I've seen several short videos from Representative Martha Roby about the Working Families Flexibility Act she is sponsoring in the House. It sounds just wonderful. The Republicans have said over and over that the regular working folks should have the same rights that government employees enjoy. These employees have the right to choose time and a half extra pay for their overtime hours or to be compensated with hours of extra time off during regular working hours.
Is this good? The example I've seen a couple of times is about a mother that works at an accounting firm. She is very busy during the tax season January - April 15th. She obviously won't be taking any vacation time during this part of the year, and she will work a lot of overtime as the tax filing deadline approaches. On the other hand, the rest of the year isn't nearly as busy. She would prefer to take all of the overtime she has worked during tax season as extra vacation time during the rest of the year. That makes a lot of sense for her, giving her time to spend with her children. It is also beneficial to her employer. The company doesn't need to staff up during peak tax season with temporary employees or pay a lot of extra overtime salary to the regular employees. So the employer saves money.
Without the passage of this act, employers in the private sector must pay their employees time and a half for the overtime. Taking "comp time" in lieu of the pay is not an option, and it is against the law. The Working Families Flexibility Act changes this. According to what I've read about this act, the employee will have the choice: pay or comp time. That is generally good for the employee, but are there unintended consequences?
What if the employee works in a manufacturing plant, and the corporate sales are increasing as the company comes out of the recession. They have been running 2 shifts, and now 16 hours/day x 5 days/week isn't quite enough to meet production demands. So the 1st shift employees come in an hour early for a while. Then, as sales continue to rise, the 2nd shift begins working an extra hour every day. This gradually increases until both shifts are working 2 hours/day overtime, and first shift works on Saturday mornings. At this point, the company adds a partial third shift. What if an employee decides that he or she wants to take the extra 80 or 100 hours overtime as 2 - 2 1/2 extra weeks of vacation? What if the employer's sales are continuing to rise and they really can't afford to do without this employee for all of that "comp time?"
I think the sentiment is great. The government always tries to make things better for us. The problem is that they usually end up creating a MessAPolitico. Why is it the government's place to tell us how to run our lives or our businesses? If an employer needs employees, they will do something to entice them to come to work for the company. That might mean offering higher pay or better benefits or child care or "comp time" or whatever it takes to get employees with the skills demanded by the job. If we have a truly laissez-faire economy, employers will compete for the best employees. Conversely, employees will have the incentive to stay in school and gain skills that provide them with better compensation.
I think we are replacing one MessAPolitico with another. The government should never have told employers that they had to pay people for overtime with no other option. By the same token, they should not tell them that the employee's wishes for "comp time" must be allowed. THE GOVERNMENT SHOULDN'T BE MESSING AROUND IN THIS AT ALL! Stay out of our business. If I don't like the way I'm treated or compensated at work, I'll just go find another job. (At least, I would if the government hadn't run so many of the good manufacturing jobs out of the country with laws and regulations like this one.)
Friday, May 17, 2013
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Do the Libertarians Have It Right?
I have akways considered myself a conservative. If you look at my profile, it says that my political views are conservative. However, over the past few years, I have begun to lean farther and farther toward the Libertarian position on most issues. These happen to be positions that are extremely important to me personally. I know that this political leaning came about as my freedoms came into focus. Obama took the presidency, and pretty soon, the freedoms that I had taken for granted for all of my life were being threatened. So, maybe I'm really a Libertarian, and I just don't know it.
Oddly, I don't feel that my views have changed much for as long as I can remember. I do feel that the stance taken by a lot of politicians that claim to be conservative has changed on many important issues. Maybe they feel that they need to move toward the center to appeal to the moderates and independents. Does that not move the center viewpoint toward the left? If it does, then conservatives continue farther and farther to the left as they move toward a moving center. Does that make any sense at all?
This has created a great deal of frustration in me, and I'm sure that I'm not alone. Today, a winning candidate that is neither a Republican or a Democrat is as rare as hen's teeth. A true Libertarian voter faced with a choice of a Republican or Democrat doesn't see that there is a "lesser of the two evils." The Libertarian believes that Republicans and Democrats are exactly alike. They will either stay at home on election day or vote for a Libertarian candidate that has no chance of winning. I personally believe that there is a difference between a Republican and a Democrat, but they are getting much closer together than I would like.
I think a lot of voters find themselves in the same predicament as me. So what do we do? How can we express our views in the polling place? How do I get my elected representative to represent my viewpoint? There are some choices.
The real truth is that the full blown Libertarians I know have a few positions that are just too radical for me. They seem like conspriracy theorists on some issues. I hear quite a few anti-semetic remarks about zionist money policies, jews running wall street, and the federal reserve being dangerous. I definitely agree with them about the federal reserve causing many problems with their Keynesian money policies, but I'd rather not have the anti-semetism thrown in.
I've heard remarks about the federal income tax being illegal and unconstitutional. Well, the federal government needs a source of revenue to exist, so federal taxes are inevitable. I do agree wholeheartedly that the government takes way too much money though. That is done to support a bunch of programs that shouldn't exist. I will write again what I've written before: the government is not very good at doing most things, so it should be limited to doing only those things that MUST be done by government. That means they should take care of national defense, police and fire protection, roads, and minimal law making, but not much more.
I also get the impression that Libertarians don't believe in national defense. I'm not sure that is a totally correct impression, but the media has tried to paint them this way. I believe the Libertarian stance (and you Libertarians feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is that national defense should be used strictly to defend America. It is not to be used to free the oppressed in other countries or guarantee access to oil supplies in the middle east or even protect our allies around the world from whatever threat they face. Generally I agree with this position. I believe that we sometimes have seen expansion of communism or facism or a dictatorship as a threat to our national interest, and we have fought a war to protect our interest. I'm not sure how anyone could argue that the European campaign in World War II was a bad use of our national defense.
So what about Benghazi? Why were we in Libya fighting a war? Would the USA be involved in the war on terror if we had allowed Saddam Hussein to overthrow the government in Kuwait? Would the World Trade Center towers still be standing? We will never know, but I suspect the Libertarians have that one right. We should have minded our own business instead of starting a MessAPolitico.
