National Water Policies

[Plutonic Panda]

I'm all for putting solar on the roof tops that go unused but as far as large solar farms I can't think of something that I dislike more in terms of energy production maybe the ugly windmills litter the Oklahoma landscape.

Can't have infrastructure without the ugly parts. People say the same thing about freeways. I don't mind windmills. I like them a lot more than hundred-degree days and conflict in the Middle East, and having them means we can hopefully have fewer of both in the future.

As for solar, I feel like it's a lot lower-profile than windmills or even coal-fired plants are. OEC has a small solar farm near the I-35/Flood interchange in Norman, and if they didn't have a sign identifying it as such, I probably wouldn't have even noticed it was there. You can put small solar facilities in places like that you could never put a traditional power plant. I'd like to see solar farms in places like the inside of cloverleaf ramps and other areas like that which are currently just dead space (of course protected by guardrails or something for the rare cases when someone goes off the road). My business partners own a 45-acre lot out in the country. They could have a solar farm on the property somewhere and nobody would ever know.

But again for the land that these windmills take more power could be produced and in fact for the entire state of Oklahoma by placing a few nuke Plants and eastern Oklahoma that would produce power 24 seven whether the wind blows or the sun shines or not.

[Scott5114]

I'm all for putting solar on the roof tops that go unused but as far as large solar farms I can't think of something that I dislike more in terms of energy production maybe the ugly windmills litter the Oklahoma landscape.

Can't have infrastructure without the ugly parts. People say the same thing about freeways. I don't mind windmills. I like them a lot more than hundred-degree days and conflict in the Middle East, and having them means we can hopefully have fewer of both in the future.

As for solar, I feel like it's a lot lower-profile than windmills or even coal-fired plants are. OEC has a small solar farm near the I-35/Flood interchange in Norman, and if they didn't have a sign identifying it as such, I probably wouldn't have even noticed it was there. You can put small solar facilities in places like that you could never put a traditional power plant. I'd like to see solar farms in places like the inside of cloverleaf ramps and other areas like that which are currently just dead space (of course protected by guardrails or something for the rare cases when someone goes off the road). My business partners own a 45-acre lot out in the country. They could have a solar farm on the property somewhere and nobody would ever know.

But again for the land that these windmills take more power could be produced and in fact for the entire state of Oklahoma by placing a few nuke Plants and eastern Oklahoma that would produce power 24 seven whether the wind blows or the sun shines or not.

...A chance of the wind not blowing? What Oklahoma are you visiting?

I'm not necessarily opposed to nuclear (though I figure the best place for that would be in the west somewhere, like Dewey County or the panhandle or somewhere like that), I just think that solar is, in the long term, going to be cheaper and more practical. Nuclear energy is safe, but it still produces waste that has to be disposed of somehow, and wind and solar do not.

What I really want, though, is that OG&E coal fired plant in Newcastle to go away. We have so many sources of energy in this state that it's incredibly stupid we're bringing in coal and burning that for power. If it's replaced by nuclear, great. If it's replaced by wind and solar, even better.

[Plutonic Panda]

I'm all for putting solar on the roof tops that go unused but as far as large solar farms I can't think of something that I dislike more in terms of energy production maybe the ugly windmills litter the Oklahoma landscape.

Can't have infrastructure without the ugly parts. People say the same thing about freeways. I don't mind windmills. I like them a lot more than hundred-degree days and conflict in the Middle East, and having them means we can hopefully have fewer of both in the future.

As for solar, I feel like it's a lot lower-profile than windmills or even coal-fired plants are. OEC has a small solar farm near the I-35/Flood interchange in Norman, and if they didn't have a sign identifying it as such, I probably wouldn't have even noticed it was there. You can put small solar facilities in places like that you could never put a traditional power plant. I'd like to see solar farms in places like the inside of cloverleaf ramps and other areas like that which are currently just dead space (of course protected by guardrails or something for the rare cases when someone goes off the road). My business partners own a 45-acre lot out in the country. They could have a solar farm on the property somewhere and nobody would ever know.

