backtop


Print 128 comment(s) - last by Schrag4.. on Jan 21 at 8:08 PM

New plan to control electricity usage stirs controversy

To some, it's a simple, necessary step to safeguard the public. To others, an Orwellian nightmare.

Next year, California lawmakers will fit homes and buildings with special radio-controlled thermostats to help manage electricity shortages. The utility will transmit a suggested temperature setting through the Internet to local radio transmitters, which will then forward it via radio to the homes.

Consumers are allowed to override the suggested setting if they wish-- except when energy prices are soaring. At that point, the utility can dictate the temperature to reduce electricity demand, and avoid the possibility of outages.

The new rules, circulated by the California Energy Commission, would apply only to new and remodeled homes and buildings, for now. In the future, the program could be expanded to all structures.

Joseph Somsel, a San Jose-based journalist, attacked the proposal as yet another encroachment on civil liberties. He also worries that the signals could potentially be hacked, with possibly severe consequences.

"That's not possible," says California utility PG&E spokesperson Nicole Tam, because, "radio pages are encrypted and encoded."

To others, the state should focus on increasing capacity, rather than forcing residents to reduce demand. In an email to the Energy Commission, a Californian called the prooosal an outrage. "We need to build new facilities to handle the growth in the state, not become Big Brother to the citizens of California," it stated.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Will not work and there are better options...
By Marlin1975 on 1/14/2008 11:03:23 AM , Rating: 5
Just charge more when you hit a certain usage. If you use X then pay y. If you use x2 then pay y2 and so on. That would not change anything and make people reduce their usage.

On top of that all someone has to do it take a hair dryer to their "new" thermostat and make it work any time they want. So it will not do much of anything except those that leave it to low when they leave the house. A programable thermostat would cover that and not bother people as much. They could even offer a rebate and show people how to use it.




RE: Will not work and there are better options...
By Souka on 1/14/2008 11:19:01 AM , Rating: 1
I thought they'd already done, or were doing, something similar to water heaters...which makes complete sense.

Oh well...good for Cali I guess. Power grid is "good" but its real weakness is peak useage, which can overload it causing large blackouts.


RE: Will not work and there are better options...
By Ammohunt on 1/14/2008 2:33:29 PM , Rating: 4
Hmmm i have an idea! How about build more power plants in order to meet electricity demand? Nahhh thats way too easy!


By djc208 on 1/15/2008 7:42:26 AM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't call it easy. No one wants a power plant near their home and there's a home near everything. Then there's the environmental impact. Someone will be protesting the CO2 effects of a coal or natural gas plant. Nuclear plants create even more complaints, and "green" sources tend to be slower to build, need more room, and have limited applicability.

It is however the only viable long term solution. Saving energy works in the short term but it's not like the population is shrinking, more people are going to want energy and people can only be so efficient and are only going to give up so much to save that energy.

They should limit this to commercial applications for now if they want it to have a chance. There are situations where it can't be done (like data centers, etc.) but it will be easier to step on the rights of a business than the people (voters) of the area.


RE: Will not work and there are better options...
By qwertyz on 1/14/08, Rating: 0
By FITCamaro on 1/14/2008 4:55:29 PM , Rating: 4
Uh no. The rest of the US is nothing like that. This is Commifornia at its best. Instead of solving the problem, they're just limiting people's usage of power.


By EricMartello on 1/14/2008 6:12:16 PM , Rating: 1
California is to the USA as the USA is to the rest of the world. =)

Actually, if I were to personify California: imagine a fat and bitchy girlfriend who think she is the hottest thing around and always has to get her way...yet she refuses to do anything to please her man. Kinda like that.


By suryad on 1/15/2008 9:03:43 AM , Rating: 1
How is a fat bitchy girl your girlfriend in the first place? ;-P


By rcc on 1/18/2008 3:20:10 PM , Rating: 2
Your imagery is off.

Picture a hot tanned beach babe, with an IQ of 140+. The fact that she's vegan is a bit annoying, as it her tendancy toward liberalism. But despite these problems, she still has a bigger "GDP" than most countries in the world.


By roastmules on 1/14/2008 11:21:42 AM , Rating: 5
I say just give me a readout of what the current rate is. Let the market decide what temperature to be at... If demand is high, then keep raising the rates until demand meets supply.
There's a lot more to demand than simply AC. What about hair dryers, laundry, cooking, lights, etc? Charge based on both current use as well as using too much within a month.
Look at simple market economics. Why does the government want to try to become an command economy, like the Soviet Union?
Let the market set the rates!


RE: Will not work and there are better options...
By AntiM on 1/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: Will not work and there are better options...
By mdogs444 on 1/14/2008 11:27:38 AM , Rating: 2
Perhaps you're right.... I hope you do not have children - then it'll be one less enviro-nazi passing along his genes.


RE: Will not work and there are better options...
By FITCamaro on 1/14/2008 4:57:15 PM , Rating: 2
I say we start with people who believe as he does.


By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 1/16/2008 10:57:44 AM , Rating: 2
Yep, you're right. We should all just have tons of kids and let them worry about it. F**k 'em if they can't take a joke. Haha on them. At least we get to do whatever the heck we want, which is the American way! Right on dudes! You are so smart. S-M-R-T, I mean S-M-A-R-T! Woo-hoo!

Just getting into the libertarian spirit.


By bighairycamel on 1/14/2008 11:27:47 AM , Rating: 2
And how to you suggest we choose which 2 billion to exterminate? Cause you know you cant control child births across the entire planet... especially with different religious beliefs, customs, lack of birth controls in various regions.

Just got a nasty image in my head of the South Park episode where they wanted to prevent the future to protect their "jerbs"... some things you cant unsee.


By masher2 (blog) on 1/14/2008 11:31:05 AM , Rating: 2
> "I think we hit our limit at around 4 billion"

People said the same thing when world population hit 800 million, some two centuries ago. And yet today, we're healthier, better fed and housed than ever.

Just extending modern agricultural technology to the Third World will allow global population to hit 12 billion. Assume future advances in technology, and 20+ billion isn't a problem. There really are no barriers to growth.


RE: Will not work and there are better options...
By probedb on 1/14/2008 11:45:02 AM , Rating: 2
Except the physical amount of land on the planet....then I guess we move underwater...or do the sensible thing and invest in finding other planets to live on :)


By masher2 (blog) on 1/14/2008 11:52:21 AM , Rating: 3
Nearly all the land on the planet is undeveloped. And don't forget the vertical dimension...even in the US, the majority of the population lives in structures of just one or two stories.

Put people in Manhattan-style apartments, and you fit four times the world population in just the state of Texas, with the rest of the world wholly unpopulated.


