Andre Blanchard wrote: > Something just does not feel right about using a very high grade > high cost form of energy like electricity to provide low grade low > temp heat, there has to be a better way.
I agree. Electric heat is appealing to builders because it is CHEAP and EASY for them to install. They don't care what it costs the homeowner to run it. Most homeowners don't care about pollution or energy efficiency, either. All they care about is their monthly heating bill. The "better way" with electricity is a heat pump. If they were in widespread use, it would probably reduce society's total energy consumption and air pollution, regardless of what fuel was used to run it (electric motor, piston engine driven by natural gas, etc.) > I live well out of town and heat solely with wood cut on my own > land, I can not see myself living any other way. Of course, burning wood produces even more pollution than coal! Peter VanDerWal (I think?) wrote: >> Burning coal in every house might be more efficient, but what about >> the pollution? History tells us it was very bad. It's hard to imagine scrubbers being installed on every small home coal-burning furnace, as well. >> my wife doesn't like gas stoves (she gets headaches) Yep; the pollution produced by the exhaust is being dumped right inside your house. Luckily, gas is relative clean. Still, it can cause problems because new houses are being built so tight. -- Lee A. Hart Ring the bells that still can ring 814 8th Ave. N. Forget your perfect offering Sartell, MN 56377 USA There is a crack in everything leeahart_at_earthlink.net That's how the light gets in - Leonard Cohen