Harper prorogues Parliament for a second time

Harper has decided to prorogue Parliament again (although it seems as though no one can get confirmation from the Governor General's office).

It is mildly disturbing how one elected member of Parliament (even if it is the Prime Minister) and a supposed figurehead (the Governor General) is able to halt the operation of the only elected body on the federal level (the Parliament).

A few have argued that this is perfectly legal, and by all technicalities, it is. Yes, the executive isn't able to rule by decree or anything like that. Yes, Parliament still holds its legislative power. At the same time, only two individuals have managed to halt any work being done by the proxy will of the people (the elected Members of Parliament). The federal government has basically ceased functioning until the prorogation ends. Furthermore, it resets a lot of work, including bills introduced by government and not yet passed into law (although private member's bills are not affected). The count is 37 bills (or 32 bills) having to be started from scratch.

That is a cause for concern due to the precedent set. Any future Prime Minister of any political affiliation could do the same thing. Normally, prorogation is used whenever a legislative agenda has more or less been completed. Remember, Parliament is our elected federal government. It does work for us, not whenever a Prime Minister feels like Parliament should be doing stuff.

One way to fix this would be to allow Parliament itself to decide when to start and end its own sessions. It may require modification of the Constitution, which would require a lot of support for change. A more permanent solution would be to remove all powers from the Governor General (and by extension, the Monarchy) and leave the Governor General for pure ceremonial purposes only. A change to the Monarchy and office of the Governor General, however, requires "unanimous support" (that is to say, all provincial legislatures, the House of Commons, and the Senate).

Regardless, I foresee a lot of "do-nothing" Parliament sessions for at least the near-future (regardless of whichever political party is governing)...

Peace and long life.

EDIT: The last time a minority government prorogued more than once during their mandate was under Lester B. Pearson's Liberal government. Presumably, each prorogation was after some legislative agenda was completed, given the current outrage, although I can't seem to find anything definitive right now.

H/t to Impolitical for the links.

Attempted terrorist bombing over Detroit: quick thoughts

Due to pure good luck, an attempted bombing of Northwest Flight 253 as it was approaching Detroit failed to cause any harm (except for burns on the attempted terrorist himself, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab).

Given that this was a failure of airport security (and possibly of the FBI and CIA, although it is hard to say at this point), one would think that the logical response would be to spend more money to beef up airport security and police forces with better equipment and resources rather than continually pour money into the military.

(Sure, money can't buy everything, especially with regards to airport security, which also relies heavily on procedure. However, even simply more personnel will help alleviate the bottlenecks that are appearing as airports react to the attempted bombing. Money poured into research, development, and installation of better equipment, such as tunable THz-frequency scanners, will also help in the future.)

Perhaps some people are more interested in retaliation than prevention, as described here by Dr. Dawg. Prevention may never be perfect, but one must remember that air travel is safe today due to people learning from mistakes made in the past. People will learn from this near-miss as they have from past disasters and near-misses. The worst thing to do now is to overreact.

Peace and long life.

It gets worse...

... but it isn't surprising.

Short summary: Canadian soldiers try to help an Afghan detainee who is cooking in a holding cell in Canadian custody that reaches 60 degrees Celsius by giving the detainee frozen water bottles and warning Ottawa headquarters about the conditions. Ottawa headquarters initially refuses to allow the detainee to be released and ignores warnings about the detainee's condition.

Although this isn't directly related to the transfer of Afghan detainees over to Afghan custody (where there is a significant chance of torture), it seems to be quite indicative of how little the Canadian government really cares about the treatment of detainees. The Conservatives, however, are quite happy to throw around rhetoric and act indignantly when faced with allegations.

H/t to Dr. Dawg.

Copenhagen: Do it for a better tomorrow

Here is a comic that says it all. (H/t to Pharyngula.)

Some people look only at the possible temporary economic setback during a transition to a greener economy (never mind the fact that an economic depression is the perfect time for government investment into new industries to increase the flow of money and to diversify the economy). Some people take the anthropogenic global warming as an implied condemnation of their lifestyles, and thus argue against the science with tooth and nail. Some people are too invested in the fossil fuel industry to want greener alternatives to succeed.

At the same time, there are many other benefits to switching to a greener economy, many listed in the comic, even if one disregards the impact of burning fossil fuels to the climate. Not directly listed is the fact that reducing our consumption of fossil fuels will preserve the world's "one-time gift" (as Dr. David Suzuki would put it) for other uses as they may come up. (For example, many plastics are made from fossil fuels.) In a sense, burning fossil fuels has been a quick fix for the developed world's energy needs. Longer-term solutions will rely on renewable sources of energy (at least renewable when ignoring far future events, such as the death of the Sun, or the likely radiation heat death of the universe).

