NSM wrote:

"Ken Weitzel" wrote in message
news:qPBMd.264150$8l.114388@pd7tw1no...


Hi...

Do both! Let's save a little of the world's resources
for the next generations. Or at least as much as possible.

As for those tube filaments, back in those good old days
there were no concerns about non-renewable resources, hydro
was virtually free, and we concerned ourselves not a whit
about the environment.


Wouldn't bother now, but we were 100% hydro back then. Might have saved the
earth by cutting down on waste material for the sake of a few gallons of
rain water.

Hi NSM...

Ahh, if you're definition of hydro is electricity then you're
surely right.

But if hydro means "falling water generated" then I beg to
disagree. Vast quantities of electricity was generated by
burning coal. And that meant burning fuel for earth digging
machines to uncover it. Burning fuel for gas powered conveyor
belts to move it. More fuel for trucks to take it to the
rail lines. Then coal burning smoking smelly dirty locomotives
to move it around the country. Then more trucks, and on and on
and on. Bad news.

Now if each of those filaments was - say 5 watts? - and a
dozen tubes minimum per set - then 60 watts per set 24/7.

Imagine if we did that today

Take care.

Ken