| Author |
Message |
    
Notehead
| | Posted on Friday, March 16, 2001 - 3:19 pm: |     |
Rechargeables hold a charge maybe 1/2 to 2/3 as long as top-of-the-line alkalines, but it hasn't been a problem, especially in things like flashlights, remotes, clocks, portable CD players, etc. If you like to bring a giant full-powered boom-box everywhere, you'd be disappointed. And if it you bring on MY street, I'd be disappointed too. :-) NiCads can be recharged 500 to 2000 times, other types are guaranteed for LIFE. The batteries come in all the standard sizes. I've got one charger that just takes 2 or 4 AA's. I stick it in the window in the morning, and by dinner they're ready to use. And every time I'm listening to CD's on my walkman, I dig the fact that I'm running on pure sunlight.
Actually, there are quite a few chargers to choose from, and some of them can also be plugged into your car's lighter jack. I recommend two sources who have a number of brands and models:
www.realgoods.com
www.jademountain.com
Both these companies have great websites which are fun to browse, and very helpful, competent folks on the phone. They also deal in full-blown home power systems and all sorts of other cool stuff. The way solar panel prices have been coming down, I'm really hoping to power my house via solar in 5 years or so, and get a check every month from PSE&G for any surplus I produce via "net-metering" laws.
Anyway, check 'em out and have fun. |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Friday, March 16, 2001 - 3:29 pm: | |
Notehead -- thanks!
I don't think I'll ever get quite as savvy as you, but I like to conserve where I can. I will be buying a solar-powered attic fan this year which will cool the attic in the summertime, and reduce humidity and ice dams in the winter. My house faces south, and I'm not sure I want to change the look of the house by putting solar panels on the front side. Hopefully, the fan will get enough sun from the east or north sides (I have a hipped roof) to power the fan. |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Friday, March 16, 2001 - 3:37 pm: | |
Thanks for the sites, Notehead!
Bacata |
Notehead
| | Posted on Friday, March 16, 2001 - 3:53 pm: | |
Glad to see the interest! By the way, I just noticed this article on msnbc about how a number of Republicans are joining with Dems to submit legislation to limit carbon dioxide emissions. Very glad to see this hasn't become a pure party-line issue.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/543793.asp |
Jur050
| | Posted on Friday, March 16, 2001 - 4:01 pm: | |
President Bush's position on power-plant emissions and climate change could be a case study in how to properly weigh costs and benefits.
He made clear this week, as he has before, that he sees a real need to study global climate trends. And he made equally clear that he'll enforce clean-air laws, even those many would regard as onerous.
Bush also promised to "work with the Congress, to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury," all of which are classified by the Clean Air Act as "pollutants."
But Bush wants to keep America's lights on, too!
And its homes warm! And its businesses running!
For that to happen, America must have sufficient electricity, produced by power plants, including many that emit carbon dioxide. So while Bush will work with lawmakers on other chemicals, he's against further hamstringing plants with new limits on carbon dioxide emissions.
Is that reckless? Not at all!
Such curbs would impose costly burdens on those plants, sending electric prices soaring even higher than the near record levels they're at now.
Consumers, and businesses would bear the brunt, at a time when unstable financial markets and slowing sales and production levels are spotlighting real dangers in the economy.
A report in December by the regulation-loving Clinton administration's Energy Department documented how emission caps would lead to higher energy prices. With the economy teetering, such a blow could be fatal. Talk about reckless!
And while the steep costs of CO2 cuts are clear, the supposed "benefits" are anything but!
Scientists, after all, have yet to establish any conclusive proof that caps will stave off any potential climate-related problems, that power plants are causing undesirable climate change or even that such changes are taking place at all.
Last week, remember, they couldn't even predict the weather!
In fact, CO2 caps are so costly, and offer such unclear gains, that even uber-greenie Al Gore, as a presidential candidate, didn't endorse them.
