mnealtx 0
Recommended Posts
kallend 2,151
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>all things being equal wind can not come close to the margins of coal
Take away all the incentives, tax breaks and subsidies, and make each power source pay for the damage it does - you bet it can.
How much does wind cost?
>if not for the tax benifits AND the current political climate forced on us by
>those like you, wind generation simply would not be built.
And if not for the agendas of people like yourselves - people who profit from dirty coal - we wouldn't have the current billions in incentives to keep the coal power industry alive.
Every time I've talked to a denier about ending subsidies I get the same story:
"END WIND SUBSIDIES! Wasted money! Tax and spend! Al Gore!"
"OK, let's end all subsidies. Coal company tax breaks, mining company land giveaways, exemptions to the clean air act. Everyone is treated exactly the same."
"Woah - I didn't mean - you can't cut - I mean, they gotta have those, or coal would be really expensive!"
>So, since the Bush tax cut agreement was made, we will see another
>couple of years of wind generation build out. Sad to see capital dollars
>wasted so badly
Wasted dollars generating megawatts for decades - for free. There are worse ways to "waste" dollars - like propping up failing coal plants, for example.
I love the for free comment
what a bunch of bull shit
I will take a current tech coal plant eveyday vs these chuncks fo crap
As for how I make money?
Dont matter the the power comes from. My job is to get it where it is going
Wind, coal, nuke, hydo. All the same to me
Next
By the way
I am fine with ending all subs
Let the market take care of it
But wind would not survive that
Coal would
Not when the cost of mining accidents and deaths, and cleaning up pollution is properly accounted for.
I recall the whining over SO2 cleanup when the coal/power industry was killing the lakes in the northeast some 40 years ago. Cap and trade took care of that.
The company I work for has already started retro fitting enviro systemns on its coal fleet that excede the current epa regs and what they (the operators) think the next levels will be set at
The rate case just settled on those updates and the IUB gave full recovery for those upgrades
Mercury, SO2 and particulates are all being addressed
as it should be
Oh, and for billvon
what I mean by company I work for
I am in the energy deleivery side of the company
not the generations side
they are all under the same holding company
And what is the company you work for doing about THIS?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
billvon 3,120
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Well, to be fair, that report came out only yesterday. It's reasonable to expect a few days before they find a way to blame Obama for it.
headoverheels 334
Quote
And what is the company you work for doing about THIS?
I like the analogy of the way enforcement works, I think from one of the industry lawyers. He said it is like a cop gives you a speeding ticket for 85mph in a 55 zone, and tells you that you need to keep a log over the next week, and write down your speed 5 times over the same stretch of road. If the average is 55 or less, he'll tear up the ticket.
edit: By enforcement, I mean of the maximum dust levels.
billvon 3,120
>disagree that pump storage is as viable as you promote, it is very limited (very low
>capacity factor)
?? That's like claiming that peaker plants have an almost zero capacity factor because they only run a few days a year. Literally true but completely misses the point of peakers (or pumped storage.)
>why install expensive (more expensive than conventional sources, even nuclear)
Here are some costs in $/megawatt-hour for plants built today (WITHOUT incentives but WITH government nuclear subsidies) -
Conventional (dirty) coal $99
Advanced coal $112
Advanced coal with CCS (clean) $140
Natural gas $68 *
Advanced natural gas $65
Advanced natural gas with CCS (very clean) $92
Nuclear $112 (this is _with_ the government insurance subsidy)
Geothermal $99
Wind $96
Hydro $89
This is from the 2012 DOE report "Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources."
* (this is as "dirty" as coal from the perspective of mitigation but natural gas is inherently much cleaner than coal to begin with)
>consumers end up paying for both unless certain individuals are willing to be "turned
>off" when the renewable source is not available
Agreed. And that is one of the ways we will increase the flexibility of the grid and prevent blackouts, reduce load on the grid and make it easier to use non-dispatchable sources.
>what about when the wind suddenly stopped in TX where there is a huge
>concentration of wind farms, the grid was within seconds of crashing . . . .
