Heating the Outdoors...

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Is this done elsewhere besides the US? Alot of San Francisco bars & restaurants have outdoor heaters, permanently installed, so that the customers can sit outside even when it's cold and foggy.

Certainly, it's propane or something clean like that, but this taming of the outdoors is one of the grossest displays of American waste there is.

(That said, I'd love one of these heaters on my deck.)

― andy --, Thursday, 24 February 2005 19:10 (twenty years ago)

It ain't done in here, that's for sure.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 24 February 2005 19:14 (twenty years ago)

Well, since it's foggy here much of the year, I approve.

― Michael White (Hereward), Thursday, 24 February 2005 19:14 (twenty years ago)

I don't know how wasteful they are exactly -- I think they're usually the kind of heaters that only generate heat at a close distance, i.e. directly heating the patrons rather than blowing heat around. I'm also not sure that they use all that much electricity. It seems more wasteful if the restaurant already has adequate space indoors.

― Hurting (Hurting), Thursday, 24 February 2005 19:15 (twenty years ago)

I don't see how it's grosser than anything else we do. Nice thing about San Franciso is that it never gets *that* cold. It would be foolish to try to heat an outside patio in Toronto in the winter, but then again, that wouldn't work, either. If it's warm enough to make an outdoor heater effective, I say go for it.

― Fish fingers all in a line (kenan), Thursday, 24 February 2005 19:16 (twenty years ago)

They're gas heaters, but there's usually above the patrons. Heat rises, it doesn't fall... so it seems like probably 75% of the heat rises to the sky, while only a little bit warms the patrons.

― andy --, Thursday, 24 February 2005 19:20 (twenty years ago)

but there's usually above the patrons

That's for Fire Code reasons.

― Michael White (Hereward), Thursday, 24 February 2005 20:34 (twenty years ago)

Are you talking about campfires?

― Huk-L, Thursday, 24 February 2005 20:35 (twenty years ago)

I most often see this:

http://img.epinions.com/images/opti/5d/24/pr-Space_Heaters-Arctic_Outdoor_Heater-resized200.jpg

Above the patrons, but with a little hood which may or may not hold some of the eat nearer the ground.

― Fish fingers all in a line (kenan), Thursday, 24 February 2005 20:42 (twenty years ago)

I most often see this:

http://img.epinions.com/images/opti/5d/24/pr-Space_Heaters-Arctic_Outdoor_Heater-resized200.jpg

Above the patrons, but with a little hood which may or may not hold some of the heat nearer the ground.

― Fish fingers all in a line (kenan), Thursday, 24 February 2005 20:42 (twenty years ago)

shit.

― Fish fingers all in a line (kenan), Thursday, 24 February 2005 20:42 (twenty years ago)

I find these fucking offensive.

they are horrendously inefficient, most of the heat goes straight up. It is the utmost in moronic indulgent decadence. Anyone who has one of these should be squeered on top of it as insulation.

― Ed (dali), Thursday, 24 February 2005 20:46 (twenty years ago)

They're pretty efficient (for outdoor heaters, at least) - they're working off of radiant and reflected heat rather than air convection like a blower unit.

I do find it a bit odd that people want to be outside when it's not nice enough to be out (smoking aside), I thought that's what windows were invented for.

― Brian Miller (Brian Miller), Thursday, 24 February 2005 20:58 (twenty years ago)

Radiant hea,t bollocks, most of the heat is convected up.

― Ed (dali), Thursday, 24 February 2005 20:59 (twenty years ago)

I find these fucking offensive.

TS: outdoor heaters vs. child pornography

― Fish fingers all in a line (kenan), Thursday, 24 February 2005 21:08 (twenty years ago)

nyc patio bars have em, esp since the smoking ban

― The Argunaut (sexyDancer), Thursday, 24 February 2005 21:14 (twenty years ago)

http://www.dcsappliances.com/media/products/Built-in-heater.jpg

These are the ones I was chiefly referring to, the fixed installation models. Those stand-alone models seem temporary, and therefore slightly less offensive.

