🚀 go-pugleaf

John Higdon wrote:
> in article e9ge6t0mgfn3ki4lqi930ftt2815sjqr2k@4ax.com, KnowItAll  wrote:
> 
> > The generating companies aren't making big bucks because natural gas
> > which fuels many of the plants as well as my home is several times
> > higher than last year.
> 
> But not ten or fifty times higher, which is what the generators are charging
> for their (artificially) scarce electricity.

In point of fact, the price of natural gas did increase by about a
factor of ten (although it has come down a bit).  

In reality, the electricity prices are *not* ten to fifty times higher. 
You are referring to the maximum peak prices that are widely reported in
the sensationalist media.  But these only persist for a very short
period of time.  The prices during the rest of the day are much lower. 
In December, the average over 24x7 was about 30, or about six times
higher than before the crisis.  That's actually in line with the
increase in gas prices.

Silas Warner wrote:
> Very true.  If PG&E were now in charge, consumers would be now
> complaining of three-times-larger gas bills.  The difference is
> that businesses can still operate with the thermostats turned
> down.

*Some* businesses can still operate without natural gas, or with less
natural gas, or can afford the cost of extremely expensive natural gas,
but many can not.  Conversely, some businsses can operate without
electricity, because they have backup power or because they can make due
with flashlights, calculators, etc.  

Similarly, many consumers have been hit far harder by the increase in
natural gas prices than by any proposed increase in electricity prices.  

There is simply no good reason to treat electricity radically
differently than other forms of energy.  If natural gas and oil prices
float, then so should electricity prices (especially when, as in
California, natural gas is used to produce the largest share of
electricity, and virtually all new capacity is going to be natural gas).

> I can't think of a business that
> can run without electricity in the 21st century.

Many bars and restuarants can operate with electricity.  Some retail
stores (especially smaller ones) can.  And of course, there are mobile
businesses (landscapers, trucking, taxis, etc.).  Some knowledge workers
can also get by, for a time, using only books and paper.

in article 3A679688.109D7D9F@quiotix.com, Jeffrey Siegal  wrote:

> In December, the average over 24x7 was about 30, or about six times
> higher than before the crisis.  That's actually in line with the
> increase in gas prices.

So for the privilege of having investor owned and operated utilities, we
only have to endure a six-fold increase in our electric bills? I guess I can
afford $2000 a month. But I only want Canadian electricity, not that from
Texas weasels. 

Of course, at $2000 a month, a generator (diesel-powered, of course), starts
looking quite attractive.

-- 
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 3A679C6C.140D583E@quiotix.com, Jeffrey Siegal  wrote:

> Silas Warner wrote:
>> Very true.  If PG&E were now in charge, consumers would be now
>> complaining of three-times-larger gas bills.  The difference is
>> that businesses can still operate with the thermostats turned
>> down.
> 
> *Some* businesses can still operate without natural gas, or with less
> natural gas, or can afford the cost of extremely expensive natural gas,
> but many can not.  Conversely, some businsses can operate without
> electricity, because they have backup power or because they can make due
> with flashlights, calculators, etc.
> 
> Similarly, many consumers have been hit far harder by the increase in
> natural gas prices than by any proposed increase in electricity prices.
> 
> There is simply no good reason to treat electricity radically
> differently than other forms of energy.  If natural gas and oil prices
> float, then so should electricity prices (especially when, as in
> California, natural gas is used to produce the largest share of
> electricity, and virtually all new capacity is going to be natural gas).
> 
>> I can't think of a business that
>> can run without electricity in the 21st century.
> 
> Many bars and restuarants can operate with electricity.  Some retail
> stores (especially smaller ones) can.  And of course, there are mobile
> businesses (landscapers, trucking, taxis, etc.).  Some knowledge workers
> can also get by, for a time, using only books and paper.

-- 
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 3A679C6C.140D583E@quiotix.com, Jeffrey Siegal  wrote:

> Many bars and restuarants can operate with electricity.  Some retail
> stores (especially smaller ones) can.  And of course, there are mobile
> businesses (landscapers, trucking, taxis, etc.).  Some knowledge workers
> can also get by, for a time, using only books and paper.

Now, if you could just figure out how to generate ten or twenty thousand
watts of RF with no electricity, I would be all ears. BTW, how do those
non-electrical businesses take plastic?

-- 
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 Higdon wrote:
> So for the privilege of having investor owned and operated utilities, we
> only have to endure a six-fold increase in our electric bills?

In part.  And for the privilege of not building any power plants for 10
years, shutting down an operational nuclear plant, having red tape which
takes seven years to build a plant, rather than two or three as in other
states, etc.

> Of course, at $2000 a month, a generator (diesel-powered, of course), starts
> looking quite attractive.

Isn't it illegal to use those for other than emergency backup?  I've
heard that some companies which volunteered to disconnect from the grid
to save power and go onto their backup generators have been fined.

John Higdon wrote:
> Now, if you could just figure out how to generate ten or twenty thousand
> watts of RF with no electricity

Using a backup generator.

> I would be all ears. BTW, how do those
> non-electrical businesses take plastic?

Some probably won't.  Cash only.  (Others may risk doing without
validation and just write down your number, or they might do a phone
validation.) As I said "get by."  It isn't optimal, but it isn't out of
business either.

in article 3A67C146.FD3EE6E9@quiotix.com, Jeffrey Siegal  wrote:

> Isn't it illegal to use those for other than emergency backup?  I've
> heard that some companies which volunteered to disconnect from the grid
> to save power and go onto their backup generators have been fined.

