Question for the anti-nuke crowd

[Nederland]

I've seen a number of posts about the coal/nuclear "playbook" and how we all should be aware of the propaganda that comes out of the big corporations that provide those technologies. As a result, I'd like your help so I can understand just who is trustworthy and who is simply trying to maximize their profits. For example should I trust:

the solar industry: http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/renewable_energy/en/solar.htm

the wind industry: http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/wind_turbines/en/index.htm

the coal industry: http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/gasification/en/app_power.htm

or the nuclear industry: http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/nuclear_energy/en/index.htm

?

Any help you can offer explaining which corporations are trustworthy and which ones are not would be helpful. Thanks!

[GliderGuider]

1. Ouch.

Nice shot! :toast:

[Nederland]

3. Perhaps I should have titled this post differently

Nuclear, Coal, Wind, and Solar - Four sides of the same, um, strangely shaped coin.

[leveymg]

2. Never seen a horizontally-integrated conglomerate before? GE - we own everything you need.

All trustworthy. All not. Nothing to decide.

[kristopher]

4. That's an easy one.

There are two distinct non-compatible grid systems that we can use. One is the present grid - built around centralized generation from large scale, thermal generators - that has little room for small scale renewable energy sources.

The other is a distributed grid where the role of large scale centralized generation (from renewables in the future) is relegated to a minor role with the focus and design encouraging small scale renewables for most of the power used.

This means that as we switch to a distributed, renewable grid those businesses that originated in the vertically integrated utility structure are going to lose their market. There will be a role for transmission and distribution, but compared to the centralized system it will be minor.

It is natural to expect that renewable product makers will also form trade groups and attempt to promote their products, but as of now, that voice is next to nothing in relation to the elite power structure that controls the politics of our energy production and distribution system.

What gives me hope that we might actually succeed in making a timely transition away from fossil fuels is that there is a growing body of financially motivated entities (Sharp, BYD etc) that stand to win if renewable technology is more rapidly deployed. However, to date, they have little to no voice when compared to fossil fuel and nuclear entities that are completely integrated with all of the OECD governments.

So while GE might be able to hedge their bets, that is because they are a diversified product maker. Others, like companies that own coal or uranium mineral resources or those that build and operate coal and nuclear plants or involved groups like pipefitters unions, stand to lose big and have no effective way of hedging those losses.

[GliderGuider]

5. You're not being clear

Should we believe what GE says about wind power? Should we believe what GE says about solar power? Should we believe what GE says about coal gasification? Should we believe what GE says about nuclear power?

Which pages of the GE playbook should we read, and which should we doubt? And why?

[NNadir]

6. Really?

That is a suprise.

It's none of my business of course, but you're just begging - begging I say - for 800,000 MB of cut and paste.

And that's before we hear all about the wonders of "Beyond Petroleum" BPSolar.

[kristopher]

7. It's very clear, you are just asking a different question - one I've addressed before

You should always be incredulous regarding industry derived data.

There is no one here that would take the word of the coal or petroleum industry for anything; and that is precisely the proper attitude with which to approach that realm of information since it is being provided as part of a larger campaign to promote corporate profitability. Yet, for some unknown reason there is a very vocal contingent here on DU that accepts even the most absurd pronouncements of the nuclear industry as gospel truth.

In order of validity in information we have:
Peer reviewed study
Non-peer reviewed academic work
Independent third party studies such as NGOs or governmental bodies.
Industry data.

The industry data suffers from lack of accountability for false claims combined with a profit motive for making false or exaggerated claims. It should be treated most carefully.

Third party independent studies are far better since there is some accountability by way of getting a sullied reputation for making false claims. There is no profit motive.

The non-peer reviewed academic work is usually pretty good because there is a great deal of accountability attached to deliberate attempts to mislead; however it is still subject to author(s) bias or legitimate mistakes. In this case the profit motive *usually* works to ensure honesty in that a sullied reputation is probably going to be harmful to future professional advancement.

Peer reviewed data is the most reliable since not only do all the factors in the non-peer reviewed apply, but the work is checked by various parties for bias and mistakes.

[GliderGuider]

8. Ah, it's peer review that sets the standard?

OK then!

