Slashdot Mirror

I don't live in CA anymore, and I don't miss the smog check AT ALL.

I live in CA but drive a Prius. I don't miss those stupid smog tests either (wont have to worry till at least 2010).

It's also interesting (I guess this makes #3) to point out that not allowing gay marriage doesn't mean gays can't live together; it means the government doesn't recognize it as a marriage. Which is, by this time, almost a name-only thing.

You won't be allowed to see your same-sex partner in the hospital dying, because you're not "family"...

You're not entitled to any kind of partner benefits (e.g. insurance of any kind) because you're not "family"...

You're forced to live different from other people because you don't obey a certain religious belief. That's the textbook definition of religious discrimination and anyone ought to be able to see that it's a violation of the constitution.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 See section 297.5 . It is, indeed, a name-only thing.

An amendment becomes part of the constitution, yes. But unless it specifically says so, it also does not remove other parts of the constitution. So while for instance the amendment may prohibit issuing marriage license to same-sex couples, it doesn't relieve the state of the requirement elsewhere in the constitution to not grant privileges to some citizens not granted to all (CA Constitution Section 7 paragraph b: "A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.").

You are wrong. According to the California Family Code http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5, you do get to visit your same-sex partner in the Hospital. Let me quote for those who are too lazy to read it themselves:

297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.

Why do pro-Gay people want to lie about this... perhaps it's because, regardless of Prop 8, that they do have all the legal rights in California but that isn't good enough---they want to force people to change how they think about homosexuality?

In California, they have warning labels on every public building, and a lot of private ones (ie. corporations).
"Warning: Chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm may be present."

http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/p65faq.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_65_(1986)

When asked, no one knows why. If you don't know WHAT is hazardous, does it matter?

Personally, I think it is the flourescent lights. Mercury is considered by some to be a hazardous material.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazardous_material
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(element)

here you go:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2008publications/CEC-400-2008-028/CEC-400-2008-028-SD.PDF

There is the actual information put out by the CEC.

LCD should be more efficient, but in some cases they are not.

by the CEC:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2008publications/CEC-400-2008-028/CEC-400-2008-028-SD.PDF

that's not to mention the recycling fee that was introduced in 2003 (and revised in 2009!). The first year (and a half) of savings would go to this fee, which would most likely be $25.

I figure if it works for the Highway Patrol, it can work for the RIAA. Their business model is to harass the states consumers (citizens) to achieve the kind of behavior that they want. Which is exactly what the RIAA gets though MediaSentry or any other company they hire to do their dirty work. The reality is that their direct activity stops maybe very very few violators a year per capita; but the fear they create due to the fallout of getting caught does 100 or 1000 fold. The CHP costs California $1.9 billion annually, which funds 11,195 positions, which is 1 trooper for every 3000 or so citizens. (2007 est 36,553,215) so your chances of getting caught are rather slim, but the risk (fines, harassment, taking off work for court) is enough to detur some from speeding, and most from recklessly speeding (20+ over the limit).

That being said, the only two differences I see, is that consumers have a little bit (though not much more than) citizens of a government; and secondly, that public opinion could really harm the recording industry... well, the CHP has guns and everyone already hates them.

That being said, since they've instilled enough fear, and no amount of press is going to convince the technical illiterate that they don't still have that one guy doing his computer voodoo that causes them to figure out who you are and take your house away; there really is no purpose in keeping them around. If the state didn't have the ability to demand taxation, I can sure bet they'd try to find a way to instill the maximum amount of fear for the customer for the least amount of postions they could.

untrue. There are no requirements to retrofit small engines that predate the small engine emissions requirements.

EPA, which hasn't taken full effect yet:
http://www.epa.gov/OMS/equip-ld.htm

California has a longer history of regulation:
http://www.egr.msu.edu/erl/emiss/emiss.htm
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/offroad/sm_en_fs.pdf

clearly there is much room for improvement. i for one want lower emissions from an aesthetic point of view as I occasionally use such equipment and hate breathing the exhaust.

1. Describe the rock cycle and explain that there are sedimentary, igneous and metamorphic rocks that have distinct properties (e.g., color, texture) and are formed in different ways.

There are a myriad of other guidelines, of course, but in all the K-12 Science standards the word "algorithm" doesn't even appear. If not for a book called "Code" I would have had to enter my first CS course without knowledge of what an algorithm was, how decimal numbers were represented in binary and hexadecimal, and a myriad other of the most basic concepts that are useful foundations for functioning in a digital world.

