None of them could possibly carry enough insurance to defend themselves from the lawsuit that would come when a terrorist did get through. Not only do you have 100+ wrongful death suits, but depending on where (and on what) the plane crashes, you could also be responsible for hundreds of millions more.
No insurance company would cover it at a rate which the airlines could afford. This means either (a) airlines don't fly, (b) the risk is uninsured and passed on to the rest of us, manifested in a few individuals randomly (unfairly, and non-free-market-like), or (c) the government just underwrites it gratis, which means that it is passed on to the rest of us at large.
No sir. Airline security is a public good, and therefore ought be implemented or heavily regulated by public agencies. Figure out the right security policy, and then it won't matter much if TSA is public or private, since airlines and airports can currently hire private companies to do their security, subject to (virtually) identical TSA requirements on search.
and while the LFL is extremely poor taste, I'm not sure that banning it from being played in Oklahoma City will result in those Sooners becoming (or remaining) evolved citizens.
It is written that the young man states that all he did was call Obama a p***k.
A Beds Police spokesman said: "The individual sent an email to the White House full of abusive and threatening language.
Abusive language? Fine. Threatening language? Nope. That's verboten. You get to call the President all kinds of names you like. However, if you threaten harm to the POTUS, you're in trouble. If you're subject to US jurisdiction, you'll be placed under arrest. If you're not, don't think you get to enter my country if you've threatened my president, be he Republican or Democrat.
If you believe the kid who was drunk at the time and doesn't seem to have a copy of the email he sent, the big bad US government is silencing free speech and going overboard. If you believe the UK spokesman, the young man threatened the President of the United States, and shouldn't be surprised that he's not allowed to enter the United States as a result.
but they're nibbling around the edges. The key is energy consumption. Light bulbs are a part of it, but here are some others.
One time ideas:
* Refrigerators. When you get a new one, get a really efficient one. Then, get rid of the old one -- or old few in your basement or garage. The old ones use an incredible amount of electricity, both because they were less efficient to begin with and because as they age they often fail in such a way that they don't cycle properly, resulting in even higher energy use.
* AC. Don't replace your AC unit... yet. First, get your attic air sealed and insulated... and as much of the rest of your house as possible. Then, ask to have the size of your AC re-evaluated. It's likely that your AC is oversized, and not only will you save with a new one because it's more efficient, you'll also save because it's smaller. Plus, there are plenty of gov't programs to subsidize all of this.
* Heating. Same story as AC.
* Switch to gas. If you're a New Englander with oil heat, switch to natural gas if you can. That's a 1/3 reduction in CO_2 per therm right off the bat. Again, gov't programs subsidize.
* Move closer to work/shopping/transit. Maybe not today, but the next time it's time to move.
* Move to a smaller home. Maybe not today, but the next time it's time to move.
All-the-time opportunities:
* Adjust the thermostat to require a sweater in the winter, or a cold drink in the summer. Programmable thermostats are a nice feature for many users too.
* Wash your clothes on cold. Hang your clothes to dry -- they'll last longer, and it'll save energy. Switch to a gas dryer if possible.
Those are some big opportunities, and that doesn't include driving (for which there are many ways to save). The things you mention help, but these are the ones which have a major impact. Not everybody can do all of them, but picking off one or two of these will save major... for example, washing on cold or hanging to dry saves about 2.5 kWh per use. You'd need to keep your CFL on for 100 hours to make up for the electricity of one time using your electric dryer.
Sick building syndrome was a problem in the 70s when architects and builders knew little about sick building syndrome. LEED -- not so much. There are points for indoor air quality. LEED rewards operable windows. LEED rewards low VOC (volatile organic compound) emissions from products. Increased ventilation and control of systems is part of LEED. CO_2 monitoring is part of LEED.
I'm not guaranteeing that every LEED certified building has high quality indoor air, but I'm asking you -- got three examples of a LEED building with indoor air quality problems, or are you just conflating 40 years of general commentary in a field you have no expertise because you wanted to write something smart on slashdot?
but China could have simply raised the tax on energy to push those inefficient industries out of business -- either because they rely on cheap energy (concrete) or because they're being out-competed by more efficient factories elsewhere (outdated, inefficient technology). Places with the $€£ could most certainly increase the tax on various energy sources to generate the same factory-closing result. It would have other results as well (everyone consuming less energy, a redistribution of wealth, etc etc) which may or may not be attractive for a given populace.
