So was there any effect to this at all? Power companies here say they didn't register anything out of the ordinary at all, yet whatever the organization was that was behind it claimed it was a huge success.
So was there any effect to this at all? Power companies here say they didn't register anything out of the ordinary at all, yet whatever the organization was that was behind it claimed it was a huge success.
So was there any effect to this at all? Power companies here say they didn't register anything out of the ordinary at all, yet whatever the organization was that was behind it claimed it was a huge success.
I like energy, but just think it should come from more renewable sources. I don't think turning off the power for an hour would have sent that message.
I think they were trying to send an energy conservation message. Turn off the lights when you leave the room, buy energy efficient stuff.
- far more worthwhile is me replacing the lights I can with motion/prox. sensors so I don't accidentally leave them on anyway.
I'd really prefer we encouraged people to do that.
That's only really practicable in, say, hallways though. I don't want my lights constantly going off when I'm sitting down and not jumping about. Definitely should be de rigeur for businesses though.
Actually it's a problem I'm working on right now - you can build electrical proximity sensors which detect the resonance of 50 Hz AC in human bodies, so I'm trying to work out if I can have one cover my whole basement and auto-shut off the projector if no one's there.
I mean...I don't get it. Are they trying to say that Republicans use more energy than Democrats? That is such a hilarious chart.
Apparently they did until 2003 at least.
I bet it has a lot more to do with the differences in power usage between extremely dense coastal states and extremely sparse inland states than "Pubbies like to waste the energyz olol". I'd imagine that densely populated areas facilitate things like commuting, public transport, and efficiencies of economy. As opposed to the middle of Wyoming, where you have to drive 50 miles to get to the damned grocery store.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I mean...I don't get it. Are they trying to say that Republicans use more energy than Democrats? That is such a hilarious chart.
Apparently they did until 2003 at least.
I bet it has a lot more to do with the differences in power usage between extremely dense coastal states and extremely sparse inland states than "Pubbies like to waste the energyz olol". I'd imagine that densely populated areas facilitate things like commuting, public transport, and efficiencies of economy. As opposed to the middle of Wyoming, where you have to drive 50 miles to get to the damned grocery store.
I assumed they were just talking about energy grid power. Not like... overall energy usage.
If so then population density should not have much to do with it.
I mean...I don't get it. Are they trying to say that Republicans use more energy than Democrats? That is such a hilarious chart.
Apparently they did until 2003 at least.
I bet it has a lot more to do with the differences in power usage between extremely dense coastal states and extremely sparse inland states than "Pubbies like to waste the energyz olol". I'd imagine that densely populated areas facilitate things like commuting, public transport, and efficiencies of economy. As opposed to the middle of Wyoming, where you have to drive 50 miles to get to the damned grocery store.
I assumed they were just talking about energy grid power. Not like... overall energy usage.
If so then population density should not have much to do with it.
Wouldn't climate differences and average temperatures/hours of sunlight account for a lot of the difference, then (especially comparing against California)?
I mean...I don't get it. Are they trying to say that Republicans use more energy than Democrats? That is such a hilarious chart.
Apparently they did until 2003 at least.
I bet it has a lot more to do with the differences in power usage between extremely dense coastal states and extremely sparse inland states than "Pubbies like to waste the energyz olol". I'd imagine that densely populated areas facilitate things like commuting, public transport, and efficiencies of economy. As opposed to the middle of Wyoming, where you have to drive 50 miles to get to the damned grocery store.
I assumed they were just talking about energy grid power. Not like... overall energy usage.
If so then population density should not have much to do with it.
Wouldn't climate differences and average temperatures/hours of sunlight account for a lot of the difference, then (especially comparing against California)?
Maybe in the case of california. But New England is mega Dem and the south has a Repub tendency. So probably not for the rest of it.
The only thing that chart proves, to me, is how retarded California is. If I wasn't at work, I would provide a counter-chart to that one.
Even if the data is accurate, it's presented in a manner that suggests Republicans use more power than Democrats and that California uses less on average than anyone else. Or something. It's dishonest and stupid.
The only thing that chart proves, to me, is how retarded California is. If I wasn't at work, I would provide a counter-chart to that one.
Even if the data is accurate, it's presented in a manner that suggests Republicans use more power than Democrats and that California uses less on average than anyone else. Or something. It's dishonest and stupid.
Why is california retarded? They are 4th in energy efficiency.
I hunted down the Economist article from whence that chart came, and I think I have a theory.
California and nine northeastern states have crafted legislation for things like energy-efficient building creation, and other such things. My guess is that all these states have comparable energy usage - strictly as a result of their business regulations - relative to not only the red states, but the other blue states, as well. The graph has nothing to do with personal energy usage relative to political orientation, it has to do with a few liberal states implementing policies to force companies to be greener in myriad ways.
Here are links to the pdf of that article, btw. It's interesting, but it's also fairly disingenuous with the conclusions it tries to draw from that graph (titled: "The Redder, the Greedier").
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
On the whole, left-leaning states are keener on greenery than right-wing ones, which tend to be more energy-intensive. But politicians of all stripes in the Midwest are keen to promote ethanol for the sake of local farmers, who grow the corn from which it is made. And Texas recently overtook California as the country's biggest generator of wind power.
Meh, the red-blue divide doesn't seem to be the focus of the article.
On the whole, left-leaning states are keener on greenery than right-wing ones, which tend to be more energy-intensive. But politicians of all stripes in the Midwest are keen to promote ethanol for the sake of local farmers, who grow the corn from which it is made. And Texas recently overtook California as the country's biggest generator of wind power.
Meh, the red-blue divide doesn't seem to be the focus of the article.
That's the focus of the graph alone, however. It's a silly comparison, IMHO.
Posts
Beat'd.
I think they were trying to send an energy conservation message. Turn off the lights when you leave the room, buy energy efficient stuff.
But it loses its thread
But it loses its thread
Apparently they did until 2003 at least.
But it loses its thread
RFID
I bet it has a lot more to do with the differences in power usage between extremely dense coastal states and extremely sparse inland states than "Pubbies like to waste the energyz olol". I'd imagine that densely populated areas facilitate things like commuting, public transport, and efficiencies of economy. As opposed to the middle of Wyoming, where you have to drive 50 miles to get to the damned grocery store.
I assumed they were just talking about energy grid power. Not like... overall energy usage.
If so then population density should not have much to do with it.
But it loses its thread
Wouldn't climate differences and average temperatures/hours of sunlight account for a lot of the difference, then (especially comparing against California)?
Maybe in the case of california. But New England is mega Dem and the south has a Repub tendency. So probably not for the rest of it.
But it loses its thread
Even if the data is accurate, it's presented in a manner that suggests Republicans use more power than Democrats and that California uses less on average than anyone else. Or something. It's dishonest and stupid.
Why is california retarded? They are 4th in energy efficiency.
Still the chart is a little sketchy.
But it loses its thread
California and nine northeastern states have crafted legislation for things like energy-efficient building creation, and other such things. My guess is that all these states have comparable energy usage - strictly as a result of their business regulations - relative to not only the red states, but the other blue states, as well. The graph has nothing to do with personal energy usage relative to political orientation, it has to do with a few liberal states implementing policies to force companies to be greener in myriad ways.
Here are links to the pdf of that article, btw. It's interesting, but it's also fairly disingenuous with the conclusions it tries to draw from that graph (titled: "The Redder, the Greedier").
That's the focus of the graph alone, however. It's a silly comparison, IMHO.