Just curious, if I used an oil-burning lamp to make my way around the home, would it be better than turning on energy-efficient bulbs from room to room? The oil burning lamp would use a fossil fuel and emit CO, but the lights in each room would have the energy use of the "big draw" when you first turn them on. And if energy efficients are better, would nuclear power plants have more or less global impact than coal-burning ones?
2007-09-25 08:25:01 · 8 answers · asked by benvanzile 4 in Environment ➔ Green Living
If you are just "going room to room" why not use a LED flashlight with rechargeable batteries? NOt much energy use there. Or put "low glow low wattage" night lights along the floor? If burning lamp oil, you are actually using kerosene which is a fairly high grade fuel and was refined and processed. If using a candle, you are actually using the last little bits left over from all the cracking processes of a barrel of oil. What else could we do with it? So burning it is probably not such a bad thing.
If you are really into either using candles or burning lamp oil you might look into getting a candle heater (see heatstick.com) that actually converts the heat of a candle into dry radiant space heat. Then you would get both light and heat from the candle.
France is running almost 80 per cent of electrical need on nuclear power -- that is huge! Not sure exactly how they are handling the by-products, but they have obviously got the nuclear power plant pretty well dialed in. I can not remember a major nuclear power incident in France, can you?
I think you may be more "earth friendly" using the candle or lamp -- but mainly because it keeps your awareness up there. You are doing something to make (create) the light you need -- you are directly involved. Flicking a switch is so easy it makes us think that everything should be like that, just push a button (or whatever) to get our needs met. The carbon impact of your question is probably a wash, especially since the house you are in already has the wiring. So I would suggest that you do what seems to be the best at the moment. Just don't forget to turn the lights off, and always be cautious of an open flame.
2007-09-27 09:00:28 · answer #1 · answered by emeraldoracle 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hard to say. You're operating the CFLs in their worst mode by doing that so the oil burner might emit less in that situation (although you'd have to find the oil burner first and light it and you'll probably want another source of light to do that with in which case you'd just be better off not worrying too much about it).
A nuclear power plant emits essentially zero CO2 (nuclear is about level with wind in terms of life-cycle CO2 emissions although nuclear has the big advantage of not needing fossil fuelled backup for when the wind doesn't blow so it's one of the cleanest sources we have, probably the cleanest) so it would have a lot less impact than a coal burner (along with the ability to actually replace a coal burner).
2007-09-25 08:43:31 · answer #2 · answered by bestonnet_00 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To answer your first question, although candles/oil lamps are not very efficient, you would be using less energy walking around with a lamp than if you were to turn on the lights in each room you entered. If the lamp were to provide you with sufficient lighting, I suspect this would be a better way to travel around your home, though it would be a pretty small difference.
To answer your second question, nuclear power plants create far less greenhouse gas emissions than coal burning plants, which are one of the biggest contributors to global warming. The only carbon emissions due to nuclear power plants comes from mining and transporting the uranium.
2007-09-25 08:39:54 · answer #3 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Nuclear power plants do not emit CO2 and so do not contribute to global warming. Coal and gas powered power plants are the biggest contributors to GW.
Whether or not your candle contributes depends on the source of the wax---if it were beeswax, that would be a renewable resource; if it's a wax made from petroleum, it's a GW contributor. A candle is not a big effect. GW is caused by a ton of fuel being burned each year for each person on Earth.
2007-09-25 08:38:47 · answer #4 · answered by cosmo 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
the priority with incandescent bulbs is that ninety% of the standard power they devour is to make adequate warmth to make the cord filament glow. this suggests as a mild source they're in basic terms 10% useful. they're even nonetheless tremendous small heaters! with a candle on the different hand the warmth is a byproduct of growing to be the mild and not a require to make the mild, so - so a techniques as mild is going - they're extra useful. the authentic assessment comes into play once you attempt to ascertain how many candles it would take to generate the comparable volume of sunshine over the life expectancy of a bulb. the perfect of the two worlds may be compact florescent bulbs that produce as plenty mild as an incandescent one yet are extra useful because of the fact they do no longer desire each and all the warmth to make the mild. the only disadvantage to them is their mercury content textile, yet they're recyclable so it would be a unfavorable option to throw them away in the trash, yet than that is an answer to a distinctive questions...
2016-10-19 23:05:38 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Indestructible Tactical LED Flashlight - http://FlashLight.uzaev.com/?RObQ
2016-07-11 10:38:00 · answer #6 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How many trees do I have to hug to save the planet?
Its gotta be like 50 or 60
2007-09-25 08:29:02 · answer #7 · answered by Danny K 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
discover the discover button, this has been asked and answered before.
2007-09-25 08:41:08 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