Everyone Else is Doing It!

In Kerry Picket's story regarding Solyndra in the Washington Times yesterday is this statement from Secretary of Energy Steven Chu:

Mr. Chu added that Western Europe, Japan, Korea, and China are also supportive of seeing renewable energy be developed through government spending, so the United States should be as well.

I guess Secretary Chu's mother never said, "If everyone was jumping off a bridge, would you, too?"

Pondering

I've been thinking about this today, and I can't wrap my head around it.

The Bible says drunkenness and extra-marital sex are wrong, and Christians generally tend to avoid those behaviors, or at least agree that they should avoid them.

The Book of Mormon (I've been told) says that "hot drinks"--meaning coffee and tea--are bad and should be avoided, and the Mormons I know do avoid them. Many of them avoid caffeine altogether.

The Q'uran says to avoid alcohol (of the vine or the grain, according to The 13th Warrior), and devout Muslim do not drink alcohol.

Even outside of the realm of spiritual religion, people who believe that fast food is bad for them generally avoid it. Vegetarians avoid eating meat, and vegans (how is that pronounced, anyway?) avoid all animal products, including dairy, eggs, and animal oils used in foods.

So why is it that people who believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) use electricity? Unless it's generated by nuclear or water power--both considered by many to be environmental hazards themselves--virtually all electricity is the result of burning fossil fuels. Isn't it hypocritical for people to use computers to write about how we should reduce or stop burning fossil fuels? What about going on television? I can't even imagine the power consumed by television cameras, studio lights, transmission towers, let alone all those big-screen plasma sets to tune it in. I'm not even going to mention those who travel the country, or the world, in gasoline or diesel powered vehicles and in jet aircraft, to rail against the very civilization that gave them those tools, for using those tools.

Why don't people who believe in AGW go live on a self-sufficient plot of land far away from electrical transmission lines? Maybe some Amish in Pennsylvania would be willing to sell part of their land.

Smart Grid Features Available Now!

In Wednesday's mail (2010/05/25) was the scariest piece of literature I've seen in a long time. No, it was not a piece of political campaign literature, although our primary is less than two weeks away. (I voted early, as soon as the polling place opened on the first day of early voting, so I simply throw away all candidates' mailings I receive.)

No, this was an offer from the utility company to participate in the "Cool Share" program. Just for signing up, we would be supplied with a "web-programmable thermostat"! These thermostats "can cut your cooling and heating costs by as much as 10% annually", according to estimates from the U.S. Department of Energy. And they allow me--and who knows how many bureaucrats--to manage my home's energy use. Remotely. From the internet. Regardless of how I've set it.

Now, they are careful to point out--on the reverse side--that these thermostats "do NOT allow [the utility company] to 'control' your home temperature". They say nothing about other organizations, such as the Department of Energy.

Of course, one of the bullet point advantages of these thermostats is that they "help…Reduce greenhouse gas emissions".

In a sidebar on that side, there is an explanation that in the Cool Share program, when it is very hot (104°F and above), the air conditioning unit will be placed in "conservation mode" for generally no more than three hours. They claim that this would typically happen only on weekdays, not weekends or holidays, except in case of…wait for it…"emergency."

As an additional enticement, participants can get $1.00 for each of these "conservation period[s]", up to a maximum of $29.


UPDATE 2010/06/12 I received a card in the mail explaining that this program is available only in Southern Nevada. That explains the references to 104° temperatures.

That's No Extremist; That's My Accountant!*

During the week of 22 March 2010 (I think it was Tuesday the 23rd), Glenn Beck tried to explain on his television show why the radicals in and around the Obama administration--including their accomplices in the media--are trying to label the Tea Party supporters as extremists. He had a diagram something like this:

Johnson and Nixon Pictures?

American Family Picture

=========================================

Collectivist Radicals' Pictures

Beck explained that during the radicals' youth in the 1960s and '70s, they felt the sting of ridicule because they were separated from mainstream America by their radical beliefs and actions. They perceived the people at the top as having sway over America, rather than their "superior" ideas ruling the day, because they were being marginalized.

Beck then took down "The Man's" pictures (as he called them), and put the radicals at the top, so it looked somewhat like this:

Collectivist Radicals' Pictures

American Family Picture

=========================================

Tea Party Pictures

Beck explained that this is what the radicals are attempting to do by claiming the Tea Party folks are extremists, racists, violent usurpers, etc. But guess what? 

IT WON'T WORK! 

Why? Because I believe most of America sees the picture more like this:

Collectivist Radicals

=========================================

American Family

Tea Party

*With apologies to Michael Graham, author of "That's No Angry Mob, That's My Mom".

The End of Yucca Mountain Does Not Mean the End of Nuclear

Michelle Malkin has a recent piece on her blog, which seems to suggest that the fact that Obama's budget provides $0 funding for the Yucca Mtn Nevada nuclear waste dump means that his administration lied about wanting to pursue nuclear energy in America.

My first reaction is, "Good! The State Bureaucratic Apparatus is actually refusing to spend money on something!"

Furthermore, I have heard Gov. Jim Gibbons express on more than one occasion his belief that the Yucca Mtn project was conceived as a way to ensure the American nuclear industry was shut down once and for all. He is against the project not on environmental grounds--he's a trained geological engineer--but on the grounds that the spent fuel should not be simply dumped and sealed. Instead, he favors reprocessing the spent fuel into new fuel rods that can be used in even more efficient ways in new plants.

The best way the administration could support a growth in nuclear energy in the U.S. is to appoint judges who won't rule against new plants because of environmental law; better yet, propose the repeal of the legislation that allows environmental groups to bring suit after suit to retard or stop the construction of new nuclear plants. And that wouldn't cost a bit!


The fact that the administration is not proposing these changes, not the failure to fund a particular project, is what puts the lie to Obama's statement.