― andy --, Thursday, 24 February 2005 21:17 (twenty years ago)

They're all stand-alone models. You don't need them during the summer, so you have to be able to move them.

― Fish fingers all in a line (kenan), Thursday, 24 February 2005 21:19 (twenty years ago)

Or not turn them on! Do you think they run them during the summer just because they're there?

― Fish fingers all in a line (kenan), Thursday, 24 February 2005 21:24 (twenty years ago)

This whole thread is irritating me. Jesus, people, outdoor heating is not a big deal. Sometimes it's useful. If it wastes energy, it still doesn't waste half as much energy as, say, recycling. Get over it, folks.

― Fish fingers all in a line (kenan), Thursday, 24 February 2005 21:26 (twenty years ago)

it ain't just the US. i've sat under 'em in italy.

― fact checking cuz (fcc), Thursday, 24 February 2005 21:29 (twenty years ago)

I sat underneath one in Sydney that looked like a ceiling fan.

― Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Thursday, 24 February 2005 21:35 (twenty years ago)

Because they're warm.

― Fish fingers all in a line (kenan), Thursday, 24 February 2005 21:44 (twenty years ago)

It they grilled snacks under them, it wouldn't be as wasteful.

― andy --, Thursday, 24 February 2005 21:48 (twenty years ago)

I have no problem with them and certainly don't find them "f*cking offensive", however I do feel like a piece of toast if I'm directly under one for long enough.

Ed, c'mon, "utmost in moronic indulgent decadence"?

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Thursday, 24 February 2005 21:52 (twenty years ago)

I dunno, I can think of a million *more* wasteful/ethically questionable/"fucking offensive" things the average American does on a daily basis.

Like, say, driving a car.

This seems comparitively minor. I've never even noticed them.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 24 February 2005 21:55 (twenty years ago)

They make a lot of sense for businesses in usually warm climates that have lots of outdoor seating (L.A. obviously has many of these). It means they can stay open during cold nights.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Thursday, 24 February 2005 22:00 (twenty years ago)

I don't like them at all, they seem like a silly idea. I guess one or two cold nights a year fair enough but in NZ they're widespread and its usually chilly or breezy. I don't see that because driving a car or recycling is more offensively wasteful (which may or may not be true) I am obliged to keep my mouth shut about these things. I have a wide and multifaceted ranting agenda.

― isadora (isadora), Thursday, 24 February 2005 22:04 (twenty years ago)

That's why we're all here!

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Thursday, 24 February 2005 22:07 (twenty years ago)

I almost agree, with ed.

it is a crazy thing.

― RJG (RJG), Friday, 25 February 2005 00:44 (twenty years ago)

ihttp://sports.tamu.edu/nonsports/trd/images/bonfire.jpg

― mark s (mark s), Friday, 25 February 2005 00:51 (twenty years ago)

in phoenix they have the heaters in the winter and misters in the summer. what about those? are they are ridiculously decadent waste of water and should anyone involved with their production, distribution, sale, and/or use be liquified?

― ()ops (()()ps), Friday, 25 February 2005 00:56 (twenty years ago)

how about SKI PANTS? watatatow they fit in the equation?? SKI PANTS ARE BACK BABY!

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Friday, 25 February 2005 00:57 (twenty years ago)

I love the misters when it's really super duper hot. Nature is meant to be ordered and controlled, people!

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Friday, 25 February 2005 00:57 (twenty years ago)

"are they are ridiculously decadent waste of water and should anyone involved with their production, distribution, sale, and/or use be liquified? "

considering you live in a fucking DESERT yes, by all means. You could probably use the extra water.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 25 February 2005 00:59 (twenty years ago)

yeah the earth if fukked anyway so we might as well be comfortable for as long as possible jeez

― ()ops (()()ps), Friday, 25 February 2005 00:59 (twenty years ago)

pfft what do you think the colorado r is for? rafting? appreciating it's beauty . whatever hippie.

