🚀 go-pugleaf

Milton, John, Kleim, "Jr." wrote:
> The present power crisis in California places the state on the brink of
> economic disaster.  If California's economy collapses, so will
> America's national economy.

Maybe, or maybe businesses leaving the state will move to other states,
boosting their economy.  We've already heard how Cisco is building a
large development facility in Texas and Intel has decided to locate all
of their new facilities in other states.  Could be a big boom for the
rest of the country.

<Milton John Kleim>; "Jr." <mjk71@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:94fhqj$1e1$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> The present power crisis in California places the state on the brink of
> economic disaster.  If California's economy collapses, so will
> America's national economy.
>
> George W. Bush will earn himself the eternal legacy as "The Man Who
> Caused the Second Great Depression" unless he puts his friends at
> Enron, Dynegy, etc., in place for a while, and helps solve the
> California Energy Crisis.
>
> Bush has great opportunity to be a leader.  If he puts campaign
> contributions above NATIONAL interest (and California's stability is in
> the national interest), as his predecessor did, his legacy will be much
> worse than being "the President of the Oral Office."
>
> He'll be President George W. Hoover.


  California is not the center of the universe, and anyways, what do you
want to be done? Steal power from other Westren states are are near capacity
also, use federal funds to solve was is a problem created in California? In
any event, power is just one of the problems CA is now facing, it lacks
affordable housing, is congested beyond belief, and is choked with
regulations, and all of this is going to make California very unattractive
to new busienss'.

in article CJJa6.10246$Ah2.186669@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com, John Bianco
wrote:

> In
> any event, power is just one of the problems CA is now facing, it lacks
> affordable housing, is congested beyond belief, and is choked with
> regulations, and all of this is going to make California very unattractive
> to new busienss'.

Hey, if California is having problems, then it is certainly fair game to
kick it in the you-know-what. Dumping on California probably helps the
self-esteem of the nondescript fly-over states.

-- 
John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | http://www.anntec.com/
+1 408 264 4115 |  Silicon Valley, CA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
  Cheap, provincial San Franciscans can call: 415 428-COWS

In article <3A6B66AD.4854DA97@quiotix.com>,
Jeffrey Siegal  <jbs@quiotix.com> wrote:
>
>Maybe, or maybe businesses leaving the state will move to other states,
>boosting their economy.  We've already heard how Cisco is building a
>large development facility in Texas and Intel has decided to locate all
>of their new facilities in other states.  Could be a big boom for the
>rest of the country.


Don't count on it. California is always the first state into and the last
state out of a recession. It looks like the state may be headed that way,
which means its only a matter of time before other states follow.


Dimitri

MiltonJohnKleim wrote:
: George W. Bush will earn himself the eternal legacy as "The Man Who
: Caused the Second Great Depression" unless he puts his friends at
: Enron, Dynegy, etc., in place for a while, and helps solve the
: California Energy Crisis.

I am extremely unhappy to have Bush in office, but in this case, I have to
agree with him.  We the people and government of California caused this
problem ourselves, though a decade of shortsighted legislation and poor
capacity planning.  We alone are to blame, and I for one would be ashamed
to ask people in other states to bail us out.  We need to revisit the
relevant legislation and conserve power in the short term, and build more
generators in the long term.

The federal government has a legitimate role in helping regions recover
from natural disasters.  Recovery from stupidity should be left as a
lesson for those responsible.

-- 
   |   Craig Berry - http://www.cinenet.net/~cberry/
 --*--  "The hills are burning, and the wind is raging; and the clock
   |   strikes midnight in the Garden of Allah." - Don Henley

David Kaye wrote:
> Wake up, people!  It's all smoke and mirrors designed to make people
> *want* dangerous nuclear reactor power plants.

Prove it.  Conspiracy theories are meaningless drivel without proof. 
You don't have it.

The more direct, and therefore more likely, explanation is that the
plants were driven to the limit by summer peak demand, and *must* be
shut down now for overhauls (which can take as much as four months for
the older plants) if they are to be ready for next summer's peak.  About
55% of the plants in this state are over 30 years old (some are as much
as 50 years old) and need a *lot* of maintanence.

