Category Archives: alternative energy

New E.P.A. Rules Could Lead to Big Cuts in Methane Leaks from Oil and Gas Operations

by Myrna Posted on May 12, 2016

The E.P.A. begins to plug leaky gaps in America’s oil and gas environmental rules. Agriculture next? Read more –  New E.P.A. Rules Could Lead to Big Cuts in Methane Leaks from Oil and Gas Operations ; ; ;

See more here: 

New E.P.A. Rules Could Lead to Big Cuts in Methane Leaks from Oil and Gas Operations

Posted in alternative energy, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Monterey, ONA, PUR, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on New E.P.A. Rules Could Lead to Big Cuts in Methane Leaks from Oil and Gas Operations

Here’s Why There’s a Searing Ethiopian Drought Without an Epic Ethiopian Famine

by Myrna Posted on May 10, 2016

In stark contrast to decades past, Ethiopia is parched by a potent drought but not reeling from mass famine. What changed? Read the article:  Here’s Why There’s a Searing Ethiopian Drought Without an Epic Ethiopian Famine ; ; ;

Source article: 

Here’s Why There’s a Searing Ethiopian Drought Without an Epic Ethiopian Famine

Posted in alternative energy, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Monterey, ONA, PUR, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s Why There’s a Searing Ethiopian Drought Without an Epic Ethiopian Famine

Review: "X-Men: Apocalypse" Is the Best Superhero Film of 2016

by DeclanSullivan Posted on May 9, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Depending on your definition, there have been somewhere between 50 and 70 superhero films made in the United States since the first X-Men came out in 2000.

When X-Men: Apocalypse, the ninth entry in the franchise and the fourth helmed by Bryan Singer, is released on May 27, it will be the fourth major superhero film to debut just this year. It will also be the best. Better than Captain America: Civil War, which was itself better than Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. (Deadpool was sort of a different bird, and if you really were taken by its shtick then you might prefer it.)

That’s not to say Apocalypse is perfect. Like all these films, the plot doesn’t make a lot of sense. It is also a profoundly long 144 minutes. And like the bloated Batman v Superman and Captain America: Civil War, it is overstuffed with superheroes who less serve the story so much as are contractually obligated to appear within it. X-Men: First Class became a hit in 2011 just as Michael Fassbender and Jennifer Lawrence were becoming A-listers, and though their talent, along with that of James McAvoy, shines in the new film, the plot struggles with the obligation to share screen time between so many stars.

Do you want to know about the plot?

In Ancient Egypt, Oscar Isaac is a powerful mutant who is betrayed by some followers and ends up buried inside the ruins of a pyramid. Cut to 1983 and, following the events of X-Men: Days of Future Past, the younger versions of the X-Men are scattered across the globe doing things that are not really worth getting into. Oscar Isaac is woken up by some cult that knows about him based on hieroglyphics or something. (Don’t worry about them. They are never mentioned ever again. I’m pretty sure they die? It really doesn’t matter.) Isaac quickly begins assembling a small band of mutants to help him destroy the world. You see, Oscar Isaac was the very first mutant, and his power is basically that he can take over the body of another mutant and, voila, he’s got that mutant’s power. So for millions of years he has been jumping from mutant to mutant collecting powers (except for the last 6,000 years when he was asleep under that pyramid). He has many powers, but his favorite seems to be turning people into sand.

Oscar Isaac finds Storm (Alexandra Shipp), a mutant with a lightsaber whip (Olivia Munn), and some alcoholic with angel wings (Ben Hardy) and convinces them to help him kill everyone in the world so that he can…mutters incoherently.

Meanwhile, Magneto (Michael Fassbender) is the most-wanted fugitive in the world and is hiding in Poland with his wife and daughter, like you do. But then some bad shit happens to this tranquil trio involving…wood, and one thing leads to another.

You see where this is going? Oscar Isaac and his “four horsemen of the Apocalypse” are going to fight Jennifer Lawrence and James McAvoy and the X-Men. However, it takes a very long time for this fight to actually happen. For a superhero movie, this is not the most action-packed film! If you want straight wall-to-wall, mutant-on-mutant action, then it will disappoint. It’s not A Room With a View With a Staircase and a Pond but it’s not A Room With a View of Hell: Staircase of Satan: Pond of Death.

Watching it, however, does not disappoint. The people who made this movie seem to genuinely care about entertaining the audience in every scene. You may rightfully wonder why the scenes happen in the order that they do or why they focus on what they focus on, but they are enjoyable. The cast deserves credit for this. The screenwriters deserve credit, too. The producers deserve credit. Most of all, though, director Bryan Singer deserves credit.

