Letters to the Editor

• A quick follow-up...

  [Read the article: Welcome to the compact fluorescent twilight zone]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  It is interesting to me that the "heat your homes with incandescents" paper was authored by a scientist working for a company called "Atomic Energy LTD." That sounds like a company with a vested interest in having people use more, not less electricity. The study also seems intended to play to nuclear power's strengths: nuclear boosters tend to position their product as low-greenhouse, "too cheap to meter", etc. So why *not* use it to heat -- as well as light -- your house?

  Lots of reasons. First, the "too cheap to meter" thing has never come close to reality. Some may argue that excessive government regulations drive up the price. But I would counter that the regulations are mostly necessary, and are offset by the hidden subsidy of government's insurance against nuclear accidents (private insurers have been unwilling to get into that game at any price).

  Second, using electricity to heat the home is costly, and a comprehensive carbon tax probably wouldn't change that. If you're paying $0.07 per kWH for electricity, and $7.00/decatherm for natural gas (approximately what I'm paying), then every decatherm of natural gas you offset with electricity is going to cost you an extra $11.42 (about 2.6 times more).

  Also, your house's heating system was designed to heat the house, but your light fixture was designed to light the room. That means it's probably up near the ceiling, where most of the heat would get absorbed into the ceiling, heating either your upstairs neighbor or your attic.

  Regardless of how the analysis plays out, I think it's a distraction from a more important point: we need to push towards much more energy-efficient construction.

  Permalink Sunday, March 23, 2008 11:15 AM