I know that folks are going to point out that I'm talking about state specific guidelines, but these are mostly determined by the federal standards in order to remain in compliance with the No Child Gets Ahead Act. I've provided links for California, Massachusetts, and Kansas curriculum in an attempt to present a cross section of the country--search each for "igneous" and "algorithm" and you'll get the idea.

I'm not saying that the ACM has my complete support on this, simply that standards for evolving disciplines, most notably science, might be well served by inclusion of some more modern concepts.

I don't know what you are talking about. The Government is HUGE into food distribution.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/aboutwic/
http://www.fns.usda.gov/FSP/
http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Lunch/


These are just the federal programs. Every state and local government is huge into food distribution as well.

Heck, here is a link for school faculty/administration from the California Department on Education on what they can do to help increase the governments involvement in food distribution.

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/nu/he/feedmorekids.asp

You can do the math - teens are stupendously bad drivers compared to much of the rest of the population. Fortunately due to the financial component - it's not hard to collect a lot of information on accidents.

Newsflash: New drivers worse than experienced drivers.

I'd be willing to bet on 2 to 1 odds that we're going to have a nationwide HVDC well under construction by the end of Obama's presidency, if not fully functioning by that point. All of the signs point toward it.

1) It was part of his policy platform when campaigning, and came up several times during debates/interviews.
2) When announcing his massive, massive federal jobs program, one of the main things he said it would do was "repower America"
3) He picked Chu as his energy secretary; Chu has long been a major proponent of nationwide HVDC. Here's a random example. Really, what a thrill to have someone like him as energy secretary.

You can do the math - teens are stupendously bad drivers compared to much of the rest of the population. Fortunately due to the financial component - it's not hard to collect a lot of information on accidents.

You think that's convenient, try this sucker out:

http://www.ca.gov/OS_Consumers_inspections.html

In California, where several episodes of To Catch a Predator were filmed, there is potentially a civil claim to be made if it is the case that the film crew divulged private facts about the predator. Additionally, there is also a potential harm in that the show may present the predator in a false light, i.e. they are implying that the predator's intent is different than his actual intent.

The other two torts regarding privacy aren't applicable, since the guy agreed to enter the house of someone else where the crew presumably got the permission of the owners to film. So, it seems that they do not specifically need permission from the people being filmed to air their faces if they're confident that the guy actually did it. Since they work with the cops, it's safe to assume they only show the guilty ones, so those found innocent aren't being misrepresented. This is completely ignoring the entrapment claim that could be made in the criminal courts, since the question asked was do they need express permission.

Relevant laws and cites include an RCFP advisory, and both Cal. Civ. Code  990, 3344 and Cal. Civ. Code  1708.8

And IANAL, nor do I claim any special knowledge of the law, but I'm taking my LSAT on Saturday, for whatever that matters.

I live in this district. Nobody's getting unnecessary perks anymore. We're cut to the bone right now. Maintenance can't buy enough toilet paper and cleansers. They're understaffed so many teachers clean their own classrooms, otherwise they'd be lucky to see a vacuum twice a week. We laid off all the aides and half the secretaries five years ago, so the teachers do all their own copying and filing. The high schools have one IT tech each, and ours is run so ragged that clued teachers (or their spouses) handle anything that doesn't require server access. (The elementary and junior highs share one tech per two or three campuses.) Most high school classes exceed 30 students. (The PE sections may have 60. Yes, sixty.) This year, the district completely quit paying for bus transportation for all extra-curriculars.

I'm not fond of our school board. They play games with the calendar because they don't have the balls to stand up to their buddies who will pull their kids out of school (depriving them of state money) before Thanksgiving and in February to go skiing. But financially, I can't see how they could do better than where we are now. Clearly, we can get creative in making up supply budgets. A similar effort would not make up if they had cut the budget for teaching salaries instead.

Is there a lot of money tied up in other, horribly-managed government programs? Absolutely. Sixth largest economy in the world, and California can't fund its schools? It's as big a joke as you think it is. That won't stop until we stop electing clowns to our legislature. These endless crises aren't knocking any sense into people here. They're too laid back with too strong a sense of entitlement. You'll see California go bankrupt before you see any change.

(We *do* pay our damned taxes. The threshold for the 6% state income tax bracket is $26,800 this year. The 9.3% threshold is $47K.)

I still see plenty of folks driving all over California with cell phones up to their ears.

The problem is there is no bite to the law. $20 fine? Who cares. Even at $50 for the second offence, people are still going to ignore it.

It's not even a moving violation or anything of that nature:

California Cell Phone Law Q&A:
Q: What is the fine if Iâ(TM)m convicted?

