Tom Sineath is a couple years ahead of the curve. CEO of T.S. Designs in Burlington, N.C., Sineath installed a wind turbine on his site five years ago to supplement the company's solar array and serve as an example to others.
"Tax incentives—along with supporting our mission as a company—made sense for us," Sineath said.
There are no large wind farms in North Carolina, and there probably won't be for a while, but individual wind turbines are becoming an everyday sight for many in the state. Thanks to increased education and government funds, turbines are starting to show up at schools, farms, homes and businesses throughout North Carolina.
Sineath's investment in wind energy is especially remarkable because his business is located in Burlington. Wind resources are sparse in the Piedmont, and Sineath said his site is only good because they are on high ground above any nearby trees.
This concentration of energy in certain parts of the state has been a big obstacle to development, said Bob Leker, renewable energy program manager for the N.C. Energy Office. "There's significant potential at the coast and in the mountains," he said, "but there's really not much in the way of consistent wind resources in the middle of the state."
Even in the normally windier areas, Leker said, the wind strength still varies wildly. "It's so highly dependent on the site," he said.
"A lot of times the people that would most like to have wind resources on their property are not the same people that have a really good wind resource," said Matt Allenbaugh, research assistant at the Wind Application Center at Appalachian State University.
Allenbaugh works at ASU with the N.C. Small Wind Initiative, which provides a local educational resource to people and groups across the state who might be interested in small-scale wind power. The program offers classes and often lends out tools for assessing wind resources in different areas.
More than eleven schools in North Carolina have installed turbines and incorporated wind energy into their curriculum since the program started, Allenbaugh said. The ASU initiative offered technological and educational support, and the federal Wind for Schools program paid for many of the turbines.
There's a lot more room for development this way, too, as almost 190 schools in the state have at least some kind of wind resource, and around 50 have more significant potential, Allenbaugh said.
Now is a better time than ever for going into small-scale wind energy production, said Michael French, marketing manager for Southwest Windpower, the manufacturer who produced the wind turbine for T.S. Designs.
According to data from ASU's Wind Energy program, the state currently offers 35 percent tax credits for wind energy systems, and the non-profit N.C. GreenPower is available to pay producers for excess wind at an excellent rate.
French said that wind energy can provide savings on energy bills, "but most of our customers are motivated by a desire for some measure of energy independence or an interest in sustainable 'green' technology.
"Business owners may choose wind power because it is highly visible and gives them a way to separate the business from competitors," French said.
Dennis Scanlin, professor in the ASU Department of Technology and a coordinator of the Small Wind Initiative, said that more and more people are starting to get interested in wind energy. "We have lots of interest; thousands of people contact us every year looking for information," Scanlin said.
The expansion of wind energy in North Carolina has been slow, but the state's citizens have decided they're tired of waiting, and now they're the ones leading the way.
http://www.mnn.com/local-reports/north-carolina/local-blog/wind-energy-small-scale-wind-leads-the-way-in-north-carolina
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
The privilege behind privacy (The Daily Tar Heel op-ed column)
There are some things in today's society that we take completely for granted. We feel entitled, more so than ever before, to these certain privileges, and we expect the government and the people around us to bend over backward in deference.
Now I'm not talking about financial entitlements, about welfare and "handouts" and various other things that feed young children and send young adults off to school. I'm talking about something that might seem a little inconsequential in comparison: privacy.
People talk about it today as if it is a basic moral right, constantly being threatened by corporations and journalists that want to learn your creepiest, juiciest secrets.
People should be able to live life free from excessive intrusion or obstruction, unlike, for example, how many celebrities are forced to live.
But is there really some kind of universal human right to be able to keep secrets and hide my retail preferences from my friends? And can we really hold the government responsible for protecting it?
We obsess over Facebook and Google and the way they sell data and scan our emails, but this seems to speak more to an irrational fear of Terminator-esque computer domination than a real problem of individual privacy or security.
