Es ist August, eine kleine Stadt an der Riviera, Hauptsaison, aber es regnet, die Stadt ist leer. Alle haben Schulden und leben auf Kredit. Zum Glück betritt einer der noch reichen Russen eines der Hotels:
· Der Russe will ein Zimmer, legt 500 Euro auf den Tisch und geht, um sich das Zimmer ansehen.
· Der Hotelchef nimmt das Geld und rennt zum Metzger, um seine Schulden zu begleichen.
· Dieser nimmt die Banknote und rennt zum Schweinezüchter, um seine Schulden zu regulieren.
· Dieser nimmt die 500 Euro und rennt zum Futterlieferanten, um seine Schulden zu reduzieren.
· Dieser nimmt das Geld und gibt es der Nutte, bei der er laufend auf Kredit war (Krise).
· Die Nutte nimmt das Geld und rennt zum Hotelchef, um ihre Schulden für das Stundenzimmer zu regulieren.
Genau in diesem Moment kommt der Russe zurück, sagt, das Zimmer gefalle ihm nicht, nimmt seine 500 Euro zurück und verlässt die Stadt.
Niemand hat etwas verdient, aber die ganze Stadt hat keine Schulden mehr und schaut plötzlich wieder völlig optimistisch in die Zukunft!
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Monday, January 5, 2009
Monday, December 15, 2008
Electric Vehicle vs Gas Vehicle - MPG vs. co2/M
According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics the average car in 2006 got 22.4 mpg while the average new 2006 car got 30.2 (http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_23.html). Combining that information with the rate of 19.4 lbs CO2/gallon of gas, we find that the average car in 2006 generates .8661 lbs CO2/mile while the average NEW car generates .6424.
According to a joint report by the Department of Energy and the EPA (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2report.html#electric), the average carbon dioxide output for electricity generated in the US in 1999 was 1.341 lbs CO2/kWh.
With that information at hand I began to look for efficiency information for electric cars. I was unable to find anything official for lead-acid batteries, the type of batteries used with previously available electric cars (i.e. EV1 which was available in CA from 1996 to 1999). The unconfirmed information I found said that the batteries for the EV1 could hold 18.7 kWh of energy and go for about 75 miles on a charge. That works out to .3344 lbs of CO2 per mile.
The next car I looked at was the Chevy Volt, a car that can run on either full electric, full gas, or in a hybrid mode. The Volt uses next generation Lithium-Ion based batteries and is being rushed to market by GM with a target launch date of sometime in 2010. According to gm-volt.com, the Volt can go 40 miles on full electric using ~8 kWh of electric energy. That works out to approximately .2682 lbs of CO2 per mile for trips under 40 miles.
I found the numbers to be somewhat surprising. The new Volt, when it becomes available, will generate 58% less carbon dioxide than the average new gas-powered car does today. I expected that with our fossil-fuel dependent electric generation grid the reductions would not be as significant.
One thing for the environmentalists to keep in mind, however, is that a gas-powered car would only need to get 72 mpg to equal the carbon dioxide output of Volt in full electric mode. This is achievable with only incremental improvements in gas-electric hybrid technologies (the Prius is rated at 48 mpg today). Also, it is important to keep in mind that this rudimentary analysis fails to take into account the carbon dioxide output of the battery manufacturing and disposal process or the gas production and transportation processes.
For an entertaining look at anti-CO2 environmentalism taken out to its logical conclusion, see this article from Reason: http://www.reason.com/news/show/127418.html
I took this post from HERE: http://ionlyreadthearticles.blogspot.com/2008/08/electricity-vs-gasoline.html
According to a joint report by the Department of Energy and the EPA (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2report.html#electric), the average carbon dioxide output for electricity generated in the US in 1999 was 1.341 lbs CO2/kWh.
With that information at hand I began to look for efficiency information for electric cars. I was unable to find anything official for lead-acid batteries, the type of batteries used with previously available electric cars (i.e. EV1 which was available in CA from 1996 to 1999). The unconfirmed information I found said that the batteries for the EV1 could hold 18.7 kWh of energy and go for about 75 miles on a charge. That works out to .3344 lbs of CO2 per mile.
The next car I looked at was the Chevy Volt, a car that can run on either full electric, full gas, or in a hybrid mode. The Volt uses next generation Lithium-Ion based batteries and is being rushed to market by GM with a target launch date of sometime in 2010. According to gm-volt.com, the Volt can go 40 miles on full electric using ~8 kWh of electric energy. That works out to approximately .2682 lbs of CO2 per mile for trips under 40 miles.
