The Terrifying Switch to DTV (was Re: ISPs, Newsgroups, etc. ...OH MY!!!)

[Leo Mauler]

--- On Mon, 7/7/08, Jon Pruente <jdpruente at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 10:31 AM, David Nicol
> <davidnicol at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 10:21 AM, James Sissel
> <jimsissel at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> >> I heat my house with this new-fangled thing called
> >> Natural Gas.
> >
> > I don't know how I would ever get to sleep in the
> > winter if I wasn't exhausted from shoveling to fill 
> > my coal hopper.  Get off my lawn!
> 
> I work in the construction industry, specifically on
> fireplaces.  It still boggles my mind how people think 
> they can save money by burning their 13% efficient 
> open fireplace all winter (and actually costs them
> more money), rather than pick up a few days of overtime 
> and pay the increase in their heating bill for their 
> 80-90%+ efficient furnace.

Open fireplaces, sure.  Modern wood stoves, however, routinely exceed 70% efficiency and sometimes hit 80% efficiency.

> Burning your fireplace in the winter is a stupid move
> unless the power goes out.  And stay off my lawn too!

Well, burning a fire in your open fireplace in the winter is a stupid move only if you think it will save you money.  If you know darn well you're only doing it for the look of the thing, and are prepared to pay a little extra on the gas bill that month for one night's open fire, its not that stupid.  Its like Christmas lights when you do it for the look and not for some imagined cost savings.

> Anyway, this does tie into the semi-OT DTV thing:
> The govt mandates that no new furnace shall be 
> installed at less than 80% efficient.  Govt 
> regulations mean that the old clunker heaters being 
> babied along in in some poor persons home, that is 
> lucky to be running 50-60% efficient, be replaced 
> with a decent model of furnace, like it or not.  
> It's better in the long run but it's a chunk of 
> change to get a new furnace.

I volunteer at a local non-profit arts center which is forced to shut down all operations during the winter months (the somewhat lucrative charity-giving Holiday months) precisely because of this mandate.  Their furnace is too old to run at all, and would cost about $25,000 to replace.  No Halloween specials, no "Winter Holiday" pageants, no Valentine's Day festivals.  Thats a lot of fundraising opportunities lost, somewhat ironic as the money would have gone to buy a new furnace.

> It's not an apples to apple comparasion to the DTV 
> switch, but it is an example of the govt mandating 
> something that is actually good overall in the big 
> picture.

The difficulty I see here is that sometimes the government puts in a mandate without the alternatives existing for people in outlying areas of the country.  New furnaces replacing old ones is a mandate with a solution available all over the country.  The DTV switchover will essentially chop off broadcast TV to many rural areas (through reducing the broadcast area), areas unconnected to cable TV and underserved by satellite TV.

Mandates about furnaces mean that tax dollars paid by farmers are being used to force farmers to improve their lot in life.  The DTV conversion means that tax dollars paid by farmers are being used to force farmers to give up TV, a government-mandated loss.  Sort-of like "rural de-electrification".