thebeave
Contributor
What do you do in rainy weather?
-
Features
Stop Unaffordable Dishwasher Standards (SUDS) Act
- Thread starter Don2 (Don1 Revised)
- Start date
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
And in the Winter too, hang them in my basement.
TIL Sabbath mode appliances exist. I was aware of some Sabbath mode devices but I wasn't aware that included normal household appliances. And what that page describes seems like going overboard. Why do the displays need to be disabled? And why the water dispenser? That can be purely mechanical, you push something that lets the water flow. It already has pressure, it will come out on it's own.
Dishwashers are supposed to be more water-conserving that even careful dishwashing. I can easily see this being the case because of rinsing--the machine can do a parallel flow process that would be impractical for a human. Take a bit of water, spray it over everything until you have reached equilibrium--the water is as soapy as the dishes. Discard the water, repeat. A few cycles of that will be fine.
All of our back yard is allocated to fruit trees, no place for it. Nor would I want to use a clothes line here--too often there is blowing dust.
Somebody mentioned the basement--would be good if we had one. Our winters are warm enough we don't. (A normal structure will be damaged if the soil under the foundations freezes. Thus foundations must be set deep enough into the ground that this will never happen. They have to dig the hole anyway, finish it up a bit and you have weather-shielded space. However, our ground never freezes, there is no need to put the foundations deep--there are trenches that they poured the foundation concrete into and that's it--the space in between has some gravel that is approximately at grade. The slab was poured above that and is basically sitting on the ground.)
I find myself disagreeing with both sides here.
The Republicans are insane for trying to gut environmental protections. The Democrats are insane for pushing too hard on efficiency and the like, driving up the total cost. (And probably defeating the very gains they are trying to make by doing so.)
I have long said we should scrap basically all emissions rules and replace them with a tax on undesirable emissions. I think something similar should be done with efficiency requirements. The politicians have no good picture of what's practical and that's a moving target, anyway. A tax is self-adjusting for updating technology. And it changes it from a get-past-the-post system to a do-the-best-you-reasonably-can system--which would be better as the best place for the post is inherently unknown and often can be gamed. (Observe SUVs displacing station wagons. SUVs are regulated as trucks, not cars.) It will be a bit harder with efficiency as there's no way to define perfectly efficient in all cases. And the yardsticks aren't always right, either. Consider the case of building a structure based on a concrete dome. Building codes that dictate R-values for walls and ceilings (and what exactly is a dome, anyway??) will considerably overstate the optimum amount of insulation because the thermal mass of the dome has a considerable averaging effect on the temperature inside. A similar problem exists with hobbit houses--there's little value to insulating a wall other than if needed to prevent condensation.
The Republicans are insane for trying to gut environmental protections. The Democrats are insane for pushing too hard on efficiency and the like, driving up the total cost. (And probably defeating the very gains they are trying to make by doing so.)
I have long said we should scrap basically all emissions rules and replace them with a tax on undesirable emissions. I think something similar should be done with efficiency requirements. The politicians have no good picture of what's practical and that's a moving target, anyway. A tax is self-adjusting for updating technology. And it changes it from a get-past-the-post system to a do-the-best-you-reasonably-can system--which would be better as the best place for the post is inherently unknown and often can be gamed. (Observe SUVs displacing station wagons. SUVs are regulated as trucks, not cars.) It will be a bit harder with efficiency as there's no way to define perfectly efficient in all cases. And the yardsticks aren't always right, either. Consider the case of building a structure based on a concrete dome. Building codes that dictate R-values for walls and ceilings (and what exactly is a dome, anyway??) will considerably overstate the optimum amount of insulation because the thermal mass of the dome has a considerable averaging effect on the temperature inside. A similar problem exists with hobbit houses--there's little value to insulating a wall other than if needed to prevent condensation.
TV and credit cards
Contributor
I need to made the switch. I use a drying rack for wool items I wear in the winter. I've an extra bedroom with a ceiling fan I could be using year round for this purpose.
That's why politicians set the goal in a law like the Clean Air Act and then the administrative agencies hire subject matter experts to figure out the details.
Yeah, they started playing this game as soon as emissions standards started. My old IH Scout has 3/4 ton suspension which let IH put a truck engine in it in 1976 with none of the smog controls that were required on cars at the time. Still, air quality improved a lot even with companies gaming the system as best they could. Automakers claimed for years that the smog control required killed performance. But they eventually figured that out and now I have a Honda Ridgeline that will run circles around the sports cars built in the 1980s (acceleration, breaking, and fuel economy) and can still easily pull our 18' fiberglass bay boat or haul a cubic yard of rock home for a project.
A tax certainly has the potential to give the market the most flexibility to make efficiency meet the target by pricing the pollution to be avoided into the market. But, a downside to the tax is what politicians do with the proceeds. If the tax is lucrative then they are apt to dip their fingers into the pot to pay for other things. Then if cars or buildings or whatever get really efficient then the tax revenue drops and they have to go hunting for other revenue sources. We end up with moving targets and a need for side boards no matter what tool is used to achieve.
I think of the stringent regulations on sulfur content in diesel fuel. If you tried to tax that emission from trucks to get better fuels, you'd have to have somebody measuring the emission. What to do, just say that all fuel meets standard X or have a tiered tax system that makes high sulfur fuel more expensive? Seems just putting the rule on sulfur content saves steps and paper work.
Bomb#20
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 9,471
- Location
- California
- Gender
- It's a free country.
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationalism
It doesn't need to. Turns out you can just program the car to detect when its smog is being measured and adjust its settings.
lpetrich
Contributor
Rep. Katie Porter Unloads on House Republicans’ Ridiculous Dishwasher Priorities - YouTube
How much to run a dishwasher? $2 - $4 / month
How much a dishwasher costs? $800 - $900 - $1,000
How to get a dishwasher to work properly? Load it correctly
Men should listen to their wives about that.
How much to run a dishwasher? $2 - $4 / month
How much a dishwasher costs? $800 - $900 - $1,000
How to get a dishwasher to work properly? Load it correctly
Men should listen to their wives about that.
thebeave
Contributor
Interesting video. How she ended up as a single mom, I'll never know.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Come on, don't pull a Trump. The content of what she said makes sense.
thebeave
Contributor
You mean at around 1:25, where she asks why are we talking so much about the border crisis, but we're not talking about dishwashers?
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
So you think they should talk about the border during the time allotted for Republican dishwasher legislation debate. And that's why you think she's a single mom.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 46,458
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Whoa! That's pretty fucked up.
Note the "moving target" bit.
True, it's possible they mishandle it. It's always possible they mishandle things.
One thing that I think might work is to inherently make it revenue neutral: look at last year's pollution taxes and last year's corporate income taxes. This year you pay a prorated amount of your corporate income tax bill such that overall the income tax + pollution tax is equal to what the income tax was.
Don't tax the trucks. Tax the refineries. They need to be measuring it anyway to see if it complies.