Perhaps people are creeped out by targeted ads and the idea of a robot reading their intimate Facebook chat conversations, but does this really infringe on their rights? How do targeted ads limit their freedom, and what's the problem with a computer in China knowing if my uncle has breast cancer?
If the targeted ads sometimes expose things I'd rather them not, that's my own problem. I do not and should not have a constitutional right to subscribe to an exotic porn site without any chance of someone finding out.
I do understand why some people like privacy; I understand the appeal.
But we put so much of our personal energy into fighting for it and our government energy in protecting it, that we overlook the fact that so many -- both inside and outside of our society -- are deprived of fundamental human rights like food and shelter.
Our priorities could not be more backward. And even as we irrationally insist upon privacy for ourselves, we feel no qualms about hypocritically depriving others of it. Privacy, which in practice is more of a socioeconomic privilege than a right, is the first thing that we strip from people when they slip down the social hierarchy.
Without property, these neglected individuals, already victimized by our twisted priorities, are left with no private space in which to live and consequently no real privacy to speak of. Thus we leave these individuals on the street as if on display.
What kind of society has a federally guaranteed and safeguarded right to have petty family squabbles in private but doesn't properly feed, shelter or educate all its children?
http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2013/02/the-pprivilege-of-pprivacy
Now I'm not talking about financial entitlements, about welfare and "handouts" and various other things that feed young children and send young adults off to school. I'm talking about something that might seem a little inconsequential in comparison: privacy.
People talk about it today as if it is a basic moral right, constantly being threatened by corporations and journalists that want to learn your creepiest, juiciest secrets.
People should be able to live life free from excessive intrusion or obstruction, unlike, for example, how many celebrities are forced to live.
But is there really some kind of universal human right to be able to keep secrets and hide my retail preferences from my friends? And can we really hold the government responsible for protecting it?
We obsess over Facebook and Google and the way they sell data and scan our emails, but this seems to speak more to an irrational fear of Terminator-esque computer domination than a real problem of individual privacy or security.
Perhaps people are creeped out by targeted ads and the idea of a robot reading their intimate Facebook chat conversations, but does this really infringe on their rights? How do targeted ads limit their freedom, and what's the problem with a computer in China knowing if my uncle has breast cancer?
If the targeted ads sometimes expose things I'd rather them not, that's my own problem. I do not and should not have a constitutional right to subscribe to an exotic porn site without any chance of someone finding out.
I do understand why some people like privacy; I understand the appeal.
But we put so much of our personal energy into fighting for it and our government energy in protecting it, that we overlook the fact that so many -- both inside and outside of our society -- are deprived of fundamental human rights like food and shelter.
Our priorities could not be more backward. And even as we irrationally insist upon privacy for ourselves, we feel no qualms about hypocritically depriving others of it. Privacy, which in practice is more of a socioeconomic privilege than a right, is the first thing that we strip from people when they slip down the social hierarchy.
Without property, these neglected individuals, already victimized by our twisted priorities, are left with no private space in which to live and consequently no real privacy to speak of. Thus we leave these individuals on the street as if on display.
What kind of society has a federally guaranteed and safeguarded right to have petty family squabbles in private but doesn't properly feed, shelter or educate all its children?
http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2013/02/the-pprivilege-of-pprivacy
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Duke Energy Corners the Market: The Threats of an Energy Monopoly (Campus BluePrint February 2013)
Duke Energy is the second biggest energy producer in the world, and by far the biggest in the United States. But more importantly for citizens of North Carolina, it's now not only the biggest but the only large-scale energy producer with a sizable presence in the state.
Following last year's merger between Duke and Progress, small-scale energy installations like standalone wind turbines and household solar panels are some of the only things standing between Duke and 100 percent control of energy in the state.
