable to use your fossil fuel boiler to generate heat rather than utilise by product heat from an incandescent bulb?

Because it's cheaper and less carbon intensive. The national grid fuel input is comprised of 40% coal, 30% gas, 20% nuclear, or thereabouts, you're not saving any fossil fuel by using electricity, you're using more, hence why the quoted carbon emissions are so much higher.

It may be cheaper to use gas but is cheap what we really want?

The smaller my bills are the better for me, although I agree that higher energy prices can help to reduce our country's energy usage and make energy saving measures much more attractive financially. The cost difference between gas and electricity loosely mirrors their carbon emissions, I certainly can't see why we want to encourage the use of electricity for heating.

As far as I know electricity is the only practical renewable energy source we have so perhaps all things should be electric.

Electricity is not a renewable energy source, it's simply a way of supplying power to remote locations in an easily useable form. A national grid powered by 100% renewable energy is a nice idea, however it’s certainly not going to happen within the life of my gas boiler.

Houses should be adequately lit during the summer without bulbs.

Yes, I hear that works well in the arctic circle however down here in London it still quite definitely gets dark at night in the summer.

I think the key point is to realise that any incremental load increase on the grid will be supplied by fossil fuels, because the nuclear generation has the lowest marginal cost and hence is used at all times of the day and the year, and the renewables are subsidised and taken in preference to other forms of generation. If our actions increase or reduce demand on the grid then the electricity being used or saved has been generated from burning fossil fuels. Hence, I can only see it being a good thing to switch to lower energy usage light bulbs, particularly as they are long lasting so the higher embodied energy in their manufacture is spread over an extended period.

I agree that heat pumps recover the loss of efficiency compared to gas boilers and I'm sure they will increasingly take over from gas and oil boilers in time. There will, hopefully, come a point when, during periods of low demand, the amount of low carbon generation available (nuclear and renewable and fossil fuel power stations with CCS) will exceed demand. Then it would make sense for heat pumps to kick in and heat up water for later use. Also for electric cars to be charged up and for people to do run their dishwashers and washing machines etc

Unusual loads on the grid, for instance kettle on at half time when the match is on T.V. are currently met by pump storage systems which are able to respond immediately to short, sharp, increases in demand.
There are two in N . Wales, both constructed to utilise the surplus power from now defunct nuclear genarators which could not be," turned down" easily .
They could be seen as huge batteries capable of storing electricity generated by renewables.
More of them and more tidal generation would mean less fossil fuel generation.

Posted By: howdytomA 10 watt cfl wil give off 10watts of heat, a 100watt bulb will give of 100watts of heat (a small amount of heat in the cfl will be emitted from the starter/controls) Wheres the misconception ? Touch a 100watt bulb and you'll get burned !

Not quite. A 10W CFL will give off about 9W of heat and 1W of light. A 100W incandescent gives off 98W of heat and about 2W of light. CFLs are currently around 8.8% efficient compared to 220V 100W incandescents at around 1.9%. Regular fluorescents are up to 15% efficient. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy

Paul in Montreal.

Posted By: LizMWhat's wrong with CFLs anway?

Primary problem (common with all fluorescents actually) is that they contain mercury so disposal should be done "properly". Second problem is that, depending on the climate and heating method where they are used, the energy saved by not producing heat as a by-product of light is offset by having to be produced by the heating system. However, at those times when no heating is required, they are definitely better than incandescents since they give more light per watt and less waste heat.

As for energy becoming scarcer, I don't believe this. Convenient energy for transport may become more scarce, but we will never be short of energy - if we'd just spend the money currently wasted on blowing things up with putting massive arrays of PVs into the desert - then we could easily (for about 1/10 of the money spent on invading Iraq) produce all the electricity we currently need.

Paul in Montreal.