That's a great example! They lost one and a half gigawatts (the equivalent of two large power plants) when the wind slowed down. What happened? If you listened to some people here, the likely result would have been massive blackouts, state-wide unhappiness, economic woes etc.
What really happened? They cut power to interruptible customers (i.e. people whom they give better rates in return for agreeing to have their load reduced during high demand/low supply situations) and as a result - nothing bad happened. 99.9% of the people in the state didn't even notice. The grid stayed up. If that's the worst we have to look forward to, we're in pretty good shape.
And this was without a very smart grid, where they had to effectively manually shut down those loads. As that gets more automated the grid will be able to tolerate larger and larger swings in supply. (Not just from renewable energy, but also from fossil fuel plant breakdowns, transmission line failures etc.)
>capacity factor)
?? That's like claiming that peaker plants have an almost zero capacity factor because they only run a few days a year. Literally true but completely misses the point of peakers (or pumped storage.)
>why install expensive (more expensive than conventional sources, even nuclear)
Here are some costs in $/megawatt-hour for plants built today (WITHOUT incentives but WITH government nuclear subsidies) -
Conventional (dirty) coal $99
Advanced coal $112
Advanced coal with CCS (clean) $140
Natural gas $68 *
Advanced natural gas $65
Advanced natural gas with CCS (very clean) $92
Nuclear $112 (this is _with_ the government insurance subsidy)
Geothermal $99
Wind $96
Hydro $89
This is from the 2012 DOE report "Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources."
* (this is as "dirty" as coal from the perspective of mitigation but natural gas is inherently much cleaner than coal to begin with)
>consumers end up paying for both unless certain individuals are willing to be "turned
>off" when the renewable source is not available
Agreed. And that is one of the ways we will increase the flexibility of the grid and prevent blackouts, reduce load on the grid and make it easier to use non-dispatchable sources.
>what about when the wind suddenly stopped in TX where there is a huge
>concentration of wind farms, the grid was within seconds of crashing . . . .
That's a great example! They lost one and a half gigawatts (the equivalent of two large power plants) when the wind slowed down. What happened? If you listened to some people here, the likely result would have been massive blackouts, state-wide unhappiness, economic woes etc.
What really happened? They cut power to interruptible customers (i.e. people whom they give better rates in return for agreeing to have their load reduced during high demand/low supply situations) and as a result - nothing bad happened. 99.9% of the people in the state didn't even notice. The grid stayed up. If that's the worst we have to look forward to, we're in pretty good shape.
And this was without a very smart grid, where they had to effectively manually shut down those loads. As that gets more automated the grid will be able to tolerate larger and larger swings in supply. (Not just from renewable energy, but also from fossil fuel plant breakdowns, transmission line failures etc.)
billeisele 130
Quote>disagree that pump storage is as viable as you promote, it is very limited (very low
>capacity factor)
?? That's like claiming that peaker plants have an almost zero capacity factor because they only run a few days a year. Literally true but completely misses the point of peakers (or pumped storage.)
>why install expensive (more expensive than conventional sources, even nuclear)
Here are some costs in $/megawatt-hour for plants built today (WITHOUT incentives but WITH government nuclear subsidies) -
Conventional (dirty) coal $99
Advanced coal $112
Advanced coal with CCS (clean) $140
Natural gas $68 *
Advanced natural gas $65
Advanced natural gas with CCS (very clean) $92
Nuclear $112 (this is _with_ the government insurance subsidy)
Geothermal $99
Wind $96
Hydro $89
This is from the 2012 DOE report "Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources."
* (this is as "dirty" as coal from the perspective of mitigation but natural gas is inherently much cleaner than coal to begin with)
>consumers end up paying for both unless certain individuals are willing to be "turned
>off" when the renewable source is not available
Agreed. And that is one of the ways we will increase the flexibility of the grid and prevent blackouts, reduce load on the grid and make it easier to use non-dispatchable sources.
>what about when the wind suddenly stopped in TX where there is a huge
>concentration of wind farms, the grid was within seconds of crashing . . . .
That's a great example! They lost one and a half gigawatts (the equivalent of two large power plants) when the wind slowed down. What happened? If you listened to some people here, the likely result would have been massive blackouts, state-wide unhappiness, economic woes etc.