RE: Will not work and there are better options...
By Ammohunt on 1/14/2008 2:49:08 PM , Rating: 2
Sim city Arcologies?


By jtemplin on 1/15/2008 2:47:12 AM , Rating: 2
Weren't mutant freaks living in the ventilation shafts of the cheapo ones...creepy.


RE: Will not work and there are better options...
By AntiM on 1/14/08, Rating: 0
By Ringold on 1/14/2008 12:01:27 PM , Rating: 4
Why have a larger population?

Why not?

Why kind of lefty nut are you that doesn't believe in evolution? If nothing else, it's our imperative to colonize.. the universe.


By masher2 (blog) on 1/14/2008 12:06:29 PM , Rating: 3
> "we could support a higher population... but why?"

Very simple. Because twice the population means twice the number of scientists and engineers advancing progress. It means more musicians, painters, and writers creating art and literature. In short, a better life for everyone.

Had world population remained very low, we'd have never had the Scientific and Industrial revolution in the first place. When you have nothing but a few scattered small communities, most specialized professions can't even exist.

Quite obviously at some point the population becomes too large, and quality of life starts to diminish. But we're not even a fifth of the way to that point yet.


RE: Will not work and there are better options...
By BansheeX on 1/14/2008 12:45:28 PM , Rating: 2
Frankly, there is so much art that has already been made and is being made that one can only really choose a tiny fraction of it to experience. I'm so busy working and trying to get out of debt right now that I can't go to movies I want to see, play games I want to play, read books I want to read. So honestly, I wouldn't mind the pace at which art is made slowing down a little.

As far as scientific advancements, I question whether we need more people. Is more people going to accelerate Moore's law? Is more people going to speed up the rate of education? Or is more people going to result in more bickering, misinformation, misdirection, distractions and idolatry? It impedes progress as much as it advances it. You act like progress depends on how many geniuses we have, as though ideas are specific to them and that no one would have thought of the lightbulb if Edison hadn't. The birthrate of China has way more people than we do. By your rationale, they should be at the forefront of progress. Of course, progress depends quite a bit on other things, doesn't it?


By masher2 (blog) on 1/14/2008 1:12:08 PM , Rating: 4
> "You act like progress depends on how many geniuses we have"

Of course. That's why progress has accelerated so much the past couple of centuries...and the rate just keeps rising.

Throughout most of human history, society and technology in your life was almost identical to that of your grandfathers. Seeing technological change in real time is a direct result of a world population in the billions...which equates to millions of scientists and innovators, all working full time.

> "and that no one would have thought of the lightbulb if Edison hadn't"

I wouldn't put Edison into the genius class. People like Gauss, Euler, Maxwell, Newton...those are the ones who really furthered progress. And the larger the population, the more we have of them

And yes, had those people not been born, someone else likely would have had the same ideas. But they would have had them later in time. And all the people who built on their work would have had to wait decades or even centuries.


RE: Will not work and there are better options...
By eye smite on 1/14/2008 1:39:20 PM , Rating: 2
I think in your list of geniuses you include the man that invented the Mr. Coffee maker back in the 70s.


By FITCamaro on 1/14/2008 8:29:50 PM , Rating: 2
So? That invention furthered mankind like no other. It made us faster, stronger, for longer periods than ever before. :)


RE: Will not work and there are better options...
By BansheeX on 1/14/2008 2:41:06 PM , Rating: 4
You're missing the point I'm trying to make. Geniuses don't arise from population increases if those population increases aren't sustainable by economic, societal, and environmental conditions. Look at some of the more destitute parts of Africa. Persistent malnurishment and disease precisely because THEY DON'T STOP REPRODUCING. In that part of the world, half of the population growth would BENEFIT them, because then there would be enough food to go around to actually have a chance to become a genius. You can't solve the problems of the world simply by having more children. It's assuming too idealistic of a government and civilization. For all of our scientific "intelligence" we are in a lot of trouble right now financially. You also need to remember that your "progress" has evil uses that may ultimately destroy us all or make life not worth living, regardless of how wonderful many of its applications are.


By masher2 (blog) on 1/14/2008 2:50:44 PM , Rating: 4
> "Geniuses don't arise from population increases if those population increases aren't sustainable by economic, societal, and environmental conditions."

Ah, but that's just the point. I'm arguing-- with very real evidence-- that those population increases are sustainable. A higher population thus equates to more progress, and a higher standard of living for us all.

> "You also need to remember that your "progress" has evil uses that may ultimately destroy us all "

Hasn't this sort of Luddite "things man was not meant to know" thinking been discredited enough times already?


RE: Will not work and there are better options...
By BansheeX on 1/14/2008 9:02:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ah, but that's just the point. I'm arguing-- with very real evidence-- that those population increases are sustainable. A higher population thus equates to more progress, and a higher standard of living for us all.


Stop citing "evidence" without giving it. You just can't claim that you're right and that's that. I am using reason, you are making absolute, unconditional statements. That's not a point.

quote:
Hasn't this sort of Luddite "things man was not meant to know" thinking been discredited enough times already?


Huh? So you deny the possibility that we could destroy ourselves in a thermonuclear holocaust? Great, thanks for sharing. By the way, the luddites were acting in fear of cultural changes, not fear of being led to destruction. This is what happens when you converse with pseudo-intellectuals.


By masher2 (blog) on 1/14/2008 9:14:12 PM , Rating: 2
> "Stop citing "evidence" without giving it."

I already gave it. World population has exploded the past few centuries, yet each generation continually winds up better fed, clothed, and housed than the one before. Infrastructure in terms of medical, social, and education services are likewise improving.

And, despite the sky-is-falling predictions, we're nowhere near any sort of limit yet. Even with nothing but *current* technology, the world can easily feed twice the people it has today, simply by extending modern agriculture to the Third World.

Doomsayers have been predicted population is too high, and we're all about to starve to death since the early 1800s. No matter how many times they're proven wrong, there's always a few suckers still willing to believe.

> "So you deny the possibility that we could destroy ourselves in a thermonuclear holocaust?"

Whoa, nice change of subject there. Stick to the point. You insinuated that progress was not to be desired because it has "evil uses". The fact is that knowledge is always ultimately beneficial. More helpful than harmful, by far.

And yes, that's true even for thermonuclear weapons. The same breakthroughs in physics that built those bombs are the ones which enabled everything from nuclear power to lasers to high-density disc drives.