But again for the land that these windmills take more power could be produced and in fact for the entire state of Oklahoma by placing a few nuke Plants and eastern Oklahoma that would produce power 24 seven whether the wind blows or the sun shines or not.

...A chance of the wind not blowing? What Oklahoma are you visiting?

I'm not necessarily opposed to nuclear (though I figure the best place for that would be in the west somewhere, like Dewey County or the panhandle or somewhere like that), I just think that solar is, in the long term, going to be cheaper and more practical. Nuclear energy is safe, but it still produces waste that has to be disposed of somehow, and wind and solar do not.

What I really want, though, is that OG&E coal fired plant in Newcastle to go away. We have so many sources of energy in this state that it's incredibly stupid we're bringing in coal and burning that for power. If it's replaced by nuclear, great. If it's replaced by wind and solar, even better.

On the aspect of solar I'm really surprised it isn't used more in Oklahoma City like in the scenario of the rooftop on the new convention center. that seems like an ideal place to put solar panels and from what I recall Central Oklahoma is one of the sunniest places in the country.

[kalvado]

There plenty of ways to make nuclear power plants safe to withstand earthquakes. Nuclear energy is the only logical way forward for mass energy production, IMO.

Solar is far more likely in my opinion. Solar prices are already coming down to the point that it's affordable to put them on the roofs of homes. And if you have the space and resources, and your local laws require the electric company to play ball with you, you can even put in excess panels on the ground to make a mini power plant and make some extra money selling excess power back to the grid. If enough people do that, it could add some serious power capacity.

My impression is that the solar market has a lot of cavalier attitudes from the government. If anything, this is very similar to what TX had to their grid, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the result on the same page.

I don't follow the comparison. Texas's power grid failed in February because they didn't properly insulate their natural gas lines, and the Texas grid wasn't linked to the rest of the national grid, so there was no way to bring power in when the gas lines froze up. A snow or ice storm could cause solar panels to be covered, but the property would still be linked to the power grid and could bring in power from places not affected by snow/ice.

Of note is that Oklahoma was hit by the same snowstorm that hit Texas, but because our grid was properly winterized and connected to the national grid, power failures were localized to places where trees brought down power lines and things like that. (The October ice storm ended up being a much bigger deal than the February snowstorm, and even for that, we were only without power for about eight to twelve hours or so.)

There is a pretty strong tendency to put opinions before the facts. TX thought they could get away with not taking strategic precautions towards reliability of the grid. Certain governments think they can  get away with piecemeal subsidies instead of strategic development.

[Plutonic Panda]

I believe there's also an issue with Texas grid being privatized when in my opinion public utilities at the very least should be heavily regulated but in my perfect world would be completely operated by the government.

[vdeane]

I wouldn't mind having a nuclear reactor that processes nuclear waste in order to reduce the amount of that there is, but otherwise I don't see it as sustainable.  Even those reactors don't 100% eliminate the nuclear waste issue, and storage space is not a renewable resource, at least not on even remotely useful timescales, especially given how hard it is to predict that a site will be geologically stable and secure for 10,000+ years.

I'm not sure what the issue with windmills is.  They're basically giant white trees that produce electricity.

As for "what if the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining", at least one of those things is pretty much guaranteed to be happening somewhere in the country.  A big part of this shift (at least as far as progressives are concerned) is also a shift away from the "one central power plant provides baseload power to everyone" model to a decentralized model where battery storage would supplement the grid.

[bwana39]

I don't follow the comparison. Texas's power grid failed in February because they didn't properly insulate their natural gas lines, and the Texas grid wasn't linked to the rest of the national grid, so there was no way to bring power in when the gas lines froze up. A snow or ice storm could cause solar panels to be covered, but the property would still be linked to the power grid and could bring in power from places not affected by snow/ice.