This is true. But they have to catch you first. I haven't seen many officers
from the "generator police" in the foothills lately. Honda makes a 10KW unit
that is very, very quiet. You could use it in a residential neighborhood and
the next door neighbors would never hear it.

-- 
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

Jeffrey Siegal wrote:

[snip]

> "In the past when gas was unavailable, power plants had the capability
> to burn fuel oil. They
> stored over a month s supply of fuel oil in a ready-to-use mode. This,
> however, is no longer the
> case. Due to environmental and air quality requirements, only a few of
> the older power plants in
> California still have dual-fuel capability."

  So the original assertion that environmental rules have an effect on the
price of electricity has some truth to it, no?

--

  We have all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million
typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of
Shakespeare...Thanks to AOL, we know this is not possible.

The Traveler wrote:
>   So the original assertion that environmental rules have an effect on the
> price of electricity has some truth to it, no?

Well, I certainly never claimed otherwise.  Anyone who denies that the
environmental and NIBMY obstruction of new plants has an effect on the
price of electricty is disconnected from reality.

Michael Dix wrote:
> I guess
> it was cheap for a while, but to me it would make more sense to
> depend on heavy oil, coal, and especially the N-word for the
> bulk of our power generation.

Cost is not the significant factor.  The ability to use oil or coal in
California has been essentially eliminated to meet environmental
requirements.  And the N-word, well, that's just a bad word.

/ > I guess
/ > it was cheap for a while, but to me it would make more sense to
/ > depend on heavy oil, coal, and especially the N-word for the
/ > bulk of our power generation.
/ 
/ Cost is not the significant factor.  The ability to use oil or coal in
/ California has been essentially eliminated to meet environmental
/ requirements.  And the N-word, well, that's just a bad word.

At what point do we admit the supply of petroleum and coal are finite and
that if this thing called civilisation is to last another millenia, we
might look for alternatives?

-- 
Bush and Dick Bait: Robin Red Breast, Blue Tit, Jackass
Penguin, Erect-crested Penguin, Red-necked Grebe, Fairy
Prion, Rock Shag. Machine censorred for you protection.
--
CACS: Collective Against Consensual Sanity       v0.123
pretty pretty <blink>    http://www.tsoft.com/~wyrmwif/
All new and improved web pages!   Bookmark yours today!
:)-free zone. </blink>        Elect LUM World Dictator!

"John Higdon" <no-spam@RadioMonopoly.com> wrote in message
news:B68C878C.31218%no-spam@RadioMonopoly.com...
> in article e9ge6t0mgfn3ki4lqi930ftt2815sjqr2k@4ax.com, KnowItAll  wrote:
>
> > The generating companies aren't making big bucks because natural gas
> > which fuels many of the plants as well as my home is several times
> > higher than last year.
>
> But not ten or fifty times higher, which is what the generators are
charging
> for their (artificially) scarce electricity.
>
> > If the California electrical utilities were
> > charging more, enough to cover their costs demand would decline and in
> > all likely hood natural gas prices would not be as high.  Even though
> > I don't live in California their power problem is costing me money
> > through higher natural gas rates.
>
> Don't worry. The demand will go down soon as the California businesses
> relocate to other parts of the world, such as Mexico...where power is
cheap
> and reliable.

They'd be better relocating to cooler areas since most of IT demand is
cooling.
Malcolm

"Jeffrey Siegal" <jbs@quiotix.com> wrote in message
news:3A67C656.9A5D7F0F@quiotix.com...
> The Traveler wrote:
> >   So the original assertion that environmental rules have an effect on
the
> > price of electricity has some truth to it, no?
>
> Well, I certainly never claimed otherwise.  Anyone who denies that the
> environmental and NIBMY obstruction of new plants has an effect on the
> price of electricty is disconnected from reality.

I don't know why people keep putting these two things(environmenatlists and
NIMBYs) together.  A NIMBY stops something altogether.  An environmentalist
asks for something cleaner.
Malcolm

"Jeffrey Siegal" <jbs@quiotix.com> wrote in message
news:3A67C656.9A5D7F0F@quiotix.com...

> Well, I certainly never claimed otherwise.  Anyone who denies that the
> environmental and NIBMY obstruction of new plants has an effect on the
> price of electricty is disconnected from reality.

I think the idiotic policies of California may force the FEDERAL
government's hand.

Do not be surprised that once George W. Bush becomes President he will issue
an emergency order declaring the power situation in California to be an
economic crisis and may ask the Federal government to overrule the
California Air Resources Board in getting new electric generation plants
built on an expedited basis.

I think all you need to do is look at how Texas handled their power
deregulation. They have over 15 NEW power plants now under construction, and
Texas has cheap access to both natural gas in the state itself and
clean-burning Powder River Basin coal from Wyoming.

I want to see what the Democrats in California say when millions of jobs are
lost as companies give the State the middle-finger salute and move most (if
not all) of their operations out of California because they can't afford to
pay the high utility bills and/or suffer power interrruptions.

