Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

[Phys-l] SOLAR , NUCLEAR ENERGY etc.



Hi

The other part of this is the builder, who in many cases also has little incentive to spend more money to make a building more energy efficient (this only makes the captial cost of the building higher- the builder has no investment in operational costs). They are trying to build for the lowest cost which may mean cutting some corners. There are building regulations; I suppose those could be make tighter to level the playing field so competitors making bids have to build the same level of efficiency.

kyle


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:55:49 -0400
From: "LaMontagne, Bob" <RLAMONT@providence.edu>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] SOLAR , NUCLEAR ENERGY etc.
To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>,
"Richard Tarara" <rbtarara@sprynet.com>
Message-ID:
<417F573DD2969E48B8E33D1D5ED8DE7A46A12230D1@EXCHMBXCL.providence.col>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Another story on those annoying windmills that will soon cover the landscape from horizon to horizon.

GULLIVERS COVE, Nova Scotia - A Canadian emu farmer in
northwestern Nova Scotia said he is concerned a proposed
windmill nearby will kill his birds or trigger his
epileptic seizures. Davey and Debi VanTassel run the
Ocean Breeze Emu Farm in Gullivers Cove, and told The
Chronicle-Herald newspaper in Halifax one of 20 proposed
wind turbines will be about a half mile from their
property. The couple said emus have been known to die from
noise and vibration. They said a test mill erected last
year in the county drove coyotes from the area to their
farm, where five emus were killed this winter. Debi
VanTassel told a recent community meeting she feared for
her husband's health, as the flickering of sunlight through
the windmill's blades could trigger epileptic seizures.
She said they avoid dances where strobe lights are used
and they have no wallpaper in their home, as patterns can
trigger a seizure, the report said. Their town is consider-
ing a proposal to erect 20 turbine towers with an output
of 30 megawatts, the newspaper said.

Bob at PC


------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:57:54 -0400
From: Joseph Bellina <jbellina@saintmarys.edu>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] taxes (was SOLAR , NUCLEAR ENERGY etc.)
To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID: <D5205BED-A5EA-4AC5-BA05-826112EC39AB@saintmarys.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed

I've stayed away from this just because of its complexity, but I do
want to comment on the renter issue, but not with regard to taxes.

I think we all agree that there are substantial energy savings to
be made in home heating and cooling by improving insulation.
However, it is not clear how to do that in a rental situation when
the renter is paying for the heating and cooling. Improving
insulation is a capitol improvement that belongs to the owner, so the
renter is not inclined to do it. Installing the insulation costs
money and there is not economic benefit to the owner, so they are not
inclined to do it.

Has anyone seen a solution to this catch 22? It is especially
important in lower income housing where the homes are old and very
poorly insulated.

joe

Joseph J. Bellina, Jr. Ph.D.
Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556

On Apr 15, 2009, at 9:45 AM, Rick Tarara wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rauber, Joel" <Joel.Rauber@SDSTATE.EDU>
While perhaps technically correct, in the sense that the
landlord's (or
their designate holder of the property mortgage)signature is the
name on
the check sent to the property tax authority. As a practical
matter the
renters are paying the tax, since it is usually a part of the rent
that
they are paying. I always figured that my rent was paying the
property
tax when I rented.
_______________________________________________
However...(lots of those in these discussions) what's the property
tax for a
typical apartment--multi-family buildings. Bet it is not the
$2-5000 that
the home owners are paying--and for the same services. That's part
of the
problem with taxes...depending on where you are standing you are
either
getting lots of services for almost no money (damn sales taxes
though--but
wait, earned income credit can get some of that back) or else you
are paying
hundreds of times what the guy a few blocks away is paying--all for
the same
set of government services.

Consider where we are (College or University)...a grounds keeper maybe
making $20,000, a full professor, maybe $100,000, and the football
coach at
$2,000,000. Consider how much each pays in and what each gets out--in
government services. Now fold in you political, sociological,
religious,
economic, ethical, whatever viewpoints and we will never agree on
what is
fair and equitable.

The real question (and again one on which there will be no
consensus) is
what is the proper role of government? How much should it do and
control.
The American experience has been one of moving that line back and
forth
constantly, but always within somewhat reasonable barriers--at both
ends.
Is that changing? Has it changed drastically in the last decade?