Add to that a drought approaching 20 year severity affecting hydro
capacity in the northwest, peak demand last summer eating a huge
quantity of emissions permits (driving their price up to at least
$0.10/KWH, if not more) and you don't need a conspiracy theory to
explain short electricity supplies and high prices.  

But if you want to make yourself feel betting with this "we're all
victims of the big, bad, corporations"[*] delusion, go right ahead.

[*] Of course, many of these "evil" out of state suppliers aren't even
corporations after all, but public power authorities and regulated
utilities in other states.

In article <94lbbl$dot1$3@rn.area.com>,
David Kaye  <dk@removethis.area.com> wrote:
>
[snip!]
>
>Wake up, people!  It's all smoke and mirrors designed to make people
>*want* dangerous nuclear reactor power plants.


I don't think *anyone* wants dangerous nuclear plants. I do want safe,
reliable nuclear plants, though. Whether that can be guaranteed in
earthquake country I'm not sure, but Japan seems to think so.


Dimitri

in article 94lbbl$dot1$3@rn.area.com, David Kaye  wrote:

> Wake up, people!  It's all smoke and mirrors designed to make people
> *want* dangerous nuclear reactor power plants.

Actually, I've always wanted them. I fail to see the danger. (I know all the
anti-nuke canned responses.)

-- 
John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | http://www.anntec.com/
+1 408 264 4115 |  Silicon Valley, CA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
  Cheap, provincial San Franciscans can call: 415 428-COWS

in article 94iocq$rp3$1@agate.berkeley.edu, D. Gerasimatos  wrote:

> I don't think *anyone* wants dangerous nuclear plants. I do want safe,
> reliable nuclear plants, though. Whether that can be guaranteed in
> earthquake country I'm not sure, but Japan seems to think so.

So far, the record is on their side. It is on our side, for that matter. I
forget when the last time seismic activity caused a nuclear "disaster".
Actually, I have forgotten the last "disaster" of any kind using modern US
fission reactor technology. And it IS in use all over the world.

-- 
John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | http://www.anntec.com/
+1 408 264 4115 |  Silicon Valley, CA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
  Cheap, provincial San Franciscans can call: 415 428-COWS

David Kaye wrote:

>  No, people are using
> this situation as an attempt to build dangerous nuclear reactors.
> 

I'd rather have safe nuclear power, instead. This would also escape
the dread CO2 ("carbon tax"), and allow salmon and steelhead to spawn.

John Higdon wrote:
> Actually, I have forgotten the last "disaster" of any kind using modern US
> fission reactor technology. And it IS in use all over the world.

I don't know what you call a disaster, but there was a serious
*accident* at a fuel processing facility in Japan that exposed about a
hundred people or so to potentially dangerous levels of radiation.

Which is not to say that nuclear power is not *far* safer than the
fossil fuel power industries people take for granted (and releases less
radiation into the environment, for that matter).

in article 3A6CEBB4.3CB9DB58@quiotix.com, Jeffrey Siegal  wrote:

> I don't know what you call a disaster, but there was a serious
> *accident* at a fuel processing facility in Japan that exposed about a
> hundred people or so to potentially dangerous levels of radiation.
> 
> Which is not to say that nuclear power is not *far* safer than the
> fossil fuel power industries people take for granted (and releases less
> radiation into the environment, for that matter).

Accidents happen. Every technology known to man has a certain amount of risk
associated with it and nuclear technology is no exception. To say otherwise
would be nonsense. The question revolves around whether the risk outweighs
the the benefits. So far, I have seen no genuine evidence that such is the
case. When you strip away the emotional knee-jerk reactions to the topic,
what you have left is a workable, beneficial method for electrical
generation.

A "disaster" is when large numbers of citizens are injured or killed.
Chernobyl was a "disaster". Three Mile Island was NOT a "disaster". A
"hundred people or so" sounds very serious at first blush...until you think
about how many people have died in just this nation's coal mines.

Interestingly enough, a properly functioning coal-burning generating plant
releases more radiation into the environment than a comparable properly
functioning nuclear fission plant. And then, there are the so-called
"greenhouse" gases! I would welcome a nuclear plant in my backyard. I might
think twice about a coal-burning plant.