My overriding thought walking out of the screening was: Bryan Singer is just a better director than the other people directing the current crop of superhero films. The Russo brothers of Captain America: Civil War and other various Marvel installments are great! Even Zack Snyder is a talented director whose main flaws come out mostly when he is allowed to have control over other aspects of a project. But Singer’s direction is more confident, more inventive, and more fun.

The X-Men movies don’t get the ink of other superhero movies, but they are the most valuable players of the genre. Aside from X-Men: The Last Stand and X-Men Origins: Wolverine—the former now the butt of a joke in Apocalypse; the latter the world has agreed to pretend never happened—the franchise has been remarkably consistent.

And while it isn’t entirely clear what’s next for the flagship series in the franchise, there are roughly 1,000 other films in the X-Men universe being developed, from standalone Wolverine, Deadpool, and Gambit films to Josh Boone’s New Mutants spin-off and a rumored Deadpool-esque R-rated X-Force.

Go see X-Men: Apocalypse because it is good and fun and, in a world with an unavoidable number of superhero films that are a total slog, that is fun and good.

More: 

Review: "X-Men: Apocalypse" Is the Best Superhero Film of 2016

Posted in alo, alternative energy, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Review: "X-Men: Apocalypse" Is the Best Superhero Film of 2016

Quote of the Day: Donald Trump Doesn’t Need No Stinkin’ Policy Experts

by DeclanHutchins Posted on May 9, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Politico interviewed “nearly five dozen Republicans” recently and heard a consistent message: nobody with even a trace of policy cred wants to work in a Donald Trump administration. “The A-level people, and there are not that many of them to begin with, mostly don’t want to work for Trump,” said a former Bush official. “He will cut the A-level bench of available policy talent at least in half, if not more.”

But not to worry. This is all part of the plan:

A source familiar with Trump’s thinking explained that the billionaire businessman was reluctant to add new layers of policy experts now, feeling it would only muddy his populist message that has been hyperfocused on illegal immigration, trade and fighting Islamic extremists.

“He doesn’t want to waste time on policy and thinks it would make him less effective on the stump,” the Trump source said. “It won’t be until after he is elected but before he’s inaugurated that he will figure out exactly what he is going to do and who he is going to try to hire.”

That’s a confidence booster, isn’t it? We’ll all have to wait until after the election for Trump to tell us what he actually plans to do. In the meantime, he’s just going to keep tossing out anti-Muslim, anti-Mexican, and anti-Chinese bombs because that seems to appeal to his fans. But once he wins, he’ll be the most presidential president in the history of presidenting.

Continue at source: 

Quote of the Day: Donald Trump Doesn’t Need No Stinkin’ Policy Experts

Posted in alternative energy, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Oster, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Quote of the Day: Donald Trump Doesn’t Need No Stinkin’ Policy Experts

Clinton Campaign Won’t Let Trump Distance Himself From Radical Tax Plan

by DoraColton Posted on May 9, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Hillary Clinton’s campaign isn’t going to let Donald Trump quietly walk back the more extreme positions he took in order to secure the Republican nomination. On Monday, as Trump begins distancing himself from his earlier tax plan now that he’s the presumptive GOP nominee, the Clinton campaign organized a press call to rip the plan as a massive giveaway to the top 1 percent. “This is the most risky, reckless, and regressive tax proposal ever put forward by a major presidential candidate,” said Gene Sperling, the former director of the National Economic Council, speaking for the Clinton campaign.

Trump’s campaign hasn’t exactly been known for its depth of policy details. But one of the few comprehensive plans that Trump put forward was a scheme to cuts taxes drastically. Released last fall, Trump’s tax plan would slash rates across the board, but with most of the benefits accruing to the rich and uber-rich, as the top income tax rate would drop from 39.6 percent to 25 percent.

“We still think facts and numbers matter and should in this campaign,” Sperling said. He pointed to independent analyses of Trump’s plan showing that it would cost anywhere from $9 trillion to $12 trillion over the first decade. Most of the benefits of these tax cuts would go to the wealthy. According to the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, $3.5 trillion, or 1.5 percent of gross domestic product, would go to people earning more than $1 million dollars per year. The Tax Policy Center found that 40 percent of the money in Trump’s tax cuts would go to the top 1 percent, with the bottom 60 percent of the country getting 16 percent of those tax cuts.

“To put it simply,” Clinton policy adviser Jake Sullivan said, “Donald Trump has put forward a tax plan that places him squarely on the side of the superwealthy and corporations at the expense of the middle class and working families.”

