AARoads Forum

Here is a thread for the continuation of the conversation started in the Interstate 11 thread in the Mountain West Board. Have at it!

Water is heavy and transporting it, especially uphill, is incredibly expensive. There was a whole debate about this in the 60s with NAWAPA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Water_and_Power_Alliance). It was a stupid idea then and it's a stupider idea now.

And it's not needed. Did you know that Arizona uses less water now than in 1957? The water consumed by our lawns and long showers utterly pale in comparison to the tremendous amount of water used by agriculture, arguably, as more of the Southwest's farmland gets replaced by urban sprawl, water consumption should drop and in the future once lab grown meat arrives, we'll have a massive surplus of water.

Quote from: kernals12 on August 24, 2021, 11:04:43 PM
Water is heavy and transporting it, especially uphill, is incredibly expensive. There was a whole debate about this in the 60s with NAWAPA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Water_and_Power_Alliance). It was a stupid idea then and it's a stupider idea now.

And it's not needed. Did you know that Arizona uses less water now than in 1957? The water consumed by our lawns and long showers utterly pale in comparison to the tremendous amount of water used by agriculture, arguably, as more of the Southwest's farmland gets replaced by urban sprawl, water consumption should drop and in the future once lab grown meat arrives, we'll have a massive surplus of water.

Don't go telling people about that special ingredient in Soylent Green.

Let's not forget the time the Bureau of Reclamation suggested damming the Grand Canyon
(https://i.imgur.com/k1nlRpB.png)

Quote from: kernals12 on August 24, 2021, 11:04:43 PM
water consumption should drop and in the future once lab grown meat arrives, we'll have a massive surplus of water.

When speaking of things that have not yet been invented or made economically practical even if invented, the proper conjunction is "if"  not "when" . 

When making public policy, the use of things that do not exist is quite foolhardy.    Better to base things on what actually is.

Quote from: SP Cook on September 07, 2021, 12:52:53 PM

Quote from: kernals12 on August 24, 2021, 11:04:43 PM
The water consumed by our lawns and long showers utterly pale in comparison to the tremendous amount of water used by agriculture, arguably, as more of the Southwest's farmland gets replaced by urban sprawl, water consumption should drop and in the future once lab grown meat arrives, we'll have a massive surplus of water.

When speaking of things that have not yet been invented or made economically practical even if invented, the proper conjunction is "if"  not "when" . 

To be fair to kernals12, "when"  is not used in the statement you quoted.  :-D

I continue to be surprised at the wrangling over a water source for Atlanta and the controversy surrounding the Tennessee River.

Since navigable streams are considered federal property (more or less, I realize that's an oversimplification), why would a city in Georgia be prohibited from tapping into a water source in a neighboring state?

It's not like there's a shortage of water in that area, as the entire Tennessee River from near the river's mouth in Paducah, Ky., to upstream of Knoxville, Tenn., has been dammed up into a series of lakes to provide hydroelectric power by the TVA.

Quote from: hbelkins on September 08, 2021, 01:05:03 PM
Since navigable streams are considered federal property (more or less, I realize that's an oversimplification), why would a city in Georgia be prohibited from tapping into a water source in a neighboring state?

Federal jurisdiction ends at the water's edge. Tennessee can block the water from crossing its own territory.

Quote from: CtrlAltDel on September 08, 2021, 02:31:21 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on September 08, 2021, 01:05:03 PM
Since navigable streams are considered federal property (more or less, I realize that's an oversimplification), why would a city in Georgia be prohibited from tapping into a water source in a neighboring state?

Federal jurisdiction ends at the water's edge. Tennessee can block the water from crossing its own territory.

And I don't understand why Tennessee would do that. It makes no sense.

If this isn't flat out alarming I don't know what is:

QuoteThere is also a greater than 1-in-5 chance that water levels in Lake Mead will fall below 1,000 feet above sea level in 2025. That is barely 100 feet above what is considered "dead pool," the level at which water can no longer flow through Hoover Dam.

https://www.ksl.com/article/50247505/theres-a-1-in-3-chance-lake-powell-wont-be-able-to-generate-hydropower-in-2023-due-to-drought-conditions-new-study-says?fbclid=IwAR3q9nJ4A-11UPddVD_dqHmRm6nfJKdYgIuV-EAPa_mEosSA_vk1xS14EFo

Quote from: hbelkins on September 08, 2021, 07:36:32 PM

Quote from: CtrlAltDel on September 08, 2021, 02:31:21 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on September 08, 2021, 01:05:03 PM
Since navigable streams are considered federal property (more or less, I realize that's an oversimplification), why would a city in Georgia be prohibited from tapping into a water source in a neighboring state?

