Shooters Freehold

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Welcome to Shooters Freehold! A place for firearms enthusiasts to gather.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
 1 
 on: May 15, 2018, 02:15:58 PM 
Started by budroe - Last post by Stevejet
BULLSEYE! Most excellent find and post!

 2 
 on: May 15, 2018, 04:56:07 AM 
Started by budroe - Last post by budroe
More crap has probably gone in and out his mouth than any politician in history!!!


 3 
 on: May 09, 2018, 01:04:32 PM 
Started by Stevejet - Last post by Stevejet
OC Register/Susan Shelly - Columnists

Californians pay too much for utilities, and it’s getting worse.

In February, California residential customers paid an average of 19.15 cents per kilowatt hour, high above the national average of 12.62 cents per kilowatt hour, according to the latest data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The national average cost of electricity is down from 12.78 last year, but the cost in California is up from 18.68.

The state’s climate agenda is a major reason for the rising cost of electricity. In 2006, California enacted AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, setting a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Since then, the state has moved the target to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.

Utilities are now required to use more costly renewable sources — specifically wind and solar energy — to generate 50 percent of the electricity they sell by 2030. Additionally, the state’s “cap and trade” program requires utilities and refineries to obtain a permit for each ton of greenhouse gases emitted. The passed-along expense of the permits raises electricity bills, gasoline prices and the cost of everything moved by truck.

Yet in conversations with the editorial board of the Southern California News Group, elected officials have shown little concern about the rising cost of energy, or its consequences.

Gov. Jerry Brown dismissed concerns that the higher cost of energy was increasing poverty in California. He told the editorial board that if poverty was a problem in California, the state would have voted for Donald Trump in 2016, as did economically hard-hit states like Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom said the high cost of transportation fuels would be solved by technology. He pointed to the development of flying cars as an example of rapid technological change.

Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who told the editorial board that he was proud to have taken the city off coal, said it was important to be “sensitive” to costs but didn’t propose any changes to the policies that are raising them.

Then there’s the cost of water.

Because of lawsuits and legislation stemming from 1970s-era laws to protect endangered species, the amount of water pumped south from the Sacramento–San   Joaquin River Delta has been cut in half since the 1980s. That has led to plans for water tunnels, stormwater capture and groundwater cleanup that will bring new and massive costs to water and tax bills.

Rep. David Valadao, R-Hanford, has proposed a bill — H.R. 23, the GROW Act — that he said “reforms onerous federal laws, such as the Central Valley Project Improvement Act and the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, that have severely curtailed water deliveries and resulted in hundreds of billions of gallons of badly needed water being flushed into the ocean.”

H.R. 23 passed the House last July and is in the Senate, but a joint statement of opposition from senators Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris appears to have doomed its chances of becoming law.

Asked by the editorial board why she is opposed to the Valadao bill and if she is monitoring the rising cost of water in Southern California, Sen. Feinstein said she did not know why she had taken that position and would have to ask her staff.

Your utility bills are high and going higher in California. Even worse, the people who have done this to you don’t know, don’t care and don’t intend to do anything about it.

Susan Shelley is a columnist for the Southern California News Group. Susan@SusanShelley.com. Twitter: @Susan_Shelley

https://www.ocregister.com/2018/05/05/the-question-democrats-cant-answer-on-the-rising-cost-of-energy/

 4 
 on: May 09, 2018, 12:55:08 PM 
Started by Stevejet - Last post by Stevejet
OC Register/Susan Shelly - Columnist

Only 15 percent to 20 percent of new single-family homes built in California have solar panels, according to the California Building Industry Association, because 80 percent to 85 percent of homebuyers choose not to buy them.

So California regulators have decided it’s time to use force.

The California Energy Commission is set to vote Wednesday, May 9 to require solar panels on the roof of every new home constructed in the state beginning in 2020.

This takes a lot of pressure off the manufacturers and contractors in the solar-panel business. Soon they won’t have to struggle to convince people that solar panels are worth what they cost.

It’s very difficult to persuade people that spending five-figure sums in order to pay less for electricity adds up to a good investment, given the average human life expectancy.

One difficulty is that many of the people they’re trying to convince have an understanding of basic math. Take, for example, the financial firms that underwrite mortgage loans.

