A suggestion: a 78 degree setting is much more comfortable if you have a floor fan that gathers the colder air near the floor and shoots it upwards. A low cost and pro-environment alternative to lowering your thermostat.
Same programs in California like PG&E SmartAC or Ohm Connect. Smart AC device is installed by PG&E next to your AC outdoor while Ohm Connect gives you Ecobee3, Google Nest, Honeywell thermostat or smart plugs with your agreement to give them access to these devices so they can adjust/turn off during peak times of the day. They’ll send you messages before the time these actions happen.
This entire article is complete bullshit. 78° F is NOT ‘unbearably hot’ under any setting. A three month old child will NOT dehydrate in 78° F. Sheesh, talk about hysteria.
And this is just the beginning. Expect mandatory environmental control to increase as demand for energy rises geometrically while fossil fueled power plants are shut down, hydroelectric dams are blown up, and nuclear plants are blocked at every turn by environmentalists. Fusion power will remain a pipe dream for decades to come. Wind and solar panels cannot store enough energy to meet daily loads, let alone base loads.
You were doing so well in the beginning, until your diatribe about environmentalists. Nuclear certainly isn’t ideal, as we have no good ideas to do with the radioactive waste that will outlast us all. With the high profile failures at nuclear facilities there is every reason to not find it an ideal solution.
The dozen or so U.S. deaths in nuclear over the last 60 years have mostly been in the weapons complex or are modeled from general LNT effects. The reason the nuclear number is small is that nuclear produces so much electricity per unit. There just are not many nuclear plants. And the two failures have been in GenII plants with old designs that were due to human failures to heed our warnings. All new builds must be GenIII and higher, with passive redundant safety systems, and all must be able to withstand the worst case disaster, no matter how unlikely.
As for what do with the nuclear waste, I suspect our children, or grandchildren, will curse us for making such "waste" so hard to get at, as they will no doubt find some way to recycle even more of it than we do now.
Cry them a river. If there are people “suffering” from heat intolerance, they shouldn’t be living in Texas in the summer.
What next? Post an article about “cold-intolerant” people living in Minneapolis in the winter?
If a heating company was turning off those people's heating then yeah, I'd say an article is warranted.
Yours is a bad comparison. Nobody's thermostat is being turned off. That's an example in extremis that bears no relation to the topic. Now if there was an article about Minnesotan's having their thermostats lowered 4 degrees for load balancing, it would be equally as click-baity as this article about Texans having their thermostats lowered by 4 degrees. In the real world Texas case and the hypothetical Minnesota case the remote adjustments are part of programs that users enroll in to receive additional incentives. There are no articles warranted here.
Cry them a river. If there are people “suffering” from heat intolerance, they shouldn’t be living in Texas in the summer.
What next? Post an article about “cold-intolerant” people living in Minneapolis in the winter?
If a heating company was turning off those people's heating then yeah, I'd say an article is warranted.
Yours is a bad comparison. Nobody's thermostat is being turned off. That's an example in extremis that bears no relation to the topic. Now if there was an article about Minnesotan's having their thermostats lowered 4 degrees for load balancing, it would be equally as click-baity as this article about Texans having their thermostats lowered by 4 degrees. In the real world Texas case and the hypothetical Minnesota case the remote adjustments are part of programs that users enroll in to receive additional incentives. There are no articles warranted here.
I disagree, if people are not fully aware of the implications of the program then knowing that it exists and that it is the reason why their thermostat is being interfered with, and that they are able to opt out is valuable information, especially if the program is having effects that could potentially be damaging to health.
Not every article needs to be shit slinging, they can just be informational.
Not entirely sure why it's on AppleInsider, but I could say the same for a lot of articles.
Cry them a river. If there are people “suffering” from heat intolerance, they shouldn’t be living in Texas in the summer.
What next? Post an article about “cold-intolerant” people living in Minneapolis in the winter?
If a heating company was turning off those people's heating then yeah, I'd say an article is warranted.
Yours is a bad comparison. Nobody's thermostat is being turned off. That's an example in extremis that bears no relation to the topic. Now if there was an article about Minnesotan's having their thermostats lowered 4 degrees for load balancing, it would be equally as click-baity as this article about Texans having their thermostats lowered by 4 degrees. In the real world Texas case and the hypothetical Minnesota case the remote adjustments are part of programs that users enroll in to receive additional incentives. There are no articles warranted here.
I disagree, if people are not fully aware of the implications of the program then knowing that it exists and that it is the reason why their thermostat is being interfered with, and that they are able to opt out is valuable information, especially if the program is having effects that could potentially be damaging to health.
Not every article needs to be shit slinging, they can just be informational.
Not entirely sure why it's on AppleInsider, but I could say the same for a lot of articles.
You're now arguing a different point. You posed an unrealistic scenario where the power company turned off the thermostat. That is what I argued against.
An informational article is not an issue. It's definitely not an issue with this article. What people are taking exception with is AI's original click-bait headline and the characterization of what took place. It obviously wasn't a case of the power company covertly accessing someone's thermostat and arbitrarily lowering the raising the temperature ceiling. It was a voluntary program with sweepstakes incentives. In exchange, participants allowed the power company to raise the temp by a max of 4 degrees for a max of 3 hours. There was also an opt out. How hard was it to opt out? Pretty easy; lowering the temp opted the user out of the event.