Over the weekend, Trump created some confusion about whether he actually stands by his tax plan. On NBC’s Meet the Press, Trump painted his proposal as just an opening bid that would inevitably change during negotiations with Congress, and he even seemed to suggest that he’d like to see taxes go up on the wealthy. “For the wealthy, I think, frankly, it’s going to go up,” he said. “And you know what, it really should go up.”

The Clinton campaign isn’t ready to let him to ditch his stances. “The only thing one can do is look at the black and white of his paper and not be fooled by his shifting comments,” Sperling said. The Clinton aides also suggested that Trump’s recent flirtations with refinancing the country’s debt posed a dire threat to the global financial system. “It’s somewhat shocking,” Sperling said, “that in a time when our country is celebrating the economic foresight of Alexander Hamilton that the presumptive candidate for president, Donald Trump, is openly advocating that the United States no longer honor 100 percent of its debt or protect our full faith and credit.”

“We frankly think that Mr. Trump’s economic plans have not received the scrutiny they’ve deserved,” Sullivan said, promising that the Clinton campaign plans to keep hammering the point home throughout the course of the race as a major area of difference between the candidates.

In the middle of the call, as luck would have it, Trump took to his favorite communication medium to stick by his tax plan:

Original source – 

Clinton Campaign Won’t Let Trump Distance Himself From Radical Tax Plan

Posted in alternative energy, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Clinton Campaign Won’t Let Trump Distance Himself From Radical Tax Plan

BinC Watch: Donald Trump Still Has No Idea How Government Debt Works

by Carina76B36539 Posted on May 9, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Donald Trump last week:

I’ve borrowed knowing that you can pay back with discounts. I’ve done very well with debt….Now we’re in a different situation with the country, but I would borrow knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal. And if the economy was good it was good, so therefore, you can’t lose.

Donald Trump today:

It was reported in the failing New York Times and other places that I want to default on debt. You know, I’m the king of debt. I understand debt better probably than anybody….But let me just tell you, if there is a chance to buy back debt at a discount, in other words, interest rates up, and the bonds down, and you can buy debt, that’s what I’m talking about.

….But in the United States, with bonds that won’t happen because in theory the market doesn’t go down so that you default on debt and that’s what happened. So here’s the story, just to have it corrected. If we have an opportunity where interest rates go up and you can buy debt back at a discount, I always like to be able to do that, if you can do it. But that’s all I was talking about. They have it like I’m going to go back to creditors, and I am going to renegotiate and restructure debt, it’s ridiculous and they know it’s ridiculous.

I’ll give Trump this much: it was ridiculous and everyone knew it was ridiculous. It was pure Trump bullshittery. But here’s the thing: even if you accept that this was what Trump was talking about, it’s still ridiculous. The US government isn’t a third party trading Treasury bonds. It’s the issuer of the bonds. If interest rates go up, should the Treasury refinance? No: it should keep paying the lower interest rates on its outstanding bonds. But what if interest rates go down? The answer is still no. Let’s hand the mic over to the Economist:

The interest rate on Treasury bonds is fixed. If the government issues debt during a low-rate period, that’s good news. To refinance that debt in a period of higher bond yields i.e., lower bond prices, the government would have to borrow from the market at much higher rates….Currently, most of the US’s longer-term debt trades above par value because it was issued at a time when bond yields were higher. For example there is a bond with a 2030 maturity and a 6.25% coupon; it trades at 152 cents on the dollar. Would it be worth offering 155 cents on the dollar upfront, and refinancing the debt at today’s lower rates? The dollar value of US debt would rise, not fall, in such circumstances.

In short, any voluntary deal with the market would require the government to pay fair value. And unless you think the Treasury bond market is mispriced (and it is the most liquid market on the planet), the government is unlikely to profit. It might be sensible for the government to alter the patterns of new Treasury issuance; borrowing long-term to lock in low rates for a generation. The Treasury has discussed the idea of refinancing illiquid bonds to improve market liquidity. But that is quite a different idea from Mr Trump’s proposal; the interest savings would be trivial.

Here’s the scary thing: debt really is one of the few things that Trump probably knows a bit about. It’s certainly bitten him in the ass often enough. And yet he still has no idea how it works. He continues to think that the federal government is basically the same thing as a trader on the Goldman Sachs trading desk.

It’s not. Whatever Trump is talking about, it won’t work. Sovereign debt is sovereign debt, and it gets paid off at 100 cents on the dollar. Trump may think everyone except Trump is an idiot, but I’m pretty sure the folks at the Fed and the Treasury are already keenly aware of how to handle open market operations to maximize value for the US government. Someone at the Trump Organization needs to clue him in about how all this stuff works.