Does this mean anything for consumers? The N.C. Utilities Commission approves electricity rates before they're applied, and thereby ostensibly saves us from the coordinated price gouging of traditional monopolies. Another idea key in approving the merger was that it would save retail customers $650 million over 6.5 years.
But some say rate hikes are not just likely but inevitable, and many agree that Duke's new stature might give it unprecedented influence in politics and the development of renewable energy in the state.
Environmental advocacy group NC WARN has released statements saying the merger and the utility's powerful influence on North Carolina politics allow Duke to pass off the costs of its various projects and risks to the consumer, resulting in massive rate hikes.
And now the time has come for the utilities to propose rates for the next year, and it is not looking good for consumers. So far Duke has asked for a 9.7 percent rate increase, and Progress, its counterpart, has asked for an 11 percent overall rate increase, which is the utility's first rate increase in 25 years. Duke raised its rates 7.2 percent last year, which then was its largest increase in more than 20 years.
Spokespeople for the utilities have attributed the increases mostly to upgrades and renovations for nuclear plants and natural gas plants, as well as a few new facilities. Press releases from NC WARN in the last year have pointed to these plants and many other Duke projects as factors that went unconsidered by the commission in the merger process.
But these rate increases are just the beginning, say Consumers Against Rate Hikes, a coalition of North Carolina organizations allied to combat Duke's price increases. Rates could be doubled by 2019, with an additional 50 percent increase in the following decade, if Duke proceeds in its business plan to build several new nuclear reactors over the next decade, said the coalition's spokesperson in a press release.
The plan essentially makes North Carolina consumers pay for a loan to build the plants, said Max Chang, author of a recent economic study examining Duke's plan. The study was performed by Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. and funded by Consumers Against Rate Hikes.
Duke's long-term plan will come before the commission on Feb. 11, and then the rates for the year will be approved or denied.
Pete MacDowell, program director of NC WARN, said a lot depends on the commission and its devotion to the public interest. "Is it going to stand up to Duke, or is it going to roll over for it?" he said. "It really needs to be much more aggressive and independent in regulating the utilities."
In the commission's mission statement, one of their primary goals is to "provide fair regulation of public utilities in the interest of the public."
But MacDowell and others say they have reasons to believe Duke's political influence may also play a part. "Duke has no competition," MacDowell said. "And if you have no competition, all you have to do is have the regulators see your way.
"And the regulators are political appointees," MacDowell said. "And when you have unlimited funds, [and] as many lobbyists as you need, you can have a lot of influence on the regulators."
Reviews of Duke's political activity suggest that these fears may be justified. According to analysis by nonpartisan watchdog group Democracy N.C., last year's merger in all likelihood produced "the most politically influential corporation in North Carolina." Each has long sponsored some of the biggest PACs in North Carolina, and together they "surpass Bank of America to form the largest corporate PAC in North Carolina."
There is also cause to worry about Gov. Pat McCrory's influence, said MacDowell. McCrory, who worked at Duke for 28 years before becoming governor, has given top staff positions in the state government to at least three former coworkers at Duke already, according to Julie Rose, reporter for radio station WFAE in Charlotte.
In 2013, McCrory will also have the opportunity to appoint three new commissioners and name the chair for the commission, which as a total of seven commissioners.
In order to circumvent this perceived conflict of interest, NC WARN and the AARP sent McCrory a letter Jan. 4 urging him to recuse himself from making the appointments for these commissioners.
NC WARN and the AARP in the letter appealed to the public interest, and offered their assistance in establishing a more transparent, ethical process to make the choices for the commission. "These are crucial positions for North Carolina's energy, economic and environmental future, with billions of dollars at stake as the commission reviews utility companies' requests for rate hikes and, in our view, unnecessary power plants."
The sympathies of the commission are important, NC WARN representatives say, not just because of the immediate financial burden that could be put on North Carolina's consumers, but because Duke, as the dominant energy producer in North Carolina, has full control over what kind of energy technology is developed. If Duke doesn't see alternative energy sources like wind or solar energy as worthy endeavors, then they won't be developed.
