global warming, again

Post Reply New Topic

Centralized computer control would be better, but there must be very careful handling of the transients. It wouldn't do for a momentary glitch to trigger a sub-grid shutdown.

Even if there is computer control there should be a manual override. Think of what would happen if the grid control computer were hacked.

ruveyn

Making the grid more efficient and making electrical devices more efficient (especially electric lights) would reduce our electricity consumption by about 25 percent (all other things being equal). That is like finding a gigantic new oil field in the middle of Kansas. And we would not need to import any extra fuel to get this bonus. So no matter what alternative energy sources we use, restructuring our electricity uses should be an integral part of it.

Waste not, want not.

ruveyn

@ Pete, if you don't give a damn why did you choose to come to a thread about climate change?

Because I like to troll the greenies.

that makes you, sir, a major pillock and a knobhead.

...The light-bulb ban was part of an energy bill pushed by Democrats in 2007 that set efficiency standards that traditional incandescent bulbs could never meet. The first to go was supposed to be the 100 watt bulb in 2012, followed by 75 watt bulbs the next year and the ubiquitous 60-watt bulb in 2014.

The argument is that forcing consumers to buy more efficient — and far more expensive — bulbs will greatly reduce energy consumption, and in turn, air pollution and global warming.

Earlier this month, Republicans suspended the law until October by denying funds for its implementation as part of a massive spending bill. For Democrats, this move was another sign of how out of touch the GOP is.

But look who else is complaining. As Politico reported, "big companies like General Electric, Philips and Osram Sylvania (are) fuming." Allegedly these companies are mad because they invested lots of money getting ready for the new rules.

Fact is, they were pushing for the ban all along.

In 2007, Philips urged an incandescent ban as a way to force the market toward high-efficiency bulbs, complaining that without such laws, "purchase price and functional performance often take precedence over environmental concern."

That same year, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, which represents companies making 95% of bulbs sold in the U.S., told a Senate panel that a ban was needed "to further educate consumers on the benefits of energy-efficient products."

Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast
You can believe if you want these companies only had Mother Earth in mind with this ban. But more likely they saw it as a chance to fatten their bottom lines. Who wouldn't jump at the chance to outlaw a low-margin, 60-cent product when you're trying to hawk a high-margin $3 alternative?

This would hardly be the first time big business teamed up with big government to enhance profits through competition-crushing regulations. Timothy Carney's book, "The Big Ripoff," detailed many cases where businesses "profit from big government policies that rip off consumers."

Thanks to the GOP, consumers now can see this seedy process at work, clear as day.

that makes you, sir, a major pillock and a knobhead.

No, it makes him pathetic. Think about it: most trolls at least have enough of a life that they focus on forums that they're at least interested in. This guy has so little going on that he has to whine about how bored he is anywhere he happens to land.

Solar energy is expected to be at a concurentive price from oil by 2020, basically tomorrow.