SYSTEM LOSSES in the production, transmission and distribution of electricity are explained succinctly in this NY Times Business article on
Wasted Energy: "As energy is unlocked from fuels at power plants, two-thirds of the energy consumed to create electricity is lost." Move over Judy Ann Santos.
3 comments:
DJB.
Ben Diokno's article in today's Innuendo has it on the nail. What the government should subsidize is energy efficiency.
I think Gloria is running out of options. The 500 peso one time cash dole to the poor is unsustainable. While she gets it from VAT, there are sectors that say that VAT ought to be removed. But the government should have better sense to use VAT money for more jobs. This is one time that the CBCP does make sense. In the resource cost vs subsidy game,the govermment can do "pahabaan ng pisi" but that will run out and Gloria will have rope to hang herself.
On Juday and ice: This is exactly what Prof Flor Lacanilao has been complaining about. Scientific concepts should be explained to the public by science educators, through the school system or via informal education.But as you said science is not taught in school!
As for ice melting the theory is not analogous to systems loss. An increase in the kinetic energy in ice leads to less molecular attraction between water molecules thus resulting in melting.
Ethnobabble: We biodiversity scientists are interested in that to know local names of species. Sometimes we get insight on how communities perceive biodiversity.
That whole kind of babble really is within the social sciences
Also the Lopezes should have hired a top energy engineer with a PhD to explain their position. There are those types the De La Salle,UP,Ateneo,MIT and UST. I'm sure one of them has the looks for TV that can give Juday a run for her money!
Who knows that could be the break needed for an ABS-CBN career?
If ad agencies use "simulated doctors and dentists" in whitecoats to promote soap, skin whiteners and toothpaste, what's wrong in using scientists?
#2 was gimme: widen global free trade!
Emphasis on the 'free'. The question is: How free is it going to be? A lightweight like us cant go into the ring with heavyweights. We'll get clobbered. Im in favor of 'lateral free trade' with countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, and protectionism for our industries against the developed countries. (You want an iPod or a newfangled Nokia? You have to pay through your nose with taxes and duties.) Until we get ready to compete with the big boys, that is.
Post a Comment