RE: Will not work and there are better options...
By BansheeX on 1/15/2008 11:55:26 PM , Rating: 2
You need to go back and read my responses. I do not take the "doomsday" position, I am merely pointing out the possibility of it, and how technology can be used to maim and kill as efficiently as it is used to cure and help. Having subjective opinions about "quality of life," associating technology with increased happiness is a mistake in the highest degree. As is correlating world population increase as THE reason that ideas and technology improves, rather than A reason. I would KILL to be born a hundred years ago. I don't care that disease was more rampant. It is becoming increasingly difficult in the field of art to get noticed. For example, a writer and aspiring children's poet is competing with DEAD people who will never stop dominating the market: Dr Seuss and Shel Silverstein. This market does not go through "fads" or eras to open the door for new ideas. Anyone born today has an inherent disadvantage that is greater than it was before. In fact, poetry and literature as a whole is falling rapidly into disfavor as an art form in favor of television and video games. Also, I liked the way our government was being run before the federal reserve and FDR welfarism took over. Some people do have sentiments for a way of life that we will never see in an English speaking country again. If scientific progress is your bar for the quality of life, so be it, but I disagree.


By Schrag4 on 1/21/2008 8:08:19 PM , Rating: 2
Why would you just want to go back 100 years? Was 100 years ago the 'peak' of the human race? If not, then why not go back 3000 or 4000 years?

Because life has only gotten better for mankind every year, as a whole, that's why. Your arguments don't make any sense. I know my parents had things WAY better than my grandparents had when they were growing up, and I know I have things WAY better than my parents had when they were growing up. And I know my children will have (are having) things WAY WAY better than I had when I was growing up.

And I'm not just talking about comforts and conveniences (although those in themselves are absolutely huge, can you say air-conditioning?). I'm talking about the very opportunities to succeed that you're claiming are diminishing. If you're a white male then you'd have no problem going back 100 years. But what if you're a minority? Or a woman for that matter? I'm a white male, and I can recognize that although there's still plenty of discrimination based on race, gender, age, etc., this is still the best time in history when it comes to opportunities given to, well, everyone willing to apply themselves.


By UppityMatt on 1/15/2008 11:51:03 AM , Rating: 2
Dont blame your poor spending habits, on you not being able to experience everything you want.


RE: Will not work and there are better options...
By SeeManRun on 1/14/2008 1:49:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Very simple. Because twice the population means twice the number of scientists and engineers advancing progress. It means more musicians, painters, and writers creating art and literature. In short, a better life for everyone.


Not the people that are starving.


By Ammohunt on 1/14/2008 2:51:35 PM , Rating: 2
Natural selection at work ;)


RE: Will not work and there are better options...
By SeeManRun on 1/14/2008 1:53:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Very simple. Because twice the population means twice the number of scientists and engineers advancing progress. It means more musicians, painters, and writers creating art and literature. In short, a better life for everyone.


Not to mention we are working more and having more problems than we did 30 years ago. Your definition of progress comes at a cost, and we have to leave behind things to achieve such progress. We are more stressed than we were before, we have higher divorce rates and increased rates of psychological disorders (may be a symptom of increased diagnosis however) all to increase the GDP. This progress comes at a cost, so increasing population, which will increase competition for resources will create more winners, and more losers.
I feel you have tunnel vision and should look at the big picture.


By masher2 (blog) on 1/14/2008 2:08:02 PM , Rating: 2
> "we are working more and having more problems than we did 30 years ago"

Any student of history will tell you that, with an extremely rare exception, the current generation *always* believes this to be true....a situation that stretches back to Medieval Europe and even the ancient Greeks.

However, the reality is considerably different, especially today. For the past couple centuries, each new generation has been better fed, clothed, housed, and cared for medically. It works less, has more leisure time...and more disposable income to engage in leisure with.

A scant two centuries ago, most of the world's population labored 60-80 hours/week at their "official" profession...and their off time was spent mostly in labor as well, cleaning, washing, preparing food, walking, etc.

Today, the work week in France is 35 hours...with 5-8 weeks off a year. Your leisure time truly is...with machines to carry you around, clean your clothes and dishes, and to bring world-class entertainment into your own home.

The future is brighter still. Our grandchildren will regard our lives as little better than that of a Roman peasant, with comforts and leisure pursuits we can't even dream of today.


RE: Will not work and there are better options...
By Ringold on 1/14/2008 2:34:17 PM , Rating: 5
Look at even the current popular opinion, where consumer sentiment seems to suggest our economy is in the gutter and the masses appear to think we've just had 8 years of economic stagnation. It couldn't be further from the truth, of course; real wage growth has been impressive, unemployment rates here are the envy of most of the world, inflation has been amazingly contained to just two categories without spreading to the whole CPI index, and all together it's been the longest economic expansion in the history of the United States. There are some weak spots, but there always have been, always will be.

And yet, the public mood on the economy is sour because, apparently, roughly 1% of people that bought a home with insane configurations have recently discovered that, well, they were insane terms and they cant afford them. This impacts not at all the +30% of people that rent, nor the +30% that own their homes outright, nor the sizeable number of folk with traditional mortgages. Doesn't matter that we're all much better off now than at the turn of the century -- the mood is sour, and nobody wants to think that way.

I can guess some reasons why this would be the case, but that still doesn't make it logical or defensible in fact.


By Spuke on 1/14/2008 3:58:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This impacts not at all the +30% of people that rent, nor the +30% that own their homes outright, nor the sizeable number of folk with traditional mortgages.
Doesn't even affect all the people with alternative mortgages either. And not all markets are affected either. There STILL some markets out here in California with INCREASING double digit growth. Santa Monica is up 29% over last year. Newport beach is up 31%. And San Juan Capistrano is up 42%. Those are the big one's. There are many other single digit growth areas.

I won't even go inside each market as a particular area within a market may be unaffected. The closest city to me has had a 21% drop from last year with typical new housing prices dropping $50k or so and my house only dropped 1%.


By B on 1/14/2008 4:15:03 PM , Rating: 2
I agree the future is getting brighter. Before dividing the pie it is more important to make it bigger and that is where our efforts should be.


By Ringold on 1/14/2008 2:23:57 PM , Rating: 2
We live vastly superior lives now than those of 30 years ago in more ways than we do not. Instead of rhetoric, lets see some studies that suggest otherwise.

As for the first post of yours just before this one, "except for the people starving", or whatever, take a gander and what has occured in India and China, in case you missed it entirely. Summary: Remove socialism, insert capitalism, apply water, and watch as hundreds of millions are taken from short, brutish impoverished lives and join a prospering middle class. Let China and India roll for a few more decades, there will be very little of that suffering there just as there is there is very little of it here. Thats progress, and GDP growth. My apologies if their grand kids, who live longer, healthier, more enjoyable lives on the whole, occasionally get a head ache from the stress of a modern office job which affords them all their luxuries. Starvation never caused any head aches at all, of course.

