Reading several of his columns, it is clear that Greenwald is operating from a radical left-wing point of view and wants to do a hack job on this convention. I'm not saying that the reporting by others isn't true, or that what's going on is good or bad, merely that Greenwald is going to put it in the most unfavorable light for purely partisan purposes. That is exactly what's wrong with politics. Trouble is, it's nothing new. See the 1968 Democratic convention.
Thank you! I'm so tired of this issue being drawn as clearly black-and-white. If that were true, there'd be little debate about it. The fact that the issue is so polarizing points to the fact that both sides have some merit to their argument. I wish we could stop the finger-pointing, name-calling, and sloganeering. It gets us nowhere. What we need is honesty, understanding, and consideration from both sides.
This article can't be correct. The second paragraph claims the internet was created by "American Scientists in the 1970s", when everybody knows it was created by Al Gore!
Probably because the part of the grid this cable is connected to already operates at 138 kV, which is a standard transmission voltage in the US. That way there is no need for lossy transformers at each end.
Thanks for the links. Yes, these issues have been discussed and studied, but not completely resolved. See the incident that occurred earlier this year in Texas:
Loss of wind causes Texas power grid emergency
I'm not aware of anybody in the US looking at 50% penetration. There is a DOE-sponsored study going on now to look at the transmission required to integrate 20%-30% wind energy in the Eastern Interconnect. That's an enormous amount of generation when you're looking at a 15-30% capacity factor. There is still a great deal of concern in the transmission industry about how to integrate that much generation into the grid while maintaining reliability.
Can't we stop with the labeling, generalizing, and misrepresentation? Let's turn your paragraph around:
"Well, isn't the definition of liberal the 'new and novel'? Liberals tend to be opposed to anything at all that's tried and true, and will make mountains out of molehills at the slightest problems, generally speaking."
See how silly that is?
And what does the "oil teat" have to do with the topic of electricity production? Petroleum accounted for only 1.6% of electric energy produced in 2006 (the latest full year available) www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epat1p1.html
Conservatives are "entrenched" in big business? What are they, spies? Newsflash--all businesses tend to be predominantly conservative! So what? Business people aren't in business to lose money. When alternative energy sources become economically competitive, utilities will latch onto them in a heartbeat, regardless of their political viewpoint.
And don't keep us in suspense: What are the "more practical benefits" of alternative energy sources, because it's sure not cost?
When there's not enough wind, it'll come from somewhere else.
Which means that online generation ("spinning reserve") will have to be available to instantly supply the shortfall when the wind stops blowing. So, the utility is going to either have to build such a facility, or purchase spinning reserve service to meet their reliability obligations. That's going to reduce the economic advantage of the purchased wind power.
I'm an engineer at a Regional Transmission Organization. There was a study done after the most recent northeast blackouts that was reported in IEEE Spectrum magazine. The gist of it was that because electric utility systems (worldwide, not just in the US) are so incredibly complex that cascading blackouts are inevitable over time. Even contingencies that are so improbable that they seem not worth planning for will eventually converge to cause a catastrophic failure given enough time because there are just so many of them that can happen. The authors of the study argued that there's really nothing we can do to prevent cascading blackouts from happening, but that we should instead be prepared to recover from them quickly when they do. I don't know if that's true or not, but I do know that a bullet-proof system would be much more expensive to build than anyone would be willing to pay for.
Sorry, I have to reply. As an engineer with 18 years' experience in the utility industry , I can tell you that the reason utilities use aluminum conductor instead of copper is not weight, it's cost. Copper is much more expensive than aluminum. That's why people risk electrocution stealing copper from older transmission lines and substations--they can sell it as scrap for big bucks! Besides, because aluminum is less conductive than copper, you have to use bigger cables to carry the same current, thus negating any weight benefit.
This isn't quite accurate. In many industrialized parts of the world, the annual peak load is during sunny periods. Think: Arizona. Why is the peak load during sunny periods? Air conditioning. When do solar cells produce the most electricity? During sunny periods. Correlation can be used to allow intermittent power to be considered "base". Is it possible that there'd be a peak on a cloudy day in Arizona, or at night? I guess. It's also possible that all the coal power plants will have to come down for emergency service at the same time.