Life is not fair, not meant to be fair, and taxes are a prime
example of
this! ;-)

Rick


_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l



------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:06:15 -0500
From: "Rauber, Joel" <Joel.Rauber@SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] taxes (was SOLAR , NUCLEAR ENERGY etc.)
To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID:
<FCA5EF47F9BC694CBB4C58FEA04219634580FC6113@SDSU-MBX.jacks.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Probably some sort of tax incentives is the best way.

_________________________

Joel Rauber, Ph.D
Professor and Acting Head of Physics
Department of Physics
South Dakota State University
Brookings, SD 57007
Joel.Rauber@sdstate.edu
605.688.5428


-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [mailto:phys-l-
bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of Joseph Bellina
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 8:58 AM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] taxes (was SOLAR , NUCLEAR ENERGY etc.)

I've stayed away from this just because of its complexity, but I do
want to comment on the renter issue, but not with regard to taxes.

I think we all agree that there are substantial energy savings to
be made in home heating and cooling by improving insulation.
However, it is not clear how to do that in a rental situation when
the renter is paying for the heating and cooling. Improving
insulation is a capitol improvement that belongs to the owner, so the
renter is not inclined to do it. Installing the insulation costs
money and there is not economic benefit to the owner, so they are not
inclined to do it.

Has anyone seen a solution to this catch 22? It is especially
important in lower income housing where the homes are old and very
poorly insulated.

joe

Joseph J. Bellina, Jr. Ph.D.
Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556

On Apr 15, 2009, at 9:45 AM, Rick Tarara wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rauber, Joel" <Joel.Rauber@SDSTATE.EDU>
While perhaps technically correct, in the sense that the
landlord's (or
their designate holder of the property mortgage)signature is the
name on
the check sent to the property tax authority. As a practical
matter the
renters are paying the tax, since it is usually a part of the rent
that
they are paying. I always figured that my rent was paying the
property
tax when I rented.
_______________________________________________
However...(lots of those in these discussions) what's the property
tax for a
typical apartment--multi-family buildings. Bet it is not the
$2-5000 that
the home owners are paying--and for the same services. That's part
of the
problem with taxes...depending on where you are standing you are
either
getting lots of services for almost no money (damn sales taxes
though--but
wait, earned income credit can get some of that back) or else you
are paying
hundreds of times what the guy a few blocks away is paying--all for
the same
set of government services.

Consider where we are (College or University)...a grounds keeper
maybe
making $20,000, a full professor, maybe $100,000, and the football
coach at
$2,000,000. Consider how much each pays in and what each gets out--
in
government services. Now fold in you political, sociological,
religious,
economic, ethical, whatever viewpoints and we will never agree on
what is
fair and equitable.

The real question (and again one on which there will be no
consensus) is
what is the proper role of government? How much should it do and
control.
The American experience has been one of moving that line back and
forth
constantly, but always within somewhat reasonable barriers--at both
ends.
Is that changing? Has it changed drastically in the last decade?

Life is not fair, not meant to be fair, and taxes are a prime
example of
this! ;-)

Rick


_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l


------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:12:48 -0400
From: Marty Weiss <martweiss@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] SOLAR , NUCLEAR ENERGY etc.
To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID: <182E04B8-0F30-4507-8C4B-78DCBDD8638F@comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes

First of all, you cut out my message but included someone else's
(below). Please learn to snip and paste so people know what you are
referring to, which wasn't about redistribution of wealth at all, but
the observation that many of the super rich do not contribute anything
new to society. Rather, they invent new ways to redistribute THEIR
OWN wealth round and round through Madoffisms (new word!) or passing
it along to offspring who become better and better at such
inventions. Too many of these CEO's and CFO's spend their time
inventing new ways to complicate an already complicated tax and
accounting system to hide or churn already existing money into their
pockets and out from the companies they are supposed to be working
for. The real entrepreneurs invented the wheel or the air-bag or the
potato-chip and retired leaving their well-earned wealth to Junior and
a bean-counter class to squander away in the name of *free
enterprise.* Oh, there are many new inventions and innovations but
they are way overshadowed by the churning of money through the system
which does no one any good except the people who count the beans in a
more efficient way.

