Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
Bureaucrats would have easy access to National labs.The national labs have access to engineers.The engineers know a lot about efficiency.The codes would reflect good engineering practice.Especially thermodynamics.It's impossible to optimize the performance of a home without strict attention to thermodynamics.That's where the savings are.
The federal government already has national building,electrical,and plumbing codes.They're regularly updated anyway.We're just talking about engineering for better efficiency.
I stumble at the notion that individuals know exactly what challenges they face.
I'd outlaw the 'incandescent light bulb of homes',and mandate the 'LED version.'
We'd go from 5% efficiency,to 40% efficiency.That's the quickest way to a tax-free pay raise and improved standard of living.At no cost.Remember,the object is getting to zero-carbon.That doesn't happen with a light bulb and weather strip.
|
You're right that individuals don't know exactly what challenges they face, but the same problem is magnified in a bureaucracy that any inefficiency that is mandated gets multiplied millions of times rather than just once. The private sector can more quickly adapt to changing technologies too. Just look, we've got laws on the books to require side mirrors in vehicles even though manufacturers already have superior solutions to the problem.
By mandating design, you inevitably create situations where the mandated solution is inferior in certain applications than some alternative.
I'd rather have energy consumption limited than have design dictated to me. Some sort of meter that shuts off for the month once a certain threshold was hit, or at least gets severely throttled back. I could spend my limit on a few inefficient things, or lots of efficient ones. Still hate that idea though because it doesn't take into account the individual. Better to just make things cost more if you don't want people using them.