--
Raymond Chuang
Mountain View, CA USA

John Higdon wrote:
> 
> in article 3A679C6C.140D583E@quiotix.com, Jeffrey Siegal  wrote:
> 
> > Many bars and restuarants can operate with electricity.  Some retail
> > stores (especially smaller ones) can.  And of course, there are mobile
> > businesses (landscapers, trucking, taxis, etc.).  Some knowledge workers
> > can also get by, for a time, using only books and paper.
> 
> Now, if you could just figure out how to generate ten or twenty thousand
> watts of RF with no electricity, I would be all ears. BTW, how do those
> non-electrical businesses take plastic?

For the RF, how about an Alexanderson alternator (high frequency)
powered by a water turbine?

Taking plastic used to be done without electricity. Those with long
memories will recall when a multipart paper form and an "imprinter" were
routinely used for credit card transactions. Those above a certain
amount required approval that was done via telephone.
-- 
Donald Borowski
Agilent Technologies, Spokane PGU

most NIMBY's are calling themselves environmentalists. It really confuses
things.

--


Steve Spence
Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter:
http://www.webconx.com/subscribe.htm

Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.com
Palm Pilot Pages - http://www.webconx.com/palm
X10 Home Automation - http://www.webconx.com/x10
sspence@webconx.com
(212) 894-3704 x3154 - voicemail/fax
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors,
we borrow it from our children.
--

"malcolm.scott" <malcolm.scott@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:z13a6.2006$vH6.40181@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> "Jeffrey Siegal" <jbs@quiotix.com> wrote in message
> news:3A67C656.9A5D7F0F@quiotix.com...
> > The Traveler wrote:
> > >   So the original assertion that environmental rules have an effect on
> the
> > > price of electricity has some truth to it, no?
> >
> > Well, I certainly never claimed otherwise.  Anyone who denies that the
> > environmental and NIBMY obstruction of new plants has an effect on the
> > price of electricty is disconnected from reality.
>
> I don't know why people keep putting these two things(environmenatlists
and
> NIMBYs) together.  A NIMBY stops something altogether.  An
environmentalist
> asks for something cleaner.
> Malcolm
>
>

"malcolm.scott" wrote:
> > Well, I certainly never claimed otherwise.  Anyone who denies that the
> > environmental and NIBMY obstruction of new plants has an effect on the
> > price of electricty is disconnected from reality.
> 
> I don't know why people keep putting these two things(environmenatlists and
> NIMBYs) together.  A NIMBY stops something altogether.  An environmentalist
> asks for something cleaner.

Huh?  I never claimed they were the same thing, but the fact is that in
the case of power production, both NIMBYs and environmentalists make it
very difficult, time consuming, and expensive to construct a plant. 
They are generally doing so for different reasons, but the effect on
electrical generation capacity is the same.

In article <z13a6.2006$vH6.40181@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>, 
"malcolm.scott" <malcolm.scott@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> "Jeffrey Siegal" <jbs@quiotix.com> wrote in message
> news:3A67C656.9A5D7F0F@quiotix.com...
> > The Traveler wrote:
> > >   So the original assertion that environmental rules have an effect 
> > >   on
> the
> > > price of electricity has some truth to it, no?
> >
> > Well, I certainly never claimed otherwise.  Anyone who denies that the
> > environmental and NIBMY obstruction of new plants has an effect on the
> > price of electricty is disconnected from reality.
> 
> I don't know why people keep putting these two things(environmenatlists 
> and
> NIMBYs) together.  A NIMBY stops something altogether.  An 
> environmentalist
> asks for something cleaner.

If environmentalists wanted "cleaner power" they would be supporting 
nuclear plants over fossil-fuel plants.

However, they don't. They believe the babykilling influence of the evil 
atom is so overwhelming that nothing made of atoms may be built.

--Tim May

-- 
Timothy C. May         tcmay@got.net        Corralitos, California
Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon
Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go
Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns

in article mh3a6.2877$GS1.176031@news02.optonline.net, Steve Spence  wrote:

> most NIMBY's are calling themselves environmentalists. It really confuses
> things.

Most NIMBY's would prefer something be built in some wilderness area than
near their populated domicile. In that respect, NIMBY's are anything BUT
environmentalists. 

MIMBY's don't care if a power plant is built. They just don't want to look
at it. "Environmentalists" would rather no power plants of any kind be built
anywhere at anytime. Power plants are enablers of modern
civilization...something that needs to be destroyed.

-- 
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

On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 11:14:09 -0000, "malcolm.scott"
<malcolm.scott@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>I don't know why people keep putting these two things(environmenatlists and
>NIMBYs) together.  A NIMBY stops something altogether.  An environmentalist
>asks for something cleaner.
>
Yes, have a look at the biography of the very famous environmentalist
James LOVELOCK:
<<Preface for the English edition of Bruno Comby's book :
"ENVIRONMENTALISTS FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY"
(in print - October 2000)
by James LOVELOCK
http://cnts.wpi.edu/rsh/Docs/NuclearTech/LovelockPref2Comby.htm
I hope that it is not too late for the world to emulate France and
make nuclear power our principal source of energy. There is at present
no other safe, practical and economic substitute for the dangerous
practice of burning carbon fuels.
James LOVELOCK.>>
You will find it all at: http://cnts.wpi.edu/rsh/
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/sep2000/2000L-09-25-11.html
-- 
ingen http://ingenes.hypermart.net/ingen/

In article <tcmay-00943C.18192719012001@news.got.net>
Tim May  <tcmay@got.net> writes:
>If environmentalists wanted "cleaner power" they would be supporting 
>nuclear plants over fossil-fuel plants.
>
>However, they don't. They believe the babykilling influence of the evil 
>atom is so overwhelming that nothing made of atoms may be built.