Most everyone else here has been discussing the tax system lately.
It's that time of year again when most people are looking for ways to
keep most of their money or get back the no-interest loans they gave
to Uncle Sam over the past year. Nothing wrong with that as long as
you realize the tax system is front and back loaded in favor of the
wealthy anyway no matter what statistics you use. The rich guys wrote
the code and most of the rest of us rely on an account who may make
about as much as we do to figure it out. (I do mine myself and last
year had to wade through the AMT, learning after a few hours that I
didn't owe any anyhow, so what's the point?) Anyway, we don't need to
redistribute wealth... it's done for us through loopholes and
writeoffs. "Lucky" for Katrina people.... they get a writeoff this
year for relocation and the people who took in refugees also get to
write it off. (One of the few times that the little guy got a break
of that magnitude.)

Someone mentioned investing as a means of gaining wealth. Of course,
that's valid and many of us teachers learned to do this... owning a
piece of a company through mutual funds, stocks, or bonds, the old
fashioned way. But, look at the ways many people *invest*. They
don't care about the company, or would rather hope for the company to
go down because through their options and puts they gain wealth in a
reverse way. Perfectly legal, and I have a friend who wants to teach
me about complex options and such. He has made a lot of money on the
demise of the car companies. That would be fascinating, but I just
don't have the time. (No deep philosophical objections here, just no
time or motivation.)

The point is that there has been a redistribution of wealth going on
right under our noses and we don't see it or don't care. But, no, I
didn't condemn it as much but to point out the realities of the modern
economics. (read my post from April 13 which I was thinking about
pasting here but it's a waste of band width because you can look it up
yourself.) In fact, I, as an informed investor use the system as
best I can... never gaining the skills of the Peter Lynchs or Warren
Buffetts of the investing world, but studying the good ones to learn
how to make my money redistribute itself so I can take that cruise to
Barbados, or sip wine in Tuscany.


Marty


On Apr 14, 2009, at 11:40 PM, Jack Uretsky wrote:

Marty is indulging in the great swindle.
redistribution of wealth = socialism = communism =marxism.
I lived for 5 months in communist Romania, and it was the kind of
society that Marty is describing. That is not the great compromise
that
was achieved in this country with the graduated income tax. Henry
Ford
apparently realized that one needed a well funded populace in order to
have successful industries. So there needs to be a balance.
Civilized
countries are hunting for that balance, which seems to lie somewhere
between socialism and free enterprise. The balance has economic,
political, and social aspects intermingled in a marvelously complex
manner.
Of one thing, I am sure. There are no simple perscriptions!
Regards,
Jack


On Mon, 13 Apr 2009, Richard Tarara wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marty Weiss" <martweiss@comcast.net>

No, my dear naive physics friends, many of the wealthy in today's
society don't actually do anything to earn their wealth.
That was mine. Why didn't you keep what you are criticizing instead
of the rest of someone else's reply?
More endearing words..from (presumably) an expert.
This is not mine.

Well being naive, I can imagine a brave new world where everyone
gets an
equal share of the pie--deserved or not. At first it seems great,
everyone
has enough to live comfortably, if not extravagantly. But slowly
but surely
what (I think) would happen is without a market for many high-end
products,
certain businesses and industries start to die. Without anyone
with 'big
bucks' to invest, little or no new development happens. When there
is no
incentive for excellence, what's the point? Why spend the money for
College--you actually don't need to work to get your share, and
working
doesn't get you any more. So the society starts to fall apart
(even more
than now--look at the sub-cultures that fall into versions of the
above.)
To insure needed goods and services, the government starts to
dictate that
all will work--those with the abilities MUST fill certain jobs.
We'll need
doctors (at $30-50,000) so those with the abilities will be
drafted. To
keep the masses entertained, we will need performers and athletes.
The
talented will be assigned. Sounds sort of like a recently failed
society....;-)

Happy Dingus Day!

Rick

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l

--
"Trust me. I have a lot of experience at this."
General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley



_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l



------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:38:01 -0400
From: "Rick Tarara" <rtarara@saintmarys.edu>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] taxes (was SOLAR , NUCLEAR ENERGY etc.)
To: "Forum for Physics Educators" <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID: <70141CDD7C9F4B109951DF72860936AA@rtararapc1>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original

Retrofitting is a real problem, especially in the rental market.

Joel suggested tax incentives which is probably the easiest, but ultimately
not that effective. The problem is, that the capital expenditure is large
and the tax incentives much smaller. Doesn't work out to be a real
incentive to the landlord. Also, the lost tax revenues must be
recovered--higher taxes elsewhere. It is hard to sell the advantage
(especially the financial advantage) to the common taxpayer--especially the
property tax payer who now probably picks up the landlords 'incentive', that
better insulation paid by the government (through incentives or direct
subsidies) is in their favor, even if ultimately it might be.

