That is the real interesting part. Simply park your car in the required spot and the house can pull back electricity if needed, or even sell it back on the market if allowed (and at a higher price).
The US Chamber is the one that pushed tax cuts for outsourcing as well as allowing illegals to be here. Even now, it is the Chamber that pushes its members to buy 49% or less of a factory (i.e. no control) of a Chinese owned factory and then move as many operations to China.
The chamber being cracked by China , is a lot like breaking into your own home.
Every state has a building code. The most widely used one is the International Building Code. In each case, HVAC is required AS IS A MINIMUM LEVEL OF INSULATION.
IOW, you can not build without some level of insulation. Likewise, it requires a certified BUILDING heating (as opposed to spot, like you suggest), OR that you show the LOCAL CIVIC ENGINEER AT THE PERMITTING PLACE that you have a BETTER SYSTEM. IOW, if you are not going to make use of a certified HVAC system, then you have to show proof that it will not only do the job, but do it safely. That is the whole purpose of a permit.
Just several years ago, I built a deck on my house. Because of insurance issues, we decide to pull a permit. I had to show roughly how it was built, how close it was to our house, the footings for the piles and show that no new gas/electricity/water was going to be run. I then had 3 inspections. The first was on the extra pillings that I put in, and they wanted to make sure that they were deep enough (they were). The
second was when it was framed, that we did the right things (I used 2x10s, for joists, while 2x6s were minimum, but most would have used 2x8s). The guy was impressed by the work that we did. Said it was overbuilt, but that it was rock solid. Finally, was the final inspection.
And this was for a SIMPLE DECK.
Now, I am about to finish the basement and that will absolutely require a permit .
That will mean that I need to show that the insulation is sufficient (it had insulation, so not a problem) and that the HVAC will handle things (the furnace is rated for the whole house, but I will have to add a duct into one area, that will have a sliding wall. Likewise, I have to show plumbing (I have multiple drains already built in, but still need to add water; In one sink, we are bringing in soft and hard water ) and electrical i.e. I will run 220 through the basement to the garage for future use (electric car, powertools (table saw, radial saw, etc), etc), as well as will have to show outlets around the basement, etc. All of that MUST MEET CODE. No exceptions. Again, I will be stuck with multiple inspections.
So, why do I go through all the hassles on the permits, when I know enough to do this without it?
For starters, I do not want to lose the insurance when I need it most. ALL insurance companies have riders that state that ALL WORK ON THE HOUSE MUST MEET CODE; If you do not have a permit, you can not prove that it met code, so they dump you when they are required to pay for say the flooding of the house, or your house burns down, etc.
Likewise, when we go to sell (we are looking to move to sweden/norway/poland in several years), I want banks willing to do a mortgage on it. Banks are NOT willing to write mortgages UNLESS a home meets code AND BEYOND. Out here, banks require new homes with basements be FULLY insulated to get a mortgage and that is with R-12 minimum.
So, what this shows, is the shortcuts that you want, are not even close to possible. The system is designed to block such foolishness. So, there is a minimum level of expectations (unless you fund your OWN place and will never sell it, that is the case). With what I am suggesting, you can be assured that a minimum level of HVAC and insulation was done. If you bump up insulation in the plans, the inspector WILL check it to make certain that you are accurate and honest. If the law for requiring 100% on-site AE HVAC was required, then local permitting engineers would be set up with guides on what is possible. Basically, a simple program will be set up to say how much HVAC you need based on sq footage and volume combined with insulation combined with amount of windows and size and types. From there, that will say how many BTUs you will use for a year (note that I originally said Heat and AC). By changing various parameters in insulation, you can lower the BTU's required. By adding a geo-thermal HVAC, you have an extreme COP/EER so that a minimum a
As somebody that grew up north of Chicago, I can tell you honestly that some of those 'pigs' were relatives of a NUMBER of ppl that I KNEW. I knew a number of ppl with those numbers. Some talked. Some did not. But those that did not had the most... 'haunted' or 'haunting' eyes that I have ever seen.
And from German's POV, they treated pigs better than what they treated POWs, jews, etc. The same was true of IBM.