I found the numbers to be somewhat surprising. The new Volt, when it becomes available, will generate 58% less carbon dioxide than the average new gas-powered car does today. I expected that with our fossil-fuel dependent electric generation grid the reductions would not be as significant.
One thing for the environmentalists to keep in mind, however, is that a gas-powered car would only need to get 72 mpg to equal the carbon dioxide output of Volt in full electric mode. This is achievable with only incremental improvements in gas-electric hybrid technologies (the Prius is rated at 48 mpg today). Also, it is important to keep in mind that this rudimentary analysis fails to take into account the carbon dioxide output of the battery manufacturing and disposal process or the gas production and transportation processes.
For an entertaining look at anti-CO2 environmentalism taken out to its logical conclusion, see this article from Reason: http://www.reason.com/news/show/127418.html
I took this post from HERE: http://ionlyreadthearticles.blogspot.com/2008/08/electricity-vs-gasoline.html
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Monday, November 17, 2008
Executive order from Governor Schwarzenegger on Climat Impacts
Text of News Release issued November 14, 2008:
Gov. Schwarzenegger Issues Executive Order Directing State Agencies to Plan for Sea Level Rise and Climate Impacts
Given the serious threat of sea level rise to California's water supply and coastal resources and the impact it would have on our state's economy, population, and natural resources, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger [Friday] issued an Executive Order (EO) S-13-08 to enhance the state's management of climate impacts from sea level rise, increased temperatures, shifting precipitation and extreme weather events.
"We have to adapt the way we work and plan in order to manage the impacts and challenges that California and our entire planet face from climate change," Governor Schwarzenegger said. "Given the serious threat of sea level rise to California's water supply, population and our economy, it's critically important that we make sure the state is prepared when heavy rains cause flooding and the potential for sea level rise increases in future years."
There are four key actions in the EO including:
(1) initiate California's first statewide climate change adaptation strategy that will assess the state's expected climate change impacts, identify where California is most vulnerable and recommend climate adaptation policies by early 2009;
(2) request the National Academy of Science establish an expert panel to report on sea level rise impacts in California to inform state planning and development efforts;
(3) issue interim guidance to state agencies for how to plan for sea level rise in designated coastal and floodplain areas for new projects; and
(4) initiate a report on critical existing and planned infrastructure projects vulnerable to sea level rise.
One key benefit that the EO will facilitate is California's first comprehensive climate adaptation strategy. This effort will improve coordination within state government and adapt the way work so that better planning can more effectively address climate impacts to human health, the environment, the state's water supply and the economy.
Another benefit from the EO includes providing consistency and clarity to state agencies on how to address sea level rise in current planning efforts, reducing time and resources unnecessarily spent on developing different policies using different scientific information.
The EO and its actions carry on the Governor's environmental leadership by continuing to address climate change adaptation in coordination with our climate change mitigation policies as outlined in AB 32. The states of Washington and Oregon, as well as Canada and Mexico, along with several global institutions have expressed interest in coordinating our climate change adaptation policies as outlined in this EO.
California's Energy Commission, the California Ocean Protection Council and Caltrans are conducting numerous scientific studies on the impact of climate change, including new sea level rise impact projections that are being used to develop the state's climate change adaptation strategy.
Gov. Schwarzenegger Issues Executive Order Directing State Agencies to Plan for Sea Level Rise and Climate Impacts
Given the serious threat of sea level rise to California's water supply and coastal resources and the impact it would have on our state's economy, population, and natural resources, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger [Friday] issued an Executive Order (EO) S-13-08 to enhance the state's management of climate impacts from sea level rise, increased temperatures, shifting precipitation and extreme weather events.
"We have to adapt the way we work and plan in order to manage the impacts and challenges that California and our entire planet face from climate change," Governor Schwarzenegger said. "Given the serious threat of sea level rise to California's water supply, population and our economy, it's critically important that we make sure the state is prepared when heavy rains cause flooding and the potential for sea level rise increases in future years."
There are four key actions in the EO including:
(1) initiate California's first statewide climate change adaptation strategy that will assess the state's expected climate change impacts, identify where California is most vulnerable and recommend climate adaptation policies by early 2009;
(2) request the National Academy of Science establish an expert panel to report on sea level rise impacts in California to inform state planning and development efforts;
(3) issue interim guidance to state agencies for how to plan for sea level rise in designated coastal and floodplain areas for new projects; and
(4) initiate a report on critical existing and planned infrastructure projects vulnerable to sea level rise.