-- 
John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | http://www.anntec.com/
+1 408 264 4115 |  Silicon Valley, CA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
  Cheap, provincial San Franciscans can call: 415 428-COWS

Just how dangerous are Nuke plants? How many people do you know who
have died in San Luis Obispo from radiation from Diablo Canyon? I
don't know of any, but that sure is one massive Nuke plant. How many
people in the Napa Valley have died from a Nuke sub that melted down
in Mare Island. None that I know, but one sank in the channel
accidently while Mare Island was in operation.

When I get on the onramp to highway 50, I risk a serious chance that I
could die in a fatal accident. I can show you numerous places where
people have died on the local freeways.

And let's look at yet another serious health risk. People knowingly
expose themselves to radiation from the sun to get a tan. Even my
granmother has had areas of skin cancer removed.

People like you need to gain perspective. A nuke plant would be the
best thing we could do for the environment! Or better yet, take your
house off the grid. If you're wondering how, I could point you to
someone who has done it. 

brian

On 24 Jan 2001 01:32:37 GMT, David Kaye <dk@removethis.area.com>
wrote:

>Wake up, people!  It's all smoke and mirrors designed to make people
>*want* dangerous nuclear reactor power plants.

--
Brian Lavender
Sacramento, CA
http://www.brie.com/brian/
 "There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX.  
  We don't believe this to be a coincidence." - Jeremy S. Anderson

I believe Diablo Canyon took fifteen years or more to come on line
from the beginning of construction which is rather impressive. I have
been through it a couple of times. I was really disappointed when
Racho Seco here in Sacto shut down in 89. I talked to guy from SMUD,
and asked if there was a chance to bring it back. He indicated that
there wasn't. Sacto would be the place to build a Nuke. Low earthquake
risk, good water supply. Good workforce for construction.

It will take time though. Nukes just don't go up overnight. I would
imagine a ten year timeline would not be unreasonable.

brian

On 23 Jan 2001 01:56:42 GMT, dim@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (D. Gerasimatos)
wrote:

>In article <94lbbl$dot1$3@rn.area.com>,
>David Kaye  <dk@removethis.area.com> wrote:
>>
>[snip!]
>>
>>Wake up, people!  It's all smoke and mirrors designed to make people
>>*want* dangerous nuclear reactor power plants.
>
>
>I don't think *anyone* wants dangerous nuclear plants. I do want safe,
>reliable nuclear plants, though. Whether that can be guaranteed in
>earthquake country I'm not sure, but Japan seems to think so.
>
>
>Dimitri

--
Brian Lavender
Sacramento, CA
http://www.brie.com/brian/
 "There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX.  
  We don't believe this to be a coincidence." - Jeremy S. Anderson

Brian,

I'm with you on the dangers of nuclear plants.  So far, there exists no
evidence that they are dangerous.  They are, however, ridiculously
expensive to operate primarily because it is prohibitively expensive to
get rid of nuclear waste.  As early as 1992, The Economist had articles
detailing how much more economical gas generation and "clean" coal
plants are than nuclear plants.  

And, that's the technology that ought to be employed here.  We CAN build
gas or coal powered plants without violating existing clean air
regulations.

P

Brian Lavender wrote:
> 
> Just how dangerous are Nuke plants? How many people do you know who
> have died in San Luis Obispo from radiation from Diablo Canyon? I
> don't know of any, but that sure is one massive Nuke plant. How many
> people in the Napa Valley have died from a Nuke sub that melted down
> in Mare Island. None that I know, but one sank in the channel
> accidently while Mare Island was in operation.
> 
> When I get on the onramp to highway 50, I risk a serious chance that I
> could die in a fatal accident. I can show you numerous places where
> people have died on the local freeways.
> 
> And let's look at yet another serious health risk. People knowingly
> expose themselves to radiation from the sun to get a tan. Even my
> granmother has had areas of skin cancer removed.
> 
> People like you need to gain perspective. A nuke plant would be the
> best thing we could do for the environment! Or better yet, take your
> house off the grid. If you're wondering how, I could point you to
> someone who has done it.
> 
> brian
> 
> On 24 Jan 2001 01:32:37 GMT, David Kaye <dk@removethis.area.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >Wake up, people!  It's all smoke and mirrors designed to make people
> >*want* dangerous nuclear reactor power plants.
> 
> --
> Brian Lavender
> Sacramento, CA
> http://www.brie.com/brian/
>  "There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX.
>   We don't believe this to be a coincidence." - Jeremy S. Anderson

-- 
"...only our concept of time makes it possible for us to speak 
of the Day of Judgment by that name; in reality it is a summary 
court in perpetual session."  Franz Kafka

Hopefully this electrical crisis will bring power generation to the
forefront of people's minds. 

