Take a look at this chart. There are 12 house members who received campaign contribution at or above the level of John Barrow. A total of $880K were given to these campaigns. If that $800K, $391K was given to the five campaigns that signed the letters and $489K was given to campaigns that did not sign the letters. Giving campaign contributions does not guarantee public support.
Also take a look at this report. Out of the 51 bill the group had a position on the House voted their way four times. That is an 8% success rate. It does not look like the contributions are making a difference.
You seem to have a problem with unlimited spending. The problem with campaign spending limits is that it becomes a Freedom of Speech issue. By limiting the amount of money that can be spent one is limiting the amount of communication that can be done. This is from a supreme court ruling;
A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in today's mass society requires the expenditure of money.
What is your alternative? It is easy to point out problems and much more difficult to come up with solutions.
This is where similes are not always similar. Whether giving you money directly or someone pay for your classes they are both bribes. In the case of an accountant, you are supposed to make enough income to cover the expense of certification classes. In the case of politicians it has been shown that the cost of running a campaign far outweighs the income of most people. To allow non-billionaires to compete, others (more commonly known as supporters) have been allowed to pay for the campaigns through campaign contributions. This allows anyone who has enough supporters to run for office.
First this is not a study bit an op-ed report. Secondly this report looks back and not ahead;
Every time a customer purchases an EV, say Pacific Gas and Electric representatives, who serve large EV populations, the company conducts a grid service check to ensure the local distribution transformer has enough power to charge it. Out of the 10,000 checks, the company has only had to upgrade 12 local grids
Since every EV creates a check and they have done 10,000 checks that means they have 10,000 EVs in their jurisdiction. Ten thousand vehicles is not much of an additional load. What happens if there are 100,000, 500,000 or if every passenger vehicle was replaces with EVs? All this report shows is the the grid can handle a few EVs it says nothing about handling a lot of EVs.
Republicans signing the letters against Title II reclassification of the internet as a public utility have received, on average, $59,812 from the cable industry, 5 times more than the average for all members of the House, $11,651.
That makes it sound like those Republicans can take that money and spend it any way they want. The Members of the House did not receive the money their campaign funds did. They are campaign contributions and can only be spent on re-election campaigns. While that may seem a fine distinction it is an important one.
No, it is very specifically claiming to solve one part of the much larger complex problem.
Would moving all coal fired plants in the US to Canada solve the problem of US coal fired plane emissions? No it would not. It would just move the problem to Canada. The same thing is true for electric vehicles. It just moves the emissions from the tail pipe to the electricity generation plant but does not solve the problem. By "solving" a problem in one part of the system we are increasing a similar problem in another part if the system. Over all the problem is smaller but there is still work needed to be done to completely solve the problem.
Zero emission vehicles don't release any emissions form the vehicle itself, which is a worthwhile improvement because vehicles tend to be operated where people live.
While the location of pollution is an important factor that is not what people usually associate with the term "zero emission". In most people's mind "zero emission" is a short form for "zero emission of greenhouse gasses and therefore does not promote global warming". When most people drive "zero emission" vehicles they think "My car is not emitting greenhouse gasses so I am not contributing to global warming by driving it". That is not true. While electric vehicles cause less greenhouse gasses to be emitted the amount released is above zero.
If you want to highlight the pollution aspect then how about using the factual term "zero local emission". It states that the vehicle itself does not emit greenhouse gasses but does not hide the fact that it causes emission elsewhere.
On the other hand, we could convert the fossil fuel infrastructure to handle hydrogen instead. One of the issues is space. Additional power lines, substations, etc take a lot of space. We may not be able to accommodate it.
If you try to solve a large, complex, problem in toto, you will likely fail.
By claiming zero emissions you claim to have solved the complex problem when it is far from the truth. By claiming low emissions you admit the fact that work still needs to be done.
Trying to claim a zero emission vehicle isn't zero emission is just trying to confuse issues and holds back progress.
Trying to claim zero emission when there are emissions confuses issues by claiming victory when victory has yet to be won. It also holds back progress. Why spend money on a fight when it is already won. By sweeping the fact that electric vehicles cause emission under the rug you hide the problem. How about the truth by admitting that electric vehicles cause emissions and we can work harder to decrease those emission further.
The fossil fuel based generation plants that send energy to the grid and charge the plane do emit carbon dioxide. Therefore by charging the aircraft carbon dioxide is emitted. Therefore using the plane causes carbon dioxide to be emitted. The plane is not "zero emission" but "lower emission" in another place.
It is getting old, and it proves your intelligence that you keep repeating it.
It keeps getting repeated because people keep misusing the term "zero emission". When you use an absolute term such as "zero emission" it is either true or false. In this case "zero emission" is false. All electricity from the grid, which is where these aircraft will probably be charged from, has some component of fossil fuel based generation. Therefore by using grid power the aircraft is causing emission; just on another location.
How much pollution went into making that gallon of fuel?
No one claimed fossil fuels were zero emission.
What the poster is trying to get at is to use a more accurate term such as "low emission" which is a true statement.