Continue reading:

BinC Watch: Donald Trump Still Has No Idea How Government Debt Works

Posted in alternative energy, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on BinC Watch: Donald Trump Still Has No Idea How Government Debt Works

Obamacare Continues to Not Be Doomed

by beauwolford Posted on May 9, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Veronique de Rugy predicts disaster for Obamacare once again:

The bottom line is that after slow start, insurance companies find themselves having to increase premiums a fair amount. It seems that while for now subsidies may cover the pain for individuals, they probably won’t be able to after this year, at which point insurance companies will have to stomach the full cost of their losses due to the expiration of the reinsurance and risk-corridor programs. There soon won’t be enough subsidies to offset the premium hikes.

We’ve heard this pretty much every year: insurers are requesting huge premium increases! We’re doomed! Perhaps a bit of perspective would be helpful:

Insurers lowballed their Obamacare prices initially, coming in with premiums that were less costly than CBO projections. Higher prices were always inevitable.
Every year, insurers request big increases. They don’t get them. They get moderate increases.
Whatever happens, this is the free market at work, not some defect in Obamacare. If high premiums are truly what conservatives care about, we can fix that any time we want. Just ask Canada how to do it—or Sweden or Germany or Spain or Japan or pretty much any other advanced country on the planet.

Life isn’t perfect. Obamacare isn’t perfect. Health care is an expensive service, and health care insurance is expensive too. But so far Obamacare has done a pretty good job of keeping costs reasonably well contained. I’d wait until the end of the year before yet again declaring that it’s a failure and yet again being wrong.

Continue reading: 

Obamacare Continues to Not Be Doomed

Posted in alternative energy, FF, GE, LG, ONA, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obamacare Continues to Not Be Doomed

Congressman Who Called Trump "Our Mussolini" Will Vote for Him Anyway

by shelabracewell Posted on May 9, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) did not endorse Donald Trump during the Republican presidential primary. He endorsed Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, and in a radio interview before his state’s caucus, he denounced the GOP front-runner in the strongest language possible: He called Trump a fascist. “Donald Trump does not represent Republican ideals; he is our Mussolini,” he said at the time. “Donald Trump’s approach is, ‘I am just going to do it.'” In the same interview, Stewart said the election was the most important since 1860, when Abraham Lincoln’s win prompted the South to secede.

But now that Trump has all but clinched his party’s nomination, Stewart is having second thoughts on the GOP’s Mussolini. “While Mr. Trump wasn’t my first choice, we must move forward and unite to defeat Hillary Clinton,” he told the Associated Press.

As recently as a week ago, Republican lawmakers were promising to fight Trump on the beaches (or at least the convention floor in Cleveland) if necessary to stop the steak magnate from taking control of the party. Now, even the guy who compared Trump to a fascist dictator is coming on board.

See original article here – 

Congressman Who Called Trump "Our Mussolini" Will Vote for Him Anyway

Posted in alternative energy, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Congressman Who Called Trump "Our Mussolini" Will Vote for Him Anyway

Watch John Oliver Dismantle the Stupid Way the Media Covers Every Scientific Study

by Magaret56Z Posted on May 9, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Does coffee cause cancer—or help prevent it? What about red wine? These are some of the vital questions that scientists have long struggled to answer, with journalists by their side to misreport the findings.

For the media, scientific studies can be a great source of stories: Someone else does all the work on reaching a conclusion that appears to directly affect something your audience cares about (often their health). What’s more, that conclusion comes with a shiny gloss of indisputable factuality: “This isn’t just some made-up nonsense—it’s science! It must be true.” We’ve all seen how scientific conclusions that were carefully vetted by other scientists can be reduced or distorted beyond recognition for the sake of TV ratings or story clicks. I’m sure I’ve done it myself.

The systemic failure of science communication by mass media is the topic of John Oliver’s latest diatribe, and he really nails it. There are a variety of problems all mashed together:

  1. Journalists often don’t take the time, or have the skills, to actually read through, comprehend, and translate scientific findings that can be very technical. After all, scientific papers are written for other scientists, not for the general public, so it takes a certain amount of training and effort to unpack what they mean. But that’s, like, hard and boring, and it’s not as if your audience will know any better if you screw it up.
  2. Journalists like big, bold conclusions: “X Thing Cures Cancer!” Scientists don’t work like that. Most peer-reviewed papers focus on very narrow problems and wade far into the weeds of complicated scientific debates. That doesn’t mean studies are all too esoteric to be be useful (although some undoubtedly are). It means that scientists draw their overarching conclusions about the universe based on a broad reading of entire bodies of literature, not individual studies. Single studies rarely yield revolutions; instead, our understanding evolves slowly through tedious, piecemeal work. Scientists want to understand the forest; journalists often just want to show you, dear reader, this one REALLY AWESOME IMPORTANT tree they just found. Those conflicting interests can lead to misleading reporting.
  3. Not all studies are created equal; some contain a variety of inadequacies that should give you pause about the conclusions. But journalists often do a poor job of reporting on these inadequacies, either because they don’t do enough reporting to know the inadequacies exist or because reporting them would undermine the big, bold conclusion the reporter wants to tell you about. Some studies have extremely small samples sizes. Some relied on rats or monkeys or whatever, but the journalist doesn’t explain that the conclusion might not be the same for humans. Actual studies that were published in peer-reviewed journals are often given equal air time to “studies” that some activist/lobbying group/bozo in his garage threw together. Some studies lack important context or conflict with preexisting science—something that journalists often fail to point out.