One key benefit that the EO will facilitate is California's first comprehensive climate adaptation strategy. This effort will improve coordination within state government and adapt the way work so that better planning can more effectively address climate impacts to human health, the environment, the state's water supply and the economy.
Another benefit from the EO includes providing consistency and clarity to state agencies on how to address sea level rise in current planning efforts, reducing time and resources unnecessarily spent on developing different policies using different scientific information.
The EO and its actions carry on the Governor's environmental leadership by continuing to address climate change adaptation in coordination with our climate change mitigation policies as outlined in AB 32. The states of Washington and Oregon, as well as Canada and Mexico, along with several global institutions have expressed interest in coordinating our climate change adaptation policies as outlined in this EO.
California's Energy Commission, the California Ocean Protection Council and Caltrans are conducting numerous scientific studies on the impact of climate change, including new sea level rise impact projections that are being used to develop the state's climate change adaptation strategy.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
My thoughts on the election
I have to say I am truly proud of the American people to have made a step like they did. I was really really questioning the mindset and ability to realize things over the last ~ 6 years. On a level like the president of the USA, you need to do the right thing, RIGHT as in right for the world, for the people for society as a whole. I believe "W" really wanted to do that, it is just a fact for me (and yes it is only MY fact) that he was
1) not mentally able to understand the world needs as a whole
2) was mentally not able to at least surround himself with people that have that ability
3) He got un-lucky a few times.
BUT
Please don't tell me it was RIGHT to go into Irak, take that money (or 1/4 of it) and make your country independent of the oil he was so desperate to secure for the US there. We could be there by now.
Please don't tell me it was RIGHT to make Aids help in Africa depending on your faith.
Please don't tell me it was RIGHT to put pressure on the mortgage market to make the "American Dream" (house in the burbs with lawn and white picket fence) a reality for everyone, as in everyone.... eventhough the market was not able to give it to them.
Please don't tell me it was RIGHT to try and make every pension depend on the health of the stock market
Please don't tell me it was RIGHT by pushing back any diplomatic efforts with Korea and Iran and therefore let these situations get almost out of control
Please don't tell me it was RIGHT to be arrogant and proud about being an American. It is plain out luck or good fortune to have been borne in this country and does not entitle you in any way to look down on or be arrogant to anyone on this planet. We are all born equal. An American life is just as terrible to be lost as any other one on this planet.
Please don't tell me it was RIGHT to find legalization loopholes and use brute force methods to get to information from members of "The axis of evil" (called torture). If you look back at history and think and analyze, there are MUCH much better ways to get to information if you really want it. But it does take will, sophistication and the right mindset to get to it. These are much much more effective AND do not defacto now put a world wide legalization on torture for th next at least 50 years.
Please don't tell me it was RIGHT to lift the cover of a CIA agent, just because he disagrees with your shitty policies.
1) not mentally able to understand the world needs as a whole
2) was mentally not able to at least surround himself with people that have that ability
3) He got un-lucky a few times.
BUT
Please don't tell me it was RIGHT to go into Irak, take that money (or 1/4 of it) and make your country independent of the oil he was so desperate to secure for the US there. We could be there by now.
Please don't tell me it was RIGHT to make Aids help in Africa depending on your faith.
Please don't tell me it was RIGHT to put pressure on the mortgage market to make the "American Dream" (house in the burbs with lawn and white picket fence) a reality for everyone, as in everyone.... eventhough the market was not able to give it to them.
Please don't tell me it was RIGHT to try and make every pension depend on the health of the stock market
Please don't tell me it was RIGHT by pushing back any diplomatic efforts with Korea and Iran and therefore let these situations get almost out of control
Please don't tell me it was RIGHT to be arrogant and proud about being an American. It is plain out luck or good fortune to have been borne in this country and does not entitle you in any way to look down on or be arrogant to anyone on this planet. We are all born equal. An American life is just as terrible to be lost as any other one on this planet.
Please don't tell me it was RIGHT to find legalization loopholes and use brute force methods to get to information from members of "The axis of evil" (called torture). If you look back at history and think and analyze, there are MUCH much better ways to get to information if you really want it. But it does take will, sophistication and the right mindset to get to it. These are much much more effective AND do not defacto now put a world wide legalization on torture for th next at least 50 years.
Please don't tell me it was RIGHT to lift the cover of a CIA agent, just because he disagrees with your shitty policies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)