Depends on the relative price of electric power - needed absolutely for light and cooking and food prep (refrigerator, microwave) and “essentials” (TV, computers, and other heat sources - and heating oil or electric heat or (in places) the heat pump and heat pump surge power.
Also depends on time-of-day for the electric rates and heat pump use, resistance heater use and appliance use.
All electric appliances add heat into the house interior. Incandescent lights add that heat while they provide light.
Absolutely. All electrical devices provide some amount of heat while they do something else. However, we're discussing incandescent light bulbs.
Since incandescent bulbs use approx 4 times as much energy as their more modern brethren, and power is money or vice versa, how is my dollar better spent?
It's a simple equation here when it comes to heat. Incandescent bulbs use 4X the energy, and produce a given amount of heat over and above that of the new mercury filled bulbs. During the cold months, when the furnace is on, which is going to be more economical? The incandescent light bulb, or the mercury bulb, with the remaining 3X diverted towards the furnace? Wouldn't even be close. BTU for BTU, even the oldest ill mainted furnace is going to be much cheaper than a light bulb.
Also, it's only an argument in the first place if you're switching between mercury bulbs in the warm months with incandescent bulbs in the cold months. Anyone who's using incandescents year round is going find that it's a zero sum game. It's going to require extra energy in the Summer months to offset the heat that is produced.
There is a reason to use incandescent bulbs in the house: You prefer the light, and in absolute dollars, we're talking about pennies. I just can't let the bad science that somehow the heat they produce offsets the increased cost stand.
Listing the heat produced by regular bulbs as a benefit is a bit odd. It is a benefit tonight, but not in August.
I prefer the incandescents btw.