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

Reply via email to