A lot of the worlds remaining poor will be in Africa at that point. While the world whines, moans, and complains about global warming, and while and capitalism are debated on TV, China has already been exporting capitalism to Africa and places like Rwanda have taken the ball and been running with it for some time. It'll take a long time, China and India had some benefits (like a single government and somewhat effective education systems, probably less corruption, and definitely less internal warfare) that Africa does not, but the process has started and the only thing that can stop it is us.

All together, if you look at what will have happened from 1970 to 2020, half a century of rampant capitalism in the developing world, it'll be astounding. Also worth noting is that if the developed world starts shrinking in population, that only shrinks the possible market these up-and-coming poor folk can export to and work for, thus extending their misery.


RE: Will not work and there are better options...
By eye smite on 1/14/2008 2:02:36 PM , Rating: 1
Yes and with that goes twice the problems such as infrastructure, pollution and of course criminal elements. I'm leaving alot out here, but as we increase in population here the resulting problems are put farther and farther on the back burners and not handled correctly. Of course there's no profit to be made in handling them correctly, wow guess that's another result of population increase, or is that a result of something else.


By masher2 (blog) on 1/14/2008 2:14:38 PM , Rating: 2
> "Yes and with that goes twice the problems such as infrastructure, pollution and of course criminal elements"

Twice the population equates to twice the crime...which is the same crime rate per capita. The problem doesn't get worse. The same for most things that depend on population. Knowledge is different, though, as its effects are cumulative. The more scientists and engineers we have working, the better life is for all.

You might have a point with pollution, except that history shows otherwise. The average citizen of the US or Western Europe encounters far less dangerous pollution today than 100, or even 50 years ago.


By littlebitstrouds on 1/14/2008 2:35:25 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Twice the population equates to twice the crime...which is the same crime rate per capita.


More like, twice the people, twice the laws to regulate those people as necessary when population increases. But seriously, though I disagree with the whole population regulation idea cause that's borderline genocidal, yours is hardly better. The more the merrier ideal, basing it on more scientists is a pretty reckless way of life... like it's ok if we cause problems, we're fixing them by throwing more brains at it. How about graceful living, thought out advancements, and quality of life management. Again all calling upon humans to control themselves, something you tend to hate, as your human ideal is someone who sees nothing but $ progression and advancement in science.


RE: Will not work and there are better options...
By Spuke on 1/14/2008 4:04:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Again all calling upon humans to control themselves, something you tend to hate, as your human ideal is someone who sees nothing but $ progression and advancement in science.
I didn't read that in mashers posts and I think if you really were to think about it, you would agree. I tend to get a bit emotional myself but lets not be irrational here. We can discuss this without getting silly. This is one of the benefits of a free society. We can agree to disagree and still live with each other.


By littlebitstrouds on 1/15/2008 3:00:45 AM , Rating: 1
Nah, that's exactly what he writes in most of his post, but thanks for posting as one of his groupies


RE: Will not work and there are better options...
By SeeManRun on 1/14/2008 12:04:02 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
People said the same thing when world population hit 800 million, some two centuries ago. And yet today, we're healthier, better fed and housed than ever.


quote:
Just extending modern agricultural technology to the Third World will allow global population to hit 12 billion. Assume future advances in technology, and 20+ billion isn't a problem. There really are no barriers to growth.


But what is the advantage of having 20 billion people? I mean, what does it get us? I don't think the poster talking about limiting population is talking about killing 2 billion people, but if we stop having so many babies it would happen naturally. It is already happening in the west as people are choosing possessions over children, and having children later in life because of birth control, so if you extend these same luxuries to the developing world (and let the consume at the rate of Americans) things will naturally work themselves out. Of course, we won't be able to provide the resources for all those new consumers, but the population will plunge until resources can meet demand. Its really the only good solution.

More people just means more mouths to feed and more bodies producing waste that must be managed.


RE: Will not work and there are better options...
By Spuke on 1/14/2008 12:10:14 PM , Rating: 3
What's the advantage of having 2 billion or 2 million or 2 thousand people? Who makes the determination that enough is enough? Me? You? A committee? Is choosing who lives and who doesn't a right we have over each other?


RE: Will not work and there are better options...
By Armorize on 1/14/2008 5:06:37 PM , Rating: 2
thats what being a politician is all about. controlling the well-being, or not so well-being of your people. honestly think about it.


By eye smite on 1/14/2008 8:06:14 PM , Rating: 3
I've always been of the mind that the only thing worse than a politician is a child molestor.


By Armorize on 1/14/2008 5:04:44 PM , Rating: 2
unless global warming turns out to be fact instead of fiction =P.


RE: Will not work and there are better options...
By etekberg on 1/14/2008 11:31:43 AM , Rating: 2
So what you are saying then is that we need more wars? Especially those with large quantities of civilian casulties? Or perhaps you are saying that you wished Hitler didn't lose the war? Which is it?


By masher2 (blog) on 1/14/2008 11:36:44 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
"So what you are saying then is that we need more wars?"
“Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental”
– David Foreman, founder, Earth First

“Man is always and everywhere a blight on the landscape.”
– John Muir, founder, the Sierra Club.

or my personal favorite:

“We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into the Stone Age.”
– Stewart Brand, in the Whole Earth Catalogue.


By mdogs444 on 1/14/2008 11:41:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
“We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into the Stone Age.”

ha - that just furthers proves my view of the Enviro-Nazi's.


By crystal clear on 1/14/2008 12:01:12 PM , Rating: 2
"Death is the penalty we all pay for the privilege of life."


RE: Will not work and there are better options...
By Ringold on 1/14/2008 11:32:49 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Here's another option, maybe it's time for us humans to think about decreasing our population.


Starting with you!

I swear, the masses best not ever put me in office. I'd be liable to take Canada and make you extremists mine oil shale and tar sands with spoons.


By mdogs444 on 1/14/2008 11:35:27 AM , Rating: 2
Haha love it. Hope you don't mind Ringold, but im stealing that quote!


RE: Will not work and there are better options...
By Staples on 1/14/08, Rating: -1
By mdogs444 on 1/14/2008 11:58:29 AM , Rating: 2
"Carbon Footprint" - not only did you drink the Kool-Aid, you also must've switched to Brondo....

After all, "its what plants crave"


RE: Will not work and there are better options...
By eye smite on 1/14/08, Rating: 0
By Ringold on 1/14/2008 1:41:56 PM , Rating: 2
Most of the people here aren't equipped with the experiences to understand how those people had to live, even before their meager existances were whiped out. They are experienced enough, though, to know they could afford to part with a few bucks to help them out.

