I demand to know why the Obama Admin has failed these people

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Radar

Providing electricity to people isn't as easy as showing up with food and water. It's also not within the scope of the U.S. government to provide electricity. To compare this to Bush's failure during Hurricane Katrina only proves what a douchebag you really are.

Also, the government DID respond. National Guardsmen have been sent to the homes and have gone door to door giving food and blankets to people, and I believe several shelters have been setup for them so once again, you're talking out your ass.

Yes, I thought I saw on the news where they had called in emergency help.

This is just one more example of why we need that damn bill passed... I really hope we don't end up with a whole bunch of senseless tax cuts. We need money going into infrastructure and green technologies.

[tw]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

We need money going into infrastructure and green technologies.

We could have spent $millions addressing the problem rather than spending $billions fighting a war that had no purpose.

Some would play politics, hate, racism, and enemies lurking everywhere rather than address a fundamental problem. In America, we still install electric distribution overhead rather than bury them. You can bet the developments with underground electric had electricity restored faster or never lost.

Ice means overhead electric lines are broken everywhere and simultaneously, too many breaks even for crews brought in from 1000 miles away, and difficulty even finding and getting to failures. Problems that don't happen when the most critical distribution wires are buried rather than spend $1trillion 'rescuing' people who did not want to be rescued.

As for that infrastructure spending bill? Too little on capital improvements such as putting electric lines where they remain functional when most needed.

UT posted pictures once of his home getting fiber optic service. How was it installed? Underground. It’s not that hard.

Only some states require new developments be underground. Some foolishly worry about costs as any good MBA would do. And ignore the real costs when everything must be replaced simultaneously and when electric service is most needed.

None of this involves Obama or politics or racism as was posted. It’s about solving problems verses playing games of cost controls. Cost controls increase costs - just another example.

[sugarpop]

Personally, I think all new buildings/houses should be required to have solar panels installed, and should be built with passive solar specifications. I think the government should subsidize people solarizing their existing homes. That would go a long way toward solving part of the power problems (and reducing our energy costs). And if people generated their own power, we wouldn't need much of a grid in some places. (I know solar isn't possible everywhere year round though.)

I don't know enough about burying the power lines, but on the surface it sure sounds like a good idea. I suppose they would have to be installed inside some kind of metal pipes though, so digging animals couldn't damage them.

[tw]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Personally, I think all new buildings/houses should be required to have solar panels installed, and should be built with passive solar specifications. I think the government should subsidize people solarizing their existing homes. That would go a long way toward solving part of the power problems (and reducing our energy costs). And if people generated their own power, we wouldn't need much of a grid in some places.

If government subsidizes solar panels, then solar panels are still paid for by taxpayers - at higher cost. Your theory only works if there is something called free money.

Second, no grid during bad weather means consumers still have the same problem - with or without solar panels.

Third, I did not see your numbers for how that solar panel will supply anywhere near sufficient energy. I say this often. If you don't provide numbers and underlying facts, then you are probably lying. In this case, it implies you are lying to yourself. Did you come to that conclusion by first learning the facts?

Fourth, solar cells do not mean a smaller grid. That same grid must exist to export power when the homeowner is not home and to import power when the home owner is home that night. Grid still exists and requires even more (and complex) equipment.

Fifth, one of those rich television 'rebuild the house' people installed solar cells that still do not provide sufficient energy. $30,000. These numbers are relevant.

Solutions using solar generation are promising. But notice the tense: future. (In part due to insufficient research), the technology is not yet practical - does not solve the objective (problem) in this thread. One reason: gasoline prices remain too low.

Many of those suggestions are popular hype. It sounds too much like another classic fact that was based only in the latest newspaper article - childhood leukemia created by power lines.

Only reasons for no overhead power lines are money and no appreciation for its advantages. No willpower. Instead of blaming the misplaced wires, we blame the weather? Or Obama? Or maybe another myth - the obsolete grid.

To solve the problem means we are spending the next 30 years slowly burying critical parts of the grid. Few short term solutions exist to widespread blackouts when so many critical parts are taken out simultaneously - because those parts are exposed.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

We need money going into infrastructure and green technologies.

I agree 100%. Hint....I am a Structural Engineer.


I am completely for innovation but I believe it will have to be started through grassroots campaigns with help from local governments and of course a local university. Urban agriculture is starting to catch on in some areas and many other technologies probably will in the future.

Though for most it comes down to cost. Engineering companies will attempt to produce the cheapest design so unless you can find a way to make a building with innovative technologies cheaper then buildings without it, don't be surprised if that sector does not grow.


Although there is hope. In many areas there are extremely strict regulations forcing oil and coal companies to remain clean so since it is in the best interests of the oil and coal companies to remain clean, they will be ridiculously creative to accomplish that. I am very against the government creating solutions, they know nothing about the fields they are effecting. Politicians should solely set the scenario so it is in the best interests of the experts and companies to create solutions and they will come faster and better than expected.

Never work against companies, always work with them.

[tw]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I am very against the government creating solutions, they know nothing about the fields they are effecting. Politicians should solely set the scenario so it is in the best interests of the experts and companies to create solutions and they will come faster and better than expected.

Unfortunately some industries just absolutely refuse to innovate until forced to. The benchmark is the American auto industry. That is the story even in Ralph Nader's 1963 "Unsafe at any Speed". Every decade required more government regulations for that industry to do anything.

Shame. But since 1970, there is not a single major innovation in any domestic car without first being required by a government regulation.

Many thought Ralph Nader's book was about the Chevy Corvair. That was only Chapter one. Nader's book demonstrates even back then how resistant that industry has been to innovation. A problem that has become worse in every decade.

Industries should not work that way. So how could it change?

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by tw

Unfortunately some industries just absolutely refuse to innovate until forced to. The benchmark is the American auto industry. That is the story even in Ralph Nader's 1963 "Unsafe at any Speed". Every decade required more government regulations for that industry to do anything.

Shame. But since 1970, there is not a single major innovation in any domestic car without first being required by a government regulation.

Many thought Ralph Nader's book was about the Chevy Corvair. That was only Chapter one. Nader's book demonstrates even back then how resistant that industry has been to innovation. A problem that has become worse in every decade.

Industries should not work that way. So how could it change?

Yes, and what is really very sad, is back in the 90s, auto makers actually WERE being innovative by building electric cars. Then, after Bush was elected, they confiscated all the cars (even though people loved them and wanted to buy them), and they proceeded to DESTROY them. I think everyone should watch "Who Killed the Electric Car. You can watch it online for free.

[sugarpop]

And, you can build skyscrapers that are a lot more green... http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006...t_tower_le.php

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/MID/MID124.htm

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/695/

I read an article in DWELL magazine a while back about an apartment building in LA that provides all the energy needs for the tenants, because of the way it was designed, and solar panals. (I will try to find the article later so I can cite it for you. but the point is, it CAN be done, even for apartment buildings.)