[Milsurplus] Re: Frying pan to fire.. was Hot meters

[Peter Gottlieb]

Man, you are really paranoid.  Look for some remarkably efficient hybrid 
refrigerant systems to be commercialized soon.



Patrick Jankowiak wrote:
> The great anti-air conditioning conspiracy
> 
> The idea below, where the less efficient refrigerating gasses are now 
> forced to be used, is a plot by the Europeans and other Kyoto signing 
> partners to eventually demonize, quota-ize, and diminish air 
> conditioning use globally, by making it as costly to the environment as 
> possible. Expect even worse refrigerants in the future, until the 
> situation is so bad that consumer-application mechanical refrigeration 
> is less efficient than thermoelectric. Then we'll migrate to that 
> technology.
> 
> Already the European company I work for circulates memos to the USA 
> offices for distribution to all employees suggesting that we all suffer 
> ill effects due to 'unhealthy' home thermostat settings below 78 degrees 
> in the summer. Of course in the winter they exhort us to set it at 66.. 
> Already in the office, the summertime  air conditioning has been cut 
> back. My work surfaces are at 76 degrees! I use a fan to stay cool. The 
> foreign worker across the aisle complained about the noise of the fan. I 
> told him that either Facilities could set the temperature to 74 or 
> lower, or we could go to HR and discuss it, or he could ignore the fan. 
> So far, the fan's been ingored.
> 
> Just wait, the U.N. 'comfort police' will be showing up someday, because 
> your all-electronic-internet-enabled house of the future narcs on you 
> for running the air conditioning at 72 during an August night.
> 
> "Sir, you are under arrest for heat avoidance"
> 
> 
> 
> ========
> Gordon White wrote:
> 
> 
>  >>  Incidentally, have you seen that the HCH's that replaced Freon are 
> now an
>  >> environmental no-no? Worse than Freon.
> 
> 
> I've been told that the Freon replacements have a lower thermodynamic 
> efficiency
> than R-12 or  R-22, and, as a result, require more power to produce the 
> same
> number of BTU/Hr. This means more greenhouse gasses from the power 
> plants (non
> nukes). Progress ??  I wonder.
> 
> -John
> ______________________________________________________________
> Milsurplus mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
> 
>