|
That's not my position at all. My position is that so and so says it's this way, so a government automatically jumps on the bandwagon. It's not like there isn't plenty of bad science on either side of the argument. However, from reading through what's here, and elsewhere, I don't see it making much difference in the status quo. If it prevents new plants from being built, then it stops it from getting any worse, but it seems to me that the plants that are in operation are going to be in operation until they are obsolete.
New technologies can be good, such as my new computer, if I ever get it...However, the only study I found that supports the initial article also said we were going to have all the hurricanes. Is this the science we're going to base our conservation efforts on? Most office buildings already use flourescent lights, so the heating/cooling costs aren't going to change, nor is the amount of energy they consume going to change because I switched out the 8 bulbs in my home. 11 if you count my little touch light, but the bulbs in it are too small for flourescent lights, at least the ones I've seen in the stores.
Don't misinterpret what I'm saying, saving something is good, but lets not blow it out of proportion. I don't run lights during the day, so no matter how much heat the bulbs generate, it's not going to affect how much I run my A/C unit. Leaving every light in the house on during the winter won't slow down how much my heater has to work to maintain a 65* comfort zone. How much difference is this really going to make? My dryer is still going to be 220, and will use whatever energy it takes to dry my clothes. Let some logic rule, instead of some 1/2 baked notion that light bulbs will destroy the world.
|