Oddly, I don't feel that my views have changed much for as long as I can remember. I do feel that the stance taken by a lot of politicians that claim to be conservative has changed on many important issues. Maybe they feel that they need to move toward the center to appeal to the moderates and independents. Does that not move the center viewpoint toward the left? If it does, then conservatives continue farther and farther to the left as they move toward a moving center. Does that make any sense at all?
This has created a great deal of frustration in me, and I'm sure that I'm not alone. Today, a winning candidate that is neither a Republican or a Democrat is as rare as hen's teeth. A true Libertarian voter faced with a choice of a Republican or Democrat doesn't see that there is a "lesser of the two evils." The Libertarian believes that Republicans and Democrats are exactly alike. They will either stay at home on election day or vote for a Libertarian candidate that has no chance of winning. I personally believe that there is a difference between a Republican and a Democrat, but they are getting much closer together than I would like.
I think a lot of voters find themselves in the same predicament as me. So what do we do? How can we express our views in the polling place? How do I get my elected representative to represent my viewpoint? There are some choices.
- We could write letters and communicate with our Republican or "Blue Dog" Democrat elected officials and tell them when they don't represent our views. This needs to be done repeatedly until they feel threatened in the next election. We must steer the Republicans back toward the right to the position they were elected to represent.
- We could stay home on election day, guaranteeing a Democrat win. Someone please tell me how this helps advance the conservative or Libertarian cause?
- We could vote Libertarian and hope that more conservatives will move in this direction. In other words, we would be willing to wait on the world to come over to the Libertarian point of view, regardless of how long it will take. How many years of Democrat control will we suffer through before the Republican party is replaced by the Libertarian party as one of the big two? Will there be a country left then?
- We could hope for a stealth Libertarian like Rand Paul to win the presidential election on the Republican ticket. This one might even happen. I can't think of anything Rand Paul has ever said that I disagree with. It's almost like getting Ron Paul without the quirks.
The real truth is that the full blown Libertarians I know have a few positions that are just too radical for me. They seem like conspriracy theorists on some issues. I hear quite a few anti-semetic remarks about zionist money policies, jews running wall street, and the federal reserve being dangerous. I definitely agree with them about the federal reserve causing many problems with their Keynesian money policies, but I'd rather not have the anti-semetism thrown in.
I've heard remarks about the federal income tax being illegal and unconstitutional. Well, the federal government needs a source of revenue to exist, so federal taxes are inevitable. I do agree wholeheartedly that the government takes way too much money though. That is done to support a bunch of programs that shouldn't exist. I will write again what I've written before: the government is not very good at doing most things, so it should be limited to doing only those things that MUST be done by government. That means they should take care of national defense, police and fire protection, roads, and minimal law making, but not much more.
I also get the impression that Libertarians don't believe in national defense. I'm not sure that is a totally correct impression, but the media has tried to paint them this way. I believe the Libertarian stance (and you Libertarians feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is that national defense should be used strictly to defend America. It is not to be used to free the oppressed in other countries or guarantee access to oil supplies in the middle east or even protect our allies around the world from whatever threat they face. Generally I agree with this position. I believe that we sometimes have seen expansion of communism or facism or a dictatorship as a threat to our national interest, and we have fought a war to protect our interest. I'm not sure how anyone could argue that the European campaign in World War II was a bad use of our national defense.
So what about Benghazi? Why were we in Libya fighting a war? Would the USA be involved in the war on terror if we had allowed Saddam Hussein to overthrow the government in Kuwait? Would the World Trade Center towers still be standing? We will never know, but I suspect the Libertarians have that one right. We should have minded our own business instead of starting a MessAPolitico.
Monday, May 13, 2013
Benghazi: It's Just Politics, Right?
I heard several liberal, Obama apologist callers say that the Republicans are just playing politics with the tragedy in Benghazi. Is that right? Jay Carney says it happened a long time ago; why are we still talking about it? A commission studied the events last September 11th in Benghazi to see what could be done to prevent future incidents like this. That commission didn't find anything newsworthy to the mainstream media. So the Republicans are just playing politics and trying to damage their political rivals on the other side of the aisle.
I think it is interesting that the Democrats are accusing the Republicans of playing politics. Somehow, every time a Democrat accuses a rival of anything, it is exactly the thing the Democrat is guilty of doing. Didn't the Democrat political machine all quickly line up the talking points back in September? They all were quick to go on television to tell us the violence was the result of some crummy little YouTube video that few people had even noticed. Our state department even created an apology video that was run on television in the middle east. It never dawned on them that this was the anniversary of the attack on New York City and Washington in 2001.
If the Obama administration, the CIA, and Hillary Clinton are really stupid enough to believe this "hogwash," then why would we elect them to run our country? There are only two possibilities with the administration: they were really stupid or they were lying to the American people. If they were lying, then they must really consider us to be pretty stupid. Of course, they didn't have to worry about the mainstream media; those guys will believe anything the Obama administration tells them. Either the media is too stupid to figure this thing out, or they are complicit in advancing the lie. Are they complicit in the lie, or were they just willing to perpetuate it to assist in the cover up.
The cover up went very deep. The video maker was exposed to the world, and he was arrested. We can't allow freedom of speech to anyone that would dare say anything politically incorrect. If the video was the cause of a protest that turned into an attack, was it justification to commit murder? The attack didn't happen at the California home of the video maker. Four Americans were killed that had nothing to do with the video. They probably hadn't even seen it. (For that matter, I doubt that the embassy attackers had either.) But, of course, America is to blame. America is always at fault when something bad happens.
So, why did there need to be a cover up at all? It was just politics. Politics that created a MessAPolitico. Politics that didn't take the proper response to the attack. Politics that lied and tried to say the attack was something it wasn't. Politics that saved Obama's skin in the election last fall. Yes, the Democrats put politics ahead of principle.