MacDowell said Duke and Progress have given sustainable energy like solar and wind only marginal importance in their long-term plans, and the merger has only made this worse. "The merger was not in the public interest," he said.
"What we're contending ... is that the kind of of 'no energy efficiency,' 'no real wind and solar' energy plan that Duke and Progress are putting forward is really totally irresponsible to the economy, the climate [and] people's health issues," MacDowell said. "And there is a clear and cheaper way to do it."
North Carolina is at a fork in the road with its energy policy, MacDowell said. And with Duke's costly plans for nuclear plants in 2024 and the apparent sidelining of renewable energy, the future beyond this fork is uncertain.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/126230224/UNC-Campus-BluePrint-February-2013
Following last year's merger between Duke and Progress, small-scale energy installations like standalone wind turbines and household solar panels are some of the only things standing between Duke and 100 percent control of energy in the state.
Does this mean anything for consumers? The N.C. Utilities Commission approves electricity rates before they're applied, and thereby ostensibly saves us from the coordinated price gouging of traditional monopolies. Another idea key in approving the merger was that it would save retail customers $650 million over 6.5 years.
But some say rate hikes are not just likely but inevitable, and many agree that Duke's new stature might give it unprecedented influence in politics and the development of renewable energy in the state.
Environmental advocacy group NC WARN has released statements saying the merger and the utility's powerful influence on North Carolina politics allow Duke to pass off the costs of its various projects and risks to the consumer, resulting in massive rate hikes.
And now the time has come for the utilities to propose rates for the next year, and it is not looking good for consumers. So far Duke has asked for a 9.7 percent rate increase, and Progress, its counterpart, has asked for an 11 percent overall rate increase, which is the utility's first rate increase in 25 years. Duke raised its rates 7.2 percent last year, which then was its largest increase in more than 20 years.
Spokespeople for the utilities have attributed the increases mostly to upgrades and renovations for nuclear plants and natural gas plants, as well as a few new facilities. Press releases from NC WARN in the last year have pointed to these plants and many other Duke projects as factors that went unconsidered by the commission in the merger process.
But these rate increases are just the beginning, say Consumers Against Rate Hikes, a coalition of North Carolina organizations allied to combat Duke's price increases. Rates could be doubled by 2019, with an additional 50 percent increase in the following decade, if Duke proceeds in its business plan to build several new nuclear reactors over the next decade, said the coalition's spokesperson in a press release.
The plan essentially makes North Carolina consumers pay for a loan to build the plants, said Max Chang, author of a recent economic study examining Duke's plan. The study was performed by Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. and funded by Consumers Against Rate Hikes.
Duke's long-term plan will come before the commission on Feb. 11, and then the rates for the year will be approved or denied.
Pete MacDowell, program director of NC WARN, said a lot depends on the commission and its devotion to the public interest. "Is it going to stand up to Duke, or is it going to roll over for it?" he said. "It really needs to be much more aggressive and independent in regulating the utilities."
In the commission's mission statement, one of their primary goals is to "provide fair regulation of public utilities in the interest of the public."
But MacDowell and others say they have reasons to believe Duke's political influence may also play a part. "Duke has no competition," MacDowell said. "And if you have no competition, all you have to do is have the regulators see your way.
"And the regulators are political appointees," MacDowell said. "And when you have unlimited funds, [and] as many lobbyists as you need, you can have a lot of influence on the regulators."
Reviews of Duke's political activity suggest that these fears may be justified. According to analysis by nonpartisan watchdog group Democracy N.C., last year's merger in all likelihood produced "the most politically influential corporation in North Carolina." Each has long sponsored some of the biggest PACs in North Carolina, and together they "surpass Bank of America to form the largest corporate PAC in North Carolina."