The monetary arguments for inaction are boggling. Countries keep standing armies and weapons of war just in case, and they cost billions (or more) annually to do little or nothing. (This doesn't include the costs of actually waging war, which is much more... like hundreds of billions.) The scientific consensus is that the world is slowly advancing toward a climate change catastrophe, whether it occurs fifty or a hundred years from now. One would think that the threat of an impending global catastrophe would be enough to spend money to avert (by changing our lifestyles and going greener) or prepare (through new geoengineering methods). A military may not ever go to war (although it may be employed for peacekeeping) but costs billions. War only causes death and destruction, but costs hundreds of billions to wage.

Why does trying to avert a potential climate catastrophe not deserve significant monetary investment?

Canada is not even considered to be a nation serious about dealing with climate change anymore. Why does preserving one precious resource (tar sands and oil reserves) trump the development of other precious resources (lots of land, lots of wind potential in many places, many rivers, etc.)?

Peace and long life.

Take many small steps quickly... Copenhagen or bust

Today, I discovered a blog on the BBC written by Justin Rowlatt: the Ethical Man blog. Mr. Rowlatt and his family tried to reduce their carbon usage for a year for a television program.

One issue covered in Mr. Rowlatt's post is potential opposition against wind farms in Britain, supported by arguments by Dr. David MacKay. Dr. MacKay estimates the power produced by a wind farm per unit area for an average 6-m/s wind as 2.2 W/m^2 (of land area). The wind potential calculated for those winds is 140 W/m^2 (of swept area). (I kind of wish he integrated the instantaneous power to calculate the energy produced instead, making use the histograms shown here, though. It would have been more accurate.)

Dr. MacKay believes that wind power is insufficient to supply enough energy to cover enough of Britain's total energy usage (not just electricity, but also heating and transportation) to be worthwhile, especially considering Britain's small area and relatively large population. He is known to advocate a massive move toward nuclear power in order to significantly reduce carbon emissions now (while figuring out how to deal with radioactive waste and more environmentally-friendly solutions later). It is not an outright horrific idea anymore (which in itself is depressing), considering that potential catastrophic climate change is likely to occur before the 22nd century rolls around. At the same time, wind power helps. A lot of steps need to be taken together to make a real difference. (Plus nuclear waste is a major negative... and it's not like we have infinite uranium reserves either...)

One thing I should note is that Mr. Rowlatt says that wind power is a "very dilute energy source". True, but one must note that the only reason fossil fuels seem like a concentrated energy source is due to hundreds of millions of years of geologic processes. As Dr. David Suzuki once said, fossil fuels are a one-time gift from the planet, and we're burning it all up (and it's not taking us a hundred million years to do so).

As for Canada, we're in the opposite position of Britain. We have a relatively small population and a huge country. Furthermore, we have some awesome wind potential (based on swept area) in Canada as shown on this wind map. At 80 metres high, Canada has plenty of regions that easily surpass 1000 W/m^2 of wind potential based on swept area (most notably around the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador). Even in the heart of coal-addicted Alberta, there is some decent wind potential (most notably in the Rockies, and a region near Edmonton). Yes, Canada has huge areas having more than seven times the wind potential in Britain.

Even if some locations are off-limits due to ecological concerns, there is still a huge area that can be considered. (Did I mention that Canada is huge?)

The Conservative government has sent representatives to Copenhagen with Canada now viewed as one of the "bad guys" with regards to climate change. The Conservatives (and Ignatieff) regard, at least outwardly, the tar sands as a crucial part of Canada's future and economy. Despite what the tar sands generate, the future does not lie in fossil fuels, and tying Canada to an anchor that's going to be tossed off the side of the boat eventually is silly. Heck, Alberta produces most of its electricity by burning coal (so yeah, electric cars might be worse for the environment in Alberta). The worst part is that inaction will not affect the worst polluters first. It is the people who live on small islands, like the Maldives, who will suddenly find their land disappearing rapidly as ocean levels keep rising.

Instead of thinking about how Canada is blessed with the money-making tar sands, remember that Canada is blessed with so many more resources, as the previously-linked wind map shows. Take advantage of the economic depression, and spend some government money on starting up some green industries, or start some government projects like setting up wind farms (or concentrated solar collectors or whatever). This will rebuild and diversify our economy, reduce our reliance on oil, and reduce our carbon emissions. Many small steps can taken quickly.