What really happened? They cut power to interruptible customers (i.e. people whom they give better rates in return for agreeing to have their load reduced during high demand/low supply situations) and as a result - nothing bad happened. 99.9% of the people in the state didn't even notice. The grid stayed up. If that's the worst we have to look forward to, we're in pretty good shape.
And this was without a very smart grid, where they had to effectively manually shut down those loads. As that gets more automated the grid will be able to tolerate larger and larger swings in supply. (Not just from renewable energy, but also from fossil fuel plant breakdowns, transmission line failures etc.)
this is an old convo but....
peakers and pump storage are two completely different animals, we can (and do) run peakers in non-traditional ways, can't do that with pump storage
the DOE numbers are typical DOE BS data, the numbers are not correct, they don't include the all in 50-year costs, I don't have the real numbers available right now but they are much different, they are also regional in nature
so where are all these volunteers that are willing to turn off when the green stuff doesn't operate???, folks talk a big game but when the rubber meets the road very few are willing to accept the outage
thats a big NO on what happened in TX, any utility can manage a massive loss of generation, we all have the necessary automated switches, computer programs, etc. to manage, we also have the manual ability to react, we simple click on a computer screen and open a circuit putting everyone on that circuit in the dark, interruptible program customers are not exercised in that way
in some areas the utility has denied additional applications for point source (generally solar) generators, in those areas the grid has become unstable - unmanageable by the utility - due to the % of unreliable generation
spent all day today talking with the SPIDERS crowd and the brain trusts of smart grid, there are more unanswered questions than issues that have been solved, in one test case the experts (government) estimated the cost to create a micro grid on one small part of a critical DoD site, the cost was 6-8 X the cost of conventional methods, smart grid is a looong way from even being close to real or economical, we'll know more as the test cases at Hickam AFB, Fort Carson and Camp Smith proceed, there are tons of your tax dollars being spent on the sexy stuff while the DoD is ignoring known basic infrastructure issues (like basic maintainance on utility systems), look up the DoD Energy Blog and Smart Grid Security blog and follow along
Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.
headoverheels 334
Quote
so where are all these volunteers that are willing to turn off when the green stuff doesn't operate???, folks talk a big game but when the rubber meets the road very few are willing to accept the outage
The company I work for, for one. We curtailed mid-day/afternoon power consumption that last two days, and will again tomorrow. We have "smart buildings," so it is done in an automated manner, including dropping temperature ahead of the scheduled curtailment (load shifting) so as to minimize temperature rise, cutting lighting power by dimming and turning off some lights, shortening times on occupancy sensors (every room in the building) so that they turn off quicker, increasing ventilation ahead of the curtailment so the ventilation rate can decrease during peak load.
Here's someone that sells (brokers) energy for a discount, if customers are willing to cut load on demand.
http://www.enernoc.com/
billvon 3,120
>peakers and pump storage are two completely different animals
They work differently but do the same thing - fill in demand peaks without having to overbuild baseline generation. In fact, pumped storage helps enable more efficient use of nuclear plants for example. They are harder to throttle than conventional power sources and do best when run at a close to constant power output. Thus using their power at night to pump, then using that power to peak during the day, gets more utilization out of them.
>so where are all these volunteers that are willing to turn off when the green stuff
>doesn't operate?
Me, for one. One of my biggest loads is an EV charger and I volunteered to make that interruptible. (I schedule that to run only at night anyway.)
My company, for another. On our main campus we can run a gas turbine to take over our A/C and electric loads during times of peak demand. At our other buildings we shut down our A/C compressors.
Overall, across California, there is around a gigawatt of load that can be dropped via the BIP program.
>thats a big NO on what happened in TX, any utility can manage a massive loss of
>generation, we all have the necessary automated switches, computer programs, etc.
>to manage, we also have the manual ability to react, we simple click on a computer
>screen and open a circuit putting everyone on that circuit in the dark, interruptible
>program customers are not exercised in that way . . .
Uh, right. So what are you disagreeing with?