You know, I think my grandparents used to pump the water from the well
by hand. Here's a question for you. How many kW hours does it take to
pump a gallon of water a 100 feet? Assume the pump doesn't experience
any head loss. (ie - it's 100% effiecient, thus you only have to
expend energy to lift the water. )

brian

On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 18:10:31 -0800, John Higdon
<no-spam@RadioMonopoly.com> wrote:

>in article 94lbbl$dot1$3@rn.area.com, David Kaye  wrote:
>
>> Wake up, people!  It's all smoke and mirrors designed to make people
>> *want* dangerous nuclear reactor power plants.
>
>Actually, I've always wanted them. I fail to see the danger. (I know all the
>anti-nuke canned responses.)

--
Brian Lavender
Sacramento, CA
http://www.brie.com/brian/
 "There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX.  
  We don't believe this to be a coincidence." - Jeremy S. Anderson

In ba.general David Kaye <dk@removethis.area.com> wrote:
: Craig Berry wrote the quoted material below:

: " [....] We the people and government of California caused this
: " problem ourselves, though a decade of shortsighted legislation and poor
: " capacity planning.

: Actually, PG&E, Southern California Edison, and SDG&E were orchestrators
: of this deregulation scenario.  They and the legislators they're bribing
: (not to mention governor Gray Davis) were the sole cause of this problem.  
: "We" didn't do anything.

: And there is nothing wrong with our capacity.  We didn't have this
: "capacity problem" 6 months ago during the heat of the summer when we use
: even *more* electricity than we do in the winter.  No, people are using
: this situation as an attempt to build dangerous nuclear reactors.  

   Activists could not have a better plan to achieve nearly all their 
   short term goals than to specifically attack all power plant construction.
   Actually moving people and businesses out of the state is beyond what 
   they could ever even hope for in any other way. Not that I think that 
   is responsible for what happened, but watching activists and their 
   lawfirms is obviously necessary simply to expose such activities.

   That said, I've been an apartment dweller for most of my adult life
   and have found an instant payoff to weather stripping the doors and
   windows - in fact, payback in the first to third month. When the
   tenants pay for heat or A/C there is no incentive for building
   management to maintain energy efficiency for buildings. That can be
   changed. We need a quick reading on just how much industrial and
   private consumption can be cut with rates. Some private consumption
   cannot be quickly cut - no one can freeze. Given the present state
   of the art, how much can capital investment cut consumption? What 
   low hanging fruit are left for the immediate requirement?
   
   In another context, auto licensing fees need drastic changes,
   mainly a sliding scale based on fuel consumption. For instance a
   small hybrid car licensed at cost, a Lincoln Navigator at $2500/yr,
   min.  Actual businesses can be excepted in some cases, but not many.
   Energy efficiency also needs more urban densities which also has
   the side effect of enabling transit schemes. Schemes to make for
   a strict environmentally effective permit process that grants
   deserving permits in a reasonable time, then largely closes the
   door to further litigation, etc, is necessary. Around the Bay area, 
   regional zoning and permits are really necessary. Each of the
   communities is still playing beggar-thy-neighbor for all they are
   worth.

   H.--

In article <3a710f1e.7938600@news.innercite.com>,
  brian@brie.com (Brian Lavender) wrote:
> Hopefully this electrical crisis will bring power generation to the
> forefront of people's minds.

The blonde bimbo in the Murky News (Sue Hutchison) just did a column on
how this electrical situation was, like, so boring.