As somebody that HAS worked for IBM Watson labs, I have no issue with pointing out how bad they are. They were gutted badly and continue down that path.
I thought the same at first. However, there are several issues with it:
1) 11% of American homes are in foreclosure. The banks are holding them off the market. However, they know that if construction REALLY gets moving, they will lose a LOT OF MONEY ON THESE. The only way to stop that, is to have new homes be BETTER (implied costlier, but possibly not), not cheaper than the foreclosures. That way, the foreclosures will have just the older homes to compete with, but not old and new.
2) Right now, Construction is at a near standstill. We can all see that energy costs are going up. What would make you move up to a new home? Would it be buying a new version of what is currently available in used (or in forclosure for about 20-50% off)? Or would it be buying something that is about 2-10% more than what a normal building costs, to be able to cut your energy bills to a fraction?
3)If you buy a new home, it is insulated better than a new home, has solar, and has geo-thermal HVAC so that you can run the temps at what you want without a thought about money, would you pay for that KNOWING that it will be paid for in 10-15 years?
I suggested 50% as a way to start, but I really think that 95-99% is the way to go. The reason is that it is expensive to figure on a fu. lly AE based HVAC. But, one that covers 100% of all but a week or two (and those would be mostly covered) would be fairly inexpensive. For now, do fewer and smaller windows (except for southern-facing windows). But start the move towards aerogel windows. Likewise, I suspect that we will see homes built in ground, esp. with hills. That will actually be cheap to do (a small hallway on the side for escape ). Likewise, plenty of other avenues for a builder to keep their costs down and meet this requirement.
Quite the opposite. Many free marketers, like myself, will like a law like this. The reason is that it allows the free market to DECIDE HOW TO IMPLEMENT SOMETHING. In particular, it allows different AE to compete against the insulation of a building. As prices change in on field, then buildings will change to reflect this.
Now, why would a free marketer like myself accept this? Because it is a national security issue. And yes, this is about national security. But the mistake that many laws make is that they tell HOW you will accomplish things. When they do that, it is almost allways a pay-off to some business or foreign nation.
I fully agree with you about the EPA. Some of the stuff HAS gotten out of hand. I can not believe that fools are pushing to have EPA regulate CO2. Insane.
Now, how much of this is about EPA? Nothing. It is about the builder showing the local permit that the numbers crunch at the amount.
This law is a simple one and avoids the hassle that you speak of. Basically, by requiring on-site AE, it could be any form of energy that you want. Wind, geo-thermal, tidal, hydro, and the most likely one, would be solar. Now, by going after HVAC, that is about 50% of what a building uses in energy. By saying that 50-100% of it MUST be covered by on-site, it says that a builder can meet this however they see fit. The average builder will LIKELY increase insulation on the walls AND THE WINDOWS. I would be amazed if aerogel windows did not quickly become popular in these new buildings. That would hold the HVAC needs down so that small amounts of solar will do the job. In addition, it would likely encourage geo-thermal HVAC in many new homes. The reason is that it is EFFICIENT.
Just thinking about it. I think that the amount of HVAC should be 98-99%. That way, on REALLY hot or cold days, extra energy comes from outside of the house.
LOL. To get your permit for ANYBODY moving in, you MUST have heating in the house. That is a requirement in every state in the union with the possible exception of Hawaii (and I think that they require it as well since they adopted the uniform building codes). Yes, even the homes in Miami have Heating.
But you will note that I said that it MUST BE 100% of HVAC, INCLUDING HEAT AND AC. The AC for up north is not a big deal. But down south that is a huge deal. AE to cover 50 or 100% of that, will require larger wind, solar installs, or more likely decent insulation, with minimal solar, wind plants. This would be up the builders on how to meet the conditions.
Now, if the new buildings have high insulation, and you can kill 50% of a normal energy bill, and then kill another 30% by simply shifting from incandescent bulbs to LEDs like Switch LEDS, then you have buildings that costs about 5% more, BUT, you will not have to pay hardly anything for energy. In addition, it would prevent this buildings from competing against the foreclosed buildings. That is a huge impact. Right now, new buildings are taking so many short cuts to be LOWER than forclosed buildings, which is only making things worse.