Building codes can cover new construction and major remodeling, but the
situation Joe describes is really tough. Tougher now because with the
collapse of the housing and credit market, more people are seeking rental
properties. A couple of years ago, low heating/cooling costs would have
been a good marketing tool for a given apartment complex. That situation
may return, but it is still the problem that energy updates can be costly
with long payback times even with tax incentives.

Spent big bucks (more than our first home) last year to update furnace, AC,
and WINDOWS! Missed the Federal tax breaks entirely, but discovered my
state had one for the windows. However, considering the tax break and the
cost of the windows, no one in their right mind (not sure I was in such a
state when I look at the bill) would have installed the windows FOR the tax
break.

Another ploy though is to have the power companies subsidize the upgrades.
The idea is that reduced demand will keep the power company from having to
build a new, expensive power plant. So, even though they sell less energy
(they can always jack up the price, especially BECAUSE of their
philanthropic insulation program) it is to their advantage in the end.
That might work in some areas and would have worked a few years ago, but it
would seem that the Power companies have discovered WIND. The advantage of
wind is that they can add capacity in small increments at small capital
costs. The total load covered by wind is still small enough that the
companies can handle 'calm days' by maxing out their coal/nuclear or by
drawing from the grid. This is ultimately a way to higher profits (I think)
than giving away insulation. Down the road, when the U.S. reaches its
stated (semi-short term) goal of 20% of electricity from wind, the calm day
may well produce some local brownouts. If and when wind might take over a
larger percentage and of the whole energy demand, that grid better be damn
smart! Well at least IBM is working on that. ;-)

Rick



----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Bellina" <jbellina@saintmarys.edu>

I've stayed away from this just because of its complexity, but I do
want to comment on the renter issue, but not with regard to taxes.

I think we all agree that there are substantial energy savings to
be made in home heating and cooling by improving insulation.
However, it is not clear how to do that in a rental situation when
the renter is paying for the heating and cooling. Improving
insulation is a capitol improvement that belongs to the owner, so the
renter is not inclined to do it. Installing the insulation costs
money and there is not economic benefit to the owner, so they are not
inclined to do it.

Has anyone seen a solution to this catch 22? It is especially
important in lower income housing where the homes are old and very
poorly insulated.

joe

Joseph J. Bellina, Jr. Ph.D.
Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556

On Apr 15, 2009, at 9:45 AM, Rick Tarara wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rauber, Joel" <Joel.Rauber@SDSTATE.EDU>
While perhaps technically correct, in the sense that the
landlord's (or
their designate holder of the property mortgage)signature is the
name on
the check sent to the property tax authority. As a practical
matter the
renters are paying the tax, since it is usually a part of the rent
that
they are paying. I always figured that my rent was paying the
property
tax when I rented.
_______________________________________________
However...(lots of those in these discussions) what's the property
tax for a
typical apartment--multi-family buildings. Bet it is not the
$2-5000 that
the home owners are paying--and for the same services. That's part
of the
problem with taxes...depending on where you are standing you are
either
getting lots of services for almost no money (damn sales taxes
though--but
wait, earned income credit can get some of that back) or else you
are paying
hundreds of times what the guy a few blocks away is paying--all for
the same
set of government services.

Consider where we are (College or University)...a grounds keeper maybe
making $20,000, a full professor, maybe $100,000, and the football
coach at
$2,000,000. Consider how much each pays in and what each gets out--in
government services. Now fold in you political, sociological,
religious,
economic, ethical, whatever viewpoints and we will never agree on
what is
fair and equitable.

The real question (and again one on which there will be no
consensus) is
what is the proper role of government? How much should it do and
control.
The American experience has been one of moving that line back and
forth
constantly, but always within somewhat reasonable barriers--at both
ends.
Is that changing? Has it changed drastically in the last decade?

Life is not fair, not meant to be fair, and taxes are a prime
example of
this! ;-)

Rick


_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l




------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:43:31 -0400
From: chuck britton <britton@ncssm.edu>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] taxes (was SOLAR , NUCLEAR ENERGY etc.)
To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID: <D9C153E2-12B2-41A6-88E3-1FE56416C101@ncssm.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed

I think I've mentioned the abysmal state of water heating systems
currently at work in the US.
A substantial tax on non-solar water heating systems could get the
failing gas/electric systems brought into the 21st century.

