TheAntiGates wrote:Do you have specifics pertaining to the following?: I forget the exact figures, but as i recall the bill for dereg was like 850-1000 pages long, and was given to the members of the legislature like 3 days before they were expected to vote on it.No way they could read and digest what they were being arm twisted to vote into law.
Do you have specifics pertaining to the following?: I forget the exact figures, but as i recall the bill for dereg was like 850-1000 pages long, and was given to the members of the legislature like 3 days before they were expected to vote on it.
No way they could read and digest what they were being arm twisted to vote into law.
Sorry, AG, the bill (AB 1890) was only 67 pages long (which is still a lot, mind you). The legislature had several hearings on the bill before it was finally passed unanimously.
Datafever wrote:Sorry, AG, the bill (AB 1890) was only 67 pages long (which is still a lot, mind you). The legislature had several hearings on the bill before it was finally passed unanimously.
You're "sorry"? that's an interesting choice of words.
Memory is a tad fuzzy, but perhaps there is some other document I am thinking of, perhaps it was a set of briefing documents explaining how it was all supposed to work, rather than the actual bill , that was not delivered until days before the vote. Some guy named Peace armtwisted those who felt they deserved more time to at least read enough to know what they we voting on.
I'll have to dig a bit, but what I do vaguely recal,l I remember reading in one of the papers recapping the woes after the fact.
Yes, Democrat Steve Peace was a major factor in getting the Republican bill passed. His side of the story was that since the Republicans had the votes and were unstoppable, he figured his best bet was to get involved and do his best to make the measure friendly to customers and environmentalists.
I am not aware of any push to vote in such a way that the lawmakers did not have enough time to consider what they were voting on. Between the committee meetings and the legislative deliberations, any lawmaker who had a mind to do so would have known of even the bill's most obscure provisions. It may be possible that after the last revision, it was rushed to vote without lawmakers having time to review the latest revisions, but those particular revisions were not of any significant impact.
There may have been other last-minute documents involved, but I am not aware of them.
Just checked my often mentioned BNSF Coal Mine map, which arrived today by US Mail. There are in fact, not that I doubted AG, ZERO coal power plants in Ca. Amazing.
ed
Supposedly Wilson was quick to point out that the Bill was flawed and his successor would need to fix it. That clearly didn't happen.
Wilson pushed it through as a compromise to get it on the books.
Lionel collector, stuck in an N scaler's modelling space.
MP173 wrote: Just checked my often mentioned BNSF Coal Mine map, which arrived today by US Mail. There are in fact, not that I doubted AG, ZERO coal power plants in Ca. Amazing.ed
It's both extremely amusing and more than a bit disconcerting that California has demonized coal to such fanatical extents. The talk now is to reject any electricity made by coal, begging the question "just how do you expect to meet your voracious energy demands"?
The only available energy source that can meet that demand besides coal is nuke, and nukes aren't any more in favor than coal. There's this Pollyanna mentality in C-land that "the problem will solve itself". They really believe that solar and wind can make up the deficit. They are the 600 lb retarded gorilla that the rest of us must deal with.
futuremodal wrote:It's both extremely amusing and more than a bit disconcerting that California has demonized coal to such fanatical extents. The talk now is to reject any electricity made by coal, begging the question "just how do you expect to meet your voracious energy demands"?The only available energy source that can meet that demand besides coal is nuke, and nukes aren't any more in favor than coal. There's this Pollyanna mentality in C-land that "the problem will solve itself". They really believe that solar and wind can make up the deficit. They are the 600 lb retarded gorilla that the rest of us must deal with.
For the record FM, I agree with you more than disagree, on the above. Don't forget Hydro,however.
I'm not so sure they really think that solar and wind (and hydro)is a viable answer in terms of a total solution.
I really believe there is a part of their thinking that understands coal generation plants are necessary, they just want it to be dirtying up some other state while producing power for them.
That's it. The Ultimate NIMBY.
With Hydro, I think they're understandibly sensitve to their water situation given that the majority of the state population wise "steals" it's water from other states and the Northern half of Ca.
They probably wouldnt want wind power either, with all the wind turbines required.
Has anyone here seen the wind turbine farm on Interstate 39 between Peru and Rockford. Lots of blades catchin the breeze.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
MP173 wrote: They probably wouldnt want wind power either, with all the wind turbines required.Has anyone here seen the wind turbine farm on Interstate 39 between Peru and Rockford. Lots of blades catchin the breeze.ed
I've never spent much time on I39 though I've been in Rockford and Peru. Of course, if you want to see Tehchapi and you're coming from LA, you'll see tons of Windmills off 58 north of Mojave. So they'll do wind. The problem with both wind and solar is they take a heck of a lot of space. So, The Mojave desert is available and that's about it. They want to buy their powers from other states.