A carbon tax is worthless unless it is applied all over the world. A carbon tax applied ONLY to local developed areas will actually cause an increase in CO2 since it will send manufacturing form a clean area to a dirty area. HORRIBLE idea.
We use FIT and other means of subsidies to drive solar and wind, but ignore other solutions. However, in just about every single case, it is a retrofit, which is expensive. But, there is a simple solution for all of this.
America, or even states, could require that all new homes and buildings under 4 stories, have 50% or possibly 100% of their HVAC (heating and AC required) come from on-site AE. This would actually encourage several things:
1) a number of contractors will simply throw up solar panels equal to the amount.
2) a number of other contractors would heavily insulate and drop the energy needs to the point, where a MINIMAL amount of AE is needed.
3) a number would try something like geo-thermal HVAC combined with 2 to allow them to drop it to one panel.
Basically, by adding this requirement, it would change the NEW buildings and separate them from the old ones. Considering the number of foreclosures that we have now, the last thing that we really need are new buildings that compete with many of these foreclosed buildings. At the same time, it pushes various AE without loads of incentives, while allowing contractor to move to whatever direction is economical and will sell.
Actually, if this works, we should probably cut the gov. support for Solar and instead, move the money to energy storage. It could be as simple as car batteries, but it could also be thermal storage which would then go into coal plants that are being shut down.
Exactly. I think that Russia, and I am guessing China, keep their wings below so that nobody knows their true complement. By knowing what is on the deck, you get an idea of where they are headed.
However, at some point, we need to build a small solar furnace for melting sats and separating the various elements out. Interestingly, you have power, heat, and even an easy to centrifuge the output. Obviously we could not do the shuttle, however, there is LOADS of elements up there. Nuts the chinese were kind enough to spread around a bunch that we will likely capture one way or another.
They have 2 keels or more started. Supposedly, one is nuke powered. Likewise, they are turning out 1-2 new attack subs and 1-2 new ballastic subs each year. They have a protected sub base from which they are hiding construction and provide protection for the subs.
Offhand, I would not say that they are doing this slowly.
It went out in sept, issues found and sent back for repair. Likewise, this went out for sea trials mid. nov. It is possible that this is a fully launched and commissioned aircraft carrier.
Anybody that responds to a sodium accident at a nuke plant would be WELL trained in it. And thorium is exactly what you want. Read up on Ft. Sr. Vrain.
Actually, you are the one having it backwards. A number of old coal plants are going to be shut down. These are typically on the order of 100-200 MWs and are located inside a city. Thankfully, they have a grid hook-up, cooling, etc. AND plenty of land around them. Now, a company like Hyperion, B&W, etc can build a reactor that does 100 MWe and simply plug one-two into these sites. How long will it take to implement it? Well, if done by the on-site approach that you think will dominate, it will take 10 years. OTH, if a company can manufacture everything and have it ready to go, then within 1-2 years, they are up and running. And if they have one, they can probably add a second reactor in under a year. The reason is that everything is all ready to go.
In addition, manufactured allows for a tighter QA control which is a big thing. And a factory can produce something much cheaper then doing on-site construction.
But lets take this one step further. PRISM is an IFR. It can be used to burn up waste. GE is heading towards production of these. Rather than a couple of larger ones, it is actually cheaper to put in say 5-10 of these on-site and burn up all the 'waste' fuel that is there. This is useful at a site like Zion which is already 'shut down', but it will take a decade to remove the current reactors. If Con-Ed can bring these reactors there NOW, they can continue to burn up the 'waste' and use the new reactors to pay for the old clean-up. The new reactors will be very easy to remove compared to the old ones. In the new ones, they can be shipped out in one piece. In the old reactors, they have to be torn down on-site and then shipped.
Slashdot Mirror
That is the real interesting part. Simply park your car in the required spot and the house can pull back electricity if needed, or even sell it back on the market if allowed (and at a higher price).
The US Chamber is the one that pushed tax cuts for outsourcing as well as allowing illegals to be here. Even now, it is the Chamber that pushes its members to buy 49% or less of a factory (i.e. no control) of a Chinese owned factory and then move as many operations to China.