There is also cause to worry about Gov. Pat McCrory's influence, said MacDowell. McCrory, who worked at Duke for 28 years before becoming governor, has given top staff positions in the state government to at least three former coworkers at Duke already, according to Julie Rose, reporter for radio station WFAE in Charlotte.
In 2013, McCrory will also have the opportunity to appoint three new commissioners and name the chair for the commission, which as a total of seven commissioners.
In order to circumvent this perceived conflict of interest, NC WARN and the AARP sent McCrory a letter Jan. 4 urging him to recuse himself from making the appointments for these commissioners.
NC WARN and the AARP in the letter appealed to the public interest, and offered their assistance in establishing a more transparent, ethical process to make the choices for the commission. "These are crucial positions for North Carolina's energy, economic and environmental future, with billions of dollars at stake as the commission reviews utility companies' requests for rate hikes and, in our view, unnecessary power plants."
The sympathies of the commission are important, NC WARN representatives say, not just because of the immediate financial burden that could be put on North Carolina's consumers, but because Duke, as the dominant energy producer in North Carolina, has full control over what kind of energy technology is developed. If Duke doesn't see alternative energy sources like wind or solar energy as worthy endeavors, then they won't be developed.
MacDowell said Duke and Progress have given sustainable energy like solar and wind only marginal importance in their long-term plans, and the merger has only made this worse. "The merger was not in the public interest," he said.
"What we're contending ... is that the kind of of 'no energy efficiency,' 'no real wind and solar' energy plan that Duke and Progress are putting forward is really totally irresponsible to the economy, the climate [and] people's health issues," MacDowell said. "And there is a clear and cheaper way to do it."
North Carolina is at a fork in the road with its energy policy, MacDowell said. And with Duke's costly plans for nuclear plants in 2024 and the apparent sidelining of renewable energy, the future beyond this fork is uncertain.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/126230224/UNC-Campus-BluePrint-February-2013
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Untitled (The Dream Journal, The Blotter February 2013 Print issue)
Suddenly there I am, in a middle school science classroom, being taught Spanish by maternal Colombian Gloria from ABC's acclaimed TV series Modern Family. But Gloria isn't being herself—instead she's being Jane Lynch's dictatorial cheerleading coach from Glee. Did I mention the rest of the classroom is populated by various members of my extended family?
Now we are outside. Cruel Gloria Lynch with her overdone Colombian accent takes half of my familial classmates to another field and begins to lead several oddly Minute-To-Win-It-esque games involving balloons and maybe marshmallows. I'm not sure how that teaches them Spanish, but I'm too busy being internally conflicted and confused about how to relate to my classmates on an academic level to worry about that, because for one reason or another my classmates all appear to be small children in need of assistance.
Gloria Lynch begins cursing in incomprehensible Spanish, unceremoniously awaking me from my overthinking. I'm watching from a distance, but she seems to be making inappropriate sexual advances at several students/kids/relatives of mine, including graphic descriptions and farm animals in her verbal assaults. A slew of distinct but concurrent protective instincts speak up in my brain, stirring me to action.
But then we are walking back to the classroom. I'm speaking to a reasonable, Spanish-speaking friend from high school, but I have no idea who he was or if he ever existed. We agree that something must be done about Gloria Lynch's oppressively totalitarian and wholly inappropriate teaching style.
Back in class, my mild-mannered older brother Stephen steps up to Gloria Lynch at the front of the class. He reasonably and politely stakes his claim, gently informing Gloria Lynch that she probably needs to relax and not be so aggressive or overly sexual with us. She slaps him. Then she backhands him hard, a wicked grin of smug satisfaction spreading over her face.
I wake up, curious about why my subconscious is directing so much violence towards Stephen and concerned about the frequency with which Gloria plays commanding authoritarian roles in my dreams.
I should probably watch less TV.