Clearly, Bush knows how to weigh costs and benefits. |
Shh
| | Posted on Friday, March 16, 2001 - 4:58 pm: | |
Jur050, could you please repeat that "prudent at this juncture" line in your best Dana Carvey accent? SNL is just not the same. |
Ashear
| | Posted on Friday, March 16, 2001 - 6:17 pm: | |
Clearly Bush does know how to weigh costs and benefits. During the campaign he thought it would be beneficial to say he was going to limit CO2 emissions to get votes. Now it would cost him support from oil and gas interests to which he and his Veep are so closely tied so he has changed his tune. If it is so clear this is the right thing to do why did he say the exact opposite during the campaign, taking, as noted, a position even tougher than that espoused by Gore? |
Jur050
| | Posted on Sunday, March 18, 2001 - 10:23 pm: | |
Ashear, Given the possibility of placing further restrictions upon businesses, by initiating CO2 requirements, (for you Shh!) does not seem prudent at this juncture. Look around at the leading economic indicators called the equity markets, see how they fall down, go boom. These markets began dropping in mid 2000, they really have picked up steam last week.
Just wait till people take a close look at their quarterly 401K statements for the end of the first quarter! I suspect a lot of people will witness the impact of the declines on their own holdings. Many may choose to reallocate further investments away from equities as a result.
The investment world is experiencing one of it's "cycles." The economy is changing. Our President is aware of the changes taking place, and his decision, to wait for further study, before implementation of further requirements on power companies to control the emission of CO2, might help prevent additional increases in electricity costs.
I am painfully aware of the desire for the prevention of "Global Warming." I work directly in that business. However, I am also not willing to apply additional pressure to the economy at this tme. It would contradict the efforts to stimulate the economy. Efforts that have the markets calling for an additional cut in rates of a half, to 3/4 of a point in interest rates this coming week.
The courage to make decisions that go against a campaign promise, are why we elect leaders. They sometimes have to make adjustments to fit the situation, because the situation has changed. It is changing! This decision on CO2 directly costs my company many millions of dollars in potential revenues, as well as many already spent. As a business that was positioned to benefit from CO2 legislation, we are angry with his about-face.
Unpopular decisions frequently cost politicians the trust of the voter. It provides ammunition for critics. You may not think that this decision was tough, but it certainly is proving to be an unpopular one. One that may irritate many voters, and in my case, my business. But, I am of the opinion that this flip flop, on CO2 is a correct one at this time.
I am proud to, once again, have a President who is willing to take a stand. I am sick an tired of focus groups, and polls, being used to decide crucial issues. Clinton rarely had to face an issue of this magnitude, he waffeled every chance he could. It takes man willing to make mistakes, a leader willing to make difficult, and unpopular decisions to show true leadership.
Hey, Bush is not trying to please everyone, so he can win a peace prize, or leave a legacy. He is trying his best to lead, pimples and all. He certainly hasn't run from controversy. The Clinton administration always seemed to be hiding from making tough decisions. Compare their first hundred days! Thank goodness we have a leader! |
Ashear
| | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2001 - 8:52 am: | |
While the rational you construct is very nice for Bush there are a few problems with it.
In reversing his position Bush claimed that he did not know during the campaign that CO2 was not considered a pollutant under the clean air act. This indicates either that he is an idiot who did not check his facts before making a promise to the American people or a liar. I personally think its clearly the later. The idiot thing is handy as an excuse but he can't be as stupid as he seems. My favorite though is this quote John Grasser, vice president of the National Mining Association, who "extolled the virtues of the "good old-fashioned lobbying" he said his organization engaged in over the past two weeks." Nah, no politics here, just good old fashioned courage.
Maybe if Bush said, well this is not the time to cut CO2 emissions, we will do it when the economy gets better, your defense would hold some water. He has not said that. He has reversed himself not only on limiting CO2 emissions, but on CO2 emissions being a problem at all. The later flip flop can't be based on the economy. He was either lying then or he's lying now. (By the way, I would rather have the economy sag a little than have the icecaps melt, but hey, that's just me.)
It also convenient that he keeps talking down the economy, fanning the flames of market panic, to help along passage of his tax cut, which can't possibly have any effect on the current downturn given the way it is backloaded to make his funny numbers (fuzzy math) work. Honesty and courage would be nice. Maybe the next President. |
Jur050
| | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2001 - 10:40 am: | |
What a politician lie? God forbid! Of course we should have gotten used to it during the past eight years!
