Lets see them budget the cost of not having to build peaking plants and extra full power plants as renewables slow the need for growth.

Accounting works both ways :)

I'd guess most people run the AC all day no? I'm in DC and not running it during the day would suuuuuuuck coming home in the summer. Granted, programmable thermostats are making headway but I wouldn't think they'd even have 25% market yet. Even then, it's only a reduced usage, not off. Also related to computers firing up, TVs, ovens etc. We use LOTS more electricity than we used to :)

Solar is most efficient when the grid needs the electricity 'the least'? So when it's night time?

Solar may peak at the top of the Sun's path, but it still provides plenty of juice for hours afterwards...when the grid is specifically taxed quite hard.

Go outside at 2-3pm on a hot sunny day...it's still pretty damned strong.

'selling it back to the grid' isn't the point. Lets say I'm using 2KW (don't nit pick my numbers I'm not an electrician :) ) and I have a 1 KW array on my roof. Even if I'm only getting 50-70% of that 1KW due to being in the afternoon, I'm still drawing that much less from the grid and thus the grid is less taxed because of my solar array.

With Daylight Savings Time, much of that 'afternoon' is still plenty well lit.

The PopMech link describes exactly what you're saying. The experienced swing has a wrist twist to finish the split. This 'axe' does it for the beginner.

Still think this is a solution in search of a problem. And that it costs 2-3 times as much? ouch.

Popular Mechanics agrees. It isn't good for splitting wood that has any tension to stay together.

As another responder said, this concept is known as a gravity tractor.

I did say obvious technical details were still needed. You can't just park something small close to a big object; as you say the small object will be affected much more an simply be pulled in. However, since the gravitational attraction is fairly small, as you note, even a small ion engine can push enough to counter it. Since IOM engines can run for decades on a few pounds of fuel, you aim them at 45 degree angles (so as not to push the asteroid) and poof, the asteroid is pulled towards the space craft - slowly and over a long time, but it is pulled and a little is all you need.

It's not something you can do if you discover an asteroid that will impact in less than a year, this requires time as the effect isn't huge. However, a small effect over 3, 5 or 10 years is plenty to slow down or speed up the asteroid such that it will miss us. You only have to make it get to the time and place of intersection with earth a day or even a few hours later or earlier and the problem is solved.

If we discover an asteroid coming in 6 months, we're basically screwed. There is no Armageddon Movie answer that fixes it.

more like "Major Tom to Ground Contro?" (which just got wiped out by an asteroid!)

the tech required is nothing more than gravity. Park a multi-ton spacecraft just behind (or in front) of the asteroid and it will take care of the problem. (obvious technical details left to the reader)

Worked well enough for my Dad at Xerox. Granted he got laid off for a couple years but got rehired when it went to shit and got quite the hefty raise and extra retirement out of the deal :)

Not a plan I'd recommend obviously, but hey :)

As an interesting aside, should 'utilities' providing critical infrastructure be subject to more stringent hiring requirements?

Similar to how national security jobs require a gov't clearance, should workers on critical infrastructure require similar concept of vetting?

Step 3. Containment anyone? If something does go wrong, it's going to do wonders for local marine life...

I can make a computer hack proof. It has to be feasible and usable too. Besides, it's not like oil rigs sink or anything...

the point of the constitution is to address issues in fairness. Doesn't deal with everything, but it's the core basic point of the document.

To paraphrase a bit:

Those who give up some security for some efficiency deserve neither.

Seriously, you don't engineer CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE to be insecure simply because you don't want to run 2 sets of wires. It's simply a cost of doing the job correctly - which we haven't yet.