First house, about 50+ years ago, insulated, double windows etc. oil
for heating. Oil system operated without electrcity. Oil was then
relatively cheaper and electrical supply then not reliable.

Current house about 39 years, all electric heating. Electricity in
this region now highly reliable, almost 100% hydro generated and now
relatively cheaper. Also electricity considered
ecologically 'friendly' . Very happy with decision back then, to go
all electric. BTW there is no requirement here for AC; every month of
year requires 'some' heating, especially at night when lights tend to
be on.

So been feeling pretty good about our 'non-polluting' energy source
and therefore a presumably small carbon footprint!

Question: But even though we are using a supposedly more ecologically
friendly energy source than burning also polluting fossil fuel (oil,
gas, coal etc.) the heat and other energy generated from the
electrcity that comes into the home does escape into the environment!

So does that 'add'  to global warming? Asking because cold water
running down a river would not seem to add heat to te environment?
Whereas after turning it into heat and allowing it to escape into the
environment does so???????

In summary; cold water running by gravity down rivers hundreds of
miles away drives electrcity generators. That electrcity is brought by
high voltage transmission lines (with some losses) to our homes.

Where most (if not all ) of it is turned into heat in one form or
another. No matter how efficient our lights and appliances and
electric heating and cooking, TVs, computers, house tools etc.

So from an environmental viewpoint is our home acting as heat
generator? It is of course well known that even in the coldest regions
cities are a few degrees warmer because of the energy/heat loss from
its buildings.

Curious: Because cold water running down a river would not seem to be
adding any heat to the environment? Whereas turning its energy into
electrcity and then heat which then escapes from our home might do
so???

Rationale discussion/disagreement anyone?

terry wrote:
> First house, about 50+ years ago, insulated, double windows etc. oil
> for heating. Oil system operated without electrcity. Oil was then
> relatively cheaper and electrical supply then not reliable.
>
> Current house about 39 years, all electric heating. Electricity in
> this region now highly reliable, almost 100% hydro generated and now
> relatively cheaper. Also electricity considered
> ecologically 'friendly' . Very happy with decision back then, to go
> all electric. BTW there is no requirement here for AC; every month of
> year requires 'some' heating, especially at night when lights tend to
> be on.
>
> So been feeling pretty good about our 'non-polluting' energy source
> and therefore a presumably small carbon footprint!
>
> Question: But even though we are using a supposedly more ecologically
> friendly energy source than burning also polluting fossil fuel (oil,
> gas, coal etc.) the heat and other energy generated from the
> electrcity that comes into the home does escape into the environment!
>
> So does that 'add'  to global warming? Asking because cold water
> running down a river would not seem to add heat to te environment?
> Whereas after turning it into heat and allowing it to escape into the
> environment does so???????
>
> In summary; cold water running by gravity down rivers hundreds of
> miles away drives electrcity generators. That electrcity is brought by
> high voltage transmission lines (with some losses) to our homes.
>
> Where most (if not all ) of it is turned into heat in one form or
> another. No matter how efficient our lights and appliances and
> electric heating and cooking, TVs, computers, house tools etc.
>
> So from an environmental viewpoint is our home acting as heat
> generator? It is of course well known that even in the coldest regions
> cities are a few degrees warmer because of the energy/heat loss from
> its buildings.
>
> Curious: Because cold water running down a river would not seem to be
> adding any heat to the environment? Whereas turning its energy into
> electrcity and then heat which then escapes from our home might do
> so???
>
> Rationale discussion/disagreement anyone?

Cold water running downhill puts out just as much heat as that that runs through 
a dam and thereby heats a house. All the energy from gravity speeding up the 
water is released to the environment when the water is slowed down by rapids and 
friction. Most of it probably goes into warming the water, which then warms the 
air.