Of note is that Oklahoma was hit by the same snowstorm that hit Texas, but because our grid was properly winterized and connected to the national grid, power failures were localized to places where trees brought down power lines and things like that. (The October ice storm ended up being a much bigger deal than the February snowstorm, and even for that, we were only without power for about eight to twelve hours or so.)
**********************************************************************************************************
There is a pretty strong tendency to put opinions before the facts. TX thought they could get away with not taking strategic precautions towards reliability of the grid. Certain governments think they can  get away with piecemeal subsidies instead of strategic development.

You have several things all intermixed. There was no problem with the natural gas or even the compression units freezing. The problem was the piping on the steam power plants froze and they could not make power. These particular plants were primarily gas fired units but some of them were coal. So I understand there was not significant winterization issues with the nuclear power plants in Texas.

The freezing was a big deal. Those of you from more northern climes are missing a key point on this. This was the second time in over a century with clearly documented temperatures under 0F. There have been situations where there have been some frozen pipes on powerplants in Texas, but nothing anywhere close to this. -5F is the lowest temperature recorded at GGG (Longview) since weather recork keeping began in 1902 . While pre-dating the modern weather records , it apparently WAS colder in Texas in 1899.

By the way do you guys in Wisconsin and New York State design power plants for 120F or more (air temperature?) Didn't think so. We do.

Now back to the problem. What happened is a plan ERCOT devised for peak usage. It was assumed that peak usage of electricity was during hot summer not cold. One of the key elements of this plan was to have industries who have alternative power sources or are willing to shut down (in exchange for stipends or reduced rates the rest of the time. ) One of the key groups to jump on-board this program were the (natural gas) mid-stream companies. The ones who sit between the producers in the fields and the retail and industrial providers on the other end. In the summer there would still be a surplus of gas due to the reduced demand for gas and gas fired steam heating outside the power plants. ERCOT did not have a separate cold-weather plan. It was ONE singular demand reduction plan.

There are separate plans to reduce the demand for gas on certain peak days of cold. In these some buildings such as schools and office buildings close and operate at vastly reduced temperature levels. Mostly just enough for freeze protection. Many of the hospitals would transition to oil-fired boilers to furnish heat AND to generate the electricity they need. Usually these operating contingencies coupled with suspension of elective and non-emergent treatment at the hospitals does the trick.  I know we make fun of closing the roads at the drop of a hat, but this makes it more palatable to close schools and buildings. You actually are cutting back gas use that really isn't being used any way.

ERCOT told the mid-streams to cut their power usage to all but the most minimal usages (read freeze protection and safety monitoring and control).  The problem is when the natural gas power plants tried to fire up, they did like the Star Ship Excelsior when Captain Styles tried to catch up with (Admiral) Kirk and crew after they stole the (retired )NCC-1701 Enterprise.  They fired it up then almost immediately sputtered to a stop.

There were also problems with the solar and wind power, but those were actually somewhat anticipated in ANY weather that was under freezing for any kind of extended time.

By the way, I agree that the Southwestern Grid did a better job. Part of that is AEP is making money and Oncor was bankrupt. 

Oklahoma. A big part of the insulation issue had to do with the temperature extremes already inherent in Oklahoma. So you insulate a powerplant if you expect 110 days a year with below freezing weather. AEP an Ohio company is keenly aware of freezing.

Oncor assumed no time EVER to be under 10F for over 12 hours.

before this, the need for insulating for freezing in large bore pipes in  Texas might be akin to the need for AMDRO in Kansas,

[vdeane]

The warnings that climate change would lead to less predictable and more extreme weather have been broadcast repeatedly by now.  Texas simply chose to ignore them.  In fact, federal regulations specifically require that the grid be able to function in such cold temperatures, even in places as warm as Texas!  Unfortunately, Texas has its own grid specifically go avoid federal regulation.  I'm not sure if there are federal or state regulations requiring the grid operate in hot temperatures even in northern states, but I would not be surprised if there were.