― ()ops (()()ps), Friday, 25 February 2005 01:00 (twenty years ago)

also water rises, like heat

75% of the mist escapes from the atmosphere in great plumes, pushing the earth out of orbit

― mark s (mark s), Friday, 25 February 2005 01:00 (twenty years ago)

"utmost in moronic indulgent decadence"

I think that prize goes to heated towel rails.

― kate/papa november (papa november), Friday, 25 February 2005 01:03 (twenty years ago)

ihttp://volftp.mondadori.com/esterni/ghost/provati/images/blade2.jpg

― mark s (mark s), Friday, 25 February 2005 01:04 (twenty years ago)

bah all my picture jokes are fizzlin :(

― mark s (mark s), Friday, 25 February 2005 01:05 (twenty years ago)

what's the deal with fireplaces? wear a fucking coat indoors you earth killers!

― ()ops (()()ps), Friday, 25 February 2005 01:08 (twenty years ago)

if the weather was controlled, dust storms rich in iron could be artificially created and shot into certain places in the ocean to help fish stocks to recover.

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Friday, 25 February 2005 01:08 (twenty years ago)

oops unless you wear a hat as well the heat will rise thru yr hair

― mark s (mark s), Friday, 25 February 2005 01:10 (twenty years ago)

There should be more (any?) bars with a 44 gallon drum with wood in it outside. Hobo holding fingerless gloves up to fire optional.

― Sasha (sgh), Friday, 25 February 2005 01:50 (twenty years ago)

eleven months pass...

An MP is putting forward a private members bill to ban these. Apparently the rise in their number in the last five years has negated the reduction in CO2 emmissions brought about by the restructuring of Vehicle Excise duty.

Ban them now.

― Ed (dali), Thursday, 16 February 2006 09:03 (nineteen years ago)

I've got one of these chiminea things in my back garden:

http://www.dancingfire.biz/ProductImages/ci_chimenea_s4_main_lr.jpg

It's lovely sitting out there with a glass of wine on nights that are otherwise too chilly (although you do have to sit quite close to it to benefit from the heat).

― C J (C J), Thursday, 16 February 2006 09:13 (nineteen years ago)

That is much more acceptable, at least that is consuming biomass rather than fossil fuels.

― Ed (dali), Thursday, 16 February 2006 09:18 (nineteen years ago)

You've made me feel somewhat guilty for having it though, Ed :(

― C J (C J), Thursday, 16 February 2006 09:26 (nineteen years ago)

Fires are fine. I'd be a hypocryte not to think so. It's the frivalous burning of gas to heat a column of air above a steel umberella that I find wrong.

― Ed (dali), Thursday, 16 February 2006 09:35 (nineteen years ago)

Nowt much wrong with one of those in the grand scheme of things. Where would the human race be without a fire to sit round in the cold? Ah yes, inside in the warm.

― NickB (NickB), Thursday, 16 February 2006 09:37 (nineteen years ago)

chiminea

i do like these, but who the hell decided to call it that? It’s the most annoying word in the world.

― not-goodwin (not-goodwin), Thursday, 16 February 2006 09:45 (nineteen years ago)

I think the Mexicans decided to call them that.

― C J (C J), Thursday, 16 February 2006 09:54 (nineteen years ago)

They are definitely wasteful but it's a continuum of badness I suppose. Worth banning, yes. Des Turner is one of my local MPs also.

― Archel (Archel), Thursday, 16 February 2006 09:58 (nineteen years ago)

Technical point: heat does not rise; hot air does.

I agree with Ed. Certainly, there are things that are more offensive, but just because cars and factories are worse for the environment, that shouldn't let users of outdoor heaters off the hook. The wood-burning ones are much better, not just because of what they burn, but because you get to be hypnotised by a proper flickering fame.

I suspect that nothing but a mclawsuit from a burned punter can stop the march of the heater, though.

― Mädchen (Madchen), Thursday, 16 February 2006 10:04 (nineteen years ago)

An MP is putting forward a private members bill to ban these

Just thinking about this - can't easily find a link to the news story, but didn't the government recently totally backtrack on proposed legislation that would have meant that when people were granted planning permission for building extensions and the like, they would have also had to implement house-scale energy saving measures at the same time? Think that that might have made a whole lot more difference to reducing CO2 emissions than banning outdoor gas heaters.

x-post: Des Turner proposed this? Not angling for a slice of the Brighton Green vote by any chance is he?

