I'm a Shaw Cable subscriber, and I have a bit of a beef with them. Almost any of their "Digital" channels are available for $2.49/month each.
The exception that I'm concerned about is Fox News. CNN is on basic cable, MSNBC is availabe for $2.49/month, but Fox News is only available as part of a News Pack for $6.95/month. (Shaw Channels)
Why is it that I can get the low-rated, left-wing, MSNBC for less than half the cost of Fox News? Why do I have to subscribe to BBC, Bloomberg, National Geographic, and Discovery Civilization to get Fox News?
Is this just a Shaw thing, or is this a CRTC thing with them protecting Canadians from the evils of Fox News by making them pay more for it?
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Law of Unintended Concequences
Simple problems have simple solutions, right?
I'd like to apply this logic to global warming, and one of the great saviours of the planet, if you listen to Internet Inventor Al Gore: Solar Power.
Now, I'm not an expert sceintist, but I do understand enough to find a flaw in the idea of replacing a huge chunk of our power production with solar power. And the problem has nothing to do with the huge amounts of the Earth's surface that would be required.
What the problem has to do with is basic Thermodynamics. When a system is in equilibrium, energy in = energy out. If you decrease the energy out, then temperature goes up until a new equilibrium is established.
So, Solar Power fanatics want to collect anywhere from gigawatts to terrawatts of solar power to run our toasters and electric cars, right? Where does that energy come from...remember that the law of conservation of energy means that you can neither create nor destroy energy (as modified by Special Relativity, you can convert energy into matter, and vice versa, but that's an extraordinary situation to be sure).
Ever look at a photovoltaic cell? They're very, very dark. Large quantities of them, covering a sizable percentage of the Earth's surface, would have the effect of changing the Earth's reflectivity to sunlight. Viewed from outside, the Earth will look darker than it is now. That means that more sunlight is absorbed at the earth's surface. That would have the effect of reducing the amount of sunlight that is reflected by the Earth into space, and that brings us back to the energy in=energy out equation. We'd be reducing the energy out from the Earth...and under basic thermodynamics, the temperature of the Earth would need to rise until a new equilibrium were met.
Now, I know the principles here, but the math is beyond me. There has to be someone out there who can crunch some numbers for me...here's some basic facts:
In 2005, worldwide generation of electricity was 18,184 TWh (BP Statistics). Can anyone tell me how much sunlight would need to be captured to create each 1% of that amount? What % of reflected sunlight would we capture to replace it all?
I'd like to apply this logic to global warming, and one of the great saviours of the planet, if you listen to Internet Inventor Al Gore: Solar Power.
Now, I'm not an expert sceintist, but I do understand enough to find a flaw in the idea of replacing a huge chunk of our power production with solar power. And the problem has nothing to do with the huge amounts of the Earth's surface that would be required.
What the problem has to do with is basic Thermodynamics. When a system is in equilibrium, energy in = energy out. If you decrease the energy out, then temperature goes up until a new equilibrium is established.
So, Solar Power fanatics want to collect anywhere from gigawatts to terrawatts of solar power to run our toasters and electric cars, right? Where does that energy come from...remember that the law of conservation of energy means that you can neither create nor destroy energy (as modified by Special Relativity, you can convert energy into matter, and vice versa, but that's an extraordinary situation to be sure).
Ever look at a photovoltaic cell? They're very, very dark. Large quantities of them, covering a sizable percentage of the Earth's surface, would have the effect of changing the Earth's reflectivity to sunlight. Viewed from outside, the Earth will look darker than it is now. That means that more sunlight is absorbed at the earth's surface. That would have the effect of reducing the amount of sunlight that is reflected by the Earth into space, and that brings us back to the energy in=energy out equation. We'd be reducing the energy out from the Earth...and under basic thermodynamics, the temperature of the Earth would need to rise until a new equilibrium were met.
Now, I know the principles here, but the math is beyond me. There has to be someone out there who can crunch some numbers for me...here's some basic facts:
In 2005, worldwide generation of electricity was 18,184 TWh (BP Statistics). Can anyone tell me how much sunlight would need to be captured to create each 1% of that amount? What % of reflected sunlight would we capture to replace it all?
A Tale of Two Candidates
Recently, as part of my personal research to determine who I will support for the leadership of the Alberta Conservative Party, I posed exactly the same question to two of the front runners, Jim Dinning and Lyle Oberg.
The question was sent via e-mail to the "contact" e-mail addresses listed on their respective websites. That question was as follows:
What is your position on putting one or more nuclear power plants near Ft.
