The thing that pops into my mind is "Some pigs are more equal then others". I see rort and problems with this. The connected get to stay connected while the lower ones get to read by candle. That is if the smart grid is under the governments control and if by proxy Greens.

Also I can see the unintended consequences of a smart grid run by government is a boom in sale of generators and the pollution those will cause too.

More theft of electricity and the related deaths with people trying to tap in to government or business sources.

God! censorship! - government or business does not like a certain person who runs a website or service from a place can ration. For example a strip club will not be very fun if it is all in the dark and not music for the girls to dance too.

Big and small black outs and brown outs due to glitches. If this is the same government that wasted millions of dollars and a few years trying to build a computer system to handle medical files that ended up I think being scrapped. Imagine how well designed aka SMART a smart grid will be. "Sorry sir we do not know the reason but every Tuesday the system needs to shut off your fridge for 15 hours, Sorry about the melted ice cream, you might want to prepare for that next week.

I'd want to know more about who Laurence Solomon and Steve Holliday are and what their agenda is.

Is this guy like Lee Iacocca telling Nixon, "Shoulder harnesses and head rests are complete wastes of money. Safety has really killed off our business", or like Geithner and Goldman Sacks talking about the too big to fail, or like Boehner complaining about Obamacare or Obama talking about the wonders of his health plan?

I see no reason that a properly developed grid with wind must necessarily provide unreliable energy.

It's quite possible (and suggested in the comments) that what both these guys are about are billion dollar nuke plants and heavily centralized power solutions and bigger bigger grids and not decentralized wind solutions.

As I understand it, the government was/is "allowed" to control electricity in communist countries. Nice going, UK.

Jerry. Wind power has its faults and it strengths that is beside the point. This is government dictating what is good for us. An analogy that we can use is phones.

You have to love that we have Smart phones like the Iphone. We can do amazing things with it, but imagine that the government decided that cell phones cause brain cancer so the decide that they are now going to control the phones. So they will decide by programs and other process which calls will get put through. Or how long a call can last (hey longer the call more the likely chance of cancer) or even to who gets a phone or not. Or even worse for our own good we are going to go back the POTS system no more wireless signals to cause us cancer. Would you like that! Somebody making the choice for you. Wondering later in this dystopia future that back in the good old days you could reach into your pocket and call your Mom but know you have to go home and call the operator to organize a time to call your Mom and you might just might get that 1:00 am slot but likely you still have to wait ten days pending permission from the cancer/phone Bureau.

The better choice is to let the market thus the people decide. But not saying the government can not influence or try to help them to go a certain way.

Another phrase comes to mind - "It's not a bug! It's a feature." Man you have to love the in-credulousness of this. Trying to sell us something worse and calling it a benefit. I think the last time that worked in the UK their was a war going. Still convincing people that eating certain not very appetizing fish rather then beef or pork took some work and still many people where not convinced. True they may have pinched their nose and swallowed because darn it to hell, them are out boys over their fighting for our freedom and the Queen and if I have to eat a some bottom dwelling fish so be it.

But these people above with the windmills are trying to convince people this is for their own good without really trying to sugar coat it or give a darn good reason to live with it. So I can not have my TV and heating because the windmills might just keep catastrophic global warming at bay for a day, maybe two. Heck I would be willing to give up two days at the end for my computer not having to be boot up everyday.

The reason they do give is so damn stupid - whoops sorry we can not get enough power from our windmills that even morons are feeling smarter by going what the fuck "why not try nuclear or coal or hell can we buy some energy from the French. I hear the Russians have natural gas to sell us. Besides I want to watch Neighbors and heating my meat pie in the oven takes to damn long I just want to pop it in the microwave.

Sorry people for all the posts. John is now trying to live better thru chemicals .. a one called Ritalin. Still trying to get handle on it. Thanks for the recommendation Amy. Yes and I have a prescription.