The rest of the world is probably looking at Canada and wondering why we seem unwilling to step up when it is quite possibly the easiest for us to step up. Britain wishes it had Canada's size and wind resources for their wind farms.

Peace and long life.

Constitutional crisis, or an attack on democracy?

Dr. Dawg and Brian Topp at The Globe and Mail point out that with the Canadian Conservative government unwilling to hand over documents pertaining to the transfer of detainees to Afghan officials, despite a passed motion in the House of Commons demanding the release of those documents, the Conservatives are basically putting the executive ahead of the legislative branch of government.

While a lot of media outlets have deemed this as a looming constitutional crisis, the fact of the matter should be simple. The whole of Parliament was democratically elected, which means that the entire Parliament represents the entire populace. In a democracy, there is majority rule with minority rights (in Canada, protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms). The majority of Parliament voted for the release of government documents, which does not violate any minority rights. (Trying to protect cabinet ministers does not count as a right.) By ignoring Parliament, the Conservative government is ignoring the proxy for the will of the Canadian people.

Originally, I was not too worried, as a vote of no-confidence could have resulted in either a coalition government or an election.

However, Dr. Dawg and Mr. Topp are correct in saying that there should not be a need for a motion of no-confidence. As Dr. Dawg states, we should be hearing a lot more alarm bells (from the media, at the very least) than what we have heard.

Peace and long life.

The soundtrack to "Star Trek: The Motion Picture", and beyond

Trekmovie.com has a nice tribute to the soundtrack of "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" as part of their week-long celebrations of the first Star Trek movie.

Jerry Goldsmith was, frankly, an amazing composer with a wide range and willingness to experiment with new instruments and techniques (with regards to "Star Trek: The Motion Picture", the blaster beam). Amongst the Star Trek films, Jerry Goldsmith's scores crowd the top soundtracks in the film franchise ("The Motion Picture", "The Final Frontier", "First Contact", "Insurrection", and even "Nemesis"). His work outside Star Trek was also outstanding. (Two very different and effective soundtracks for two very different movies from the top of my head include "Mulan" and "The Omen".)

Aside from the movies (Star Trek or otherwise) that were blessed with Goldsmith's music, the Star Trek franchise has been lucky to have good to excellent music for all of its movies.

Death of the public option?

Approximately 46 million Americans are unable to afford health insurance, and tens of thousands of Americans die annually as a result. After much caterwauling by Republicans and some Democrats, the government-run public option for low-income Americans appears to be dead.

The new idea is for non-profit insurance options that will be administered by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). That seems like a more convoluted solution, and it would still leave out more people than a public option. They are non-profit options, but they will still require people to pay money to cover costs (which was a major point of contention with regards to the public option... the use of taxpayer money).

It's mildly better than nothing, but somehow, I suspect that tens of millions of Americans will still be left without health care in the end... Minimally-costing health insurance may still be too expensive for some people.

Hopefully, health care reform will arrive in the U.S. to the benefit to everyone, rich and poor, in the future. A triggered public option, in case insurance companies don't participate in the network of OPM-managed insurers, is still on the table. For now, though, it looks like incremental progress seems all that is possible.

Peace and long life.

President Obama picks up the Nobel Peace Prize... awkward timing...

President Obama has picked up the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo. Coming off the heels of a 30000-soldier troop surge in Afghanistan, the "ironing"... well, it burns.

To his credit, Obama has acknowledged that his "accomplishments are slight" with regards to promoting peace in comparison to previous winners as well as those who "toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering".

Obama also referenced the fact that the U.S. is fighting two wars:

But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by forty three other countries – including Norway – in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.

It is well-known that the U.S. invaded Iraq on flimsy pretenses. What is somewhat less known was that the U.S. may have possibly averted the war on Afghanistan as well if it had been more open to negotiation in the first place. The Taliban had actually been willing (almost desperate) to hand over Osama bin Laden and his high-ranking associates in order to preserve its rule over Afghanistan. Indeed, the atrocities committed by al Qaeda on September 11, 2001 were significant and caused nearly 3000 deaths. At the same time, one must remember that the attacks were carried out by a relatively small number of criminals and terrorists, who may have been given up by the Taliban with more negotiation. Raining death and destruction upon Afghanistan reeked more of revenge, and it actually gave a chance for Osama bin Laden to escape in the chaos. Eight years later, Osama bin Laden and most of the high-ranking members of al Qaeda are still free. Ultimately, the problem was that the U.S. government didn't even try to negotiate for bin Laden's extradition... they went straight to war.

