Well, it actually is cleaner CO2. Because burning natural gas pretty much only produces CO2 and water. While burning coal produces a whole lot of other crap.
More to the point, a power plant is far more efficient than an ICE in a vehicle. So you get more miles traveled by the vehicle from the same CO2 production, even when you account for losses along the way.
And finally, and perhaps most pertinent, why isn't there a backlash?
Many Americans believe they are not poor or middle class. They are temporarily inconvenienced billionaires. And if changes were made to help the poor/middle class, "That would hurt me once I return to my proper economic status!".
It's part of the Calvinist work ethic the country was founded on - the mistaken belief that everyone can get ahead if only they worked a little harder.
This particular belief waxes and wanes over the years, based on just how greedy the wealthy become. We're currently ending a period where this belief was ascendant and will have a correction soon.
What rights you do you think you have that block facial recognition tech in a private concert at a private venue, where you already consented to the photo/video recording of your likeness?
You think you have an expectation of privacy at a massive concert?
Your complaint sounds a lot like the people I know who complained that red-light cameras would mean the government would know what car they drive....because they forgot about the whole vehicle registration thing and "bolting a unique ID to the outside of their car" thing.
it seems like we'll never get to the next generation of reactors
Good.
Take a look at the history of the "next generation of reactors". They never quite live up to the hype. For example, pebble beds didn't turn out so good when they were actually built. And that pattern repeats itself over and over again.
Also, you're kinda glossing over the teeny-tiny problem of nuclear weapons proliferation if we're all supposed to start using breeder reactors.
Yeah....nuclear has had no effect on the environment.:eyeroll:
Also, take a sec to look up where nuclear plants put their waste heat. Hint: It doesn't magically disappear.
The same is probably true of suddenly sucking up all that light energy which should be reflecting around and warming things over a huge portion of the Earth's surface.
Physics isn't your strong suit, is it?
Also, we can't make a good nuclear reactor. Sure, there's lots of proposed improved designs. But they don't quite live up to the hype when they're actually built. For example, pebble beds turned out to have some enormous, unsolvable issues. Like heavy metals contaminating the cooling loop, when they're not supposed to be able to get out of the pebbles.
The dynamo in a wind turbine currently uses rare earth magnets.
FTFY.
Neodymium magnets are used to make the generators smaller and a little more efficient. We already have other materials that will do the job, it will just be larger or a little less efficient. And if neodymium ends up being the bottleneck, well we'll get to figure out more about magnetism since we'll have a huge incentive for an alternative.
Oh, you mean there were occasionally fires on government owned, controlled and heavily regulated rivers?
So, the reason the river could catch on fire is they were not heavily regulated. Which allowed your brave and noble capitalists to pollute the fuck out of the rivers. To the point where rivers caught on fire.
It's almost like you're deliberately being clueless about history to serve your ideological goals.
What part of "require multiple resellers" did you not get? He who owns the physical distribution infrastructure must offer wholesale services to retail providers and may not do retail.
Oh no, I got it.
Resellers fight over who gets to charge $5/mo + the fee charged by the wholesaler. Monopoly wholesaler gets to charge $75, passed on via resellers. And is actually in control of the quality of service, making it impossible for the resellers to differentiate anyway.
Driving that $5 down to $4.50 via competition doesn't affect that $75. You just made the overall price more expensive by adding another layer of profit-seeking.
you cannot directly market to residents, but must wholesale your network access to retail providers
This is incredibly stupid when it comes to ISPs. The 'retail' ISP is providing almost nothing of value. So you're driving up the cost by quite a bit so that you can pretend there is competition, when the physical installation is where the costs, and thus your retail expense, are located.
In other words, all you are doing is adding a reseller to a monopoly. There's still a monopoly.
While offering non-incumbent providers incentives to build separate infrastructure and requiring them to share too.
So, completely didn't understand Natural Monopolies, huh?
So what evil do you pick? I don't know... None of the above? How about we foster competition and draw in multiple commercial providers?