So yeah, the implementation of their policy reflects statism vs. democracy. The policy goal itself (reduce energy to GDP ratio) could certainly be attained by a democratic nation with democratic policies -- using taxation or carbon pricing.
The schools within the major 6 conferences (Big East, ACC, SEC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac-10) make up about 73 schools -- and a few of those in the Big East don't play football. In any case, those schools have athletic departments which break even. They make a whole bunch of money directly in football, and a little in basketball (ticket sales, licensing, TV); those two sports are also primary drivers for the alumni donations, which is the indirect money being generated. The athletic programs lose money in the rest of the sports, from baseball on down the line to women's track and field. At the end of the year, they break even -- no money ever really leaves the department. Sure, tuition, room, board, books, fees, etc come from athletics into the university to cover the costs, but the university doesn't get money transferred from the athletic program. Instead, the athletic program builds even nicer locker rooms or weight rooms or stadiums. The flip side: the athletic program doesn't get any money from the university either.
Now, the remaining schools in D1 -- their athletic programs very likely lose money, despite their football and basketball programs making a slight profit. D2 and D3 schools? Even their football and basketball teams lose money.
but I'm surprised that they didn't get a bigger drum, in order to minimize the curvature of the surface with which the elastic was in contact. I have no idea if their model corrects for the fact that the elastic is not rolling down a 'flat' surface, but rather one with a curve. Bigger drum, smaller curve.
The study included the cost of management, security, fuel procurement, waste disposal, and decomissioning of the power plant -- costs for which the US government pays some or all.
Include those costs, and gee whiz -- the nuclear power plants are getting quite a deal, only paying about 1/3 of the actual cost of their operation.
There's plenty of freely available surface area, above ground, some tilted toward the sun, tightly positively correlated with the actual consumption of electricity. They're called roofs. There's another giant space which is largely unused by humans -- the SW desert, which is currently being used for concentrated solar, etc. I have no idea what the nuclear and solar W/skm ratios are, but it's not clear to me that they're dramatically different given the massive area around a nuclear power plant which must be fenced off, as well as the area appropriated for mining. Maybe they are dramatically different, but at the end of the day it's simply not a binding constraint since neither nuclear nor solar are taking up land which is highly valuable -- nuclear plants are generally in suburbs/exurbs, and solar is on roofs or in the desert by and large.
France pulls off their system because Germany buys their nighttime power generation. Germany is roughly the size of France. Canada is roughly 1/10th the size of the USA. See the problem?
The argument that the sun doesn't shine at night is exactly backwards. Demand at night is about half of what it is during the day, and it would be even less except that some industries intentionally run at night because the spot price is cheaper. With solar, those folks would gladly shift to daytime operations.
Nobody has suggested that solar should generate 100% of the power; same goes for nuclear. Given that adding more of either would be perfectly fine in terms of supply-demand grid management, why not go with the choice which is cheaper for that location?
P.S. I have no idea where you get 0.06 USD/kWh from (no citation), but I do love how you take pot shots at the public nature of the organization while still praising their low cost. Clearly, were it not a public organization they'd be selling it for something cheaper, right? Next time you "question the mode of cost calculation in the article," it would be helpful to provide your own contrary cost calculation, eh?
What is the total cost of install and operation for 50 years for the solar project? What is it for a nuclear plant? A coal fired plant? The solar power plant likely has a higher construction and installation cost, but it likely has a lower operating cost.
I don't know the answers to the questions I'm raising -- but I do think that simply asking "That's $20,000 per home?" isn't the question which yields the most useful answer.
P.S. It's a loan guarantee. $1.45B is the upper limit on how much it will cost the taxpayers. The lower limit is $0.