MP173 wrote:They probably wouldnt want wind power either, with all the wind turbines required.Has anyone here seen the wind turbine farm on Interstate 39 between Peru and Rockford. Lots of blades catchin the breeze.ed
Plenty of wind turbine farms here. I have no idea as to the power generating capabilities of one turbine, but somehow I doubt that the hundeds of turbines account for even 5% of the state's energy needs.
jeaton wrote:I find it humorous that someone from the 1st Congressional District of Idaho would take pot shots at the government representatives of people from other places. Google Bill Sali.
I find it humorous that an (insulting cheesehead reference deleted) would try to infer an equivalence of anything that any other state has done that could even come close to matching California's collective incompetence regarding it's energy policies.
Jay, if you can find anything that the State of Idaho, it's 1st Congressional district, or it's newly elected representative has done in that vein, please fill us in.
PS - Don't forget the long history of fruitcakes to come out of Wisconsin!
futuremodal wrote: jeaton wrote:I find it humorous that someone from the 1st Congressional District of Idaho would take pot shots at the government representatives of people from other places. Google Bill Sali.I find it humorous that an (insulting cheesehead reference deleted) would try to infer an equivalence of anything that any other state has done that could even come close to matching California's collective incompetence regarding it's energy policies.Jay, if you can find anything that the State of Idaho, it's 1st Congressional district, or it's newly elected representative has done in that vein, please fill us in.PS - Don't forget the long history of fruitcakes to come out of Wisconsin!
Well you are right there, but the other stories are a scream, and after all:
Machine Gun Joe was just trying to get to the bottom of the Commie conspirancy. LOL
jeaton wrote:Well you are right there, but the other stories are a scream, and after all:Machine Gun Joe was just trying to get to the bottom of the Commie conspirancy. LOL
IIRC, that was "Tail Gunner Joe"...
What's really funny was that he was far more accurate about the number of Commies in the State Department than Senator John F Kennedy was about the number of ICBM's that the Soviet Union possessed 1959-60.
jeaton wrote: futuremodal wrote: jeaton wrote:I find it humorous that someone from the 1st Congressional District of Idaho would take pot shots at the government representatives of people from other places. Google Bill Sali.I find it humorous that an (insulting cheesehead reference deleted) would try to infer an equivalence of anything that any other state has done that could even come close to matching California's collective incompetence regarding it's energy policies.Jay, if you can find anything that the State of Idaho, it's 1st Congressional district, or it's newly elected representative has done in that vein, please fill us in.PS - Don't forget the long history of fruitcakes to come out of Wisconsin!Well you are right there, but the other stories are a scream, and after all:Machine Gun Joe was just trying to get to the bottom of the Commie conspirancy. LOL
Agree 100% with Erikem.
Turns out, imagine that, that Joe was on to something. The state department was riddled with commies that, imagine that, where spying for the USSR. Of course everyone thought he was nuts, but then again turns out he was right and everyone else was wrong.
Really, Joe was probably one of the last good men to come out of Wisconsin. He liked his whiskey, and he wasn't ambiguously gay like some of our senators are now.
YoHo1975 wrote:That's it. The Ultimate NIMBY. With Hydro, I think they're understandibly sensitve to their water situation given that the majority of the state population wise "steals" it's water from other states and the Northern half of Ca.
I lived in N california for 3 years prior to living in LA for 11, and water politics is funny.
Severe rationing in the north, lawn watering prohibitions, bill "incentive" penalties, etc All explained with spite about the rationing being necessary to save water for downstate consumption.
True, those aqueducts over the grapevine are pretty impressive.
But after getting to LA and seeing NO concern for water conservation, and seems like every janitor in the town would rather hose his sidewalk clean and spare the broom, the contrast is entertaining .
I see there is a conservationist movement to restore Hetch hetchy to pristine condition.
Does that make their opponents who want to preserve the dam "NIMBY's? LOL.
While we're on the subject of coal, railroads, and *alternative* energy, here's the latest on the Energy Northwest plans for a coal gasification plant in Kalama WA....
http://pepei.pennnet.com/news/display_news_story.cfm?Section=WireNews&Category=HOME&NewsID=141869
As predicted, mandates for a hard percentage of renewables in total energy portfolio's has cooled interest in the Kalama plant. ENW's spin is that the renewable mandate is great, since it will allow someone (else) to build a wind farm plant and back up the inherent intermittencies of wind power with this new gasification plant.
No one has pointed out the expensive redundacy of capital in these situations, alas....
But back to coal and railroads.
One of the primary reasons ENW chose the Kalama site is that it is accessable by both BNSF and UP mainline so that one can be played against the other to keep delivery costs of PRB coal down. Also, being located on the lower Columbia River allows for the use of imported coal, should the railroads not be able to deliver as promised.
Unfortunately, being located in Washington state will cause problems, as that State has a growing anti-coal mentality. They should've taken my advice and located right across the border in Northern Idaho......
futuremodal wrote: As predicted, mandates for a hard percentage of renewables in total energy portfolio's has cooled interest in the Kalama plant. ENW's spin is that the renewable mandate is great, since it will allow someone (else) to build a wind farm plant and back up the inherent intermittencies of wind power with this new gasification plant. No one has pointed out the expensive redundacy of capital in these situations, alas....
