2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: Inspector on March 02, 2017, 06:05:31 AM
-
Solar Panels Increased Emissions Of A Gas 17,200 Times More Potent Than CO2
http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/01/solar-panels-increased-emissions-of-a-gas-17200-times-more-potent-than-co2/
"New federal data shows a potent greenhouse gas — that’s also a byproduct of solar panel construction — is on the rise.
Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) is a key chemical agent used to manufacture photovoltaic cells for solar panels, suggesting government subsidies and tax credits for solar panels may be a driving factor behind the 1,057 percent in NF3 over the last 25 years. In comparison, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions only rose by about 5 percent during the same time period.
NF3 emissions have rapidly increased in Asia as well due to its rapidly growing solar panel market, and researchers think that many nations are under-reporting their NF3 emissions by roughly a factor of 4.5.
NF3 emissions are 17,200 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas over a 100 year time period."
-
Solar Panels Increased Emissions Of A Gas 17,200 Times More Potent Than CO2
http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/01/solar-panels-increased-emissions-of-a-gas-17200-times-more-potent-than-co2/
"New federal data shows a potent greenhouse gas — that’s also a byproduct of solar panel construction — is on the rise.
Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) is a key chemical agent used to manufacture photovoltaic cells for solar panels, suggesting government subsidies and tax credits for solar panels may be a driving factor behind the 1,057 percent in NF3 over the last 25 years. In comparison, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions only rose by about 5 percent during the same time period.
NF3 emissions have rapidly increased in Asia as well due to its rapidly growing solar panel market, and researchers think that many nations are under-reporting their NF3 emissions by roughly a factor of 4.5.
NF3 emissions are 17,200 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas over a 100 year time period."
where's my safety pin!?!
-
where's my safety pin!?!
Awwwww poor baby. Did I trigger you? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Waddaya wanna bet that we hear back, for the first time ever in these discussions, that a "cost/benefit" analysis is necessary, and by that analysis the panel manufacturing is a net benefit? I've asked over and over for a total net cost/benefit analysis of the entire anthropogenic global warming issue, and have never seen a real response., just hand-waving and "end of the world" euphemisms.
-
Waddaya wanna bet that we hear back, for the first time ever in these discussions, that a "cost/benefit" analysis is necessary, and by that analysis the panel manufacturing is a net benefit? I've asked over and over for a total net cost/benefit analysis of the entire anthropogenic global warming issue, and have never seen a real response., just hand-waving and "end of the world" euphemisms.
This is because if they have done the analysis, they would not tell you the truth about the cost being higher than the benefits. And if they have not done the analysis, they are afraid to because it is as obviously as no hair on my head that the benefits do NOT out way the costs. All of this because this global warming crap is a multi trillion dollar business that most of the countries in the world are involved in. The big picture is hard to swallow for some...
-
This is because if they have done the analysis, they would not tell you the truth about the cost being higher than the benefits. And if they have not done the analysis, they are afraid to because it is as obviously as no hair on my head that the benefits do NOT out way the costs. All of this because this global warming crap is a multi trillion dollar business that most of the countries in the world are involved in. The big picture is hard to swallow for some...
But but but
Al gore say "man bad, earth gooder"
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I couldn't find my notes on this stuff. I have a binder somewhere because I was tasked with tracking this stuff down. Since I'm a "LEED certified professional" (got it as part of my previous job) and other things, I was tasked with researching PV for Hawaii and Guam projects to withstand hurricanes. Came across this type of info before, but that was maybe 5 years ago now. Seems like things haven't gotten better.
Stuff like sustainability and "green energy" are so PC and popular now. That said, there are those (or maybe one) who will call for regulation as solving the issue.
-
But but but
Al gore say "man bad, earth gooder"
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Al Gore = Do as I say, not as I do.
-
I couldn't find my notes on this stuff. I have a binder somewhere because I was tasked with tracking this stuff down. Since I'm a "LEED certified professional" (got it as part of my previous job) and other things, I was tasked with researching PV for Hawaii and Guam projects to withstand hurricanes. Came across this type of info before, but that was maybe 5 years ago now. Seems like things haven't gotten better.
Stuff like sustainability and "green energy" are so PC and popular now. That said, there are those (or maybe one) who will call for regulation as solving the issue.
