Slashdot Mirror
California County Bans SmartMeter Installations
kiwimate writes "Marin County in California has passed an ordinance (PDF) banning the installation of smart meters in unincorporated Marin. Among the reasons given are privacy concerns associated with measuring energy usage data moment by moment and the potential for adverse impact on emergency communication systems used by first responders and amateur radio operators. The ordinance also comments that 'the SmartMeters program ... could well actually increase total electricity consumption and therefore the carbon footprint,' citing 'some engineers and energy conservation experts.'"
The ordinance also mentions "significant health questions" raised about "increased electromagnetic frequently radiation (EMF) emitted by the wireless technology in SmartMeters."
One. Advertised: if the utility company is having trouble delivering the demanded power, they can reduce the voltage a little bit and buy/generate a little bit less (expensive) peak power. Your lights will burn a little less brightly, but you probably won't notice.Not advertised: if the utility company is having trouble making money or needs a place to sink their spinning reserves during off-peak demand, they can use SG to raise the delivered voltage to end customers. Your lights will burn a little brighter, but you probably won't notice. It will also cost you a little bit more. Too bad.
Two. Advertised: through price signals and load shedding, the utility can reduce the peak-to-trough difference in electricity demand, lowering the cost of delivering electric power and passing the savings on to you. Not advertised: the utility can replace fast-response generators like natural gas with slower response generators like coal, because they don't need as much fast response generation capacity to deal with their now smaller peaks. Of course, coal has a bigger carbon footprint than gas. Too bad.
Actually there are generally not many low-skilled jobs out there.. they slowly dissappear.
There was a research project in the 90's called "The midwest Job Gap". It's basic conclusion was there were 2-4 low-skill workers (for various reasons, these people aren't going to learn their way up to high skill jobs) for every 1 low skill job.
Here's an old reference to it: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-4404804.html
The premise that there is enough work to go around for low skill workers is generally false.
Seeing jobs for people as a "wasteful use of human resources" is one of the symptoms of why the rise of transnational corporations is destroying so many societies. Why is the corporate profit motive never questioned, but the motive to provide for one's family and oneself is discounted?
What do you say we don't start thinking in those terms until we've gotten to the point where everyone has sufficient food, shelter, clothing and education?
Why not? If a company is going to profit from operating within a society, why shouldn't it be expected to support that society? If a company registers a patent in the US, then places it in a subsidiary in Holland, then a subsidiary in Ireland, and then back to Holland, finally licensing it back to itself to the US subsidiary in order to avoid paying taxes in the country that it sells the product, why shouldn't it be "forced" to contribute to the well-being of the people who comprise that market?
I think we underestimate the danger of believing that profit without responsibility is OK. More than thirty percent of the wealth of the bottom 75% of Americans just evaporated from 2000 to 2008 during a time when the largest corporations profits grew. Can you figure out where that trend heads?
You are welcome on my lawn.