Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : SLS Industries (SLSI) Info (Hold the explosions, please) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sandstuff who wrote (8)	8/14/1998 8:22:00 AM
From: crj_	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37

Convincing The "Convincing" of the contract manufacturer was meant to imply that either they did have the money, which was being called into question, or they were able to make a deal based on the potential of the product/company (e.g. small percentage of future sales). As far as using the ballasts, utilities will PAY THE CUSTOMER to use energy efficient lighting equipment. When we refurbished the space for our business, we got several thousand dollars from the local utility for using energy efficient ballasts. It costs the utility less to reduce demand by encouraging energy efficiency than it does to build a power plant to meet a higher demand. Also, there are companies who are in the business of upgrading lighting for "free" and making a profit by taking the energy savings for the next "N" years. The dimmability doesn't really matter, it just provides additional energy savings. Even without the dimming, the ballasts still are 15%-25% more efficient than mechanical ballasts. They also generate less heat, thus reducing the air-conditioning load. You are in the long run going to SAVE money by using more energy efficient lighting.