Those particular ones might be a waste of energy, but outdoor heaters like that in general are great for in front of hotels, and in the vestibule for doormen at clubs or valets
post
I don't know about this use case but we have them at transit stations and some major bus stops. They make really bad days bearable and I would say are a necesity. Granted they are on demand so you hit a button and get a few minutes and if no one is around they stay off.
It really depends on the use case. These “shoot” the heat directly onto the surface, instead of heating the air and pushing that air in a direction.
If you’re standing under them for long periods of time, they’ll (generally) be a better option in a cold environment, since it’s directly heating you instead of the air.
But if you’re just walking under them for a moment, or if it is meant to be a kind of “heat boundary”, heated air is going to be the better option.
Considering placement, I'm willing to bet these are intended for heating the walkway, not people. People with snowy shoes standing around waiting for an elevator are making puddles, and without a heater, the puddles will turn to ice right on the one part of the parking garage that nearly everyone will be walking on.
They do suck but CTA stops in Chicago have these and they're better than nothing in the brutal cold. A lifesaver when the train is going to take a while
Sure, but just dress warmly with another layer. The reason they're a waste is because the vast majority of actual heat energy is just lost to the atmosphere.
Brother I don't think you understand how cold Chicago gets. I was wearing 2 sweaters and a coat and it's still fucking cold as balls
Similar deal in Canada. It's bitter hell waiting for a bus or train in -40c even with as many layers on as you can fit. These heaters are absolutely worth the energy use
That's -40f for those south of the border.
No need to thank me for doing all that math. On a serious note, some actually helpful points are:
0c = 32f (probably the most well known one)
10c = 50f
20c = 68f
30c = 86f
40c = 104f
Aside that, I figure I'll be cooking and therefore using a nice enough thermometer to have both scales. Otherwise things have gone terribly, terribly wrong, and I have much larger problems to worry about than conversions.
Freezing, chilly, nice, hot, 104.
This is worth memorizing.
I live in Chicago, I'm well aware. I was here when it was below 0F.
I'm amazed by how poorly many people dress in the winter. "Uhhh, you are dressed for September."
It's only a waste if you are generating that electricity from non-renewables. If the electric is coming from nuclear or renewable AND there is enough electricity where you are then there's basically no harm. Electric heat is 100% efficient since all the energy is consumed for its intended purpose.
I get what you're saying, but I disagree. If you don't use this heater but send the renewable electricity to the grid instead, somewhere non-renewable energy doesn't have to be used. IMO your argument is the same as the reason energy efficiency leads to more energy consumption. I quickly googled it to make sure I'm not talking out of my ass, and it's called Jevon's paradox.
So what your saying is that switching to renewable is pointless because we aren't allowed to use the energy for what we want?
Hm, the efficiency point is a bit moot, you can say the same for coal, oil and gas.
You definitely cannot. All of those materials burn and release carbon. Not 100% of the material goes towards energy. Solar for instance produces electricity with no byproduct (excluding the cost to make the panel). There are no byproducts in the generation stage. We then transport the electric which also produces heat.
Even worse are places that leave their doors open with the AC blasting in the middle of summer. Yah, let's try to cool the atmosphere.
top 41 comments