On a similar note, with the globalized nature of the world, helping people "there" is just as helpful to people "here", especially if it's one less young man driven to, for example, islamic extremism because a US Marine Corps helicopter plucked them from the water.


By DKWinsor on 1/14/2008 9:38:02 PM , Rating: 1
So in order to help someone I have to meet them, I have to see them? They have to be part of my tribal clan? What's the difference between the bum downtown and the bum on Bangalore street, besides the latter being more desperate?

Good for those who helped others halfway across the world, whether it be help overcoming oppression or malnutrition or disaster.

I could say more but it would be a waste of breath as everyone obviously disagrees with you.


By clovell on 1/15/2008 3:48:17 PM , Rating: 1
That's called Eugenics. A neat little theory that makes sense to a lot of people. It's also intimately woven into the philosophies of some of the most evil men in history and is responsible for a countless atrocities in the 20th century alone.

So, you'll have to excuse those of us who remember history and how this idea played out the last time it was popular for disagreeing with you.

I'd sooner die at the hand of nature, than forfeit my rights, castrate myself, and ultimately die at the hands of a fascist because I don't fit the ideal of a master race.


RE: Will not work and there are better options...
By evonitzer on 1/14/2008 12:55:22 PM , Rating: 2
I'm rather surprised nobody has mentioned this so far ...

Price fixing isn't the perfect solution as it punishes people based upon income. All it will do is force the poorer people to turn down the heat and bundle up in their homes while wealthier people can stay comfortable. Or vice versa if we're talking about air conditioning. Of course, the only people in this thread who will care about poor people have already been written off as hippies, so whatev.

Also, it's good someone is trying another solution to the energy problem besides building more power plants. We will need more power plants to support our future but in the meantime there should be some other efforts.

Lastly, an idea should be given a fair chance before it is written off solely on the grounds of it being "communist" or "socialist" or "hippy" or "enviro-nazi" or whatever brand of insult one wishes to throw out. The answer to an energy crisis, if that is what we are having, does not have to be more power plants.


By dblind1 on 1/14/2008 1:24:04 PM , Rating: 2
In all honesty, this forces the poorer people to work. I hate to say that, but you have to qualify the poorer comment. My family (growing up) was in what I consider the 2 classes of the 3 classes of poorer people - those that didn't have the education for high paying jobs and those that are diabled. Capitalism is set up to encourage everyone to get up off their butts to learn and get the best job they can. If someone is disabled - physically or mentally - then I have no problem with the government helping them. Now for the third class - the lazy, they will learn that if you need more money than the government give, get a job. This ticks me off, because my father had right-side pausey and no high school diploma, yet he made 15k a year and provided a house over our heads and food to eat. Thanks to him, I have a great work ethic and my wife and I make over $90K a year. The disabled need help - and the government could probably do a better job than they do now. The ignorant can learn. The lazy can get off their butts and make a better life for themselves. Reform welfare and call it disability and workfare!


By Spuke on 1/14/2008 1:32:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Price fixing isn't the perfect solution as it punishes people based upon income.
I must've missed the post about price fixing.

quote:
Also, it's good someone is trying another solution to the energy problem besides building more power plants.
Sounds like a good idea to me. Let's see, rolling blackouts because we can't power all of the homes in the middle of the summer when everyone turns their A/C on. So instead of increasing supply, we regulate what temperature EVERYONE'S thermostat is set at.

You know what that sounds like a great idea!!!

I'm in Kern county so we're not affected by the blackouts and I don't plan on moving unless it's to Arizona (where stupid ideas like this one don't happen). One thing is for sure, if they try to force this on existing homes, they better bring a Sheriff with them because that's the ONLY way they're getting in my house.


By Screwballl on 1/14/2008 2:22:46 PM , Rating: 2
They need to force some sort of limitation on the biggest users. The problem is not the people but the industries and commercial locations. All this is doing is cutting usage among the people so that businesses and industry can continue their massive draw from the power grid.


By s12033722 on 1/14/2008 4:06:15 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed. I suggest that we simply shut down all those evil corporations for half the time. Of course, we will also need to cut everyone's paychecks in half too, since they can't work a full time job anymore. That will make energy more affordable!

Why not build more power plants? 3-5 pebble-bed reactors would have a far larger impact than silly big-brother schemes like this and have little to no impact on the environment.

The next logical step in this train of thought is to regulate toilet paper consumption to maintain an adequate supply of trees for all. It makes just as much sense....


By Jedi2155 on 1/14/2008 5:22:29 PM , Rating: 2
California always has a system like that.

I was looking at my electric bill the other day to try to see what I could do to reduce power usage and lower the cost @ $108.

I noticed that for the first 100 KW/hrs or so they were charging only $0.03 per kw, then for the next 200 KW/hrs, it was at a still reasonable $0.06-.07 per KW. After using only 300 kilowatts (what they considered to be 100% required for my household of 6 people), it jumps 300% to $0.16-0.17 per kw which is well above the national average. My average cost per kw was around 13-14 cents for about 700 kw per month. I've already bought a kill-a-watt meter and a attempt to reduce power usage, but I don't think it will help when most people will demand to use their AC units although I can live with the heat.


By Alexstarfire on 1/14/2008 5:31:26 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, sorta. The current usage should dictate price if it starts getting real high. Perhaps they should just tell you when peak usage is and charge more for it. That way people have the option. I know that if I lived in California I'd tell them to f*ck off. It's my house/power, and I'll do what I want with it.

I think it'll be pretty ineffective for the most part. Of course, you could always put this in like school and businesses. Many times it's those places that are using all the power. I know that a school should be comfortable when it gets hot, but when it's cold enough to put on a jack during school when it's summer outside, it's set too damn low. And basically the opposite thing for winter, so hot you could wear shorts inside and be fine.


Or...
By DigitalFreak on 1/14/2008 11:16:47 AM , Rating: 4
Just build more nuclear power plants. Screw the hippies.




RE: Or...
By Souka on 1/14/2008 11:19:45 AM , Rating: 2
Uhm... I don't think the US has build a nuclear power plant in what... 25 years?


RE: Or...
By Souka on 1/14/2008 11:21:27 AM , Rating: 2
my mistake... 35 years.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story...


"No nuclear power plant has been ordered and built in the United States since 1973."


RE: Or...
By Ringold on 1/14/2008 11:28:23 AM , Rating: 5
Therein is the problem.


RE: Or...
By etekberg on 1/14/2008 11:28:49 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. The gov't should allow the power companies to build more capacity.