How carbon pricing changes the relative competitiveness of low-carbon baseload generating technologies

There is wide public debate about which electricity generating technologies will best be suited to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). Sometimes this debate ignores real-world practicalities and leads to over-optimistic conclusions. Here we define and apply a set of fit-for-service criteria to identify technologies capable of supplying baseload electricity and reducing GHGs by amounts and within the timescale set by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Only five current technologies meet these criteria: coal (both pulverised fuel and integrated gasification combined cycle) with carbon capture and storage (CCS); combined cycle gas turbine with CCS; Generation III nuclear fission; and solar thermal backed by heat storage and gas turbines. To compare costs and performance, we undertook a meta-review of authoritative peer-reviewed studies of levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) and life-cycle GHG emissions for these technologies. Future baseload electricity technology selection will be influenced by the total cost of technology substitution, including carbon pricing, which is synergistically related to both LCOE and emissions. Nuclear energy is the cheapest option and best able to meet the IPCC timetable for GHG abatement. Solar thermal is the most expensive, while CCS will require rapid major advances in technology to meet that timetable.

Peer reviewed, published and everything.

I know, I know....

[kristopher]

10. SELF-DELETED BY MEMBER

This message was self-deleted by kristopher.

[GliderGuider]

19. Ah, so it's NOT peer review that sets the standard

It's whether kristopher or not you agree with the content. Got it. Thanks.

[joshcryer]

26. Barry Brock = environmentalist. Mark Z Jacobson = engineer.

[XemaSab]

15. ^Don't say you weren't asking for this^

n/t

[GliderGuider]

20. I know. I was being a disturber.

:blush:

[txlibdem]

12. Peer reviewed study paid for by fossil fuel industry -- that one drops to about 10th on that list

The oil and coal industries have spent the past 100 years worming their way into government and academia. Now they've flooded the internet with their wholly owned and operated bloggers, "reviewers," and "experts" so even there it's a chore to weed through the lies and misdirection of the fossil industries.

Most of us have realized by now that any person who helped to stop a nuclear power plant (or those who cheer them on) has actually played right into the hands of the coal lobby. Whether they were paid thugs or "tools" that were easily manipulated into doing coal's bidding, the end result is the same: coal makes up almost 50% of our electricity generation.

Now the next generation of coal industry "tools" are busily working for their coal lobbyist masters, unwittingly or not, spreading the "nukes bad & coal good" gospel that they've been spoon fed. Take pity on them, they know not what they do (to the environment and your children & grandchildren's future).

[NNadir]

14. You may be being unfair here. You're using the words "unwittingly or not."

I think that the main anti-nukes are not unwitting at all.

They are openly paid by the dangerous fossil fuel industry.

http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Amory+B.+Lovins">Famous Anti-nuke Amory Lovins describes his revenue sources:

Mr. Lovins’s other clients have included Accenture, Allstate, AMD, Anglo American, Anheuser-Busch, Bank of America, Baxter, Borg-Warner, BP, HP Bulmer, Carrier, Chevron, Ciba-Geigy, CLSA, ConocoPhillips, Corning, Dow, Equitable, GM, HP, Invensys, Lockheed Martin, Mitsubishi, Monsanto, Motorola, Norsk Hydro, Petrobras, Prudential, Rio Tinto, Royal Dutch/Shell, Shearson Lehman Amex, STMicroelectronics, Sun Oil, Suncor, Texas Instruments, UBS, Unilever, Westinghouse, Xerox, major developers, and over 100 energy utilities. His public-sector clients have included the OECD, the UN, and RFF; the Australian, Canadian, Dutch, German, and Italian governments; 13 states; Congress, and the U.S. Energy and Defense Departments.

They're, um, proud of their associations.

[madokie]

16. Exactly what have you done to top anything that Amory Lovins is doing?

The more you rag on Lovins the more credibility he has in many of our eyes. You know why all these companies pay him money? I think you do but you won't say because that doesn't fit well with your world view.
Lovins makes gobs of money and you can't give your wares away, what a hoot :rofl:
What have you done to help in reducing CO2 output? I'd really like to know.

[txlibdem]

17. Which snowflake was the "key" one that caused the avalanche?

Answer: there wasn't one, the avalanche would never happen without every one of those snowflakes being there adding to the total that eventually overwhelmed the forces trying to stop them all from obeying the laws of gravity. With nuclear power it is the fossil fuel industry who most wants to stop people from recognizing the reality of fossil fuel's deadly consequences for us all. Each of us, individually, have zero power to change public policy or to make utilities stop using coal and switch to non-carbon energy sources. Together we can move mountains (or stop the coal industry from flattening mountains as the case may be).