BS. Thank you for the classic "what about the children" argument. We are not talking about a few dollars here and there but more like billions. There is no way to make the roads completely safe and spending billions on an unattainable goal is just waste.
The "get it from sunny areas" is a simplistic solution. Sunny areas may be far away (transmission capacity/loss), The sunny areas may actually be quite cloudy( low capacity), the sunny area may be in peak usage and not have extra to sent other places.
Even waste heat is difficult to use. Sure there is a lot of waste heat around but the trick is to concentrate and transport the heat to where it is needed. Waste heat dissipates quickly.
Do you have any idea how much energy it would take to melt snow off a road during a -20 blizzard? It is not practical on many areas. Unless all the roads are snow and ice free there will still be use for studded tires/chains.
Plugging in a vehicle can be equivalent of adding a small house to the grid. Get enough plugged in electric cars and the local power lines may not be able to handle it.
Right now most R&D is going into the generation of electricity. That is all well and good as we need to replace fossil fuels. The issue with the new technologies are two fold; time and space. Sure one could generate most the the electricity needs of the world using solar cells in the Sahara desert. The problem is that it does not help users in South America or when it is night in the Sahara. Storage and transmission become issues neither of which are easy or cheap to solve. Electric cars add to the issue in that when you plug a car in your are effectively adding the electrical equivalent of a small house to the grid. Add millions of cars and the grid could collapse. By using hydrogen fuel cell some of the load can be removed from the grid.
So suspending the GPS sites in Russia will make GPS less accurate in Russia. It will still be accurate enough to place a bomb so what does the US care?
When you said "pilot's licence" I assumed conventional aircraft. It seems that we are both advocating almost the same thing; drone pilot licenses. Small LOS aircraft cost $100 or less. These kinds of aircraft are small and LOS so will never be a danger to conventional aircraft. Do you really think one needs a certification to fly one? There needs to be a line drawn where a license or certification is not required much in the same way that there are different license requirements for cars and bicycles even though they both us the streets..
Those are all valid reasons to wear masks and laws take that into consideration. There are also exceptions made for holidays such as Halloween and Mardi Gras. The laws are designed to decrease the ability of people to hide their identity. If someone commits a street crime with their identity hidden it is almost impossible to catch them.
It is the cascade effect of breaking a few blades which then take out the rest of them. The initial explosion won't take out the wing but the breakage of most of the turbine blades and subsequent hot flying metal might.
Slashdot Mirror
Take a look at this chart. There are 12 house members who received campaign contribution at or above the level of John Barrow. A total of $880K were given to these campaigns. If that $800K, $391K was given to the five campaigns that signed the letters and $489K was given to campaigns that did not sign the letters. Giving campaign contributions does not guarantee public support.
Also take a look at this report. Out of the 51 bill the group had a position on the House voted their way four times. That is an 8% success rate. It does not look like the contributions are making a difference.
regarding the 28 congressmen who sent a combined total of three letters
Each of the 28 congressmen only signed one letter. The above makes it sound like some congressmen signed more than one letter.
You seem to have a problem with unlimited spending. The problem with campaign spending limits is that it becomes a Freedom of Speech issue. By limiting the amount of money that can be spent one is limiting the amount of communication that can be done. This is from a supreme court ruling;
A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in today's mass society requires the expenditure of money.
What is your alternative? It is easy to point out problems and much more difficult to come up with solutions.
This is where similes are not always similar. Whether giving you money directly or someone pay for your classes they are both bribes. In the case of an accountant, you are supposed to make enough income to cover the expense of certification classes. In the case of politicians it has been shown that the cost of running a campaign far outweighs the income of most people. To allow non-billionaires to compete, others (more commonly known as supporters) have been allowed to pay for the campaigns through campaign contributions. This allows anyone who has enough supporters to run for office.
First this is not a study bit an op-ed report.
Secondly this report looks back and not ahead;
Every time a customer purchases an EV, say Pacific Gas and Electric representatives, who serve large EV populations, the company conducts a grid service check to ensure the local distribution transformer has enough power to charge it. Out of the 10,000 checks, the company has only had to upgrade 12 local grids
Since every EV creates a check and they have done 10,000 checks that means they have 10,000 EVs in their jurisdiction. Ten thousand vehicles is not much of an additional load. What happens if there are 100,000, 500,000 or if every passenger vehicle was replaces with EVs? All this report shows is the the grid can handle a few EVs it says nothing about handling a lot of EVs.
Republicans signing the letters against Title II reclassification of the internet as a public utility have received, on average, $59,812 from the cable industry, 5 times more than the average for all members of the House, $11,651.
That makes it sound like those Republicans can take that money and spend it any way they want. The Members of the House did not receive the money their campaign funds did. They are campaign contributions and can only be spent on re-election campaigns. While that may seem a fine distinction it is an important one.
No, it is very specifically claiming to solve one part of the much larger complex problem.
Would moving all coal fired plants in the US to Canada solve the problem of US coal fired plane emissions? No it would not. It would just move the problem to Canada. The same thing is true for electric vehicles. It just moves the emissions from the tail pipe to the electricity generation plant but does not solve the problem. By "solving" a problem in one part of the system we are increasing a similar problem in another part if the system. Over all the problem is smaller but there is still work needed to be done to completely solve the problem.
