Associate
- Joined
- 18 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 2,492
- Location
- Behind you
where does all the electricity go
- Thread starter FlamBango
- Start date
Welcome to world of myths.
Telsa was a genius and made a pioneered a lot of stuff in the dawn of the electrical age, but none of the stuff the internet says about his devices and magical things that seemingly harness energy from no where etc etc are true. If he did discover wireless energy he would have realised it was unusable like it virtually is today.
He just isn't the man people claim.
Technically speaking if you had air conditioning to every room then that would be cheaper via electricity than gas heating. It's just nobody builds houses like that* and the cost to retrofit would make any savings moot.
*If you have an 80's house with warm air (ducted) heating that can actually be converted relatively cheaply, but they aren't that common.
lol, i must have missed this nonsense comment - all that is completely untrue.
And you are arguing against thermodynamics. Good luck to you
Consider the following scenario.
You are in a room being maintained at 21C by a thermostatically controlled electric heater.
You have an "Old" type light-bulb rated at 100 Watts and you are gaming on a rig that consumes 500 watts.
You stop gaming. and switch off the computer
Then you switch off the light.
What happens to the heater? How much energy has been "saved" by stopping gaming and switching off the light...?
Using an electric heater in that scenario to prove your point is a bit disingenuous really. It's more efficient to directly burn a fossil fuel to generate heat than it is to burn a fossil fuel to generate electricity (energy losses) which is then transmitted down hundreds of miles of cable (more losses), which then passes through a transformer to get to a domestic voltage (even more losses) before being converted to heat (finally in the right place) by an electric heater.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 9,131
I agree with the OP. When I was in a shared house I used a 100 watt light in my room in the winter and swapped to a fluorescent in the summer because I didn’t want the heat. In the winter that heat wasn’t waste it was valuable warmth.
I don’t disagree with anyone saying gas heating is more efficient than electric but most of the theoretical savings for low energy assume no value for the heat in the winter and so overstate the benefit. Now LEDs are widespread and cheaper the calcs are probably clearer but for years fluorescents were over promised.
I don’t disagree with anyone saying gas heating is more efficient than electric but most of the theoretical savings for low energy assume no value for the heat in the winter and so overstate the benefit. Now LEDs are widespread and cheaper the calcs are probably clearer but for years fluorescents were over promised.
yup I'd be pretty skeptical for that reason, also as has also been mentioned you don't necessarily have heating on all through the year (personally I don't need it much at all), also in addition to the question of efficiency you've highlighted there there is also the question of efficiently dispersing the heat that is generated - for example most lightbulbs in my flat are recessed into the ceiling, when they get hot rather a lot of heat won't even end up in my flat but will be dispersed upwards
I suspect therefore, given he didn't produce anything when asked, that this idea re: energy saving lightbulbs not really saving energy is just something the other poster has come up with himself rather than anything someone has actually observed/measured
Associate
- Joined
- 24 May 2006
- Posts
- 750
- Location
- North Wales
It doesnt in simple terms. The mains is AC at 50 Hz so the electrons move back and to 50 times a second. The neutral wire is needed so the electrons have somewhere to 'vibrate' to but the electrons overall don't move.
Yes I know I've simplified this down if anyone has a degree in elec eng but it works as a model of what is happening.
FluffySheep
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,195
If its anything like the council buildings I was in today, its the heating.
Boiling hot its on constantly even though its the weekend and theres no one in till monday.
Boiling hot its on constantly even though its the weekend and theres no one in till monday.
Disagree.
Gas is cheaper and more efficient way to heat than using heat producing devices.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
depends on the device tbh. a heat pump powered by solar is probably the cheapest and efficient form of heating however it's usage is extremely niche and initial costs are very high and you are dependent on direct sunlight, or you could forgo solar and just get a heat pump. you can't for instance command a lot of heat it has a small constant output which over time gives it a warming effect. whereas turning your boiler on instantly gives heat to 10-20 radiators which in turn heats your home up pretty quickly in comparison.
however using halogen bulbs to heat your home is probably one of the worst way to do it. the fact that the filament will melt / explode quicker meaning constant replacement and halgoen bulbs aren't cheap when you are constantly replacing them. it's just stupid. it's probably one of the most expensive ways to heat your home when you take into cost of replacement bulbs.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 8 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 4,539
What about if the lightbulb was on a treadmill?
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 2,332
And the small amount of heat is likely to be lost through leakage. You'd have to have a perfectly insulated home for it to warrant any meaningful difference.
It's the same for fossil fuels. Transporting them to the point where you burn it will also incur losses.
I'd say that shipping the gas in a tanker from USA probably incurs more losses than transmitting electricity hundreds of miles down a cable.
And then when the gas does get here there's losses in the pipelines through friction similar to the losses of transmitting electricity through a cable. I dont know how the numbers would compare though - I'm no fluid dynamics expert.
The
The oil etc still has to be transported for electricity in our society to the power station most of the time. Just as it does to Central gas hubs
And to previous post about solar. Renewables are whole different kettle of fish. As too is nuclear.
If you have any 'free' source of power already (ie a personal wind turbine) could obviously make sense to use excess to heat. However it's still probably more value to supply that to grid and get paid for it and then to use gas heating
The oil etc still has to be transported for electricity in our society to the power station most of the time. Just as it does to Central gas hubs
And to previous post about solar. Renewables are whole different kettle of fish. As too is nuclear.
If you have any 'free' source of power already (ie a personal wind turbine) could obviously make sense to use excess to heat. However it's still probably more value to supply that to grid and get paid for it and then to use gas heating