Any hydropower you use to heat your jouse is power that cannot be sold to 
another region that would use it to replace fossil fuel generated power, so 
conserving is still helpful.

terry wrote:
> First house, about 50+ years ago, insulated, double windows etc. oil
> for heating. Oil system operated without electrcity. Oil was then
> relatively cheaper and electrical supply then not reliable.
> 
> Current house about 39 years, all electric heating. Electricity in
> this region now highly reliable, almost 100% hydro generated and now
> relatively cheaper. Also electricity considered
> ecologically 'friendly' . Very happy with decision back then, to go
> all electric. BTW there is no requirement here for AC; every month of
> year requires 'some' heating, especially at night when lights tend to
> be on.
> 
> So been feeling pretty good about our 'non-polluting' energy source
> and therefore a presumably small carbon footprint!
> 
> Question: But even though we are using a supposedly more ecologically
> friendly energy source than burning also polluting fossil fuel (oil,
> gas, coal etc.) the heat and other energy generated from the
> electrcity that comes into the home does escape into the environment!
> 
> So does that 'add'  to global warming? Asking because cold water
> running down a river would not seem to add heat to te environment?
> Whereas after turning it into heat and allowing it to escape into the
> environment does so???????
> 
> In summary; cold water running by gravity down rivers hundreds of
> miles away drives electrcity generators. That electrcity is brought by
> high voltage transmission lines (with some losses) to our homes.
> 
> Where most (if not all ) of it is turned into heat in one form or
> another. No matter how efficient our lights and appliances and
> electric heating and cooking, TVs, computers, house tools etc.
> 
> So from an environmental viewpoint is our home acting as heat
> generator? It is of course well known that even in the coldest regions
> cities are a few degrees warmer because of the energy/heat loss from
> its buildings.
> 
> Curious: Because cold water running down a river would not seem to be
> adding any heat to the environment? Whereas turning its energy into
> electrcity and then heat which then escapes from our home might do
> so???
> 
> Rationale discussion/disagreement anyone?

Well, the cold water running downstream to warmer climate will soak up 
the heat lost from your house.  I think you're breaking even :o)

terry wrote:
> First house, about 50+ years ago, insulated, double windows etc. oil
> for heating. Oil system operated without electrcity. Oil was then
> relatively cheaper and electrical supply then not reliable.
> 
> Current house about 39 years, all electric heating. Electricity in
> this region now highly reliable, almost 100% hydro generated and now
> relatively cheaper. Also electricity considered
> ecologically 'friendly' . Very happy with decision back then, to go
> all electric. BTW there is no requirement here for AC; every month of
> year requires 'some' heating, especially at night when lights tend to
> be on.
> 
> So been feeling pretty good about our 'non-polluting' energy source
> and therefore a presumably small carbon footprint!
> 
> Question: But even though we are using a supposedly more ecologically
> friendly energy source than burning also polluting fossil fuel (oil,
> gas, coal etc.) the heat and other energy generated from the
> electrcity that comes into the home does escape into the environment!
> 
> So does that 'add'  to global warming? Asking because cold water
> running down a river would not seem to add heat to te environment?
> Whereas after turning it into heat and allowing it to escape into the
> environment does so???????
> 
> In summary; cold water running by gravity down rivers hundreds of
> miles away drives electrcity generators. That electrcity is brought by
> high voltage transmission lines (with some losses) to our homes.
> 
> Where most (if not all ) of it is turned into heat in one form or
> another. No matter how efficient our lights and appliances and
> electric heating and cooking, TVs, computers, house tools etc.
> 
> So from an environmental viewpoint is our home acting as heat
> generator? It is of course well known that even in the coldest regions
> cities are a few degrees warmer because of the energy/heat loss from
> its buildings.
> 
> Curious: Because cold water running down a river would not seem to be
> adding any heat to the environment? Whereas turning its energy into
> electrcity and then heat which then escapes from our home might do
> so???
> 
> Rationale discussion/disagreement anyone?

Darnit! Don't give the Commiecrats any new ideas. You'll get us
all slapped with a latent heat tax or an inertia tax or a caloric
tax or an enthalpy tax or a ...........