But my experience living in both the UK and US is that blackouts are much more frequent in the US. And electricity "outages" last a lot longer in the US. (In the UK, they are referred to as "failures of supply".) And I'm sure that both countries have plans for making sure that emergency services get electricity first in case of shortages. Surely it is the role of government to make sure that things work the best that they can for everyone if there is a shortage. For example, we need the police, ambulance and fire fighting vehicles to run more than we need bouquets of flowers to be delivered. Does that not make sense? Or am I missing something?

So basically, the Criticizing and Controlling Classes see the intermittent nature of wind power as not being a bug, but rather a feature.

Lesley.."For example, we need the police, ambulance and fire fighting vehicles to run more than we need bouquets of flowers to be delivered"

The aggregate amount of energy required by police, hospitals, etc, is surely a very small % of the total demand on the grid---and all power companies already have continuity-of-service plans for such critical customers, which are usually additionally backed up by their own generators. When the wind-generated output drops to 30% of nominal, the grid administrator clearly leaves such loads connected. But does he give preference to:

--the high-end retail store often visited by politicians and their spouses?
--the ball-bearing factory?
--the currently-fashionable software firm
--the newspaper which is in sync with the current administration's policies?
--the newspaper which is out of sync with those administration policies?
--etc?

Clearly, a huge opportunity for the political class to vastly expand its control over all aspects of life.

@Les -

Blackouts in the US are more often caused by weather than anything else, at least in my experience. A good ice storm can tear a bunch of overhead wires down and that takes a few days to fix.

And here, we don't have the government planning to get power to emergency services "first". The government pretty much stays out of it. The hospitals and first responders usually have generators on-site, and the power company does prioritize already. People tend not to complain too much about it.

The other benefit with the generators is that the power company can have the hospital turn on the generator and put power into the grid. The hospital gets paid for this.

Over here, if a business wants a contingency plan for power outages, it's their responsibility to come up with it. Which is (IMO) as it should be.

... naive, still sleeping, or not in the UK so it doesn't affect you.

"But my experience living in both the UK and US is that blackouts are much more frequent in the US. And electricity "outages" last a lot longer in the US. (In the UK, they are referred to as "failures of supply".) And I'm sure that both countries have plans for making sure that emergency services get electricity first in case of shortages. Surely it is the role of government to make sure that things work the best that they can for everyone if there is a shortage. For example, we need the police, ambulance and fire fighting vehicles to run more than we need bouquets of flowers to be delivered. Does that not make sense? Or am I missing something?"

You are missing a lot. First of all what you are offering in evidence is called anecdotal evidence. In some small part of the US that you lived in (or a couple of parts) you experienced more and longer outages than you did in some small part of the UK. Since the geographic area of the UK is roughly the size of Oregon, your personal experience is meaningless.

I have lived in several different places in the US, for most of my life and have experienced only one power outage that lasted for more than six hours. That was in 1963 when a severe ice storm took down some major lines near my home town.
If you live in a place that has hurricanes or other severe weather and you have above ground lines you will experience more outages. These outages are NOT being caused by lack of generation capacity.

Also consider that most of the services you referenced don't depend on electricity but rather directly on petroleam products.

Insisting that the government can prioritize the needs in a electrical shortage seems a stretch. (See any history of the Soviet Union with particular reference to what happened when they mandated a production quota of almost all consumer goods, and also controlled the distribution of all raw materials to make those goods.

There is no method of allocation by a bureaucracy that come close to being as fair or efficient as a "relatively" free market.

My husband spent several months in Baghdad working in a high level group trying to monitor and build power generation capacity, and petroleum production in the country.

It was a little know fact, that prior to the war when Saddam was in charge, there was very little to no electricity available in the country except in Baghdad and only in areas controlled by Saddam's Sunni supporters.

When the US engineers tried to distribute the power more fairly and at the same time tried to increase the capacity, all you heard was whining from the press that "some" areas of Baghdad, (the areas with the posh hotels) now did not have power 24/7, so ergo, life was now "worse" than it had been under Saddam.

