Re: ETHANOL OR METHANOL?
- From: "daestrom" <daestrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 18:30:43 -0400
"Mishagam" <noemail@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:4842d49d$0$12946$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Eeyore wrote:You know, I am not homeowner. I am not proficient in installing insulation, through I would like to decrease my fuel bill. I think installing insulation in my house would be great hassle and lead to big expenses, and I am not so sure about results. I also like fresh air, so idea of completely hermetically closed house doesn't look attractive for me.
Mishagam wrote:
I think human progress exists so people can think less about subjects like where
to
get food, how to stay warm, how to travel, how to pay for electricity, not more.
Then you're a simpleton.
And you can stay warm by installing some decent INSULATION in your home. It'll even
REDUCE your fuel bills.
Graham
I had never installed insulation before I moved into this house eight years ago. Yet this 'old dog' learned a 'new trick' in very short order. A little reading, a little trial and error, and I was caulking (sp) joints, stuffing cracks, rolling out insulation blankets and other conservation tasks in no time.
I hadn't soldered copper pipe joints in 35 years, yet I managed to install my own grey-water heat recover heat-exchanger. A whole house ventilator can give you plenty of fresh air in a well sealed home and not waste nearly as much energy as a typical 'leaky' house.
But you're right, renters have a harder battle. Convincing the landload that it's a good investment isn't easy. If they pay for the heat, it's a pretty easy sale. But if you pay for the heat, they really don't care too much for any conservation improvements.
And I don't think that my wish for lower energy prices is sinful. I think it is reasonable.
It isn't 'sinful', but lower energy prices perpetuates the status quo. And the 'status quo' is getting more and more untenable. As long as energy prices are low, no one has a reason to try conservation, and alternative / renewables can't be developed very much because they aren't competitive.
Gasoline prices had to break $3 /gallon before talking about fuel-economy became acceptable to anyone but 'geeks'. Now at $4/gallon, manufacturers and marketing are starting to pay attention. At work, I now know of several people that car-pool. They could have been doing this five years ago, but felt their freedom was worth $1.50/gallon. At $4/gallon, car-pooling is more acceptable to them.
Letting energy prices rise over time means the 'weaning' off of fossil fuels is a bit easier to do. Imagine if instead of $5 / gal gasoline, the spigot just ran dry one day. Then everyone would have a ton of scrap metal in their driveway and no way to get to work. Letting prices rise over time means people start to get more serious about their usage and looking for alternatives.
daestrom
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: ETHANOL OR METHANOL?
- From: Eeyore
- Re: ETHANOL OR METHANOL?
- References:
- Re: ETHANOL OR METHANOL?
- From: Mishagam
- Re: ETHANOL OR METHANOL?
- From: Eeyore
- Re: ETHANOL OR METHANOL?
- From: Mishagam
- Re: ETHANOL OR METHANOL?
- From: Eeyore
- Re: ETHANOL OR METHANOL?
- From: Mishagam
- Re: ETHANOL OR METHANOL?
- Prev by Date: Re: ETHANOL OR METHANOL?
- Next by Date: Re: dimmers on bulbs ...
- Previous by thread: Re: ETHANOL OR METHANOL?
- Next by thread: Re: ETHANOL OR METHANOL?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|