Rental property owners are (usually) required to provide hot water to
the tenants.
The cheapest heaters and cheapest insulation will always be installed
unless there is a good (financial) reason to do otherwise.
A hefty tax on non-environmentally 'correct' installations might get
things moving in the 'correct' direction.





On Apr 15, 2009, at Apr 15(Wed) 9:57 , Joseph Bellina wrote:

I've stayed away from this just because of its complexity, but I do
want to comment on the renter issue, but not with regard to taxes.

I think we all agree that there are substantial energy savings to
be made in home heating and cooling by improving insulation.
However, it is not clear how to do that in a rental situation when
the renter is paying for the heating and cooling. Improving
insulation is a capitol improvement that belongs to the owner, so the
renter is not inclined to do it. Installing the insulation costs
money and there is not economic benefit to the owner, so they are not
inclined to do it.

Has anyone seen a solution to this catch 22? It is especially
important in lower income housing where the homes are old and very
poorly insulated.

joe


------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 07:49:06 -0700
From: "Shapiro, Mark" <mshapiro@Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] SOLAR , NUCLEAR ENERGY etc.
To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>,
"Richard Tarara" <rbtarara@sprynet.com>
Message-ID:
<F7DA7E5896B79D4F8F7D01E5062D6988018F9B1CE42C@SFEXCH4.AD.FULLERTON.EDU>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I'd sure rather have some windmills in my neighborhood than another coal-fired power plant.

Mark
________________________________________
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of LaMontagne, Bob [RLAMONT@providence.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 6:55 AM
To: Forum for Physics Educators; Richard Tarara
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] SOLAR , NUCLEAR ENERGY etc.

Another story on those annoying windmills that will soon cover the landscape from horizon to horizon.

GULLIVERS COVE, Nova Scotia - A Canadian emu farmer in
northwestern Nova Scotia said he is concerned a proposed
windmill nearby will kill his birds or trigger his
epileptic seizures. Davey and Debi VanTassel run the
Ocean Breeze Emu Farm in Gullivers Cove, and told The
Chronicle-Herald newspaper in Halifax one of 20 proposed
wind turbines will be about a half mile from their
property. The couple said emus have been known to die from
noise and vibration. They said a test mill erected last
year in the county drove coyotes from the area to their
farm, where five emus were killed this winter. Debi
VanTassel told a recent community meeting she feared for
her husband's health, as the flickering of sunlight through
the windmill's blades could trigger epileptic seizures.
She said they avoid dances where strobe lights are used
and they have no wallpaper in their home, as patterns can
trigger a seizure, the report said. Their town is consider-
ing a proposal to erect 20 turbine towers with an output
of 30 megawatts, the newspaper said.

Bob at PC
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l


------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 08:05:10 -0700
From: Julie Hilsenteger <Julie_Hilsenteger@centennial.k12.or.us>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] SOLAR , NUCLEAR ENERGY etc.
To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID:
<1651B171F552A347A54ED16F8B197D4F2371A6BB79@exch-mailbox.csd.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Yesterday I was talking with my Advanced Physics class about electricity generation. We talked about windmills and I brought up how Massachusetts is battling putting them in. All of these students were flabbergasted. They think the windmills are not a blight on the landscape - they think they look cool! One said that maybe people ought to be asking their generation what they think since they are the ones who will be living with all of it longer than us. They understand that petroleum supplies are limited and interestingly, they think they will probably see it run out in their lifetime. They say we NEED to get going on alternatives and they were also very interested in solar power (being in Oregon, we get a lot of gray winter and spring days). I just find it interesting that nobody seems to have really asked what their generation thinks about it all.

Julie Hilsenteger
Physics Teacher
Centennial High School
3505 SE 182nd Ave
Gresham, OR 97030
503-762-6180 X5573

-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [mailto:phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of Shapiro, Mark
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 7:49 AM
To: Forum for Physics Educators; Richard Tarara
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] SOLAR , NUCLEAR ENERGY etc.

I'd sure rather have some windmills in my neighborhood than another coal-fired power plant.