TDD

On Nov 27, 1:22=A0pm, "n...@earthlink.net" 
wrote:
> terry wrote:
> > First house, about 50+ years ago, insulated, double windows etc. oil
> > for heating. Oil system operated without electrcity. Oil was then
> > relatively cheaper and electrical supply then not reliable.
>
> > Current house about 39 years, all electric heating. Electricity in
> > this region now highly reliable, almost 100% hydro generated and now
> > relatively cheaper. Also electricity considered
> > ecologically 'friendly' . Very happy with decision back then, to go
> > all electric. BTW there is no requirement here for AC; every month of
> > year requires 'some' heating, especially at night when lights tend to
> > be on.
>
> > So been feeling pretty good about our 'non-polluting' energy source
> > and therefore a presumably small carbon footprint!
>
> > Question: But even though we are using a supposedly more ecologically
> > friendly energy source than burning also polluting fossil fuel (oil,
> > gas, coal etc.) the heat and other energy generated from the
> > electrcity that comes into the home does escape into the environment!
>
> > So does that 'add' =A0to global warming? Asking because cold water
> > running down a river would not seem to add heat to te environment?
> > Whereas after turning it into heat and allowing it to escape into the
> > environment does so???????
>
> > In summary; cold water running by gravity down rivers hundreds of
> > miles away drives electrcity generators. That electrcity is brought by
> > high voltage transmission lines (with some losses) to our homes.
>
> > Where most (if not all ) of it is turned into heat in one form or
> > another. No matter how efficient our lights and appliances and
> > electric heating and cooking, TVs, computers, house tools etc.
>
> > So from an environmental viewpoint is our home acting as heat
> > generator? It is of course well known that even in the coldest regions
> > cities are a few degrees warmer because of the energy/heat loss from
> > its buildings.
>
> > Curious: Because cold water running down a river would not seem to be
> > adding any heat to the environment? Whereas turning its energy into
> > electrcity and then heat which then escapes from our home might do
> > so???
>
> > Rationale discussion/disagreement anyone?
>
> Well, the cold water running downstream to warmer climate will soak up
> the heat lost from your house. =A0I think you're breaking even :o)- Hide =
quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Thta's what trying to figure out! Are we just neutral; just
transferring energy from one place to another or creating additional
heat?

On Nov 27, 1:51=A0pm, The Daring Dufas 
wrote:
> terry wrote:
> > First house, about 50+ years ago, insulated, double windows etc. oil
> > for heating. Oil system operated without electrcity. Oil was then
> > relatively cheaper and electrical supply then not reliable.
>
> > Current house about 39 years, all electric heating. Electricity in
> > this region now highly reliable, almost 100% hydro generated and now
> > relatively cheaper. Also electricity considered
> > ecologically 'friendly' . Very happy with decision back then, to go
> > all electric. BTW there is no requirement here for AC; every month of
> > year requires 'some' heating, especially at night when lights tend to
> > be on.
>
> > So been feeling pretty good about our 'non-polluting' energy source
> > and therefore a presumably small carbon footprint!
>
> > Question: But even though we are using a supposedly more ecologically
> > friendly energy source than burning also polluting fossil fuel (oil,
> > gas, coal etc.) the heat and other energy generated from the
> > electrcity that comes into the home does escape into the environment!
>
> > So does that 'add' =A0to global warming? Asking because cold water
> > running down a river would not seem to add heat to te environment?
> > Whereas after turning it into heat and allowing it to escape into the
> > environment does so???????
>
> > In summary; cold water running by gravity down rivers hundreds of
> > miles away drives electrcity generators. That electrcity is brought by
> > high voltage transmission lines (with some losses) to our homes.
>
> > Where most (if not all ) of it is turned into heat in one form or
> > another. No matter how efficient our lights and appliances and
> > electric heating and cooking, TVs, computers, house tools etc.
>
> > So from an environmental viewpoint is our home acting as heat
> > generator? It is of course well known that even in the coldest regions
> > cities are a few degrees warmer because of the energy/heat loss from
> > its buildings.
>
> > Curious: Because cold water running down a river would not seem to be
> > adding any heat to the environment? Whereas turning its energy into
> > electrcity and then heat which then escapes from our home might do
> > so???
>
> > Rationale discussion/disagreement anyone?
>
> Darnit! Don't give the Commiecrats any new ideas. You'll get us
> all slapped with a latent heat tax or an inertia tax or a caloric
> tax or an enthalpy tax or a ...........
>
> TDD- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Oh, oh another holo-climate denyer. Eh?

It's OK I'll just retire to my basement (50 to 60 degrees all year
round) and use the fat from one seal carcass for heat and light.

And yes we too, are struggling to understand carbon tax credits etc.
None of it seems to do much to actually REDUCE emissions. Anyway we
have planted some 70 trees during the last 35 years which
'sequestrate' (think that's the right word?)  certain amount of carbon
so credit is presently pretty good.