Federal jurisdiction ends at the water's edge. Tennessee can block the water from crossing its own territory.

And I don't understand why Tennessee would do that. It makes no sense.

Twenty years ago, it seemed to be a general anti-helping-Atlanta stance - when Bob Barr represented a Congressional district in Northwest Georgia, he was also opposed to it.

Well this thread started because we got sidetracked in the I-11 thread about harebrained concepts to divert Midwest floods to the desert.  The superficially intriguing concept of taking water from where there is too much of it to where there is too little of it glosses over the simple logistics of this endeavor.  The volume of water that would need to move to have any meaningful effect on a flooding event would be so large that the infrastructure to move that volume of water would cut a gigantic swath through the landscape orders of magnitude larger than any extant aqueduct.

Drive across the Mississippi River at say, St. Louis, during an average discharge volume.  Pretty big already.  Then know that the amount of water moving during a flooding event is going to be dozens of times larger than what you see there on an average day.  So imagine then, a channel several times larger than the Mississippi River slashed across at least 1/3rd of the continent (2/3rd's if one wants to get the Ohio and Tennessee River basins in on this system).  That's how big it would have to be to make any meaningful dent in a bad flood in the Midwest.

So not only does that giant path have to cut across a thousand miles of mostly private land and create a permanent physical barrier to the movement of terrestrial wildlife and people, it's gotta do so UPHILL for most of the journey.

Next problem: sediment.
Floods generate a LOT of sediment.  This sediment is critical to the biogeography of large rivers.  The replenishment of sediment to flood plains and deltas in the Mississippi Basin is essential to keep certain environments above water, including those where humans farm.  The diversions and reservoirs necessary to shunt water west will cause rivers to drop that sediment load above those structures and A. quickly fill in behind them requiring continuous, extensive dredging and B. causing massive erosion downstream from these structures.  Moreover, if we were to pump floodwater up over the continental divide, what's going to happen is that the sediment that comes along in that water is going to drop out in between pumping stations to the point where once it's over the continental divide it will SEVERELY erode it's way down toward the Colorado or whatever.  And with the volumes of water we are talking about, that's the kind of erosion that created the Grand Canyon in a geological blink.

Next problem: invasive species.
Start filling Lake Mead with Mississppi River water and I guarantee you boaters will be getting clobbered with those goddamn Asian Carp in no time.  The introduction of Mississippi Basin native and introduced species to the Colorado will result in a profound extinction of indigenous species in that system.  Not just fish.  Everything from mussels to plants and, yes, popular game fish.  That's bad.

Furthermore, all of the control structures necessary to divert Mississippi basin waters westward create plethora of new physical barriers to fish passage.  Species that depend on moving up and down a free-flowing river will dwindle and eventually go away.

The last point I want to discuss is more philosophical.  I have a real problem with the idea going through all this effort to divert Midwest water to a desert west.  Why should we subsidize the unsustainable growth of desert megacities when it's only getting hotter and hotter?  If you want our water, come move on back to the Midwest!  We've got plenty of water for your goddam lawns and goddamn golf courses and goddamn solar panel factories.  Bring your jobs and tax dollars to Ohio and Michigan and Illinois and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and so on; drink deeply from ample water direct from the source!

Oh no, we have winter!  Boo hoo.  That's what gives us the water, dummies! The snow piles up and melts slowly to recharge aquifers every winter where our natural filtration system of bedrock and glacial till turns into potable water with zero energy expended by humans.  The Great Lakes in particular; if you want that water, then come live here.  It's not that hard!

Always remember that the Soviet Union destroyed the fourth largest lake IN THE WORLD by diverting its water toward unsustainable growth.  California destroyed its largest natural lake (Tulare Lake) by diverting its water toward unsustainable growth. And California created (and then destroyed) its current largest lake attempting to sustain unsustainable growth.   (Referring to the Salton Sea here.)
With that kind of track record, why the hell would us Midwesterners ever get on board with such a socio-environmental boondoggle?  You want the water, come here.  It's that simple.  Screw Vegas; screw Phoenix; screw Los Angeles; screw Denver.  You're not getting our fucking water.
I might not have gone on this rant, but I recently heard Bill Maher shoot his mouth off about this dumb water grid idea so it's at the front of my mind.

Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 24, 2021, 05:33:55 PM
Well this thread started because we got sidetracked in the I-11 thread about harebrained concepts to divert Midwest floods to the desert.  The superficially intriguing concept of taking water from where there is too much of it to where there is too little of it glosses over the simple logistics of this endeavor.  The volume of water that would need to move to have any meaningful effect on a flooding event would be so large that the infrastructure to move that volume of water would cut a gigantic swath through the landscape orders of magnitude larger than any extant aqueduct.