And as for being stupid, " I had no idea that my brother Hugh or my campaign strategist were involved..." Certainly I was there, but I have no recollection and have no comment. |
Jur050
| | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2001 - 10:49 am: | |
Notehead, "Bush has in just one day managed to disgust and anger other world leaders all over the globe. His decision to break his campaign promise is indefensible." Replace Bush with Clinton, and subtitute parents with world leaders. Now my daughter knows what oral sex is "is." |
Djun
| | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2001 - 10:54 am: | |
A few words of wisdom from our president:
"I suspect that had my dad not been president, he'd be asking the same
questions: How'd your meeting go with so-and-so? · How did you feel when
you stood up in front of the people for the State of the Union Address÷state
of the budget address, whatever you call it."÷Interview with the Washington
Post, March 9, 2001
"I think there is some methodology in my travels." ÷Washington, D.C.,
March 5, 2001
"I'm also honored to be here with the speaker of the House÷just happens to
be from the state of Illinois. I'd like to describe the speaker as a trustworthy
man. He's the kind of fellow who says when he gives you his word he means
it. Sometimes that doesn't happen all the time in the political
process."÷Chicago, March 6, 2001 (Thanks to Gary Belkin.)Ê
"Ann and I will carry out this equivocal message to the world: Markets must
be open."÷Swearing-in ceremony for Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman,
Washington, D.C., March 2, 2001
"Of all states that understands local control of schools, Iowa is such a
state."÷Council Bluffs, Iowa, Feb. 28, 2001 (Thanks to Peter Sagal)
"Those of us who spent time in the agricultural sector and in the heartland, we
understand how unfair the death penalty is."÷Omaha, Neb., Feb. 28, 2001
"My pan plays down an unprecedented amount of our national
debt."÷Budget address to Congress, Feb. 27, 2001
"The budget caps were busted, mightily so. And we are reviewing with people
like Judd Gregg from New Hampshire and others some budgetary reform
measures that will reinstate÷you know, possibly reinstate budgetary
discipline. But the caps no longer÷the caps, I guess they're there. But they
didn't mean much."÷Washington, D.C., Feb. 5, 2001 (Thanks to Ehren
Meditz)
"I have said that the sanction regime is like Swiss cheese÷that meant that
they weren't very effective."÷White House press conference, Washington,
D.C., Feb. 22, 2001
"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy
test.''÷Townsend, Tenn., Feb. 21, 2001Ê
"Home is important. It's important to have a home."÷Crawford, Texas, Feb.
18, 2001
---
Excerpted from the ever-growing page:
http://slate.msn.com/Features/bushisms/bushisms.asp |
Ashear
| | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2001 - 11:15 am: | |
Jur050: How sad. Your defense of Bush is now that he is a liar like any other politician and no worse than Clinton. It is dismal that our expectations for our leaders have become so low. You certainly have gone a long way from your defense of our heroic and courageous leader. How does the fact that Clinton did repulsive things in his personal life and then lied about or that he may have abused the pardon power make Bush's lies any better? As I said, maybe the next president.
One other thing: "Certainly I was there, but I have no recollection and have no comment." Is that a quote from Bush the elder on Iran/Contra? |
Jur050
| | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2001 - 11:17 am: | |
Perhaps it was "a breathtaking betrayal," said Rep. Henry Waxman, who evidently regards his home state of California as a model of a sustainable energy. Yet, even as the folly of green energy policy has been exposed in his own backyard, Mr. Waxman and his brethren still seem to think that their take on environmental matters is sacrosanct.
For three decades now, Republicans have largely left environmental policy to the Left. Even when faced with absurd propositions (a ban on chlorine, say, or Kyoto Treaty constraints on economic growth) the GOP typically retreats to the sidelines.
But whether from fear of attack or sheer ineptitude, the GOP has utterly failed to craft and convey a coherent environmental platform that would engage voters. So, on a campaign swing through industrial Saginaw, Mich., last fall, Mr. Bush evidently tried to curry environmental favor (and, perhaps, temper opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Reserve) by pledging to impose new restrictions on carbon-dioxide emissions.
No smokestack technology even exists to capture CO2, so utilities would effectively be forced to retrofit plants for natural gas or significantly limit power production. Energy costs, meanwhile, would soar (a recent DOE study estimates by $115 billion a year!) as power plants consumed more costly supplies of natural gas.