Yes Lesley the ambulances and police cars are more important then the FTD guy. As I commented there is a need for government in someplaces but this is more then just NEED. It is CONTROL and typical GOVERNMENT INCOMPETENCE. I love analogies taking your case of the police cars and ambulances this is the government doing two things. One closing down a nice 8 lane highway because it is too expensive and they let go it go to shit because they spent all money painting the railings pink because pink makes people safer driver. Now demanding everybody drive on a two lane dirt road on every alternating day. Second not doing some better and smarter like OH MY GOD - helicopters to transport people to the hospital. Put more police in the right place that the police car does not need to race across town because wow they are already there.

Now some may think this new technology is a step forward - no it a step backward. It is not a system getting efficient and better. It is a system that is messed up that technology has to be shoehorned in to fix the mistakes of the government and other officals bad decisions. They are putting monster truck wheels on the ambulance because the dirt road they are going on is too rocky. True it works but still a nice paved road with lots of extra lanes would sure as hell be better.

The other thing that surprised me is how much faith people at times put into governments. When time and time again we see them either do half ass jobs or do some spectacular fucks up that leave future generations wondering if their ancestors where stupid or just inbred. Can we say Hurricane Katrina, evacuating people from trouble zones like Egypt or Lebanon (MEMO to self I am screwed if the NORKS attack), the postal service, medicare (what I need to what a week for an X-ray), HUD, welfare fraud and moms, military adventures in Iraq to heck Libya that have wasted billions and pissed off more of the region then wwas pissed of before we started. Still oil prices are still too fucking HIGH. Lets try some even something simple as trying to get some stupid ass kid to improve on reading when the government solution is to have 5 meetings with 10 counselors and diversity managers and teachers plus the art teacher who the fucks knows why(whoops forgot the English teacher) and still yet nothing gets done a year later, Yet a charity or just dad can improve on that by paying 100 dollars to a college student to tutor the dumb kid for a couple times a week. Shall we even getting more simple. Trying to get a new driver's license and having to go to the hell on earth called the DMV. It is easier to get my cell phone changed. Yet THE GOVERNMENT IS THE ONE to SOLVE EVERYTHING. Oh shit on a stick then we humans are going to die out because if time and time again we keep doing the same fucking mistake over and over again LET'S get the government to do it or fix it. I WANT TO LIVE BY GOD AND EVOLVE AND THAT MEANS CHANGE. To some people the Tea Party with the message of less government and heck no government in areas is the solution.

True Businesses can be just a bad but at least with them they go away if they have no money or customers. Hell if my cable tv company is so shit I can usually find an alternative. With Government the have the FORCE OF THE LAW meaning I have to fucking do it and many times they are the ONLY CHOICE - ahhhh government monopolies.

GOD another point people that also would be for the wind mills and a smart rationing for this probably would raise a fucking bug stink if their Internet provided decided to start slowing down SKYPE or HULU. Come on people this has some many similarities to Net Neutrality. Yet if business does it is horrible but when government does it is better and for the common good. HECK if the business fucks with me I understand that it is because they are probably being cheap bastards and trying to earn a buck. Iif I want better I might have to open my wallet or god damn it walk across the street.

GOD I really love ranting today. I think the Ritalin is dying down.

A note my post I started just after Lesleys.

John Paulson, I generally agree with you but I do have to correct one statement of yours

Wind power has its faults and it strengths

You're being too conciliatory. I'll fix it for you.

"Wind power has its faults"

No charge.

Thanks I was trying to be nice, but windmills can pretty useful like to grind grain or even pump water pretty well at times. Great! If I was living back in the eighteen century.

James Rummel develops an interesting analogy with hydraulic empires and their use of control over water as a means of social control.

OK, full disclosure here: I work for a utility company that generates electricity from Wind, Nuclear, and coal-powered plants. I'm the assistant to the Grid Manager for Texas, and to the Director of Government Affairs for the state.

First off, wind power is SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive to produce and deliver. There are also infrastructure problems- getting the power onto the grid... the transmission lines still have to be built in order to bring the power onto the grid from, say, west Texas, where the turbines are located.

