Energista - story - Comments

Now that's what I call mad science!

nickmark — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 08:41:11 -0600

See also the article in the Spring 2007 issue of the Wilson Quarterly (<a href="http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=wq.essay&essay_id=231274">"The Climate Engineers"</a>) comparing current suggestions to past schemes to control the weather (and the hubris thereof...)

Environmental Blogs

nobody — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 10:24:01 -0500

Hello,

We have added your web address to our database of environmental blogs. Please come by and check out your link and see the location of other environmental bloggers near you as well as across North America. It's very cool.

Hope to see you soon!

http://mylinkmaps.com/map/environmentalblogs

great commercial :)

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 07:39:25 -0500

not really sure why his accent is french, if it's a german commercial, but the premise is great!

Interesting

Joe — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 17:05:51 -0500

Very interesting observations. Hope the trip is going well.

Bon voyage!

nobody — Tue, 29 May 2007 11:22:11 -0500

Bon voyage!

There's an easy solution...

Joe — Fri, 18 May 2007 10:47:34 -0500

to the problem of big box stores - don't drive there as often! When you do, combine it with other trips. Small and local isn't necessarily the solution... you could easily expend a lot of gas driving all over the city to get to multiple specialized stores as well. Biking isn't necessarily an option if you're buying large objects, and the transportation system in many mid-sized American cities like Minneapolis is woefully inadequate during non-rush hour times.

Wal-Mart

nobody — Thu, 17 May 2007 08:49:50 -0500

The big-box stores require customers to travel further, but there are transportation savings because the company needs to supply fewer stores. For example you might locate big boxes along rail lines, further reducing transportation supply costs. Wal-Mart is also experimenting with smaller stores. Customers may eventually make more infrequent trips to big boxes, spending more on each trip, but using a higher-cost neighborhood store for smaller, more frequent purchases.

The article may well be correct that the big-box model is inherently inefficient, but I would at least like to see some discussion of the net efficiency associated with supplying fewer stores as well as hybrid models in which big boxes are combined with smaller local stores.

MCCAG

nobody — Wed, 09 May 2007 08:38:45 -0500

All the meetings are open to the public, so please come.

More information

darrell — Tue, 01 May 2007 13:19:20 -0500

There is what looks to be a pretty good website for the MCCAG that makes available a lot of the documents they see.It remains to seen just what impact the group will have on state policy but there is some promise. There are a number of long time advocates and experts on Climate Change who were appointed but there are also a number of omissions. I'd also like to point out that the Environmental Justice Advocates of Minnesota (EJAM) have a representative on MCCAG in Boise Jones.

Penn State

christopher — Tue, 01 May 2007 13:06:33 -0500

Reminds me of the story I put up awhile ago - about Penn State going green with 20% of its electricity purchases.

whoops

Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:23:48 -0500

forgot to log-in - that comment is mine.

farmers

nobody — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:20:01 -0500

Rane & I had a class debate on this issue - part of the problem is also the water provided for irrigation by the dams. Many of the areas in the NW do not receive enough rain to support agricultural endeavors, thus they rely on irrigation. It is a complicated issue, so I agree with you, Joe, that it makes sense to take it on a case-by-case basis. I wonder whether it is an issue that will have a successful compromise, though, since the participants seem sharply divided and have been for years.

PUC response will be interesting

mhenergyguy — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 10:52:27 -0500

Thanks for providing the update. I found the Strib article and point 9 of the recommendations particularly instructive.

9. The Final PPA should not be approved, primarily because of its unreasonable cost to Xcel Energy and its ratepayers, the likelihood that its cost will increase, not decrease over time, and because of the other deficienciesidentified in the Findings. While Excelsior Energy and its witnesses have claimed that the PPA cost will become more reasonable in the future, particularly in light of the Project’s environmental benefits, there is not sufficient evidence of that value to overcome the very significant cost difference that exists today.

This would seem to make it difficult for the PUC to decide in favor of the project, but the project's backers have built a lot of political support. I haven't checked to see how the project has fared among the current set of commissioners, but this would be an interesting piece of information. And, there will likely be at least one new commissioner by summer. So, the real political play may be at the Governor's office.

Exactly

Noah Kunin — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:13:13 -0500

It was patently obvious that what he said wasn't true - that's the point though. Why would he make a joke out of a situation that didn't happen, at the expense of the President and his own product?

Maybe it's a function of Bush's approval rating...

Or maybe it was a joke?

nickmark — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:09:52 -0500