Let's focus only on the 13 of carbon emissions in America which are electricity related:
Coal emits 2.1 lbs CO_2-eq per kWh generated. Oil 1.9, nat gas 1.3. Wind, solar, geothermal 0. If we instantaneously switched all 20 quads of energy from coal used to generate electricity to natural gas *tomorrow*, we'd save roughly 10% of our overall carbon emissions (coal is 1/3 of overall carbon emissions used almost entirely for electricity, and switching to gas saves 1/3 (1.3/2.1 ~= 2/3)). So the 10% is nice, but it's clearly not enough.
We've got to do better than that. Additional ways to do better include:
* Improving building envelope (air sealing and insulation) has a substantial impact on both heating and cooling load. Interested in the electricity portion -- focus on the southeast and the southwest explicitly. Work to improve the existing building infrastructure with regard to envelope.
* Strengthen building codes. There's no point in tightening up old buildings if we permit new buildings to be built leaky. This is especially important to do at the Federal level, because (a) most new construction is in the southeast and southwest, not northeast nor midwest, and (b) their Republican governments have shown no interest in passing state laws. Before you go off on a libertarian rant, keep in mind that even if a homeowner was savvy enough to understand the importance of a tight and well insulated home, he would have very little ability to measure/inspect the potential home because seeing through sheetrock is nontrivial. Building inspectors, on the other hand, are looking at the space before finish walls are installed, and therefore have a perfect opportunity to inspect for energy efficiency.
* Follow California's lead in ratcheting up energy efficiency requirements for appliances and electronics. Sure, they won't get it all right the first time -- that's true of just about all engineering projects -- but the overall impact is substantial. It's not just about saving money for customers, it's also about reducing the demand on the grid and at the power stations.
* White/green/solar roofs, particularly in urban areas, particularly in those with more sun exposure in warmer climes. This is a simple building/zoning code change, and it has a tangible impact over time.
* Local renewable. Solar or wind at the home or small commercial level, on site, helps not only reduce demand (from the utility, it appears to be the same thing), but it also reduces the demands on the local grid. This is important because it allows us to hold off on building larger capacity at the local level for as long as possible, a huge savings. Ways to foster this include tax credits, time-variable pricing (solar), and even simply ensuring that net-metering is legal everywhere.
* Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) have been enacted in roughly 30 states. Essentially, they require utilities to increase the percentage of renewable electricity in the mix of their electrons by a little bit each year or every few years. They define what counts as renewable (typically large hydro is excluded, biofuel may or may not be, wind and solar and geothermal are, some states allow a portion to be met with negawatts (efficiency improvements). The elegance is that the utilities can choose the technologies / facilities which make sense for them to meet the criteria, they can "bank" surplus credits, and if they come up short they pay a financial penalty which is severe enough to make compliance cheaper than punishment.
You'll notice I've entirely avoided mentioning nuclear power. I'm not opposed to it, but I also acknowledge that it's far more expensive for society than the pro-nuke folks let on, and it's far safer than the anti-nuke folks acknowledge. In either case, since it is more expensive than lots of alternatives, let's work on the alternatives and see how far we can push them. If we've legitimately pushed wind and solar and geothermal and efficiency as far as we can and
If you're building new, modern building codes result in a more insulated space. In my opinion modern codes -- even those in CA or the "stretch in MA or the base points in LEED -- aren't aggressive enough, but they're far better than existing conditions in most buildings. Of course, the same opportunities exist for major remodeling or work on the exterior.
Sometimes, though, the mechanical unit needs to be replaced, and quickly. In those cases, would you prefer that this new AC not exist (assuming they work out any chemical safety issues)? For spaces which are currently being used, the interruptions caused by upgrading the building envelope may be intolerable, a non-starter. In those cases, would you rather this new AC not exist?
You're absolutely right -- improving the insulation and air-sealing of our building stock would have a remarkable impact on our energy use. Still, this new AC system, if it works as advertised, can be applied to buildings for which an insulation and air-sealing upgrade simply isn't in the cards in the near term.
Adding another tool to the belt isn't a bad thing, as long as we continue to use the right tool for the job. Building codes will help ensure that we do.
Fines don't amount to much, even if they're huge -- shareholders get hurt, but the decisionmakers don't get hurt enough.
The solution: long jail sentences, from the CEO on down to middle management. If you knew about this and were anything but a prole, you need to go to jail. A policy like this and management will consider safety far more important than they do now.