The chamber being cracked by China , is a lot like breaking into your own home.
Every state has a building code. The most widely used one is the International Building Code. In each case, HVAC is required AS IS A MINIMUM LEVEL OF INSULATION. IOW, you can not build without some level of insulation. Likewise, it requires a certified BUILDING heating (as opposed to spot, like you suggest), OR that you show the LOCAL CIVIC ENGINEER AT THE PERMITTING PLACE that you have a BETTER SYSTEM. IOW, if you are not going to make use of a certified HVAC system, then you have to show proof that it will not only do the job, but do it safely. That is the whole purpose of a permit.
Just several years ago, I built a deck on my house. Because of insurance issues, we decide to pull a permit. I had to show roughly how it was built, how close it was to our house, the footings for the piles and show that no new gas/electricity/water was going to be run. I then had 3 inspections. The first was on the extra pillings that I put in, and they wanted to make sure that they were deep enough (they were). The second was when it was framed, that we did the right things (I used 2x10s, for joists, while 2x6s were minimum, but most would have used 2x8s). The guy was impressed by the work that we did. Said it was overbuilt, but that it was rock solid. Finally, was the final inspection. And this was for a SIMPLE DECK.
Now, I am about to finish the basement and that will absolutely require a permit . That will mean that I need to show that the insulation is sufficient (it had insulation, so not a problem) and that the HVAC will handle things (the furnace is rated for the whole house, but I will have to add a duct into one area, that will have a sliding wall. Likewise, I have to show plumbing (I have multiple drains already built in, but still need to add water; In one sink, we are bringing in soft and hard water ) and electrical i.e. I will run 220 through the basement to the garage for future use (electric car, powertools (table saw, radial saw, etc), etc), as well as will have to show outlets around the basement, etc. All of that MUST MEET CODE. No exceptions. Again, I will be stuck with multiple inspections.
So, why do I go through all the hassles on the permits, when I know enough to do this without it?
For starters, I do not want to lose the insurance when I need it most. ALL insurance companies have riders that state that ALL WORK ON THE HOUSE MUST MEET CODE; If you do not have a permit, you can not prove that it met code, so they dump you when they are required to pay for say the flooding of the house, or your house burns down, etc.
Likewise, when we go to sell (we are looking to move to sweden/norway/poland in several years), I want banks willing to do a mortgage on it. Banks are NOT willing to write mortgages UNLESS a home meets code AND BEYOND. Out here, banks require new homes with basements be FULLY insulated to get a mortgage and that is with R-12 minimum.
So, what this shows, is the shortcuts that you want, are not even close to possible. The system is designed to block such foolishness. So, there is a minimum level of expectations (unless you fund your OWN place and will never sell it, that is the case). With what I am suggesting, you can be assured that a minimum level of HVAC and insulation was done. If you bump up insulation in the plans, the inspector WILL check it to make certain that you are accurate and honest. If the law for requiring 100% on-site AE HVAC was required, then local permitting engineers would be set up with guides on what is possible. Basically, a simple program will be set up to say how much HVAC you need based on sq footage and volume combined with insulation combined with amount of windows and size and types. From there, that will say how many BTUs you will use for a year (note that I originally said Heat and AC). By changing various parameters in insulation, you can lower the BTU's required. By adding a geo-thermal HVAC, you have an extreme COP/EER so that a minimum a
As somebody that grew up north of Chicago, I can tell you honestly that some of those 'pigs' were relatives of a NUMBER of ppl that I KNEW. I knew a number of ppl with those numbers. Some talked. Some did not. But those that did not had the most ... 'haunted' or 'haunting' eyes that I have ever seen.
And from German's POV, they treated pigs better than what they treated POWs, jews, etc. The same was true of IBM.
As somebody that HAS worked for IBM Watson labs, I have no issue with pointing out how bad they are. They were gutted badly and continue down that path.
But IBM's tech worked with numbers burned on forearms.
They did the same thing in 1930's/40's Germany. I guess the more that things change, the more that they stay the same.