A: The base fine for the FIRST offense is $20 and $50 for subsequent convictions. With the addition of penalty assessments, the fine can be more than triple the base fine amount.

Q: Will I receive a point on my driver license if Iâ(TM)m convicted for a violation of the wireless telephone law?

A: No. The violation is a reportable offense; however, DMV will not assign a violation point.

Q: Will the conviction appear on my driving record?

A: Yes, but the violation point will not be added.

Pretty minor stuff, at least in the short run. If I was an insurance company and some moron got a ticket for this, I'd drop them or at least make their rates so high they cannot afford to keep coverage.

Actually, they've directly addressed this problem in a new law that comes into effect in 2009.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/about/no_text_law.htm

California actually has a larger economy than the entire nations of Canada or Russia.

Umm... No. Maybe once, but definitely not still true. According to CIA World Factbook (2007) data Russia would be above California. According to a group in California your statement would be true, but they somehow rank China below the chart, leave Russia, India, and Brazil (maybe due to old data, but I think more likely due to bad data). Link to California source I used: http://www.lao.ca.gov/2004/cal_facts/2004_calfacts_econ.htm

Are you suggesting that California Labor Code 2870(a)(1) does not apply to a work of authorship such as a C++ compiler?

Great, it finally looks like we might start catching up to where the Japanese were 40 years ago, and now they have to go and make the jump to MagLev.

Yeah, I'm voting for Prop 1A - been following it since '97 or so (the proposition was originally supposed to appear back in 2000 or so, but they keep pushing it back). Expensive, and I doubt it will get the ridership they are projecting until a lot of additional work has gone into local transit in the destination cities, but I'm hopeful that it will kick-start our state and local governments into looking at options besides "build more roads".

we have a ballot measure this November to borrow $10 billion dollars (and receive matching amounts from fed) to build a bullet train line half a century after the Japanese did it. According to the planners, maglev was rejected because there are no large-scale deployments. Why do we never get to leapfrog technology in the US?

I am surprised that IT workers were not exempt already.

Here is the list of workers who are already exempt from overtime (IT is already on the list): http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ_OvertimeExemptions.htm

The ruling that caused the homeschooling ban was actually vacated almost immediately after issuance. It was overturned on August 8th. The "ban" required any parent who wished to homeschool to be credentialed by the state before they could be considered qualified to fill the mandatory education requirements for all minors. This made the vast majority of homeschool families into truants. Let me reiterate that homeschooling was banned for all people who were not credentialed by the state as teachers for the the grade level of their own children. This means that without a bachelor's degree, homeschooling was banned. There was absolutely no possibility of anyone without a bachelor's being legally able to homeschool their children.

This (WARNING:PDF) is not the vaguely reasonable credentials test, this is bachelor's + teacher specific training. And that's only for elementary school. High school requires approximately 1 year of training per subject. How many people do you know that are credentialed to teach 5 high school subjects? So you can say it's not a ban, just a regulation, but for all intent's and purposes, it was a ban.

Well you should have planted some other kind of trees:

http://www.parks.ca.gov/default.asp?page_id=1151

or if you want something more mundane:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway_Spruce

Those trees store carbon for a few thousand years, not quite as good as your typical coal deposit but enough to weather most human induced idiocy like the carbon credit program you should rather be complaining about.

After all, those plants were there way before you arrived on planet earth and maybe you find the Araucaria araucana you have in your garden in some of those coal deposits or some of those fossils you have lying around in one of those deserts towards the south.

Does that mean those of us in States like California who have payed e-waste fees are owed refunds if they were collected by said companies?

Every time we purchase an "electronic display", or device containing one, we pay a $6-10 fee. Not much per person, but I'm sure it adds up on the companies responsible for this.

Oh please. Who cares who you 'would' vote for?

jcr, for the record, CANNOT VOTE. Why, you ask?

Becuase of his felony sex crime conviction. Same reason he has to inform his neighbors each time he moves.

So take his words with a massive grain of salt. This was a man who pled 'not guilty' despite the DNA evidence against him. I guess ten years in prison haven't quite him the futility of lying.

What does it matter where I live? ... that does not change the fact that passing on the right is illegal.

It matters because in the states that I'm familiar with, passing on the right is not illegal, and as far as I know, it is not illegal in any US state, so I challenge you to cite the law that says that it is.

Some examples: California: basically says that it's legal if there are at least two lanes going in your direction (an in certain other situations too).

Louisiana: pretty much the same.