I believe you have oversimplified their position into uselessness.

(For the record, I currently believe that nuclear plants are a good
idea on the whole.  By your definition, I am thus automatically not
an "environmentalist".  By others' definitions, I still might be.)

My impression is that most of the more moderate environmental groups
object primarily to the proposed dumping sites for the low-level
wastes.  The high-level wastes can, of course, be taken care of
relatively easily, since they have such a small volume.

Of course, if all possible dump sites for low-level wastes are off
limits, that effectively blocks nuclear plants.  But I believe this
problem is solveable.  What I do not know is the actual scale of the
problem -- my position (in favor of nuclear plants) is conditional
on my learning more about this.  (Why anyone should care about my
personal position, I have no idea. :-) )
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Berkeley Software Design Inc
El Cerrito, CA, USA	Domain:	torek@bsdi.com	+1 510 234 3167
http://claw.bsdi.com/torek/  (not always up)	I report spam to abuse@.

John Higdon wrote:
> 
> Most NIMBY's would prefer something be built in some wilderness area than
> near their populated domicile. In that respect, NIMBY's are anything BUT
> environmentalists.
> 
> MIMBY's don't care if a power plant is built. They just don't want to look
> at it. "Environmentalists" would rather no power plants of any kind be built
> anywhere at anytime. Power plants are enablers of modern
> civilization...something that needs to be destroyed.

The problem with power plants as they are built is that they're huge, because
power generation is centralized.  If individual communities each sited plants
sufficient to provide for their own needs, the plants would be smaller and
less of a problem to deal with.  For example, based on the current figures
provided for use per household, the needs of my community could be met by a
plant roughly 1/6 the size of the proposed Calpine SJ plant.  There's an old,
unused railroad site about 1/2 mile from my home that would be a suitable site
for a plant of such a size, it's bounded on all sides by freeway, railroad and
commercial sites, and with some clever architecture could be no worse an eyesore 
than the enormous racquet club that's located a couple of miles down the road.

Jeffrey Siegal wrote:
> 
> The Traveler wrote:
> >   So the original assertion that environmental rules have an effect on the
> > price of electricity has some truth to it, no?
> 
> Well, I certainly never claimed otherwise.  Anyone who denies that the
> environmental and NIBMY obstruction of new plants has an effect on the
> price of electricty is disconnected from reality.

  The question is, how many of those types would actually admit that their
actions had a hand in the current "crisis"? :)

--

  We have all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million
typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of
Shakespeare...Thanks to AOL, we know this is not possible.

in article 3A69BC30.21494ADD@genek_hates_spammers.com, GeneK  wrote:

> The problem with power plants as they are built is that they're huge, because
> power generation is centralized.  If individual communities each sited plants
> sufficient to provide for their own needs, the plants would be smaller and
> less of a problem to deal with.

But more of a pollution problem. It is much easier to keep the
pollution-per-KWH down with a large plant than with a smaller one. Calpine
has a number of very small plants around the area, but they are heavy
polluters when the amount of energy they supply is considered.

It is an attractive idea, but I'm not sure if our current technology
supports it from an environmental standpoint.

-- 
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 94bs30$ddj$1@elf.bsdi.com, Chris Torek  wrote:

> Of course, if all possible dump sites for low-level wastes are off
> limits, that effectively blocks nuclear plants.

And that is why "environmentalists" have zeroed in on that one single issue.

> But I believe this
> problem is solveable.  What I do not know is the actual scale of the
> problem -- my position (in favor of nuclear plants) is conditional
> on my learning more about this.  (Why anyone should care about my
> personal position, I have no idea. :-) )

It is a logical position. But the anti-nuke crowd does not want the problem
solved, and it is willing to become very vocal about it. Solving the
low-level waste problem (and virtually all experts in the field believe that
it IS solvable) would inconvenience the anti-nukes because they would have
to find another cause celebre with which to oppose the technology. They like
things just the way they are, thank you very much.

So we sit here with absolutely no effort being expended in a direction that
could literally solve our energy problems.

-- 
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

"Jeffrey Siegal" <jbs@quiotix.com> wrote in message
news:3A67FD56.EB3EC595@quiotix.com...
> Michael Dix wrote:
> > I guess
> > it was cheap for a while, but to me it would make more sense to
> > depend on heavy oil, coal, and especially the N-word for the
> > bulk of our power generation.
>
> Cost is not the significant factor.  The ability to use oil or coal in
> California has been essentially eliminated to meet environmental
> requirements.  And the N-word, well, that's just a bad word.

