Re: New paradigm for home heating automation and control

[Marc F Hult <MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 22:55:46 GMT, nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Houston) wrote
in message  <43ac7669.65743217@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>There have been some big advances in solar recently including "spray on
>solar panels" that work on cloudy days.
>
>     http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1330520/posts
>
>My point, sardonic as it was, is that there is no energy crisis.

That's Khrushchev-era thinking IMO.

>There's ample coal and it's used now for more than 50% of our electricity.
>Even in a state like Texas where the oil industry controls nearly
everything, coal supplies more than 40% of the electricity.

That's Geology 101 IME.

Economics 101 in the 21st century recognizes costs of the enormous and
substantially irreversible environmental consequences of the dependence on
coal.

>It makes more economic sense to develop technology to burn (and mine) coal
>cleanly than it does to continue to depend on oil and gas and the wars that
>is sure to bring. China is also a big coal user with huge reserves.

Duh. My house had gas lights powered by locally produced coal gas many years
before electricity was available. And you don't even have to 'burn' coal to
make its energy available for household use. Coal gas is made by
distillation, not oxidation ("burning")  of coal. (I spend better part of a
decade working on the science of the environmental clean up of old coal-tar
plants and related industry.)

>As for the Hummer driving (there are big tax breaks for buying a Hummer)
>pseudoenvironmentalists doing the oil companies dirty work, the U.S. Court
>of Appeals has already ruled that mountain top removal is OK. I wouldn't
>hold my breath waiting for that to be overturned.

Good thing not everyone is waiting passively, eh? We _will_ prevail.

>Anyway, most of W. VA will
>be flatlands by the time the case reaches final resolution. :(

>    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10194185/

Flippant, ignorant nonsense. (But what does one expect if depend on you
googling up facts from msnbc? ;-)

Legislation to clarify the Clean Water Act to make the filling of stream
with waste explicitly illegal (which IMO is implicit in the 1972
legislation) was introduced three years ago. This would end the ongoing
legal wrangling now 'advancing' from whether the US Army Corps of Engineers
actually did environmental assessments or not (Did Not; Did So! ) to whether
the outrageous assertion made by the USACE in its environmental analysis
that mountaintop removal doesn't have significant environmental consequences
will stand.

" The problem with Usenet
is that so many with nothing to say feel the necessity to say it. ...   "

Ya got that right ;-)

 ... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org