― NickB (NickB), Thursday, 16 February 2006 10:06 (nineteen years ago)

Kemp Town was the one Btn constituency where the Greens actually stood a good chance of winning, wasn't it? Thus I think Turner has always tried to be on the green side of red...

― Archel (Archel), Thursday, 16 February 2006 10:09 (nineteen years ago)

Also, they kill:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/4709052.stm

I didn't pay attention to the name of the MP being interviewed. I will try and find out.

― Ed (dali), Thursday, 16 February 2006 10:10 (nineteen years ago)

It is Des Turner.

You're quite right Nick, but tougher building regs and the banning of patio heaters would both help.

― Ed (dali), Thursday, 16 February 2006 10:11 (nineteen years ago)

Er, we know already it's Des Turner?

― Archel (Archel), Thursday, 16 February 2006 10:15 (nineteen years ago)

Sorry I thought Nick was questioning it.

― Ed (dali), Thursday, 16 February 2006 10:22 (nineteen years ago)

I didn't know it was dear old Des.

I guess my contention is that banning stuff like this is just going to seem petty and put a lot of people's backs up, alienating them from green policies. Legislative changes that we should really be pushing for first are things like improved building regs which could achieve far more significant energy savings and might actually have some appeal for climate change ostriches by reducing their fuel bills in the long term. I sympathise with this proposal, but it just seems like tinkering with the edges in a not very productive way.

― NickB (NickB), Thursday, 16 February 2006 10:24 (nineteen years ago)

Besides, what's really the difference between this and gas-fired barbecues or my little camping stove?

― NickB (NickB), Thursday, 16 February 2006 10:27 (nineteen years ago)

At least with a barbecue you are using the heat for something useful. Wth a patio heater your are just heating up cold air at vast expense.

― Ed (dali), Thursday, 16 February 2006 10:36 (nineteen years ago)

Still essentially frivolous though in the UK, but I don't think that's a reason to ban things. Maybe just introduce much better efficiency standards?

― NickB (NickB), Thursday, 16 February 2006 10:58 (nineteen years ago)

There is no way of making a patio heater efficient. The purpose to which they are put is so ridiculous, to talk about efficiency is entirely spurious.

― Ed (dali), Thursday, 16 February 2006 11:02 (nineteen years ago)

If the expense were really so vast, they wouldn't be being used.

― ALAN FROG (Mingus Dew), Thursday, 16 February 2006 11:05 (nineteen years ago)

Environmental, not monetary, is the key expense here.

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 16 February 2006 11:06 (nineteen years ago)

WEAR A SWEATER PEOPLE

― Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 16 February 2006 11:07 (nineteen years ago)

There is no way of making a patio heater efficient.

In which case they'd simply fail the standards.

― NickB (NickB), Thursday, 16 February 2006 11:10 (nineteen years ago)

Environmentally, there are a lot bigger things to get up in arms about instead of relatively frivolous shit like this. Besides, if we're beyond the point of no return already as has been suggested, we're all boned anyways. Enjoy your outdoor heating in the meantime.

― ALAN FROG (Mingus Dew), Thursday, 16 February 2006 11:11 (nineteen years ago)

Every little helps.

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 16 February 2006 11:15 (nineteen years ago)

But we're going to end up with a long list of banned things. What next, hair driers?

― NickB (NickB), Thursday, 16 February 2006 11:20 (nineteen years ago)

too right.

― Ed (dali), Thursday, 16 February 2006 11:28 (nineteen years ago)

Of course the other way of addressing this would be to set tradeable energy quotas for everyone (don't hold yer breath though).

― NickB (NickB), Thursday, 16 February 2006 11:32 (nineteen years ago)

smaaaaaaaaaaack it!!!!!!!!

