Diane Rehm pushing wind and solar on NPR

She had a bunch of "alternate energy" enthusiasts on, pushing hard, claiming that reducing fossil fuel use would solve global warming and save the earth.  Trouble is, wind doesn't give you any juice when the wind stops blowing.  (It has been dead calm all day up here).  Solar quits when the Sun goes down.
  Up here we need juice all the time.  Without juice the oil burner doesn't work and the pipes freeze.  I want electricity to run the lights AFTER the Sun goes down.  Electricity isn't optional.  In winter we cannot just wait in the dark for the power to come on.
  So, the utilities have to build real power plants,  the kind that work all the time, enough of them to serve all their customers  when the wind stops and the Sun goes down.  And, the real cost of electricity is paying off the cost to build the plant in the first place.  Fuel costs and payroll are neglible compared to paying off the plant.  And, they have to pay off the plant whether it is running or not.  So, my outrageous electric bill just gets more outrageous when ever PSNH gives money to wind or solar producers.  Buying "alternate energy" does not reduce the need to make the mortgage payments on the real power plants.  They have to pay the mortgage on time even if the plant isn't generating electricity.
  In short, "alternate energy" just raises my electric bill.  Even if "alternate energy" were as cheap as real energy, buying it raises my electric bill.  And it ain't cheap.  "Alternate energy" costs about ten times as much as real energy.
  So why do we want to mess with "alternate energy" since it is just a cost enhancer?   Is it the desire of the greenies to return to a Hiawatha standard of living?  Is it a desire for the political power that comes from control of the electricity supply?  Is it a belief that 380 parts per million of carbon dioxide has a noticeable effect compared to 300,000 parts per million of water vapor?  Water vapor is as strong a green house gas as carbon dioxide, and there is a lot of it, and with most of the world covered with water, its gonna stay abundant.  Is it failure to notice that the world hasn't warmed up at all in the last ten years?   
 
  

Cannon Mountain Ski Weather

Yesterday it snowed.  I have 7 inches on my porch this morning.  It's nice moist thick snow, that will stick to the trails and stand up to traffic.  The mountain is in the best shape it's been in all season.  Just about all trails are open, all the important lifts, (except the Mittersill chair) are running.  Best skiing of the season, and really good conditions by any standards.  If you miss this weekend you may be missing the best skiing of the season.  It's 20 F and not a breath of air stirring. 

Advertising budget but no product

That's where Ford Motor is at.  The Lincoln brand has been fading for years.  Lincoln used to compete with Cadillac.  Not any more.  Caddy sells 50 times more cars than Lincoln does.  Lincoln's are just Ford Crown Victoria's with a different grille.  Where as Caddy is a real product, with it's own styling, engine, ads, the whole nine yards.
   Anyhow, Ford had decided to revive the Lincoln brand.  So they are running ads.  Funny thing, the ads show classic Lincolns from the '30s and the 60's.  Nothing in current production.  In short, Ford is running ads when they don't have any product to sell, not even an artist's conception.
  This is how to sell cars???

Cannon Mountain Ski Weather

For Christmas day we got 3-4 inches of nice light powder snow.  That's the most natural snow we have all winter.  Temperature dropped down to 10 F last night and ain't much warmer today.  The TV is promising heavy snow starting after dark today. 

the World as seen by the Economist

Good news is coming to us.  They show a line graph of GNP growth.  They have lines for Europe, Japan, China, and the US of A.  The line for America is pointing up at 45 degrees, showing growth and progress. The lines for the rest of the world are flat or drooping.
  Wow.  To look at this graph you'd think things are booming here.  We all know they aren't.  But if there is any truth in this graph, then the rest of the world is deep into hurtsville.  Worse off than we are, and that's gotta be bad. 

Salt may be innocent

Right now conventional wisdom says that salt is bad for you, and contributes to high blood pressure.  This has resulted in an avalanche of "low sodium" (aka unsalted) products to clutter grocery shelves.  I always wondered about the evils of salt.  The saltiness of your blood (which is also the saltiness of all your body) is controlled by your kidneys.  There are a lot of chemical reasons for the body to maintain a constant saltiness. When the kdneys sense to low a salt level, they retain some salt to keep the saltiness of blood up.  Contrary wise, when the kidneys sense excessive blood salt, they filter it out and you excrete it in the urine.  If things work this way, then the amount of salt you eat doesn't matter much.  Within limits that is.
  Now comes an article in Scientific American supporting the "salt doesn't matter" view.  It makes sense to me.
   Of course the medical community probably isn't on board with this.  And may never be.  And, Scientific American is no longer the gold standard it once was.  Twenty years ago Scientific American had real science articles written by real scientists, and was authoritative.  No longer.  Journalists  began to rewrite the articles and they got so bad I dropped my subscription many years ago.  The article linked to is short, written by a non scientific type, and merely quotes half a dozen studies performed by others.
  But it's worth watching, especially if you find the "low sodium" products tasteless. 

NRA meets the Press

David Gregory had Wayne LaPierre, NRA chief, an the show as a guest this morning.  Despite a lot of badgering from Gregory, Lapierre did pretty well defending his position.   He, and the NRA, advocate stationing armed policemen in schools to defend them against homicidal maniacs.  In actual fact, this would be pretty effective.
   It would be expensive, although not as expensive as the TSA grope and scan operation.  My little town has a single school and a 5 or 6 man police department.  We would have to hire at least one more officer.  Neighboring Bethlehem has three schools, and would need to hire three more officers. 
   Not so clearly stated, is the NRA's objection to an "assault weapon" ban.  "Assault weapon" is a propaganda term.  There are no objective differences between deer rifles and  "assault weapons".  The NRA fears that an "assault weapon" ban would broaden to ban deer rifles and eventually all firearms.  And, in fact, that is the gun control people's plan.  The gun control people know they can't pass a law to ban all firearms in one fell swoop, so they will use the camel's nose in the tent strategy.  Ban a few at a time.
   In real life, all firearms are deadly, and the Connecticut shooter would have killed as many no matter what sort of gun he used.   Calling the 22 caliber semi automatic rifle he did use an "assault weapon" makes it sound like the weapon is responsible for the killing, not the homicidal maniac pulling the trigger.