How many trees have you planted and matured?

"terry" <t...@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote in message 
news:d...@p33g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 27, 1:51 pm, The Daring Dufas 
wrote:
> terry wrote:
> > First house, about 50+ years ago, insulated, double windows etc. oil
> > for heating. Oil system operated without electrcity. Oil was then
> > relatively cheaper and electrical supply then not reliable.
>
> > Current house about 39 years, all electric heating. Electricity in
> > this region now highly reliable, almost 100% hydro generated and now
> > relatively cheaper. Also electricity considered
> > ecologically 'friendly' . Very happy with decision back then, to go
> > all electric. BTW there is no requirement here for AC; every month of
> > year requires 'some' heating, especially at night when lights tend to
> > be on.
>
> > So been feeling pretty good about our 'non-polluting' energy source
> > and therefore a presumably small carbon footprint!
>
> > Question: But even though we are using a supposedly more ecologically
> > friendly energy source than burning also polluting fossil fuel (oil,
> > gas, coal etc.) the heat and other energy generated from the
> > electrcity that comes into the home does escape into the environment!
>
> > So does that 'add' to global warming? Asking because cold water
> > running down a river would not seem to add heat to te environment?
> > Whereas after turning it into heat and allowing it to escape into the
> > environment does so???????
>
> > In summary; cold water running by gravity down rivers hundreds of
> > miles away drives electrcity generators. That electrcity is brought by
> > high voltage transmission lines (with some losses) to our homes.
>
> > Where most (if not all ) of it is turned into heat in one form or
> > another. No matter how efficient our lights and appliances and
> > electric heating and cooking, TVs, computers, house tools etc.
>
> > So from an environmental viewpoint is our home acting as heat
> > generator? It is of course well known that even in the coldest regions
> > cities are a few degrees warmer because of the energy/heat loss from
> > its buildings.
>
> > Curious: Because cold water running down a river would not seem to be
> > adding any heat to the environment? Whereas turning its energy into
> > electrcity and then heat which then escapes from our home might do
> > so???
>
> > Rationale discussion/disagreement anyone?
>
> Darnit! Don't give the Commiecrats any new ideas. You'll get us
> all slapped with a latent heat tax or an inertia tax or a caloric
> tax or an enthalpy tax or a ...........

Our bodies give off heat also. That is why they tax us. ww

The Daring Dufas wrote:
> terry wrote:
>> First house, about 50+ years ago, insulated, double windows etc. oil
>> for heating. Oil system operated without electrcity. Oil was then
>> relatively cheaper and electrical supply then not reliable.
>>
>> Current house about 39 years, all electric heating. Electricity in
>> this region now highly reliable, almost 100% hydro generated and now
>> relatively cheaper. Also electricity considered
>> ecologically 'friendly' . Very happy with decision back then, to go
>> all electric. BTW there is no requirement here for AC; every month of
>> year requires 'some' heating, especially at night when lights tend to
>> be on.
>>
>> So been feeling pretty good about our 'non-polluting' energy source
>> and therefore a presumably small carbon footprint!
>>
>> Question: But even though we are using a supposedly more ecologically
>> friendly energy source than burning also polluting fossil fuel (oil,
>> gas, coal etc.) the heat and other energy generated from the
>> electrcity that comes into the home does escape into the environment!
>>
>> So does that 'add'  to global warming? Asking because cold water
>> running down a river would not seem to add heat to te environment?
>> Whereas after turning it into heat and allowing it to escape into the
>> environment does so???????
>>
>> In summary; cold water running by gravity down rivers hundreds of
>> miles away drives electrcity generators. That electrcity is brought by
>> high voltage transmission lines (with some losses) to our homes.
>>
>> Where most (if not all ) of it is turned into heat in one form or
>> another. No matter how efficient our lights and appliances and
>> electric heating and cooking, TVs, computers, house tools etc.
>>
>> So from an environmental viewpoint is our home acting as heat
>> generator? It is of course well known that even in the coldest regions
>> cities are a few degrees warmer because of the energy/heat loss from
>> its buildings.
>>
>> Curious: Because cold water running down a river would not seem to be
>> adding any heat to the environment? Whereas turning its energy into
>> electrcity and then heat which then escapes from our home might do
>> so???
>>
>> Rationale discussion/disagreement anyone?
> 
> Darnit! Don't give the Commiecrats any new ideas. You'll get us
> all slapped with a latent heat tax or an inertia tax or a caloric
> tax or an enthalpy tax or a ...........
> 
> TDD