I would argue that they could have easily responded several ways that would have been much better, and they would have still won the election. What were the options that were not chosen:
This is a MessAPolitico that wouldn't have even happened if it wasn't for politics. Imagine that. Politics is a nasty game. Politics is nothing but a politically correct word to describe lying and corruption. Dress up a turd and tell everyone it's a candy bar. Say it over and over until they believe it. Eventually someone notices a bad smell. A MessAPolitico always stinks.
I think it is interesting that the Democrats are accusing the Republicans of playing politics. Somehow, every time a Democrat accuses a rival of anything, it is exactly the thing the Democrat is guilty of doing. Didn't the Democrat political machine all quickly line up the talking points back in September? They all were quick to go on television to tell us the violence was the result of some crummy little YouTube video that few people had even noticed. Our state department even created an apology video that was run on television in the middle east. It never dawned on them that this was the anniversary of the attack on New York City and Washington in 2001.
If the Obama administration, the CIA, and Hillary Clinton are really stupid enough to believe this "hogwash," then why would we elect them to run our country? There are only two possibilities with the administration: they were really stupid or they were lying to the American people. If they were lying, then they must really consider us to be pretty stupid. Of course, they didn't have to worry about the mainstream media; those guys will believe anything the Obama administration tells them. Either the media is too stupid to figure this thing out, or they are complicit in advancing the lie. Are they complicit in the lie, or were they just willing to perpetuate it to assist in the cover up.
The cover up went very deep. The video maker was exposed to the world, and he was arrested. We can't allow freedom of speech to anyone that would dare say anything politically incorrect. If the video was the cause of a protest that turned into an attack, was it justification to commit murder? The attack didn't happen at the California home of the video maker. Four Americans were killed that had nothing to do with the video. They probably hadn't even seen it. (For that matter, I doubt that the embassy attackers had either.) But, of course, America is to blame. America is always at fault when something bad happens.
So, why did there need to be a cover up at all? It was just politics. Politics that created a MessAPolitico. Politics that didn't take the proper response to the attack. Politics that lied and tried to say the attack was something it wasn't. Politics that saved Obama's skin in the election last fall. Yes, the Democrats put politics ahead of principle.
I would argue that they could have easily responded several ways that would have been much better, and they would have still won the election. What were the options that were not chosen:
- They could have beefed up security at this embassy when it was requested by the diplomatic team there.
- They could have beefed up security in all embassies around the world on September 11th, especially in countries with a heavy Islamic population.
- This Benghazi embassy could have been closed due to security risks - like other countries had done.
- Support forces and resources could have been placed in the area on aircraft carriers or elsewhere in case they were needed on September 11th.
- When Washington heard about the attack, an immediate response could have been launched -- special forces, air support, you name it. Even if they arrived late, we would have done the best we could to protect our embassy personnel.
- After the attack, a military contingent should have come in and secured the crime scene, and we should have demanded justice. It should have been made clear that the perpetrators must be brought to justice, or Libya would be facing a severe military response.
- When the Congressional commission was created to investigate the Benghazi incident, the state department, the military, the CIA, and the Obama administration could have cooperated fully. They didn't. In fact, many of the "whistle blowers" that have come forward in the past few days have said that they were told to avoid answering questions and to not cooperate. You have to ask yourself why.
This is a MessAPolitico that wouldn't have even happened if it wasn't for politics. Imagine that. Politics is a nasty game. Politics is nothing but a politically correct word to describe lying and corruption. Dress up a turd and tell everyone it's a candy bar. Say it over and over until they believe it. Eventually someone notices a bad smell. A MessAPolitico always stinks.
Friday, May 10, 2013
Why is Coal-Fired Power Production So Inefficient?
The EPA has been regulating coal-fired power production and setting air pollution standards for decades. Many of the regulations have contributed to power plant inefficiency.
Many types of power plants produce steam that is used to turn a turbine that drives a large generator. The steam may be produced by burning coal, oil, natural gas, biomass, etc. The nuclear power plants also heat water to produce steam. Hydroelectric power plants obviously need water to operate. Consequently, you can't just plop down a power plant anywhere you want to use electricity. You need a body of water.
The Ohio River makes the southern boundary of Ohio and runs right by downtown Cincinnati. Coal-fired power plants are strung all along the length of the Ohio River. There is plenty of coal from Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio to fuel these plants economically. In fact, rail cars transport the coal to the Ohio River, and barges are used to take it to the plants.
As you travel along the river from Pittsburgh to Huntington, WV to Cincinnati to Louisville, there pockets of heavy power usage where there are cities and steel mills and aluminum mills, etc. Of course, the Cincinnati metropolitan area is a place with a heavy concentration of power usage. So, why are the power plants located out in the middle of nowhere? They are in Rabbit Hash, KY or Manchester, OH or New Richmond, OH. Why? Could it be that the EPA has air quality standards that discourage building power plants in a large metropolitan area?
If power plants were placed in areas where a lot of power is consumed, the transmission line losses would be minimized. You also wouldn't need as many voltage transformations to step up to high line voltages for long distance transmission.
In addition, the waste heat might be usable near the plant. What if the power company could take the waste steam that is dumped back into the river today and use it? How about using that steam to run through heating coils in buildings in downtown Cincinnati in the cold months of the year? What if manufacturing was done in the area of the power plant, and a paper mill needed hot steam to breakdown the cellulose fibers? Could the boiling water be used to sterilize bottles in a beverage plant? What would the efficiency look like in a coal-fired power plant if the waste steam was sold to nearby businesses? What would happen to the cost of electricity and heat to the electricity consumer? Here's the million dollar question: when the EPA discouraged building power plants in major metropolitan areas, did that make the air cleaner or dirtier?
The public utility commissions also play a role in this MessAPolitico. The power companies don't have any incentive to make the power plants more efficient. If their costs rise, they just go back to the commission and ask for a rate increase. When they prove that costs have gone up, voila, they get a rate increase. The consumer pays for the cost increase. The utility company has a guaranteed profit margin.