>n one test case the experts (government) estimated the cost to create a micro grid
>on one small part of a critical DoD site, the cost was 6-8 X the cost of conventional
>methods . . .
Hmm. I guess our guys are smarter than the government then! Our payback time for our cogeneration (islanding) system was around 25 years. It was a gamble when we first bought the property, but given that we've been there 16 years so far it looks like it was a good one.
>smart grid is a looong way from even being close to real or economical . . .
That's like saying high speed Internet service is a looong way from being even close to real or economical. Sure, you can justify that if you define "high speed" as above a terabit a second. But we have a significant amount of intelligence in the grid right now (see your own paragraph above) that allows us to manage loss of renewable resources, and that is only going to get better with time.
They work differently but do the same thing - fill in demand peaks without having to overbuild baseline generation. In fact, pumped storage helps enable more efficient use of nuclear plants for example. They are harder to throttle than conventional power sources and do best when run at a close to constant power output. Thus using their power at night to pump, then using that power to peak during the day, gets more utilization out of them.
>so where are all these volunteers that are willing to turn off when the green stuff
>doesn't operate?
Me, for one. One of my biggest loads is an EV charger and I volunteered to make that interruptible. (I schedule that to run only at night anyway.)
My company, for another. On our main campus we can run a gas turbine to take over our A/C and electric loads during times of peak demand. At our other buildings we shut down our A/C compressors.
Overall, across California, there is around a gigawatt of load that can be dropped via the BIP program.
>thats a big NO on what happened in TX, any utility can manage a massive loss of
>generation, we all have the necessary automated switches, computer programs, etc.
>to manage, we also have the manual ability to react, we simple click on a computer
>screen and open a circuit putting everyone on that circuit in the dark, interruptible
>program customers are not exercised in that way . . .
Uh, right. So what are you disagreeing with?
>n one test case the experts (government) estimated the cost to create a micro grid
>on one small part of a critical DoD site, the cost was 6-8 X the cost of conventional
>methods . . .
Hmm. I guess our guys are smarter than the government then! Our payback time for our cogeneration (islanding) system was around 25 years. It was a gamble when we first bought the property, but given that we've been there 16 years so far it looks like it was a good one.
>smart grid is a looong way from even being close to real or economical . . .
That's like saying high speed Internet service is a looong way from being even close to real or economical. Sure, you can justify that if you define "high speed" as above a terabit a second. But we have a significant amount of intelligence in the grid right now (see your own paragraph above) that allows us to manage loss of renewable resources, and that is only going to get better with time.
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>all things being equal wind can not come close to the margins of coal
Take away all the incentives, tax breaks and subsidies, and make each power source pay for the damage it does - you bet it can.
How much does wind cost?
>if not for the tax benifits AND the current political climate forced on us by
>those like you, wind generation simply would not be built.
And if not for the agendas of people like yourselves - people who profit from dirty coal - we wouldn't have the current billions in incentives to keep the coal power industry alive.
Every time I've talked to a denier about ending subsidies I get the same story:
"END WIND SUBSIDIES! Wasted money! Tax and spend! Al Gore!"
"OK, let's end all subsidies. Coal company tax breaks, mining company land giveaways, exemptions to the clean air act. Everyone is treated exactly the same."
"Woah - I didn't mean - you can't cut - I mean, they gotta have those, or coal would be really expensive!"
>So, since the Bush tax cut agreement was made, we will see another
>couple of years of wind generation build out. Sad to see capital dollars
>wasted so badly
Wasted dollars generating megawatts for decades - for free. There are worse ways to "waste" dollars - like propping up failing coal plants, for example.
I love the for free comment
what a bunch of bull shit
I will take a current tech coal plant eveyday vs these chuncks fo crap
As for how I make money?
Dont matter the the power comes from. My job is to get it where it is going
Wind, coal, nuke, hydo. All the same to me
Next
By the way
I am fine with ending all subs
Let the market take care of it
But wind would not survive that
Coal would
Not when the cost of mining accidents and deaths, and cleaning up pollution is properly accounted for.
I recall the whining over SO2 cleanup when the coal/power industry was killing the lakes in the northeast some 40 years ago. Cap and trade took care of that.
