Environmentalists excited: It takes 63% longer to fly a single-seat solar plane from Cincinnati to DC than to drive

The fastest route for cars between Cincinnati and Dulles International Airport (IAD) outside DC is hardly a straight line.  But despite that disadvantage the new solar plane that environmentalists are excited that a solar powered plane that can hold nothing more than the pilot took 14 hours and 4 minutes.  The car, which you could load down with all sorts of cargo, would take 8 hours and 37 minutes.  To put it differently, the solar plane took 63 percent longer to make the trip -- non-stop, not a very fun trip.  The trip apparently averaged 30.9 miles per hour over the 435 miles (not exactly the "around 40 mph" noted in the article).  Can the AP do division to check out the facts that they are given?  Possibly environmentalists simply don't value people's time.  From the AP:

. . . Solar Impulse's website said the aircraft with its massive wings and thousands of photovoltaic cells "gracefully touched down" at 12:15 a.m. EDT after 14 hours and four minutes of flight from Cincinnati, Ohio, to Dulles in Washington's Virginia suburbs. . . . 

It's the first bid by a solar plane capable of being airborne day and night without fuel to fly across the U.S, at speeds reaching about 40 mph. The flight originated from San Francisco via Arizona, Texas, Missouri and Ohio onward to Dulles with stops of several days in cities along the way. 

Organizers said in a blog post early Sunday that Piccard soared across the Appalachian mountains on a 435-mile (700-kilometer) course from Cincinnati to the Washington area, averaging 31 mph (50 kph). It was the second phase of a leg that began in St. Louis. 

The plane, considered the world's most advanced sun-powered aircraft, is powered by about 12,000 photovoltaic cells that cover its enormous wings and charge its batteries during the day. The single-seat Solar Impulse flies around 40 mph and can't go through clouds; weighing about as much as a car, the aircraft also took longer than a car to complete the journey from Ohio to the East Coast. . . . .

With Fed ban on 100 Watt bulbs looming, substitute LED bulbs cost $50

If these mandated bulbs were efficient, that they saved enough energy to offset their higher initial price, no one would have to mandate them.

Two leading makers of lighting products are showcasing LED bulbs that are bright enough to replace energy-guzzling 100-watt light bulbs set to disappear from stores in January.
Their demonstrations at the LightFair trade show in Philadelphia this week mean that brighter LED bulbs will likely go on sale next year, but after a government ban takes effect.
The new bulbs will also be expensive — about $50 each — so the development may not prevent consumers from hoarding traditional bulbs. . . .
To encourage energy efficiency, Congress passed a law in 2007 mandating that bulbs producing 100 watts worth of light meet certain efficiency goals, starting in 2012. Conventional light bulbs don't meet those goals, so the law will prohibit making or importing them. The same rule will start apply to remaining bulbs 40 watts and above in 2014. Since January, California has already banned stores from restocking 100-watt incandescent bulbs.
Creating good alternatives to the light bulb has been more difficult than expected, especially for the very bright 100-watt bulbs. Part of the problem is that these new bulbs have to fit into lamps and ceiling fixtures designed for older technology.
Compact fluorescents are the most obvious replacement, but they have drawbacks. They contain a small amount of toxic mercury vapor, which is released if they break or are improperly thrown away. They last longer than traditional bulbs but not as long as LEDs. Brighter models are bulky and may not fit in existing fixtures. . . .

If these bulbs would really save people money and they were as good, why are they mandated?

Either these bulbs aren't as good at producing light or they aren't cheaper or some combination of the two. But it they really were so unambiguously better, why are people having to be forced to buy the new bulbs?

Californians can start saying goodbye to traditional 100-watt incandescent light bulbs now that the state has become the first in the country to require a new standard for the screw-base bulbs.
Experts say the new rules, which took effect New Year's Day, will save residents money and energy. California is already the nation's leader in energy efficiency standards.
As of Saturday, what used to be a 100-watt light bulb manufactured and sold in California will have to use 72 watts or less. The 72-watt replacement bulb, also called an energy saving halogen light, will provide the same amount of light, called lumens, for lower energy cost.
Similar new standards for traditional 75-watt, 60-watt and 40-watt incandescent bulbs will go into effect in California over the next few years, with wattages reduced to 53, 43 and 29 respectively.
The new rule does not ban incandescent light bulbs; it just requires those bulbs to be 25 to 30 percent more efficient. And it only affects incandescent light bulbs manufactured after 2011, not light bulbs already in use or on store shelves. . . .

A very rough discussion on the costs and benefits from LEDs

I am linking this discussion here simply because I want to come back to it at a later date. While there are obviously problems with the analysis (not including interest rates to discount the long term energy savings), it does mention the lower light quality of the LEDs and other concerns.