And the other thing: The "government" (or in Texas's case, ERCOT) already controls the distribution of power. If you live in TX, you know we experienced a day (or more) of rolling blackouts in January after a winter storm. Dozens of coal-powered plants shut down in the freezing weather, and there was also a natural-gas "shortage" that crippled the gas powered plants. (During this particular incident, wind power contributed more of the states electricity than usual.) Anyway, in the city of Austin, certain areas had no electricity for more than half a day, while others never had their service interrupted at all. This wasn't an accident. Certain areas are considered too important to be exposed to "rolling" blackouts. Others...not so essential. The power at my house didn't go out, but I live near DOT offices, a hospital district, and a military facility. I figure I must be on the same part of the grid as one of those "essential" institutions. The point is, decisons are already being made by "the powers that be" about who gets electricity during an emergency.

The thing that scares me most about "smart grids" is the potential for glitches. Hey, what could go wrong???

If I ever get to have a house built, I want one of those pot-belly stoves.

Thanks for explaining, everyone.

I guess that the people of the UK got into the habit of trusting government during WWII when bombs were landing on many of the cities and most people reckoned that working together and making sacrifices gave them the best chance surviving and maintaining their way of life. People who had large houses were told by the government to let them be used as hospitals or homes for bombed out families or children evacuated from the cities. Food was in short supply and it was rationed by the government. The government never allowed people to forget the sacrifices made by many Americans on their behalf.

Sure some people cheated and made as few sacrifices as possible and sure the government made a lot of mistakes - without a doubt!

But all in all, it worked. I guess that even though most of the people who lived through that war are now dead, the experience sort of lives on in the population. It may have made them believe that government of some sort has to be tolerated even though all governments inevitably make mistakes. And to think that trying to make government better is safer than trying to reduce it as much as possible. And it may have convinced them that making sacrifices is OK if it helps to maintain their way of life.

Silly Britain. Ya just have to feel sorry for 'em.

Government can only be made better by making it smaller and weaker.

Even though I've not has a single power outage of consequence in my new house, I'm contemplating a small generator. Enough to run the furnace, fridge, and a few lights. My uncle did that at his house, and it's served him well - but he gets serious power outages in the winter because up on the mountain they get lots of ice storms.

"The problem is that government is run by humans, who are self-interest-driven."

Amy! I am surprised at you! I thought you were up on research in the evolution of human behaviour. Humans are not self-interest driven. This is economist talk and even most of THEM now admit it is wrong thanks to the work of Ernst Fehr. The evolution of human altruism is the hot new topic. And NO it is not just self-interested, reciprocal or kin altruism.

Look forward to seeing you at the next HBES. Montpelier is wonderful.

I had to look again! I really should go to bed.

It was an interesting time for the people during the two wars. Sacrifices had to be made. But the people made them because the cost was there and they felt it was the right price. As Amy just said people are self-interested very much so politicians. At that times, for the people living under the Nazis was not what they wanted or even just fighting for a good cause/reason people made amazing choices Peoples self interest leads people to make the choices and sacrifices they want.

Have you looked on the following years, when the war was over and rationing was still going on some till almost 1954. The people where not happy, yet the government said sacrifices are needed. People will not be always understanding if NO good reason is given.

As with the windmills. I said NO good reason or cause that is WORTH IT is given. Ok maybe for some people environmental might be worth it but to the average person they might give a tinkers damn for one minute towards global warming before self interest kicks in. Also for others they feel they are being cheated because they just do not trust the science or the reason.

The question is what are you willing to sacrifice! If it was to protect me or my country or to help another in a tangible way I would hope I would do the right thing and make a sacrifice. But it has to be worth it. It might not be worth it to fight some stupid war in the middle east or it might if it paid well or I felt that just maybe what I fought for made a difference. As in the windmill it is not worth it because it is wasted and silly. The solution is not worth the cost.

Wow I think I am rambling now and repeating myself. Time for bed.

Yeah, the Brits trusted Churchill and their government so much after they saved their asses during World War II that they promptly threw him, and his party out of office in 1945.

What they got for their troubles was nine more years of rationing of even basic foodstuffs, such as meat, tea, coffee, fruit and sugar.

Germany recovered far faster, and that country was leveled. :-)

"Silly Britain. Ya just have to feel sorry for 'em."

I do feel sorry for them. At least the ones who are not government employees or on the dole.