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 21:33:32 -0000, cberry@cinenet.net
(Craig Berry) wrote:

>MiltonJohnKleim wrote:
>: George W. Bush will earn himself the eternal legacy as "The Man Who
>: Caused the Second Great Depression" unless he puts his friends at
>: Enron, Dynegy, etc., in place for a while, and helps solve the
>: California Energy Crisis.
>
>I am extremely unhappy to have Bush in office, but in this case, I have to
>agree with him.  We the people and government of California caused this
>problem ourselves, though a decade of shortsighted legislation and poor
>capacity planning.  We alone are to blame, and I for one would be ashamed
>to ask people in other states to bail us out.  We need to revisit the
>relevant legislation and conserve power in the short term, and build more
>generators in the long term.
>
>The federal government has a legitimate role in helping regions recover
>from natural disasters.  Recovery from stupidity should be left as a
>lesson for those responsible.
>

Building houses on flood plains without flood insurance,
should we just let those people in Iowa die because they
were stupid?  Building houses right next to national
forests, should we just let those people burn because they
are stupid?
>-- 
>   |   Craig Berry - http://www.cinenet.net/~cberry/
> --*--  "The hills are burning, and the wind is raging; and the clock
>   |   strikes midnight in the Garden of Allah." - Don Henley

On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 18:15:02 -0800, John Higdon
<no-spam@RadioMonopoly.com> wrote:

>in article 94iocq$rp3$1@agate.berkeley.edu, D. Gerasimatos  wrote:
>
>> I don't think *anyone* wants dangerous nuclear plants. I do want safe,
>> reliable nuclear plants, though. Whether that can be guaranteed in
>> earthquake country I'm not sure, but Japan seems to think so.
>
>So far, the record is on their side. It is on our side, for that matter. I
>forget when the last time seismic activity caused a nuclear "disaster".
>Actually, I have forgotten the last "disaster" of any kind using modern US
>fission reactor technology. And it IS in use all over the world.

It only take on to ruin your day.

>
>-- 
>John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | http://www.anntec.com/
>+1 408 264 4115 |  Silicon Valley, CA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
>  Cheap, provincial San Franciscans can call: 415 428-COWS
>

In article <t6p9pcjj0q39d0@corp.supernews.com>, cberry@cinenet.net 
(Craig Berry) wrote:

> MiltonJohnKleim wrote:
> : George W. Bush will earn himself the eternal legacy as "The Man Who
> : Caused the Second Great Depression" unless he puts his friends at
> : Enron, Dynegy, etc., in place for a while, and helps solve the
> : California Energy Crisis.
> 
> I am extremely unhappy to have Bush in office, but in this case, I have to
> agree with him.  We the people and government of California caused this
> problem ourselves, though a decade of shortsighted legislation and poor
> capacity planning.  We alone are to blame, and I for one would be ashamed
> to ask people in other states to bail us out.  We need to revisit the
> relevant legislation and conserve power in the short term, and build more
> generators in the long term.
> 
> The federal government has a legitimate role in helping regions recover
> from natural disasters.  Recovery from stupidity should be left as a
> lesson for those responsible.



Does building houses next in low lying river areas prone to flooding 
constitute stupidity?

--Mike

in article 3a6dd905.11428499@news, peterl@nospam.csus.edu  wrote:

>> So far, the record is on their side. It is on our side, for that matter. I
>> forget when the last time seismic activity caused a nuclear "disaster".
>> Actually, I have forgotten the last "disaster" of any kind using modern US
>> fission reactor technology. And it IS in use all over the world.
> 
> It only take on to ruin your day.

Anything can happen at anytime. Shall we all sit in caves in the dark
because something "bad" might happen if we venture out?

Are you building your spaceship so that you can avoid the inevitable
asteroid/earth collision?

-- 
John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | http://www.anntec.com/
+1 408 264 4115 |  Silicon Valley, CA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
  Cheap, provincial San Franciscans can call: 415 428-COWS

peterl@nospam.csus.edu wrote:
> 
> Building houses on flood plains without flood insurance,
> should we just let those people in Iowa die because they
> were stupid?  Building houses right next to national
> forests, should we just let those people burn because they
> are stupid?

Well, if you're Dubya and sitting on a pile of oil money,
you probably think so.  For that matter, if you're John
David Galt of this group, you definitely think so.

