10 replies to this topic

[crownindonesia]

It IS ALWAYS ethical to use less heating anytime, anywhere. But ethical or wise to stay cold? That may
be asking too much, don’t you think so, Lucy? Of course, people will always have the final say whether
to save and suffer or spend and be comfortable. But, wait? I thought the world was getting warmer
anyway, so why the need to save? If we used less heating, will that really reduce the carbon dioxide? If
so, then we will have lower temperatures and need more heating. The circle never ends – and neither
does the confusion.

for more info: http://www.guardian....se-less-heating

Moderator edit-spam link removed.

[adeelpearce516]

The carbon dioxide levels seem to have really increased from seeing mango trees in the Philippines bearing fruits almost all-year-round when they used to bear fruit only twice or once or never in a year. Although heating is not a major problem here, we do need it in some parts of December till February. The weak argument Ms. Siegle uses is that using more heat will only push excess heat to the atmosphere. But she doesn’t realize that in heating up the house interior, you also bring down the outside temperature lower in proportion. Energy is conserved and the temperature is somehow maintained. So, losing some heat (and some money) “to the sky” is the price one pays for living a comfortable life without being guilty about it.

[francisquest]

Ms. Siegle argues for saving, if you can and if you can stand it. And she has a point there. Like, a friend turns on the faucet every time he needs to wash his hands or dishes at a rate that is almost laughable – a trickle or as much as he needs to wet or cover his hands or dishes with water and still do the job. It can be done! The parallelism is in the excess heat (or water) we throw away when we use more than what we need. We can also learn to adjust the faucet to a point where we save more compared to using a basin or, for instance, a glass when brushing. But staying cold when you can be warm and comfy is another question. Ethics will have to give way to health and comfort. I’ll save on water and energy some other way. But thanks anyway.

[egoff12]

I

francisquest, on 08 March 2013 - 12:09 AM, said:

Ethics will have to give way to health and comfort. I’ll save on water and energy some other way. But thanks anyway.

I have to agree. It's wonderful that some can manage living without heat (by choice), but pragmatically, trying to encourage such behavior as a norm seems unfeasible, simply because it comes off as a digression. Whereas being more efficient with energy use is perceived as using human ingenuity to achieve something in a better way (which seems more positive), this is more plainly sacrifice (which, short of taking a hero syndrome approach to conservation, is more negative).

[punjabi]

I put solar panel on roof so it would power normal light globe. globe type not matter, energy source matter

[yoder]

I don't see an issue with people having a cold or warm house while trying to save on energy costs.  Being uncomfortable is not dangerous.  Wearing more or less clothing to make up for the temperature of the house is normal and natural.  If visitors or guests complain and do not have the common sense to wear appropriate clothing for the temperature, be polite but do not apologize.  And then just be happy when they leave.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

francisquest, on 08 March 2013 - 12:09 AM, said:

But staying cold when you can be warm and comfy is another question.

It's what we get used to.
I cut my winter thermostat back to 65 when I'm home and 57-60 when I'm away or asleep. I'm more comfortable
with a nightgown type jacket then turning up the heat.

When it's super dry, I turn on the humidifier and can turn the thermostat even lower. Moist air is always hotter.
68 when I'm up and around is just too hot for me.

[saver]

I wished I lived somewhere where that was an option, but my house sadly needs the to be heated, else I'd end up with pneumonia!

[E3 wise]

People need to understand that lack of insulation is the major cause for energy use in our homes.  Either for heating or cooling, lack of insulation means most of the energy use is lost.  Here is a personal example, many years ago when we bought our home here in South Florida I found we had no insulation in our attic, zero.  I was told that with the climate people did not insulate.  That summer we got our first electric bill of over $300.00.  I was livid, we had the entire house insulated to an R 40 level, twice the R19 which is considered the industry minimum.  Our bill dropped to less than $120.00, this was before we had installed our solar.  The insulation cost $800.00 and paid for itself in less than a year.

We now include increased insulation in all our building designs because it is estimated that by insulating our homes and buildings to even an R 30 level could cut energy usage in the United States by as much as 50%, and it is very inexpensive.  I do advocate setting the thermostat to lower settings in winter and higher in summer, but dealing with the root cause is also a great way to help your pocketbook and the environment at the same time.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Having blown-in insulation added into my walls and attic, several years back has saved me thousands of dollars
in heating and cooling.
Less -
natural gas (fracking, tainted water)
and coal (global warming, asthma, rising sea levels, coal ash spills, to name a few)
being burned; and I stay warm and toasty in the winter or cool as a cucumber in the summer.

Our own Ed is fond of saying that's it's better to be efficient with energy than trying to produce more, no
matter how clean that source may be.

[jasonb]

I have to say that yes it is unethical to waste, albeit in not insulating home properly to leaving your lights unnecessarily on (Waste not, want not...). All good salient points having been discussed.

A big thing not looked at in my mind is that most of current electrical generation is by means of Heat Engines (albeit Coal, Oil, Gas, Nuclear, Biogas or petrol). In most of the engines the efficiencies are 30-40%(max), meaning that we get 30 % of the calorific value of the fuel out as electricity and the rest is dumped as heat into the atmosphere. Pretty scary if you think about it, our electrical consumption alone has almost tripled between 1970 and 2010 (and not even looking at cars/industry), meaning that the heat being dumped into atmosphere has multiplied by 6! This 'conundrum' goes hand in hand with the fact that CO2 level has increased and everybody worried only about the 'greenhouse' effect whereby the heat is retained by higher CO2, truth is that this a greenhouse effect with the fire left burning...

PS. do not agree with the comments about 'heat conservation' as made by adeelpearce:
"But she doesn’t realize that in heating up the house interior, you also bring down the outside temperature lower in proportion."
She forgets it takes work to do this (this the electricity you putting in to run your air-conditioning unit), and this work is invariably done by a heat engine (and of course air-conditioning also a type of heat engine that has a higher efficiency yes, but not 100%).