Missouri: pretty much the same.

Texas: pretty much the same, except you have to be on a one-way street or a divided highway.

In general, passing on the right is legal in the situations where one would normally want to pass on the right, as long as you actually stay on the road, rather than passing on the shoulder or the grass. So where do you live where passing on the right is illegal? Provide a citation to the statute.

I can't find the original PDF from the DOE, but I located one with the information I wanted that talks briefly about an effort to develop small-scale nuclear reactors for "developing regions" (i.e. the 3rd World and the Moon). This is from page 83 (96 of 332 in PDF) of the document.

A key goal of GNEP is to create an international framework that will allow developing countries and other countries without nuclear infrastructure to harness nuclear power while minimizing proliferation concerns. There are two parts to this framework: an international partnership whereby supplier nations would lease nuclear fuel to countries that agree not to pursue enrichment or reprocessing capabilities, and the deployment of nuclear reactors appropriately sized for the electricity grids and industrial needs of smaller, more rural, and less industrialized regions.

[...]

The U.S., the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and Japan comprise the initial set of global fuel supplier partners (DOE 2006a).

The goal of the GNEP small-scale reactor research program is to deploy nuclear reactors of 50-350 MW capacities with simple operations, fully passive safety systems, capabilities for remote monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and long-life fuel loads, possibly not requiring any refueling over the reactorâ(TM)s lifetime.

Just California with the Million Roof Initiative. And California contains about 20% of the U.S. Population. It wouldn't take "decades": more like "a decade".

In all seriousness, there may be interesting tax implications if these datacenters are put outside of US waters.

http://www.resources.ca.gov/ocean/html/chapt_3.html

Exclusive Economic Zone (3 nautical miles to 200 miles offshore): pursuant to a 1983 proclamation by President Reagan (Proclamation No. 5030), the United States now asserts jurisdiction over the living and non-living resources within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

Whether "living and non-living resources" includes a business within the EEZ would remain to be seen, but it seems to me that the jurisdiction already exists to claim so.

Google forgot the part about not being evil some time ago.

Amtrak may not be (but how could they, with the derision with which Congress tends to treat them, and their budgets?), but see, for instance:

http://www.sehsr.org/
http://www.midwesthsr.org/
http://www.thsrtc.com/
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/

This just makes me wonder where California's planned high-speed rail initiative is actually going. Imagine, 2-1/2 hours from SF to LA, but it seems to be a stuck project!

All of the managers that I've worked closely with (on up the chain*) are experts in their field, and are very protective of Google's egalitarian culture.

Then you have not worked with very many managers at Google. Time to take your blinkers off and see some of the shit that actually happens. Yes, some of your favorite managers are involved, mine too. Funny that, huh? Far from isolated.

It's the tip of the iceberg. If you know a Googler, ask them. Google has never been a place to develop a career unless you are a climber, check your technical mojo at the desk. Lately it has gotten crazy. Horror stories are the norm, not the exception.

But all of these comments on the legitimacy of global warming/cooling/climate change all ignore one very simple, inescapable fact: Most "carbon-neutral" energy forms can be generated locally. Windmills use the wind in your area. Solar panels use the sunlight from your roof. This is also true for geothermal, ocean-wave, and bio-fueled energy. All can be generated locally, with local resources.

Au contraire. You are failing to distinguish between utility-scale and non-utility scale generation. Distributed generation, micro grids, etc. are all fine ideas -- but the renewable component simply does not produce the amount of electricity, on a reliable basis, necessary to meet electric demand.

In fact, the major problem with renewables (other than their intermittent nature) is that large-scale wind farms and solar generation facilities are located in the middle of nowhere. Getting that power to load (i.e., users of electricity) is hugely exprensive and a real engineering challenge. Don't forget that our electric system in this country is still relatively primative and was designed to by integrated utilities to serve their own load in carefuly defined geographic areas. The system was not designed to transmit power hundreds of miles across the systems of multiple utilities. It's not as simple as just flipping a switch.

According to the primary wind energy trade association, the top give states in terms of wind capacity are: (1) North Dakota, (2) Texas (predominantly rural west Texas), (3) Kansas, (4) South Dakota, and (5) Montana (followed by such densely populated states as Nebraska, Wyoming, and Oklahoma). Even AWEA states that wind can only be used to provide 20 percent of the electricity we need -- and that ignores the need to have back-up generation on the days the wind does not blow.