Gov't controlling how consumers use products is never a good idea. Even if it sounds good at face value.

There is nothing wrong with the power company offering some sort of incentive to the consumer to allow the power company to curb their power usage. If it is in the private power company's interest.


RE: Or...
By mdogs444 on 1/14/2008 11:32:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Agreed. The gov't should allow the power companies to build more capacity.

Try telling that to the crazy Enviro-Nazi's. Nanny State control is exactly what they want.


RE: Or...
By Strunf on 1/14/2008 7:14:54 PM , Rating: 2
And yet California is the US state with the highest GDP... Not bad for a nanny.


RE: Or...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/14/2008 7:56:53 PM , Rating: 2
Oops-- California's per-capita GDP is 13th among states in the nation.

It's total GDP is largest merely because it has the highest population.


RE: Or...
By Spuke on 1/14/2008 9:31:30 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, hard to beat 35 million residents with a median income of $65k.


RE: Or...
By Strunf on 1/15/2008 6:09:54 AM , Rating: 2
What Oops ? I said GDP not GDP per capita...

And 13th is not so bad when there are 49 other... not bad for a nanny.


RE: Or...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/15/2008 8:54:37 AM , Rating: 2
> "What Oops ? I said GDP not GDP per capita..."

But surely you see total GDP isn't relevant.

> "And 13th is not so bad when there are 49 other... not bad for a nanny. "

Unfortunately, California derived its position from factors wholly unrelated (and at a time preceeding) its "nanny state" status. A huge bulk of the state GDP comes from trade, due to its owership of the majority of the West Coast shipping routes...it has significant oil resources, and of course the siting of Hollywood there is primarily an accident of history that long predates today's economic policies.

What effect have those policies had? In the 1950s, The per-capita GDP of the state was growing much faster than the national average. Now it's growing much slower.

There is a huge amount of latency in many economic decisions. California's economy, projected out 20 years from now, looks grim indeed.


RE: Or...
By Strunf on 1/15/2008 12:13:41 PM , Rating: 2
How come isn't relevant? The California GDP accounts more to the US GDP than any other state, this is quite important when speaking of the relevancy of a state compared to others. It's like comparing Germany with let's say the Luxembourg sure the latter has a higher GDP per capita but Germany has way more relevancy on the EU plan.

It's true California didn't become what it is cause of the "nanny" but any badly managed country/state would crumble in no time, maybe there's some latency there but if the California economy future looks grim then the whole US economy will look alike, after all isn't California the home of many US high tech companies and of the movie industry?...


RE: Or...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/15/2008 2:19:49 PM , Rating: 2
> "How come isn't relevant? "

Because the topic wasn't sheer size, but rather how California's policies affect its ability to efficiently turn its resources of people and position into GDP. More people obviously implies a larger GDP, but that says nothing about efficiency.

Take for instance China, which has 1/6 the world population but until recently an economy only slightly larger than Holland. Now since it WAS larger, it still was technically more relevant to the world than the Dutch....but which of the two was the more efficient?

> "but if the California economy future looks grim then the whole US economy will look alike, after all isn't California the home of many US high tech companies and of the movie industry?... "

Just so. If California stumbles, we may all fail...which explains why we're here discussing their poor policy decisions.


So... time to seperate the hardcore environazis
By dblind1 on 1/14/2008 11:42:45 AM , Rating: 2
Now California gets to see where big government gets them. Since they cannot get nuclear power plants passed the hardcore environmentalists, everyone will get to pay the price. Now the government can force what temp your house is. This is at least until the first person with a medical condition dies from heat stroke or complications due to excessive heat exposure. I guess they could deforest a lot of land for solar power to get supply up. And what about the people who have invested in solar power kits for their house? Since they have already reduced the power requirements on the grid, will they have to suffer just like everyone else? I'm glad I live in MS. This would have no way of passing. With 100 degree months and 95 percent humidity, people would drop dead like 'siquers in view of a bug zapper. Californians will circumvent this by installing less efficient window units to bypass the new government control causing an even bigger energy problem. Or even better, people will put a small heater next to the thermostat so it will 'think' their house is 10-20 degrees hotter than it actually is. This is just a total waste of tax payer money.

I hate to say this, but we need more brains in office. Politics don't solve problems, it creates more. A little forethought on this subject and it is easy to see that, more incentives to home alternative energy would be a far better solution, second to new nuclear power plants of course. They would be better spending money to put solar panels up on all the residential houses, but then the cost of power would probably triple since it would lessen the dependency on the power companies.

Maybe some eyes will be opened and people will have to understand that nuclear can be safe. The US has run several nuclear power plants without having a major incident that the non-nuclear crowd always whines about. Meanwhile, I think I will stay away from the west coast and enjoy southern hospitality for the rest of my life.




RE: So... time to seperate the hardcore environazis
By Ringold on 1/14/2008 12:00:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Politics don't solve problems, it creates more.


Time for me to channel the spirit of Thomas Paine:

"That government is best which governs least."

Reagan said that too, didn't he?

quote:
They would be better spending money to put solar panels up on all the residential houses


Even if global warming does exist and it's caused by man, in California's case it'd still probably make a huge amount of sense to use coal and natural gas -- at least with the present cost of solar panels being what they are.

quote:
Meanwhile, I think I will stay away from the west coast and enjoy southern hospitality for the rest of my life.


Amen to that. I never knew what southern hospitality was until I left Florida for the first time -- global warming refugees have insured the Florida resembles the North. It's a different world.


By dblind1 on 1/14/2008 12:39:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even if global warming does exist and it's caused by man, in California's case it'd still probably make a huge amount of sense to use coal and natural gas -- at least with the present cost of solar panels being what they are.


I agree with that. Plus you could use the new tech to make cleaner coal burning power generation plants since the tech is here and it would keep the enviro-nazis at bay (possibly).

Speaking for southerners, I think that is the general consensus that the smaller government is, the better. Also, I really think that if Hillary wins the election, we may come to a time of a new civil war - this one caused by taxes and national health care as well as may other things in her platform. The South will rise again - this time, for a just reason and politically correct! Hillary really scares me as well as some of the other candidates.


By eye smite on 1/14/2008 1:36:51 PM , Rating: 2
Can't you just see a big surge in popularity of the window unit in california. It would be like " Go ahead, turn the temp up in the summer, I got my 18k btu window unit ready". lol


By Spuke on 1/14/2008 2:00:58 PM , Rating: 2
I don't have a window unit but I have a swamp cooler (evaporative cooler). It only works in dry climates but I live in the desert so that's a non-issue. It significantly lowers my electrical usage during the warmer months. Mine is a large unit installed in my attic and connected to my HVAC vents. They make window units of these too. A lot of people use them out here.