We are all making a difference no matter how small. Can you move a boulder by yourself? Probably not. But get a thousand people working on it and that boulder will move, believe it. How much "credit" does each one of them get to take? That's not even a valid question, they all cheer together when they have done something together that none could do alone.

[madokie]

18. I didn't realize I'd rattled your chain

I was addressing the other poster who has a hard on for Lovins. Lovins has done a lot of good in helping others to use less energy which helps in reducing co2 emissions. I was asking what said poster has done in that regard.
Personally I've done quite a bit on that front myself and have been for years now, how about you? :hi:

I have a question for you, would you jump in his grave for him?

[txlibdem]

23. Just trying to set the record straight

I do not disagree with everything that Lovins says but I absolutely disagree with both him and Jacobson regarding the real world effect that being a "successful" anti-nuke activist (ie, stopping a nuclear power plant from being built or operated) will have / has had on our environment and our future.

But neither Lovins nor Jacobson have ever single-handedly done any of that. Their voice may have carried more weight than others' or they may have goaded people into action, that is all. Without hundreds of people working together to help the coal industry stop all of the new nuclear power plants Lovins would be nothing.

My point is that even the best among us are but one person and only together can we truly make enough of a difference. I've done quite a bit to expand people's understanding of renewable energy and the need to end our use of fossil fuels like coal and oil, green building techniques (I changed a coworker's home building plans when he found out how much money he'd save), I've given away low wattage light bulbs to coworkers and neighbors, etc. I'm just some schmuck with a loud mouth and a keyboard but I think I've made a difference. But it will take tens of millions of people like me and you to make a dent in the dominance of coal and oil on our lives, our economy, our environment, and our children and grandchildren's future.

[madokie]

32. My bad

I was completely and totally out of line. My apologies.

[kristopher]

29. Lovins has donated his corporate fees to charity from day one.

[GliderGuider]

37. And that helps how exactly?

"Yes, Your Honor, I was the hit man who took money from the Mafia for murdering these children's parents, but I gave all the money to a home for orphans. How about a little consideration here?"

Doing good things with the proceeds of unethical behaviour doesn't make the behaviour any more ethical.

[kristopher]

38. Making companies more energy efficient is unethical behavior?

It is a very strange ethical world you inhabit.

Lovins is beyond reproach, the ONLY people anywhere who find fault with him are the proponents of nuclear power. What is truly unethical are the efforts to falsely malign him for pointing out the negatives of nuclear power. It is an endeavor the is exactly equivalent to the attacks on Al Gore by climate deniers.

[GliderGuider]

40. When you shake hands with the devil...

I'm sorry you can't see the implications of climbing into bed with evil. It doesn't matter how tight you clench your butt, you're going to get screwed. It's just the way evil works.

[kristopher]

41. The only evil I see are the false attacks on Lovins motivated by the nuclear industry

To say that his work on energy efficiency is evil is the antithesis of everything you claim to stand for.

[GliderGuider]

42. I did not say that Lovins' work on energy efficiency is evil. Sheesh.

Read a little more carefully please. The fossil fuel industry is the evil villain in this play.

I don't even think Amory is corrupt, he's just a naive guy who wants to save the world and will take any opportunity he's offered to do that. The FF industry eats people like that for breakfast. They blow in his ear, hand him some money, and in return they get the Amory Lovins Seal of Approval for being Sensitive New-Age Enviro-guys. Then they go rip the top off another mountain or fuck up the Gulf of Mexico.

Amory is just naive.

[kristopher]

44. So let me get this straight

Large Corporations are too evil for Amory Lovins to even help make more energy efficient but the nuclear industry is completely trustworthy.

Because the need to reduce carbon is so urgent, the externalities of nuclear power are of no concern, yet the extremely large CO2 reductions achieved by the work Lovins has done on energy efficiency are nothing but the product of a naive person just being used by evil.

That is a very odd set of beliefs for any rational individual to espouse simultaneously.


Can you point to one case where the work of Lovins for any of these corporations was used as fodder for advertising by them to label themselves as "Green". Has he ever acted as a paid spokesperson in the vein of Patrick Moore for these industries?

[GliderGuider]

50. I didn't say "large corporations"

I specifically said "the fossil fuel industry". I think they are pure evil. I think that all large corporations are worthy of disrespect and suspicion, but the nuclear industry does come up slightly lower on my personal evilometer than Peabody, Massey, BP and Exxon. I see the fossil fuel industry as a clear and present danger to the planet and all life. I don't see the nuclear industry in quite those terms.