Two major initiatives -- one in Texas and one in California -- give some sense of the location problem. The Texas energy regulators "CREZ" program is planning to spend over $6 billion to build upgrades necessary to build new transmisison lines to get wind to market. This is because the wind in Texas is largely located in the western positions of the state, while demand is predominantly to the east. This $6 billion is money that will eventually be paid by Texas consumers in the form of higher electricity prices.

The California problem is similar. California is requesting regulatory permission to spend billion in upgrades to the transmission system to interconnect (i.e., hook up a generator to the transmission system) what they call in California, Locationally Constrained Resources. These include most of the major wind and large-scale solar resources in the state. The California Public Utility Commission has a nice summary of the program. In California, the generators pay the initial costs of interconnection; however, these costs are then socialized to all energy users in California over 5 years. Again, the ultimate cost to California consumers is billions of dollars. Look at the large-scale solar projects scheduled to be built by OptiSolar for PG&E -- they are largely in the middle of nowhere.

Please not that I am NOT arguing that this is a bad investment or that it should not be done. But switching to renewables is going to be a long and economically painful process. People have to understand that no existing renewable resource, or even combination of resources, is reliable enough to supply the enormous amounts of power we consumer every day. Even if we built enough wind and solar *capacity* (i.e., theoretical ability to generate power) to power the entire nation, we would need to maintain as backup enough coal/nuclear/hydropower/natural gas to kic

There's a lot of solar power generation going into Mojave. This project is only one of the ones going in or already running. Right now, there's about half a gigawatt of installed solar capacity at Mojave. Several companies are putting in new plants. Some use solar panels, some use concentrator cells, and some use mirrors to heat oil to make steam.

About 10 GW is needed to cover peak Southern California air conditioning load. That's what to go for, and at peak-hour bulk power prices, it makes money. Solar power and air conditioning load peak at the same time, which works out nicely. (Wind is cheaper but somewhat random. Even averaged over a wide area, you get maybe 80-90% uptime at best, so you need other sources which are "dispatchable", that is, will deliver power when asked. About 15% of capacity can be met from wind wind without a need for extra dispatchable capacity.)

10GW in 10 years is well within reach, and will probably happen from commercial activity. 10GW in 2 years is unlikely, but 10GW in 5 years is probable.

This won't help with base load. California's base load is about 19GW; that's the low level at night. That should be on nuclear power. California has about 4GW of nuclear power now, (two plants, 4 reactors) and that needs to be increased by about a factor of 4 to 5.

Siting nuclear power plants may be a solveable problem. It used to be hard to find sites for prisons, but small towns with declining industry started competing for them, and now Northern California has many prisons, all in rather remote areas. A similar competitive approach might be used to site nuclear plants. All new plants should be in green earthquake zones, toward the eastern edge of the state.

If both of those things get done, most of the rest of California's power will come from existing hydropower sources, with peaking from natural gas. Al Gore's

So, what would it cost to replace California's carbon point sources with 'renewable' (I know it costs energy to make these things) energy? I'll share my math, others can expand:

It says here that California in 2007 used 230,931 of 'non-renewable' energy. It says here that California's peak demand was 52,863 MW when total usage was 265,000 GWH (2002). Adjusting to the current levels, a 14% increase, we get a current peak of 60,264 MW.

So, if these solar plants can produce a combined 800MW, you'd need 75 of these projects to handle peak energy generation. If we factor in 10% for transmission losses, and another 14% increase over the next six years (while they get built) then you're looking at 94 of these projects, which is really two projects, so 188 plants, or by 2020, 214 plants, using 1,338 square miles of desert. That's only 5% of the Mojave Desert, ignoring mountains, ignoring environmentalist lawsuits preventing destruction of desert habitat, not thinking about what happens when Joshua trees want to grow up under solar panels (Monsanto Roundup?).

So, that's 18 plants a year to build. It's probably possible, though what that would cost in rare earth elements, and what would the construction of such project do to the market prices of those rare elements? I don't know, except to think it would be bad.

OK, so how about replacing natural gas, outside of electricity generation? Using the information from here it says that half of the natural gas is consumed for electricity generation, so we can double that part of the number for the total energy budget of electricity and natural gas. That increases the GWH total to 298,962 GWH, or a 29% increase. So, we're up to 276 solar projects.

So, how about converting all the motor vehicles to plug-ins? It says here that CA uses about 24 Billion gallons of transportation fuels a year. This calculator puts that at 3,032,000,000 GW, or if divided by the number of hours in the year, gives 345,881 GWH (TODO: check units?). So, add to our current total and multiply by 2.16 and get 596 solar projects, at 3725 square miles, or about 15% of the Mojave Desert, and 50 of these solar projects a year to get CA largely carbon-neutral by 2020.