I don't mean to be pedantic, but base load is by definition the amount required off-peak; the level that the load never drops below. Solar cells supply power on-peak, when the sun is shining and the air-conditioners are running full-out. Therefore, by definition, solar can't supply base load requirements by themselves: they don't produce anything at night, but of course there is still load at night. In general, though, solar, wind, and some hydro are energy resources, not power resources, and are useful mainly for offsetting more-expensive and more-polluting resources during off-peak periods, and supplementing base-load resources on-peak.
The gentleman may have a point about having a right not to submit to store searches and a right not to have to produce his drivers license, but was there, oh I don't know, ANY OTHER WAY HE MIGHT HAVE MADE IT?! Does he really think that making these points in this way is worth the time and money that he will have to spend defending himself in court and the pain and humiliation he has caused and will cause to his family? For me the answer would be a resounding, "No." He will have made a point, all right, but at what cost?
I'll be interested to hear if he feels the same way after the hearing.
Not to be picky, but actually, peak usage varies from day to day depending on a number of factors. What you say is true in the southern U.S. in the summer, but in the north the peak hour occurs just before sunrise in the winter. That's why solar makes so much more sense in hot, sunny places, like Arizona and southern California.
That'd be right except that the state doesn't "give" electricity to anybody. The power company *sells* power for a *profit*.
Oklahoma's power comes from nuclear, coal, gas, oil, hydro, and increasingly, wind, just like everybody else. Location doesn't make a company "green."
Most states, I believe Oklahoma is one, have deregulated generation, so power companies don't need no stinking permission to build a power plant. They just do it--if they can afford the interconnection costs and get transmission service from the RTO at a reasonable cost.
As to who's driving the increase in demand--it's everybody, stupid. Ask yourself if you have more or fewer electric appliances since you moved into your house. I have two more TVs, two more computers, a new microwave, a cable box, DVD player, and several more always-on electronic clocks than I had 5 years ago. And I'm the only person who lives here! I've forecasted load growth for my company, and the industrials generally remain static. It's the residentials that continually increase year after year.
Power Companies are granted monopolies by the public. Part of the deal is that, because the power companies are granted a monopoly by the public, they have to publicize all transactions they undertake.
Um...no. I don't know where you got that idea. Power companies do NOT have to publicize all transactions they undertake. Power companies enter into special contracts with large users all the time. It's not illegal. Usually, there's some special consideration, like agreeing to interruption during periods when demand exceeds supply, in exchange for a discount. In most states, however, such tariffs have to be filed with the public utility commission which has to OK them, and they have to be applied to all customers meeting the requirements of the given tariff. What's evidently at issue here is not the contract, but rather the amount of consumption, which is probably reported to the PUC for large customers, and then becomes public information because of FOIA laws. This law evidently exempts them from making such information publicly available. Questionable? Yes. But does it have anything to do with the power company? No.
I have to agree. If I participated in such a study, I would assume that the system was secure and would go ahead and login, even if things don't look like normal. To assume otherwise, you'd have to think the researchers were trying to scam you, and if I thought that, I wouldn't participate in the first place.
What is "sustainable energy?" The sun will eventually consume all its hydrogen and burn out, so solar energy is not sustainable. Hydro and wind are driven by the sun's energy, so they're out, too. Eventually, the earth's interior will cool down completely, leaving us without geothermal. Biomass will only be available as long as there is organic matter. Uranium deposits will eventually be consumed. What's left? Is anything sustainable? Maybe "long-term energy" would be a better term.
I've dealt with panic attacks in different situations, the most typical being singing on stage in front of hundreds of people. In my situation, I found that the attack begins with a wave of fear shortly after I begin doing the thing I fear. Then, I focus on the fear which leads me to worry that it will get worse, which of course it does, and it feeds on itself until it gets totally out of control.
I learned that beforehand, I need to do some anxiety management, like focusing on breathing, conscious relaxation of muscle groups, etc. A therapist can help you with these excercises. They don't eliminate the anxiety, but they do bring the level down "a notch". Don't believe that you can eliminate the anxiety, at least overnight, but focus on "management" as the key.
Then, when I get on stage, I remind myself that I will probably feel a wave of fear and that when I do, (1) it's perfectly normal, (2) it's just a feeling that will pass. That way, I'm not caught off guard when/if it does come.
