Re: The Cost of Natural Gas [was Re: The Cost of California Liberalism]
I wrote:
California's importing power from elsewhere, so why didn't these other generators commit to natural gas suppliers?
Mac Norton wrote:
Perhaps because they don't burn gas at their stations. Duh.
My response to Raymond was in reference to natural gas price increases. Again, if they're not burning gas, how are they causing shortages leading to price increases? Who's burning the gas? Where'd it go? I wrote:
Hint: transmission losses aren't a recent discovery.
Mac Norton wrote:
No shit. That's why line loss is taken into account in prices. So, er, what?
So if line loss is taken into account in prices it should also be taken into account in figuring out how much power to generate and should also be taken into account when figuring out how much natural gas needs to be committed to. It doesn't matter where the plants are. Raymond's pointed out that some gas plants normally idle are now running full-time to meet demand. To me this reads the same as using idle plants instead of building new ones. Perhaps not a bright move in terms of safety, efficiency and reserve capacity, but nothing that should have changed natural gas commitments. "Raymond D. Mereniuk" wrote:
This power plant sits there mainly unused. The local tree hugger types whine too much about the pollution. The facility is not small, probably enough capacity for a city of 250K. It is used only at peak times and in emergency situations. When there are low reservior levels (which is part of your problem) it is used more often.
In a properly planned electrical system this type of extra capacity is considered essential. These plants were never intended to be used fulltime so they tend to have low natural gas storage capacity and smaller inbound pipelines. In your system you are using facilities such as these for full-time power generation.
In your state these plants has a quota of pollution they are allowed to produce on an annual basis. A number of these facilities had reached their annual quota of emissions so they shut down for maintenance. Since they were never intended to be used full-time they require some down time. Within the last two weeks your state government lifted the pollution quotas and pressured the operators to bring these plants back on stream.
OK, but do you deny that natural gas suppliers and pipeline operators are responsible for making the call for sizing their supply and their pipelines? Does California need to step in and do that for them? They sized for the expected usage from these plants and actual usage has ended up higher. Oops. The gas suppliers and operators could have also figured that without more power plants being built, these plants might need to run more (even despite regulations) and taken appropriate actions. Perhaps the suppliers aren't dumb and actually figured that out but ran some numbers that said they'd make more money by allowing a shortage to occur? (And hey, we can make it look like California's fault and get some good press in B.C. while ripping them off too!) In your eastern vs. western pipeline example, you showed a case where some supply problems would have been solved by connecting the two systems but then pointed out that the company didn't do that so they can charge a premium in the western system. Is that a cost of California Liberalism or a cost of Capitalism?
Energy production is big business in western Canada and a lot of people are making big dollars from the consumers in the northwest. The actions of the California voters have made this possible.
I just wish I was still in the energy business rolling in dollars rather
The actions of California voters have helped to make this possible. The cold weather has helped to make this possible. You and I heating our homes has helped to make this possible. Not connecting the eastern and western pipeline networks helped to make this possible. Lots of other things have helped to make this possible, but above all, Capitalism has made this possible. California's not responsible for making commitments to put the magic demand number over the limit to build new pipelines. Is it also God's fault for not committing to a cold winter? I'll let Tim make the causality rant if he feels it necessary. Californians don't want to live near power plants but have a huge electricity demand. Great! I smell opportunity for neighboring states to get lots of tax revenues from plants supplying California electricity. Why haven't they been built? Nevada liberalism? Oregon liberalism? Why not build plants in Mexico? Is Mexico a bastion of liberalism with stringent pollution laws? Why are natural gas suppliers and electric utilities not meeting demand? Are they morons or have they calculated that they make more money by risking and allowing shortages rather than by increasing capacity? This whole thing is no different than OPEC deciding to leave oil in the ground to raise prices except that instead of being honest bastards like OPEC, they're being dishonest bastards by babbling about California Liberalism. If anything it's the cost of not being liberal enough! Damnit, they told us we'd all become rich by investing in all these glorious deregulated energy companies and now look what's happened! We forgot the profit was going to come out of our pockets first. Those bastards told us competition would lower prices! We forgot all our anti-trust lawyers were busy with Microsoft and not making sure the energy industry wasn't acting in collusion. What hath we wrought? than
whining about paying an extra $1,000 per year for heating.
Shame on you. Bad capitalist! Bad capitalist!
auto58194@hushmail.com wrote Tue, 19 Dec 2000 13:15:09 -0500 (EST)
Raymond's pointed out that some gas plants normally idle are now running full-time to meet demand. To me this reads the same as using idle plants instead of building new ones. Perhaps not a bright move in terms of safety, efficiency and reserve capacity, but nothing that should have changed natural gas commitments.
In my initial message I stated the current rise in natural gas prices are caused by multiple factors. Natural gas prices were too low in recent years and this caused a shortage in supply. Narural gas has gained in popularity with utility companies in recent years because it is clean (relatively) and it is cheaper and easier to implement natural gas burning technologies than other fuel source technologies, ie - coal which would be cheaper but more difficult to meet current emission standards and "current" public expectations. On top of these factors I stated the greater portion of the increase was created by un-expected demand in California. Another issue in this problem, as in this month and next, is low water levels in the northwest causing lower than expected power generating capacity. In the past natural gas power plants were viewed as temporay or part-time solutions as they are relatively cheap to construct. If you have a power plant you don't expect to use you don't commit to much of a supply as you don't expect to use the plant. At this time many auxiliary power plants in California and surrounding states are being utilitized to generate power for the California market. There was recently a federal mandate that power suppliers in neighbouring markets not refuse to provide power to California utilities. Coupled with the low water situation, and the resulting decrease in hydro generated power, the increased use of natural gas powered generating capacity would be expected to cause an increase in the price of a commodity in which the increase in demand was unexpected or exceeded supply. If a power generating utility had built new power plants and commited to a fuel supply (and the accompanying infrastructure) the likelihood of unexpected prices increases would be much lower.
You don't get it, do you? At 11:50 PM -0800 12/24/00, Raymond D. Mereniuk wrote:
was created by un-expected demand in California. Another issue in this problem, as in this month and next, is low water levels in the northwest causing lower than expected power generating capacity.
Lost on your typically smug Canadian analysis has been any objective analysis of markets for power. Do you know, for example, that California as a state is a _net exporter_ of power to the Northwest and especially to Western Canada at certain times of the year? In the fall and winter, in fact, when hydroelectric generation rates in BC and Washington are reduced. In your kind of lingo, "British Columbia failed to build enough new plants." Markets are not simple. Prices rise, prices fall. To claim that California is now the primary cause of your higher heating costs, boo-hoo, is childishly naive.
If a power generating utility had built new power plants and commited to a fuel supply (and the accompanying infrastructure) the likelihood of unexpected prices increases would be much lower.
See above. Childishly naive. --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
On Sun, 24 Dec 2000, Raymond D. Mereniuk wrote:
In my initial message I stated the current rise in natural gas prices are caused by multiple factors. Natural gas prices were too low in recent years and this caused a shortage in supply.
<MASSIVE SNIP> Just an observation, but most of the specific causes of this crisis point strongly to one general cause -- ie, there are too many people in California. More than the local water supply can handle. More than power can be generated for locally (unless someone builds a nuke powerplant, and you can already hear the Nimby's screaming...). More than food can be grown for without exhausting water tables to irrigate the central valley. Another general cause is that most of the current houses are built stupid. In the 1940's and 1950's houses were built that were quite habitable without constant airconditioning. They had basement windows where air could be drawn in and air was cooled in the basement with scads of thermal contact with the cool earth. There were open airways that circulated air drawn up from the basement through the first and second floor, and windows in the second floor where heated air was allowed to escape. Many of them were made of adobe or other materials with great thermal inertia, which mediated the extremes of temperature. All of these are perfectly sound thermodynamic principles, which have been abandoned because wood-frame concrete slab houses are cheaper to build and home buyers haven't been thinking about the cost of cooling the damn things as part of the purchase price. If building codes were modified, or if contractors and developers had to bear the first ten years of utility costs out of house prices, we'd probably see a substantial reduction in the so-called "need" for power. Bear
At 9:25 AM -0800 12/25/00, Ray Dillinger wrote:
Just an observation, but most of the specific causes of this crisis point strongly to one general cause -- ie, there are too many people in California. More than the local water supply can handle. More than power can be generated for locally (unless someone builds a nuke powerplant, and you can already hear the Nimby's screaming...). More than food can be grown for without exhausting water tables to irrigate the central valley.
Not even _close_ to being true. Yes, there are many people. "Too many" is an esthetic judgment. The water coming off of the Sierras is more than enough for twice the current population, providing they all don't try to have large green grass yards (cf. xeriscaping). The market solution for water, as it is for power, computers, frisbees, and anything else, is to let the market price goods. If someone wants to pay $3000 a year to keep their lawn green, their choice. As for food production, food is fungible and is shipped where markets want it. Vastly more food, of certain types, is grown in the Central Valley, and in the Salinas Valley (near me), than is consumed locally.
Another general cause is that most of the current houses are built stupid. In the 1940's and 1950's houses were built that were quite habitable without constant airconditioning. They had basement windows where air could be drawn in and air was cooled in the basement with scads of thermal contact with the cool earth.
California houses have almost _never_ had basements. Check it out. Check the history of houses built throughout the state, going back a century or more. The main "reason" for basements is to put a foundation below the frost line. Mainly for structural reasons: a house built on top of the heave line is subject to thermal heave, cracking the foundation. (Houses can of course be built without basements or partial basements even in cold climes, via careful sinking of foundations. But digging out to below the frost line and then building on top of that was the most common approach.) John Young, as an architect, can no doubt say more about why basements are common in cold climes but much less common in temperate climes. (I lived in coasta France, on the Riviera, for a year. Virtually no houses had basements. Ditto for Italy. Ditto for Greece. Move north, however, and houses start to be built with basements.) By the way, most of the 34 million current California residents live in the coastal strip, from San Diego to LA to Santa Barbara to San Luis Obispo to San Jose to San Francisco and the other Bay Area cities. Most of them don't use air conditioning. (I lived for 5 years in San Diego--no A/C. Lived for 4 years in Santa Barbara--no A/C. Lived for 12 years in Santa Clara--A/C in one of my apartments, which I only used half a dozen times. Lived in Santa Cruz for 14 years--no A/C.) My siblings live in California: no A/C. I can't think of a single person I know who has air conditioning...they may exist, I just can't think of who they might be.
There were open airways that circulated air drawn up from the basement through the first and second floor, and windows in the second floor where heated air was allowed to escape. Many of them were made of adobe or other materials with great thermal inertia, which mediated the extremes of temperature.
Earth to Ray: Adobe and other thick-walled structures are "deprecated," as the current lingo would have it. I'll let you figure out why.
All of these are perfectly sound thermodynamic principles, which have been abandoned because wood-frame concrete slab houses are cheaper to build and home buyers haven't been thinking about the cost of cooling the damn things as part of the purchase price. If building codes were modified, or if contractors and developers had to bear the first ten years of utility costs out of house prices, we'd probably see a substantial reduction in the so-called "need" for power.
Bear
Do you simply invent this stuff? Cypherpunks has become a dumping ground for half-baked social theorists. --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
At 10:41 AM -0800 12/25/00, Tim May wrote:
At 9:25 AM -0800 12/25/00, Ray Dillinger wrote:
Another general cause is that most of the current houses are built stupid. In the 1940's and 1950's houses were built that were quite habitable without constant airconditioning. They had basement windows where air could be drawn in and air was cooled in the basement with scads of thermal contact with the cool earth.
California houses have almost _never_ had basements. Check it out. Check the history of houses built throughout the state, going back a century or more.
The main "reason" for basements is to put a foundation below the frost line. Mainly for (I lived for 5 years in San Diego--no A/C. Lived for 4 years in Santa Barbara--no A/C. Lived for 12 years in Santa Clara--A/C in one of my apartments, which I only used half a dozen times. Lived in Santa Cruz for 14 years--no A/C.)
And I should have pointed out that many of these places I lived in during the 50s, 60s, and 70s, HAD BEEN BUILT IN EARLIER DECADES, precisely the decades during which Ray assures us basements were the norm. Nope, no basements. No basement in the house I lived in in San Diego in the 1950s. Built on a slab. No air conditioning, either. No need. And the buildings I lived in during the 1970s had neither basements nor air conditioning. No need for either. Further, more and more Californians live in multi-story apartment buildings and condos. No basements, though underground parking garages are common. (No "natural cooling" effects, natch.) Where Ray gets the idea that houses in California used to commonly have basements--and "thick adobe walls"--is beyond me. They didn't, not counting certain old historical Spanish-era buildings which had thick walls (but almost never basements!). Office buildings typically have air conditioning, but this has to do with having hundreds or even thousands of people working in a sealed enviroment. Basements have nothing to do with this. The "solution" to "shortages" is, as with all things, market pricing. --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
On 12/25/00 at 11:07 AM, tcmay@got.net (Tim May) wrote:
Nope, no basements. No basement in the house I lived in in San Diego in the 1950s. Built on a slab. No air conditioning, either. No need.
You mean there's someplace in San Diego that's flat enough to lay a slab?
The "solution" to "shortages" is, as with all things, market pricing.
You have to have a market first. How do you go about establishing that? And wouldn't a fair market price assume a reasonable supply?
At 01:42 PM 12/25/00 -0500, Tim May wrote:
California houses have almost _never_ had basements. Check it out.
A Calif native friend of mine had griped to me (years ago) that the Princeton, NJ based SATs were biassed: they had an analogy like furnace:basement::stove:______ and my SoCal friend complained that furnaces are in walls or maybe an attic, and he had never seen a basement. Coming from places where triple-paned glass is the norm, I found this absurd, but soon realized it was likely. Tens of millions of Californians have *no idea* of the many-armed oil-fed beast that lives in basements..
On Mon, 25 Dec 2000, David Honig wrote:
but soon realized it was likely. Tens of millions of Californians have *no idea* of the many-armed oil-fed beast that lives in basements..
They've never read a story which mentions such a thing? -David
At 8:51 PM -0500 12/25/00, David Honig wrote:
At 01:42 PM 12/25/00 -0500, Tim May wrote:
California houses have almost _never_ had basements. Check it out.
A Calif native friend of mine had griped to me (years ago) that the Princeton, NJ based SATs were biassed: they had an analogy like
furnace:basement::stove:______
and my SoCal friend complained that furnaces are in walls or maybe an attic, and he had never seen a basement. Coming from places where triple-paned glass is the norm, I found this absurd, but soon realized it was likely. Tens of millions of Californians have *no idea* of the many-armed oil-fed beast that lives in basements..
Culturocentrism at work. A: champagne:waterford::brie:_____ vs. B: colt45: crack hoe::a baseball bat:_____ Correct answer to A: "If one refers to the crystal, the answer is surely c), but if one refers the cracker, one must choose b), but only, of course, if the brie is suitably soft." Correct answer to B: "Whatha _fuck_!!" And then there's clipper:spies::toilet plunger:_____ and shakespeare:borg::locutus:_____ --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
On 12/25/00 at 11:07 AM, tcmay@got.net (Tim May) wrote:
Nope, no basements. No basement in the house I lived in in San Diego in the 1950s. Built on a slab. No air conditioning, either. No need.
You mean there's someplace in San Diego that's flat enough to lay a slab?
Lots of places.
The "solution" to "shortages" is, as with all things, market pricing.
You have to have a market first. How do you go about establishing that? And wouldn't a fair market price assume a reasonable supply?
Why should it? Is there a "reasonable supply" of original Van Goghs? Nevertheless, there is a market for them. If there are shortages, then the price will go up. If it goes up enough, then people will look for ways to produce more. [ In the art market, these are frequently forgeries, but for water, that's not a problem. ] -- -- Marshall "The era of big government is over." Bill Clinton, State of the Union Address, January 23, 1996 Marshall Clow MusicMatch <mailto:mclow@mailhost2.csusm.edu>
At 09:14 PM 12/25/00 -0500, dmolnar wrote:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2000, David Honig wrote:
but soon realized it was likely. Tens of millions of Californians have *no idea* of the many-armed oil-fed beast that lives in basements..
They've never read a story which mentions such a thing?
-David
"Read" ???
On Mon, 25 Dec 2000, Tim May wrote:
At 9:25 AM -0800 12/25/00, Ray Dillinger wrote:
Another general cause is that most of the current houses are built stupid. In the 1940's and 1950's houses were built that were quite habitable without constant airconditioning. They had basement windows where air could be drawn in and air was cooled in the basement with scads of thermal contact with the cool earth.
California houses have almost _never_ had basements. Check it out. Check the history of houses built throughout the state, going back a century or more.
You're right, that was boneheaded. AC isn't the biggest use of power in California -- that's just a prejudice I brought in from elsewhere. Crud. Okay, from now on I'll try to stay more on topic. Bear
On Mon, 25 Dec 2000, David Honig wrote:
but soon realized it was likely. Tens of millions of Californians have *no idea* of the many-armed oil-fed beast that lives in basements..
They've never read a story which mentions such a thing?
-David
"Read" ???
Oh, right. Maybe the SAT is biased towards people who read. Since I read, that doesn't seem so bad to me. -David (exulting in the logic of ... oh, wait)
Another general cause is that most of the current houses are built stupid. In the 1940's and 1950's houses were built that were quite habitable without constant airconditioning. They had basement
My condo is quite habitable without air conditioning. It's got an air conditioner on the lower floor we've never turned on (stupid location - if it were in the upstairs bedroom we'd use it a couple nights a year.) High ceilings. Electric heat. I'm spending far more to heat the place in a Silicon Valley winter, with temperatures seldom below 10C and almost never below 5C, than I ever spent in New Jersey, where they have real winters (not real snowy winters, but below freezing for a few months.) It was built back in the 70s, when we should have stopped pretending that electricity was too cheap to meter. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
but soon realized it was likely. Tens of millions of Californians have *no idea* of the many-armed oil-fed beast that lives in basements..
They've never read a story which mentions such a thing?
"Read" ???
Cthulhu. Gravity-hot-air heating systems. Steam radiators. In the basement, no one can hear you scream... Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
Tim May <tcmay@got.net> wrote
Lost on your typically smug Canadian analysis has been any objective analysis of markets for power. Do you know, for example, that California as a state is a _net exporter_ of power to the Northwest and especially to Western Canada at certain times of the year? In the fall and winter, in fact, when hydroelectric generation rates in BC and Washington are reduced.
I don't know where you get your information but I doubt your statements. California is a net exporter of power is suspect, lets see the details here. BC never imports power! You must travel around this place and then you will understand, every major water way is blocked and producing power. Couple this with the low population and you have low demand. The Bonneville Power Authority (BPA) is required to return downstream benefits to BC but this has nothing to do with our requirements. It is payment for the water management services supplied to their power generation system. Any power returned to BC is probably promptly exported. On this angle you are wrong, BC is a net power exporter in both electrical and natural gas realms.
In your kind of lingo, "British Columbia failed to build enough new plants."
BC has not built new power plants in a long time. There is so much supply here that it was official policy to discourage any co- generation or alternative electrical supply development.
Markets are not simple. Prices rise, prices fall. To claim that California is now the primary cause of your higher heating costs, boo-hoo, is childishly naive.
Yes markets are not simple which is probably the reason you fail to see the California component in the current situation. The energy market doesn't lend itself to Economics 101.
If a power generating utility had built new power plants and commited to a fuel supply (and the accompanying infrastructure) the likelihood of unexpected prices increases would be much lower.
See above. Childishly naive.
Sorry, this is where you are showing your Childishly naive understanding of the energy business. In the energy business (natural gas wise) if you commit to the supply and build infrastructure you get lower prices. I re-state my initial premise, Californians have a lot to learm about energy economics! If you don't commit, you pay more! Raymond D. Mereniuk Raymond@fbn.bc.ca History of a Telco, A Fairy Tale http://www.fbn.bc.ca/telcohis.html
At 11:22 PM -0800 12/26/00, Raymond D. Mereniuk wrote:
Tim May <tcmay@got.net> wrote
Lost on your typically smug Canadian analysis has been any objective analysis of markets for power. Do you know, for example, that California as a state is a _net exporter_ of power to the Northwest and especially to Western Canada at certain times of the year? In the fall and winter, in fact, when hydroelectric generation rates in BC and Washington are reduced.
I don't know where you get your information but I doubt your statements. California is a net exporter of power is suspect, lets see the details here.
I said "at certain times of the year." British Columbia is tied by treaty arrangements (Columbia River Treaty, 1961) to the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), and is, VERY SIGNIFICANTLY, now part of same grid that is the ISO, the Independent System Operator, mostly based in California. Read the following and weep for your beloved Canadian independence: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20001208/ts/california_power_dc_3.html For example, "`We're about to find out next week just how interconnected the Western grid really is,'' Patrick Dorinson, spokesman for the California Independent System Operator (ISO) told Reuters. "The ISO operates about 75 percent of the California power transmission grid, the biggest part of a network of high voltage lines that spans from northern British Columbia to the northwest Baja California and as far east as the Rocky Mountains. " Between the Columbia River Treaty power-sharing and the Western Grid, it's all one main grid. Importantly, my point that California exports power _at certain times of the year_ is covered in the material below: For example: http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/001205/n05491394.html "CONCERNS OVER NORTHWEST SUPPLY CRUNCH The crisis has now spread to the northwest states of Washington and Oregon, where electricity is often used for heating. Those states export power to California in summer to help it meet its load but flows reverse in winter as heating demand grows in the northern states. ... ``We have always taken for granted that California will help out the Northwest in winter as we help them in summer,'' saidDulcy Mahar, spokeswoman for the Portland, Ore.-based Bonneville Power Administration, noting the Northwest is hoping that Canada will be able to provide some help in an emergency." and from http://nepa.eh.doe.gov/eis/eis0171/0171chap3.htm "The peak load demands of the Pacific Northwest and California occur at different times. The Pacific Northwest peak demands occur in the winter, and California's peak demands occur in the summer. During the summer, the hydro-based Pacific Northwest and BPA systems tend to have excess capacity, which can be used to help meet California's summer peak demands. California's thermal-based system tends to have excess capacity in the winter, which can help the Pacific Northwest meet its winter peak. Full use of both systems can reduce the need for new resources in each system. BPA currently has several seasonal energy and capacity for energy exchange contracts in effect with a number of California utilities.
Sorry, this is where you are showing your Childishly naive understanding of the energy business. In the energy business (natural gas wise) if you commit to the supply and build infrastructure you get lower prices.
I re-state my initial premise, Californians have a lot to learm about energy economics! If you don't commit, you pay more!
--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
Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
I said "at certain times of the year."
British Columbia is tied by treaty arrangements (Columbia River Treaty, 1961) to the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), and is, VERY SIGNIFICANTLY, now part of same grid that is the ISO, the Independent System Operator, mostly based in California.
Read the following and weep for your beloved Canadian independence:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20001208/ts/california_power_dc_3.html
The independence is not an issue to most Western Canadians. We are a subservient bunch to Eastern Canada as it is now. Central Canada is where the money and power is seated and the way Canada is setup it will always be that way. Being independent or joining the USA is a subject which is often mentioned in Western Canada. Another purpose served by your Electoral College is that it gives each senator in a state a vote. This helps even out the power between major population centers and those states with low populations. Couple this with your senate and you have a system which balances geographical related issues against that of major population centers. Most Western Canadians would prefer such a system. Back to the main subject, what are your numbers for exports of power from the American Northwest to the Canadian Southwest? I am told by the powers that be that the number is negative. Again you would have to travel this area to understand how the environment has been altered in the name of energy production. Virtually Raymond D. Mereniuk Raymond@fbn.bc.ca "Need Someone To Tell You What To Do?" FBN - The Consultants http://www.fbn.bc.ca/consultg.html
I read. I even read American stuff sometimes. In the last week I've read all or some of 5 books about architecture & housing. Two of them were American. But, not being American I still have no real idea what the expected answer to
furnace:basement::stove:______
is. I *guess* "kitchen" because in the UK "stove" is an old-fashioned name for a cooking device, stuff we used before the invention of gas and electric cookers (in fact, before the invention of the cast-iron range). But for us a "furnace" is an extremely large thing that you get steel out of... not something anyone would find in a basement. Over here you put teenagers or washing machines or junk in your basement, not furnaces. Actually, in London, they are almost always converted into flats & rented out. Anyway, surely basements are urban vs. rural? A way of getting more room in a restricted space. Do people build them out in the country? Ken the Ethnocentric. dmolnar wrote:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2000, David Honig wrote:
but soon realized it was likely. Tens of millions of Californians have *no idea* of the many-armed oil-fed beast that lives in basements..
They've never read a story which mentions such a thing?
-David
"Read" ???
Oh, right. Maybe the SAT is biased towards people who read. Since I read, that doesn't seem so bad to me.
-David (exulting in the logic of ... oh, wait)
At 05:29 AM 1/4/01 -0500, Ken Brown wrote:
I *guess* "kitchen"
sharp lad
because in the UK "stove" is an old-fashioned name for a cooking device, stuff we used before the invention of gas and electric cookers (in fact, before the invention of the cast-iron range).
Yes, artifact to cook on But for us a "furnace" is an extremely large thing that you get
steel out of... not something anyone would find in a basement. Over here you put teenagers or washing machines or junk in your basement, not furnaces. Actually, in London, they are almost always converted into flats & rented out.
So what do you call the artifacts that warm your homes, and where are they located? Boilers and radiators? Embedded wires? Fireplaces? Peat fires? Mad-cow-dung fires?
Anyway, surely basements are urban vs. rural? A way of getting more room in a restricted space. Do people build them out in the country?
Tim enlightened us IIRC that they have to do with the frost line... you want to have your lowest slab below it.
At 7:59 PM -0500 1/4/01, David Honig wrote:
At 05:29 AM 1/4/01 -0500, Ken Brown wrote:
Anyway, surely basements are urban vs. rural? A way of getting more room in a restricted space. Do people build them out in the country?
Tim enlightened us IIRC that they have to do with the frost line... you want to have your lowest slab below it.
Yes, basements are mainly intended to put the foundation below the frost heave line. Failure to do this means that as the ground below the foundation freezes and thaws and freezes and thaws...the foundation moves and cracks and all sorts of bad stuff. (There are approaches being pioneered in Scandinavia to allow suitably-build foundations which don't need basements.) BTW, in places where the frost heave line is so far below the surface as to be unreachable with conventional basements, houses are often elevated above the ground. Permafrost regions in Siberia, for example. In most places a conventional 2-3-meter deep basement is adequate to get below the heave line. As I noted in my reply to Ray Dillinger--which he graciously acknowledged to be correct!--California (and Arizona, and most of Oregon that I saw) rarely have basements. None of the houses I looked at in south Texas had basements, either. (No frost heave.) Sometimes people want them as a way of getting extra space, but this is fairly rare. And in many regions the water table is not far below the surface, so basements are, as they say, "contraindicated." Basements have essentially nothing to do with keeping a house cool in the summer. Though basements and cellars did serve a purpose, besides the frost heave considerations, of being a place to store vegetables ("root cellar") and as a place to retreat to during tornados ("storm cellar"). California's energy problems today are market problems, not caused by lack of basements! --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
participants (11)
-
Allen Ethridge -
auto58194ï¼ hushmail.com -
Bill Stewart -
David Honig -
dmolnar -
Ken Brown -
Marshall Clow -
Me -
Ray Dillinger -
Raymond D. Mereniuk -
Tim May