P.S. Same goes for Massey up in West Virginia, etc.
if you had a policy which ignored industry and federal and state and local standards on driver hours per week or hours per day, and it was reasonable to conclude that your policy played a role in the driver falling asleep, then yes.
If, on the other hand, you had a policy which reinforced (or even outdid) the safety procedures, and despite quality employee and contractor screening, despite training, despite good policy, something bad still happened (individual negligence or simply bad luck), then no.
In short, management's role is reducing the likelihood of major disasters. Did they do their job? I don't know the answer, but I suspect that the next few years will include a number of investigations to figure that out.
And since my one television is a CRT style and I didn't get the digital converter gadget, I've had no broadcast television since the switch.
An old flaky DVD player, Netflix, and the occasional 10 minutes of Colbert or Stewart or SNL Weekend Update meet my needs. My wife supplements with shows on Netflix Instant View. The savings since 2000: roughly $10,000 in 2010 dollars, minus roughly $1800 in Netflix (if I had had it the entire 10 years), $2000 spent in bars watching sports on television while drinking cold beer and eating nachos, and $7.65 in late fees at the library.
How am I faring? Better for having not watched American Idol, Lost, 24, regular season MLB games, etc. Plus more money in my pocket and I've enjoyed watching all 100 on the AFI list as well as lots of other films, documentaries, and television series worth watching. Plus beer and nachos when watching sports.
and how that's supposedly good because the carbon is sequestered, etc. Not many posts about the chemical nasties involved in converting trees to pulp to paper, or where those nasties end up, or how much energy is required to harvest the wood, convert it, and deliver it, or how much waste is in the manufacturing of printers, ink cartridges, and ink.
If demand for paper continues to fall, know what that land will be used for? Growing trees. Instead of using that timber for paper, it'll be used for lumber or for biomass electricity generation (which has a net zero carbon emission).
So yeah, trust your instincts on this one... like nearly every processed item, wasting less paper is better for the environment.
the majority must have more than twice as many as the minority
No. A majority vote requires 50% + epsilon to pass. However, a 2/3 vote typically requires that the majority must have at least twice as many as the minority, not "more than twice as many". Which is to say, if there are three people voting, only two voting yea passes the bill, not three.
There's really no excuse for this. The bills should have different color and size to help the visually impaired. There's no good reason not to. Sure, don't change the $1 due to bill readers. I suppose there are $5/$10/$20 readers, though usually at the post office (and hence easy to change from the government's perspective). But really -- why not mix up the $50 and $100 so that they're easier for those with disabilities to use. It'd at least be a step in the right direction.
I buy about 100-150 CDs each year, and the only ones which come shrink wrapped are local bands who self-publish. The rest of my CDs all come used -- local shops, eBay, amazon, GoodWill, friends, whatever. I've got a long list of music I'd like to own, and I'm in no hurry to buy any particular album, so I rarely pay more than $3 for a CD (including shipping). Since I listen to music from mp3 files 100% of the time, a slightly damaged jewel case or booklet doesn't matter to me.
It costs me less to own more, I'm not giving any money to the MPAA, and I'm not involved in creating more plastic waste -- we Americans own enough crap already. If this helps depress the price of used CDs too, that's ab-fab!
1. A felony gun charge means this man won't ever be able to legally own a gun again. That's a good thing as far as I can tell. 2. More news coverage, which means more reminders to gun owners to be responsible. 3. More news coverage, which reminds society of the dangers of firearms, and helps us continue the debate about "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 4. Remember, it wasn't his child. He was the stepfather. Nearly all parents love their own children with everything they've got. Stepparents -- not so much.
Lots of parents are criminally negligent to children they love. It doesn't change the state's responsibility to society as a whole, as well as to the children in the home. This man will still live with at least one other child (a 1 year old). He's clearly not fit to live in a home with children. Yes Martha, any responsible gun owner will tell you that this situation is absolutely impossible for a responsible gun owner. Left it on a table? Forgot about it? Nonsense. As soon as the threat is mitigated, you return that firearm to a holster, and then to a locked cabinet. No exceptions, not ever.