An executive with Meritage Homes, the nation’s eighth-largest homebuilder, complained that widely used appraisal and mortgage underwriting methods don’t recognize the value of solar installations or  “net-zero” technology, which allows a home to generate as much energy as it consumes.

There is such a thing as an “energy-efficient mortgage” using different standards. Only three such loans have been written in the U.S. so far, according to the Meritage executive.

The company built 7,700 new homes in 2017, but only 10 percent of buyers chose the option of solar panels. Only 1 percent chose to buy the complete net-zero technology package.

That’s a lot of people with calculators who have decided that this particular green technology is not worth the money it costs.

But California state regulators are tired of people who make their decisions with calculators instead of magic wands. All new homes will have solar panels, and abracadabra if you don’t like it.

This decision will add about $30,000 to the price of a new home in California, from which people are already moving away because housing is increasingly unaffordable.

As of April 1, the median price of a home in California was $549,000, according to Realtor.com. In Oregon or Washington, the median price of a home was $420,000. You could have bought the median-priced home in Nevada for $344,900, Arizona for $339,000 or Texas for $295,000.

In the decade between 2006 and 2016, California suffered a net out-migration of more than 1 million residents. You probably know five or six of them personally.

With the cost of housing one of California’s most devastating and intractable problems, the state is imposing a costly new mandate that will put a new home out of the reach of even more California families.

Why, you ask? Because the state energy commission has decided it’s time to get serious about its own 2007 decision to set a goal for more energy-efficient buildings. All residences should be net-zero energy by 2020, the commissioners decreed, and all commercial buildings by 2030.

The commission could reconsider its 2007 decision in light of current housing costs, but no, they’re taking us forward, off the cliff.

And helping to push the state over the edge is a new proposal in the Legislature that would effectively ban the use of natural-gas appliances. Under Assembly Bill 3232, the California Energy Commission would be required to “develop a plan” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions “in the residential and commercial building stock by at least 40 percent below the 1990 levels by January 1, 2030.”

What will it cost? The Legislature should carefully consider the answer to that question. We’re already living with the consequences of lawmakers passing mindless mandates and then handing off the enforcement to unelected regulators.

We’re paying a fortune in higher energy costs, higher prices and higher housing costs to reach the “goal” of lowering the state’s greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels. But because the entire state of California accounts for only 1 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, reaching the goal doesn’t actually accomplish anything.

That’s the sad truth. What we’re getting for our money is only legal in parts of Nevada.

https://www.ocregister.com/2018/05/08/make-solar-decisions-with-math-not-a-magic-wand/

 5 
 on: April 30, 2018, 04:58:46 PM 
Started by budroe - Last post by budroe
Didn't watch the first movie; don't think I'd be interested in the sequel!!!!


 6 
 on: April 26, 2018, 01:57:40 PM 
Started by TheChâtelaine - Last post by Freehold Marshal
I could see where that could happen. As for stopping handgun rounds I'd recommend earth berms or a hillside as a backstop.

 7 
 on: April 26, 2018, 01:07:07 PM 
Started by TheChâtelaine - Last post by Brian D.
I flat overlooked that this post was in the archery section, sorry.  :-[ During visits here I go right to the "New posts since last visit" page and start clicking.

 8 
 on: April 23, 2018, 03:20:23 PM 
Started by TheChâtelaine - Last post by Freehold Marshal
Since this is in the archery forum Yes straw bales work just fine as arrow stops that don't damage your arrows. If you're going above a 50 lb draw weight you might want to double bale the backstop. If using a modern high powered crossbow even triple baling the back stop probably won't be enough to stop the quarrels. It is still just as important to keep an eye on what is behind your target and that people and animals won't be able to approach the target area from the sides during practice.


 9 
 on: April 23, 2018, 12:46:54 PM 
Started by TheChâtelaine - Last post by Brian D.
Hello. Straw bales might work for while to stop most handgun rounds. But you'd want to use something more substantial. The NRA has information about range building on their website, someplace. Be warned though, it's a big website.

 10 
 on: April 14, 2018, 04:33:35 PM 
Started by budroe - Last post by Freehold Marshal
That 1st 788 has always been the one I regretted selling the most as that was the rarest caliber for them. Since then I've owned two other 788's both in 22/250 Rem Both served as coyote rifles in the gun rack of my pickup.   

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10