There's these things called "Natural Monopolies". Long story short, the first company to pull wires can kill off anyone coming after them, unless the followers have really, really, really, really deep pockets. Because the incumbent has already paid for their installation, and can afford to slash prices until the competitor can't pay for their installation.
That's why we generally have monopolies on utilities. Most of them are not legal monopolies, but the people who got there first.
So no, we can not just "foster competition". This can not be an efficient market because of the high cost of rolling out the service.
Now, if we develop some reliably gigabit wireless standard, then you might be able to get an efficient market. But we're a ways from that.
Colorado River laws are an interesting mess. But it's not like AZ got to siphon water away from CA and just told CA to suck it
Actually, they pretty much did when they built the aqueduct. Long legal battle happened, result is not as much of a "suck it" from AZ, but CA lost a hell of a lot of water.
I remember this because they had to change the mixture of the water treatment chemicals for those of us in Southern California, and there was an extensive media outreach about why the water "tastes funny". Basically, Los Angeles used to get almost all of it's water from the Colorado river, and had to switch to getting almost all of it from the California and Los Angeles aqueducts.
which is primarily additional anti-racking precautions and tying foundations, walls, floors and roofing together with strapping
Um....no. It also plays a massive role in the design of the foundation, as well as many building materials and techniques throughout the structure. And those building materials have an extremely low R value. And you can't just spray insulation on top to make up for it because that insulation takes space.
Also, a passive house usually doesn't work well in a climate that requires significant heating and cooling. It tends to forsake one for the other - ie: solar orientation to either heat or cool. So this might work in, say, San Diego where you almost don't need heat. Or Redwoods where you basically don't need cooling. In between, it starts getting problematic. Which means you can't really apply it state-wide.
Also, a passive house typically makes extensive use of the Earth as a heat sink or source. Which is a tad problematic when the ground moves. Also requires a complementary geology, which means you can't require it on all houses.
What happens when something better comes along, or if I want wind energy instead of solar?
Wind requires scaling up very large for efficiency. A single-house wind turbine isn't that good an idea.
And if something better comes along, they'll change the building code again. It's not permanently etched in stone tablets.
What happens when fusion is ready and I want that instead?
Fusion is 1) not going to be ready in your lifetime, and 2) not going to be single-house-sized.
What if I can't afford a house with solar panels? Does that mean I can't live in a house?
It means you buy an existing house instead of building a new one.
Though the cost (estimated $10k on a $550k house) is small enough that if you can afford the mortgage on the house, you can probably afford the very slightly higher mortgage. Especially with the reduction of your electricity bill more than offsetting the increased mortgage payment.
Or you build somewhere that qualifies for the exemption mentioned in TFSummary.
Instead of merely bumping energy efficiency requirements on houses
They already did after Enron fucked the state over. New CA houses are more energy efficient than any other building code in the country. Also, much of the concepts and technologies in Passive House does not work well in places with earthquakes.
And, as others have pointed out, there are going to be places where slapping on solar will net you NOTHING, as you may not be optimally placed for solar production.
Could you actually read all the way to the third sentence of TFSummary next time? There's an exemption for houses that are shaded.
Arizona built an aqueduct to the Colorado River that is upstream from California's aqueduct. So, CA gets virtually all of its water from aqueducts within CA. You need to direct your ire at Phoenix if you're upset about out-of-state water.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it actually is cleaner CO2. Because burning natural gas pretty much only produces CO2 and water. While burning coal produces a whole lot of other crap.
More to the point, a power plant is far more efficient than an ICE in a vehicle. So you get more miles traveled by the vehicle from the same CO2 production, even when you account for losses along the way.
Nobody is stopping you from taking the risk and great undertaking to start and grow your own company.
Except for that pesky need to consume food, and the unreasonable demand that shelter be paid for.
And finally, and perhaps most pertinent, why isn't there a backlash?
