The savings in a smarter electric grid

Washington State has been trying a so-called "smart grid," where people have their major appliances wired to the grid to reduce electric use during peak demand times, lowering electric costs.

For example, when high demand drove prices up (as utilities have to turn on "peaking plants" to generate extra electricity), special electronics turned off the heat element in the dryer or the water heater, helping to level demand.

This system is a combination of price monitoring and time-of-use pricing, and it lowered household electricity demand at peak times by 15%. During extended periods of heavy demand, the system lowered usage by as much as 50%.

In general, the system only intervened about 1% of the time, but cut 15% off the owners' electric bill. Not bad for a one-time $1000 investment.

Tax cuts never pay for themselves

President Bush likes to lie about tax cuts, implying that they will magically boost revenues if they help the economy. Disagreeing with the economics is like disagreeing with gravity, sir, it doesn't make it true.

The irony is that if we know we're going to increase the deficit to provide economic stimulus, why not put it in the pockets of those who would provide the most? The poor.

Overall, Obama and Clinton have voted much the same

While they may try to draw sharp distinctions to help Democratic voters decide, Senators Clinton and Obama are more alike than they care to admit.

Forget Robitussin, try a sugar pill

Recent studies unearthed the truth about children's cold medicines: not only are they useless against cold symptoms, but they can cause harm to children. So is it any surprise that adult cold medicines are generally no better than placebos?

Turns out Mom was right: drink plenty of fluids and get some rest. And save your drug money for the real diseases.

Huckabee: this is not funny

He may have a great one-liner about his foreign policy experience (limited), but he's also interested in squaring the Constitution with God's law. A brief look at what that could mean.

Who's electable? Only the election can tell

A nice essay on the bane of "electability" in the campaign primary season. Ron Klain notes that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, makes voters into pundits, and costs many qualified candidates a fair race.

He also blames Nader voters for the 2000 election results, contradicting his implied assertion that people should vote for the candidate who's the best fit for them.

Water in the news

Two items on my RSS reader feed today look at the scourge of bottled water. The first repeats the debunking of the "8 glasses a day" myth and the second explores the environmental impacts of producing tons of plastic for bottled water.

You can read previous MoldyBlue coverage of bottled water, including the revelation that most of it comes from the tap and the ridiculous price markup (a few thousand percent).

Huckabee: don't elect him, give him a TV show

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee: good position on global warming. Lousy positions on Iraq and health care. But one damn funny guy.

The election doesn't end in NH either

Acting as a counterweight to the hype of horserace, political writer Eric Black notes the now-defunct presumption that New Hampshire is key to winning the presidential nomination. In fact, New Hampshire has been insignificant almost as often as the reverse.

So enjoy the show tomorrow, and keep in mind that your best vote is one for the best candidate.

The Story of Stuff

An insightful, clever video on the cost of consumer society.

The "worth it" moment? For every pound of trash you toss, 70 pounds were created to make that product or packaging.

Damn.

Cell phones may cause traffic jams

The science slowly catches up to the intuition about driving distracted.

First, a study at the University of Exeter last month noted that traffic jams are not caused by heavy traffic, but by drivers overreacting. Braking too hard or slowing below certain speeds creates a ripple effect that can put you in an area of abruptly slow traffic with no indication as to why. The key issue:

This model takes into account the time-delay in drivers’ reactions, which lead to drivers braking more heavily than would have been necessary had they identified and reacted to a problem ahead a second earlier.

Why is the time delay key? Because that's what cellphone chatting or other distracted driving does - reduce reaction time.

Motorists talking on the phone drive about two miles per hour more slowly than people who aren’t on the phone...Slower cellphone drivers may be increasing overall commuting times by 5 percent to 10 percent, he calculates, and talking on the phone may increase each daily commuter’s travel time by 20 hours a year....other studies have shown that delayed reaction time related to cellphone use is a safety hazard.

The slow driving held true regardless of use of a hands-free headset:

It’s the talking, not the cellphone, that distracts the brain.

Prediction: the findings will lead to the splendid irony of finding that many Americans phone their destination when they get stuck in traffic to report in and pass the time, perpetuating the traffic jam.

Iowa Caucus results: season with salt (a lot of salt)

One of the best political writers you will ever read, should you choose to follow the link, is Eric Black. Bringing valuable context to all things political, he offers a substantial salt appetizer to the Iowa caucus results that will dominate the news tomorrow. A few thoughts for those feeling pressed for time:

In a sense, the pundits will be making a big deal about not very much. Very few national convention delegates are at stake Thursday night (and none will actually be chosen in a binding way until June

In other words, the results being trumpeted on the news Friday morning will be the media-manufactured "momentum." In terms of getting your party's nomination, Iowa's like winning $1.50 on a $1 lotto ticket.

As meaningless as are the results, so are the polls coming out now. No one knows who will actually caucus.

