Then I read something about Vieta-jumping that I'm not familiar with and how it's used to solve this question or not. A rather simple solution I came across is this one. I think the elegance and quality of a solution is greatly influenced by its length and level of simplicity in terms of notation, terminology, and construction.
As far as I did my silly online research I couldn't find a solution that was equivalent to mine. Therefore I thought it would be a good idea to share it and let other people, with a much broader understandig of existing mathematical proofs, decide if this proof is correct and a known solution. Sign up to join this community. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top. Stack Overflow for Teams — Collaborate and share knowledge with a private group.
Create a free Team What is Teams? Learn more. Asked 4 years, 8 months ago. Active 2 years, 11 months ago. Viewed 34k times. Community Bot 1.
Pascal Pascal 79 1 1 gold badge 1 1 silver badge 4 4 bronze badges. First, it is not a duplicate, since my question differs a lot from that one. Both ballot initiatives were designed to require utilities to generate or acquire 50 percent of their electrical power from renewable resources by , thus putting them on par with neighboring California's RPS.
The Coalition of Energy Users led the campaign in opposition to Question 6. Nevada State Sen. Don Gustavson R was the campaign's chairperson. The Coalition of Energy Users was a nonprofit organization and thus did not need to report contributions. Had there been other plans to increase Nevada's RPS? In June , Gov. Brian Sandoval , a Republican, vetoed a bill that would have increased the state's renewable portfolio standard RPS to 40 percent by In the Nevada State Legislature , Democrats, along with three House Republicans, supported the bill, while the remaining 12 House and 10 Senate Republicans opposed the bill.
Sandoval said an increased RPS was a commendable idea but "its adoption is premature in the face of evolving energy policy in Nevada," such as Question 3. In , How was Question 6 related to Nevada Question 3? Nevada Question 3 would have prohibited electrical utilities from establishing monopolies in their service areas. As of , NV Energy controlled about 90 percent of the state's retail electricity market. Voters approved Question 3 in and needed to approve the initiative again in for the measure to become constitutional law.
Question 3 was defeated in Steve Sisolak , the Democratic nominee for governor in , said he opposed Question 3 and supported Question 6. Sisolak said that Question 3 "could slow our growing renewable energy sector," while his ultimate goal was to go beyond Question 6's requirements and aim for a percent renewable power in Nevada.
What other ballot measures were related to energy policies in ? In , voters in Arizona , Nevada , and Washington decided ballot initiatives designed to reduce the use of fossil fuels and increase the use of renewable resources. In Arizona and Nevada, the environmental organization NextGen Climate Action was financing ballot initiatives, Arizona Proposition and Nevada Question 6 , to require electric utilities to acquire 50 percent of their power from renewable sources.
Arizona Proposition was defeated, and Nevada Question 6 was approved, which means it goes on to the ballot where it must be approved again. In Washington, electors rejected Initiative , which would have enacted a fee on carbon emissions from power plants, refineries, and other specified emitters. Voters in Nevada considered a ballot initiative, Question 3 , to eliminate electricity monopolies and require a competitive energy market.
Question 3 was rejected. Although Question 3 would not have directly affected the use of renewable resources in Nevada, supporters and opponents of the initiative campaigned on the issue of Question 3's effect on the use of renewable resources, contending that deregulation would either increase or decrease the use of renewable resources.
Below are the most notable energy-related measures of For a full list, click here. The question on the ballot was as follows: [18]. Shall Article 4 of the Nevada Constitution be amended to require, beginning in calendar year , that all providers of electric utility services who sell electricity to retail customers for consumption in Nevada generate or acquire incrementally larger percentages of electricity from renewable energy resources so that by calendar year not less than 50 percent of the total amount of electricity sold by each provider to its retail customers in Nevada comes from renewable energy resources?
The ballot explanation was as follows: [18]. According to the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada, an RPS establishes the percentage of electricity sold by an electric utility to retail customers that must come from renewable sources. The measure requires the Nevada Legislature to provide by law for provisions, consistent with the language of the ballot measure, to implement the requirements of the constitutional amendment.
These requirements include a mandate that each provider of electric utility service that sells electricity to retail customers for consumption in Nevada must generate or acquire electricity from renewable energy resources in an amount that is:. The Nevada Legislature would have until July 1, to pass any law required to carry out the provisions of the constitutional amendment. Renewable energy resources is not specifically defined in the ballot measure; however, the language of the ballot measure indicates that renewable energy resources include solar, geothermal, wind, biomass, and waterpower.