Both their culture and their economy is circling the toilet bowl.

Most Brits are so insulated from reality and trust so much in the Nanny state that they can't see the downward spiral.

Meanwhile the BBC tells them to trust the government and all will be well, as their productive classes with the means to get out, flee the country in droves.

When all that is left are the Muslims, the government employees, and the pensioners, we will see how long Great Britain, in any recognizable form, lasts.

Yeah, the Brits trusted Churchill and their government so much after they saved their asses during World War II that they promptly threw him, and his party out of office in 1945.

Perhaps because they never actually elected Churchill. He was asked by King George VI in 1940 to form an all-parties coalition government when the Chamberlain government no longer held the people's confidence.

Churchill's positions in the Sidney Street riots, Indian independence, the Abdication Crisis, and various strikes before the war had made him a very controversial politician, even before the war. During the war, Churchill had concentrated on the war effort and left running most domestic affairs to the Labour Party ministers in his coalition, giving them an advantage in a post-war election that was seen as a domestic policy referendum.

Another aspect of Churchill's losing the election had to do with the way British elections are held. The party with the most seats in Parliament choses the prime minister.

The Labour Party ran on a promise of full employment, universal health care, and cradle-to-grave welfare. To a war-ravaged nation, those promises were appealing.

Add to that a very poor campaign by Churchill (who had never run a national campaign before), and the Conservatives went down to an unexpected defeat.

Churchill and the Conservatives would later win back the prime ministership in 1951.

All true Conan, but not germane to my point which was that having to pull together during World War II made the Brits more trusting of their "government" than the rest of us are.
The Brits were chasing a socialist utopia like most of Europe and were convinced that high taxation and more government control would lead to a better life.
It did not, and right now they are reaping the rewards of a system that favors immigrants, government employees and welfare recipients over the productive members of society.
I don't enjoy the spectacle as half of my ancestors came from there.
Many of the Brits, especially the upper middle classes have entertained a smug social superiority over the rude, uncivilized, and uncultured American "colonists" for hundreds of years.

The current crop have bought the "multi culturalist salad bowl" social model hook line and sinker.
They are on the top deck of the Titanic, after the iceberg, and have yet to realize that the lifeboats are deploying, or to even wonder why.

Problems With Green Energy

Some of the practical problems with green energy, especially wind power.

Rencently, Spain has realized that it is killing its economy by subsidizing wind power.

The Zapatero administration recently acknowledged that the “green economy” must be abandoned, lest they risk Spain becoming Greece.

An independent study found that Spain’s “green economy” program removed 2.2 jobs for every job “created” by the state. The government report does not directly confirm this. Instead, the government figures show even greater job-losses.

Windmills DO have their uses: I know some geo exploration guys that haul a wind turbine along to reduce their need to carry power generation fuels, etc.

That said, wind power is a) not consistent, b) fluctuates in delivery, and c) does not scale as well from a simple cost perspective.

a) When the wind goes away, which it sometimes does even in areas with a good consistent wind supply, you need batteries, gas generators, or other backup means to provide the full output of what the windmill is supposed to be supplying. Some areas don't get ANY reliable wind - a university my son is looking into had to start their wind turbines research site hours away on the coast to get "consistent" winds

While the costs of running cable out to the wind turbines is non-trivial, it's not that much of an increase over supplying power to the areas of the wind turbines from central power.

b) That said, the costs of the control gear to deal with electrical supplies that fluctuate in relation to the electrical grid IS non-trivial. Fluctuating generators hooked into an otherwise stable grid can cause Bad Things (tm). This is electrical safety gear and demand load to accommodate turbines going on and off without any human planning or scheduling involved.

c) A turbine, it's blades (even steam turbines), its gears, bearings, lubrication systems, etc. require maintenance. A huge honking steam turbine developing tens or hundreds of MW of power requires roughly the same amount of ongoing maintenance as a smaller one.

Like a wind turbine.

Factor in that the huge turbines are often in sheltered, climate-controlled buildings, etc. and not out in the weather, and you need a LOT MORE of the wind turbines, plus trucks, lifts, etc. to get to them for any maintenance, and the maintenance man hours for an equivalent generation capacity in wind turbines is much higher.