Mark
________________________________________
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of LaMontagne, Bob [RLAMONT@providence.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 6:55 AM
To: Forum for Physics Educators; Richard Tarara
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] SOLAR , NUCLEAR ENERGY etc.

Another story on those annoying windmills that will soon cover the landscape from horizon to horizon.

GULLIVERS COVE, Nova Scotia - A Canadian emu farmer in
northwestern Nova Scotia said he is concerned a proposed
windmill nearby will kill his birds or trigger his
epileptic seizures. Davey and Debi VanTassel run the
Ocean Breeze Emu Farm in Gullivers Cove, and told The
Chronicle-Herald newspaper in Halifax one of 20 proposed
wind turbines will be about a half mile from their
property. The couple said emus have been known to die from
noise and vibration. They said a test mill erected last
year in the county drove coyotes from the area to their
farm, where five emus were killed this winter. Debi
VanTassel told a recent community meeting she feared for
her husband's health, as the flickering of sunlight through
the windmill's blades could trigger epileptic seizures.
She said they avoid dances where strobe lights are used
and they have no wallpaper in their home, as patterns can
trigger a seizure, the report said. Their town is consider-
ing a proposal to erect 20 turbine towers with an output
of 30 megawatts, the newspaper said.

Bob at PC
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l


------------------------------

Message: 9
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:12:32 -0500
From: Brian Whatcott <betwys1@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [Phys-l] The FBI Writes..... URGENT RESPONSE IS NEEDED (805)
To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID: <49E5F960.5050902@sbcglobal.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1251; format=flowed

I thought you might enjoy this note I received today on behalf of Robert
Mueller (Director FBI).
Notice the unusual upfront request for a nominal $260. This is usually
mentioned when the donor is being
wound in.
I am coming to believe that the Nigerian charity solicitation industry
is almost as innovative
as the commerical phone solicitations I receive locally on behalf of
some State Police /Trooper/Sheriff
initiative to aid starving/drug-threatened/children.
(At least in this case, the state police organization might receive a
handsome 15% donation....)

Brian Whatcott Altus OK

Identification aids: spelling errors, unorthodox orthography, mention of
Nigeria, $millions

FBI wrote:
Anti-Terrorist And Monitory Crime Division.
Federal Bureau Of Investigation.
J.Edgar.Hoover Building Washington Dc

Attn: Beneficiary,

This is to Officially inform you that it has come to our notice and we have thoroughly Investigated with the help of our Intelligence Monitoring Network System that you are having an illegal Transaction with Impostors claiming to be Prof. Charles C. Soludo of the Central Bank Of Nigeria, Mr. Patrick Aziza, Mr Frank Nweke, Dr. Philip Mogan, none officials of Oceanic Bank, Zenith Banks, Barr. Derrick Smith, kelvin Young of HSBC, Ben of FedEx, Ibrahim Sule, Larry Christopher, Dr. Usman Shamsuddeen, Paul Adim, Puppy Scammers are impostors claiming to be the Federal Bureau Of Investigation. During our Investigation, we noticed that the reason why you have not received your payment is because you have not fulfilled your Financial Obligation given to you in respect of your Contract/Inheritance Payment.

Therefore, we have contacted the Federal Ministry Of Finance on your behalf and they have brought a solution to your problem by coordinating your payment in total USD$11,000.000.00 in an ATM CARD which you can use to withdraw money from any ATM MACHINE CENTER anywhere in the world with a maximum of $4000 to $5000 United States Dollars daily. You now have the lawful right to claim your fund in an ATM CARD.

Since the Federal Bureau of Investigation is involved in this transaction, you have to be rest assured for this is 100% risk free it is our duty to protect you. All I want you to do is to contact the ATM CARD CENTER via email for their requirements to proceed and procure your Approval Slip on your behalf which will cost you $260.00 only and note that your Approval Slip which contains details of the agent who will process your transaction.

CONTACT INFORMATION
NAME: MR. DANIEL WILSON
EMAIL: danielwilson97@yahoo.cn

Do contact Mr. Daniel Wilson of the ATM CARD CENTER with your details:

FULL NAME:
HOME ADDRESS:
TELL:
CELL:
CURRENT OCCUPATION:
BANK NAME:
AGE:

So your files would be updated after which he will send the payment information's which you'll use in making payment of $260.00 via Western Union Money Transfer or Money Gram Transfer for the procurement of your Approval Slip after which the delivery of your ATM CARD will be effected to your designated home address without any further delay.We order you get back to this office after you have contacted the ATM SWIFT CARD CENTER and we do await your response so we can move on with our Investigation and make sure your ATM SWIFT CARD gets to you.