While no one can argue that the Taliban was a repressive regime, the current Afghan government is effective only in major cities while most of the country is still controlled by warlords. Furthermore, the current Afghan government (even in its limited range) functions more like a "tyranny of the majority" than a real democracy (majority rule with minority rights) given the disparity in rights given to males and females.

Obama also invokes the Second World War in his argument about the necessity of war as an option, although he does note the disproportionate number of civilian casualties with respect to military ones:

And while it is hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.

Defeating Hitler and the Third Reich ultimately ended the Holocaust and other crimes against humanity. Defeating the Japanese Empire prevented the continuation of crimes against humanity across southeast Asia. Those are the undisputed good that came out of the Second World War.

At the same time, the Second World War is an easy out when used as an example. Hitler was itching to go to war with nearly everyone in continental Europe (Poland to take back the territory ceded by Germany in the Treaty of Versailles, France to avenge the loss in the First World War, the Soviet Union because of the Communists, etc.). Hitler also declared war on the U.S. after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. As for Japan, it wanted an empire (like the European powers at the time, most notably Britain and France), and the U.S. was a potential competitor, so it preemptively attacked Pearl Harbor. The U.S. didn't have to start a war with the Third Reich nor the Japanese Empire: it just had to respond.

Had the Third Reich and Japan limited their crimes against humanity within their borders and not declare war on anyone, would anyone have stepped in to stop them? The answer is probably not. Japan had already been committing war crimes in China for years before Pearl Harbor (the Nanjing Massacre being a major example, and others like the bombing of Chongqing). The U.S. responded with trade embargoes and a small American volunteer group known as the "Flying Tigers" (which actually first saw action only after December 7, 1941 due to the length of training). The British offered some planes to the Chinese, and the Soviet Union offered a Soviet volunteer group until the Soviets and Japanese signed a non-aggression pact. With regards to Nazi Germany, one should also take note of the fact that the U.S. refused (or made it as hard as possible for) Jewish refugees desperate to flee the Third Reich prior to and during the Second World War. In particular, the S.S. St. Louis was turned away from Canada and the U.S. (amongst others) in 1940, only to unload its passengers in Belgium, the Netherlands, the U.K., and France. Those in Belgium, the Netherlands, and France were unlucky enough to be trapped and subject to the Holocaust after Germany invaded.

One, though, should also remember the lesser war crimes committed by the Allies as well, such as the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo (not even mentioning the atomic bombings).

Drawing on the Second World War as a crutch for the "war is needed" argument is flawed. Germany and Japan (and the other Axis powers) were the aggressors, and they were defeated. (It's a valid argument for keeping a military around for deterrence, though.)

Escalating the war in Afghanistan, which is what a troop surge will result in, no longer has any point. No one has any clue where bin Laden is, nor does anyone know where al Qaeda operates from anymore. NATO cannot dictate legislation that will result in equality for women. NATO cannot purge corruption from the current Afghan government. NATO cannot diminish the power of the warlords. Ultimately, NATO cannot eliminate the Taliban. Aside from the unknown whereabouts of al Qaeda, all of the other problems facing the NATO mission requires societal change. That cannot be made through force. Reducing poverty will help as well, since people with something to live for will be less easily converted into becoming insurgents. Unfortunately, poverty abounds when warfare goes on.

It's time to negotiate with the Taliban insurgents and withdraw. That will give the civilians of Afghanistan a chance for peace.

Peace and long life.

Handy list of other indicators of global warming

Here is a nice list of non-temperature indicators global warming (and potential consequences of delaying action).

H/t to Mentarch.

Depressed about the state of the world... (rant)

Yesterday, I really needed that tribute to "Star Trek: The Motion Picture". On the whole, "Star Trek" (the original series), "Star Trek: The Next Generation", and the Star Trek films pushed a positive humanist vision of the future: any problems can be solved rationally by people, and anyone we meet in space will mostly be rational. Working together, people can create a utopia. Personally, I needed that detour into what may be...

... because "what is" sucks. I have three examples illustrating the point. (I have many more examples, but this will have to do for today.)

