First, let me remind everyone that I personally own this server, in fact some of the hardware is actually at my house. I am posting this entry as an individual who happens to know a lot about the measure and how it was formed.

MDUSD is asking voters to continue measure C, not to create a new measure. The update will include new projects as has been stated, however, totals posted in the paper are sums of the existing & the new collectively. MDUSD is not about to turn $348MM into 1.8b of debt as the paper implies. The 1.8b is the total of the previous measure and the new measure combined. It seems convenient for the papers to sensationalize the numbers by skipping certain details. They are technically correct because it is all together Measure C, but they neglect to clarify it is the sum total.

Another thing, if PG&E rates only increase 3.3% a year for the next 40 years, the solar portion of the bond will save $198MM above the investment cost vs paying PG&E. As you know, PG&E almost always goes up by 5.5% or more. This year it went up closer to 6.5%. If PG&E rates increase by 5.5% a year for the next 40 years, solar will save $329MM.

As the MDUSD is trying to get $346MM, the return on the solar would almost pay for the principle of the bond and the difference would be the $17MM and interest on the whole amount. This is pretty good use of our money. The MDUSD is a necessary entity that we will have to support anyway, this measure takes a big bite out of our burden as tax payers.

An added benefit is the immediate injection of funds to the district general fund through the solar incentives. This money will act like a booster shot to help preserve jobs and services. Although there is no guarantee. What we do know is, without it, the cuts will continue and get deeper than with the funds.

This measure will not increase our payments as tax payers, it simply adds to the duration of the original measure. Please consider these points when you cast your vote. And please, vote.

Well, it is time for me to start a long weekend. Before I do, I thought I would remind everyone to have a fun but safe weekend. Also don't forget why we celebrate. All those who gave their lives for our way of life are the reason for the holiday.

So, have fun, wear sunblock, and recycle. If you BBQ keep control of it and put it out when you are done cooking to minimize CO2 and wasted coals.

If you click over to my Environmental Resources Forum, you will see I have a request out to anyone who can help me learn from first hand experience how open source text books are working. To date, I do not have any feedback. However, there is a huge potential savings in money, paper and back strain as well as hours tracking and handling materials if e-readers and open text books both become viable as teaching aids.

For now the e-readers battery life, color rendering and notation tracking are key limitations. Amazon has just finished a real world survey at several universities and this is a summary of what was learned:

Students pulled no punches telling Amazon what they thought of its $489 e-reader. The Kindle DX failed its first test. At the University of Virginia, as many as 80% of MBA students who participated in Amazon's pilot program said they would not recommend the Kindle DX as a classroom study aid (though more than 90 percent liked it for pleasure reading). At Princeton and Reed, students complained they couldn't scribble notes in the margins, easily highlight passages, or fully appreciate color charts and graphics.

At least Amazon is asking the questions and hopefully they are also listening.

Let me first say that CNN has a great article summarizing the whole Gulf Oil Spill situation today. However, it is still a few pages long. After reading headlines, one question kept hitting me, what is this "Top Kill" procedure?

From the article I will summarize it as this: "Top Kill" referres to a process where viscous material, twice the density of water is forced into the opening creating a clog. As the material is viscous, this is not permanent and requires finishing the job with a cement cap.

The problem lies with the fact that this procedure has never been done under water, let alone 5000 feet under water. The pressure created by the weight of the water may have a direct effect on this process. The math is still being worked out, but it looks like the procedure has about a 60 to 70% chance of working.

If it fails today, the Obama administration plans to take over the operation.

There are a few big myths that people just seem to "know" are true. This should clear things up and help you save a few drops of your own fuel with habit and choice changes.

1. * It takes more fuel to start a vehicle than it does to let it idle.

~ People are really confused about this one and will leave a car idling for half an hour rather than turn it off and restart.

Idling uses a quarter- to a half-gallon of fuel in an hour (costing you one to two cents a minute). Unless you're in traffic, turn off the car when stopped for more a few minutes.

The extra squirt of fuel that went into the engine adding validity to this myth went away with the advent of fuel injection. Even then, the squirt was so small there should have been a 5 minute rule of thumb to save fuel. Of course, in the 1970's fuel was cheap and we didn't fully understand the impact of its use on the environment.


2. * Vehicles need to be warmed up before they're driven.

~ That is a long-outdated notion. Today's cars are fine being driven seconds after they're started. In fact, some luxury car makers have a recommendation that you do not idle to warm up, rather drive gently as if you are trying not to spill your coffee. The engine is at it's optimum when cruising at a steady speed and this RPM is well above an idle.


3. * As a vehicle ages, its fuel economy decreases significantly.

~ Not true. As long as it's maintained, a 10- or 15-year-old car should have like-new mileage. The key thing is maintenance -- an out-of-tune car will definitely start to decline mileage-wise.


4. * Replacing your air filter helps your car run efficiently.

~ Another outdated claim, going back to the pre-1976 carburetor days. Modern fuel-injection engines don't get significant economy benefits from a clean air filter. The electronics will adjust fuel to suit the amount of air coming in. At some point, the filter becomes clogged enough that this claim has some validity, but it has to be really really bad.


5. * After-market additives and devices can dramatically improve your fuel economy.

~ There's not much evidence that "miracle products" do much more than drain your wallet. Both the Federal Trade Commission and Consumer Reports have weighed in on this. There are no top-secret 100-mpg add-ons out there. Sorry.


5. * Using premium fuel improves fuel economy.

~ You might as well write a check to BP if you believe this. Only use premium if your car specifies it. Some high performance vehicles will specify higher octane fuel to maintain the output power. Of course low quality fuel can create sediment that will aid in the demise of your vehicle too. The best way for a manufacturer to avoid these situations coming back to them as their fault is to tell you that you can only use the best stuff from a high end company. This does not mean your vehicle will blow up if you put in less than stellar fuel once in a while or even all the time. But don't expect the best performance, longest life or best fuel economy from lesser fuels.