Now, this is a bit of a simplification. This is meeting peak demand with current generation. There might be some opportunity for storage, though demand somewhat parallels light availability. What is the quoted efficiency, average (during what time period) or max? This doesn't count wind power as I don't know the rules of thumb for standby generation (I heard recently 90% standby needed to be in production for wind to account for variability and startup time). I'm assuming no new hydro will be built (probably safe). I'm assuming solar won't get more efficient (it will). I'm assuming the installed solar won't lose efficiency over time (it will). I don't know what the proper rule of thumb is for calculating demand based on time-of-day usage. etc. So, it's much complicated, but I wanted to understand what scope people were talking about when they advocate an all-solar solution.

I'm also counting nuclear as 'non-renewable' in this calculation as folks who want all-solar usually are anti-nuclear. If you factor in the existing nuclear generation it gets a bit better. If you wanted to power CA on all-nuclear instead you'd need about 300 reactors covering 22 square miles of land, if they're like the 1.6GW one they proposed in Fresno. Or you could use newer, safer technologies instead and clean up our existing nuclear waste by feeding stuff currently bound for Yucca Mountain into these reactors and

So, what would it cost to replace California's carbon point sources with 'renewable' (I know it costs energy to make these things) energy? I'll share my math, others can expand:

It says here that California in 2007 used 230,931 of 'non-renewable' energy. It says here that California's peak demand was 52,863 MW when total usage was 265,000 GWH (2002). Adjusting to the current levels, a 14% increase, we get a current peak of 60,264 MW.

So, if these solar plants can produce a combined 800MW, you'd need 75 of these projects to handle peak energy generation. If we factor in 10% for transmission losses, and another 14% increase over the next six years (while they get built) then you're looking at 94 of these projects, which is really two projects, so 188 plants, or by 2020, 214 plants, using 1,338 square miles of desert. That's only 5% of the Mojave Desert, ignoring mountains, ignoring environmentalist lawsuits preventing destruction of desert habitat, not thinking about what happens when Joshua trees want to grow up under solar panels (Monsanto Roundup?).

So, that's 18 plants a year to build. It's probably possible, though what that would cost in rare earth elements, and what would the construction of such project do to the market prices of those rare elements? I don't know, except to think it would be bad.

OK, so how about replacing natural gas, outside of electricity generation? Using the information from here it says that half of the natural gas is consumed for electricity generation, so we can double that part of the number for the total energy budget of electricity and natural gas. That increases the GWH total to 298,962 GWH, or a 29% increase. So, we're up to 276 solar projects.

So, how about converting all the motor vehicles to plug-ins? It says here that CA uses about 24 Billion gallons of transportation fuels a year. This calculator puts that at 3,032,000,000 GW, or if divided by the number of hours in the year, gives 345,881 GWH (TODO: check units?). So, add to our current total and multiply by 2.16 and get 596 solar projects, at 3725 square miles, or about 15% of the Mojave Desert, and 50 of these solar projects a year to get CA largely carbon-neutral by 2020.

Now, this is a bit of a simplification. This is meeting peak demand with current generation. There might be some opportunity for storage, though demand somewhat parallels light availability. What is the quoted efficiency, average (during what time period) or max? This doesn't count wind power as I don't know the rules of thumb for standby generation (I heard recently 90% standby needed to be in production for wind to account for variability and startup time). I'm assuming no new hydro will be built (probably safe). I'm assuming solar won't get more efficient (it will). I'm assuming the installed solar won't lose efficiency over time (it will). I don't know what the proper rule of thumb is for calculating demand based on time-of-day usage. etc. So, it's much complicated, but I wanted to understand what scope people were talking about when they advocate an all-solar solution.

I'm also counting nuclear as 'non-renewable' in this calculation as folks who want all-solar usually are anti-nuclear. If you factor in the existing nuclear generation it gets a bit better. If you wanted to power CA on all-nuclear instead you'd need about 300 reactors covering 22 square miles of land, if they're like the 1.6GW one they proposed in Fresno. Or you could use newer, safer technologies instead and clean up our existing nuclear waste by feeding stuff currently bound for Yucca Mountain into these reactors and

So, what would it cost to replace California's carbon point sources with 'renewable' (I know it costs energy to make these things) energy? I'll share my math, others can expand:

It says here that California in 2007 used 230,931 of 'non-renewable' energy. It says here that California's peak demand was 52,863 MW when total usage was 265,000 GWH (2002). Adjusting to the current levels, a 14% increase, we get a current peak of 60,264 MW.