You know, the power companies are regulated by these public utility commissions that were put in place to protect the consumers from monopolistic market conditions. It would be pretty difficult for you to shop around to get the best price on electricity. Do you want two sets of power cables supplying electricity to your neighborhood? Would it cost less if there were two or more sets of infrastructure to deliver the power everywhere? No.
So what would happen if we didn't have these public utility commissions out there protecting our interests? Would the electric company jack up your electric rates? Would they double or triple or more? Probably not. What would you do if the electric company rates were a whole lot higher? In the short run, you'd have to pay it, but when your furnace wore out, you could buy a gas furnace. When the stove needed to be replaced, you would buy a gas stove. Your new dryer and water heater would use natural gas. The local natural gas supplier would be the competition. Of course, you could also use a solar water heater or buy a geothermal heat pump to reduce electric usage.
All of this would work better if the government wasn't sticking its fingers all in the pie. Not only do they regulate the production of power and the price of electricity, but they also are messing with natural gas and oil and everything else. You can't drill for oil or natural gas here. You can't build a pipeline over there. You can't use hydraulic fracturing. You can't build a refinery. Blah, blah, blah...
Once again, the MessAPolitico was put in place to protect you from the evils of capitalism and greedy, polluting business. The problem is, that the regulations raise the price and make the pollution worse. Leave it to our government bureaucrats to mess everything up. Is it legal for the EPA to issue regulations? What are regulations? Aren't they just laws? I thought the constitution said that laws were to be written by the legislative branch of the federal government. That branch of government was supposed to be elected by the people to represent our views. Instead, we have unelected bureaucrats legislating. I consider regulations like these to be unconstitutional. They are hurting our economy! They are hurting us! Stop the MessAPolitico! Now!
Many types of power plants produce steam that is used to turn a turbine that drives a large generator. The steam may be produced by burning coal, oil, natural gas, biomass, etc. The nuclear power plants also heat water to produce steam. Hydroelectric power plants obviously need water to operate. Consequently, you can't just plop down a power plant anywhere you want to use electricity. You need a body of water.
The Ohio River makes the southern boundary of Ohio and runs right by downtown Cincinnati. Coal-fired power plants are strung all along the length of the Ohio River. There is plenty of coal from Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio to fuel these plants economically. In fact, rail cars transport the coal to the Ohio River, and barges are used to take it to the plants.
As you travel along the river from Pittsburgh to Huntington, WV to Cincinnati to Louisville, there pockets of heavy power usage where there are cities and steel mills and aluminum mills, etc. Of course, the Cincinnati metropolitan area is a place with a heavy concentration of power usage. So, why are the power plants located out in the middle of nowhere? They are in Rabbit Hash, KY or Manchester, OH or New Richmond, OH. Why? Could it be that the EPA has air quality standards that discourage building power plants in a large metropolitan area?
If power plants were placed in areas where a lot of power is consumed, the transmission line losses would be minimized. You also wouldn't need as many voltage transformations to step up to high line voltages for long distance transmission.
In addition, the waste heat might be usable near the plant. What if the power company could take the waste steam that is dumped back into the river today and use it? How about using that steam to run through heating coils in buildings in downtown Cincinnati in the cold months of the year? What if manufacturing was done in the area of the power plant, and a paper mill needed hot steam to breakdown the cellulose fibers? Could the boiling water be used to sterilize bottles in a beverage plant? What would the efficiency look like in a coal-fired power plant if the waste steam was sold to nearby businesses? What would happen to the cost of electricity and heat to the electricity consumer? Here's the million dollar question: when the EPA discouraged building power plants in major metropolitan areas, did that make the air cleaner or dirtier?
The public utility commissions also play a role in this MessAPolitico. The power companies don't have any incentive to make the power plants more efficient. If their costs rise, they just go back to the commission and ask for a rate increase. When they prove that costs have gone up, voila, they get a rate increase. The consumer pays for the cost increase. The utility company has a guaranteed profit margin.
You know, the power companies are regulated by these public utility commissions that were put in place to protect the consumers from monopolistic market conditions. It would be pretty difficult for you to shop around to get the best price on electricity. Do you want two sets of power cables supplying electricity to your neighborhood? Would it cost less if there were two or more sets of infrastructure to deliver the power everywhere? No.
So what would happen if we didn't have these public utility commissions out there protecting our interests? Would the electric company jack up your electric rates? Would they double or triple or more? Probably not. What would you do if the electric company rates were a whole lot higher? In the short run, you'd have to pay it, but when your furnace wore out, you could buy a gas furnace. When the stove needed to be replaced, you would buy a gas stove. Your new dryer and water heater would use natural gas. The local natural gas supplier would be the competition. Of course, you could also use a solar water heater or buy a geothermal heat pump to reduce electric usage.
All of this would work better if the government wasn't sticking its fingers all in the pie. Not only do they regulate the production of power and the price of electricity, but they also are messing with natural gas and oil and everything else. You can't drill for oil or natural gas here. You can't build a pipeline over there. You can't use hydraulic fracturing. You can't build a refinery. Blah, blah, blah...
Once again, the MessAPolitico was put in place to protect you from the evils of capitalism and greedy, polluting business. The problem is, that the regulations raise the price and make the pollution worse. Leave it to our government bureaucrats to mess everything up. Is it legal for the EPA to issue regulations? What are regulations? Aren't they just laws? I thought the constitution said that laws were to be written by the legislative branch of the federal government. That branch of government was supposed to be elected by the people to represent our views. Instead, we have unelected bureaucrats legislating. I consider regulations like these to be unconstitutional. They are hurting our economy! They are hurting us! Stop the MessAPolitico! Now!
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Electric Cars - Do They Eliminate Polution and CO2 in the Atmosphere?
The Chevy Volt is billed as General Motors' green vehicle. It was pushed along to market as the federal government was in the midst of investing our tax dollars in General Motors stock and loans to keep them afloat (or maybe to keep the union afloat and riding high). Does this vehicle really help the environment? In large areas of the United States it doesn't.
