Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think they are bought and paid for, just like any other of our corrupt systems....no, I don't think, I know for a fact.
What was the EPA called years ago? We lived on a lake, and they continually allowed chemical companies, to come in and spill chemicals all over the lake to kill the algie...and it didn't matter how many fish it killed. They took out dead fish in 50 gallon barrels....I called them, they did nothing!
So no one would ever purchase an appliance because it saves them money on electricity in the long run and therefore lowers the overall purchase price? Producers never would have looked into that market right?
Correct. Energy efficient appliances would not exist because they would have cost the company more to make them. Same goes for gas mileage in cars.
Correct. Energy efficient appliances would not exist because they would have cost the company more to make them. Same goes for gas mileage in cars.
LMAO So no one will pay $50 more on an appliance that'll save them $15 a year in electricity? Only if government told them too right? I believe you when you say YOU wouldn't.
Technology and competition in the free market brings the costs down. Unless government gets involved.
Correct. Energy efficient appliances would not exist because they would have cost the company more to make them. Same goes for gas mileage in cars.
Companies are going to weigh the cost and the benefit, efficiency is only one variable in that equation. The consumer also has to make their own decisions based on their own particular circumstances. You could make a car that is 100% survivable in a crash but that is pointless if no one can afford the car.
For recent example if you are going to purchase a hot water heater that is larger than 50 gallons shortly you are going to have no choice but heat pump model. These might 280% efficient becsue the efficiency is based on what standard electric heater uses. The issue with this law is they are ignoring the source of the heat which is the living space. These are ideal in warmer climates where sucking the heat out of the living space is desirable. In colder climates when you are heating your house these will cause you to consumer more energy and cost more to run.
To keep this simple suppose you have regular electric heat as your primary heat. If you put 3000 BTU's of heat into the room the hot water heater is going to consume more than 1000 BTU's of electric energy to put that 3000 BTU's of heat into the water. You'd be better off directly putting the 3000 BTU's into the hot water heater. It doesn't matter what your primary heat is, it will always be more efficient to heat the water directly with that.
Not only are you using more energy and more expense to fuel this it will also cost a lot more to purchase. It's a lose, lose lose situation for the consumer in a colder climate. This is the type of stuff coming out of Washington that needs to stop.
I like the idea of aluminum body becsue it's corrosion resistant which is important here in the Northeast. The cost of repairing it on the other hand is major concern. The other issue is you can only make a pickup truck so light before it becomes a safety issue. If you are towing something it doesn't matter how good your brakes or suspension are if it's pushing you around like a rag doll.
I like the idea of aluminum body becsue it's corrosion resistant which is important here in the Northeast. The cost of repairing it on the other hand is major concern. The other issue is you can only make a pickup truck so light before it becomes a safety issue. If you are towing something it doesn't matter how good your brakes or suspension are if it's pushing you around like a rag doll.
Look to the classical Land Rover. For all their faults (and they were many), the steel frame/aluminum body concept worked great for longevity. Sure, you kinda had to embrace the idea that a dent wasn't a flaw, it was patina. But we're hijacking the thread, I fear.
As currently constituted, yes we would be better off. As it is now, it is the enforcement arm of Barack Obama, constantly over reaching and threatening citizens. Its original mandate may have been fine, But it has evolved into attempting to regulate any and everything, according to its own desires (as told to them by Obama) and is hurting the environment.
Imo.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I believe you when you say YOU wouldn't. 