If it happens, I focus on my breathing (some researchers believe that it's lack of oxygen that sets the whole thing in motion in the first place), and I try to "lose myself" in the music. That gives my mind something else to focus on besides my panicky feelings.
Since I started doing this I've not had any panic attacks. But I realize that I probably will at some point in the future, and that when I do, I'll just manage it as best I can, and remember that even if I fall off the stage due to panic, it's not the end of the world.
I wish you luck in dealing with your panic attacks. Just remember, there are lots of people who deal with them--don't think there's anything wrong with you.
Yes, it was 6 employees of Snipermail, not Acxiom, who were cooperating. That was made clear in the article that appeared this morning in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.
No knew at the time that it was a "loaded jetliner". The news was reporting that a small plane had crashed into the WTC ala the Empire State Building in the 40s.
The kids were no more a target because of Bush's presence after the attack than they were before. That just doesn't make sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Reading several of his columns, it is clear that Greenwald is operating from a radical left-wing point of view and wants to do a hack job on this convention. I'm not saying that the reporting by others isn't true, or that what's going on is good or bad, merely that Greenwald is going to put it in the most unfavorable light for purely partisan purposes. That is exactly what's wrong with politics. Trouble is, it's nothing new. See the 1968 Democratic convention.
Thank you! I'm so tired of this issue being drawn as clearly black-and-white. If that were true, there'd be little debate about it. The fact that the issue is so polarizing points to the fact that both sides have some merit to their argument. I wish we could stop the finger-pointing, name-calling, and sloganeering. It gets us nowhere. What we need is honesty, understanding, and consideration from both sides.
This article can't be correct. The second paragraph claims the internet was created by "American Scientists in the 1970s", when everybody knows it was created by Al Gore!
"...moving progress backwards"? Isn't that an oxymoron?
Probably because the part of the grid this cable is connected to already operates at 138 kV, which is a standard transmission voltage in the US. That way there is no need for lossy transformers at each end.
I'm not aware of anybody in the US looking at 50% penetration. There is a DOE-sponsored study going on now to look at the transmission required to integrate 20%-30% wind energy in the Eastern Interconnect. That's an enormous amount of generation when you're looking at a 15-30% capacity factor. There is still a great deal of concern in the transmission industry about how to integrate that much generation into the grid while maintaining reliability.
See how silly that is?
And what does the "oil teat" have to do with the topic of electricity production? Petroleum accounted for only 1.6% of electric energy produced in 2006 (the latest full year available) www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epat1p1.html
Conservatives are "entrenched" in big business? What are they, spies? Newsflash--all businesses tend to be predominantly conservative! So what? Business people aren't in business to lose money. When alternative energy sources become economically competitive, utilities will latch onto them in a heartbeat, regardless of their political viewpoint.
And don't keep us in suspense: What are the "more practical benefits" of alternative energy sources, because it's sure not cost?
When there's not enough wind, it'll come from somewhere else.
Which means that online generation ("spinning reserve") will have to be available to instantly supply the shortfall when the wind stops blowing. So, the utility is going to either have to build such a facility, or purchase spinning reserve service to meet their reliability obligations. That's going to reduce the economic advantage of the purchased wind power.
I'm an engineer at a Regional Transmission Organization. There was a study done after the most recent northeast blackouts that was reported in IEEE Spectrum magazine. The gist of it was that because electric utility systems (worldwide, not just in the US) are so incredibly complex that cascading blackouts are inevitable over time. Even contingencies that are so improbable that they seem not worth planning for will eventually converge to cause a catastrophic failure given enough time because there are just so many of them that can happen. The authors of the study argued that there's really nothing we can do to prevent cascading blackouts from happening, but that we should instead be prepared to recover from them quickly when they do. I don't know if that's true or not, but I do know that a bullet-proof system would be much more expensive to build than anyone would be willing to pay for.
Sorry, I have to reply. As an engineer with 18 years' experience in the utility industry , I can tell you that the reason utilities use aluminum conductor instead of copper is not weight, it's cost. Copper is much more expensive than aluminum. That's why people risk electrocution stealing copper from older transmission lines and substations--they can sell it as scrap for big bucks! Besides, because aluminum is less conductive than copper, you have to use bigger cables to carry the same current, thus negating any weight benefit.