In 2012, coal was burned to produce 37.4% of the electricity in the United States. A lump of coal contains a certain quantity of energy, and that energy is released when it is burned. The coal is pulverized to a fine powder. Then, it is mixed with air and blown into the combustion chamber. The coal burns and produces heat that brings water to a superheated steam state. The steam is hotter than the boiling point and under pressure that is released through turbine blades. This converts the power to rotating mechanical torque that turns an electrical generator, and that produces the electricity we use in our homes, businesses, and factories.
Of all energy in the lump of coal at the start, 36% arrives at the electrical outlet where it is used. What happened to the other 64%? Part of it left the power plant through the smoke stacks. The water for producing the steam generally comes from a river or lake, and the water that is returned afterwards is warmed. That extra warmth is part of the energy from the coal. Some more energy leaves through the cooling towers that cool the very hot water before it is returned to the lake or river. The generators are probably 94%-96% efficient, so there is a little loss there as well. The wires used to transmit the power from the power plant to the point of use have resistance, and some power is wasted here. Transformers are used to step up the voltage for transmission over long distances at a lower current level. When the power arrives at the destination, transformers are used again to step the voltage back down in stages to levels usable in homes, factories, and commercial buildings. Those transformers have some more energy losses.
When the coal is burned, 64% of the carbon dioxide and other pollutants produced is used to produce wasted heat and energy. In my mind, 64% of the CO2 is wasted. If the efficiency of delivering the energy from the coal to electricity at the point of use was doubled to only 72%, the CO2 produced per MWHr would be cut in half. The cost of the coal per MWHr would also be cut in half.
Now, let's get back to the electric car. Does it produce less CO2 than a similar gasoline power car with an internal combustion engine? Generally it produces more if you live in an area that uses coal-fired power plants to produce the electricity. The gasoline engine mixes the fuel with air and burns it right there in the engine where it is converted directly from chemical energy to mechanical power and torque. Some heat escapes through the exhaust pipe, and there is friction in the engine bearings and between the pistons and cylinder walls, but the efficiency is comparatively quite good. The gasoline burns cleanly, and you eliminate all of those energy conversions and power transmission losses with coal-fired electricity production.
The electric car won't do much to help reduce emissions unless we convert power production from coal to cleaner alternative fuels. Today, even with the poor efficiency of coal-fired power production, those alternative energies are still a lot more expensive. That's where our tree-hugger population is teaming up with the EPA to make coal-fired power production and gasoline a lot more expensive.
In the past 4 years, gasoline prices have about doubled. Electricity is about to go up drastically as well. Why? The EPA has issued mandates that limit the amount of CO2 that can be produced per MWHr of electricity, and that will force the closing of a number of older coal-fired power plants over the next year or so. How did the EPA arrive at the permissible levels of CO2 production? Was it just an arbitrary number? Or was it possibly a number that will keep greenhouse gases below a harmful level in the atmosphere? I don't think so. I believe the mandates were designed to shut down a known number of power plants, and that will necessarily drive the price of electricity up.
At least, the price would have to rise in order to keep the supply and demand curves in balance. Public utility commissions set the power rates charged by the power companies. What if they refuse to allow large increases in electric rates? We may be in for the same kind of rolling blackouts that were experienced in California a while back. These public utility commissions are charged with regulating a supposed monopoly. (You know there is competition between energy sources. If electric rates were to rise too high, consumers could switch to natural gas, solar, geothermal, propane, etc.) Generally, utility companies are allowed to raise rates if the costs of producing the power rise. They may not be able to raise the rates enough to curtail demand if, for example, the rates need to double to keep the demand equal to supply, but costs have only gone up by 25%. So where will electric rates end up a couple of years from now? Who knows? Maybe they will double or triple, or maybe we won't be able to get enough electricity to keep the lights on.
What do you think will happen to your electric bill if the rates double or triple? That's right, that $150 bill will jump to $300 or $450. Will that make your electric car economical to run? Nope. Although it might seem economical if the MessAPolitico gets the price of gasoline up to $7 or $8 per gallon. What happens to the rest of the economy if we are suddenly spending all of this money on energy? I guess we'll be able to get a raise at work to cover the extra energy costs. (Ha! Ha! Ha!) You'd better hope you still have a job. Obama will need to raise taxes on those of us that have a job, because he will be paying the electric bill for an increasing number of people living in the projects and collecting welfare.
Just another MessAPolitico! Save the earth -- drive a Chevy Volt! Produce more CO2. Pay more for the car. Pay more for electricity -- if you can get it. Don't worry, there won't be as much traffic at rush hour; the unemployment rate will reduce gasoline usage and put a stop to illegal immigration! Look at all of the benefits of this MessAPolitico!
In 2012, coal was burned to produce 37.4% of the electricity in the United States. A lump of coal contains a certain quantity of energy, and that energy is released when it is burned. The coal is pulverized to a fine powder. Then, it is mixed with air and blown into the combustion chamber. The coal burns and produces heat that brings water to a superheated steam state. The steam is hotter than the boiling point and under pressure that is released through turbine blades. This converts the power to rotating mechanical torque that turns an electrical generator, and that produces the electricity we use in our homes, businesses, and factories.
Of all energy in the lump of coal at the start, 36% arrives at the electrical outlet where it is used. What happened to the other 64%? Part of it left the power plant through the smoke stacks. The water for producing the steam generally comes from a river or lake, and the water that is returned afterwards is warmed. That extra warmth is part of the energy from the coal. Some more energy leaves through the cooling towers that cool the very hot water before it is returned to the lake or river. The generators are probably 94%-96% efficient, so there is a little loss there as well. The wires used to transmit the power from the power plant to the point of use have resistance, and some power is wasted here. Transformers are used to step up the voltage for transmission over long distances at a lower current level. When the power arrives at the destination, transformers are used again to step the voltage back down in stages to levels usable in homes, factories, and commercial buildings. Those transformers have some more energy losses.