Too bad you can't find that stuff. I would love to peruse through all the details....
-
Too bad you can't find that stuff. I would love to peruse through all the details....
This was when I had more time and I was specifically tasked to research this. I read tons, called all sorts of companies. Raytheon, Solyndra (at least back then they were helpful), etc. Spoke to designers and installers of HUGE PV farms all over the place, including on the Big Island.
I was just looking for what would work because there wasn't anything available that could withstand the 210 mph design winds of Guam. Best was for Florida at around 130 mph. that's when I got into that the industry wasn't willing to solve this problem, even if it meant billions of $$$ in work over decades. They just wanted to sell what they have now as they has spent their $$$ on the Florida market (and other similar locations, like Hawaii).
-
Seven Big Failed Environmentalist Predictions
6) Renewable Energy
This isn’t a prediction about a disaster that didn’t happen. It’s a prediction about a solution that never materialized. Don’t worry about the fact
that we want to shut down fossil fuels and dirty coal, we were told, because there’s a bright new future from “Renewable Energy.”
But all of the alternatives we were promised fall into two categories. There are those that are still too unreliable and expensive; Germany
is about to be crushed by the massive cost of its renewable energy boondoggle. And then there are those which have gone from being the
alternative championed by environmentalists to being the targets of the environmentalist anger. This is by far the most common trajectory.
You know how old I am? I’m so positively ancient that I remember when one of Jimmy Carter’s big answers to the impending shortage of
oil was to increase federal funding for research on how to extract oil from shale. It ended the way you would expect: it went nowhere. But
some decades later, private oil companies did find a way to more economically extract oil from shale—and environmentalists promptly made
it public enemy #1.
I am even old enough to vaguely remember the era when nuclear energy—that bête noire of the greens—was touted as an alternative to
fossil fuels. Or when hydroelectric dams were celebrated as an emissions-free, radiation-free, feel-good source of electricity, rather than a
fish-killer and impediment to the free flow of wild rivers. Or when wind farms were the future of energy, before they were denounced as
bird-killers and a blight on the landscape. Now, even large-scale solar energy is under attack. And I’m still waiting for environmentalists to
figure out exactly what goes in to those solar panels.
Overall, it’s been 45 years since the first Earth Day and the alternatives to the energy sources they oppose now generate about 12% of
the nation’s electricity—and then only with massive subsidies, mandates, and tax breaks.
And all of this to deal with a problem that doesn’t even exist.
But by now you can get an idea for the major outlines of an environmental hysteria. The steps are: a) start with assumption that man is
“ravaging the Earth,” b) latch onto an unproven scientific hypothesis that fits this preconception, c) extrapolate wildly from half-formed
theories and short-term trends to predict a future apocalypse, d) pressure a bunch of people with “Ph.D.” after their names to endorse
it so you can say it’s a consensus of experts, e) get the press to broadcast it with even less nuance and get a bunch of Hollywood celebrities
who failed Freshman biology to adopt it as their pet cause, then finally f) quietly drop the whole thing when it doesn’t pan out—and move on
with undiminished enthusiasm to the next environmental doomsday scenario.
When men fail as entirely as they have—well, I’m not going to ask them to fall on their swords. But we might ask them to understand why,
when they assure us their newest doomsday predictions are really, really true this time, we’re not inclined to believe a single word they say.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/24/seven-big-failed-environmentalist-predictions/
-
Seven Big Failed Environmentalist Predictions
http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/24/seven-big-failed-environmentalist-predictions/
WOW!!! That's all I can say....
That article is powerful. Truthful. And if all of the climate change cry babies read and understand it, they cannot argue with it. It not only explains the history of the climate change movement, it also explains the hypocrisy and the hysteria and it just proves that none of it is true.
Thanks. It was a long read but worth it. :shaka: :shaka: :shaka:
-
Journalists and people always tend to over-exaggerate numbers without really considering what they mean. The 17,200 figure itself is meaningless without an accompanying number describing the actual amounts of NF3 gas being generated. Percent increase of NF3 by itself is also meaningless. And even if you know the actual amounts of NF3 gas, the article states "Solar panels aren’t the only source of NF3, which is also used to produce semiconductors and LCD flat screens" so you need to know the amount of NF3 gas being generated from the creation of solar panels alone.