[kalvado]

The warnings that climate change would lead to less predictable and more extreme weather have been broadcast repeatedly by now.  Texas simply chose to ignore them.  In fact, federal regulations specifically require that the grid be able to function in such cold temperatures, even in places as warm as Texas!  Unfortunately, Texas has its own grid specifically go avoid federal regulation.  I'm not sure if there are federal or state regulations requiring the grid operate in hot temperatures even in northern states, but I would not be surprised if there were.

If you take a tour of Key West, one thing they point out is a federal building with the proper snow roof and an array of chimneys. Sound like a wise precaution as well.
Don't count on NY being over prepared as well. Two hurricane and a huge blackout over a few states proved  the other way. Ice storm caused a week of frantic grid restoration as well.

[bwana39]

The warnings that climate change would lead to less predictable and more extreme weather have been broadcast repeatedly by now.  Texas simply chose to ignore them.  In fact, federal regulations specifically require that the grid be able to function in such cold temperatures, even in places as warm as Texas!  Unfortunately, Texas has its own grid specifically go avoid federal regulation.  I'm not sure if there are federal or state regulations requiring the grid operate in hot temperatures even in northern states, but I would not be surprised if there were.

Just one quick note. Not all of Texas in Under ERCOT. Parts of Texas are on the Southwestern Power Pool (Primarily AEP- Swepco.) This is mostly in East and Northeast Texas with a smattering of customers in the upper Panhandle). Parts of Southeast Texas are on the Eastern Interconnection (All ENTERGY. Entergy was formed Decades ago by a merger from Arkansas Power and Light and Louisiana Power and Light.) The same in a couple of counties around El Paso (El Paso Power) are on the Western Interconnection.  The problems were not as acute outside ERCOT in Texas or in the coldest areas around the Panhandle where hard freezes are more common.

[bwana39]

I'm all for putting solar on the roof tops that go unused but as far as large solar farms I can't think of something that I dislike more in terms of energy production maybe the ugly windmills litter the Oklahoma landscape.

Can't have infrastructure without the ugly parts. People say the same thing about freeways. I don't mind windmills. I like them a lot more than hundred-degree days and conflict in the Middle East, and having them means we can hopefully have fewer of both in the future.

As for solar, I feel like it's a lot lower-profile than windmills or even coal-fired plants are. OEC has a small solar farm near the I-35/Flood interchange in Norman, and if they didn't have a sign identifying it as such, I probably wouldn't have even noticed it was there. You can put small solar facilities in places like that you could never put a traditional power plant. I'd like to see solar farms in places like the inside of cloverleaf ramps and other areas like that which are currently just dead space (of course protected by guardrails or something for the rare cases when someone goes off the road). My business partners own a 45-acre lot out in the country. They could have a solar farm on the property somewhere and nobody would ever know.

But again for the land that these windmills take more power could be produced and in fact for the entire state of Oklahoma by placing a few nuke Plants and eastern Oklahoma that would produce power 24 seven whether the wind blows or the sun shines or not.

...A chance of the wind not blowing? What Oklahoma are you visiting?

I'm not necessarily opposed to nuclear (though I figure the best place for that would be in the west somewhere, like Dewey County or the panhandle or somewhere like that), I just think that solar is, in the long term, going to be cheaper and more practical. Nuclear energy is safe, but it still produces waste that has to be disposed of somehow, and wind and solar do not.

What I really want, though, is that OG&E coal fired plant in Newcastle to go away. We have so many sources of energy in this state that it's incredibly stupid we're bringing in coal and burning that for power. If it's replaced by nuclear, great. If it's replaced by wind and solar, even better.

It is naïve to assign negligible environmental cost  particularly to solar. The processes to produce solar panels is still less than stellar. That is not even considering the batteries. Mining materials for the batteries required for solar is environmentally HORRIBLE; not dis-similar to mining copper or phosphate. Disposal of the batteries is terrible environmentally.  The amounts of plastics involved is significant. The one thing our cities' recycling programs have figured out after a couple of decades is the numbers of uses for non-virgin plastics is very limited. Manufacture of virgin plastics is mostly from petroleum. Sometimes gasoline is a by-product of the process (oversimplification).  I think we may get better at the solar business, but we are several decades away. Likewise batteries for plug in electric autos.