I also don't think that the CO2 reductions Lovins has achieved are "nothing but the product of a naive person just being used by evil." The CO2 reductions are fine. His naivete is a separate issue, but one that makes him vulnerable to those who are not above manipulating his passions and abilities for their own ends. Like the fossil fuel industry.

[NNadir]

43. Bullshit. Another fantasy from our dangerous fossil fuel greenwashers.

RMI didn't give a 3/4 million sinlge year bonus from donated receipts. That came from Walmart and BP et al

He lives in Snowmass.

His connection with humanity is at the very best tenuous.

[kristopher]

28. Right, everyone but the nuclear industry is corrupt...

Of course that flies in the face of the fact that both the stakeholders and general public support behind nuclear and coal are virtually identical.

People who love nuclear are the ones concerned primarily with energy security and as such they also approve of coal and petroleum.

"To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to ?" (Half Sample)

"Increase coal mining"
Support 52, Oppose 45, Unsure 3

"Build more nuclear power plants"
Support 52, Oppose 46, Unsure 2

"Develop more solar and wind power"
Support 91, Oppose 8, Unsure 1

"Increase oil and gas drilling"
Support 64, Oppose 33, Unsure 3

"Develop electric car technology"
Support 82, Oppose 17, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by businesses and industries"
Support 78, Oppose 20, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by consumers like yourself"
Support 73, Oppose 25, Unsure 3

"Require car manufacturers to improve the fuel-efficiency of vehicles sold in this country"
Support 85, Oppose 14, Unsure 1

Asked of those who support building more nuclear power plants:
"Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?"
Favor 66, Oppose 33

[txlibdem]

35. The poll you quoted disproves your statement

"Increase coal mining" : Support 52, Oppose 45

"Develop more solar and wind power" : Support 91, Oppose 8

So your claim that those polled are somehow slanted toward coal is just plain wrong.

And at least the pro-nuclear power folks put their money where their mouth is: 66% want a nuclear power plant built near them. With all the so-called "environmentalists" working tirelessly to stop every solar power project in the southwest I wonder what the numbers would be for them. Hypocrisy.

Second, your (unattributed) poll numbers show clearly that those polled clearly favor energy efficiency, electric cars, solar and wind, and tougher auto regulations. So, if your assertion is true, people who favor nuclear power also heavily favor renewable energy and energy efficiency. That casts us pro-nuclear power folks in a very positive light. Thanks Kris.

[kristopher]

36. No, you are just misunderstanding energy security vs environmental motivations

There are two primary motivations driving public views on energy sources:
1) energy security
2) environmental externalities of energy.

Those who place a high value on energy security are less inclined to be concerned about the external environmental costs of energy sources, while those who place a high value on the environment are inclined to give weight to the external costs of the technologies.

Those who promote petroleum, coal, and nuclear are motivated by energy security. Since renewables also contribute to energy security, this group is also in favor of renewables.

Those who reject coal and nuclear are doing so because they attach weight to the external costs of those technologies.

Only about 8% of people (in general) favor nuclear power while rejecting renewables.

I mentioned the two primary motives of energy security and environmental concern, there is another, and it's the one that fits the 8% - vested financial interests.

[txlibdem]

39. So we'll just take your word for it

Those who embrace renewables are also the same people who embrace nuclear power. Both cause zero emissions.

On the opposing side are those who oppose nuclear, and therefore cause more coal plants to be built. These people are the fools and tools of the coal industry who are easily manipulated and can't or won't take the time to understand what they are causing by opposing nuclear power plants.

External Costs of Existing Coal Plants

In economics, an external cost or externality is a negative effect of an economic activity on a third party.External costs of coal plants include the following:<16>

• Reduction in life expectancy (particulates, sulfur dioxide, ozone, heavy metal, benzene, radionuclides, etc.)
  
• Respiratory hospital admissions (particulates, ozone, sulfur dioxide)
  
• Congrestive heart failure (particulates and carbon monoxide)
  
• Non-fatal cancer, osteroporosia, ataxia, renal dysfunction (benzene, radionuclines, heavy metal, etc.)
  