The company I work for has already started retro fitting enviro systemns on its coal fleet that excede the current epa regs and what they (the operators) think the next levels will be set at
The rate case just settled on those updates and the IUB gave full recovery for those upgrades
Mercury, SO2 and particulates are all being addressed
as it should be
Oh, and for billvon
what I mean by company I work for
I am in the energy deleivery side of the company
not the generations side
they are all under the same holding company
And what is the company you work for doing about THIS?
My company does not mine coal
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
billeisele 130
it's always interesting conversing with you, were're more alike than we are different - but neither will admit it 
the east coast perspective on CA is as follows:
- the cost of electricity has been driven high enough that almost any type of generation source is economical
- we like that because many of your former companies have relocated to the east coast and become our customers because power is cheap and we don't interrupt
- you refuse to build generation, don't want to add transmisison and accept regular outages
- you're borderline bankrupt due to silly policies and want the rest of the country to bail you out
again, just opinions but it is what it is
we like it the way we do it, and guess you guys like it the way you do it
we like and have:
- 7 - 11 cent power
- an even mix of generation types including nuclear, coal, gas and hydro
- no power interruptions except from storms
- a 3,000 sq ft house on 0.40 acres that costs $285 - $350K and is only a 25 minute commute to main street
- the daily traffic jam occurs for 30 minutes twice a day and delays you about 5 minutes
- gas that currrently costs $2.98 / gal (filled up Sunday for $2.91)
- property taxes on the above house that are less than $3K
- schools that speak english
- and that CA houses most of the hollywood do gooders that have no real sense of reality
- the capital city is 2 hours from the beach and mountains
- the air is clean
- the SEC and the real USC - go Cocks, and we play college baseball fairly well
so it seems that we must be doing something right, and we don't want to do the way others do it
so there it is, what is the CA perspective of the SC, NC, GA, and AL area?
and calling us rednecks is a compliment so that is OK
Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.
billeisele 130
Now back to the convo
Quote>peakers and pump storage are two completely different animals
They work differently but do the same thing - fill in demand peaks without having to overbuild baseline generation. In fact, pumped storage helps enable more efficient use of nuclear plants for example. They are harder to throttle than conventional power sources and do best when run at a close to constant power output. Thus using their power at night to pump, then using that power to peak during the day, gets more utilization out of them.
----------------------------
yes, partially correct, main difference is that a peaker can keep on going when needed, pumped storage is finite
-------------------------------
>so where are all these volunteers that are willing to turn off when the green stuff
>doesn't operate?
Me, for one. One of my biggest loads is an EV charger and I volunteered to make that interruptible. (I schedule that to run only at night anyway.)
My company, for another. On our main campus we can run a gas turbine to take over our A/C and electric loads during times of peak demand. At our other buildings we shut down our A/C compressors.
Overall, across California, there is around a gigawatt of load that can be dropped via the BIP program.
-----------------------
yes, OK fine, and the cost of the BIP program is????
the answer is that it is no where near reality and woudln;t be needed if the alternatives that are more cost effective were used, the alternative generation and fancy program costs are collected from all customers and used to subsidize others, why do you think so much industry has left CA?, they came here, they are my customers, they tell me they left for these reasons, what I'm against is the cross subsidy and then some greenie trying to tell me how cost effective they are - BS
-----------------------------------------------------
>thats a big NO on what happened in TX, any utility can manage a massive loss of generation, we all have the necessary automated switches, computer programs, etc. to manage, we also have the manual ability to react, we simple click on a computer screen and open a circuit putting everyone on that circuit in the dark, interruptible program customers are not exercised in that way . . .
Uh, right. So what are you disagreeing with?
-----------------------
that interruptible customers are strategically used in certain situations, warned and they voluntarily reduce, we don't simply kill whole circuits, that is a different scenario used to manage a system emergency to prevent voltage and frequency degradation
-------------------------------------------
>n one test case the experts (government) estimated the cost to create a micro grid on one small part of a critical DoD site, the cost was 6-8 X the cost of conventional methods . . .