Furthermore, as the NF3 gas is only generated in the creation process, over time the production of solar panels might stop increasing after we have enough.
Aside from that it's very debatable what the 17,200 figure itself means. It is only explained partially in the linked paper within the linked article. And probably if you know how it's derived it will not have a very confident scientific basis or meaning behind it. Many people and some experts debate whether global warming exists or is accurately modeled at all, and rightfully so.
Finally, even if the NF3 production of solar panels is somewhat of a problem, this is unrelated to the fact that they produce energy via alternative methods, conserving our limited fossil fuel sources, etc. So LEED will probably always embrace it. From what I recall in practice LEED is mostly concerned with whether or not our buildings waste electricity. So to be LEED certified our buildings have to not be overly brightly lit, and it helps to have mechanisms that turn off lights automatically (though this may be annoying to the inhabitants) or generate their own electricity, etc.
-
You guys here aren't going to like what I have to say.
All this renewable stuff is BS.
The environmental damage from producing Solar cells far
exceed the benefits of those cells. I really don't have time to
list the reams of footnotes to support my assertion, you certainly won't read them
all.
I'm going to take my house "off grid" and your tax dollars will
subsidize it. We have allowed Democrats to run the insane asylum,
so I'll just treat them like the idiots they are and take your money.
We here in Hawaii should be shooting people, but you all just bend over
and register. I understand this is a public forum, so I will never advocate
violating any local, state, or federal laws. I do want to remind you that
all the "workers" at Auschwitz were registered and law obedient.
You may very well end up with the same fate, if you don't plan and act.
-
A more environmental friendly alternative. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marcello_Riva/publication/251889070_Superior_etch_performance_of_ArN2F2_for_PECVD_chamber_clean/links/5522ef4b0cf2f9c130544afe.pdf
-
Journalists and people always tend to over-exaggerate numbers without really considering what they mean. The 17,200 figure itself is meaningless without an accompanying number describing the actual amounts of NF3 gas being generated. Percent increase of NF3 by itself is also meaningless. And even if you know the actual amounts of NF3 gas, the article states "Solar panels aren’t the only source of NF3, which is also used to produce semiconductors and LCD flat screens" so you need to know the amount of NF3 gas being generated from the creation of solar panels alone.
Furthermore, as the NF3 gas is only generated in the creation process, over time the production of solar panels might stop increasing after we have enough.
Aside from that it's very debatable what the 17,200 figure itself means. It is only explained partially in the linked paper within the linked article. And probably if you know how it's derived it will not have a very confident scientific basis or meaning behind it. Many people and some experts debate whether global warming exists or is accurately modeled at all, and rightfully so.
Finally, even if the NF3 production of solar panels is somewhat of a problem, this is unrelated to the fact that they produce energy via alternative methods, conserving our limited fossil fuel sources, etc. So LEED will probably always embrace it. From what I recall in practice LEED is mostly concerned with whether or not our buildings waste electricity. So to be LEED certified our buildings have to not be overly brightly lit, and it helps to have mechanisms that turn off lights automatically (though this may be annoying to the inhabitants) or generate their own electricity, etc.
This.
I wonder if over the past decade and year after year if in any way semiconductors and LCD flat screens have become more popular? Nah no one has stuff that uses semiconductors. And we all still use tube tvs. While alternative energy may not be perfect now we MUST keep improving and move toward it. I don't care if you think gas is the best liquid since water it will run out in due time. Whether you believe in climate change or not it will run out.
-
This.
I wonder if over the past decade and year after year if in any way semiconductors and LCD flat screens have become more popular? Nah no one has stuff that uses semiconductors. And we all still use tube tvs. While alternative energy may not be perfect now we MUST keep improving and move toward it. I don't care if you think gas is the best liquid since water it will run out in due time. Whether you believe in climate change or not it will run out.
Various studies show that the total remaining recoverable oil resources would last 190 years, natural gas 230 years, and coal, a whopping 2900 years.
In all likelihood, demand for fossil fuels will ultimately peak and then begin to fall – the big question is when. Just as the Stone Age did not end because we ran
out of stones, the Fossil Fuel Age will not end because we will run out of fossil fuels. Reserves will likely stay in the ground, far after societies have moved on from them.