Slashdot Mirror
None of them could possibly carry enough insurance to defend themselves from the lawsuit that would come when a terrorist did get through. Not only do you have 100+ wrongful death suits, but depending on where (and on what) the plane crashes, you could also be responsible for hundreds of millions more.
No insurance company would cover it at a rate which the airlines could afford. This means either (a) airlines don't fly, (b) the risk is uninsured and passed on to the rest of us, manifested in a few individuals randomly (unfairly, and non-free-market-like), or (c) the government just underwrites it gratis, which means that it is passed on to the rest of us at large.
No sir. Airline security is a public good, and therefore ought be implemented or heavily regulated by public agencies. Figure out the right security policy, and then it won't matter much if TSA is public or private, since airlines and airports can currently hire private companies to do their security, subject to (virtually) identical TSA requirements on search.
and while the LFL is extremely poor taste, I'm not sure that banning it from being played in Oklahoma City will result in those Sooners becoming (or remaining) evolved citizens.
It is written that the young man states that all he did was call Obama a p***k.
Abusive language? Fine. Threatening language? Nope. That's verboten. You get to call the President all kinds of names you like. However, if you threaten harm to the POTUS, you're in trouble. If you're subject to US jurisdiction, you'll be placed under arrest. If you're not, don't think you get to enter my country if you've threatened my president, be he Republican or Democrat.
If you believe the kid who was drunk at the time and doesn't seem to have a copy of the email he sent, the big bad US government is silencing free speech and going overboard. If you believe the UK spokesman, the young man threatened the President of the United States, and shouldn't be surprised that he's not allowed to enter the United States as a result.
but they're nibbling around the edges. The key is energy consumption. Light bulbs are a part of it, but here are some others.
One time ideas:
* Refrigerators. When you get a new one, get a really efficient one. Then, get rid of the old one -- or old few in your basement or garage. The old ones use an incredible amount of electricity, both because they were less efficient to begin with and because as they age they often fail in such a way that they don't cycle properly, resulting in even higher energy use.
* AC. Don't replace your AC unit... yet. First, get your attic air sealed and insulated... and as much of the rest of your house as possible. Then, ask to have the size of your AC re-evaluated. It's likely that your AC is oversized, and not only will you save with a new one because it's more efficient, you'll also save because it's smaller. Plus, there are plenty of gov't programs to subsidize all of this.
* Heating. Same story as AC.
* Switch to gas. If you're a New Englander with oil heat, switch to natural gas if you can. That's a 1/3 reduction in CO_2 per therm right off the bat. Again, gov't programs subsidize.
* Move closer to work/shopping/transit. Maybe not today, but the next time it's time to move.
* Move to a smaller home. Maybe not today, but the next time it's time to move.
All-the-time opportunities:
* Adjust the thermostat to require a sweater in the winter, or a cold drink in the summer. Programmable thermostats are a nice feature for many users too.
* Wash your clothes on cold. Hang your clothes to dry -- they'll last longer, and it'll save energy. Switch to a gas dryer if possible.
Those are some big opportunities, and that doesn't include driving (for which there are many ways to save). The things you mention help, but these are the ones which have a major impact. Not everybody can do all of them, but picking off one or two of these will save major... for example, washing on cold or hanging to dry saves about 2.5 kWh per use. You'd need to keep your CFL on for 100 hours to make up for the electricity of one time using your electric dryer.
Sick building syndrome was a problem in the 70s when architects and builders knew little about sick building syndrome. LEED -- not so much. There are points for indoor air quality. LEED rewards operable windows. LEED rewards low VOC (volatile organic compound) emissions from products. Increased ventilation and control of systems is part of LEED. CO_2 monitoring is part of LEED.
I'm not guaranteeing that every LEED certified building has high quality indoor air, but I'm asking you -- got three examples of a LEED building with indoor air quality problems, or are you just conflating 40 years of general commentary in a field you have no expertise because you wanted to write something smart on slashdot?
but China could have simply raised the tax on energy to push those inefficient industries out of business -- either because they rely on cheap energy (concrete) or because they're being out-competed by more efficient factories elsewhere (outdated, inefficient technology). Places with the $€£ could most certainly increase the tax on various energy sources to generate the same factory-closing result. It would have other results as well (everyone consuming less energy, a redistribution of wealth, etc etc) which may or may not be attractive for a given populace.