So yes, wind turbines have their uses for small-scale power generation in isolated areas. As a reliable, low-cost source of base load power. Not so much.

Those of you who are thinking about generators had also better think about how to get fuel for them - and how to avoid being victimized by people who will justify anything to get what's yours.

See here.

Rad,

Ran into that site post-Katrina. I already live in my bug-out spot. Not quite as well prepped as the author -- but I have some time before I start have to eyeing my cat for dinner. ;-)

Anyone who has to refer to WWII Britain to make a point is sadly out of touch.

"For example, we need the police, ambulance and fire fighting vehicles to run more than we need bouquets of flowers to be delivered. Does that not make sense? Or am I missing something?"

You're missing something.

It's the taxes on the FTD driver (and all those other private businesses out there) collected that pay for the police, ambulance and fire fighting vehicles.

KateC did I break Goodwin's Law or an auxillary law? I think I was the first to bring up the UK and the war. My point was this the last time the government said that the general populas to give up their luxuries aka FOOD like meat and sugar is and that most people did it (those that did not get exceptions, or buy on the black market, or steal, etc) did what was asked because the felt the cost was worth it.

In the case of the windmills and energy, the government is saying that they will not have enough energy (sugar) to meet demand and sorry the reasons we do not have enough supply is that we have decided to get our energy from a lousy source called wind. Why did they choose wind is because the want to reduce C02 which may or may not or not very much cause climate change IN THE FUTURE.

People can be future orientated but most are very in the moment. But even convincing somebody for the future has to effect them personally A WHOLE LOT. Now back in WWII many people made sacrifices because the felt the war would effect the personally from bombs falling on their heads to if I have to skip some milk in my coffee will get Johnny back home sooner okay. Very personal costs versus if I a drive my car or use this energy from coal might raise the temperature 2 degrees in Zimbabwe in 30 years time but sorry England still is going be cloudy and raining most of the time.

I was bringing up costs and giving what I felt was a good example. Maybe in some round about way I was calling the government Hitler.

KateC did I break Goodwin's Law or an auxiliary law?

It is Godwin's Law (single "O"). You came close -- but it was in comparison Britain's recovery in the time period. Then there is Cam's Corollary is -- comparing some person or group to the the current dictator in disfavor. For example comparing former President Hosni Mubarak to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's change to the laws.
--------------------------------------------------

Everyone who believes in anthropomorphic global warming needs to read this entry.

Considering the significant industrial age didn't kick off until the 1900's and we were supposed to be in an ice age from the predictions in the 1970's -- I'm a considerable skeptic.

For the sarcasm impaired the last sentence was meant sarcastically.

"Why did they choose wind is because the want to reduce C02 which may or may not or not very much cause climate change IN THE FUTURE."

Hey, and "everybody knows" there's to reason whatsoever to plan for THE FUTURE, right?

Oh, gee, here we go again. Since a volcano is so big, we have no effect at all.

Know what a non-sequitur is?

That.

No Radwaste, their is many reasons to plan for the future. Once again it is a cost analysis - I plan for my future by saving money, using a condom, imagining the North Koreans will attack so I better start getting the 72 Hour / bugout bag made up. But people plan for usually their PERSONAL futures or families. Some may plan for the future of other area like community, country, or business by becoming involved. How that involvement can be huge from protesting for change to benign of voting for the local Republican because maybe he will cut spending. But if outside plans (ie government or business) for future start to effect a a persons adversely they may rebel or try to change those plans or just wonder WHY should I put up with this! Convince me do not just ORDER me or tell me to suck it up because you the government or a CEO said so.

But many people still are very much in the moment and the now and the future gets a thought once in a while. Because if most people planned for the future their would sure as hell be no housing crisis now and a lot less poor people.

No some people are altruistic or worried about something they work in areas to prepare for the future or to create a better future - Environmentalists, Civil Rights Activists, other -ists - now they can also do this with Government, NGOs, Businesses, Groups, Unions, etc.