The measure also contains a statement of policy that declares it is the policy of Nevada that people and entities that sell electricity to retail customers in Nevada be required to obtain an increasing amount of their electricity from renewable energy resources such as solar, geothermal, and wind.
These provisions do not require all providers of electric utility services that sell electricity to retail customers for consumption in Nevada to generate or acquire an increasing percentage of electricity from renewable energy resources. Under current law, each provider of electric service in Nevada must generate, acquire, or save electricity from a renewable energy system or efficiency measures in an amount that is not less than 20 percent of the total amount of electricity the provider sells to retail customers in Nevada during the calendar year.
Pursuant to current law, the RPS will increase to 22 percent for calendar years through , inclusive, and finally it will increase to 25 percent for calendar year and each calendar year thereafter. Instead, approval of this ballot question would add a provision to the Nevada Constitution that requires the Nevada Legislature, not later than July 1, , to provide by law for provisions to implement the requirements of the constitutional amendment described in the Explanation in the previous section.
The ballot initiative would add a new section to Article 4 of the Nevada Constitution. The following text would be added: [3]. The People of the State of Nevada declare that it is the policy of this State that people and entities that sell electricity to retail customers in this State be required to get an increasing amount of their electricity from renewable energy resources such as solar, geothermal, and wind.
This Act shall be liberally construed to achieve this purpose. Should any part of this Act be declared invalid, or the application thereof to any person, thing or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining provisions or application of this Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are declared to be severable.
This subsection shall be construed broadly to preserve and effectuate the declared purpose of this Act. The word count for the ballot title is 73, and the estimated reading time is 19 seconds. The word count for the ballot summary is , and the estimated reading time is 3 minutes and 7 seconds. In , for the statewide measures on the ballot, the average ballot title or question was written at a level appropriate for those with between 19 and 20 years of U.
Read Ballotpedia's entire ballot language readability report here. Nevadans for a Clean Energy Future led the campaign in support of Question 6. The Coalition of Energy Users led the campaign in opposition to Question 6.
Nevada State Sen. Don Gustavson R was the campaign's chairperson. The Coalition of Energy Users was a nonprofit organization and thus did not need to report contributions. The ballot question for Question 6 was as follows: [5]. The ballot explanation for Question 1 was as follows: [5]. The measure requires the Nevada Legislature to provide by law for provisions, consistent with the language of the ballot measure, to implement the requirements of the constitutional amendment.
These requirements include a mandate that each provider of electric utility service that sells electricity to retail customers for consumption in Nevada must generate or acquire electricity from renewable energy resources in an amount that is:. The Nevada Legislature would have until July 1, to pass any law required to carry out the provisions of the constitutional amendment. Renewable energy resources is not specifically defined in the ballot measure; however, the language of the ballot measure indicates that renewable energy resources include solar, geothermal, wind, biomass, and waterpower.
The measure also contains a statement of policy that declares it is the policy of Nevada that people and entities that sell electricity to retail customers in Nevada be required to obtain an increasing amount of their electricity from renewable energy resources such as solar, geothermal, and wind. A 'Yes' vote would amend Article 4 of the Nevada Constitution to require all providers of electric utility services that sell electricity to retail customers for consumption in Nevada to generate or acquire an increasing percentage of electricity from renewable energy resources so that by calendar year not less than 50 percent of the total amount of electricity sold by each provider to its retail customers in Nevada comes from renewable energy resources.
A 'No' vote would retain the provisions of Article 4 of the Nevada Constitution in their current form. These provisions do not require all providers of electric utility services that sell electricity to retail customers for consumption in Nevada to generate or acquire an increasing percentage of electricity from renewable energy resources.
Under current law, each provider of electric service in Nevada must generate, acquire, or save electricity from a renewable energy system or efficiency measures in an amount that is not less than 20 percent of the total amount of electricity the provider sells to retail customers in Nevada during the calendar year.
Pursuant to current law, the RPS will increase to 22 percent for calendar years through , inclusive, and finally it will increase to 25 percent for calendar year and each calendar year thereafter. Instead, approval of this ballot question would add a provision to the Nevada Constitution that requires the Nevada Legislature, not later than July 1, , to provide by law for provisions to implement the requirements of the constitutional amendment described in the Explanation in the previous section.
