Take it slow and save big on gas

Hypermiling: Quest for Ultimate Fuel Economy

CQ Announces 2008 Hall of Fame Inductees

CQ magazine today announced its 2008 Hall of Fame inductees, welcoming 14 new members into the CQ Amateur Radio Hall of Fame, three new members of the CQ DX Hall of Fame and two new members of the CQ Contest Hall of Fame. The CQ Amateur Radio Hall of Fame honors those individuals, whether licensed hams or not, who have made significant contributions to amateur radio; and those amateurs who have made significant contributions either to amateur radio, to their professional careers or to some other aspect of life on our planet. The CQ Contest and DX Halls of Fame honor those amateurs who not only excel in personal performance in these major areas of amateur radio but who also "give back" to Amateur Radio in outstanding ways.

The 2008 inductees to the CQ Amateur Radio Hall of Fame (listed alphabetically) are:

· Vice Admiral Scott Redd (Retired), K0DQ/A92Q -- Former Director, National Counterterrorism Center; Retired Commander, US Fifth Fleet; active contester and DXer.

U2 interviewed by Dave Fanning, RTE Radio 2, January 1980

Timing-wise, this would be after U23 had been released, but before the band had recorded Boy. In these clips, teenage Bono and Edge discuss recent demos they had just recorded, and Fanning plays those “demo” songs in between chatting with Edge and Bono

Part 1: Edge explains why legendary British DJ John Peel wouldn’t play their record. Bono tells a hysterical story about his inability to use England’s “funny” phone boxes. I love that it is the phone’s fault. They talk about a song they just recorded, and then play the recording - “The Dream Is Over.”

Part 2: They talk about their recent gigs in London and their good reviews from the British press. Edge listens. “Professor” Bono goes off on a blah blah Baby Bono tangent

Part 3: Bono keeps referring to Edge as Dave, which is so confusing (to me). Oh, and Jimmy Page latched onto Edge?

Wind ($23.37) v. Gas (25 Cents)

Congress seems ready to spend billions on a new "Manhattan Project" for green energy, or at least the political class really, really likes talking about one. But maybe we should look at what our energy subsidy dollars are buying now.

Some clarity comes from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent federal agency that tried to quantify government spending on energy production in 2007. The agency reports that the total taxpayer bill was $16.6 billion in direct subsidies, tax breaks, loan guarantees and the like. That's double in real dollars from eight years earlier, as you'd expect given all the money Congress is throwing at "renewables." Even more subsidies are set to pass this year.

An even better way to tell the story is by how much taxpayer money is dispensed per unit of energy, so the costs are standardized. For electricity generation, the EIA concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and "clean coal" $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59.

The wind and solar lobbies are currently moaning that they don't get their fair share of the subsidy pie. They also argue that subsidies per unit of energy are always higher at an early stage of development, before innovation makes large-scale production possible. But wind and solar have been on the subsidy take for years, and they still account for less than 1% of total net electricity generation. Would it make any difference if the federal subsidy for wind were $50 per megawatt hour, or even $100? Almost certainly not without a technological breakthrough.

By contrast, nuclear power provides 20% of U.S. base electricity production, yet it is subsidized about 15 times less than wind. We prefer an energy policy that lets markets determine which energy source dominates. But if you believe in subsidies, then nuclear power gets a lot more power for the buck than other "alternatives."

The same study also looked at federal subsidies for non-electrical energy production, such as for fuel. It found that ethanol and biofuels receive $5.72 per British thermal unit of energy produced. That compares to $2.82 for solar and $1.35 for refined coal, but only three cents per BTU for natural gas and other petroleum liquids.

All of this shows that there is a reason fossil fuels continue to dominate American energy production: They are extremely cost-effective. That's a reality to keep in mind the next time you hear a politician talk about creating millions of "green jobs." Those jobs won't come cheap, and you'll be paying for them.

Our Man In Africa

Tim Adams & Bono about the Make Poverty History campaign