The key to the warning "we will run out" makes huge assumptions that all things remain the same as today. Look back 100 years, and tell me we are not living in an age of technological miracles. Given what we have seen, and what we can not know in the future, it's more likely we will never run out of fossil fuels. Ever.
http://www.business-standard.com/article/punditry/how-long-will-fossil-fuels-last-115092201397_1.html
-
The key to the warning "we will run out" makes huge assumptions that all things remain the same as today. Look back 100 years, and tell me we are not living in an age of technological miracles. Given what we have seen, and what we can not know in the future, it's more likely we will never run out of fossil fuels. Ever.
http://www.business-standard.com/article/punditry/how-long-will-fossil-fuels-last-115092201397_1.html
The article you provided earlier was quite clear. It is all about the lies that were being told from the very beginning of this so called movement. We were told in the 70's and 80's we used up half of all the oil in the world and we were on a downward slope with the oil left. Which was a lie or course. It is even worse if anyone would support a lie if they thought it was done in someone's best interest. That is what the left/Socialists do. They lie and then try and justify it by saying it was done in your best interest. Which is why this climate change BS is not real. Because it has been lies from the very beginning.
-
It's good to be skeptical about climate change but it could be true. In any case if you are skeptical about climate change then NF3 emissions mean nothing to you, so nothing sinister about solar power there.
Fossil fuels running out seems a much more likely thing. We don't produce any more of it, we just suck what exists out of the ground in a few locations. Maybe it won't run out as quickly as some claim, but to assume it would never run out is foolish.
-
It's good to be skeptical about climate change but it could be true. In any case if you are skeptical about climate change then NF3 emissions mean nothing to you, so nothing sinister about solar power there.
Fossil fuels running out seems a much more likely thing. We don't produce any more of it, we just suck what exists out of the ground in a few locations. Maybe it won't run out as quickly as some claim, but to assume it would never run out is foolish.
It's too bad you have not been following what I have written on this subject over the last couple of weeks. I have never said I am skeptical about climate change. I fully believe that with all the pollution we create it is affecting the climate in some way or another. How? I don't think there is any proof of how. What I have been saying is and I think I have been able to prove in an earlier post especially since no one has provided any proof otherwise, is that no matter how much man has polluted the atmosphere, there is no way in hell that we can affect it enough to make any change and/or difference in the climate. The numbers don't lie. So NF3 means a lot because it just shows the climate change believers are wrong about solar energy being clean. The climate change believers ignore the by products and pollution of manufacturing as the cost of doing business when in fact those by products and pollution are far worse than the benefits that solar provides.
While I don't have have the exact numbers that were quoted back in the 70's and 80's the supply of oil, not including shale oil, was estimated in the hundreds of years. With the following exception. And that is if the oil supplies that the U.S. have are included. Because at that time the U.S. was no longer allowed to drill for oil in our largest oil reserves. The U.S has the largest oil reserves in the world if you include those which we have not been allowed to tap. Now that the U.S and Canada has added a couple of hundred years to the world's supply with our/their shale oil, I think all the lies about running out any time soon was just to create hysteria. Which it did. And it scared the naive and they are the ones that believe it. I agree that we will run out eventually. But not anytime soon. Which gives us the ability to get into space exploration and eventually expand our horizons in our solar system. Let's face it, most of the major technology breakthroughs we have had in the 20th century are due mostly to the space program we had in the 50's, 60's and 70's. Solar panels? I'd be willing to bet that if we started up our space program again there will be such an advance in solar technology and manufacturing that everything I am concerned about solar now won't exist in 20 years. JMHO
-
It's good to be skeptical about climate change but it could be true. In any case if you are skeptical about climate change then NF3 emissions mean nothing to you, so nothing sinister about solar power there.
Fossil fuels running out seems a much more likely thing. We don't produce any more of it, we just suck what exists out of the ground in a few locations. Maybe it won't run out as quickly as some claim, but to assume it would never run out is foolish.
To assume we will never find ways of producing adequate energy other than burning fossil fuels is what's foolish.
I'm very interested in Hydrogen fuel cell technology. We can replace all coal and oil burning electric plants with nuclear. So many things we can replace fossil fuels with, but the technology needs to mature.
-
To assume we will never find ways of producing adequate energy other than burning fossil fuels is what's foolish.
I'm very interested in Hydrogen fuel cell technology. We can replace all coal and oil burning electric plants with nuclear. So many things we can replace fossil fuels with, but the technology needs to mature.
