Comments EJLightning has made

  • Wow. Seriously?

    Does anybody know how to apply basic science anymore?  Seeing as how part of what plants do is absorb CO2 and release O2 (the basic science of photosynthesis), an enclosed space with plants and no ventilation would quickly be depleted of CO2.  And greenhouses are enclosed to keep humidity and temperature elevated (with only the most advanced ones even considering artificially controlling CO2 concentration, and that's typically for experimental purposes).

    Aside from that, sure increased CO2 could have a positive effect on plant life... if we weren't in an almost constant state of reducing the amount of plant life that exists.  Oh, and increased CO2 means more gets absorbed in the ocean, which, while a great buffer (some advanced science there), will result in a lower pH where studies already report impacts on reefs and shellfish.  And evidence shows the heat trapping effects are leading to other greenhouse gasses being released, like methane from beneath the permafrost in Siberia.  And more methane in the atmosphere can't be spun into anything remotely positive.

    This is all just the tip of the ice berg (rimshot), but basically, I'm surprised someone tried to write off elevated CO2 as blindly positive.On What Obama's new science adviser has to say about climate change posted 11 months, 1 week ago 4 Responses

  • Digital not the same as High-Def

    The country is switching to digital broadcasting in February, which, while offering improved video and audio, does not mean we're getting nothing but high-definition over the airwaves.On Union of Concerned Scientists offers tip to buy most energy-efficient TV posted 1 year ago 15 Responses

  • Indeed...

    Again, more good points made, especially #2, which I didn't want to dive into too heavily here.  Simply, it's good to note that decoupling offers the customer the chance to benefit from cost decreases just same as they have the risk of a cost increase... and the current method doesn't readily afford them that benefit.

    As for semantics... yes, if my wording sounded otherwise, my intention was along the lines you mentioned.  It was probably my personal belief that, in such a case, promoting efficiency would make the most logical sense.On Decoupling 101: Of triage and panaceas posted 1 year ago 5 Responses

  • Transferring risk to customer

    First off, good piece on decoupling, especially making the point that it's not the long term fix but merely a step in the right direction.

    The one thing you mention (and something I hear often about decoupling) is the idea that all this risk is shifted to the customer.  I can't speak for all utilities and rate plans, but ultimately this belief can be placed into question since utilities already recapture losses with fuel charges, rate increases, etc.  It seems more that the shift is simply in the timing in which the customer sees the impact of events, with decoupling keeping charges more up to date.

    Also, one bonus that wasn't mentioned was that with the utility's disincentive to promote efficiency removed, there's a better chance for costly load building projects to be delayed and for other costs to be kept lower over the long run, helping to keep rates below what they would have been (which, sadly, is a really ambiguous savings to conceptualize).On Decoupling 101: Of triage and panaceas posted 1 year ago 5 Responses

  • Tourist in my own city

    I took a moment last weekend to walk around and take pictures like a tourist... and I live here.  This place is disturbingly different from the explosion of American flags to the advertising plastered on the science museum to the "Fox News compound".  It's ridiculous.On RNC: Me, in the Twilight Zone posted 1 year, 2 months ago 19 Responses