Arrow-right Camera

Color Scheme

Subscribe now

Letters for Dec. 29, 2022

Efficiency does not equal emissions

In response to Jim Darby’s letter on Dec. 15, “Economy of using a heat pump,” the writer is conflating appliance “efficiency” with “emissions.” These are not equal comparisons.

Appliance efficiency is a measure of how much of a fuel is used and how much unused fuel is wasted.

Emissions are derived from what is emitted from completely burning one unit of fuel, whether it’s natural gas, oil or wood. Fuel comparisons at eia.gov show that one unit of natural gas emits 117 pounds of CO2 and that coal emits 200 pounds of CO2.

Natural gas, in fact, emits over half the CO2 as burning coal.

Yes, many wood-burning appliances are inefficient. A 75% efficient pellet stove wastes 25% of the wood product. It does not mean that it emits 25% CO2 any more than a 98% efficient natural gas furnace only emits 2% CO2.

Some electric cold climate heat pumps are 400% efficient. How does that indicate emissions? It doesn’t. It does indicate that for every one unit of electricity, you receive four units of heating.

Electric sourcing emissions all depends on the fuel sourcing the electricity. Is it natural gas? Coal? Hydro? Most utilities have a mix now, but that mix will become emissions-free in the coming decades because of state laws requiring this transition.

Natural gas as a building heating fuel must be replaced with cold climate heat pump electric sourcing in the coming decades. It’s the state plan and a good one.

Meghan Anderson

Ellensburg

‘C’ stands for confederacy

In response to the Dec. 14 Washington Policy Center piece decrying the recent Washington state Supreme Court ruling in favor of public unions being able to conduct negotiations privately, I would like to add to the discussion with some further considerations.

The Washington Policy Center writer lists himself as the Center for Government Reform director, which is really a big title for a paid or unpaid shill who writes propaganda for an organization whose only goal is to direct public opinion in a manner that will lead to wealthy people becoming wealthier. The focus of these “conservative” think tanks and other “conservative” writers that The Spokesman-Review loves to fill its pages with is controlling the narrative in Eastern Washington and rural America, that unions are un-American and evil. The public sector union members are our neighbors. Their families live next door, their children attend school here, they shop here, volunteer and vote here. Negotiating a just contract to provide a living wage and fair benefits is really what the WPC is upset about. Unions are used successfully in myriad ways by rational and decent human beings to increase the likelihood of success in achieving security and prosperity.

While there are many unscrupulous members and officers in “conservative” groups like WPC, working together toward a common goal, the correct term for these groups is confederacy. They continue despicable efforts to exploit the labor of others to enrich themselves, always seeking to denigrate and divide working and disenfranchised people.

Ted Cummings

Chattaroy



Letters policy

The Spokesman-Review invites original letters on local topics of public interest. Your letter must adhere to the following rules:

  • No more than 250 words
  • We reserve the right to reject letters that are not factually correct, racist or are written with malice.
  • We cannot accept more than one letter a month from the same writer.
  • With each letter, include your daytime phone number and street address.
  • The Spokesman-Review retains the nonexclusive right to archive and re-publish any material submitted for publication.

Unfortunately, we don’t have space to publish all letters received, nor are we able to acknowledge their receipt. (Learn more.)

Submit letters using any of the following:

Our online form
Submit your letter here
Mail
Letters to the Editor
The Spokesman-Review
999 W. Riverside Ave.
Spokane, WA 99201
Fax
(509) 459-3815

Read more about how we crafted our Letters to the Editor policy