Now that somebody has picked up on the n-word -- let's  say it:
nuclear power!  It comes in two flavors, fission and fusion, of which
so far only fission is available to make your wheels go around and
electrons flow--but that accounts for ~20% of your current
electric load.

it seems from here that you would do well to consider allowing
the utilities to build a couple more such power plants, increasing
the nuclear share of your projected load to 30%, and set aside
a 36 square mile township of public domain land in your high
desert--where you have to fertilize AND irrigate to raise a fuss,
(much less a sheep!) as a National spent nuclear fuel repository.
Nevada's senators have said they don't want to have one of
those in their back yard, even though they have as much land
of the same general description and value as you do.  But
you Californians are the ones who need the power to keep
your businesses, going, much less your lifestyles.  You will
also have to back off your environmebntal restrictions
somewhat.  It's ridiculous to reject a possible site for
a nuclear power plant with an estimated life span of
less than 50 years because it's within a mile of a silent fault
that might slip 'sometime in the next 1 million years.
[Almost as silly as your Sierra Club's reversing itself on
the idea of planting aeroturbine turbines in windy spots
'because an endangered California Condor -of which
there aren't a hundred in the world--might get entangled
with it!]

The fi-word can only be a palliative, of course, because
after <50 years in service, a fission power plant will get
too hot to maintain, and (if I understand correctly)
irradiation effects will change the strength of the materials
of which it is built.  To carry on from that point, you will
need further serious work on the fu-word: Fusion.   It
isn't available for power production now, and may not
be su8itable when and if it is developed--but eventually,
fusion, aeroturbines and biomass are going to stand
between you (and the rest of us) and using candles to
light up the night and horses to move our carriages.
<Much less lift satellites into the sky to propagate the
output of Hollywood!>  Power from biomass, of course,
will require thousands of foresters to invade Smokey
Bear's domain and chop down trees to feed the furnaces;
Aeroturbines and geothermal have special siting
requirements, but we don't yet know the problems  that
will beset fission pwoer plants when developed.

But you Californians will have to permit the development
of these solutions to your  present discontents, AND
PAY FOR THEM!  You may prefer to make those
payments via your State personal income tax, as
seems to be what you currently want to do, but
if you dance, you have to pay the piper.  If you
notoriously starve him to death, or drive him
bankrupt, it gets *very* difficult to recruit a new
one.
    Live long and prosper
            Sid Cochran
            Tyler, Texas

On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:29:58 GMT, GeneK
<gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote:

>John Higdon wrote:
>> 
>> Most NIMBY's would prefer something be built in some wilderness area than
>> near their populated domicile. In that respect, NIMBY's are anything BUT
>> environmentalists.
>> 
>> MIMBY's don't care if a power plant is built. They just don't want to look
>> at it. "Environmentalists" would rather no power plants of any kind be built
>> anywhere at anytime. Power plants are enablers of modern
>> civilization...something that needs to be destroyed.
>
>The problem with power plants as they are built is that they're huge, because
>power generation is centralized.  If individual communities each sited plants
>sufficient to provide for their own needs, the plants would be smaller and
>less of a problem to deal with.  For example, based on the current figures
>provided for use per household, the needs of my community could be met by a
>plant roughly 1/6 the size of the proposed Calpine SJ plant.  There's an old,
>unused railroad site about 1/2 mile from my home that would be a suitable site
>for a plant of such a size, it's bounded on all sides by freeway, railroad and
>commercial sites, and with some clever architecture could be no worse an eyesore 
>than the enormous racquet club that's located a couple of miles down the road.

Congratulations, you just rediscovered the original Edison concept - a
generator on every street corner. Unfortunately in Thomas' time, each
generator was powered from a coal furnace. The systems were direct
current.

Nicholas Tesla and George Westinghouse came along and demonstrated how
to increase alternating current voltage so that it could be
transmitted long distances and the advantage of large scale generating
stations developed.

The new micro turbine technology and fuel cells offer some new
techniques that would make the Edison approach more practical.


Regards,

John Phillips

The Traveler wrote:
> 
> Jeffrey Siegal wrote:
> >
> > Well, I certainly never claimed otherwise.  Anyone who denies that the
> > environmental and NIBMY obstruction of new plants has an effect on the
> > price of electricty is disconnected from reality.
> 
>   The question is, how many of those types would actually admit that their
> actions had a hand in the current "crisis"? :)

An excellent example is near to hand, in Coyote Valley.  Remember that
due to a carefully organized campaign of neighborhood opposition,
aided in part by the city's desire to have more valuable land use than
power plants, San Jose refused to authorize a power plant there just
two months ago.  The plant was being referred to the PUC for an
override of the city's decision when the current crunch hit.  I wonder
how many neighbors have changed their minds now that they're being
laid off two hours a day in computer plants idled by blackouts.

						Silas Warner

John Higdon wrote:
> 
> But more of a pollution problem. It is much easier to keep the
> pollution-per-KWH down with a large plant than with a smaller one. Calpine
> has a number of very small plants around the area, but they are heavy
> polluters when the amount of energy they supply is considered.

KnowItAll wrote:
> 
> The cost of environmental studies and other mandated reports and the
> site planning for a plant 1/6 the size of Calpine SJ plant and the
> Calpine SJ plant are substantial  and probably equal.  It is much
> cheaper to  design and get approval for 1 huge plant than for 6
> smaller ones.

But the larger plants have demonstrated themselves to be an enormous
political liability.  Nobody really wants a powerplant in their 
neighborhood, and it become even more onerous when people perceive 
that plant to be something being "dumped" on them by neighboring
communities that don't have them.  In bygone days, every homestead
had its own trashheap, a spot somewhere on the property where people 
buried their refuse.  Nobody thought of themselves as being put upon
for having one, because everybody had to have one and nobody was
required to accept other peoples' trash in theirs.  We need to get
back to that concept.

in article 3A6B1C7B.73771027@genek_hates_spammers.com, GeneK  wrote:

> But the larger plants have demonstrated themselves to be an enormous
> political liability.  Nobody really wants a powerplant in their
> neighborhood, and it become even more onerous when people perceive
> that plant to be something being "dumped" on them by neighboring
> communities that don't have them.