Reading polls as predictions is always hazardous, and for several reasons that you may not be thinking about (details below), it's especially hazardous in the Iowa caucuses... it is harder to identify likely caucus-goers (who must spend an entire evening doing their civic duty). Various polls have "found" that, as a percentage of all the adult Iowans they interviewed, the percentage that could be classified as likely caucus participants ranged from under 10 percent in many polls, to more than 30 percent in some.

And then there's the caucus process itself.

After a few other items of business, the caucus-goers get out of their seats and gather in bunches around the room according to which presidential candidate they support. A first count is taken. In most precincts, any candidate whose gaggle of supporters represents less than 15 percent of the total is declared non-viable, which means that candidate won't be getting any delegates out of that precinct. That candidate's supporters are given a chance to join up with one of the viable candidates' gaggle (presumably reflecting their second preference). The precinct captain for each of the viable candidates gives a speech, imploring the non-viables to come on over.

According to all recent polls, only Clinton, Obama and Edwards are attracting more than 15 percent support among Iowa Democrats statewide.

But, results are based on individual precincts, so there may be caucuses where Richardson, Kucinich or Biden can garner 15 percent to remain viable. And if that wasn't enough, the number you see on TV isn't even a real number:

The percentage reported to the media is a weird statistic that Iowa Democrats call "State Delegate Equivalents." State delegate equivalents project how many delegates to the Iowa State Democratic Convention in June that candidate is likely to have. Here's the next catch. Each county has a preset number of delegates to the next level of conventions. The number does not reflect how many Iowans turned out in that county on caucus night.

Looking at the Iowa caucus for our next president is like asking NFL fans to caucus to select the Superbowl winner. It's not worth a bucket of warm spit.

Let's at least wait until the New Hampshire primary, where people just vote.

Is that front loading washer worth it?

As my wife noted, our washer celebrated the new year by giving in to gravity, dumping several soapy gallons of water on our newly-painted laundry room floor. So we're in the market for a new washer, and were told by the salesman last night that a front loading washer is better because it will save us $100 in utilities, get clothes cleaner, and do our taxes.

"Great," says I, "but this EnergyGuide tag suggests it's more like $20 a year."

"That's not counting the expense of heating the water," says Slick, "that's the real expense."

But $100? Let's do the math.

Assumptions:

• Two washers, one top-load and one front-load. The former uses 450 kWh per year (and 40 gallons per wash load) and the latter 150 kWh per year (and around 21 gallons per load) for operations. These are typical figures according to the federal Dept of Energy.
• The top-load washer costs $300, the front load washer costs $600.
  
• Water is heated with natural gas. It takes 706 btus or 0.007 therms of natural gas to heat 1 gallon of water from 55 Fahrenheit to 140 Fahrenheit.
• Electricity costs 8.3 cents per kWh, the national average.
  
• Natural gas costs $0.91 per therm, the rate from my local utility.
  
• The water itself costs $0.003 per gallon, the municipal rate in my hometown.
  

So, the typical top-load wash consumes 40 gallons of water, for a cost of 11.4 cents for the water. Heating the water consumes 40*706=28,280 btus or 0.28 therms, for a cost of 25.7 cents. So, the water and heat cost 37.1 cents per load.

The front-load washer consumes 21 gallons of water, for a cost of 6.1 cents. The energy used to heat the water is 21*706=14,826 btus or 0.148 therms, for a cost of 13.5 cents. So, the front load water and heat cost 19.6 cents per load.

My wife and I average 2 loads a week (104 a year), plus a few bonus loads. Let's call it a round 120 loads.

Since the government provides the electricity use figures on the yellow tag, I'm using those even though they aren't adjusted per load. So each year, the top load washer uses 450 kWh @ 8.3 cents/kWh = $37.35. The front loader uses 150 kWh @ 8.3 cents/kWh = $12.45.

So, our total costs look like this:
Top loader: 120 loads * ($0.371 water/heat per load) + $37.35 for electricity = $81.87 annual operating cost
Front loader: 120 loads * ($0.196 water/heat per load) + $12.45 for electricity = $35.97

Front load annual savings: $45.90 (simple payback = 6.5 years)

Slick clearly doesn't understand that a couple with no kids doesn't run the washer 4 times a week.

For those curious, here's a chart showing the annual cost of each washer based on the number of loads done each week, with the dotted line showing the annual savings.

2008: Bone up for the presidential election season

You'll hear a lot of horserace stories in the news, especially starting with the Iowa Caucuses on Thursday. Are you ready to filter the crap and pick the right candidate?

Here's how to make a decision without watching the shit on TV. First, start with a candidate selector game that asks you several questions and tells you which candidate is the best match. I recommend the USA Today match game the most.

• Candidate selectors - these tools ask a series of questions and match you to the best candidate based on your answers. You can get really stuck if there's not a good match for your specific policy preference, but it gets you close enough to read up on the candidate.
  