Hmm. I guess our guys are smarter than the government then! Our payback time for our cogeneration (islanding) system was around 25 years. It was a gamble when we first bought the property, but given that we've been there 16 years so far it looks like it was a good one.
----
ding, ding yea in CA where costs were driven up, that is the point, anything can be made economical if the cost of the comparative option is raised high enough, if that is a 25 year simple payback then the real payback exceeds 35 years, no financial wizard would say that is a good idea, you did use the word gamble, many things can happen in 25 years and the gamble could and still can go the other way, right now with shale gas the gamble was a good one
-------------------------
>smart grid is a looong way from even being close to real or economical . . .
That's like saying high speed Internet service is a looong way from being even close to real or economical. Sure, you can justify that if you define "high speed" as above a terabit a second. But we have a significant amount of intelligence in the grid right now (see your own paragraph above) that allows us to manage loss of renewable resources, and that is only going to get better with time.
----------------------
what I was referring to is not the base condition of the grid today, yes there is plenty of "smart" stuff being used and well-trained operators manning the ship but who is to say what "smart" is, what I was talking about is the advanced smart technologies that are just now being invented and will be used in the test cases mentioned
some are attempting to define "smart" as multiple point source generators (like solar on buildings, a set of gas turbines, etc.) all connected to a grid type system with controllers that can automatically manage power flows, demand and equipment on-off conditions based on preset requirements using mulitple inputs - like occupancy, temp settings, time of day, day of week, day of year, misison issues, generation availability, etc., etc.
anyway, not sure where all this is going, but some points are: put wind, solar, etc. generation in locations where it makes economic sense, remove the subsidies from all generation and fuels, let the economy not the government decide what companies survive - pie in the skyGive one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.
jcd11235 0
Quoteit's always interesting conversing with you, were're more alike than we are different - but neither will admit it
the east coast perspective on CA is as follows:
…
- you're borderline bankrupt due to silly policies and want the rest of the country to bail you out
…
so it seems that we must be doing something right, and we don't want to do the way others do it
so there it is, what is the CA perspective of the SC, NC, GA, and AL area?
I'm not from California, but the first thing that comes to mind differentiating California from South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama is that California pay far more dollars to the federal government than they receive back, while the other states you mentioned all receive more than they pay. Perhaps if they stopped subsidizing those eastern states, California might be in better fiscal shape.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
billvon 3,120
>the east coast perspective on CA is as follows:
>- the cost of electricity has been driven high enough that almost any type of
>generation source is economical
>we like that because many of your former companies have relocated to the east coast
>and become our customers because power is cheap and we don't interrupt
Hmm, yet cheapest power is in the central states where demand is lower and access to coal is easier, and places like aluminum smelters are moving to the Pacific Northwest for their cheap hydro . . .
>you refuse to build generation, don't want to add transmisison and accept regular
>outages
Last big outage we had was a year ago due to some klutz at a substation. Last big outage the East Coast had was - what? - last month? I had to listen to a friend in Virginia bitch about it; she ended up going to a hotel in an area that still had power. Don't have to do that out here. Our power doesn't generally go out (unless we sign up for that) and even if it does - you have to suffer in the awful 75 degree heat.
This summer though San Onofre is off line due to a recently discovered design flaw, so that may cause problems. We'll see.
Also we just finished the Sunrise Powerlink (google it.) Over the past three years we put 2GW on line. But yes, we tend not to build coal fired power plants. I think our experience of what LA was like in the 1970's gives us a good reason to avoid heavy polluters.
>you're borderline bankrupt due to silly policies and want the rest of the country to bail you out
Top 10 states most likely to go bankrupt (from the Daily Beast, based on data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, US Census and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities)
1) Rhode Island
2) Connecticut
3) Massachusetts
4) Illinois
5) Hawaii
6) New Jersey
7) New Hampshire
8) Indiana
9) Louisiana
10) Oklahoma
I see more than a few East Coast states. California and her neighbors look like they're in pretty good shape, comparatively speaking - although it's more a question of who has the bigger mess, rather than who is doing "well".
(Makes sense overall; California has been paying the bills of the red "welfare states" for years.)