It is of course, ironic that the very same folks who now decry the Bush tax cut plan as a windfall for the ãrichä also advocate emission restrictions that would disproportionately impact lower-income Americans.
In his second debate with Al Gore, for example, Bush addressed a question about global warming, "Thereâs differing opinions (on the science)," he said, "and before we react, I think itâs best to have the full accounting, full understanding of whatâs taking place."
Fortunately, Mr. Bush realized this week that curbing CO2 emissions would be reckless for an economy short on energy and flirting with recession. But he may not have come right out and said that because that might be "fanning the flames of market panic." |
Eliz
| | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2001 - 11:20 am: | |
DJun - It would be a whole lot funnier if it weren't so scary...
Responding to criticism of Bush with shots at the Clintons is such a tired GOP pasttime - what someone on another thread refers to as "nanny nanny poo poo" - the grade school recess debating strategy. It's my theory that the republicans will miss Clinton more than the dems - where/how will they direct their venom? |
Jur050
| | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2001 - 11:25 am: | |
Hey, my defense stands! Changing one's opinion or policy, or correcting a mistake is couragous! I can only hope to witness other examples of leaders actually leading. And if I were held accountable for the sins of my father..... |
Jur050
| | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2001 - 11:31 am: | |
Two questions for Notehead!
Will making ice cubes help prevent global warming?
Should you drive an electric car if the electricity comes from a polluting power plant? |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2001 - 12:26 pm: | |
Okay, so if Bush renegs on environmental policy it is called being prudent in the face of new information (whether financial or scientific.) If Florio renegs on tax policy it is called something entirely different (not printable). It's so interesting how different standards are applied across party lines.
Bacata |
Johnjdel
| | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2001 - 12:42 pm: | |
Eliz,
You speak of venom? Nanny nanny poo poo?
Based on this thread, the best criticism of our President is to call him "dumb."
Talk about name-calling in the school yard. |
John
| | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2001 - 12:43 pm: | |
B.
In my mind there is no difference. No energy crisis has crept up on us over the past 3 mos. or even the past year as far as I can tell. Keep an eye on the TAX BREAK PROPOSAL. |
John
| | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2001 - 12:50 pm: | |
Just a few general questions. If environmentally it does not make any difference, why did Bush make the promise? If it does make a difference, why is he reneging on it? What new information does he have? |
Face
| | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2001 - 1:33 pm: | |
That "it's the economy, stupid." A quote made by many during the 1992 Presidential campaign. |
John
| | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2001 - 2:19 pm: | |
Wasn't he saying the economy is heading into recession during the campaign? So what else has changed? |
Notehead
| | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2001 - 2:38 pm: | |
Jur050,
Will making ice cubes help prevent global warming?
No. But I like the question.
Should you drive an electric car if the electricity comes from a polluting power plant?
Yes. Absolutely. Definitely. Critics who are long on wind but short on research seem to think this is some sort of Achilles' heel in the electric vehicle (EV) debate. The fact is that even if an electric car is charged from standard filthy grid power, it would produce in total less than 10% of the emissions per mile that modern gasoline-powered cars with internal combustion engines. Also, those emissions would be centralized so that they would be vastly easier to deal with.
I still don't understand how easily people miss the point that the cost of addressing CO2 emissions will only increase as we continue to procrastinate. Significantly reducing CO2 will take a toll on our economy, yeah, well you reap what you sow. NOT significantly reducing CO2 will take a massive toll on our economy in the form of increased natural disasters, huge numbers of jobs lost, crop yields all messed up, and other impacts. If now is not a great time to deal with this, ten years from now will be worse, especially as we have mounting problems with fresh water running out in the midwest and south, and petroleum demand due to exceed supply in ten years or less.
Incidentally, JUR050, why did you bring Clinton into this? This discussion has nothing to do with him. I get the impression you're not here to teach or to learn, but merely to argue. |
Jfb
| | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2001 - 3:13 pm: | |
Global Warming? Where is the evidence?
CO2 Science Web Site
http://www.co2science.org/ |
Jur050
| | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2001 - 3:45 pm: | |
Notehead, Here's another one, "What do you do when an endangered animal is eating an endangered plant?"