So yeah, the implementation of their policy reflects statism vs. democracy. The policy goal itself (reduce energy to GDP ratio) could certainly be attained by a democratic nation with democratic policies -- using taxation or carbon pricing.
The schools within the major 6 conferences (Big East, ACC, SEC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac-10) make up about 73 schools -- and a few of those in the Big East don't play football. In any case, those schools have athletic departments which break even. They make a whole bunch of money directly in football, and a little in basketball (ticket sales, licensing, TV); those two sports are also primary drivers for the alumni donations, which is the indirect money being generated. The athletic programs lose money in the rest of the sports, from baseball on down the line to women's track and field. At the end of the year, they break even -- no money ever really leaves the department. Sure, tuition, room, board, books, fees, etc come from athletics into the university to cover the costs, but the university doesn't get money transferred from the athletic program. Instead, the athletic program builds even nicer locker rooms or weight rooms or stadiums. The flip side: the athletic program doesn't get any money from the university either.
Now, the remaining schools in D1 -- their athletic programs very likely lose money, despite their football and basketball programs making a slight profit. D2 and D3 schools? Even their football and basketball teams lose money.
no surgeon would do it, lest he lose his license, due to those pesky ethics rules by which doctors must abide.
but I'm surprised that they didn't get a bigger drum, in order to minimize the curvature of the surface with which the elastic was in contact. I have no idea if their model corrects for the fact that the elastic is not rolling down a 'flat' surface, but rather one with a curve. Bigger drum, smaller curve.
The study included the cost of management, security, fuel procurement, waste disposal, and decomissioning of the power plant -- costs for which the US government pays some or all.
Include those costs, and gee whiz -- the nuclear power plants are getting quite a deal, only paying about 1/3 of the actual cost of their operation.
There's plenty of freely available surface area, above ground, some tilted toward the sun, tightly positively correlated with the actual consumption of electricity. They're called roofs. There's another giant space which is largely unused by humans -- the SW desert, which is currently being used for concentrated solar, etc. I have no idea what the nuclear and solar W/skm ratios are, but it's not clear to me that they're dramatically different given the massive area around a nuclear power plant which must be fenced off, as well as the area appropriated for mining. Maybe they are dramatically different, but at the end of the day it's simply not a binding constraint since neither nuclear nor solar are taking up land which is highly valuable -- nuclear plants are generally in suburbs/exurbs, and solar is on roofs or in the desert by and large.
France pulls off their system because Germany buys their nighttime power generation. Germany is roughly the size of France. Canada is roughly 1/10th the size of the USA. See the problem?
The argument that the sun doesn't shine at night is exactly backwards. Demand at night is about half of what it is during the day, and it would be even less except that some industries intentionally run at night because the spot price is cheaper. With solar, those folks would gladly shift to daytime operations.
Nobody has suggested that solar should generate 100% of the power; same goes for nuclear. Given that adding more of either would be perfectly fine in terms of supply-demand grid management, why not go with the choice which is cheaper for that location?
P.S. I have no idea where you get 0.06 USD/kWh from (no citation), but I do love how you take pot shots at the public nature of the organization while still praising their low cost. Clearly, were it not a public organization they'd be selling it for something cheaper, right? Next time you "question the mode of cost calculation in the article," it would be helpful to provide your own contrary cost calculation, eh?
What is the total cost of install and operation for 50 years for the solar project? What is it for a nuclear plant? A coal fired plant? The solar power plant likely has a higher construction and installation cost, but it likely has a lower operating cost.
I don't know the answers to the questions I'm raising -- but I do think that simply asking "That's $20,000 per home?" isn't the question which yields the most useful answer.
P.S. It's a loan guarantee. $1.45B is the upper limit on how much it will cost the taxpayers. The lower limit is $0.
Let's focus only on the 13 of carbon emissions in America which are electricity related:
Coal emits 2.1 lbs CO_2-eq per kWh generated. Oil 1.9, nat gas 1.3. Wind, solar, geothermal 0. If we instantaneously switched all 20 quads of energy from coal used to generate electricity to natural gas *tomorrow*, we'd save roughly 10% of our overall carbon emissions (coal is 1/3 of overall carbon emissions used almost entirely for electricity, and switching to gas saves 1/3 (1.3/2.1 ~= 2/3)). So the 10% is nice, but it's clearly not enough.