Thanks and hope to read from you soon.

ROBERT S. MUELLER, III
DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20535

Note: Do disregard any email you get from any impostors or offices claiming to be in possession of your ATM CARD, you are hereby advice only to be in contact with Mr. Daniel Wilson of the ATM CARD CENTER who is the rightful person to deal with in regards to your ATM CARD PAYMENT and forward any emails you get from impostors to this office so we could act upon and commence investigation.






------------------------------

Message: 10
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 11:21:54 -0400
From: Joseph Bellina <jbellina@saintmarys.edu>
Subject: [Phys-l] Insulation catch 22, was lots of things
To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID: <66436978-204D-4637-BBC1-F8A6CA429DB6@saintmarys.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed

Not a bad idea, except most home heating is with fossil fuels not
electricity so there would be little impact on the need for power
plants.

It is a very tough but important issue, and the solution is economic
and political not technical so we should be able to negotiate some
way to do it.

joe

Joseph J. Bellina, Jr. Ph.D.
Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556

On Apr 15, 2009, at 10:38 AM, Rick Tarara wrote:

Another ploy though is to have the power companies subsidize the
upgrades.
The idea is that reduced demand will keep the power company from
having to
build a new, expensive power plant. So, even though they sell less
energy
(they can always jack up the price, especially BECAUSE of their
philanthropic insulation program) it is to their advantage in the end.
That might work in some areas and would have worked a few years
ago, but it
would seem that the Power companies have discovered WIND. The
advantage of
wind is that they can add capacity in small increments at small
capital
costs. The total load covered by wind is still small enough that the
companies can handle 'calm days' by maxing out their coal/nuclear
or by
drawing from the grid. This is ultimately a way to higher profits
(I think)
than giving away insulation. Down the road, when the U.S. reaches its
stated (semi-short term) goal of 20% of electricity from wind, the
calm day
may well produce some local brownouts. If and when wind might take
over a
larger percentage and of the whole energy demand, that grid better
be damn
smart! Well at least IBM is working on that. ;-)



------------------------------

Message: 11
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 11:23:30 -0400
From: Joseph Bellina <jbellina@saintmarys.edu>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] taxes (was SOLAR , NUCLEAR ENERGY etc.)
To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID: <08E79713-C876-4D7C-B159-213D48D431D4@saintmarys.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed

Yep, but it will be done when the heater fails, then you can apply
the tax via code perhaps. Not the same for insulation in the
building since there nothing to fail.

cheers,

joe

Joseph J. Bellina, Jr. Ph.D.
Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556

On Apr 15, 2009, at 10:43 AM, chuck britton wrote:

I think I've mentioned the abysmal state of water heating systems
currently at work in the US.
A substantial tax on non-solar water heating systems could get the
failing gas/electric systems brought into the 21st century.

Rental property owners are (usually) required to provide hot water to
the tenants.
The cheapest heaters and cheapest insulation will always be installed
unless there is a good (financial) reason to do otherwise.
A hefty tax on non-environmentally 'correct' installations might get
things moving in the 'correct' direction.





On Apr 15, 2009, at Apr 15(Wed) 9:57 , Joseph Bellina wrote:

I've stayed away from this just because of its complexity, but I do
want to comment on the renter issue, but not with regard to taxes.

I think we all agree that there are substantial energy savings to
be made in home heating and cooling by improving insulation.
However, it is not clear how to do that in a rental situation when
the renter is paying for the heating and cooling. Improving
insulation is a capitol improvement that belongs to the owner, so the
renter is not inclined to do it. Installing the insulation costs
money and there is not economic benefit to the owner, so they are not
inclined to do it.

Has anyone seen a solution to this catch 22? It is especially
important in lower income housing where the homes are old and very
poorly insulated.

joe
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l



------------------------------

Message: 12
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 11:24:39 -0400
From: "Rick Tarara" <rtarara@saintmarys.edu>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] taxes (was SOLAR , NUCLEAR ENERGY etc.)
To: "Forum for Physics Educators" <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID: <189FAD5775644729BD8025438D561C32@rtararapc1>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original


----- Original Message -----
From: "chuck britton" <britton@ncssm.edu>


I think I've mentioned the abysmal state of water heating systems
currently at work in the US.
A substantial tax on non-solar water heating systems could get the
failing gas/electric systems brought into the 21st century.