Many Americans believe they are not poor or middle class. They are temporarily inconvenienced billionaires. And if changes were made to help the poor/middle class, "That would hurt me once I return to my proper economic status!".
It's part of the Calvinist work ethic the country was founded on - the mistaken belief that everyone can get ahead if only they worked a little harder.
This particular belief waxes and wanes over the years, based on just how greedy the wealthy become. We're currently ending a period where this belief was ascendant and will have a correction soon.
What rights you do you think you have that block facial recognition tech in a private concert at a private venue, where you already consented to the photo/video recording of your likeness?
You think you have an expectation of privacy at a massive concert?
Your complaint sounds a lot like the people I know who complained that red-light cameras would mean the government would know what car they drive....because they forgot about the whole vehicle registration thing and "bolting a unique ID to the outside of their car" thing.
it seems like we'll never get to the next generation of reactors
Good.
Take a look at the history of the "next generation of reactors". They never quite live up to the hype. For example, pebble beds didn't turn out so good when they were actually built. And that pattern repeats itself over and over again.
Also, you're kinda glossing over the teeny-tiny problem of nuclear weapons proliferation if we're all supposed to start using breeder reactors.
Yeah....nuclear has had no effect on the environment. :eyeroll:
Also, take a sec to look up where nuclear plants put their waste heat. Hint: It doesn't magically disappear.
The same is probably true of suddenly sucking up all that light energy which should be reflecting around and warming things over a huge portion of the Earth's surface.
Physics isn't your strong suit, is it?
Also, we can't make a good nuclear reactor. Sure, there's lots of proposed improved designs. But they don't quite live up to the hype when they're actually built. For example, pebble beds turned out to have some enormous, unsolvable issues. Like heavy metals contaminating the cooling loop, when they're not supposed to be able to get out of the pebbles.
The dynamo in a wind turbine currently uses rare earth magnets.
FTFY.
Neodymium magnets are used to make the generators smaller and a little more efficient. We already have other materials that will do the job, it will just be larger or a little less efficient. And if neodymium ends up being the bottleneck, well we'll get to figure out more about magnetism since we'll have a huge incentive for an alternative.
Oh, you mean there were occasionally fires on government owned, controlled and heavily regulated rivers?
So, the reason the river could catch on fire is they were not heavily regulated. Which allowed your brave and noble capitalists to pollute the fuck out of the rivers. To the point where rivers caught on fire.
It's almost like you're deliberately being clueless about history to serve your ideological goals.
Hammers come in a variety of sizes, weights, shapes and features. It's actually possible to buy the wrong hammer.
Not the AC, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Did you know that time hasn't stopped?
Also, did you know that unregulated capitalism has some issues, like setting rivers on fire?
What part of "require multiple resellers" did you not get? He who owns the physical distribution infrastructure must offer wholesale services to retail providers and may not do retail.
Oh no, I got it.
Resellers fight over who gets to charge $5/mo + the fee charged by the wholesaler.
Monopoly wholesaler gets to charge $75, passed on via resellers. And is actually in control of the quality of service, making it impossible for the resellers to differentiate anyway.
Driving that $5 down to $4.50 via competition doesn't affect that $75. You just made the overall price more expensive by adding another layer of profit-seeking.
you cannot directly market to residents, but must wholesale your network access to retail providers
This is incredibly stupid when it comes to ISPs. The 'retail' ISP is providing almost nothing of value. So you're driving up the cost by quite a bit so that you can pretend there is competition, when the physical installation is where the costs, and thus your retail expense, are located.
In other words, all you are doing is adding a reseller to a monopoly. There's still a monopoly.
While offering non-incumbent providers incentives to build separate infrastructure and requiring them to share too.
So, completely didn't understand Natural Monopolies, huh?
I don't understand why Comcast would expect the town to pay them? Is that common?
Yes. Extortion is good for profits.
So what evil do you pick? I don't know... None of the above? How about we foster competition and draw in multiple commercial providers?