I thought the same at first. However, there are several issues with it:
1) 11% of American homes are in foreclosure. The banks are holding them off the market. However, they know that if construction REALLY gets moving, they will lose a LOT OF MONEY ON THESE. The only way to stop that, is to have new homes be BETTER (implied costlier, but possibly not), not cheaper than the foreclosures. That way, the foreclosures will have just the older homes to compete with, but not old and new.
2) Right now, Construction is at a near standstill. We can all see that energy costs are going up. What would make you move up to a new home? Would it be buying a new version of what is currently available in used (or in forclosure for about 20-50% off)? Or would it be buying something that is about 2-10% more than what a normal building costs, to be able to cut your energy bills to a fraction?
3)If you buy a new home, it is insulated better than a new home, has solar, and has geo-thermal HVAC so that you can run the temps at what you want without a thought about money, would you pay for that KNOWING that it will be paid for in 10-15 years?
I suggested 50% as a way to start, but I really think that 95-99% is the way to go. The reason is that it is expensive to figure on a fu. lly AE based HVAC. But, one that covers 100% of all but a week or two (and those would be mostly covered) would be fairly inexpensive. For now, do fewer and smaller windows (except for southern-facing windows). But start the move towards aerogel windows. Likewise, I suspect that we will see homes built in ground, esp. with hills. That will actually be cheap to do (a small hallway on the side for escape ). Likewise, plenty of other avenues for a builder to keep their costs down and meet this requirement.
Quite the opposite. Many free marketers, like myself, will like a law like this. The reason is that it allows the free market to DECIDE HOW TO IMPLEMENT SOMETHING. In particular, it allows different AE to compete against the insulation of a building. As prices change in on field, then buildings will change to reflect this.
Now, why would a free marketer like myself accept this? Because it is a national security issue. And yes, this is about national security. But the mistake that many laws make is that they tell HOW you will accomplish things. When they do that, it is almost allways a pay-off to some business or foreign nation.
I fully agree with you about the EPA. Some of the stuff HAS gotten out of hand. I can not believe that fools are pushing to have EPA regulate CO2. Insane.
Now, how much of this is about EPA? Nothing. It is about the builder showing the local permit that the numbers crunch at the amount.
This law is a simple one and avoids the hassle that you speak of. Basically, by requiring on-site AE, it could be any form of energy that you want. Wind, geo-thermal, tidal, hydro, and the most likely one, would be solar. Now, by going after HVAC, that is about 50% of what a building uses in energy. By saying that 50-100% of it MUST be covered by on-site, it says that a builder can meet this however they see fit. The average builder will LIKELY increase insulation on the walls AND THE WINDOWS. I would be amazed if aerogel windows did not quickly become popular in these new buildings. That would hold the HVAC needs down so that small amounts of solar will do the job. In addition, it would likely encourage geo-thermal HVAC in many new homes. The reason is that it is EFFICIENT.
Just thinking about it. I think that the amount of HVAC should be 98-99%. That way, on REALLY hot or cold days, extra energy comes from outside of the house.
LOL. To get your permit for ANYBODY moving in, you MUST have heating in the house. That is a requirement in every state in the union with the possible exception of Hawaii (and I think that they require it as well since they adopted the uniform building codes). Yes, even the homes in Miami have Heating.
But you will note that I said that it MUST BE 100% of HVAC, INCLUDING HEAT AND AC. The AC for up north is not a big deal. But down south that is a huge deal. AE to cover 50 or 100% of that, will require larger wind, solar installs, or more likely decent insulation, with minimal solar, wind plants. This would be up the builders on how to meet the conditions.
Now, if the new buildings have high insulation, and you can kill 50% of a normal energy bill, and then kill another 30% by simply shifting from incandescent bulbs to LEDs like Switch LEDS, then you have buildings that costs about 5% more, BUT, you will not have to pay hardly anything for energy. In addition, it would prevent this buildings from competing against the foreclosed buildings. That is a huge impact. Right now, new buildings are taking so many short cuts to be LOWER than forclosed buildings, which is only making things worse.
A carbon tax is worthless unless it is applied all over the world. A carbon tax applied ONLY to local developed areas will actually cause an increase in CO2 since it will send manufacturing form a clean area to a dirty area. HORRIBLE idea.