M. Dickson - Cyberspace
http://www.blotterrag.com/2013-02.pdf
Now we are outside. Cruel Gloria Lynch with her overdone Colombian accent takes half of my familial classmates to another field and begins to lead several oddly Minute-To-Win-It-esque games involving balloons and maybe marshmallows. I'm not sure how that teaches them Spanish, but I'm too busy being internally conflicted and confused about how to relate to my classmates on an academic level to worry about that, because for one reason or another my classmates all appear to be small children in need of assistance.
Gloria Lynch begins cursing in incomprehensible Spanish, unceremoniously awaking me from my overthinking. I'm watching from a distance, but she seems to be making inappropriate sexual advances at several students/kids/relatives of mine, including graphic descriptions and farm animals in her verbal assaults. A slew of distinct but concurrent protective instincts speak up in my brain, stirring me to action.
But then we are walking back to the classroom. I'm speaking to a reasonable, Spanish-speaking friend from high school, but I have no idea who he was or if he ever existed. We agree that something must be done about Gloria Lynch's oppressively totalitarian and wholly inappropriate teaching style.
Back in class, my mild-mannered older brother Stephen steps up to Gloria Lynch at the front of the class. He reasonably and politely stakes his claim, gently informing Gloria Lynch that she probably needs to relax and not be so aggressive or overly sexual with us. She slaps him. Then she backhands him hard, a wicked grin of smug satisfaction spreading over her face.
I wake up, curious about why my subconscious is directing so much violence towards Stephen and concerned about the frequency with which Gloria plays commanding authoritarian roles in my dreams.
I should probably watch less TV.
M. Dickson - Cyberspace
http://www.blotterrag.com/2013-02.pdf
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Think before you speak (Daily Tar Heel op-ed column)
If every conversation is an excursion, then some words are adjustable airplane seats, comfortable and conducive to idle chatter. But others can be that unexpected gust of air, breaking the flying formation and leaving a lone bird riding a wind current alone.
These words require a little more caution. For the sake of brevity and the remote possibility of a coherent analysis, I will limit myself to a specific collection of them: depressive disorder, schizophrenia, autism, obsessive-compulsive disorder, bipolar disorder and attention deficit disorder.
Each of these distinct labels represents an enormous range of symptoms and experiences, varying wildly in their place and relative significance in individuals' lives. In fact, experts at the Psychiatric Clinics of North America say the textbook descriptions aren't representative of all the conditions that exist on a spectrum.
They all represent intensely internal human experiences that we on the outside can't comprehend or truly sympathize with — it's a fatal mistake to think we can. So a respectful distance from these words is warranted.
But behind those disorders are people, and more than anything else in the world we should be wary of building distance between people. So where do we go from here?
Interestingly enough, some of these terms, like OCD, depressive disorder, bipolar disorder and ADD, do come up regularly in the stream of casual human interaction, although they usually misrepresent somewhat grossly the real spectrum of experiences scientifically correlated with each one.
Suddenly OCD is responsible for every anxious habit, and depression only means someone is having a bad week.
How do these terms occasion such flippant common use, while the others, like rocks in the stream, disturb the current, endanger a raft and bloody a nose every time one is dislodged from its hiding place? What's different?
It seems somewhere in these terms people find something they identify with, some human characteristic they realize they share. Then they take up this term and apply it.
And while this may disrespect the reality of the disorder, there might be something to be admired in that attempted empathy that finds the gap between one with a disorder and one without to be only a matter of degree. And not an unbridgeable stigmatic barrier.
But why, then, are some of these terms left out?
This is the real injustice. If we're willing to bend reality to overapply some of these terms, why can't we find common characteristics between us and people with disorders like autism and schizophrenia?
I can't speak for everyone, but I consistently find that symptomatic gap to be much smaller than we imagine. I don't go a day without finding a little bit of autism in me.
And as for schizophrenia and similar disorders? Let's be real. We're college kids in a crowded, high-stress, academic environment. Most of us aren't more than one disembodied voice and a Xanax away from psychosis.
http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2013/02/think-before-you-speak
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)