So having a power plant nearby is considered "punishment"? "If I have to
have a power plant visible from my window, everyone does or I refuse to
accept it." Are we having an epidemic of mass stupidity?

For the record, I would lodge NO objection if the powers that be were to
remove all of my neighbors, the Catholic church on the corner, Willow Glen
High School, the JW Kingdom Hall, and Booksin Elementary...replacing it all
with a power plant. I have no problem. Bring on the bulldozers.

Let's see: the cry babies in Coyote Valley are complaining about
construction of a power plant on an open field? PLEASE! Put it in MY
backyard. I'm volunteering.

-- 
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 <B690736D.316E0%no-spam@RadioMonopoly.com>
John Higdon  <no-spam@RadioMonopoly.com> wrote:
>Let's see: the cry babies in Coyote Valley are complaining about
>construction of a power plant on an open field? PLEASE! Put it in MY
>backyard. I'm volunteering.

Actually, my understanding (which is weak since I have not read
any meeting minutes or any such things) is that the city thought
they would be better off turning it into yet *more* office space
etc.

(The Calpine plant there is a good idea; the San Jose area sorely
needs peaking power.  That should have been clear from last summer's
rolling blackouts.)
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Berkeley Software Design Inc
El Cerrito, CA, USA	Domain:	torek@bsdi.com	+1 510 234 3167
http://claw.bsdi.com/torek/  (not always up)	I report spam to abuse@.

in article 94fdd7$jsm$1@elf.bsdi.com, Chris Torek  wrote:

> (The Calpine plant there is a good idea; the San Jose area sorely
> needs peaking power.  That should have been clear from last summer's
> rolling blackouts.)

But even Cisco has copped some fantasy attitude. Through spokespersons, the
company has said (and note the quotes), "We believe there will be power
available." That was an exact quote. Cisco "believes" there will be power
available? Is that in the same realm as the seventy percent of Americans who
believe in angels?

Cisco may be a very powerful and influential company. But just the fact that
it (as a company) BELIEVES power will be available (while opposing a power
plant that might turn belief into reality) is not exactly comforting.

-- 
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 Higdon wrote:
> 
> So having a power plant nearby is considered "punishment"? "If I have to
> have a power plant visible from my window, everyone does or I refuse to
> accept it." Are we having an epidemic of mass stupidity?

Don't tell me you're just noticing that now?  Hasn't it been clear for
most of your life that getting anything done means winning over a large
number of the uninformed?

John Higdon wrote:
> 
> But even Cisco has copped some fantasy attitude. Through spokespersons, the
> company has said (and note the quotes), "We believe there will be power
> available." That was an exact quote. Cisco "believes" there will be power
> available? Is that in the same realm as the seventy percent of Americans who
> believe in angels?

It could be that they "believe" power will be available because they
will be in Richardson, Texas.  At the corner of Renner Road and Jupiter
Road six four-story buildings are now under construction to hold
4000-6000 people.  It's called "Cisco Systems Richardson Development
Center.  Right in the middle of millions of square feet being built for
the "Telecommunications Corridor."  Nortel, TI, Erickson, Fujitsu,
Rockwell-Collins, HP, SWB, etc.

in article 3A6B508B.8CA5694B@home.com, Bill Heyman  wrote:

> It could be that they "believe" power will be available because they
> will be in Richardson, Texas.  At the corner of Renner Road and Jupiter
> Road six four-story buildings are now under construction to hold
> 4000-6000 people.

Actually, Cisco was speaking specifically and unequivocally of its
20,000-employee Coyote Valley campus in south San Jose. It wasn't talking
about a small facility in Texas.

> It's called "Cisco Systems Richardson Development
> Center.  Right in the middle of millions of square feet being built for
> the "Telecommunications Corridor."  Nortel, TI, Erickson, Fujitsu,
> Rockwell-Collins, HP, SWB, etc.

THAT explains why all those companies suck!

-- 
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 Higdon wrote:

> THAT explains why all those companies suck!
> 
> --
> 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

Well, please excuse my contribution.

in article 3A6B6A41.49071FF7@home.com, Bill Heyman  wrote:

> John Higdon wrote:
> 
>> THAT explains why all those companies suck!
>> 
>> --
>> 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
> 
> Well, please excuse my contribution.

Thanks for providing useful information. I hadn't realized ALL of those
companies had become texicated.

-- 
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 3A6B6A41.49071FF7@home.com, Bill Heyman  wrote:

> Well, please excuse my contribution.

You're excused this time, but watch it.

-- 
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 Higdon" <no-spam@RadioMonopoly.com> wrote in message
news:B690ABBA.31745%no-spam@RadioMonopoly.com...
> in article 3A6B6A41.49071FF7@home.com, Bill Heyman  wrote:
>
> > John Higdon wrote:
> >
> >> THAT explains why all those companies suck!
> >>
<Snip!>
> Thanks for providing useful information. I hadn't realized ALL of those
> companies had become texicated.
>
Quite all right, John.  Texas appreciates the business you Californicators
disdain.

