2wheeler’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Way back in 1989

  ...at the University of Washington (go, Huskies!), a dozen and a half of us organized a campus-wide Earth Day (I think it was #17 of the annual series).  

  The theme was, "Toward Environmental Sustainability".  I continue to believe it was apt and prescient.  Communicating a sense of action/movement is good.  We wanted to get everyone involved in working toward this common goal, hopefully all year round and not just on this one day or week.

  A bigger challenge will be be to define specifically in the context of your work and company's mission and goals, what moving toward sustainability means.  And then see about doing those things in real time, all year long.  

  Good luck!
  On Umbra on catchy Earth Day slogans posted 8 months ago 4 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Problem solved

  thanks, DrX.  Next question for sustainability, please?

  Seriously I am thinking this is do-able, increasing conservation efficiency a few percent a year is totally in the realm of the possible. And the price tag of the above estimate does not seem high especially in light of other recent questionable expenses ($2trillion on a war for oil, etc.)

  Yes, We Can get sustainable renewable energy and get off the carbon habit.

  Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.

  On A smart grid, yes. A new national grid, no. posted 8 months ago 27 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Hello?

  It was an "economics" conference, right.  Forget the "eco", they were dollar thinkers.  WSJ at the front of the line.  And you're surprised?   It's their yardstick.  The problem of externalities needs to be repeatedly emphasized in their presence, as evidence their system is insufficient for society to use in measuring "progress".

  The other folks in attendance, probably kept trying to point out that there is more to decision making than payback time.  Many folks buy depreciating assets and "use them up" with no expectations of payback.  Clothes, food, transportation, housing (rent or mortgage interest), etc.    

  I believe we simply need a new yardstick. The dismal science can only inform us so much in regards to public decision making.  A sustainability index, a quality of life index,  both would be arguably better than a GDP to measure and communicate "progress" toward meaningful national goals that we'd want to strive for and proudly point to as we pass the torch to our children and theirs down the line.

  Re-conceptualizing progress: that's the real challenge before us all at this time.  Not re-defining it for pragmatic reasons due to the economic downturn, but actually bringing in all those other values of quality of life, which the economists just can't begin to measure.   That work is still in its infancy, I'm afraid.  But at least Grist is shining a light into the territory we should be mapping.

  Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.

  On In the face of all evidence, some folks just can't see green as anything but a cost posted 8 months ago 5 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Hell

  There have to be better alternatives to the status quo.  The differences between the various states in the US, is still currently quite dramatic.  

  I agree with Sean Casten's comment above at 08:52 (his second seems obvious and understated).

  DrX doesn't know how good he has it, in his comparative paradise for green energy producer/consumers (Wisconsin):

  Reasonable regulation and incentives for conservation and efficiency directly to homeowners, farmers, and businesses might work better.  Giving more incentives to the same old monopolies probably won't change the status quo.

  Some power companies are actually proactive passing on government incentives to their customers for renewables and conservation, a power company here pays 23 cents per kwh for customer's solar energy.  They are reimbursed by government.  

  But most power companies take the incentives for the renewable energy generated by customers and impose net metering at retail rates.  Making it impossible for customers to actually make their investment pay beyond simply offsetting their bill.

  I suspect that any rate givebacks are due to regulations in effect requiring such (counterbalance for consumers in the face of the utility monopolies).  

  Ohio ratepayers like me don't even get retail for any net metering we'd install-- we get WHOLESALE (retail less the utility's alleged costs of service delivery) back from any excess power put back into the grid.  But, hey, we at least get to average our use/generation over a year's time before asking for the big cash back payment on any net excess we'd generated.  This leaves ZERO threat to the utility's baseload control of the rest of the grid energy production.

  Try figuring out the payback time on that one folks. It's quite long indeed.  Totally bolsters the status quo stranglehold the utils have on the system of power production and usage; exactly the opposite of the decentralized future that renewables and smart grid could take us to.  It's therefore no wonder the utilities are the last ones to come onboard with the concept of distributed renewable green energy.  Until those  holding the cards today, figure out how to own the means of production and profit from it, it will be up to the people on their own to bootstrap a way toward sustainable energy future.

  To be fair Ohio does have a recently passed mandate for 20 percent "advanced/renewable" energy but it's likely to be laughable what passes for "advanced".  Will it pass for a legitimate RPS? Time will tell.

  Any fair system of energy savings cost incentives would probably skew the profit sharing the other way around-- 90 percent for the consumers who are subject to the monopoly's predation, and 10 percent to the monopoly.  It would still be a huge amount of profit if the available low-hanging fruit were adequately addressed (probably 1/3 of the electricity being used today by homes and businesses, in my opinion could be saved using cost effective measures).

  Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.

  On South Carolina misses an opportunity for energy efficiency with Duke's Save-A-Watt program posted 8 months, 1 week ago 18 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Tuna salad, anyone? Wash it down with a cold soda

  I agree the FDA is asleep at the wheel if they don't make all efforts to absolutely minimize (eliminating whenever feasible) any content of mercury in the public food supply.  Banning the mercury-produced caustic soda from use in HFCS production would be a simple, feasible step to take, and routine testing for mercury levels in HFCS would also be easy as a cross-check.  The FDA has numeric standards for bacteria content in meat, why not for mercury in the food supply?

  Zero risk is never possible, but how does "assuming most of the mercury is not in a high risk organic form" (backed up by no testing to prove this, let alone demonstrate that inorganic mercury is risk-free) equate to responsible government?  

  What happened to the Delaney Clause? I never hear about that anymore. Oh right, that only applied to carcinogens anyway.  And the concept of prudent avoidance / the precautionary principle?  We need a new Delaney in congress to update the FDA's mission in this type of area.

  There's enough mercury floating around anyway without adding to our exposure from bioconcentrated food sources.  The Obama administration is pursuing an international treaty to reduce mercury emissions.  They need to talk to their FDA.  It's time to turn the page from "the lost years" of 2001-08.
  On Why is the FDA unwilling to study evidence of mercury in high-fructose corn syrup? posted 8 months, 2 weeks ago 7 Responses