This is the reason why we fund "alternative energy" like solar. Nuclear isnt that great of an option cause of the waste. Something like fission, similar to how our sun works would be best. But the point is all this alternate technology needs to have money invested in. Oil companies don't want that.
-
This is the reason why we fund "alternative energy" like solar. Nuclear isnt that great of an option cause of the waste. Something like fission, similar to how our sun works would be best. But the point is all this alternate technology needs to have money invested in. Oil companies don't want that.
You're half right. investing in VIABLE, EFFECTIVE alternative energy technologies is needed. Pouring more money into current solutions only steals those resources away from potentially better solutions. Jumping on the bandwagon too early will only get you as far as that wagon can take you! Take the blinders off. Throwing money at today's green energy solutions only makes the green energy companies and investors richer. Pouring more money into solar won't make it substantially better. Using that money to fund R&D in other solutions makes more sense.
-
You're half right. investing in VIABLE, EFFECTIVE alternative energy technologies is needed. Pouring more money into current solutions only steals those resources away from potentially better solutions. Jumping on the bandwagon too early will only get you as far as that wagon can take you! Take the blinders off. Throwing money at today's green energy solutions only makes the green energy companies and investors richer. Pouring more money into solar won't make it substantially better. Using that money to fund R&D in other solutions makes more sense.
The problem is solar, wind and other stuff are viable. While they might not be perfect now with the current manufacturing technology just to say that cause they arn't perfect now we should abandon it? In the ideal world they are one of the best sources of energy once they are working. They require no input other than the sun or mother earth. Solar is one of the more ideal solutions as fission technology is a bit off. Its something we know works. To completely defund it cause there are some issues with it isnt right. Every year solar panels improve, they are made with higher efficiency and less waste. Nothing wrong with making some people rich, its part of capitalism. They will only get rich if it works. In the end someone somewhere profits over energy.
-
The problem is solar, wind and other stuff are viable. While they might not be perfect now with the current manufacturing technology just to say that cause they arn't perfect now we should abandon it? In the ideal world they are one of the best sources of energy once they are working. They require no input other than the sun or mother earth. Solar is one of the more ideal solutions as fission technology is a bit off. Its something we know works. To completely defund it cause there are some issues with it isnt right. Every year solar panels improve, they are made with higher efficiency and less waste. Nothing wrong with making some people rich, its part of capitalism. They will only get rich if it works. In the end someone somewhere profits over energy.
You're arguing extremes -- either/or. I never said that.
You must really love straw!
-
Something like fission, similar to how our sun works would be best.
umm, mr scientist at heart:
http://www.answers.com/Q/Is_the_sun's_reaction_fission_or_fusion?#slide=1
-
Something like fission, similar to how our sun works would be best.
Nope, try again!
-
umm, mr scientist at heart:
http://www.answers.com/Q/Is_the_sun's_reaction_fission_or_fusion?#slide=1
You have to have at least a 97% scientist concurrence rate to state that as "fact".
-
Journalists and people always tend to over-exaggerate numbers without really considering what they mean. The 17,200 figure itself is meaningless without an accompanying number describing the actual amounts of NF3 gas being generated. Percent increase of NF3 by itself is also meaningless. And even if you know the actual amounts of NF3 gas, the article states "Solar panels aren’t the only source of NF3, which is also used to produce semiconductors and LCD flat screens" so you need to know the amount of NF3 gas being generated from the creation of solar panels alone.
Furthermore, as the NF3 gas is only generated in the creation process, over time the production of solar panels might stop increasing after we have enough.
Aside from that it's very debatable what the 17,200 figure itself means. It is only explained partially in the linked paper within the linked article. And probably if you know how it's derived it will not have a very confident scientific basis or meaning behind it. Many people and some experts debate whether global warming exists or is accurately modeled at all, and rightfully so.
Finally, even if the NF3 production of solar panels is somewhat of a problem, this is unrelated to the fact that they produce energy via alternative methods, conserving our limited fossil fuel sources, etc. So LEED will probably always embrace it. From what I recall in practice LEED is mostly concerned with whether or not our buildings waste electricity. So to be LEED certified our buildings have to not be overly brightly lit, and it helps to have mechanisms that turn off lights automatically (though this may be annoying to the inhabitants) or generate their own electricity, etc.