I think there should be a carbon tax on all consumables...fight obesity 
and help the environment.  Higher tax, depending on customer weight? :o)

terry wrote:
> On Nov 27, 1:22 pm, "n...@earthlink.net" 
> wrote:
>> terry wrote:
>>> First house, about 50+ years ago, insulated, double windows etc. oil
>>> for heating. Oil system operated without electrcity. Oil was then
>>> relatively cheaper and electrical supply then not reliable.
>>> Current house about 39 years, all electric heating. Electricity in
>>> this region now highly reliable, almost 100% hydro generated and now
>>> relatively cheaper. Also electricity considered
>>> ecologically 'friendly' . Very happy with decision back then, to go
>>> all electric. BTW there is no requirement here for AC; every month of
>>> year requires 'some' heating, especially at night when lights tend to
>>> be on.
>>> So been feeling pretty good about our 'non-polluting' energy source
>>> and therefore a presumably small carbon footprint!
>>> Question: But even though we are using a supposedly more ecologically
>>> friendly energy source than burning also polluting fossil fuel (oil,
>>> gas, coal etc.) the heat and other energy generated from the
>>> electrcity that comes into the home does escape into the environment!
>>> So does that 'add'  to global warming? Asking because cold water
>>> running down a river would not seem to add heat to te environment?
>>> Whereas after turning it into heat and allowing it to escape into the
>>> environment does so???????
>>> In summary; cold water running by gravity down rivers hundreds of
>>> miles away drives electrcity generators. That electrcity is brought by
>>> high voltage transmission lines (with some losses) to our homes.
>>> Where most (if not all ) of it is turned into heat in one form or
>>> another. No matter how efficient our lights and appliances and
>>> electric heating and cooking, TVs, computers, house tools etc.
>>> So from an environmental viewpoint is our home acting as heat
>>> generator? It is of course well known that even in the coldest regions
>>> cities are a few degrees warmer because of the energy/heat loss from
>>> its buildings.
>>> Curious: Because cold water running down a river would not seem to be
>>> adding any heat to the environment? Whereas turning its energy into
>>> electrcity and then heat which then escapes from our home might do
>>> so???
>>> Rationale discussion/disagreement anyone?
>> Well, the cold water running downstream to warmer climate will soak up
>> the heat lost from your house.  I think you're breaking even :o)- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> Thta's what trying to figure out! Are we just neutral; just
> transferring energy from one place to another or creating additional
> heat?

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction?  Sounds good 
to me, but I almost flunked physics :o)

On Nov 27, 12:05=A0pm, terry  wrote:
> On Nov 27, 1:51=A0pm, The Daring Dufas 
> wrote:
>
> > Darnit! Don't give the Commiecrats any new ideas. You'll get us
> > all slapped with a latent heat tax or an inertia tax or a caloric
> > tax or an enthalpy tax or a ...........
>
>
> Oh, oh another holo-climate denyer. Eh?
>
> It's OK I'll just retire to my basement (50 to 60 degrees all year
> round) and use the fat from one seal carcass for heat and light.
>
> And yes we too, are struggling to understand carbon tax credits etc.
> None of it seems to do much to actually REDUCE emissions. Anyway we
> have planted some 70 trees during the last 35 years which
> 'sequestrate' (think that's the right word?) =A0certain amount of carbon
> so credit is presently pretty good.

In a 'perfect' world every single person's actions would be tabulated
and accounted for and taxed/rewarded/penalized accordingly.  As it
stands in this 'imperfect' world (which I like just fine), there are a
myriad of areas where the actions of some impact others with no
repercussions.

I've long held that there should be a "feedback gun" that drivers
could use to tag other drivers.  A driver's insurance premiums and
their SPEED LIMIT would be based on that feedback.  If you are a safe
and courteous driver, by all means, you should be able to drive at the
posted speed limit and have reduced insurance rates.  If you are an
idiot cutting people off your rates go up and your maximum driving
speed goes down.

> How many trees have you planted and matured?

He's still working on the maturing part.  ;)

R