Responses to the Ecole Polytechnique massacre:

Going back to the Ecole Polytechnique massacre, read this for some accounts of disturbing reaction to the 20th anniversary. In short, some people were celebrating the killer rather than remembering the victims. The killer was, for all intents and purposes, a terrorist before the term became popularized: he tried to achieve some societal or political gain (trying to stop the inroads women were making into a male-dominated world) through violence. What would these people who celebrate the killer feel about celebrating a terrorist? What would these people who celebrate the killer feel about denouncing remembrance of a terror attack?

The problem with these people who celebrate the killer is that they don't see the murdered (and injured) women as people who lost their lives in a meaningless attack. These people who celebrate the killer see the victims only in terms of being detrimental to their political beliefs. This in itself speaks volumes... and it doesn't paint a very flattering picture (to put it extremely mildly).

To put it less mildly, it is sickening... absolutely disgusting.

The vitriol shown toward feminists (and just women in general) is disturbing... Beyond just remembering those who died in the Ecole Polytechnique massacre, the fight against misogyny must continue.

Climate change "controversy":

I wanted to write about the unrelenting attacks on scientists, and how I would have felt if I was in their position. Unfortunately, I couldn't even fathom my reaction. It's already hard enough getting back standard reviewer responses to a submitted paper (and they are usually pretty tough). Also being attacked by those less qualified (not saying that they can't be qualified if they did the sufficient work and research... but generally, they don't) would be unbelievably stressful. And when those who attack have vast resources, it just becomes just that much more difficult.

It becomes even worse when pseudo-science is thrown out to fight legitimate science. One example that comes to mind is the "warming Sun" theory. It is indeed true that the Sun will on average radiate more energy over time as it depletes its hydrogen and converts it into helium; however, the Sun's rate of change is not nearly rapid enough to explain the rise in temperatures over the past century or so. This is shown by observed stratospheric cooling accompanying tropospheric warming: the same amount of energy is delivered to the ground, but the greenhouse gases trap more energy in the troposphere rather than allow the energy to radiate away into the higher levels of the atmosphere.

Here is a reminder of the "manufactured doubt" industry, and how it fought hard against links between smoking and lung cancer, links between CFC emissions and the ozone hole, and links between fossil fuel burning and global warming.

Heck, even "climate change" seems to be a construct of those who don't like the phrase "global warming".

It's depressing how people are happy to accept the fruits of science and engineering when they result in nice toys and gadgets and conveniences. When scientific findings imply that people have to change their ways for the better of the planet and the longer term, scientists are dismissed as being part of some great "conspiracy" and the like. So, are retreating glaciers, thinning and retreating Arctic ice, giant icebergs breaking off of Antarctica, and rising ocean levels (amongst many other indicators) the result of warmer or cooler temperatures? It seems pretty obvious.

Afghan detainee transfer by Canadian soldiers:

Politicians fight hard for their jobs rather than try to find out whether something is going wrong and trying to prevent future war crimes from happening. Outright lies are spewed. These people are supposed to represent Canadians.

As usual, the Conservative government will ignore the passed motion for a public inquiry. It would, however, be possible for a non-confidence motion to be passed, a coalition government to be established, and then a public inquiry to be called. (It would be highly unlikely, though, given the general lack of cooperation between the opposition parties.)

The American populace, according to a survey, now condones torture by a slim majority, which is absolutely disgraceful. Hopefully, Canada is not on the same path.

Well, I'm done ranting for a day, even though there is much more inequality and injustice in the world. Much work has to be done for a better future...

But right now, as far as I can tell, our world looks like it is the road to Star Trek's mirror universe. Don't make it so.

Peace and long life.

That sense of wonder: "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" turns 30

It was only recently that I was able to find time to read again. In particular, a few weeks ago, I was reading The Mammoth Book of Mind-Blowing Science Fiction, edited by Mike Ashley, who tried to choose stories that would convey a "sense of wonder".

Taking each "Star Trek" series and film into consideration, it is clear that the one movie that stands out as conveying (or at least trying really hard to convey) a sense of wonder is "Star Trek: The Motion Picture". December 7, 2009 is its thirtieth anniversary.

SOME SPOILERS FOLLOW:

Sure, it has flaws pointed out by various detractors. It is sometimes referred to as "The Motionless Picture" due to its slow pacing. Compared to the movies of its time, it is at impulse while other movies are at warp. It is sometimes referred to as a ripoff of the "Star Trek" episode "The Changeling" (although, it is like saying that "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" is a ripoff of "Hamlet" since both deal with revenge... the similarities between "The Changeling" and "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" are superficial).