Regards,
        Sid cochran
        Tyler, Texas

in article Lr%a6.259913$IP1.8709396@news1.giganews.com, Sid Cochran  wrote:

> Quite all right, John.  Texas appreciates the business you Californicators
> disdain.

Our companies send the less-critical operations to Texas. The Texas folks,
of course, make much less than their California counterparts.

The problem comes from Texas companies (e.g. SBC) buying California
companies and then destroying them through incompetence and greed.

-- 
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 Higdon" <no-spam@RadioMonopoly.com> wrote in message
news:B691C95A.318FA%no-spam@RadioMonopoly.com.
> in article Lr%a6.259913$IP1.8709396@news1.giganews.com, Sid Cochran
wrote:
>
> > Quite all right, John.  Texas appreciates the business you
Californicators
> > disdain.
>
> Our companies send the less-critical operations to Texas. The Texas folks,
> of course, make much less than their California counterparts.
>
> The problem comes from Texas companies (e.g. SBC) buying California
> companies and then destroying them through incompetence and greed.
>
Speaking of incompetence and greed, I see by some of the current articles
in www.latimes.com that one-third of the electrical load in your State--or
perhaps tha only applies in the PG&E territory--is supplied by 'green power'
producers, with whom the utilities have contracts at from $120 to $160 per
MWh, while they are only allowed to charge <domestic/household?> users
$65 per MWh.  Even if these 'green' producers only supply 25% of the
load, this is another way in which you and your compatriots are
affirmatively
driving the utilities bankrupt.

Perhaps you should either allow the utilities (or PG&E) either to recoup the
cost of 'green' power in their rates, or else permit them to reduce their
payments to the green producers, including the payments they have
been unable to make for November and December, to the amount they are
allowed to charge for this same green power.

I know, that would be like putting a Band-Aid on a cut throat, but it would
be a step toward paying the piper his due.  Remember, you've been dancing
a long time.  If you starve your piper to death, or steal his pipes, it may
be
_difficult_ to recruit a new one.   (Think about destroying the credit of
the
State.)
        Live long and prosper,
            Sid Cochran
            Tyler, Texas

"Sid Cochran" <squidley@ballistic.com> wrote in message
news:u%db6.262063$IP1.8811307@news1.giganews.com...
>
> "John Higdon" <no-spam@RadioMonopoly.com> wrote in message
> news:B691C95A.318FA%no-spam@RadioMonopoly.com.
> > in article Lr%a6.259913$IP1.8709396@news1.giganews.com, Sid Cochran
> wrote:
> >
> > > Quite all right, John.  Texas appreciates the business you
> Californicators
> > > disdain.
> >
> > Our companies send the less-critical operations to Texas. The Texas
folks,
> > of course, make much less than their California counterparts.
> >
> > The problem comes from Texas companies (e.g. SBC) buying California
> > companies and then destroying them through incompetence and greed.
> >
> Speaking of incompetence and greed, I see by some of the current articles
> in www.latimes.com that one-third of the electrical load in your State--or
> perhaps tha only applies in the PG&E territory--is supplied by 'green
power'
> producers, with whom the utilities have contracts at from $120 to $160 per
> MWh, while they are only allowed to charge <domestic/household?> users
> $65 per MWh.  Even if these 'green' producers only supply 25% of the
> load, this is another way in which you and your compatriots are
> affirmatively
> driving the utilities bankrupt.

Is that the article which shows non green, non utility companies to be
charging $300 to $800 /MWh.? and for twice as much power.  Why don't you
have a go at them?
Malcolm

In article <u%db6.262063$IP1.8811307@news1.giganews.com>
Sid Cochran <squidley@ballistic.com> writes:
>Speaking of incompetence and greed, I see by some of the current articles
>in www.latimes.com that one-third of the electrical load in your State--or
>perhaps tha only applies in the PG&E territory--is supplied by 'green power'
>producers ...

Someone is confused (either you or the LA Times author, or maybe
both).  About 1/3 of the supply in the state comes from so-called
"alternative providers", but not all of them are "green".  For
instance, some of them burn wood (!).  (No doubt this is "waste"
wood, but still.)  The so-called "green" portion is more like 12%.

>Perhaps you should either allow the utilities (or PG&E) either to recoup the
>cost of 'green' power in their rates, or else permit them to reduce their
>payments to the green producers, including the payments they have
>been unable to make for November and December, to the amount they are
>allowed to charge for this same green power.

Actually, the utilities are, in a sense, lucky that they have been
tied into long-term contracts with these "alternative" providers
at rates like $160/MWh, because it is the non-utility, non-"alternative"
providers who have been charging rates like $300/MWh.  In other
words, while the alternative providers were in effect being subsidized
during the good times, now that times are bad, the alternative
providers are the ones doing the subsidizing -- they *could* get
figures like $500/MWh on the open market, but they are locked into
contracts.
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Berkeley Software Design Inc
El Cerrito, CA, USA	Domain:	torek@bsdi.com	+1 510 234 3167
http://claw.bsdi.com/torek/  (not always up)	I report spam to abuse@.

in article 3A6E0034.6ED66552@quiotix.com, Jeffrey Siegal  wrote:

> Burning wood is considered green in some sense.  It is renewable because
> you can grow more wood.  It also does not contibute to global warming
> because growing replacement trees removes the carbon (dioxide/monoxide)
> released by burning the wood.