[Scott5114]

I'm all for putting solar on the roof tops that go unused but as far as large solar farms I can't think of something that I dislike more in terms of energy production maybe the ugly windmills litter the Oklahoma landscape.

Can't have infrastructure without the ugly parts. People say the same thing about freeways. I don't mind windmills. I like them a lot more than hundred-degree days and conflict in the Middle East, and having them means we can hopefully have fewer of both in the future.

As for solar, I feel like it's a lot lower-profile than windmills or even coal-fired plants are. OEC has a small solar farm near the I-35/Flood interchange in Norman, and if they didn't have a sign identifying it as such, I probably wouldn't have even noticed it was there. You can put small solar facilities in places like that you could never put a traditional power plant. I'd like to see solar farms in places like the inside of cloverleaf ramps and other areas like that which are currently just dead space (of course protected by guardrails or something for the rare cases when someone goes off the road). My business partners own a 45-acre lot out in the country. They could have a solar farm on the property somewhere and nobody would ever know.

But again for the land that these windmills take more power could be produced and in fact for the entire state of Oklahoma by placing a few nuke Plants and eastern Oklahoma that would produce power 24 seven whether the wind blows or the sun shines or not.

...A chance of the wind not blowing? What Oklahoma are you visiting?

I'm not necessarily opposed to nuclear (though I figure the best place for that would be in the west somewhere, like Dewey County or the panhandle or somewhere like that), I just think that solar is, in the long term, going to be cheaper and more practical. Nuclear energy is safe, but it still produces waste that has to be disposed of somehow, and wind and solar do not.

What I really want, though, is that OG&E coal fired plant in Newcastle to go away. We have so many sources of energy in this state that it's incredibly stupid we're bringing in coal and burning that for power. If it's replaced by nuclear, great. If it's replaced by wind and solar, even better.

It is naïve to assign negligible environmental cost  particularly to solar. The processes to produce solar panels is still less than stellar. That is not even considering the batteries. Mining materials for the batteries required for solar is environmentally HORRIBLE; not dis-similar to mining copper or phosphate. Disposal of the batteries is terrible environmentally.  The amounts of plastics involved is significant. The one thing our cities' recycling programs have figured out after a couple of decades is the numbers of uses for non-virgin plastics is very limited. Manufacture of virgin plastics is mostly from petroleum. Sometimes gasoline is a by-product of the process (oversimplification).  I think we may get better at the solar business, but we are several decades away. Likewise batteries for plug in electric autos.

The thing is, though, I don't care about any of that. Mining and disposal of hazardous solid waste is unfortunate, but the effects of that are localized to the mine area or the area in which the battery is disposed of. Releasing fumes into the air from a smokestack is like pissing in the pool–doesn't matter if you are standing right next to the person that did it or not, you're swimming in piss.   

[vdeane]

The warnings that climate change would lead to less predictable and more extreme weather have been broadcast repeatedly by now.  Texas simply chose to ignore them.  In fact, federal regulations specifically require that the grid be able to function in such cold temperatures, even in places as warm as Texas!  Unfortunately, Texas has its own grid specifically go avoid federal regulation.  I'm not sure if there are federal or state regulations requiring the grid operate in hot temperatures even in northern states, but I would not be surprised if there were.

If you take a tour of Key West, one thing they point out is a federal building with the proper snow roof and an array of chimneys. Sound like a wise precaution as well.
Don't count on NY being over prepared as well. Two hurricane and a huge blackout over a few states proved  the other way. Ice storm caused a week of frantic grid restoration as well.

I said I wouldn't be surprised if there's such a regulation, not "our grid is surly hardened and no problems will occur".  It takes time and money to retrofit old infrastructure.  My guess is that we'd do better, but to quote another forum user, that bar is so low that it's a tripping hazard.

Ice storms will naturally cause issues due to downed trees and whatnot, while the Texas issue was way beyond that.

[Max Rockatansky]

What Federal buildings in Key West have chimneys?  When I worked on NAS Key West managing security none of buildings even had heater units.  Key West and the Florida Keys are one of the few places where a below freezing temperature hasn't been recorded in the United States.

[bwana39]

What Federal buildings in Key West have chimneys?  When I worked on NAS Key West managing security none of buildings even had heater units.  Key West and the Florida Keys are one of the few places where a below freezing temperature hasn’t been recorded in the United States.

I think the point is that these buildings may have been built in Key West because it was the standard design across the USA at the time, not because there was any sort of perceived or even potential need.

[Max Rockatansky]

What Federal buildings in Key West have chimneys?  When I worked on NAS Key West managing security none of buildings even had heater units.  Key West and the Florida Keys are one of the few places where a below freezing temperature hasn't been recorded in the United States.

I think the point is that these buildings may have been build in Key West because it was the standard design across the USA at the time, not because there was any sort of perceived or even potential need.

Yeah, but what building?  The only World War II buildings I can think of that might have survived were on Trumbo Point.  Even then I don't recall ever seeing a chimney.  None of base housing had chimneys on Trumbo Point or Sigsbee Park.  Even scanning over the former base homes in Truman Annex I'm not seeing anything.

[kalvado]

I'm all for putting solar on the roof tops that go unused but as far as large solar farms I can't think of something that I dislike more in terms of energy production maybe the ugly windmills litter the Oklahoma landscape.

Can't have infrastructure without the ugly parts. People say the same thing about freeways. I don't mind windmills. I like them a lot more than hundred-degree days and conflict in the Middle East, and having them means we can hopefully have fewer of both in the future.

As for solar, I feel like it's a lot lower-profile than windmills or even coal-fired plants are. OEC has a small solar farm near the I-35/Flood interchange in Norman, and if they didn't have a sign identifying it as such, I probably wouldn't have even noticed it was there. You can put small solar facilities in places like that you could never put a traditional power plant. I'd like to see solar farms in places like the inside of cloverleaf ramps and other areas like that which are currently just dead space (of course protected by guardrails or something for the rare cases when someone goes off the road). My business partners own a 45-acre lot out in the country. They could have a solar farm on the property somewhere and nobody would ever know.

But again for the land that these windmills take more power could be produced and in fact for the entire state of Oklahoma by placing a few nuke Plants and eastern Oklahoma that would produce power 24 seven whether the wind blows or the sun shines or not.

...A chance of the wind not blowing? What Oklahoma are you visiting?

I'm not necessarily opposed to nuclear (though I figure the best place for that would be in the west somewhere, like Dewey County or the panhandle or somewhere like that), I just think that solar is, in the long term, going to be cheaper and more practical. Nuclear energy is safe, but it still produces waste that has to be disposed of somehow, and wind and solar do not.

What I really want, though, is that OG&E coal fired plant in Newcastle to go away. We have so many sources of energy in this state that it's incredibly stupid we're bringing in coal and burning that for power. If it's replaced by nuclear, great. If it's replaced by wind and solar, even better.

What are the chances of wind NOT bowing? What are the chances of a deep freeze in Houston?
One thing grid sells besides power itself, is grid reliability for 24/7/365 operation. It is not an explicit sale, reliability is just included - and TX is blamed for saving on that component. Of course, as long as that fits the propaganda narrative - similar events elsewhere would be shown as impossible to predict, a highly unusual event, despite heroic efforts etc etc.
Solar and wind are not offering reliability. It would take a lot of effort to bring them to 24/7/365 standard. Right now, the reliability part is supplied by old-style generation, which is also deprived of some easy revenue that goes preferentially to solar. The end result is somewhat predictable. And what is the plan B one gas turbines get old and unreliable?
Bar presenting a tripping hazard is bad, but we are going to start digging.