McMurray to provide the necessary energy and steam for oilsands extraction
rather than burning natural gas for that purpose?
Now, I have a personal opinion on what the answer to this question should be, but that wasn't the purpose. I wanted to ask a question that would take the candidates off their "talking-points" and call for some thought in an answer. Personally, I'm less interested in voting for a candidate who agrees with everything that I do, than a candidate who is thoughful and willing to state his/her opinion, regardless of what he/she thinks my opinion is.
The response is somewhat interesting:
Lyle Oberg:
I received an almost immediate (approximately 4 hours) response requesting some more information from an assistant. Then about two weeks later, I received an actual paper letter in the mail from the candidate. Unlike many such letters I have read, it seemed that he was addressing hte issue that I had asked about:
"Using nuclear energy instead of natural gas in the Athabasca oil sands is thereefore something that ought to be examined, taking into account such concerns as safety."
Not only that, but the answer to the question came before the usual requests to join his campaign and such.
Jim Dinning:
Two weeks out, and the sound of silence is quite deafening. Not even an acknowledgement of receipt of the question...I'm very disappointed.
The question was sent via e-mail to the "contact" e-mail addresses listed on their respective websites. That question was as follows:
What is your position on putting one or more nuclear power plants near Ft.
McMurray to provide the necessary energy and steam for oilsands extraction
rather than burning natural gas for that purpose?
Now, I have a personal opinion on what the answer to this question should be, but that wasn't the purpose. I wanted to ask a question that would take the candidates off their "talking-points" and call for some thought in an answer. Personally, I'm less interested in voting for a candidate who agrees with everything that I do, than a candidate who is thoughful and willing to state his/her opinion, regardless of what he/she thinks my opinion is.
The response is somewhat interesting:
Lyle Oberg:
I received an almost immediate (approximately 4 hours) response requesting some more information from an assistant. Then about two weeks later, I received an actual paper letter in the mail from the candidate. Unlike many such letters I have read, it seemed that he was addressing hte issue that I had asked about:
"Using nuclear energy instead of natural gas in the Athabasca oil sands is thereefore something that ought to be examined, taking into account such concerns as safety."
Not only that, but the answer to the question came before the usual requests to join his campaign and such.
Jim Dinning:
Two weeks out, and the sound of silence is quite deafening. Not even an acknowledgement of receipt of the question...I'm very disappointed.
Friday, July 28, 2006
Calgary to get a little less free, a little sooner
This week, Calgary City Council voted to outlaw smoking in all public places effective January 1, 2007. Before your cheer out loud, let's look at the situation before this vote:
-Smoking was prohibited in all establishments where anyone under 18 was permitted.
-Smoking in all other places would have been banned January 1, 2008.
Some disclosure from me: I am a non-smoker, not a bar or other establishment owner, and I believe the smoking is very unhealthy.
All of that being said, if people want to smoke and kill themselves, that should be their right. I am a strong opponent of regulating the activities of consenting adults.
Looking at this specific situation, proponents of the bans say that second-hand smoke is killing people. Again, it's entirely a personal choice. If I don't want to inhale the smoke, I have every right to go somewhere else. Same for employees. In our current labour market in Calgary, there are plenty of jobs out there with nobody to fill them.
It is not the job of the state to protect people from themselves. People need to take responsibility for their own actions, not expect the government, at whatever level, to take care of thinking for them.
Remember, every law that regulates your behaviour, even if it doesn't impact you directly, makes you just a little bit less free. How many more chips until the whole rock collapses?
-Smoking was prohibited in all establishments where anyone under 18 was permitted.
-Smoking in all other places would have been banned January 1, 2008.
Some disclosure from me: I am a non-smoker, not a bar or other establishment owner, and I believe the smoking is very unhealthy.
All of that being said, if people want to smoke and kill themselves, that should be their right. I am a strong opponent of regulating the activities of consenting adults.
Looking at this specific situation, proponents of the bans say that second-hand smoke is killing people. Again, it's entirely a personal choice. If I don't want to inhale the smoke, I have every right to go somewhere else. Same for employees. In our current labour market in Calgary, there are plenty of jobs out there with nobody to fill them.
It is not the job of the state to protect people from themselves. People need to take responsibility for their own actions, not expect the government, at whatever level, to take care of thinking for them.
Remember, every law that regulates your behaviour, even if it doesn't impact you directly, makes you just a little bit less free. How many more chips until the whole rock collapses?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)