We've got to do better than that. Additional ways to do better include:
* Improving building envelope (air sealing and insulation) has a substantial impact on both heating and cooling load. Interested in the electricity portion -- focus on the southeast and the southwest explicitly. Work to improve the existing building infrastructure with regard to envelope.
* Strengthen building codes. There's no point in tightening up old buildings if we permit new buildings to be built leaky. This is especially important to do at the Federal level, because (a) most new construction is in the southeast and southwest, not northeast nor midwest, and (b) their Republican governments have shown no interest in passing state laws. Before you go off on a libertarian rant, keep in mind that even if a homeowner was savvy enough to understand the importance of a tight and well insulated home, he would have very little ability to measure/inspect the potential home because seeing through sheetrock is nontrivial. Building inspectors, on the other hand, are looking at the space before finish walls are installed, and therefore have a perfect opportunity to inspect for energy efficiency.
* Follow California's lead in ratcheting up energy efficiency requirements for appliances and electronics. Sure, they won't get it all right the first time -- that's true of just about all engineering projects -- but the overall impact is substantial. It's not just about saving money for customers, it's also about reducing the demand on the grid and at the power stations.
* White/green/solar roofs, particularly in urban areas, particularly in those with more sun exposure in warmer climes. This is a simple building/zoning code change, and it has a tangible impact over time.
* Local renewable. Solar or wind at the home or small commercial level, on site, helps not only reduce demand (from the utility, it appears to be the same thing), but it also reduces the demands on the local grid. This is important because it allows us to hold off on building larger capacity at the local level for as long as possible, a huge savings. Ways to foster this include tax credits, time-variable pricing (solar), and even simply ensuring that net-metering is legal everywhere.
* Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) have been enacted in roughly 30 states. Essentially, they require utilities to increase the percentage of renewable electricity in the mix of their electrons by a little bit each year or every few years. They define what counts as renewable (typically large hydro is excluded, biofuel may or may not be, wind and solar and geothermal are, some states allow a portion to be met with negawatts (efficiency improvements). The elegance is that the utilities can choose the technologies / facilities which make sense for them to meet the criteria, they can "bank" surplus credits, and if they come up short they pay a financial penalty which is severe enough to make compliance cheaper than punishment.
You'll notice I've entirely avoided mentioning nuclear power. I'm not opposed to it, but I also acknowledge that it's far more expensive for society than the pro-nuke folks let on, and it's far safer than the anti-nuke folks acknowledge. In either case, since it is more expensive than lots of alternatives, let's work on the alternatives and see how far we can push them. If we've legitimately pushed wind and solar and geothermal and efficiency as far as we can and
The United States Post Office is self-sufficient
If you're building new, modern building codes result in a more insulated space. In my opinion modern codes -- even those in CA or the "stretch in MA or the base points in LEED -- aren't aggressive enough, but they're far better than existing conditions in most buildings. Of course, the same opportunities exist for major remodeling or work on the exterior.
Sometimes, though, the mechanical unit needs to be replaced, and quickly. In those cases, would you prefer that this new AC not exist (assuming they work out any chemical safety issues)? For spaces which are currently being used, the interruptions caused by upgrading the building envelope may be intolerable, a non-starter. In those cases, would you rather this new AC not exist?
You're absolutely right -- improving the insulation and air-sealing of our building stock would have a remarkable impact on our energy use. Still, this new AC system, if it works as advertised, can be applied to buildings for which an insulation and air-sealing upgrade simply isn't in the cards in the near term.
Adding another tool to the belt isn't a bad thing, as long as we continue to use the right tool for the job. Building codes will help ensure that we do.
that was Joseph Cao, a GOP rep from LA who's unlikely to win re-election.
At least he didn't apologize to BP like that other Republican Joe from the Gulf Coast.
Fines don't amount to much, even if they're huge -- shareholders get hurt, but the decisionmakers don't get hurt enough.