At the same time, it offers a true sense of wonder in its antagonist: V'ger. V'ger is literally shrouded in layers of mysterious mathematically-generated patterns of energy, which (being 82 astronomical units wide... the distance from the Sun to Neptune!) hides the object at the centre. Even the object at the centre is so huge that the Enterprise never gets to see the entire object at once. Only glimpses of giant alien structures are seen. The viewer is (hopefully) left wondering about what amazing beings could have built this vast object... only to then learn that V'ger is approaching Earth in order to return to its creator. Who (or what) on Earth could have created V'ger?

The Enterprise, refitted into the most modern starship, is marveled at near the start of the film and then is shown to be completely insignificant next to V'ger. Still, V'ger eventually needs a human person to accomplish its ulterior motive.

Finally, V'ger wins. (No, really, if one thinks about it, V'ger does win.) At the same time, everyone else wins. The film ends on a hopeful note.

Seriously, "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" is the last "Star Trek" film that portrays the universe as a mysterious place where things that are not well understood can still be found. (Honorable mention goes to "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier", where the Enterprise is hijacked and travels to the center of the galaxy to find "God", only for "God" to be killed by a Klingon warship. Finding "God", the climax, and denouement were the letdown, but the build-up in the movie was relatively good, despite its other flaws.)

In the various "Star Trek" series and films, the heroes are shown to be the masters of technology and their corner of the universe, where (generally-speaking) the Federation slowly expands peacefully through diplomacy and exploration (kind of like a more effective United Nations in space).

"Star Trek: The Motion Picture" simply reminds the viewer that the universe, while not being overtly hostile (keeping with a key "Star Trek" theme that the problems in the universe can be solved rationally and peacefully), has more to offer around the corner than just another "nation" in space. It reminds us to keep looking, keep learning, and keep wondering of what may be.

Peace and long life.

Ecole Polytechnique...

... massacre occurred 20 years ago.

It is a time to pay respect to the dead by remembering the 14 women who were killed, by working to prevent it from occurring again, and fighting misogyny wherever and whenever possible.

Peace and long life.

Concentrating solar power (CSP) for home

Historically, electrical power generation on a large scale has relied on getting a turbine to rotate, which in turn rotates a connected armature (wire windings) within an unchanging magnetic field (typically permanent magnets). (In motor terms, the armature would be the rotor, and the magnetic field would be provided by the stator.) Getting the turbine to rotate often involved (in fact, still involve) the burning of fossil fuels in order to boil water. Steam then pushes the turbine. Later the steam is collected later in the loop, allowed to cool, and then returned to the water reservoir. More modern and renewable alternatives are found in hydroelectric dams and wind turbines.

A major exception that comes to mind is solar power generated through photovoltaic cells. Instead of taking mechanical power and turning it into electrical power, photovoltaic cells absorb photons to excite electrons (assuming the photons are of sufficiently high frequency). Commercially-available solar panels tend to be of relatively low efficiency (<20%), although far more efficient solar panels are being researched and developed.

Concentrating solar power (CSP) takes us back to our heat-a-fluid-and-then-have-it-flow-around-in-a-loop roots. Well, not exactly, and not always. Steam turbines are indeed used for solar thermoelectricity, but CSP has also been used on air turbines, photovoltaic cells, molten salts, and Stirling engines (described surprisingly well in Wikipedia). CSP is also being looked at as a way to desalinize ocean water into freshwater (very necessary as freshwater supplies continue to dwindle and ocean levels continue to rise).

In general, concentrating solar power is still more efficient than solar power from photovoltaic cells (ignoring possible future next-generation photovoltaics). Given the noisiness of a wind turbine in an urban setting, and the low efficiency of commercial solar panels (combined with the fact that this is Canada, with limited hours of sunlight already), I've always wanted a miniature CSP generator to play around with.

Amazingly, Sopology has a portable parabolic trough-style CSP generator. Additionally, they have a rooftop-mounted product as well.

Equally cool (or hot) and infinitely cheaper, if one is looking simply for a solar-powered heater to help keep costs down during a Canadian winter, is a self-made heater made partially from old soda cans.

Finally, I'm not sure how many people know this, but the bottom curve of a soda can is typically parabolic in shape. As such, if one can find soda cans that are not dinged up, a person could hypothetically polish the bottoms of soda cans until they are reflective and then build an array of parabolic mirrors. You never know what you could build... just think MacGyver...

Peace and long life.