We use FIT and other means of subsidies to drive solar and wind, but ignore other solutions. However, in just about every single case, it is a retrofit, which is expensive. But, there is a simple solution for all of this.
America, or even states, could require that all new homes and buildings under 4 stories, have 50% or possibly 100% of their HVAC (heating and AC required) come from on-site AE. This would actually encourage several things:
1) a number of contractors will simply throw up solar panels equal to the amount.
2) a number of other contractors would heavily insulate and drop the energy needs to the point, where a MINIMAL amount of AE is needed.
3) a number would try something like geo-thermal HVAC combined with 2 to allow them to drop it to one panel.
Basically, by adding this requirement, it would change the NEW buildings and separate them from the old ones. Considering the number of foreclosures that we have now, the last thing that we really need are new buildings that compete with many of these foreclosed buildings. At the same time, it pushes various AE without loads of incentives, while allowing contractor to move to whatever direction is economical and will sell.
Actually, if this works, we should probably cut the gov. support for Solar and instead, move the money to energy storage. It could be as simple as car batteries, but it could also be thermal storage which would then go into coal plants that are being shut down.
Seriously, where will it be installed at? Will it be licensed to American companies (where we have paid for this R&D), or will it go to China?
The best one would be :
But some other good sites would be
1) bigelow aersopace
2) space ref
3) The Space Review
And that should get your started.
Exactly. I think that Russia, and I am guessing China, keep their wings below so that nobody knows their true complement. By knowing what is on the deck, you get an idea of where they are headed.
However, at some point, we need to build a small solar furnace for melting sats and separating the various elements out. Interestingly, you have power, heat, and even an easy to centrifuge the output. Obviously we could not do the shuttle, however, there is LOADS of elements up there. Nuts the chinese were kind enough to spread around a bunch that we will likely capture one way or another.
So, prior to running it, you can not simply pump the air out and then lose a bit to space along with the odor? I think that you can.
They have 2 keels or more started. Supposedly, one is nuke powered. Likewise, they are turning out 1-2 new attack subs and 1-2 new ballastic subs each year. They have a protected sub base from which they are hiding construction and provide protection for the subs.
Offhand, I would not say that they are doing this slowly.
But handy to park over at venezuela and have 2-3 minute access to all that W/neo-cons moved from Central America to Texas.
Could still be in trials. But, did the russians keep their wings below or on deck?
It went out in sept, issues found and sent back for repair. Likewise, this went out for sea trials mid. nov. It is possible that this is a fully launched and commissioned aircraft carrier.
Anybody that responds to a sodium accident at a nuke plant would be WELL trained in it. And thorium is exactly what you want. Read up on Ft. Sr. Vrain.
Actually, you are the one having it backwards. A number of old coal plants are going to be shut down. These are typically on the order of 100-200 MWs and are located inside a city. Thankfully, they have a grid hook-up, cooling, etc. AND plenty of land around them. Now, a company like Hyperion, B&W, etc can build a reactor that does 100 MWe and simply plug one-two into these sites. How long will it take to implement it? Well, if done by the on-site approach that you think will dominate, it will take 10 years. OTH, if a company can manufacture everything and have it ready to go, then within 1-2 years, they are up and running. And if they have one, they can probably add a second reactor in under a year. The reason is that everything is all ready to go.
In addition, manufactured allows for a tighter QA control which is a big thing. And a factory can produce something much cheaper then doing on-site construction.
But lets take this one step further. PRISM is an IFR. It can be used to burn up waste. GE is heading towards production of these. Rather than a couple of larger ones, it is actually cheaper to put in say 5-10 of these on-site and burn up all the 'waste' fuel that is there. This is useful at a site like Zion which is already 'shut down', but it will take a decade to remove the current reactors. If Con-Ed can bring these reactors there NOW, they can continue to burn up the 'waste' and use the new reactors to pay for the old clean-up. The new reactors will be very easy to remove compared to the old ones. In the new ones, they can be shipped out in one piece. In the old reactors, they have to be torn down on-site and then shipped.