• Chronic bronchitis, asthma attacks, etc. (particulates, ozone)
  
• Loss of IQ (mercury)
  
• Degradation and soiling of buildings (sulfur dioxide, acid deposition, particulates)
  
• Reduction of crop yields (NOx, sulfur dioxide, ozone, acid deposition); some emissions may also have a fertilizing effect (nitrogen and sulfur deposition)
  
• Global warming (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide)
  
• Ecosystem loss and degradation

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Existing_U.S._Coal_Plants#External_Costs_of_Existing_Coal_Plants

Frankly, I can't see why you continue to support the coal industry, Kris.

[kristopher]

45. Unlike your support of nuclear power, my position is logically consistent

You wrote, "Those who embrace renewables are also the same people who embrace nuclear power. Both cause zero emissions.
On the opposing side are those who oppose nuclear, and therefore cause more coal plants to be built. These people are the fools and tools of the coal industry who are easily manipulated and can't or won't take the time to understand what they are causing by opposing nuclear power plants."

As noted in my prior post, those concerned about energy security are the base of support for nuclear power, just as they are the base of support for coal. Your explanation fails to address the fact that the level of support for nuclear and the level of support for coal are identical.

“To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to ?” (Half Sample)

"Increase coal mining"
Support 52, Oppose 45, Unsure 3

"Build more nuclear power plants"
Support 52, Oppose 46, Unsure 2

"Develop more solar and wind power"
Support 91, Oppose 8, Unsure 1


You are also perpetuating a false claim when you assert that nuclear is required to address climate change. You cannot produce any study that proves that to be true because it ISN'T true. There are a number of papers out there that presuppose the use of nuclear, but there are *none* that demonstrate that renewable energy sources are not sufficient to do the job.

Conversely there are a number of studies showing that renewable energy sources and energy efficiency CAN do the job.

Your position is therefore based on several false premises.

[txlibdem]

46. To quote one of your heroes, "Now there you go again"

Dancing away from the issue will not help you escape your own statement. You said, "People who love nuclear are the ones concerned primarily with energy security and as such they also approve of coal and petroleum."

Yet when you look at the poll results that you, yourself, posted as "proof," it instead shows that people who favor nuclear power also favor solar and wind power by a landslide (91%).

I wouldn't call that position "consistent" at all. I'd call it a false assertion.

[kristopher]

48. 91 - 52 = those who oppose nuclear power while supporting renewables.

The 52% is the energy security component, while 39% are the environmental element.

52+39=91

Too tough for you, eh?

[txlibdem]

49. According to your decree, of course

As the arbiter of all things right and true you, Kris the Koal Man, have the power to define and divine the intentions and preferences of all poll participants.

All hail Kris the Koal Man!

I humbly ask your forgiveness for quoting you and expecting you to admit your mistake, Oh Great One...

[XemaSab]

9. Most wind projects are out in BFE

We're going to see an expansion of the existing grid, and not some new, magic grid.

[kristopher]

11. No, we will see the grid evolve into a different machine.

[XemaSab]

13. How do you suggest WAPA go about planning for this?

Which ROWs should they purchase?

[txlibdem]

21. This might help you understand where WAPA stands on the grid

They are going to install High Voltage DC (HVDC) transmission lines that link Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and Nevada.
http://www.wapa.gov/transmission/TransWestExpress.htm

That doesn't sound like the same old grid to me. HVDC transmission lines are perfectly suited to bring renewable energy from where it's made to where it is needed:

= AC high voltage transmission lines lose far more energy than HVDC transmission lines do
= The high voltage towers do not need to be as large so are cheaper
= The HVDC cable itself is cheaper
= HVDC transmission also connects disparate AC grids that could not otherwise be easily meshed together.

[madokie]

22. Out of curiousity how do they change the power from DC to AC?

[txlibdem]

24. With an inverter

That's why HVDC transmission lines are best suited for long distance transmission lines: the inverters are expensive.

HVDC transmission for renewable energy
JANUARY 7, 2008
in ECONOMICS,SCIENCE,THE ENVIRONMENT


One limitation of renewable sources of energy is that they are often best captured in places far from where energy is used: remote bays with large tides, desert areas with bright and constant sun, and windswept ridges. In these cases, losses associated with transmitting the power over standard alternating current (AC) power lines can lead to very significant losses.

This is where high voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission lines come in. Originally developed in the 1930s, HVDC technology is only really suited to long-range transmission. This is because of the static inverters that must be used to convert the energy to DC for transmission. These are expensive devices, both in terms of capital cost and energy losses. With contemporary HVDC technology, energy losses can be kept to about 3% per 1000km. This makes the connection of remote generating centres much more feasible.