RE: So... time to seperate the hardcore environazis
By Spuke on 1/14/2008 1:41:39 PM , Rating: 2
More incentives would be a better choice or pouring that money for the thermostats and infrastructure to support them into the alternative energy market. My wife and I would love to go solar but it's still too expensive even with the present incentives. It's still $30k after incentives. If it was $15k we could do it. But even at $15k, how many people can still afford that? Not to mention, to get the most benefit we would need a new electric HVAC system too. Our current one uses propane (hella expensive) for heating.

Our next home will have it for sure as it will be more cost effective.


By eye smite on 1/14/2008 1:48:24 PM , Rating: 2
Just go buy a window unit if they start turning the temp up in the summer. haha


RE: So... time to seperate the hardcore environazis
By Spuke on 1/14/2008 4:16:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just go buy a window unit if they start turning the temp up in the summer.
We have an evaporative cooler and use that primarily unless it's too humid then we use the A/C. But I think that's what people will start doing once the word gets around.

What sucks is that the window units are less efficient than the HVAC's so they'll probably draw even more power than the HVAC's. And, of course, the people with money will buy one for each room in their houses. Guess what? People that use more electricity will STILL end up paying more in the short and long run and they'll curb their usage accordingly.

I'm sure the politicians didn't think of this either. (Sigh)


By eye smite on 1/14/2008 8:20:15 PM , Rating: 3
I don't know, in summer 2k5 the energy company here lost a phase of their 3 phase power transmission. This caused brown outs and then voltage over run while I was at work. It burnt up the outside compressor of the central air. Of course Entergy refused to repair my unit along with 300k other claims, so I put window units in my built in 1921 house and promptly sent Entergy a TY not with my next bill. The house stays nice and cool and the window units cut my electric bill literally in half. I was happy to thank them.


By Spuke on 1/14/2008 9:33:36 PM , Rating: 2
I just want to do solar and cut out the middleman.


By Chris Peredun on 1/14/2008 11:46:46 AM , Rating: 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famous_last_words_%28...

quote:
"That's not possible," says California utility PG&E spokesperson Nicole Tam, because, "radio pages are encrypted and encoded."


I think she'll fit in quite well.




By theapparition on 1/14/2008 12:05:17 PM , Rating: 2
You beat me to it!!!

Maybe she could be a double award winner and also get nominated for a Darwin award.


By Hakuryu on 1/14/2008 2:26:06 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly what I thought when I read that, but lets give her the benefit of the doubt - she is the spokesperson for PG&E, so she obviously must know exactly how encryption works and un-hackable it is... they do teach that in public speaking right?


By Spuke on 1/14/2008 4:18:34 PM , Rating: 2
I predict that it will hacked before it hits the first home.


By Aquila76 on 1/14/2008 4:51:44 PM , Rating: 2
She probably feels secure buying stuff online using the wireless connection at Starbucks.


Heh
By Polynikes on 1/14/2008 11:25:29 AM , Rating: 2
Yet another reason for me never to move to California; not that I didn't have enough already.




RE: Heh
By mdogs444 on 1/14/2008 11:31:03 AM , Rating: 2
Im with you on that Polynikes. California is "Nanny State" of the US. I will never even visit, much less move to, California.

Too many enviro-nazi's, idiot celebrities, freaks in San Fran, & illegal mexicans. Not to mention their cost of living & crazy traffic. Perhaps they ought to rethink their lives & what they preach - as opposed to preaching it on the rest of the US who doesn't have those problems.


RE: Heh
By Ringold on 1/14/2008 11:46:26 AM , Rating: 2
I'm thinking of visiting some time after the winters done this year.. but mostly because I want to be able to tell grandchildren one day I saw California when it was still one of the more robust states of the union, before it became an extension of Western Europe and mid-to-late 1900s European government policies (ie, hard-core socialism/pseudo-communism). Being too 'blue' for too long has caught up with Michigan, I don't know how California could possibly avoid a similar fate.


RE: Heh
By Spuke on 1/14/2008 12:24:56 PM , Rating: 2
I live in CA (from PA originally) and I say let the state fall on its face. The downside is that people will start to bail and pollute the other states. My wife and I are planning to move to Arizona in the next few years. I can't wait really.


RE: Heh
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 1/14/2008 11:36:19 AM , Rating: 2
Ah the lasting effects of Ken Lay continue to plague California.

Perhaps instead of trying to fix the thermostats to that people don't drain the grid, the Governator could use some of his leverage to assure the energy companies don't have to keep buying their energy at 1000x prices from other states. I bet it would be cheaper.


Build new facilities
By Bioniccrackmonk on 1/14/2008 11:20:42 AM , Rating: 2
2 words, nuclear power. Its the cheapest form of energy once a plant is established, and it is safe using today's standards. The only downside is the waste, which most of it can be recycled.




RE: Build new facilities
By Souka on 1/14/2008 11:24:32 AM , Rating: 1
it's been 35 years since last powerplant was built in the US...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story...


RE: Build new facilities
By kkwst2 on 1/14/2008 12:05:17 PM , Rating: 2
What does that prove? It may have been 35 years since you've gotten any tail, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't do you some good.


RE: Build new facilities
By tallcool1 on 1/14/2008 11:46:21 AM , Rating: 2
You could even go with Natural Gas fired Turbines setup with HRSGs and Steam Turbine(s).

Problem with Cali is that they suffer from NIMBY. (Not In My Back Yard) They need alot of electricity but don't want to house the power generation sites in their state, instead they pump in alot of thier power from Washington, Arizona, Nevada, etc. This puts alot of load on the transmission network to get it there.

So to fix this problem they come up with some Socialism idea to control the electricity you or your business uses?


RE: Build new facilities
By eye smite on 1/14/2008 1:45:48 PM , Rating: 2
Don't imply that california is socialist, they'll call you undereducated and a communist.


Better, cheaper option...
By Magnus Dredd on 1/14/2008 1:45:02 PM , Rating: 2
For the amount of money California wasted on buying additional power on the open market and using rolling blackouts, they could have outfitted public buildings with batteries that provide power during peak hours and charge at night.

quote:
from:http://www.jgpress.com/inbusiness/archives/_free/0...
Dispatchable peak-shaving involves the use of a battery system to store PV output during off-peak hours and then discharge electricity during on-peak hours to more effectively reduce demand charges. This approach, developed by the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy at the University of Delaware, has been successfully demonstrated in several pilot projects.


Also:http://www.absak.com/alternative-energy/storage-ba...