So, if these solar plants can produce a combined 800MW, you'd need 75 of these projects to handle peak energy generation. If we factor in 10% for transmission losses, and another 14% increase over the next six years (while they get built) then you're looking at 94 of these projects, which is really two projects, so 188 plants, or by 2020, 214 plants, using 1,338 square miles of desert. That's only 5% of the Mojave Desert, ignoring mountains, ignoring environmentalist lawsuits preventing destruction of desert habitat, not thinking about what happens when Joshua trees want to grow up under solar panels (Monsanto Roundup?).

So, that's 18 plants a year to build. It's probably possible, though what that would cost in rare earth elements, and what would the construction of such project do to the market prices of those rare elements? I don't know, except to think it would be bad.

OK, so how about replacing natural gas, outside of electricity generation? Using the information from here it says that half of the natural gas is consumed for electricity generation, so we can double that part of the number for the total energy budget of electricity and natural gas. That increases the GWH total to 298,962 GWH, or a 29% increase. So, we're up to 276 solar projects.

So, how about converting all the motor vehicles to plug-ins? It says here that CA uses about 24 Billion gallons of transportation fuels a year. This calculator puts that at 3,032,000,000 GW, or if divided by the number of hours in the year, gives 345,881 GWH (TODO: check units?). So, add to our current total and multiply by 2.16 and get 596 solar projects, at 3725 square miles, or about 15% of the Mojave Desert, and 50 of these solar projects a year to get CA largely carbon-neutral by 2020.

Now, this is a bit of a simplification. This is meeting peak demand with current generation. There might be some opportunity for storage, though demand somewhat parallels light availability. What is the quoted efficiency, average (during what time period) or max? This doesn't count wind power as I don't know the rules of thumb for standby generation (I heard recently 90% standby needed to be in production for wind to account for variability and startup time). I'm assuming no new hydro will be built (probably safe). I'm assuming solar won't get more efficient (it will). I'm assuming the installed solar won't lose efficiency over time (it will). I don't know what the proper rule of thumb is for calculating demand based on time-of-day usage. etc. So, it's much complicated, but I wanted to understand what scope people were talking about when they advocate an all-solar solution.

I'm also counting nuclear as 'non-renewable' in this calculation as folks who want all-solar usually are anti-nuclear. If you factor in the existing nuclear generation it gets a bit better. If you wanted to power CA on all-nuclear instead you'd need about 300 reactors covering 22 square miles of land, if they're like the 1.6GW one they proposed in Fresno. Or you could use newer, safer technologies instead and clean up our existing nuclear waste by feeding stuff currently bound for Yucca Mountain into these reactors and

So, what would it cost to replace California's carbon point sources with 'renewable' (I know it costs energy to make these things) energy? I'll share my math, others can expand:

It says here that California in 2007 used 230,931 of 'non-renewable' energy. It says here that California's peak demand was 52,863 MW when total usage was 265,000 GWH (2002). Adjusting to the current levels, a 14% increase, we get a current peak of 60,264 MW.

So, if these solar plants can produce a combined 800MW, you'd need 75 of these projects to handle peak energy generation. If we factor in 10% for transmission losses, and another 14% increase over the next six years (while they get built) then you're looking at 94 of these projects, which is really two projects, so 188 plants, or by 2020, 214 plants, using 1,338 square miles of desert. That's only 5% of the Mojave Desert, ignoring mountains, ignoring environmentalist lawsuits preventing destruction of desert habitat, not thinking about what happens when Joshua trees want to grow up under solar panels (Monsanto Roundup?).

So, that's 18 plants a year to build. It's probably possible, though what that would cost in rare earth elements, and what would the construction of such project do to the market prices of those rare elements? I don't know, except to think it would be bad.

OK, so how about replacing natural gas, outside of electricity generation? Using the information from here it says that half of the natural gas is consumed for electricity generation, so we can double that part of the number for the total energy budget of electricity and natural gas. That increases the GWH total to 298,962 GWH, or a 29% increase. So, we're up to 276 solar projects.

So, how about converting all the motor vehicles to plug-ins? It says here that CA uses about 24 Billion gallons of transportation fuels a year. This calculator puts that at 3,032,000,000 GW, or if divided by the number of hours in the year, gives 345,881 GWH (TODO: check units?). So, add to our current total and multiply by 2.16 and get 596 solar projects, at 3725 square miles, or about 15% of the Mojave Desert, and 50 of these solar projects a year to get CA largely carbon-neutral by 2020.