• Selectsmart - asks questions about the Iraq War, civil liberties, and more, and includes a slider to evaluate how important each issue is. Limitations - most often there are only two or three choices on the spectrum for each issue. The civil liberties questions poses a false choice.
• Minnesota Public Radio - a more limited field of questions, but with a choice to indicate the level of importance of your answer. Limitations - Answers on immigration and education clearly reflect the individualized statement of candidates: accurate, but almost impossible to select from.
• USA Today Candidate Match - a pretty interface allows you to see your best matches as you take the quiz. You can mouseover each candidate's position on each issue to get the details as well as adjust the sliders to indicate which issues are most important.
  

Once you've narrowed the field, learn more about your top picks at the NY Times issues page - this is a nice outline of the actual candidates' statements on the most prominent issues of the campaign (as selected by the NY Times).

Finally, try not to listen to news about the campaigns. Media has a bias toward two things in a campaign: movement and numbers, neither of which will help you pick the candidate who will best represent your views. I'll illustrate:

• Movement - Barack Obama is "gaining" or "faltering." Joe Biden is "stumbling" or "fading." Elections are not sports matches and the winner has to do a lot more than hoist a shiny trophy. Tom Brady may lead the best football team ever, but his momentum won't get us better health care.
• Numbers - there are two numbers to report in politics, money and opinion polls.
  
• Money - Some of the biggest asshats in history were rich (Rockefeller, JP Morgan), having money does not a good president make.
  
• Opinion polls are pseudo-scientific when reported by the media. They are snapshots of a single instant in time, already dated by the time results are reported (polling was usually done over the past several days). Howard Dean led in every poll taken in Iowa in 2004. He didn't win. John Kerry always polled as the most electable Democrat. He lost. Get it?
  

Medical myths: tryptophan, shaving, and ruining your eyes

I always like the dispelling of myths and urban legends and have been a long-time user of one of the premier sites: Snopes.com. The NY Times had a nice soft-news piece on medical myths, from a study done at the University of Indiana, covering myths that had been passed along by doctors (the latter being the story's hook), among others.

Things I learned:

• You feel tired on Thanksgiving because you ate a lot, not because of turkey's tryptophan. In fact, chicken and beef have as much of the sleep-related chemical; cheese and pork have more.
• Shaving hair doesn't make it darker or coarser. It's just that the hair coming in has not been bleached by sunlight and doesn't have the fine taper of an unshaven hair.
• Reading in dim light is fine. While it may be uncomfortable, it won't cause any permanent damage to your eyes.
  

A New Year's Wish: Unilateral American Democracy

Instead of exporting war, waterboarding, and weapons, wouldn't it be nice if the United States instead focused on exporting its ideals again? This op-ed takes a brief look at how we could do better by ourselves and the international community in 2008.

In Britain, a new prime minister uses new words. Gordon Brown says "all methods of diplomacy, all means of intelligence, all tools of law and policing" should be employed against terrorists. He speaks of using the "arsenal of democracy" to "defeat their ideas," of backing moderate voices "that emphasize shared values." In 2008, Americans can begin to hope for the same.

Sex education works

Now that states are rejecting federal funds for ineffective abstinence programs, they should take note that real sex education does what it's supposed to:

The [CDC] study showed marked decreases in sexual behavior among both young men and young women. Teenage boys who received sex education were 71 percent less likely to become sexually active before age 15, and teenage girls were 59 percent less likely to become sexually active.

Knowledge is power.

This energy bill overlooks climate change

While the provisions excised (15% renewable electricity mandate) promised to make a real dent in carbon emissions, the two biggest remaining provisions in the federal energy bill won't help much at all.

In fact, the highly touted fuel economy increases may actually increased carbon emissions. Over at TriplePundit, they explore how efficiency improvements tend to lead to increased consumption (via population and economic growth). And increased fuel consumption means more CO2.

Brilliant.

The "science" of obesity

This commentary on Slashdot discusses a new book on obesity. The conclusion? That the medical community doesn't use science in their prescriptions for solving the obesity epidemic.

Taubes points out that the current medical orthodoxy — that consuming fat makes you fat and exercise makes you thin — has no basis in research. In fact, all the available research points in quite another, and more traditional, direction.

Check out the podcast from the CBC show Quirks and Quarks.

P.S. Today is clear-out-my-bookmarks day. There are a lot of articles I've been meaning to blog on...

Where does your tire tread go?

From the expert at AskPablo, pretty much everywhere:

Well, some of it ends up in the air as PM10 (particulate matter that is 10 microns in diameter) which we might breath in. Some of it ends up as that dark grime on your rims (although some of that is brake pad dust) and windshield. The rest waits by the side of the road for the next rain storm to wash it away. Once in the storm drain the little rubber bits probably make their way to the ocean where they happily float around.

Unfortunately for the little critters in the ocean these little bits look a lot like food. In fact in some areas of the oceans man-made particles outnumber plankton and other microscopic critters by an order of magnitude! When these bits make their way into an animals belly they don't break down and can't be digested. This means that they accumulate, leading to eventual starvation. If a larger fish eats it first the rubber may than accumulate in its belly until it is eaten by a seabird or mammal, and so on...