I’d imagine that 78 degrees in Arizona is considered sweater weather.
I was in Phoenix a few years ago. It was in the 60’s and I saw someone wearing a full length down parka.
cgWerks said: I guess the concern was for the infant, but I was kind of thinking the same thing. We're in a bit of a heat wave here in Victoria, BC as well, where most of us don't have A/C. I'm pretty sure it's at least 78 in our place right now.
78??? Think of the children!!!
Heh, I know someone there who loves Coogi sweaters, and wears them sometimes... and I don't think it gets down to 78 or less a lot. (OK, maybe at night or in air-conditioned buildings... I might need a sweater too then).
And, yeah, it's a bit silly as while I grew up in northern Wisconsin, I can guarantee you there were times it was over 100F in my house while I was an infant. Nobody had AC back then. I get that at some point, or with certain health conditions, it can be dangerous... but I'd think they'd have to be pretty serious for 78 to be an issue.
But, I think the issue here would be if you were in an AC room that was cool, so you covered the baby up with blankets, and then the temperature went up on its own without you realizing it. I can see how that might be serious.
Summary: wind and solar are an order of magnitude more lethal per kilowatt hour than nuclear, even including Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Yeah, I'm a fan of solar tech, not so much wind. But, it isn't going to be much more than a novelty for the wealthy until we get some really good storage system and grid setup. Until then (which may be a long time), nuclear is the best we can do. The fact that it is being so heavily resisted says something about the movement. If we really were in as much of a time-constrained crisis as is being asserted, nuclear would ABSOLUTELY be on the table.
crowley said: I disagree, if people are not fully aware of the implications of the program then knowing that it exists and that it is the reason why their thermostat is being interfered with, and that they are able to opt out is valuable information, especially if the program is having effects that could potentially be damaging to health.
I agree, when there are potential health issues, these kind of programs should state them very clearly. I don't know that they did/didn't, but I'd suspect probably not. I mean, you'd think it would be obvious, but I've found (being kind of an engineering type) that a lot of people who aren't like me don't think systematically through these things.
CloudTalkin said: It obviously wasn't a case of the power company covertly accessing someone's thermostat and arbitrarily lowering the raising the temperature ceiling. It was a voluntary program with sweepstakes incentives.
Sweepstakes incentives aside (hear about vaxxing kids for ice-cream here in Canada?), I think it was a reasonable program, and agree the press went a bit wild on the headline (I don't think AIs was particularly misleading, just not fully-informing). I think what scares people more is the thought of governments and/or companies taking control of their environment for their benefit (which we all know either would do if they could get away with it). So, that gets layered on top of the reality of the actual situation in terms of reaction.
Comments
Summary: wind and solar are an order of magnitude more lethal per kilowatt hour than nuclear, even including Chernobyl and Fukushima.
From the article:
As for what do with the nuclear waste, I suspect our children, or grandchildren, will curse us for making such "waste" so hard to get at, as they will no doubt find some way to recycle even more of it than we do now.
https://whatisnuclear.com/recycling.html
https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/what-is-nuclear-waste-and-what-do-we-do-with-it.aspx
Not every article needs to be shit slinging, they can just be informational.
Not entirely sure why it's on AppleInsider, but I could say the same for a lot of articles.
An informational article is not an issue. It's definitely not an issue with this article. What people are taking exception with is AI's original click-bait headline and the characterization of what took place. It obviously wasn't a case of the power company covertly accessing someone's thermostat and arbitrarily lowering the raising the temperature ceiling. It was a voluntary program with sweepstakes incentives. In exchange, participants allowed the power company to raise the temp by a max of 4 degrees for a max of 3 hours. There was also an opt out. How hard was it to opt out? Pretty easy; lowering the temp opted the user out of the event.
And, yeah, it's a bit silly as while I grew up in northern Wisconsin, I can guarantee you there were times it was over 100F in my house while I was an infant. Nobody had AC back then. I get that at some point, or with certain health conditions, it can be dangerous... but I'd think they'd have to be pretty serious for 78 to be an issue.
But, I think the issue here would be if you were in an AC room that was cool, so you covered the baby up with blankets, and then the temperature went up on its own without you realizing it. I can see how that might be serious.
Yeah, I'm a fan of solar tech, not so much wind. But, it isn't going to be much more than a novelty for the wealthy until we get some really good storage system and grid setup. Until then (which may be a long time), nuclear is the best we can do. The fact that it is being so heavily resisted says something about the movement. If we really were in as much of a time-constrained crisis as is being asserted, nuclear would ABSOLUTELY be on the table.
I agree, when there are potential health issues, these kind of programs should state them very clearly. I don't know that they did/didn't, but I'd suspect probably not. I mean, you'd think it would be obvious, but I've found (being kind of an engineering type) that a lot of people who aren't like me don't think systematically through these things.
Sweepstakes incentives aside (hear about vaxxing kids for ice-cream here in Canada?), I think it was a reasonable program, and agree the press went a bit wild on the headline (I don't think AIs was particularly misleading, just not fully-informing). I think what scares people more is the thought of governments and/or companies taking control of their environment for their benefit (which we all know either would do if they could get away with it). So, that gets layered on top of the reality of the actual situation in terms of reaction.