California To control home thermostats

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

On the other side of it I can see where they're coming from - California has problems supplying the demand for energy during the summer when everyone puts their a/c on full blast 24 hours a day. And the article does say this would be limited to emergency (presumably maximum demand) periods. Still outside of overriding people's ability to control the temperature in their homes, it seems to be a half-measure at best - surely the state and the power companies should ensure that there is sufficient supply to support the infrastructure.

Its unlikely that would pass.

Thats not the point. It is the fact that they would even try this that should scare the $h!t out of you.

If it doesn't pass then there's no issue. How many crackpot proposals like this get shot down on an annual basis? My guess - quite a few.

The reason that the energy situation is so dire in California is due to Lawsuits from environmental groups. Any attempt to expand or modernize the energy infra-structure is met with a court cases and lawsuits. The NIMBY syndrome (Not In My Back Yard) so the their has been little capacity added.

I do have a Question?

Why is it OK, for the rest of the world to generate 70 to 80% of their electricity with nuclear power, France and Japan come to mind, But it is not OK for the United States? No acid rain, No green house gas, couple them with desalination plants and we could have additional water supply with hydrogen gas to power fuel cell as a by product.

But we are restricted to coal, which is quite abundant, but dirty.

I'm sorry... Lawsuits are the primary problem here? Nothing to do with the way the state's energy policy is managed?

As far as Nuclear power goes - an area notoriously prone to earthquakes, sitting on one of the worlds largest tectonic fault lines probably causes a few logistical problems for planners, not to mention making construction rather more expensive.

You mean that you should not build nuclear plants in an earthquake prone area?........Say like Japan.

Meaning its more expensive.

No, Just because there are challenges, does not mean that it should not be attempted. Nuclear power is done safely worldwide with the exception of here in the US. It is the most environmentally friendly form of energy production that is available. But instead we chase windmills and solar.

Look I am not saying not to explore wind or solar, but don't exclude nuclear power from the equation. Plus like I said the energy could use to take the salt out of sea water and use it for food production or consumption. We have a lot of desert out here that grows good food if you can get the water on it. It could also produce hydrogen gas which from what I understand is cost prohibitive for use in fuel cells without a better production means. The fuel cells do deliver better environmental footprint then do say hybrid vehicles, which only transfer the environmental impact.

http://clubs.ccsu.edu/Recorder/editorial/e....asp?NewsID=188

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

On the other side of it I can see where they're coming from - California has problems supplying the demand for energy during the summer when everyone puts their a/c on full blast 24 hours a day. And the article does say this would be limited to emergency (presumably maximum demand) periods. Still outside of overriding people's ability to control the temperature in their homes, it seems to be a half-measure at best - surely the state and the power companies should ensure that there is sufficient supply to support the infrastructure.

Its unlikely that would pass.

Thats not the point. It is the fact that they would even try this that should scare the $h!t out of you.

If it doesn't pass then there's no issue. How many crackpot proposals like this get shot down on an annual basis? My guess - quite a few.

The reason that the energy situation is so dire in California is due to Lawsuits from environmental groups. Any attempt to expand or modernize the energy infra-structure is met with a court cases and lawsuits. The NIMBY syndrome (Not In My Back Yard) so the their has been little capacity added.

I do have a Question?

Why is it OK, for the rest of the world to generate 70 to 80% of their electricity with nuclear power, France and Japan come to mind, But it is not OK for the United States? No acid rain, No green house gas, couple them with desalination plants and we could have additional water supply with hydrogen gas to power fuel cell as a by product.

But we are restricted to coal, which is quite abundant, but dirty.

I'm sorry... Lawsuits are the primary problem here? Nothing to do with the way the state's energy policy is managed?

As far as Nuclear power goes - an area notoriously prone to earthquakes, sitting on one of the worlds largest tectonic fault lines probably causes a few logistical problems for planners, not to mention making construction rather more expensive.

You mean that you should not build nuclear plants in an earthquake prone area?........Say like Japan.

Meaning its more expensive.

No, Just because there are challenges, does not mean that it should not be attempted. Nuclear power is done safely worldwide with the exception of here in the US. It is the most environmentally friendly form of energy production that is available. But instead we chase windmills and solar.

Look I am not saying not to explore wind or solar, but don't exclude nuclear power from the equation. Plus like I said the energy could use to take the salt out of sea water and use it for food production or consumption. We have a lot of desert out here that grows good food if you can get the water on it. It could also produce hydrogen gas which from what I understand is cost prohibitive for use in fuel cells without a better production means. The fuel cells do deliver better environmental footprint then do say hybrid vehicles, which only transfer the environmental impact.

http://clubs.ccsu.edu/Recorder/editorial/e....asp?NewsID=188

Well without some sort of reform of the state's energy policy, all this talk of building new and better facilities is really pie in the sky.

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

No, Just because there are challenges, does not mean that it should not be attempted. Nuclear power is done safely worldwide with the exception of here in the US. It is the most environmentally friendly form of energy production that is available. But instead we chase windmills and solar.

Look I am not saying not to explore wind or solar, but don't exclude nuclear power from the equation. Plus like I said the energy could use to take the salt out of sea water and use it for food production or consumption. We have a lot of desert out here that grows good food if you can get the water on it. It could also produce hydrogen gas which from what I understand is cost prohibitive for use in fuel cells without a better production means. The fuel cells do deliver better environmental footprint then do say hybrid vehicles, which only transfer the environmental impact.

http://clubs.ccsu.edu/Recorder/editorial/e....asp?NewsID=188

Nuclear is cost-prohibitive. That's the bottom line. It's becoming more reasonable, but right now most companies are not going to dedicate the funds it takes to build a nuclear reactor.

[Ban Hammer 15,140]

we control the horizontal. we control the vertical.

and now we control your thermostat!

[eric&gen 0]

Now they soon will control how much you drain the lizard how much food you eat how much time you spend on Internet.