An aside to this is the matter of paper recycling. We would be better off,
environmentally, to put waste paper in a landfill and grow more trees for
paper manufacturer. But you cannot argue science with "environmentalists".

-- 
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

Chris Torek wrote:
> >Perhaps you should either allow the utilities (or PG&E) either to recoup the
> >cost of 'green' power in their rates, or else permit them to reduce their
> >payments to the green producers, including the payments they have
> >been unable to make for November and December, to the amount they are
> >allowed to charge for this same green power.
> 
> Actually, the utilities are, in a sense, lucky that they have been
> tied into long-term contracts with these "alternative" providers
> at rates like $160/MWh, because it is the non-utility, non-"alternative"
> providers who have been charging rates like $300/MWh.  In other
> words, while the alternative providers were in effect being subsidized
> during the good times, now that times are bad, the alternative
> providers are the ones doing the subsidizing -- they *could* get
> figures like $500/MWh on the open market, but they are locked into
> contracts.

It isn't quite fair to compare the "alternative" power contracts to open
market sales, because many of the alternative generators can't promise
to deliver at a specific time and place, while open market sales do work
that way.  For example, wind power is only available when the wind
blows.  So a wind generator can't promise to sell wind power, say,
tomorrow at 4pm for $500.  

The alternative power contracts allow the producers to pump their power
into the grid whenever they can, at a prearranged price.  Sometimes that
power isn't needed at all, but they get to sell it anyway.

In article <B6934142.31BE1%no-spam@RadioMonopoly.com>, John Higdon 
<no-spam@RadioMonopoly.com> wrote:

> in article 3A6E0034.6ED66552@quiotix.com, Jeffrey Siegal  wrote:
> 
> > Burning wood is considered green in some sense.  It is renewable because
> > you can grow more wood.  It also does not contibute to global warming
> > because growing replacement trees removes the carbon (dioxide/monoxide)
> > released by burning the wood.
> 
> An aside to this is the matter of paper recycling. We would be better off,
> environmentally, to put waste paper in a landfill and grow more trees for
> paper manufacturer. But you cannot argue science with "environmentalists".

Good point.

By the way, I did a calculation some years ago about what could be done 
with the daily trash of a few hundred million Americans. Calculating how 
many pounds per year per person, factoring in how much it costs--as a 
basis for calculation--to ship a 2500-pound car the average distance, my 
conclusion was that all of the trash in the U.S. could be economically 
shipped to the Meteor Crater in Arizona and dumped in.

The level would rise by about a meter per year.

No ground water below it. Out in the desert. The trash can just compact 
and compact and sit.

Should be good for a hundred years. Maybe by then there will be another 
meteor crater to fill.

If the Meteor Crater is too valuable a national asset to fill, can 
backfill some of those huge copper mines out west. Or coal digs.

And there is no reason to transport it _all_ to one site. I did that 
calculation just to show it was economically and technically feasible. 

This says that waste disposal, supposedly one of our "pressing" 
problems, is not such a big deal at all, were people to think outside 
the box.


--Tim May

-- 
Timothy C. May         tcmay@got.net        Corralitos, California
Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon
Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go
Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns

in article tcmay-AAAC69.16520823012001@news.got.net, Tim May  wrote:

> This says that waste disposal, supposedly one of our "pressing"
> problems, is not such a big deal at all, were people to think outside
> the box.

What a social dynamics laboratory this whole power thing has become. When we
are "crisis idling" the media and those they cover get in a dither about
waste recycling, gasoline additives, mountain bikes in the wilderness,
housing density, traffic, and other non-issues. When a real problem actually
surfaces, all of the armchair debating vanishes and we get down to cases.

Yes, we still get the ignoramuses coming out of the woodwork with the usual
airy-fairy energy "solutions", but we're getting down to the real importance
(or insignificance) of borderline ridiculous environmental restrictions.

One little bit of surfacing hypocrisy: the same out-of-state voices who
complain about California's "pollution" coming to their states chide
California for its "tree-hugging" rules.

Sounds like someone wants it both ways.

-- 
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 Higdon wrote:
<snip> 
> An aside to this is the matter of paper recycling. We would be better off,
> environmentally, to put waste paper in a landfill and grow more trees for
> paper manufacturer. But you cannot argue science with "environmentalists".

Sure you can. You can argue science, theology, aesthetics, philosophy,
epistemology, with any group you perceive has imperfect understanding. But if
few pay attention to your reasoned position, you'd be well advised to
reconsider your own mental processes, unless you're convinced that science has
proven the ultimate theorem for health and happiness.

in article 3A6E276E.DF6E7EAF@dakx.com, D.A.Kopf  wrote:

> Sure you can. You can argue science, theology, aesthetics, philosophy,
> epistemology, with any group you perceive has imperfect understanding. But if
> few pay attention to your reasoned position, you'd be well advised to
> reconsider your own mental processes, unless you're convinced that science has
> proven the ultimate theorem for health and happiness.

Science isn't necessarily about health and happiness. It is about facts,
their relationships to one another, and conclusions based upon repeatable
phenomenon. In any event, when it comes to reality, give me science over
airy fairy nonsense any day of the week.

The fact that this society is at an all-time low when it comes to scientific
literacy does not invalidate science.

-- 
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