When the coal is burned, 64% of the carbon dioxide and other pollutants produced is used to produce wasted heat and energy. In my mind, 64% of the CO2 is wasted. If the efficiency of delivering the energy from the coal to electricity at the point of use was doubled to only 72%, the CO2 produced per MWHr would be cut in half. The cost of the coal per MWHr would also be cut in half.
Now, let's get back to the electric car. Does it produce less CO2 than a similar gasoline power car with an internal combustion engine? Generally it produces more if you live in an area that uses coal-fired power plants to produce the electricity. The gasoline engine mixes the fuel with air and burns it right there in the engine where it is converted directly from chemical energy to mechanical power and torque. Some heat escapes through the exhaust pipe, and there is friction in the engine bearings and between the pistons and cylinder walls, but the efficiency is comparatively quite good. The gasoline burns cleanly, and you eliminate all of those energy conversions and power transmission losses with coal-fired electricity production.
The electric car won't do much to help reduce emissions unless we convert power production from coal to cleaner alternative fuels. Today, even with the poor efficiency of coal-fired power production, those alternative energies are still a lot more expensive. That's where our tree-hugger population is teaming up with the EPA to make coal-fired power production and gasoline a lot more expensive.
In the past 4 years, gasoline prices have about doubled. Electricity is about to go up drastically as well. Why? The EPA has issued mandates that limit the amount of CO2 that can be produced per MWHr of electricity, and that will force the closing of a number of older coal-fired power plants over the next year or so. How did the EPA arrive at the permissible levels of CO2 production? Was it just an arbitrary number? Or was it possibly a number that will keep greenhouse gases below a harmful level in the atmosphere? I don't think so. I believe the mandates were designed to shut down a known number of power plants, and that will necessarily drive the price of electricity up.
At least, the price would have to rise in order to keep the supply and demand curves in balance. Public utility commissions set the power rates charged by the power companies. What if they refuse to allow large increases in electric rates? We may be in for the same kind of rolling blackouts that were experienced in California a while back. These public utility commissions are charged with regulating a supposed monopoly. (You know there is competition between energy sources. If electric rates were to rise too high, consumers could switch to natural gas, solar, geothermal, propane, etc.) Generally, utility companies are allowed to raise rates if the costs of producing the power rise. They may not be able to raise the rates enough to curtail demand if, for example, the rates need to double to keep the demand equal to supply, but costs have only gone up by 25%. So where will electric rates end up a couple of years from now? Who knows? Maybe they will double or triple, or maybe we won't be able to get enough electricity to keep the lights on.
What do you think will happen to your electric bill if the rates double or triple? That's right, that $150 bill will jump to $300 or $450. Will that make your electric car economical to run? Nope. Although it might seem economical if the MessAPolitico gets the price of gasoline up to $7 or $8 per gallon. What happens to the rest of the economy if we are suddenly spending all of this money on energy? I guess we'll be able to get a raise at work to cover the extra energy costs. (Ha! Ha! Ha!) You'd better hope you still have a job. Obama will need to raise taxes on those of us that have a job, because he will be paying the electric bill for an increasing number of people living in the projects and collecting welfare.
Just another MessAPolitico! Save the earth -- drive a Chevy Volt! Produce more CO2. Pay more for the car. Pay more for electricity -- if you can get it. Don't worry, there won't be as much traffic at rush hour; the unemployment rate will reduce gasoline usage and put a stop to illegal immigration! Look at all of the benefits of this MessAPolitico!
Monday, May 6, 2013
Al Gore and Global Warming
Is our former vice-president of the US a scientist? No. Is he even a noted scholar? Not in my book. He is a big-time advocate for man-made global warming. He tells us that we should change the way we live our lives to save the planet. Is he a shining example for all the tree huggers out there, living his life like Henry David Thoreau, getting back to basics on Walden Pond? Not exactly. Is the health of our planet of utmost concern to Al Gore? What about our health? Maybe, or maybe not. You be the judge.
Albert Gore, Jr. is very concerned about finding a way to get rich from the environmental movement. First, he is investing in green energy companies. Now, Mr. Gore says that he's just putting his money where his mouth is. I would agree, except that he is using his position on the world stage to get the federal government to issue regulations to the energy industry that force them to use the products and services of the companies he has invested in. That certainly doesn't pass the smell test. Is Al Gore a "carbon billionaire?" Maybe. Or maybe he's just headed in that direction.
Several of the companies owned by Al Gore are involved in the trading of carbon offsets. This is a system encouraged by the Kyoto Treaty that would be put into action in the US with the passage of the Cap and Trade bill in congress. His companies would provide an exchange for the sale of carbon offsets. In essence, companies are taxed for production of carbon dioxide in excess of their "fair share." If a company takes steps to reduce CO2 production, they can sell their carbon credits on the exchange to another company that wants to increase production and thus increase their CO2 production. What does this mean to companies operating in the USA in fossil fuel intensive businesses? Their cost of energy goes up by the amount of the tax. Now their cost of doing business goes up. Then they are less competitive against other companies in countries that haven't signed on to the Kyoto treaty. So, Al Gore and his carbon exchange get to collect a bunch of brokerage fees, and a lot of Americans lose their jobs when the plant they worked in moves to China or Mexico.
So, what about Al Gore setting a great example for all the ignorant masses in America? Well he commonly flies around to his global warming summits and tree hugger conventions in a Gulfstream G2B. Yes, that's a corporate jet that carries 12-19 passengers and burns a lot more fuel per passenger than a commercial jet. Oh yeah, it produces a bunch more CO2 per passenger as well. When big Al arrives, he gets picked up by a big Lincoln Town Car limousine or travels from the airport to the destination in a convoy of full size SUV's. All the while, he tells us peons that we should limit our carbon production. We are told how wasteful we are. We are blamed for destroying the planet and killing the polar bears.
Now, what about big Al's quaint little cottage down in Tennessee? Well it has only 20 rooms with 8 bathrooms and, according to Nashville Electric Service, it uses more than twenty times as much electricity as the average single family home. Of course, this house isn't all electric. It uses over $12,000 annually in natural gas as well. Wow!