Zero emission vehicles don't release any emissions form the vehicle itself, which is a worthwhile improvement because vehicles tend to be operated where people live.
While the location of pollution is an important factor that is not what people usually associate with the term "zero emission". In most people's mind "zero emission" is a short form for "zero emission of greenhouse gasses and therefore does not promote global warming". When most people drive "zero emission" vehicles they think "My car is not emitting greenhouse gasses so I am not contributing to global warming by driving it". That is not true. While electric vehicles cause less greenhouse gasses to be emitted the amount released is above zero.
If you want to highlight the pollution aspect then how about using the factual term "zero local emission". It states that the vehicle itself does not emit greenhouse gasses but does not hide the fact that it causes emission elsewhere.
According to this about 10% of electricity in France is produced from fossil fuels. So even in France it is not zero emission.
On the other hand, we could convert the fossil fuel infrastructure to handle hydrogen instead. One of the issues is space. Additional power lines, substations, etc take a lot of space. We may not be able to accommodate it.
If you try to solve a large, complex, problem in toto, you will likely fail.
By claiming zero emissions you claim to have solved the complex problem when it is far from the truth. By claiming low emissions you admit the fact that work still needs to be done.
Trying to claim a zero emission vehicle isn't zero emission is just trying to confuse issues and holds back progress.
Trying to claim zero emission when there are emissions confuses issues by claiming victory when victory has yet to be won. It also holds back progress. Why spend money on a fight when it is already won. By sweeping the fact that electric vehicles cause emission under the rug you hide the problem. How about the truth by admitting that electric vehicles cause emissions and we can work harder to decrease those emission further.
The fossil fuel based generation plants that send energy to the grid and charge the plane do emit carbon dioxide. Therefore by charging the aircraft carbon dioxide is emitted. Therefore using the plane causes carbon dioxide to be emitted. The plane is not "zero emission" but "lower emission" in another place.
It is getting old, and it proves your intelligence that you keep repeating it.
It keeps getting repeated because people keep misusing the term "zero emission". When you use an absolute term such as "zero emission" it is either true or false. In this case "zero emission" is false. All electricity from the grid, which is where these aircraft will probably be charged from, has some component of fossil fuel based generation. Therefore by using grid power the aircraft is causing emission; just on another location.
How much pollution went into making that gallon of fuel?
No one claimed fossil fuels were zero emission.
What the poster is trying to get at is to use a more accurate term such as "low emission" which is a true statement.
BS. Thank you for the classic "what about the children" argument. We are not talking about a few dollars here and there but more like billions. There is no way to make the roads completely safe and spending billions on an unattainable goal is just waste.
The "get it from sunny areas" is a simplistic solution. Sunny areas may be far away (transmission capacity/loss), The sunny areas may actually be quite cloudy( low capacity), the sunny area may be in peak usage and not have extra to sent other places.
Even waste heat is difficult to use. Sure there is a lot of waste heat around but the trick is to concentrate and transport the heat to where it is needed. Waste heat dissipates quickly.
Do you have any idea how much energy it would take to melt snow off a road during a -20 blizzard? It is not practical on many areas. Unless all the roads are snow and ice free there will still be use for studded tires/chains.
Plugging in a vehicle can be equivalent of adding a small house to the grid. Get enough plugged in electric cars and the local power lines may not be able to handle it.
Right now most R&D is going into the generation of electricity. That is all well and good as we need to replace fossil fuels. The issue with the new technologies are two fold; time and space. Sure one could generate most the the electricity needs of the world using solar cells in the Sahara desert. The problem is that it does not help users in South America or when it is night in the Sahara. Storage and transmission become issues neither of which are easy or cheap to solve. Electric cars add to the issue in that when you plug a car in your are effectively adding the electrical equivalent of a small house to the grid. Add millions of cars and the grid could collapse. By using hydrogen fuel cell some of the load can be removed from the grid.
So suspending the GPS sites in Russia will make GPS less accurate in Russia. It will still be accurate enough to place a bomb so what does the US care?
Notice the lack of slash when I wrote it? Good try though.
When you said "pilot's licence" I assumed conventional aircraft. It seems that we are both advocating almost the same thing; drone pilot licenses. Small LOS aircraft cost $100 or less. These kinds of aircraft are small and LOS so will never be a danger to conventional aircraft. Do you really think one needs a certification to fly one? There needs to be a line drawn where a license or certification is not required much in the same way that there are different license requirements for cars and bicycles even though they both us the streets..
Those are all valid reasons to wear masks and laws take that into consideration. There are also exceptions made for holidays such as Halloween and Mardi Gras. The laws are designed to decrease the ability of people to hide their identity. If someone commits a street crime with their identity hidden it is almost impossible to catch them.
wearing a hoodie at your friend's house
A hoodie and a hood are different things.
It is the cascade effect of breaking a few blades which then take out the rest of them. The initial explosion won't take out the wing but the breakage of most of the turbine blades and subsequent hot flying metal might.