Putting these in public buildings removes the burden from the people, and puts it on government where it belongs.




RE: Better, cheaper option...
By Magnus Dredd on 1/14/2008 1:48:39 PM , Rating: 2
Also... Search Google for "peak shaving"...


RE: Better, cheaper option...
By Spuke on 1/14/2008 4:23:17 PM , Rating: 2
Umm...can you use that on residential homes?


RE: Better, cheaper option...
By Magnus Dredd on 1/14/2008 8:55:16 PM , Rating: 2
yes


Looks like window units will make a come back
By eye smite on 1/14/2008 12:44:48 PM , Rating: 2
If they start turning the temp on peoples houses up, I can see the old window units making a comeback. haha




RE: Looks like window units will make a come back
By johnsonx on 1/15/2008 1:27:04 AM , Rating: 2
those will be made illegal of course


By Spuke on 1/15/2008 4:18:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
those will be made illegal of course
I wouldn't be surprised if they tried that. Their success would depend on whether the window unit manufacturers were successful in lobbying against (yet another) new law.


Left-ist Hippies?
By theoflow on 1/14/2008 1:35:59 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously, just because someone is an advocate for energy conservation and/or environmental protection is labeled as a hippie? Real mature there guys.

I'm not sure if you noticed, but energy conservation is the thing of the future, not because of hippies, but because companies are trying that much harder to become more efficient. All industries consume massive amounts of power, and the main, often overlooked, reason for this newfound desire for renewable energy is for companies to find cheaper alternatives to oil.

Your gas bill and filling up that tank a little more recently? Just imagine that times exponentially and that new cost is eating into your profits, which in ANY company is the bottom line.

As for this plan, big brother aspect of it is a little scary and the security concerns another, but I'm not totally against the idea. It is similar to water conservation going on right now in the Atlanta region I think. Energy is not an unlimited resource on a day to day basis.




RE: Left-ist Hippies?
By mdogs444 on 1/14/2008 1:51:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Seriously, just because someone is an advocate for energy conservation and/or environmental protection is labeled as a hippie? Real mature there guys.

Yes, there is a direct link between au-natural hippies & enviro-nazi's.
quote:
I'm not sure if you noticed, but energy conservation is the thing of the future, not because of hippies, but because companies are trying that much harder to become more efficient.

Or because of enviro-nazi's not allowing us to drill for oil in the US & ANWAR, or because the enviro-nazi's protest anything "nuclear" related, or because of the enviro-nazi's false "global warming" propaganda. Or because of the false "CO2 is a pollutant" protests that is harming businesses & manufacturing in the US, and forcing those companies out of business or to take their business to another country. All in all - its not "to be more efficent", its because the enviro-nazi's are forcing them to.
quote:
Energy is not an unlimited resource on a day to day basis.

But if we built more nuclear power plants, it could be very close!


RE: Left-ist Hippies?
By Ringold on 1/14/2008 2:50:41 PM , Rating: 2
Heheh, you missed a nice hole in his argument. His examples of companies, and people, becoming more efficient were in fact not examples of government, but actually examples of free market capitalism doing exactly what one would expect it to do: recognize price signals and adjust accordingly! No governments or leftists needed, just profit incentive.

You got the other half of it, though. While part of the current problem is simply scarce supply, part of the reason it is scarce in the first place is self-inflicted limits on power plants and fuel sources.

Also, OP, regarding your water issue, you should be listening to Neal Boortz there in Atlanta. If Georgia had listened to him months ago and used the State National Guard to kick the Army Corps of Engineers out of your back yard, you'd of saved tremendous amounts of water. Instead, you're helping make sure some snails or whatever in Florida don't go thirsty. The snails thank you from the bottom of their shell for your noble sacrifice. An example, by the way, of government failure. You guys may also discover, as we did, that water desalination is price competitive -- that truly is an unlimited resource once acquired that way.


By odiHnaD on 1/14/2008 11:26:30 AM , Rating: 5
ALL YOUR THERMOSTATS ARE BELONG TO US!




Leadtheromostatboxcovers.com
By Lord 666 on 1/14/2008 11:18:58 AM , Rating: 2
I saw a slick demonstration at Networkers 2007 where the utilities companies are using Wi-Fi to take large amount of meter readings in one quick drive down the block.

But because of the nature of human beings, there will always be a way to circumvent ideas like this.




RE: Leadtheromostatboxcovers.com
By Lord 666 on 1/14/2008 11:20:26 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry for the typo. Leadthermostatboxcovers.com would be a much better company name.


Can't be hacked????
By Alexstarfire on 1/14/2008 5:35:06 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, that's been said many times over across a wise variety of products. Give people time and EVERYTHING gets hacked. Only effective way to stop a hacker is to constantly change the security. I doubt that'll happen for a thermostat.

We'll watch them complain later because they say that people keep hacking the thermostat. You know it'll happen. Bet you they find some $2 way to do it too.




RE: Can't be hacked????
By INeedCache on 1/14/2008 7:59:13 PM , Rating: 2
Mac OS cannot be hacked. I know because the Apple folks said so.


Would love to help.
By Mitch101 on 1/14/2008 11:24:22 AM , Rating: 2
I would love to help with this as I would love nothing more than to be able to remotely control my homes thermostat and many other home items. I am sure many others would as well.

However has anyone priced out the ability to remotely control your thermostat? Why the heck cant someone make an ultra cheap remote controllable thermostat that uses 802.11 by now? What's with the freaking prices of these units and them still requiring hard wiring for remote control operation. Make it 802.11b because you don't need 54Mbs to these items.

If there is an un-tapped market out there its for wireless control devices similar to X-10 but use something more PC compatible or reliable. I would love for Logitech to step into this area because they would do it right. X-10 might make half decent remote control items but the software is pure garbage. I have to say half decent because most x-10 items seem like low quality china made devices that barely get the job done.

Smarthome has a step up but once you price it out its not cheap like it could be. Also most X-10 devices dont play well with incandescent bulbs.




Simple Yet Powerful
By pauldovi on 1/14/2008 2:32:18 PM , Rating: 2
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."
- Thomas Jefferson

That means let people decide for their their own God Damn reasons what the temperature is in their house.




Therms....
By 3dken on 1/15/2008 2:15:33 AM , Rating: 2
I live in California, and right now it's voluntary to get this new thermostat. I think they give you $50 or $100 rebate (bribe? hehehe). Pg&e only governs Central & Northern California, not SoCal. But, who knows it might become mandatory thanks to the Governator!! Say it with me "Cal-eee-forn-eee-yaah!" Hahaha!!




"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki