Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

cj wrote:

jtaylor wrote:It seems to me that the only truly renewable source (as far as we're aware) is anything based on gravity (i.e. tide/water-falling), or sunlight??

Or poo (human or animal)?

Tsk, what a load of crap...

michael scuffil wrote:1) Incandescent light-bulbs are an extraordinarily inefficient way to heat anything.

Inefficient perhaps but what do you do with an old situation?

When I extended my house I insulated the extension (which consists of my study and the kitchen).

Lighting is essential - I don't want to cook in pitch blackness and I can't type without seeing the keys.
Having done a few calculations I decided that heating was unnecessary because the heat coming out of the lights is more than sufficient to heat the kitchen and study. In fact I underestimated the heat output but the kitchen (which uses a mix of 40w incandescent bulbs and fluorescent tubes) is perhaps under -lit and I have to use extra light in the study.

If I instal the new bulbs I am going to have to:
a) lift the flootrs and instal piping
b) instal radiators
c) possibly instal a replacement c/h boiler (which is in the study).
d) get a morgage to pay for it (but my pension of £3 16s and 10d per annum from Barclays Bank only commences next June)

Brussels? there is a phrase in colloquial English which describes my thoughts.

Those who think incandescent light-bulbs are an efficient form of heating are referred to two readers' letters in the current New Scientist.

michael scuffil wrote:Those who think incandescent light-bulbs are an efficient form of heating are referred to two readers' letters in the current New Scientist.

If, Michael, you were referring to my post, I started off by saying that lighting of one type or another is essential under the circumstances.
I could have gone through the whole spectrum - candles are a fire hazard, inadequate when working with sharp knives and very hot materials and prone to blow out at an inopportune moment. Fluorescents (though I use some) have poor colour rendition and strip vitamin E (?) from the body making them a health hazard.
Hence incandescents were at that time (1987) the lighting of choice. Given that I had to have them and given that they let out heat as well as light then my heating design took their presence into account.

Recent warning about the new bulbs; if one breaks then evacuate because they spew mercury into the atmosphere. (Don't know if it is true but the way the government is backing them then there must be a health hazard!)

sejintenej wrote: c) possibly instal a replacement c/h boiler (which is in the study).

hehe ch boiler. get it? :-p

Also, i have less of an issue with the warming nature of energy use and am more concerned with the depletion of all kinds of natural resources. Granted we'll find ways around these losses, we're humans and thats what we do, but synthesizing or switching to more sustainable alternatives is surely the way forward and should be a subjected to constant, consistent international research.