>and that CA houses most of the hollywood do gooders that have no real sense
>of reality
Well, on the flip side the East Coast has most of the really rude, obnoxious and downright nasty people in the US. (Another good stereotype there - I saw it on TV.)
On the plus side, we have:
-companies and a government willing to plan more than a few years in advance
-a place you can surf in the morning and ski in the afternoon
-cities that are much cleaner than they were a few decades ago
-some of the best infrastructure in the country for high tech
-a low overall instance of obesity (compared to the east coast at least)
-enough money to pay more to the federal government in taxes than we get in aid
On the minus side we have:
-an unwarranted fascination with actors and reality TV shows
-some really stupid political movements, all of which seem to like to spend lots of money on shiny things
-an attitude that regulation is the solution to everything
-enough money to pay more to the federal government in taxes than we get in aid
>so there it is, what is the CA perspective of the SC, NC, GA, and AL area?
The standard stereotype? They are clueless hillbillies who can't plan ahead, and typically have big families due to their inability to comprehend the principles behind birth control or abstinence. The GA and AL areas are full of racists. Their general obesity is caused by their steady diet of junk food and barbeque - which they attempt to mitigate by drinking 64 ounce diet cokes.
The reality? They're pretty nice people, not much different from people who live in LA, or Fresno, or Sacramento. I was born in NYC and went to school in Boston and met some great people, and the times I've been in Atlanta, Virginia, North Carolina (we have an office there) and Florida I've met equally good people.
>- the cost of electricity has been driven high enough that almost any type of
>generation source is economical
>we like that because many of your former companies have relocated to the east coast
>and become our customers because power is cheap and we don't interrupt
Hmm, yet cheapest power is in the central states where demand is lower and access to coal is easier, and places like aluminum smelters are moving to the Pacific Northwest for their cheap hydro . . .
>you refuse to build generation, don't want to add transmisison and accept regular
>outages
Last big outage we had was a year ago due to some klutz at a substation. Last big outage the East Coast had was - what? - last month? I had to listen to a friend in Virginia bitch about it; she ended up going to a hotel in an area that still had power. Don't have to do that out here. Our power doesn't generally go out (unless we sign up for that) and even if it does - you have to suffer in the awful 75 degree heat.
This summer though San Onofre is off line due to a recently discovered design flaw, so that may cause problems. We'll see.
Also we just finished the Sunrise Powerlink (google it.) Over the past three years we put 2GW on line. But yes, we tend not to build coal fired power plants. I think our experience of what LA was like in the 1970's gives us a good reason to avoid heavy polluters.
>you're borderline bankrupt due to silly policies and want the rest of the country to bail you out
Top 10 states most likely to go bankrupt (from the Daily Beast, based on data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, US Census and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities)
1) Rhode Island
2) Connecticut
3) Massachusetts
4) Illinois
5) Hawaii
6) New Jersey
7) New Hampshire
8) Indiana
9) Louisiana
10) Oklahoma
I see more than a few East Coast states. California and her neighbors look like they're in pretty good shape, comparatively speaking - although it's more a question of who has the bigger mess, rather than who is doing "well".
(Makes sense overall; California has been paying the bills of the red "welfare states" for years.)
>and that CA houses most of the hollywood do gooders that have no real sense
>of reality
Well, on the flip side the East Coast has most of the really rude, obnoxious and downright nasty people in the US. (Another good stereotype there - I saw it on TV.)
On the plus side, we have:
-companies and a government willing to plan more than a few years in advance
-a place you can surf in the morning and ski in the afternoon
-cities that are much cleaner than they were a few decades ago
-some of the best infrastructure in the country for high tech
-a low overall instance of obesity (compared to the east coast at least)
-enough money to pay more to the federal government in taxes than we get in aid
On the minus side we have:
-an unwarranted fascination with actors and reality TV shows
-some really stupid political movements, all of which seem to like to spend lots of money on shiny things
-an attitude that regulation is the solution to everything
-enough money to pay more to the federal government in taxes than we get in aid
>so there it is, what is the CA perspective of the SC, NC, GA, and AL area?