Wouldn't you think that he would be worried about this information coming out? Why not install a windmill or solar panels? Why not at least drive a Prius? As I said before, this just doesn't smell right. It smells like another MessAPolitico! That stinks.
Albert Gore, Jr. is very concerned about finding a way to get rich from the environmental movement. First, he is investing in green energy companies. Now, Mr. Gore says that he's just putting his money where his mouth is. I would agree, except that he is using his position on the world stage to get the federal government to issue regulations to the energy industry that force them to use the products and services of the companies he has invested in. That certainly doesn't pass the smell test. Is Al Gore a "carbon billionaire?" Maybe. Or maybe he's just headed in that direction.
Several of the companies owned by Al Gore are involved in the trading of carbon offsets. This is a system encouraged by the Kyoto Treaty that would be put into action in the US with the passage of the Cap and Trade bill in congress. His companies would provide an exchange for the sale of carbon offsets. In essence, companies are taxed for production of carbon dioxide in excess of their "fair share." If a company takes steps to reduce CO2 production, they can sell their carbon credits on the exchange to another company that wants to increase production and thus increase their CO2 production. What does this mean to companies operating in the USA in fossil fuel intensive businesses? Their cost of energy goes up by the amount of the tax. Now their cost of doing business goes up. Then they are less competitive against other companies in countries that haven't signed on to the Kyoto treaty. So, Al Gore and his carbon exchange get to collect a bunch of brokerage fees, and a lot of Americans lose their jobs when the plant they worked in moves to China or Mexico.
So, what about Al Gore setting a great example for all the ignorant masses in America? Well he commonly flies around to his global warming summits and tree hugger conventions in a Gulfstream G2B. Yes, that's a corporate jet that carries 12-19 passengers and burns a lot more fuel per passenger than a commercial jet. Oh yeah, it produces a bunch more CO2 per passenger as well. When big Al arrives, he gets picked up by a big Lincoln Town Car limousine or travels from the airport to the destination in a convoy of full size SUV's. All the while, he tells us peons that we should limit our carbon production. We are told how wasteful we are. We are blamed for destroying the planet and killing the polar bears.
Now, what about big Al's quaint little cottage down in Tennessee? Well it has only 20 rooms with 8 bathrooms and, according to Nashville Electric Service, it uses more than twenty times as much electricity as the average single family home. Of course, this house isn't all electric. It uses over $12,000 annually in natural gas as well. Wow!
Wouldn't you think that he would be worried about this information coming out? Why not install a windmill or solar panels? Why not at least drive a Prius? As I said before, this just doesn't smell right. It smells like another MessAPolitico! That stinks.
Friday, May 3, 2013
More on Global Warming
Is global warming a natural or man-made phenomenon? Well quite a few scientists seem to think that it's man-made. Are they really objective in their analysis? I doubt it.
The scientists involved are mostly college professors with PhD's in one of the fields of science. The PhD and the professorship tend to make the average person consider these scientists infallible and above reproach. Is that the case? I've seen reports saying that global warming advocates have falsified data in order to support the cause. That brings all of the science into question.
Additionally, these professors don't get paid high salaries compared to other advanced degree holders in law or medicine. They often subsidize their income by writing text books. They also subsidize their income by doing research, and a lot of that research is funded by the government. When a political agency like the EPA or the United Nations comes calling and they want to prove that global warming is real, what is your research going to find? How many scientific studies financed by the tobacco companies have proven that cigarette smoke is harmful to a smoker's health? (How's that for answering a question with a question?)
How do these studies generally work? Well, the scientist tries to create some massive computer model of the Earth's atmosphere. This is a mathematical model that uses a lot of variables. The scientist starts with data that has been collected all over the Earth of variables that are thought to contribute to global warming. They also collect temperature data from all over the Earth. Then, he or she tries to use some multiple regression technique to come up with an equation that relates each of the variables to global temperature. Wow! How many variables are there that come into play here? A lot. A whole, whole lot. Maybe even more than that. What do you do with all the variations in each of these variables at different locations all over the earth? Are there variables that you missed or that you chose not to include? You can bet that the mathematical model is extremely complex. No mere mortal human without a PhD is going to be able to successfully argue about that one. (Hey, wait a minute. I think I just did argue that it's a bunch of voodoo!)
Now, what about the data that has been collected and used to do the multiple regression computation? How good is it? I'm not sure how long we've been collecting temperature and weather data all over the world. I'm guessing that it's no longer than 150 years. Have you ever heard a weather report where they said "today we broke the high temperature record that was set on this date in 1452?" No. These scientists tell us that they can take 100-150 years of meteorological data and project back millions of years ago and tell what happened on earth. Maybe. How accurate would you expect that to be?
Those amazing computer models with a lot of interrelated variables may not be exactly right. Just making slight changes to the models or even just the initial conditions can make a huge difference in the calculation. That is true whether you are looking back at what happened on earth in the past or forward toward the global warming that might happen in the future.
Everything in this world seems to oscillate -- even the stock market. Do stock prices just rise continuously over an entire up year, with each minute and each day moving up slightly from the minute or day before? Absolutely not. There will be up days and down days. In an up year, there will be more up than down days, but the prices will oscillate up and down. The RPM of an electric motor even displays a small oscillation. Flow from a water pump increases, then slows -- up and down as the system pressure oscillates up and down.
Daily temperatures oscillate up and down as well. The sun heats us up all day, followed by cooling over night. That oscillation would have a frequency of one cycle per day. With the changing of the seasons we oscillate in a pattern with a frequency of one cycle per year. As cool fronts pass by, the temperatures will drop for a few days, then rise back up until another front passes. This oscillation has an uneven frequency with cycles that cover days or weeks. Solar activity has been mentioned as having an effect on the temperatures on Earth, and the occurrence of solar flares rises and falls over time. That oscillation may occur over decades.