Exactly. Thank you for being a voice for the whole picture and not just the part that is politically useful.
-
umm, mr scientist at heart:
http://www.answers.com/Q/Is_the_sun's_reaction_fission_or_fusion?#slide=1
Oops I was wrong.
Both fission and fusion are viable reactors though.
You have to have at least a 97% scientist concurrence rate to state that as "fact".
When proven wrong with irrefutable facts I will agree with whatever side has been proven correct.
-
Finally, even if the NF3 production of solar panels is somewhat of a problem, this is unrelated to the fact that they produce energy via alternative methods, conserving our limited fossil fuel sources, etc. So LEED will probably always embrace it. From what I recall in practice LEED is mostly concerned with whether or not our buildings waste electricity. So to be LEED certified our buildings have to not be overly brightly lit, and it helps to have mechanisms that turn off lights automatically (though this may be annoying to the inhabitants) or generate their own electricity, etc.
Yes, LEED Certification is aimed at electricity cost savings (also lower carbon emissions), but if you have gone through the certification process, lighting is a typically a very small part of that. At least for most office buildings. Not sure about residential as I have little experience in that. For office buildings, typically the big energy draws are with HVAC.
If you look at LEED V4, there are 6 primary categories:
1) Location and Transportation
2) Sustainable Sites
3) Water Efficiency
4) Energy and Atmosphere
5) Materials and Resources
6) Environmental Quality
Of those, there are maybe 10 points aimed at energy, and most of those are largely tied in to OVERALL building efficiency, which typically isn't controlled by lighting.
It's a complete racket! You can get points by pretty much a pay for points system. Enhanced commissioning gets you points. How? You have to hire many LEED certified professionals to work together to commission the building. You get a point for registering the project in USBGC, for which there is a fee. It's also a prerequisite (or used to be). That's why there are new regulations, including where I work, that allows another certification organization.
Yes, stuff like active and zone lighting does help, but that's like maybe 10% of the whole picture. It's misinformation like that and people who don't take the time to dig into the actual requirements and see what's going on behind the curtain that allows the sustainable industry to thrive. Again, I believe it's a good idea in general, but not in the twisted, corrupted, manipulated, etc form that currently exists. . . .
-
I've never worked on certifying any project myself so both my interpretation and memory of the points system in the LEED book are probably faulty. I think I had probably concentrated on the chapters of the book that I might potentially be responsible for in jobs, as well as focused on what I thought could reasonably be changed. For example if there are points for stuff like where the site is, or what kinds of materials or practices are used in constructing it, but that's all decided upon, then even though that could be a decent number of points I can't do anything about it so it's not my concern.
A lot of stuff in the design and construction industry seem to be corrupt to me. We bribe politicians to get government contracts...
-
I've never worked on certifying any project myself so both my interpretation and memory of the points system in the LEED book are probably faulty. I think I had probably concentrated on the chapters of the book that I might potentially be responsible for in jobs, as well as focused on what I thought could reasonably be changed. 1) For example if there are points for stuff like where the site is, or what kinds of materials or practices are used in constructing it, but that's all decided upon, then even though that could be a decent number of points I can't do anything about it so it's not my concern.
2) A lot of stuff in the design and construction industry seem to be corrupt to me. We bribe politicians to get government contracts...
1) I hear ya. When I typically get involved in the project is at a phase in design that all of that stuff is decided and we're stuck with making it work. That and LEED definitely is biased to certain types of projects and locations and places like Hawaii and other places in the Pacific, like Guam, Samoa, etc are at a huge disadvantage in terms of meeting LEED certification. Myself, I was certified a while ago and I am not at all up-to-date on all the specific requirements, but we still go through this on pretty much all of my projects that I manage, just that now consultants are responsible for all of that.
2) Yeah, definitely. There's less of it going on after the campaign spending stuff came to light in the 2006-2010 timeframe. Lots of people and businesses got into a LOT of trouble for that. That said, that was the rules of the game. You either played by those rules or you didn't survive. Does it happen on the federal level? Sure. Every project nowadays, we seem to get a Congressional inquiry as to why someone in their state couldn't get the work. . . sigh. Well, because your cousin's, uncle's, best friend isn't qualified. . . Anyways, yeah, it's frustrating.