HVDC has another advantage: it can be used as a link between AC systems that are out of sync with each other. This could be different national grids running on different frequencies; it could be different grids on the same frequency with different timing; finally, it could be the multiple unsynchronized AC currents produced by something like a field of wind turbines.

Building national and international HVDC backbones is probably necessary to achieve the full potential of renewable energy. Because of their ability to stem losses, they can play a vital role in load balancing. With truly comprehensive systems, wind power from the west coast of Vancouver Island could compensate when the sun in Arizona isn’t shining. Likewise, offshore turbines in Scotland could complement solar panels in Italy and hydroelectric dams in Norway. With some storage capacity and a sufficient diversity of sources, renewables could provide all the electricity we use – including quantities sufficient for electric vehicles, which could be charged at times when demand for other things is low.

http://www.sindark.com/2008/01/07/hvdc-transmission-for-renewable-energy/

[madokie]

31. Thank you

I'd like to say I understand and I do up to a point. I appreciated the time and willingness, (after my uncalled for smart ass reply earlier) to explain to me what and how this is. Back in my foundry/electrician days I did a lot of work, (installing and basic troubleshooting,) with variable speed ac and dc drives and from single phase to three phase variable speed drives and from that I know that they can be very expensive with some losses but the good out weighted the bad. The end results were always mechanically simpler which in a dirty environment such as a ductile iron foundry is a big plus.
My opposition to nuclear energy to supply our power is for the most part, due to the cost where I feel we are taking money and time away from developing and improving on already developed alternates where I feel we'll have to go ultimately. Nuclear just seems to be a step that with todays technology we don't need to take. Early on when a nuclear power plant was being built near here, less that 15 miles upwind, and we started to ask questions we were shunned, lied to and mis-informed when none of that was necessary so it soured me and many others on that technology. In response we done what it took to stop that from happening and largely it was due to that afore mentioned bullshit from the nuclear industry. Rather than try to explain or have discussion concerning our worries and fears we were treated as if we were the lepers of old.
Again, thank you for being a better man than myself.:blush:

[XemaSab]

25. How is that different than this?

http://www.wapa.gov/transmission/ttp.htm

[txlibdem]

33. Looks like they were planning AC transmission lines - appears to be cancelled

From checking the fact sheet (interesting map that shows solar, wind and geothermal potential areas), the proposed transmission lines are AC transmission lines of 230KV and 500KV respectively. http://www.wapa.gov/transmission/pdf/TTPFactsheet20090320_1.pdf

AC transmission lines suffer far higher losses than HVDC transmission lines, are more expensive to construct, so in my opinion they may be planning to change to High Voltage DC transmission lines. But that's just my opinion.

Transmission Agency of Northern California Transmission Project

Environmental analysis to be terminated

Western is cancelling the preparation of the environmental impact statement for the proposed Transmission Agency of Northern California Transmission Project. TANC has announced that it cannot undertake a detailed environmental analysis of the proposed project that would have involved new and upgraded 230-kV and 500-kV transmission lines, substations and related facilities in northern California.

http://www.wapa.gov/transmission/ttp.htm

Could have been the budget crunch in California that caused them to cancel...

[Confusious]

27. Really

Cities don't even bury power lines in the lower 48, whereas Alaska has been burying power lines for 20 years.

If they can't even do that, how will they do your magic grid?

[Nihil]

30. Ah ... so is *this* the new target post for "burial by spam"?

I wondered why someone was getting all necrophilic about kicking stale posts
that hadn't been touched since early November ...
:think:

Two-pronged attack involved: spam the thread itself with the trusty paste-buffers
and try to bury it by kicking random dead posts.

[txlibdem]

47. I noticed that as well, some people are so pathetic

We both know who we're talking about...

:rofl:

[G. Odoreida]

34. Another poster beat me to the phrase "hedging their bets"

If the GOP gets control and it's back to fossil fuel, then GE wants to be positioned.

If the pro-environment gets control and it's solar and wind, then GE wants to be positioned.

If either side wants to build more nukes (which I agree with), then GE wants to be positioned.

I don't see how they could be expected to do otherwise.

Frankly I'd rather see them have to divest their media subsidiaries than any of their energy lines.

[txlibdem]

51. Welcome to DU, G.

Good to have another voice of sanity to counter the spin, lies, manipulations, obfuscations, and dancing around the issues of the resident coal supporters.