arild jensen wrote:I for one object to much of the political bumf associated with so called energy savings because I have seen better alternatives used elsewhere in the industrialized world but not in North America. The truth is, most of the politicians are beholden to the heavy campaign contributors that got them elected.
Naturally this results in the politicians leaning towards business that stands to gain from some solutions instead of others.
The discussion concerning heat from old style lightbulbs only touches the tip of the iceberg.
The bank took the wood heated house I was getting set upfor off-grid. We ended up in a mobile lacking any means of heating with wood. Not permitted.
Friends advised us to not connect the gas heater as being too expensive. Instead they recommended electric radiant heat. I was skeptical but proved to myself by using a Kill-a-Watt meter that this was true.
The secret was the RADIANT heat. recently I saw a blog on radiant heat that clearly explained why it worked better than ordinary space heating of any kind.. Sorry but I can't recall the link to website.
Aaron Oakley wrote:I agree that consumers should have the choice to buy/use whatever light source suits their values, and that the government should not be regulating the light bulb supply. Peter, I don't know what energy source you are considering has no future shortage, but surely you are not talking about coal. Coal is a finite resource, albeit a very abundant resource here in the US.
...... there are quite a few coal-fired boilers being converted to natural gas combusters....as I mentioned earlier, there is an 80% cost increase just to capture the CO2, that does not include the cost of sequestration.
arild jensen wrote:
Carbon dioxide is a commercial product when it is compressed into dry ice. Several companies provide compressed carbon dioxide in tanks. Have all these commercial uses of CO2 been abandoned? Supposedly methane has a far greater greenhouse efect than CO2 yet I hear absolutely nothing about methane capture or abatement. Why?
peter dublin wrote:
A guy in Georgia Tech developed in 2008 a CO2 (carbon) collection system for gasolene powered cars
- but he was apparently afterwards refused further research funds, he (or someone representing him) claimed, this was politically motivated,
in the alternative fuel efficiency and electric/hydrogen switching policies sought by federal government
- I can't find my original source for that, but as also seen on online search, nothing seems to have happened afterwards, at least that I could find...
Max Kennedy wrote:
(edited for below answers)
1. The premise that Light Bulb Bans don't save Coal or CO2 emissions is a dubious assertion at best, though studies are referred to they aren't specifically cited so as to determine what exactly is being said in them or if like with Fox news the context of the statements are being badly skewed.
2. Having switched and followed my energy use it has definately made a difference in my energy bills
3. Electric heating bad (and expensive).... Heating with lights is NOT cost effective regardless of the energy source.
arild jensen wrote:Max
being originally from Ontario near lake Simcoe I am quite familiar with the power generation system you live with. Your hydro is not coming mainly from coal fired generators. Much of your power is from hydro-electric dams and the nuclear plants. ( yeah I know, that's another hot button for ecologists but lets save that for another thread) Where I live now our power is 100% hydro-electric so there is zero carbon dioxide release associated with power generation. A tird dam is presently being planned for expansion.
Max Kennedy wrote:Arild, Ontario has many coal plants and it all feeds into the same grid therefor a portion is indeed coal, that's one of the MANY problems with centralized generation.