With data covering such a short period of time, how can we tell if this global warming effect is a real sustained warming or just one of the oscillations mentioned above? We can't tell. That's the point. Every time the weather report says we have set a new record, the tree huggers will see that as evidence that global warming is real. I look at it a little differently though. If we had a new record almost every day of every year, that would be different. It would also be different if the record set this year broke a record set in the past couple of years, but they usually don't. When we break the record that was set in 1912, that tells me that they must have had global warming in 1912 as well. In between we had a lot of global cooling. Do we have data about the temperatures in 1412? Was it cooler in 1412 than 2012? We don't know. The scientists don't know either.
We do know that there was a major incident of global cooling a very long time ago. It was the ice age, and it was followed by global warming. What caused the ice age to end? Wasn't it global warming? At the peak of the ice age, global warming began, and the glaciers receded. They left behind the great lakes and a lot of other natural features that scientists point to as proof of the ice age. Was Neanderthal man driving his SUV and parking it in the cave after working at the coal fired power plant?
Figures lie and liars figure. Isn't that the old statistician's lament? In this case, the figures are being used to support the story that the tree huggers want to tell. Why do they want this to be true? That's a story for another day. They keep telling this particular story over and over. Today, they say that the proof is irrefutable. They've said it so many times that they believe it, and a lot of other folks are also starting to believe or, at least, wonder. The liberals in the government believe (or like Al Gore, they believe they can make a fortune from the hoax). The liberals believe they can use the story to discredit conservatives or big business and get themselves re-elected. What does all of this give us? That's right -- a big ole MessAPolitico!
The scientists involved are mostly college professors with PhD's in one of the fields of science. The PhD and the professorship tend to make the average person consider these scientists infallible and above reproach. Is that the case? I've seen reports saying that global warming advocates have falsified data in order to support the cause. That brings all of the science into question.
Additionally, these professors don't get paid high salaries compared to other advanced degree holders in law or medicine. They often subsidize their income by writing text books. They also subsidize their income by doing research, and a lot of that research is funded by the government. When a political agency like the EPA or the United Nations comes calling and they want to prove that global warming is real, what is your research going to find? How many scientific studies financed by the tobacco companies have proven that cigarette smoke is harmful to a smoker's health? (How's that for answering a question with a question?)
How do these studies generally work? Well, the scientist tries to create some massive computer model of the Earth's atmosphere. This is a mathematical model that uses a lot of variables. The scientist starts with data that has been collected all over the Earth of variables that are thought to contribute to global warming. They also collect temperature data from all over the Earth. Then, he or she tries to use some multiple regression technique to come up with an equation that relates each of the variables to global temperature. Wow! How many variables are there that come into play here? A lot. A whole, whole lot. Maybe even more than that. What do you do with all the variations in each of these variables at different locations all over the earth? Are there variables that you missed or that you chose not to include? You can bet that the mathematical model is extremely complex. No mere mortal human without a PhD is going to be able to successfully argue about that one. (Hey, wait a minute. I think I just did argue that it's a bunch of voodoo!)
Now, what about the data that has been collected and used to do the multiple regression computation? How good is it? I'm not sure how long we've been collecting temperature and weather data all over the world. I'm guessing that it's no longer than 150 years. Have you ever heard a weather report where they said "today we broke the high temperature record that was set on this date in 1452?" No. These scientists tell us that they can take 100-150 years of meteorological data and project back millions of years ago and tell what happened on earth. Maybe. How accurate would you expect that to be?
Those amazing computer models with a lot of interrelated variables may not be exactly right. Just making slight changes to the models or even just the initial conditions can make a huge difference in the calculation. That is true whether you are looking back at what happened on earth in the past or forward toward the global warming that might happen in the future.
Everything in this world seems to oscillate -- even the stock market. Do stock prices just rise continuously over an entire up year, with each minute and each day moving up slightly from the minute or day before? Absolutely not. There will be up days and down days. In an up year, there will be more up than down days, but the prices will oscillate up and down. The RPM of an electric motor even displays a small oscillation. Flow from a water pump increases, then slows -- up and down as the system pressure oscillates up and down.
Daily temperatures oscillate up and down as well. The sun heats us up all day, followed by cooling over night. That oscillation would have a frequency of one cycle per day. With the changing of the seasons we oscillate in a pattern with a frequency of one cycle per year. As cool fronts pass by, the temperatures will drop for a few days, then rise back up until another front passes. This oscillation has an uneven frequency with cycles that cover days or weeks. Solar activity has been mentioned as having an effect on the temperatures on Earth, and the occurrence of solar flares rises and falls over time. That oscillation may occur over decades.
With data covering such a short period of time, how can we tell if this global warming effect is a real sustained warming or just one of the oscillations mentioned above? We can't tell. That's the point. Every time the weather report says we have set a new record, the tree huggers will see that as evidence that global warming is real. I look at it a little differently though. If we had a new record almost every day of every year, that would be different. It would also be different if the record set this year broke a record set in the past couple of years, but they usually don't. When we break the record that was set in 1912, that tells me that they must have had global warming in 1912 as well. In between we had a lot of global cooling. Do we have data about the temperatures in 1412? Was it cooler in 1412 than 2012? We don't know. The scientists don't know either.
We do know that there was a major incident of global cooling a very long time ago. It was the ice age, and it was followed by global warming. What caused the ice age to end? Wasn't it global warming? At the peak of the ice age, global warming began, and the glaciers receded. They left behind the great lakes and a lot of other natural features that scientists point to as proof of the ice age. Was Neanderthal man driving his SUV and parking it in the cave after working at the coal fired power plant?
Figures lie and liars figure. Isn't that the old statistician's lament? In this case, the figures are being used to support the story that the tree huggers want to tell. Why do they want this to be true? That's a story for another day. They keep telling this particular story over and over. Today, they say that the proof is irrefutable. They've said it so many times that they believe it, and a lot of other folks are also starting to believe or, at least, wonder. The liberals in the government believe (or like Al Gore, they believe they can make a fortune from the hoax). The liberals believe they can use the story to discredit conservatives or big business and get themselves re-elected. What does all of this give us? That's right -- a big ole MessAPolitico!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)