[kalvado]

What Federal buildings in Key West have chimneys?  When I worked on NAS Key West managing security none of buildings even had heater units.  Key West and the Florida Keys are one of the few places where a below freezing temperature hasn't been recorded in the United States.

I think the point is that these buildings may have been build in Key West because it was the standard design across the USA at the time, not because there was any sort of perceived or even potential need.

Yeah, but what building?  The only World War II buildings I can think of that might have survived were on Trumbo Point.  Even then I don't recall ever seeing a chimney.  None of base housing had chimneys on Trumbo Point or Sigsbee Park.

SOmething pretty old, end of 19th century if I remember correctly

[Max Rockatansky]

What Federal buildings in Key West have chimneys?  When I worked on NAS Key West managing security none of buildings even had heater units.  Key West and the Florida Keys are one of the few places where a below freezing temperature hasn't been recorded in the United States.

I think the point is that these buildings may have been build in Key West because it was the standard design across the USA at the time, not because there was any sort of perceived or even potential need.

Yeah, but what building?  The only World War II buildings I can think of that might have survived were on Trumbo Point.  Even then I don't recall ever seeing a chimney.  None of base housing had chimneys on Trumbo Point or Sigsbee Park.

SOmething pretty old, end of 19th century if I remember correctly

Fort Zachary Taylor?

[kalvado]

What Federal buildings in Key West have chimneys?  When I worked on NAS Key West managing security none of buildings even had heater units.  Key West and the Florida Keys are one of the few places where a below freezing temperature hasn't been recorded in the United States.

I think the point is that these buildings may have been build in Key West because it was the standard design across the USA at the time, not because there was any sort of perceived or even potential need.

Yeah, but what building?  The only World War II buildings I can think of that might have survived were on Trumbo Point.  Even then I don't recall ever seeing a chimney.  None of base housing had chimneys on Trumbo Point or Sigsbee Park.

SOmething pretty old, end of 19th century if I remember correctly

Fort Zachary Taylor?

I think this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Post_Office_and_Customshouse_(Key_West,_Florida)

[Max Rockatansky]

What Federal buildings in Key West have chimneys?  When I worked on NAS Key West managing security none of buildings even had heater units.  Key West and the Florida Keys are one of the few places where a below freezing temperature hasn't been recorded in the United States.

I think the point is that these buildings may have been build in Key West because it was the standard design across the USA at the time, not because there was any sort of perceived or even potential need.

Yeah, but what building?  The only World War II buildings I can think of that might have survived were on Trumbo Point.  Even then I don't recall ever seeing a chimney.  None of base housing had chimneys on Trumbo Point or Sigsbee Park.

SOmething pretty old, end of 19th century if I remember correctly

Fort Zachary Taylor?

I think this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Post_Office_and_Customshouse_(Key_West,_Florida)

I see it now, two chimney stacks at the front of the building.

[kalvado]

What Federal buildings in Key West have chimneys?  When I worked on NAS Key West managing security none of buildings even had heater units.  Key West and the Florida Keys are one of the few places where a below freezing temperature hasn’t been recorded in the United States.

I think the point is that these buildings may have been build in Key West because it was the standard design across the USA at the time, not because there was any sort of perceived or even potential need.

Yeah, but what building?  The only World War II buildings I can think of that might have survived were on Trumbo Point.  Even then I don’t recall ever seeing a chimney.  None of base housing had chimneys on Trumbo Point or Sigsbee Park.

SOmething pretty old, end of 19th century if I remember correctly

Fort Zachary Taylor?

I think this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Post_Office_and_Customshouse_(Key_West,_Florida)

I see it now, two chimney stacks at the front of the building.

Three chimneys, 900 000 bricks shipped from NY,  1.5x over budget, snow roof - but no restrooms.
Be prepared like they are!