					Silas Warner

One accident can ruin your whole day.

On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 04:51:39 GMT, brian@brie.com (Brian
Lavender) wrote:

>Just how dangerous are Nuke plants? How many people do you know who
>have died in San Luis Obispo from radiation from Diablo Canyon? I
>don't know of any, but that sure is one massive Nuke plant. How many
>people in the Napa Valley have died from a Nuke sub that melted down
>in Mare Island. None that I know, but one sank in the channel
>accidently while Mare Island was in operation.
>
>When I get on the onramp to highway 50, I risk a serious chance that I
>could die in a fatal accident. I can show you numerous places where
>people have died on the local freeways.
>
>And let's look at yet another serious health risk. People knowingly
>expose themselves to radiation from the sun to get a tan. Even my
>granmother has had areas of skin cancer removed.
>
>People like you need to gain perspective. A nuke plant would be the
>best thing we could do for the environment! Or better yet, take your
>house off the grid. If you're wondering how, I could point you to
>someone who has done it. 
>
>brian
>
>On 24 Jan 2001 01:32:37 GMT, David Kaye <dk@removethis.area.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Wake up, people!  It's all smoke and mirrors designed to make people
>>*want* dangerous nuclear reactor power plants.
>
>--
>Brian Lavender
>Sacramento, CA
>http://www.brie.com/brian/
> "There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX.  
>  We don't believe this to be a coincidence." - Jeremy S. Anderson

in article 3a6e1d6f.28945245@news, peterl@nospam.csus.edu  wrote:

> One accident can ruin your whole day.

I presume you don't drive.

Bonus two-part question: Which cause of death is more likely (by an order of
magnitude) for a San Luis Obispo resident? (choose one...)

Nuclear Accident

Auto Accident

Why should or shouldn't we ban the more dangerous of the two?

-- 
John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | http://www.anntec.com/
+1 408 264 4115 |  Silicon Valley, CA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
  Cheap, provincial San Franciscans can call: 415 428-COWS

John Bianco wrote the quoted material below:

"   California is not the center of the universe, and anyways, what do you
" want to be done? 

When South Carolina is hit by a hurricane, the feds are there to help,
even though people stupidly rebuild their homes year after year in the
hurricane paths.  

" Steal power from other Westren states are are near capacity
" also, use federal funds to solve was is a problem created in California?

Did you notice that power plants have been offline a lot lately?  This is
no coincidence.  The power suppliers are purposely taking plants offline
in order to claim that they don't have the excess electricity and as an
excuse to boost rates.  Remember that in summer we use much more
electricity than now, and we didn't suffer from any shortages 6 months
ago.

Wake up, people!  It's all smoke and mirrors designed to make people
*want* dangerous nuclear reactor power plants.



-- 
(C) 2001                            "You won't be happy until you poke out
David Kaye                         somebody's eye with that thing." -- Mom
                                                                          

JALB wrote:
> Let's say a meltdown would kill 100,000 and cause untold genetic
> damage to the gene pool. Now divide that damage to the 1-2 lives
> lost per fatal car accident. That number (for starters) would be how
> much safer a nuclear plant has to be as opposed to a car.

Please multiply that by the number of fatal car accidents per year and
then factor in debilitating injuries and suffering.  Then compare with
the number of such 100,000-death nuclear disasters to be expected, per
year.

John Higdon wrote:
> 
> in article 3a6e1d6f.28945245@news, peterl@nospam.csus.edu  wrote:
> 
> > One accident can ruin your whole day.
> 
> I presume you don't drive.
> 
> Bonus two-part question: Which cause of death is more likely (by an order of
> magnitude) for a San Luis Obispo resident? (choose one...)
> 
> Nuclear Accident
> 
> Auto Accident
> 
> Why should or shouldn't we ban the more dangerous of the two?

I do believe that an accident at a nuclear power plant has
more destructive potential than even a tanker truck collision.
Thus, nuclear plants do need to be operated by trained professionals
who are suited to the task - not randomly selected from the
driving public. The most important thing, I think, is the
quality and dedication of the management - we don't want the 
Tosco refinery people making the key decisions here. At this time I'm
not so sure we want top PG&E management making these decisions,
either.