All these failures lead to confusion and erode the public’s trust in scientists. As Oliver points out, bad reporting about scientific research on the health effects of smoking was a major tool of the tobacco industry in its fight against smoking regulations. The same kind of thing happens all the time now with climate change research. See, for example, the so-called global warming “hiatus.” Over the last couple of years there has been a healthy debate in the scientific community about whether global warming slowed down over the last decade, and if so, why. In part because of sloppy reporting, the debate was misrepresented by climate change deniers as evidence that global warming doesn’t exist at all—which was never what climate scientists were arguing. (That debate is ongoing; Scientific American has a good update on the latest.)

The important thing to remember is that any one individual study isn’t worth very much and can never really “prove” anything. It’s not as if Charles Darwin wrote one study about evolution and rested his case at that. It took years of additional research by other scientists to validate his theory. In fact, as Oliver notes, the intense public pressure for scientists to come up with big, bold discoveries actually undermines a very important step in the scientific method: reproducing the results of other scientists. Replicating someone else’s study is a good way to find out if the original was a fluke or a genuine finding. Recall the scandal from the fall when dozens of psychology papers were found to fail a reproducibility test, thus casting serious doubt on their conclusions. That kind of fact-checking doesn’t happen enough—a trend some observers have called a “crisis of credibility”.

As a general rule (one that I’m sure to have broken as much as anyone), journalists should avoid making too big a stink about individual studies, at least without serving them with a very large grain of salt. Kudos to Oliver for reminding us why that’s important.

Taken from:  

Watch John Oliver Dismantle the Stupid Way the Media Covers Every Scientific Study

Posted in alternative energy, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Watch John Oliver Dismantle the Stupid Way the Media Covers Every Scientific Study

Here’s An Idea For Urban Living

by Jill Tsai Posted on May 9, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

A couple of days ago I read a post at New York magazine about a new kind of apartment:

This weekend, residents will begin moving into New York’s newest experiment in communal living: a blocky red-and-white building in Williamsburg, nestled snugly against the BQE. It’s run by the company Common, which sells “co-living,” a relatively new product that’s a start-up version of rental roommate shares.

Click the link for the full story, but it brought to mind a random thought that’s been on my mind for a long time. I’ve never mentioned it since it’s light years outside my wheelhouse of knowledge, but it’s Monday, so why not?

As near as I can tell, the Common approach is a building full of bedrooms of various sizes and prices. There are common bathrooms and dining areas in various places, and the rent ranges from $2,250 to $3,190. But if you’re going to go the dorm route, why not do it better? Take a look at the floor plan below:

I chose the bedroom size because it’s the size of my master bedroom. It’s plenty large and comfy, with room for two, lots of closet space, and a nice private bathroom. Five of these bedrooms enclose a 1,100 square foot common area, which is about the size of the entire downstairs of my house. In real life it would be divided into various areas, either via walls or potted plants or what have you. There’s plenty of space for a large kitchen in the center and various dining, seating, and TV rooms around it. The entire thing is 3,162 square feet, and every bedroom has two doors: one into the common area and a private door to the outside. The building would presumably have the usual amenities depending on how upscale it is: fitness center, laundry facilities, storage areas, etc.

So I’m curious: why doesn’t anyone do this? Are there regulatory issues? Has it been tried and failed? It seems like a decent idea that provides a lot of space for the money, and plenty of privacy too if you build the bedrooms right (i.e., good soundproofing). If five roommates are just too many, you could do the same thing with three bedrooms at a somewhat higher cost.

Obviously this isn’t ideal for everyone, but especially in high-cost urban areas it seems like a decent compromise between commune and private apartment that could be rented out for a reasonable price. Has this been done? If so, is there something I’m not thinking of that kept it from catching on?

Read article here:  

Here’s An Idea For Urban Living

Posted in alternative energy, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s An Idea For Urban Living