I concur with your answer to my electric car question. In particular, the fact that it would centralize emissions, making them clearly, (no pun intended) more easily dealt with. Scrubbing equipment is costly, and best utilized at the source. Any source that can handle larger output is more economical, and easier to monitor, to insure compliance.
I chose Clinton as an example of a politician that lied. The fact that he lied early, and often, helped to make my point that politicians lie. Any politician would do, but I felt he more obviously than most any other. And as for acting dumb, who better than Hillary. Check out her comments regarding almost any of the controversies emanating from the past two months. Wow, and they say Sulfur stinks!
Any guesses on why Clinton never passed CO2 legislation? |
Notehead
| | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2001 - 4:21 pm: | |
Okay, that's a funny question. Is there a punch line? :-)
No idea why Clinton didn't pass CO2 legislation... as you might guess, I was really hoping he would be more supportive of Kyoto. He totally failed to follow through on his "million solar roofs" initiative, and I really think all his monument-making, federal preserve this-n-that, etc., at the end was more about legacy building that environmental protection. And I really can't say much in support of his wife, either. We'll see how she does.
I read today that the DOE was scheduled to release a comprehensive plan in the next couple of weeks, should make for good reading (!) and fine fodder for the ol' message board. Until then, I have to bow out as I will be on a long-awaited vacation for a while. |
Jur050
| | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2001 - 4:55 pm: | |
Notehead, You seem like a good dude! Contrary to popular belief, I am not an Enviromental Nazi! Nor am I an Environmental Hippie! I do work in the Emissions Industry, and I am pleased to hear about your interest in conservation. most everyone is concerned with the safety of the planet, but conclusive proof that CO2 is indeed a "natural" polutant is unavailable.
The correlations that show up so far are akin to the rule of Ted, "Love is blind, God is love, Ray Charles is Blind, therefore Ray Charles is God!" |
Jur050
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 3:20 pm: | |
I have a theory regarding the lost Environmentalists, they are secretly pleased to have Bush provide some fodder for their cannons. |
Dave
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 9:47 pm: | |
Bush & Whitman say OK to arsenic in water:
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2001/03/20/arsenic/index.html |
Johnjdel
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 10:27 pm: | |
Dave, Dave, Dave...
You would have failed your journalism class. YOUR headline, and the headline of the story, are very, very different. I didn't see anyplace where G.W. and Cristie were singing the "We Love Arsenic Song.." Shame on you, Mr Sensationalize.
As a matter of fact, this is what I read:
"The Bush administration on Tuesday rescinded a decision made three days before the end of Bill Clinton's presidency to require 3,000 communities to upgrade their water systems to protect against arsenic poisoning.
The Environmental Protection Agency said it was withdrawing the new standards reducing allowable levels of arsenic in drinking water by 80 percent until it can review the science and costs more.
"I am committed to safe and affordable drinking water for all Americans. I want to be sure that the conclusions about arsenic in the rule are supported by the best available science," said EPA Administrator Christie Whitman. "
One question Dave: Clinton's legislation was an act of Congress, right?
Keep sending me to Salon.com and I'll be forced put you right smack in the middle of FreeRepublic.com. That's a warning!  |
Dave
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 10:45 pm: | |
Yes, I did fail journalism.... oh well. But I aced chemistry.
Also, it's a wire story (AP), which freerepublic doesn't carry. They publish Bob Barr. |
Dave
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2001 - 10:21 am: | |
And here's the part you didn't quote:
The EPA had proposed setting it at 5 parts per billion last year in
response to a lawsuit by the Natural Resources Defense Council but
then settled at 10 parts per billion. In 1999, the National Academy
of Sciences found arsenic in drinking water causes bladder, lung
and skin cancer, and might cause liver and kidney cancer.
NRDC said it will file another suit challenging Tuesday's decision.
"This outrageous act is just another example of how the polluters
have taken over the government," said Erik D. Olson, an attorney
for the environmental group, referring to the mining interests that
are the source of some arsenic.
|
Nohero
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2001 - 10:42 am: | |
Which reminds me of a favorite song:
Quote:You're a rotter, Mr. Grinch,
You're the king of sinful sots,
Your heart's a dead tomato
splotched with moldy purple spots,
Mr. Gri-inch,
You're a three decker sauerkraut
and toadstool sandwich
with arsenic sauce!
Sorry, couldn't help myself. Carry on. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page