Basically, it is absurd to say that a summer-long price drop of this tiny magnitude will have any long-term effect at all.

This statement was offered as a defense against the argument that a gas tax holiday would stimulate demand. But it is an equally valid description of the financial benefits a tax holiday would offer- tiny.

A gas tax holiday is an offer to believe in the memory of cheap oil. Perhaps oil prices will drop significantly again, but perhaps not. The risk adverse, smart thing to do is bite the bullet and figure out how to reduce demand, not to engage in pandering activities that won't do much one way or another.

Obama did learn from Illinois' gas tax holiday. Sure, 60% of the tax cut may have made it to the pump price (quiz: where'd the other 40% go?), but 100% of the lost revenues either resulted in more debt, loss of services, or were funded by other taxes.

Consumption taxes may not be popular, and risk being regressive, but they are the most economically efficient taxes around.

Go, Obama.

As sureok noted, lots of people and animals have it worse than race horses. Hell, the jockeys probably have it worse than the race horses- they have to suck weight basically year 'round, and some of the techniques for doing so ain't pretty. Plenty of jockeys have died or ruined themselves from making weight (to say nothing of falls, accidents, etc.).

Which isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of the sport.

But that's not my main point. I frankly have mixed feelings about horse racing. Like pretty much any aspect of our society, there's a mix of cruelty and beauty. I have no doubt that these horses love to run. And frankly, compared to 99% of hooved animals on the planet, these horses have a pretty good deal in life, even accounting for life-ending injuries.

Non-leather-wearing vegans have every right to criticize the ethics of horse racing. The rest of us have less standing.

Know thyself.

Seriously.

Be happy, both Obama and Clinton played nice tonight.

Solar is still just a drop in the bucket as an energy source (for direct human use), but all things that are now large were once small.

We aren't all that far from the day when solar will be cost-competitive with grid electricity, especially if external costs are considered. It already is cost-effective, I believe, in Japan, Italy, and Hawaii.

In the mean time, we have Germany, Japan, California, and New Jersey to thank for driving growth. Some people scoff at the price tag, but these governments are doing us all a great service by driving solar down the experience curve toward lower prices.

It's all good.

Andrew covered energy life-cycle here: http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/04/07/solar_power_pollution/index.html

Actually, that post discussed lifecycle air emissions, but air emissions are a good proxy for energy. Everything I've seen says the solar panels have an EROI (energy return on [energy] invested) of at least 10x.

I'm not sure about lifetime, but a quick Google shows that at least some manufacturers offer a 25 year warranty. Here's one that guarantees 80% output after 20 years. Not bad.

Wind is generally more cost-effective, but has constraints different from solar (e.g. has to be windy, some people don't like the looks). Thermal solar also may be more cost-effective in some locations, but may not be as good in regions with less direct sun. There are also issues of centralized vs. distributed to consider (both have strengths and weaknesses). There's no need to pick a winner; all of these technologies can (and should) prosper. There's no shortage of dirty capacity to replace.

Refining Si is energy intensive, but what's really keeping prices up is supply vs. demand, and the supply side is responding.

There's also a ton of less mature, less energy intensive PV technologies out there (e.g. polymer, thin-film Si, CIGS, etc.).

My main concern is what to do with PV at end of life, but that's not an intractable problem.

Sometimes I am reminded of what a great country this is.

Dude,

You apparently didn't get the memo.

It's time to be gracious and patch the party back together.

Obama can't win without a large share of Hillary's supporters. Half the Dems plus a large dollop of independents plus a few Republicans does not 270 electoral votes make.

Hillary's supporters good people. Many of them are angry and/or frustrated. A few say untoward things.

Let 'em vent.

There's plenty of time for them to realize that McCain may just not be the person they want for President, and that Obama is actually a pretty good guy.

Don't confuse them.