RE: [ihc] About those parking brakes .....

[Steven Stegmann <steve.stegmann@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I know it's cheaper to ship electricity than coal. 
That's not the point.  If the LA folks or St. Louis
where I live want power build the power plant in town.
 If you want the power, you have to take what goes
with it.

Say that in Kalifornia and see what they say.

STeve
--- Greg Hermann <bearbvd@domain.elided> wrote:

> At 4:40 AM 10/2/04, Steven Stegmann wrote:
> >Very simple.
> >
> >If they want power and fuel, build the power plants
> >and refineries where the stuff will be used.  The
> >thing that disturbs me about most do-gooders is
> that
> >they aren't trying to lower pollution.  Just move
> it
> >somewhere else.
> >
> >Like moving the power plants to Four Corners Az. 
> I'll
> >never forgive them for that.
> >
> >Steve
> 
> In that case, I really do think it's cheaper ,
> energy-wise, to ship the
> power (transmission lines) than to ship the coal.
> Surely cheaper
> economically.
> 
> Besides--they needed jobs for the n1gahoes, so they
> could pay for their own
> hootch over in Sh1trock---
> 
> Greg (worked start-up at San Juan #2)
> 
> >--- Tom Harais <THarais@domain.elided> wrote:
> >
> >> The larger the population, the more difficult it
> is
> >> to keep the
> >> movers and shakers on the path of reason. No one
> >> knows who they are, so they
> >> can't be shamed into acting sensibly.
> >>
> >> Actually John:
> >>
> >> Population is the driving force behind all the
> >> issues of the day anyway.
> >> California is head and shoulders above any other
> >> state, and probably most
> >> countries on this factor.  Only, no one wants to
> >> speak to that.  If
> >> California's population was half of what it is,
> the
> >> resultant environmental
> >> issues would be cut in half as well.  Thus, the
> >> utopian drive to legislate
> >> problems out of existence would not have the
> urgency
> >> that our population
> >> creates.
> >>
> >> The reason I bring this up is, that all these
> people
> >> had to come from
> >> somewhere.  It's not natural growth due to birth
> >> rates.  They continue to
> >> come at about 1M per year, mostly from other
> states.
> >>  (You Oregon folks that
> >> think that Californians are moving there in
> droves
> >> and ruining your state
> >> need to review your assumptions!)
> >>
> >> Now I'm not advocating that we can put a moat
> around
> >> the state and just lock
> >> all newcomers out.  But I'm absolutely
> flabbergasted
> >> to know that, even with
> >> our traffic problems, our environmental issues,
> our
> >> poor employment outlook,
> >> and housing that starts at $500,000/unit
> >> ($1,500/month for rentals), those
> >> 1M souls continue to come every year, adding to
> the
> >> problems.
> >>
> >> To put some perspective on it take the population
> of
> >> the state where you
> >> (any of you) live and divide it by your state's
> >> total area.  Compare this
> >> to:
> >>
> >> CA 36,000,000 people/164,000 sq mi = 220 people
> per
> >> sq mi
> >>
> >> Compare the highest population state to:
> >>
> >> The second most populated state:
> >> TX 22,000,000 people/262,000 sq mi = 84 people
> per
> >> sq mi
> >>
> >> The least populated state:
> >> WY 501,000 people/97,000 = 5 persons per sq mi
> >>
> >> The largest state:
> >> AK 648,000 people/572,000 sq mi = 1 person per sq
> mi
> >>
> >>
> >> Keep in mind that there are more cars than people
> in
> >> CA at this time
> >> (literally).  Think of the implications in
> cars/sq
> >> mile.
> >>
> >> It's numbers, sheer numbers!  Perhaps madness
> too.
> >> What the heck do you do
> >> with 36M people?
> >>
> >> Tom H., '76 Traveler