There's these things called "Natural Monopolies". Long story short, the first company to pull wires can kill off anyone coming after them, unless the followers have really, really, really, really deep pockets. Because the incumbent has already paid for their installation, and can afford to slash prices until the competitor can't pay for their installation.
That's why we generally have monopolies on utilities. Most of them are not legal monopolies, but the people who got there first.
So no, we can not just "foster competition". This can not be an efficient market because of the high cost of rolling out the service.
Now, if we develop some reliably gigabit wireless standard, then you might be able to get an efficient market. But we're a ways from that.
If yes, I would expect that the municipality would tell them to get stuffed.
Why? Comcast's check to cover the permit fees is as good as anyone else's.
Colorado River laws are an interesting mess. But it's not like AZ got to siphon water away from CA and just told CA to suck it
Actually, they pretty much did when they built the aqueduct. Long legal battle happened, result is not as much of a "suck it" from AZ, but CA lost a hell of a lot of water.
I remember this because they had to change the mixture of the water treatment chemicals for those of us in Southern California, and there was an extensive media outreach about why the water "tastes funny". Basically, Los Angeles used to get almost all of it's water from the Colorado river, and had to switch to getting almost all of it from the California and Los Angeles aqueducts.
which is primarily additional anti-racking precautions and tying foundations, walls, floors and roofing together with strapping
Um....no. It also plays a massive role in the design of the foundation, as well as many building materials and techniques throughout the structure. And those building materials have an extremely low R value. And you can't just spray insulation on top to make up for it because that insulation takes space.
Also, a passive house usually doesn't work well in a climate that requires significant heating and cooling. It tends to forsake one for the other - ie: solar orientation to either heat or cool. So this might work in, say, San Diego where you almost don't need heat. Or Redwoods where you basically don't need cooling. In between, it starts getting problematic. Which means you can't really apply it state-wide.
Also, a passive house typically makes extensive use of the Earth as a heat sink or source. Which is a tad problematic when the ground moves. Also requires a complementary geology, which means you can't require it on all houses.
Most houses do not cost *anywhere* what they sell for to make
The mortgage is not based on the cost to build the house, so for virtually everyone buying the house the value is the relevant metric.
It could mean the difference between getting an nice insulation system vs solar panels.
Good news! Thanks to Enron's fucking over of the state, the building code was changed and you have to put in that nice insulation system anyway.
What happens when something better comes along, or if I want wind energy instead of solar?
Wind requires scaling up very large for efficiency. A single-house wind turbine isn't that good an idea.
And if something better comes along, they'll change the building code again. It's not permanently etched in stone tablets.
What happens when fusion is ready and I want that instead?
Fusion is 1) not going to be ready in your lifetime, and 2) not going to be single-house-sized.
What if I can't afford a house with solar panels?
Does that mean I can't live in a house?
It means you buy an existing house instead of building a new one.
Though the cost (estimated $10k on a $550k house) is small enough that if you can afford the mortgage on the house, you can probably afford the very slightly higher mortgage. Especially with the reduction of your electricity bill more than offsetting the increased mortgage payment.
Or you build somewhere that qualifies for the exemption mentioned in TFSummary.
So they jumped by double the cost of complying with this?
Instead of merely bumping energy efficiency requirements on houses
They already did after Enron fucked the state over. New CA houses are more energy efficient than any other building code in the country. Also, much of the concepts and technologies in Passive House does not work well in places with earthquakes.
And, as others have pointed out, there are going to be places where slapping on solar will net you NOTHING, as you may not be optimally placed for solar production.
Could you actually read all the way to the third sentence of TFSummary next time? There's an exemption for houses that are shaded.
Could you try reading all the way through TFSummary next time?
Set to take effect in 2020, the new standard includes an exemption for houses that are often shaded from the sun
They already do.
Arizona built an aqueduct to the Colorado River that is upstream from California's aqueduct. So, CA gets virtually all of its water from aqueducts within CA. You need to direct your ire at Phoenix if you're upset about out-of-state water.