Question 6 added a new section to Article 4 of the Nevada Constitution. The following text was added: [1]. The People of the State of Nevada declare that it is the policy of this State that people and entities that sell electricity to retail customers in this State be required to get an increasing amount of their electricity from renewable energy resources such as solar, geothermal, and wind.
This Act shall be liberally construed to achieve this purpose. Should any part of this Act be declared invalid, or the application thereof to any person, thing or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining provisions or application of this Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are declared to be severable.
This subsection shall be construed broadly to preserve and effectuate the declared purpose of this Act. The fiscal impact statement was as follows: [7]. The Fiscal Analysis Division cannot determine how the constitutional provisions of Question 6 will be implemented by the Legislature or which state agencies will be tasked with implementing and administering any laws relating to increasing electricity from renewable energy sources.
Thus, the Fiscal Analysis Division cannot determine the impact upon state government with any reasonable degree of certainty. Additionally, the passage of Question 6 may have an effect upon the cost of electricity sold in Nevada, including the electricity that is purchased and consumed by state and local government entities.
The Fiscal Analysis Division is unable to predict the effect that these provisions may have on the cost of electricity in Nevada beginning in calendar year or the amount of electricity that may be consumed by these government entities beginning in that calendar year; thus, the financial effect upon state and local governments with respect to potential changes in electricity costs cannot be determined with any reasonable degree of certainty.
The word count for the ballot title is 75, and the estimated reading time is 20 seconds. The word count for the ballot summary is , and the estimated reading time is 3 minutes and 7 seconds.
The following arguments in support of Question 6 were included in the Nevada Voter Guide: [7]. While Question 3 is a complicated debate about which utility companies will provide our electricity, Question 6 is simple. It is the only measure on the ballot that would guarantee we get more of our energy from renewable sources like solar and wind. By replacing dirty fossil fuels with clean energy, Question 6 would reduce emissions of toxic pollutants like sulfur dioxide that make our air less safe to breathe.
The cost of clean energy is already cheaper than dirty energy sources: electricity from a new large-scale solar power plant in Nevada is 45 to 70 percent cheaper than electricity from a new power plant fueled with out-of-state gas. The cost of energy storage is declining fast, making solar an even more attractive option. Question 6 would leave a healthier, economically vibrant Nevada for future generations.
If you are aware of any opponents or opposing arguments that should be included here, please send an email with a link to editor ballotpedia. Organizations Americans for Tax Reform. The following arguments in opposition to Question 6 were included in the Nevada Voter Guide: [7]. A constitutional mandate dictating energy policy is unnecessary and risky.
Green technology continues to evolve, and cost-effectiveness for storage and delivery continues to improve. Meanwhile, renewable energy is still dealing with birth pains. Higher standards were legislatively adjusted as technology improved. Prudence and patience are exercised to encourage innovation while protecting ratepayers. To do otherwise is to asphyxiate innovation and jeopardize the affordable supply of reliable energy Nevadans are currently allowed to purchase.
An energy crisis does not exist in Nevada. Ratepayers currently enjoy safe reliable delivery of energy at rates that are far below the national average.
Do not confine choice by allowing the attachment of restrictive mandates into our Constitution. Question 6 proposes to rip away our safety net by mandating rigid timeframes that removes the ability to consider ratepayer protections and impending technological improvements. Mandates are unbending and unforgiving. The passage of Question 6 threatens to repress future innovation and wound our efficiency. Defend Nevada consumers by voting no on Ballot Question 6.
There was one political action committee , Nevadans for Affordable, Clean Energy Choices , registered to support Question 6 Question 6 was on the ballot in For Question 6 of , only one campaign was registered in support of the initiative— Nevadans for a Clean Energy Future.
There were no political action committees registered to oppose Question 6. The Coalition of Energy Users, a nonprofit organization, was opposing the ballot measure. To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here. On April 16, the Nevada State Senate approved the bill in a unanimous vote.
On April 19, the Nevada State Assembly approved the bill in a unanimous vote. On April 22, Gov. Between and , two initiated constitutional amendments were not approved by voters the second time they appeared on ballots.
Question 9 was rejected with Question 3 was rejected with As of , 29 states had renewable portfolio standards RPS. An RPS is a mandate to electric utilities to generate a minimum amount of electricity from eligible renewable energy sources. California, Hawaii, and New Mexico had the highest future requirement, as of , at percent by The following list provides details on the different state RPS laws: [14].
0コメント