Redoing those MPG rules for Electric Cars

I thought that the 230 mpg estimate for the Chevy Volt and the 367 for the Nissan Leaf made little sense, but at least I was hoping that it was a way to mitigate the even dumber increase in company average mpg requirements. Selling a few Volts getting 230 mpg could have gone a long ways over coming the big increase in mpg rules imposed by the Obama administration.

When the figures came out, many observers argued that they presented an inflated and meaningless comparison for consumers looking to measure the efficiency of battery-powered cars against their gas-powered counterparts. The extent of backlash took the agency by surprise, the people familiar said.

The mileage expectation reflected a new methodology for electric and plug-in hybrid cars that factored in electricity used to try to reach a miles-per-gallon equivalent. The intent is to allow consumers to measure the vehicles against traditional gasoline-powered ones. The final figures will do the same, but the EPA is trying to come up with better ways to compare electric power with gasoline.

To calculate a miles-per-gallon figure for a vehicle that runs either partially or fully on battery power, GM had cited an EPA formula that attempts to convert electric-energy consumption into a gasoline equivalent. The Department of Energy process cited by Nissan considers 82 kilowatt hours of electricity to be equivalent to one gallon of gasoline. . . .

So will the British government cut the $100 million to this channel?

How bad does a government TV channel have to be before its funding is cut?

Audiences for many programmes on S4C, Channel 4 for Wales, were so low that they failed to register.

S4C, which gets more than £100m of subsidy from taxpayers, officially attracted zero viewers on 196 out of its 890 programmes. . .

Just 139 out of all the station's entire programmes for the period were watched by more than 10,000 viewers. . . .

196 programs get zero viewers = 0

555 programs get between zero and 10,000 viewers (say 5,000 on average) = 2,775,000

139 programs get over 10,000 viewers (say 20,000 on average) = 2,780,000

Total = 5,555,000

In dollars (exchange rate 1.53938), that comes to $27.71 per viewer per show.

The Real explanation for government inefficiency: they are using old computers!

I doubt that The Hill is using "startling admission" in a way that approves of the explanation being offered here. It has been twenty years since I worked in the Federal government, but we had good computers back then (though Orszag that just proves his point). All I can say is that I didn't think that the Federal government was particularly efficient back then.

A big reason why the government is inefficient and ineffective is because Washington has outdated technology, with federal workers having better computers at home than in the office.

This startling admission came Thursday from Peter Orszag, who manages the federal bureaucracy for President Barack Obama.

The public is getting a bad return on its tax dollars because government workers are operating with outdated technologies, Orszag said in a statement that kicked off a summit between Obama and dozens of corporate CEOs.

“Twenty years ago, people who came to work in the federal government had better technology at work than at home,” said Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget. “Now that’s no longer the case.

“The American people deserve better service from their government, and better return for their tax dollars.” . . .

UPDATE: Now Obama is going to people in the computer industry, particularly Steve Balmer at Microsoft, for advice. Talks about improvement in IT.

Will these checks really save money?

If these types of checks really saved money in the long run, why would they have to be mandated? Wouldn't it pay for people to hire their own inspector? Wouldn't builders offer it? Wouldn't inspectors spring up to offer these services for a fee? Of course, the New York Times fails to understand this simple economics.

AUSTIN, Tex. — Peering behind a bathtub in a newly built house, an inspector, John Umphress, spotted a big gap in the wall insulation. “Somebody took a lunch break!” he complained to the builder, who sheepishly agreed to patch the hole.

With the fix, the house, already a model of energy efficiency, will use even less energy and save its residents money — for decades.

But that small catch would not have been made in many American towns. Mr. Umphress is a particular kind of inspector, an energy auditor, and Austin, with one of the toughest building codes in the country, requires an energy inspection before a building can be occupied. . . .

The President who keeps the Oval Office at "tropical hot house" temperatures wants to micro manage even further the light bulbs that others can use

This president has no understanding of efficiency. His only goal is to minimize energy use, but efficiency involves using efficiently lots of things that are scarce (e.g., people's time). I also don't think that he has an idea about the number of jobs. He talks about new jobs that are created by government regulations or spending, but what about the jobs that are lost. CBS has a story on "Obama touts new light bulb standards."

He pointed to the state of California as an example of what stricter energy efficiency standards could achieve. In the late 1970's, California enacted tougher energy policies, which the president said, helped create millions of jobs. Today, he said, Californians consume 40 percent less energy per person than the national average. . . . .

If we are concerned about the country's wealth, why do we care about whether California was able to force down its energy use? Wouldn't that simply be a measure of how much poorer California was relative to what it otherwise could have been?

Of course, all this comes from a President who keeps the thermostat in the Oval Office well above 72 degrees -- "aides have likened it to a tropical hot house."