― Mr Jones (Mr Jones), Thursday, 16 February 2006 11:34 (nineteen years ago)

Actually I think Nick may be right that regulation is the way to go. It's much harder for someone to defend their right to an inefficient appliance than it is to defend their right to have the appliance in the first place. And as Nick said if they fail standards then it would amount to the same result.

― Archel (Archel), Thursday, 16 February 2006 11:35 (nineteen years ago)

tradeable energy quotas

Can someone explain how this is a good thing? My intuitive understanding of CO2 limits works as follows:

Big Western Country is allowed 100 carbon units, but produces 140 units. Small African country is allowed 50 units but only produces 10. Therefore, Big Western Country buys 40 units from Small African country and as a result doesn't have to reduce carbon emmissions. Meanwhile, Small African Country spends new wealth on power stations, cars, flourescent lights ~~and patio heaters~~ and ends up buying spare capacity from Smaller African Neighbour, and the cycle begins again.

How am I wrong, as I clearly am.

― Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 16 February 2006 11:42 (nineteen years ago)

Total global carbon emissions would be set at an agreed, preferably sustainable, level. It wouldn't really matter what went on inside that framework from a net point of view.

― NickB (NickB), Thursday, 16 February 2006 11:47 (nineteen years ago)

But any fule kno that sustainable levels = far far less than are being produced now, so giving ANY country leeway to trade excess allowances is basically an admission that the limits are too high.

― Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 16 February 2006 11:58 (nineteen years ago)

I'd be surprised if Bhutan or Bangladesh or whoever didn't have credits to trade. And setting the right economic mechanisms in place would provide other countries with an incentive to reduce to sustainable levels.

― NickB (NickB), Thursday, 16 February 2006 12:08 (nineteen years ago)

What it does is it gives some countries the incentive to be super efficient. If they can get way under their limti they can make hard cash by selling their spare emissions.

― Ed (dali), Thursday, 16 February 2006 12:09 (nineteen years ago)

...to other countries who remain bloatedly inefficient because they can afford to be.

― Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 16 February 2006 12:36 (nineteen years ago)

The only way this works is if the annnual quotas are reduced year on year.

― Ed (dali), Thursday, 16 February 2006 12:38 (nineteen years ago)

What's wrong with heated towel rails, anyway?

And all these silly regulations are what killed the Roman Empire! (at least according to Boris J) ::ducks::

― She's In Parties (kate), Thursday, 16 February 2006 12:39 (nineteen years ago)

I think it is the electric ones, in addition to central heating radiators that are bad. If you have combined towelrail/radiator that's OK.

― Ed (dali), Thursday, 16 February 2006 12:41 (nineteen years ago)

It is the only radiator in my bathroom.

― She's In Parties (kate), Thursday, 16 February 2006 12:45 (nineteen years ago)

Same here.

― Mädchen (Madchen), Thursday, 16 February 2006 13:04 (nineteen years ago)

My flatmates leave the heating on, windows open and lights on, then leave the flat without emptying the recycling bin :( I, on the other hand, am perfect.

― beanz (beanz), Thursday, 16 February 2006 13:08 (nineteen years ago)

But think of the smokers - huddled outside, their only comfort the warmth of the heater. And now, that will be snatched from them.

― Dave B (daveb), Thursday, 16 February 2006 13:16 (nineteen years ago)

Smokers can huddle around their cigarettes for warmth.

― C J (C J), Thursday, 16 February 2006 13:30 (nineteen years ago)

Exactly, or their lighter.

― Nathalie (stevie nixed), Thursday, 16 February 2006 13:33 (nineteen years ago)

Or they can warm themselves up by coughing a lot.

― C J (C J), Thursday, 16 February 2006 13:37 (nineteen years ago)

Worse than any of these are the gigantic electric fans I once saw blasting away on the fairways at the Dallas Country Club in the middle of the summer heat (over 100 degrees fahrenheit). But that would be for the "Cooling the Outdoors..." thread, I suppose.

― Nemo (JND), Thursday, 16 February 2006 13:37 (nineteen years ago)

That wasn't a gigantic electric fan, that was Ricky Nelson's crashed aeroplane you saw.

― C J (C J), Thursday, 16 February 2006 13:42 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.