The solution: long jail sentences, from the CEO on down to middle management. If you knew about this and were anything but a prole, you need to go to jail. A policy like this and management will consider safety far more important than they do now.
P.S. Same goes for Massey up in West Virginia, etc.
if you had a policy which ignored industry and federal and state and local standards on driver hours per week or hours per day, and it was reasonable to conclude that your policy played a role in the driver falling asleep, then yes.
If, on the other hand, you had a policy which reinforced (or even outdid) the safety procedures, and despite quality employee and contractor screening, despite training, despite good policy, something bad still happened (individual negligence or simply bad luck), then no.
In short, management's role is reducing the likelihood of major disasters. Did they do their job? I don't know the answer, but I suspect that the next few years will include a number of investigations to figure that out.
And since my one television is a CRT style and I didn't get the digital converter gadget, I've had no broadcast television since the switch.
An old flaky DVD player, Netflix, and the occasional 10 minutes of Colbert or Stewart or SNL Weekend Update meet my needs. My wife supplements with shows on Netflix Instant View. The savings since 2000: roughly $10,000 in 2010 dollars, minus roughly $1800 in Netflix (if I had had it the entire 10 years), $2000 spent in bars watching sports on television while drinking cold beer and eating nachos, and $7.65 in late fees at the library.
How am I faring? Better for having not watched American Idol, Lost, 24, regular season MLB games, etc. Plus more money in my pocket and I've enjoyed watching all 100 on the AFI list as well as lots of other films, documentaries, and television series worth watching. Plus beer and nachos when watching sports.
and how that's supposedly good because the carbon is sequestered, etc. Not many posts about the chemical nasties involved in converting trees to pulp to paper, or where those nasties end up, or how much energy is required to harvest the wood, convert it, and deliver it, or how much waste is in the manufacturing of printers, ink cartridges, and ink.
If demand for paper continues to fall, know what that land will be used for? Growing trees. Instead of using that timber for paper, it'll be used for lumber or for biomass electricity generation (which has a net zero carbon emission).
So yeah, trust your instincts on this one... like nearly every processed item, wasting less paper is better for the environment.
No. A majority vote requires 50% + epsilon to pass. However, a 2/3 vote typically requires that the majority must have at least twice as many as the minority, not "more than twice as many". Which is to say, if there are three people voting, only two voting yea passes the bill, not three.
There's really no excuse for this. The bills should have different color and size to help the visually impaired. There's no good reason not to. Sure, don't change the $1 due to bill readers. I suppose there are $5/$10/$20 readers, though usually at the post office (and hence easy to change from the government's perspective). But really -- why not mix up the $50 and $100 so that they're easier for those with disabilities to use. It'd at least be a step in the right direction.
I buy about 100-150 CDs each year, and the only ones which come shrink wrapped are local bands who self-publish. The rest of my CDs all come used -- local shops, eBay, amazon, GoodWill, friends, whatever. I've got a long list of music I'd like to own, and I'm in no hurry to buy any particular album, so I rarely pay more than $3 for a CD (including shipping). Since I listen to music from mp3 files 100% of the time, a slightly damaged jewel case or booklet doesn't matter to me.
It costs me less to own more, I'm not giving any money to the MPAA, and I'm not involved in creating more plastic waste -- we Americans own enough crap already. If this helps depress the price of used CDs too, that's ab-fab!
1. A felony gun charge means this man won't ever be able to legally own a gun again. That's a good thing as far as I can tell.
2. More news coverage, which means more reminders to gun owners to be responsible.
3. More news coverage, which reminds society of the dangers of firearms, and helps us continue the debate about "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
4. Remember, it wasn't his child. He was the stepfather. Nearly all parents love their own children with everything they've got. Stepparents -- not so much.
Lots of parents are criminally negligent to children they love. It doesn't change the state's responsibility to society as a whole, as well as to the children in the home. This man will still live with at least one other child (a 1 year old). He's clearly not fit to live in a home with children. Yes Martha, any responsible gun owner will tell you that this situation is absolutely impossible for a responsible gun owner. Left it on a table? Forgot about it? Nonsense. As soon as the threat is mitigated, you return that firearm to a holster, and then to a locked cabinet. No exceptions, not ever.