I didn't know they shopped at Circuit City!
The gentleman may have a point about having a right not to submit to store searches and a right not to have to produce his drivers license, but was there, oh I don't know, ANY OTHER WAY HE MIGHT HAVE MADE IT?! Does he really think that making these points in this way is worth the time and money that he will have to spend defending himself in court and the pain and humiliation he has caused and will cause to his family? For me the answer would be a resounding, "No." He will have made a point, all right, but at what cost?
I'll be interested to hear if he feels the same way after the hearing.
That's one argument my bf and I will never have, thank goodness.
Not to be picky, but actually, peak usage varies from day to day depending on a number of factors. What you say is true in the southern U.S. in the summer, but in the north the peak hour occurs just before sunrise in the winter. That's why solar makes so much more sense in hot, sunny places, like Arizona and southern California.
That'd be right except that the state doesn't "give" electricity to anybody. The power company *sells* power for a *profit*. Oklahoma's power comes from nuclear, coal, gas, oil, hydro, and increasingly, wind, just like everybody else. Location doesn't make a company "green."
Most states, I believe Oklahoma is one, have deregulated generation, so power companies don't need no stinking permission to build a power plant. They just do it--if they can afford the interconnection costs and get transmission service from the RTO at a reasonable cost. As to who's driving the increase in demand--it's everybody, stupid. Ask yourself if you have more or fewer electric appliances since you moved into your house. I have two more TVs, two more computers, a new microwave, a cable box, DVD player, and several more always-on electronic clocks than I had 5 years ago. And I'm the only person who lives here! I've forecasted load growth for my company, and the industrials generally remain static. It's the residentials that continually increase year after year.
I have to agree. If I participated in such a study, I would assume that the system was secure and would go ahead and login, even if things don't look like normal. To assume otherwise, you'd have to think the researchers were trying to scam you, and if I thought that, I wouldn't participate in the first place.
What is "sustainable energy?" The sun will eventually consume all its hydrogen and burn out, so solar energy is not sustainable. Hydro and wind are driven by the sun's energy, so they're out, too. Eventually, the earth's interior will cool down completely, leaving us without geothermal. Biomass will only be available as long as there is organic matter. Uranium deposits will eventually be consumed. What's left? Is anything sustainable? Maybe "long-term energy" would be a better term.
Shouldn't it be "greener" not "more green"?
Cloned beef and cabbage. Yummm!
I've dealt with panic attacks in different situations, the most typical being singing on stage in front of hundreds of people. In my situation, I found that the attack begins with a wave of fear shortly after I begin doing the thing I fear. Then, I focus on the fear which leads me to worry that it will get worse, which of course it does, and it feeds on itself until it gets totally out of control.
I learned that beforehand, I need to do some anxiety management, like focusing on breathing, conscious relaxation of muscle groups, etc. A therapist can help you with these excercises. They don't eliminate the anxiety, but they do bring the level down "a notch". Don't believe that you can eliminate the anxiety, at least overnight, but focus on "management" as the key.
Then, when I get on stage, I remind myself that I will probably feel a wave of fear and that when I do, (1) it's perfectly normal, (2) it's just a feeling that will pass. That way, I'm not caught off guard when/if it does come.
If it happens, I focus on my breathing (some researchers believe that it's lack of oxygen that sets the whole thing in motion in the first place), and I try to "lose myself" in the music. That gives my mind something else to focus on besides my panicky feelings.
Since I started doing this I've not had any panic attacks. But I realize that I probably will at some point in the future, and that when I do, I'll just manage it as best I can, and remember that even if I fall off the stage due to panic, it's not the end of the world.
I wish you luck in dealing with your panic attacks. Just remember, there are lots of people who deal with them--don't think there's anything wrong with you.
Yes, it was 6 employees of Snipermail, not Acxiom, who were cooperating. That was made clear in the article that appeared this morning in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.
No knew at the time that it was a "loaded jetliner". The news was reporting that a small plane had crashed into the WTC ala the Empire State Building in the 40s.
The kids were no more a target because of Bush's presence after the attack than they were before. That just doesn't make sense.
Use your brain.