The standard stereotype? They are clueless hillbillies who can't plan ahead, and typically have big families due to their inability to comprehend the principles behind birth control or abstinence. The GA and AL areas are full of racists. Their general obesity is caused by their steady diet of junk food and barbeque - which they attempt to mitigate by drinking 64 ounce diet cokes.
The reality? They're pretty nice people, not much different from people who live in LA, or Fresno, or Sacramento. I was born in NYC and went to school in Boston and met some great people, and the times I've been in Atlanta, Virginia, North Carolina (we have an office there) and Florida I've met equally good people.
billeisele 130
Good stuff. Been to a few places in CA and always had a great time. And yes we would love some of that San Fran weather about now but that would mean fewer bikinis!
------------------
1) Rhode Island
2) Connecticut
3) Massachusetts
4) Illinois
5) Hawaii
6) New Jersey
7) New Hampshire
8) Indiana
9) Louisiana
10) Oklahoma
--------------
Glad to see we're not at the top of a bad list, a female governor of Indian descent that is an accountant, our politics are interesting
------------------------------------------
Well, on the flip side the East Coast has most of the really rude, obnoxious and downright nasty people in the US. (Another good stereotype there - I saw it on TV.)
----------------
Actually it's true, it's the damn Yankees that have moved here, we still remember the war of northern aggression. We were thinking about an immigration policy but the Atty Gen said it would be hard to enforce.
----------------
The standard stereotype? They are clueless hillbillies who can't plan ahead, and typically have big families due to their inability to comprehend the principles behind birth control or abstinence.
-------------
Abstinence is not making a 3rd trip to the BBQ buffet.
---------------------
The GA and AL areas are full of racists.
---------
Don't be making any jokes about our NASCAR racin', it's part of our heritage. You're just jealous your air permit laws make it too hard to cook some shine.
------------------
1) Rhode Island
2) Connecticut
3) Massachusetts
4) Illinois
5) Hawaii
6) New Jersey
7) New Hampshire
8) Indiana
9) Louisiana
10) Oklahoma
--------------
Glad to see we're not at the top of a bad list, a female governor of Indian descent that is an accountant, our politics are interesting
------------------------------------------
Well, on the flip side the East Coast has most of the really rude, obnoxious and downright nasty people in the US. (Another good stereotype there - I saw it on TV.)
----------------
Actually it's true, it's the damn Yankees that have moved here, we still remember the war of northern aggression. We were thinking about an immigration policy but the Atty Gen said it would be hard to enforce.
----------------
The standard stereotype? They are clueless hillbillies who can't plan ahead, and typically have big families due to their inability to comprehend the principles behind birth control or abstinence.
-------------
Abstinence is not making a 3rd trip to the BBQ buffet.
---------------------
The GA and AL areas are full of racists.
---------
Don't be making any jokes about our NASCAR racin', it's part of our heritage. You're just jealous your air permit laws make it too hard to cook some shine.
Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.
brenthutch 444
QuoteGood stuff. Been to a few places in CA and always had a great time. And yes we would love some of that San Fran weather about now but that would mean fewer bikinis!
------------------
1) Rhode Island
2) Connecticut
3) Massachusetts
4) Illinois
5) Hawaii
6) New Jersey
7) New Hampshire
8) Indiana
9) Louisiana
10) Oklahoma
--------------
Looks to me the common thread has more to do with the political party in charge than geography. The top 7 are strongly Democrat.
billeisele 130
QuoteQuoteGood stuff. Been to a few places in CA and always had a great time. And yes we would love some of that San Fran weather about now but that would mean fewer bikinis!
------------------
1) Rhode Island
2) Connecticut
3) Massachusetts
4) Illinois
5) Hawaii
6) New Jersey
7) New Hampshire
8) Indiana
9) Louisiana
10) Oklahoma
--------------
Looks to me the common thread has more to do with the political party in charge than geography. The top 7 are strongly Democrat.
on the liberal news media tonight I heard that San Bernadino (sp?) declared bankruptcy and that other cities were on the brink - I get it now, CA is not near bankruptcy just a bunch of CA citiesGive one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites