NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/sci/environm/9927

Internet Message Format | 1992-07-24 | 3.6 KB

Xref: sparky sci.environment:9927 sci.physics:11555 sci.energy:3623
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!ncar!vexcel!dean
From: [e-mail] (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:07:07 GMT
Lines: 59

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (dean alaska) writes:
>>>     Then I suspect that economic growth will not be concentrated
>>>     in PG&E-space.
>>>
>>This statement indicates that you are not so open-minded as your
>>"Show me" statement belows indicates.  Why do you doubt their planning?
>>I would point out that CA utilities use increased efficiency to generate
>>"negawatts" during the 80's and had a very strong economy.
>
>And I would point out that one major issue in California today is flight of
>industry from the state.  Why?  Well, they don't like the many regulations
>placed on them by the state of California, of which "energy efficiency"
>reulations comprise no small part.

A lot of efficiency comes from utility based encouragement to retrofit.
Please provide documentation that energy efficiency regulations are
"no small part" of why industry is leaving.  The company I worked at
in LA before moving to CO couldn't recruit new workers into the area
because the cost of living was too high (Santa Monica).  Many people
are leaving because of the transportation system is unworkable for them.
>
>The "show me" statement to which you refer was:
>
>>>>>     Show me a renewable system that competes economically with
>>>>>     the service I get from Virginia Power, and I'll switch tomorrow.
>>>>>     (Oh by the way, I'm not going to rewire all of my capital goods
>>>>>     in anticipation).
>
>Please note it doesn't say "show me some predictions made in a political
>climate (and if you don't think PG&E is subject to political pressures through
>the PUC, I'd like to sell you the Golden Gate Bridge) and I'll switch," it says
>show me an economic alternative that is available NOW.

Unsubstantiated rhetoric.  I don't doubt that PG&E is under political
pressure but I would like you to demonstrate how such pressure has lead
to unrealistic projections before accpeting your statement.  Is there a
history of such projections at PG&E?  They are working with EPRI on most
of this.  The EPRI report I have used supports such projections in
general.  Are they bowing to political pressure.  Support your claim.

The efficiency being used by SCEdison is available now and is cost effective.
Wind is cost effective now. Solar thermal is cost effective now, especially
when after-consumption costs are factored in.  Renewables will need to use
the grid to distribute power and I don't know what capacity the grid has
but efficiency has no such limitations.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: [e-mail] | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
>
>Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
>understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
>unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
>organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
>hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.


--

        dingo in boulder    ([e-mail])