Rental property owners are (usually) required to provide hot water to
the tenants.

Not in the apartment complexes (the 'city' of Mishawaka Indiana, wedged
between South Bend and Elkhart (of recent news)) is a city of such apartment
complexes. Everyone has their own water heater.

The cheapest heaters and cheapest insulation will always be installed
unless there is a good (financial) reason to do otherwise.

Again--use the building codes.

A hefty tax on non-environmentally 'correct' installations might get
things moving in the 'correct' direction.

Retroactive? This would certainly endear you to landlords--maybe to the
point of having them send Vito to visit you late at night! ;-)

Rick



------------------------------

Message: 13
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 11:30:01 -0400
From: "Rick Tarara" <rtarara@saintmarys.edu>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] The FBI Writes..... URGENT RESPONSE IS NEEDED
(805)
To: "Forum for Physics Educators" <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID: <BC143FA65D254FDA8D33085060ED0CCC@rtararapc1>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original

I like the ATM card. If you could find an ATM machine that would dispense
$4000 daily, it only takes 2750 days to withdraw your money--7.5 years!

Rick

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Whatcott" <betwys1@sbcglobal.net>

I thought you might enjoy this note I received today on behalf of Robert
Mueller (Director FBI).
Notice the unusual upfront request for a nominal $260. This is usually
mentioned when the donor is being



------------------------------

Message: 14
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 11:47:00 -0400
From: "LaMontagne, Bob" <RLAMONT@providence.edu>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] SOLAR , NUCLEAR ENERGY etc.
To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>,
"Richard Tarara" <rbtarara@sprynet.com>
Message-ID:
<417F573DD2969E48B8E33D1D5ED8DE7A46A122311C@EXCHMBXCL.providence.col>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

You say that - but I don't think you would really continue hold that position if you were surrounded by windmills. The power plant is concentrated in one location and it is not moving. Moving windmill blades are very distracting. There is a large windmill on Route 93 south of Boston. Trying to dodge closely packed cars travelling at high speeds becomes a real challenge when these huge blades are in your peripheral vision. I can't imagine sitting on my porch in the evening with these cuisine-art blades swooping through the air everywhere I look. I'll take scrubbers and other clean coal technology at a power plant any time.

Windmills are great - when they're in someone else's neighborhood.

Bob at PC

-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [mailto:phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of Shapiro, Mark
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 10:49 AM
To: Forum for Physics Educators; Richard Tarara
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] SOLAR , NUCLEAR ENERGY etc.

I'd sure rather have some windmills in my neighborhood than another coal-fired power plant.

Mark
________________________________________
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of LaMontagne, Bob [RLAMONT@providence.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 6:55 AM
To: Forum for Physics Educators; Richard Tarara
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] SOLAR , NUCLEAR ENERGY etc.

Another story on those annoying windmills that will soon cover the landscape from horizon to horizon.

GULLIVERS COVE, Nova Scotia - A Canadian emu farmer in
northwestern Nova Scotia said he is concerned a proposed
windmill nearby will kill his birds or trigger his
epileptic seizures. Davey and Debi VanTassel run the
Ocean Breeze Emu Farm in Gullivers Cove, and told The
Chronicle-Herald newspaper in Halifax one of 20 proposed
wind turbines will be about a half mile from their
property. The couple said emus have been known to die from
noise and vibration. They said a test mill erected last
year in the county drove coyotes from the area to their
farm, where five emus were killed this winter. Debi
VanTassel told a recent community meeting she feared for
her husband's health, as the flickering of sunlight through
the windmill's blades could trigger epileptic seizures.
She said they avoid dances where strobe lights are used
and they have no wallpaper in their home, as patterns can
trigger a seizure, the report said. Their town is consider-
ing a proposal to erect 20 turbine towers with an output
of 30 megawatts, the newspaper said.

Bob at PC
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l


------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l


End of Phys-l Digest, Vol 51, Issue 28
**************************************

--
------------------------------------------
"When applied to material things,
the term "sustainable growth" is an oxymoron."
Albert Bartlett

kyle forinash 812-941-2039
kforinas@ius.edu
http://Physics.ius.edu/
-----------------------------------------