God I feel I will keep rehashing! Once again - the government is the one who made a choice to use and invest in Windmills. For some people they thing it was not worth it, they will lower C02 and maybe help prevent Climate Change from getting worse. Others, thing it is stupid or it can be done a different way. The Majority really do not fucking care UNTIL it effects them directly. Then they will go to one or the other side. Yet we have the government saying this is the only solution sorry their is going to be problems and this is the only way. No lets try something else - Nuclear anybody OR just hand it off to someone else like a business - ColdFusionCo has done it and now can sell us cheap energy OR even just working with someone else.

Also once again why the fuck does it have to be the government to be the one to solve the fucking problems. The track record of the US government alone is enough to make you scream. Lets plan for the future when are citizens are too old to work. We will save/tax some of their wages and save it for the future. "Hey we have some extra cash, lets get that warship we wanted" OR alternative energy - GOD that video of every President since I think Nixon saying the government needs to invest and work towards a better alternative/lower/unicorn farts energy programs. It has been 40 years and what the fuck do they have to show for it - still dependent on middle East oil, ok true some cars are more efficient but that was started by Japanese businesses. OK lets work on Nuclear energy - sorry since of some scares here and Russia they have not built anymore since I think the 80s.
CANCER - Hell I think private businesses and grants have done more the beat cancer.
Demographics - less kids being born, less future tax payers - ok lets up immigration. Let try and get some smart people to help the economy. Hey who let these Chinese and Mexicans and Hell Canadians in. Ahh do not worry they are needed. Uhh the starting to cost us some money and some problems...... BLAH BLAH BLAH! WHY IS IT ALWAYS HAVE TO BE GOVERNMENT ALONE.

Businesses, individuals, scientists can be used or solve it. BUT it has to be the Government to be the leader or the only one to do it. Heck leave things to FATE.

Right now I am looking at something HUGE called the MOON. Yes the American government got their already but right their are crazy people who thing hey we have the time, energy, smarts and my friend Richard has some cash why not we try and get their are selves. We might fail, we might blow are selves into a million pieces but it is not MANDATED by government.

Well got to go. Maybe more ranting and ramblings later.

BTW, the title of this post "Back to the Middle Ages" isn't really fair to the middle ages. Yes, they did have a scarcity of energy resources, but they made great strides in developing them, namely waterpower, wind, and more efficient harness for draft aninmals.

We're going in the opposite direction.

"Right now I am looking at something HUGE called the MOON. Yes the American government got their already but right their are crazy people..."

Actually that's a really good point. Consider: Back after the Columbia accident, when GW Bush proposed shutting down the Shuttle program to make way for the next generation, we had 8 years before the deadline to write the new plan and put it into practice. Well, guess what... it's 8 years later, the Shuttle program is all but done, and there still isn't any freakin' plan. The entire 8 years have been frittered away with everyone trying to please everyone else and nobody ever committing to anything. Constellation died just like people predicted it would on day 1, hamstrung by lack of resources and commitment from Washington. Nobody at the top levels in Washington has really had a plan since Ronald Reagan initiated what is now the ISS back in 1983... and it took 25 freakin' years to implement that! It's like an Ayn Rand novel. von Braun and Faget both thought we'd be on Mars by 1980. Nowdays, the only reason that China isn't whipping our butts in aerospace is because they just really aren't very good at it yet. But they'll get better.

(An aside to the space commercialists: I totally agree with the objective of getting NASA out of the Earth-orbit business. The commercial sector is more than competent to take that ball and run with it. I am uncomfortable with the idea that Obama's plan is to use NASA funding to pick winners and losers in the sector, but I guess that's better than no plan at all. However, what NASA should be doing is cranking up the program for a Lunar base and then going farther out. Those are areas where you can rightly say that government intervention is useful; currently there is no commercial investor support for a Lunar base.)

About space:

First, there was no National Vision for Manned Space Flight until after the Columbia Accident Investigation Board released their findings. Among them was that NASA was wasting between 3 & 5 billion $/year on projects that were never going to fly. So they didn't have a goal.