Now, this is a bit of a simplification. This is meeting peak demand with current generation. There might be some opportunity for storage, though demand somewhat parallels light availability. What is the quoted efficiency, average (during what time period) or max? This doesn't count wind power as I don't know the rules of thumb for standby generation (I heard recently 90% standby needed to be in production for wind to account for variability and startup time). I'm assuming no new hydro will be built (probably safe). I'm assuming solar won't get more efficient (it will). I'm assuming the installed solar won't lose efficiency over time (it will). I don't know what the proper rule of thumb is for calculating demand based on time-of-day usage. etc. So, it's much complicated, but I wanted to understand what scope people were talking about when they advocate an all-solar solution.

I'm also counting nuclear as 'non-renewable' in this calculation as folks who want all-solar usually are anti-nuclear. If you factor in the existing nuclear generation it gets a bit better. If you wanted to power CA on all-nuclear instead you'd need about 300 reactors covering 22 square miles of land, if they're like the 1.6GW one they proposed in Fresno. Or you could use newer, safer technologies instead and clean up our existing nuclear waste by feeding stuff currently bound for Yucca Mountain into these reactors and

Like this? http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&group=17001-18000&file=17200-17210 BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200-17210 17200. As used in this chapter, unfair competition shall mean and include any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising...

If you think 15K is bad, have a long at what the data processing staff of the Californian public sector were earning. I thought these were monthly salaries and not annual salaries, but then with the Governators demand that all salaries are reduced to minimum wage, these must be annual salaries.

Oh? Why is it California (which everyone associates with "greenies") uses mostly hydro and natural gas? Please count how many coal plants there are. You may have to strain a bit because they're buried by the avalanche of cleaner types of power. Blame your own state's government for putting coal power online.

Stay informed, my friend.

Also bear in mind that, for the IT field, California has additional laws about who's overtime-exempt and who's not based on, among other things, salary and effective hourly rate. Relevant law is California Labor Code section 515.5. As of 2007 the effective hourly rate needed to qualify as overtime-exempt was $49.77/hour. SB 929 changed that effective 1/1/2008 to $36/hour, or not quite $75K/year in salary. Anyone in the IT field not being paid at least that amount is not exempt from overtime in California regardless of other qualifications (the exemption requires that all conditions hold).

IANAL, but it appears that this section means Systems Administrators can be exempt:
(b) The exemption provided in subdivision (a) does not apply to an
employee if any of the following apply:

  (3) The employee is engaged in the operation of computers or in
the manufacture, repair, or maintenance of computer hardware and
related equipment.

The clause is obviously meant to apply to computer manufacturing workers, but it's written so broadly that it would also apply to Systems Administrators, Desktop support positions, Help Desk positions and so on. In fact, I've specifically seen software development positions that say they require desktop support. I thought this was extremely odd, but it now appears that it was a dodge by the employer to get around the new overtime law.

Also bear in mind that, for the IT field, California has additional laws about who's overtime-exempt and who's not based on, among other things, salary and effective hourly rate. Relevant law is California Labor Code section 515.5. As of 2007 the effective hourly rate needed to qualify as overtime-exempt was $49.77/hour. SB 929 changed that effective 1/1/2008 to $36/hour, or not quite $75K/year in salary. Anyone in the IT field not being paid at least that amount is not exempt from overtime in California regardless of other qualifications (the exemption requires that all conditions hold).

IANAL, but it appears that this section means Systems Administrators can be exempt:
(b) The exemption provided in subdivision (a) does not apply to an
employee if any of the following apply:

  (3) The employee is engaged in the operation of computers or in
the manufacture, repair, or maintenance of computer hardware and
related equipment.

The clause is obviously meant to apply to computer manufacturing workers, but it's written so broadly that it would also apply to Systems Administrators, Desktop support positions, Help Desk positions and so on. In fact, I've specifically seen software development positions that say they require desktop support. I thought this was extremely odd, but it now appears that it was a dodge by the employer to get around the new overtime law.

Also bear in mind that, for the IT field, California has additional laws about who's overtime-exempt and who's not based on, among other things, salary and effective hourly rate. Relevant law is California Labor Code section 515.5. As of 2007 the effective hourly rate needed to qualify as overtime-exempt was $49.77/hour. SB 929 changed that effective 1/1/2008 to $36/hour, or not quite $75K/year in salary. Anyone in the IT field not being paid at least that amount is not exempt from overtime in California regardless of other qualifications (the exemption requires that all conditions hold).