You mean like the expensive redundancy of having two or or more under-capacity rail lines serving the same area, "just in case" ?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding wrote: futuremodal wrote: As predicted, mandates for a hard percentage of renewables in total energy portfolio's has cooled interest in the Kalama plant. ENW's spin is that the renewable mandate is great, since it will allow someone (else) to build a wind farm plant and back up the inherent intermittencies of wind power with this new gasification plant. No one has pointed out the expensive redundacy of capital in these situations, alas.... You mean like the expensive redundancy of having two or or more under-capacity rail lines serving the same area, "just in case" ?
Well done, Murph !
So FM is a closet NIMBY!!! Note that he suggests that a coal-fired plant be located in Idaho, suitably downwind from his location in Washington. He carps about the anti-coal mentality then plays it to his personal advantage.
erikem wrote: jeaton wrote: Well you are right there, but the other stories are a scream, and after all:Machine Gun Joe was just trying to get to the bottom of the Commie conspirancy. LOLIIRC, that was "Tail Gunner Joe"...
jeaton wrote: Well you are right there, but the other stories are a scream, and after all:Machine Gun Joe was just trying to get to the bottom of the Commie conspirancy. LOL
"Machine Gun Joe Viturbo" was played by Sylvester Stallone in Death Race 2000.
Not quite sure why you harped in with such a ridiculous analogy. And no, it's not even close.
What you are comparing is a constant direct output facility like a power plant with an intermittent indirect output facility like a railroad or highway. Just because a road or railroad isn't being used at this very minute doesn't detract from their usefullness nor their importance. The same can't be said for a power plant - the concept of the "peaking plant", so in vogue in the 90's, has fallen out of favor. Most power plants being proposed today are baseline, with peaking capacity built in. That's why wind power is superfluous - it's nothing but added investment for no additional output capacity.
Where your analogy falls way, way short is that you are (I guess?) comparing underutilized Railroad 1 and underutilized Railroad 2 (e.g. two separte companies) with Energy Company 1 having a baseline power plant and a politically correct (but superfluous) wind farm in it's generation portfolio.
If you want a railroad analogy, it would be forcing a single Railroad company to supplement it's trackage with a fleet of prairie schooners. (You remember what prairie schooners are, right? Wagons with sails.) Ergo, everytime the wind blows a certain direction, the Railroad can shift some freight to these wagons with sails and claim they are "green" in the process. Hey, it's a zero CO2 solution, right? And if the taxpayers are willing to subsidize prairie schooners...........
Try selling that to Railroad CEO's, and you'll see why energy companies have resisted wind power projects for the last milenium.
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: So FM is a closet NIMBY!!! Note that he suggests that a coal-fired plant be located in Idaho, suitably downwind from his location in Washington. He carps about the anti-coal mentality then plays it to his personal advantage.
And now playing left field here in the 9th..............
You see Paul, where I live the Northern Idaho power plant would be only an hour's drive away, as opposed to the Kalama site which is 5 hour's drive away. Ergo, if I were playing NIMBY, I'd oppose the Idaho site, not the Washington site.
Just to fill you in on the background here, I was one of the folks around here who proposed locating a coal gasification plant in North Central Idaho for the purpose of killing three birds with one stone (okay, so that analogy may inflame the econuts on this forum!): First, it would have provided a solid solution to rail lines in the region threatened with abandonment. Secondly, it would be the easiest to get permitted, so that the power would be available when predicted PNW energy demand came to fruition. Thirdly, by locating at the western base of the Bitterroot Moutains we'd get the full CO2 airstream effect of an ideal terrestrial carbon sink, as opposed to locating such a plant in populous Western Washington or out in the desert areas.
YoHo1975 wrote:I hope they don't expect to get any coal in the fall, because the SP&S and UP blue mountain routes are packed with grain trains and are at capacity. BNSF has a capacity problem going into Seattle with bad passes over both the GN and the NP. the Gorge doesn't have the capacity sadly and there's no room to double track.
That's probably why they chose Kalama. They can bring in imported coal when the railroads can't deliver.
futuremodal wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: futuremodal wrote: As predicted, mandates for a hard percentage of renewables in total energy portfolio's has cooled interest in the Kalama plant. ENW's spin is that the renewable mandate is great, since it will allow someone (else) to build a wind farm plant and back up the inherent intermittencies of wind power with this new gasification plant. No one has pointed out the expensive redundacy of capital in these situations, alas.... You mean like the expensive redundancy of having two or or more under-capacity rail lines serving the same area, "just in case" ?Not quite sure why you harped in with such a ridiculous analogy.
Not quite sure why you harped in with such a ridiculous analogy.
In the spirit of the season, I present the words of Ebeneezer Scrooge, from A Christmas Carol: "Spirit-Why must you use my own words against me?"
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.