Now, you may not agree with the vision, but having one articulated is nearly mandatory as a first step. This doesn't dispose of the need of politicians to buy the votes of wholly ignorant Americans who think you can spend away hunger and poverty. These votes do not go to the Moon and Mars, despite their tiny cost relative to entitlements, the jobs creating fixed assets and the national prestige. It also doesn't fix the Federal bureaucratic morass that NASA has become, fixated on righting every imagined slight before the first wrench is turned.

(Imagine Padleader Guenter Wendt actually telling someone what to do in the White Room today. There would be lawsuits - how DARE he!)

Second: government, in the form of NASA, actually does serve a useful purpose in that inventions funded by the public can't be patented. This is a bigger deal than you know - think, "naval reactors".

What I know about the application of smart grid tech today, is right now the rural electric cooperative here has a program where they give a break on rates to the farmers that irrigate if they let them install these smart meters. Then when the supplier calls a peak demand day (a day when they set their rates for the next year) the cooperative can pull the plug, from a computer in an office, on all the irrigation that is so equipped and the peak demand on the supplier drops. It keeps everyone's rates lower. They are still installing the things as fast as they can but they have already saved millions of dollars.

I can see letting the power company cut off my A/C for 10 minutes an hour a few days in the summer for a better rate on my bill. I just wish they'd quit flickering the lights off for half a second several times a week, I live in a town with a crappy city owned utility.

I can see letting the power company cut off my A/C for 10 minutes an hour a few days in the summer for a better rate on my bill.

In a free market society -- capacity is at peak -- we (the electric company) can make more money by building a new electric plant. Lets do it.

Why is that a foriegn concept to so many?

I just wish they'd quit flickering the lights off for half a second several times a week,

If I were you, I would have every single electronic appliance (TV, DVR, stereo, computer, phone answering machines, etc.) on small UPS (Un-interruptible Power Supply) units. They not only help with blackouts, the stop the surges from flickering power from arcing and frying equipment.

I live in a town with a crappy city owned utility.

Why is your town involved in your electric? Why can't you buy electric from whoever you want?

The "city owned utility" is another reason you should think about involving government in basic services. Any services.

Because you let a bunch of elected people, with no expertise in the industry at hand, into your business.

@Jim P
This month I would have paid $110.80 for 1519(kwh or whatever, it doesn't say) plus a fuel cost adjustment of $18.13 plus sales tax, I have average billing and it gets close to $300 a month in the hottest part of the year after adding water, sewer and garbage. My 12 month average this month just for electricity was $190.51.

I would have to buy at least 3 more UPS, I can't afford that. I have one and there are only 4 plugs on the UPS part. I have some of the computer equipment plugged into it. It's really old I'll need to replace it eventually.

We don't have a choice where we buy electricity in Oklahoma like they do in Texas. I think there has been legislation that didn't pass.

The city finances all services from the 'Public Works Authority,' meaning everything else breaks even and the 'profit' from power sales goes to finance police, fire, streets, etc. Then their newsletter crows about how reliable they are according to the OMPA.BS

I'm not even sure that if I could switch to the rural electric coop that it would help. I don't know if the problem is tree limbs in the lines or something like that or if they keep tripping the sub for some reason. I don't know if it's the whole town or just the sub we're on. I just know it usually happens during the day when most people are at work, I've seen it happen while shopping and come home to find everything but the computer blinking 12:00 or the equivalent. There are two subs supplying the town and the industrial park, we are on the one that goes through downtown and out to the industrial park, it's the newest. It happens during good weather. If we have bad weather sometimes we get the dreaded three blinks and sometimes nothing happens at all.

If it's the lines then switching won't help, I'd only have choice on who supplies the power and not on who delivers the power.

I do know the rural electric has the same supplier as the city and the REA does not flicker any of their subs 3 times a week. If they did my DH would be bitching every day about it. He used to be electrical inspector for the town and now works for the the REA, he is the guy that did all the research on what they needed for the smart tech and recommended where they could get it, he went to the school and goes to the conferences and is overseeing installation, trouble shooting, etc. It will eventually be installed on every customer they have, and they will read the meters by computer, through the lines. They may someday even offer internet service over the power lines.