Drive across the Mississippi River at say, St. Louis, during an average discharge volume.  Pretty big already.  Then know that the amount of water moving during a flooding event is going to be dozens of times larger than what you see there on an average day.  So imagine then, a channel several times larger than the Mississippi River slashed across at least 1/3rd of the continent (2/3rd's if one wants to get the Ohio and Tennessee River basins in on this system).  That's how big it would have to be to make any meaningful dent in a bad flood in the Midwest.

So not only does that giant path have to cut across a thousand miles of mostly private land and create a permanent physical barrier to the movement of terrestrial wildlife and people, it's gotta do so UPHILL for most of the journey.

Next problem: sediment.
Floods generate a LOT of sediment.  This sediment is critical to the biogeography of large rivers.  The replenishment of sediment to flood plains and deltas in the Mississippi Basin is essential to keep certain environments above water, including those where humans farm.  The diversions and reservoirs necessary to shunt water west will cause rivers to drop that sediment load above those structures and A. quickly fill in behind them requiring continuous, extensive dredging and B. causing massive erosion downstream from these structures.  Moreover, if we were to pump floodwater up over the continental divide, what's going to happen is that the sediment that comes along in that water is going to drop out in between pumping stations to the point where once it's over the continental divide it will SEVERELY erode it's way down toward the Colorado or whatever.  And with the volumes of water we are talking about, that's the kind of erosion that created the Grand Canyon in a geological blink.

Next problem: invasive species.
Start filling Lake Mead with Mississppi River water and I guarantee you boaters will be getting clobbered with those goddamn Asian Carp in no time.  The introduction of Mississippi Basin native and introduced species to the Colorado will result in a profound extinction of indigenous species in that system.  Not just fish.  Everything from mussels to plants and, yes, popular game fish.  That's bad.

Furthermore, all of the control structures necessary to divert Mississippi basin waters westward create plethora of new physical barriers to fish passage.  Species that depend on moving up and down a free-flowing river will dwindle and eventually go away.

The last point I want to discuss is more philosophical.  I have a real problem with the idea going through all this effort to divert Midwest water to a desert west.  Why should we subsidize the unsustainable growth of desert megacities when it's only getting hotter and hotter?  If you want our water, come move on back to the Midwest!  We've got plenty of water for your goddam lawns and goddamn golf courses and goddamn solar panel factories.  Bring your jobs and tax dollars to Ohio and Michigan and Illinois and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and so on; drink deeply from ample water direct from the source!

Oh no, we have winter!  Boo hoo.  That's what gives us the water, dummies! The snow piles up and melts slowly to recharge aquifers every winter where our natural filtration system of bedrock and glacial till turns into potable water with zero energy expended by humans.  The Great Lakes in particular; if you want that water, then come live here.  It's not that hard!

Always remember that the Soviet Union destroyed the fourth largest lake IN THE WORLD by diverting its water toward unsustainable growth.  California destroyed its largest natural lake (Tulare Lake) by diverting its water toward unsustainable growth. And California created (and then destroyed) its current largest lake attempting to sustain unsustainable growth.   (Referring to the Salton Sea here.)
With that kind of track record, why the hell would us Midwesterners ever get on board with such a socio-environmental boondoggle?  You want the water, come here.  It's that simple.  Screw Vegas; screw Phoenix; screw Los Angeles; screw Denver.  You're not getting our fucking water.
I might not have gone on this rant, but I recently heard Bill Maher shoot his mouth off about this dumb water grid idea so it's at the front of my mind.

Excellent synopsis of the problem. I agree that others in the USA should not have to give up precious water because people willingly move to places where there are none.

^^^ well many people like living in the desert so that logic by itself doesn't hold up.

But desalination plants are the solution. Building an artificial river from the Mississippi doesn't seem to be it. If we were to do that why not draw from the Great Lakes? I've read water levels are rising there.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 24, 2021, 05:47:22 PM
^^^ well many people like living in the desert so that logic by itself doesn't hold up.

But desalination plants are the solution. Building an artificial river from the Mississippi doesn't seem to be it. If we were to do that why not draw from the Great Lakes? I've read water levels are rising there.

Beyond the immense logistical difficulties and reasons this will not happen... one word.

Canada.

Quote from: US 89 on September 24, 2021, 05:54:07 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 24, 2021, 05:47:22 PM
^^^ well many people like living in the desert so that logic by itself doesn't hold up.

But desalination plants are the solution. Building an artificial river from the Mississippi doesn't seem to be it. If we were to do that why not draw from the Great Lakes? I've read water levels are rising there.

Beyond the immense logistical difficulties and reasons this will not happen... one word.

Canada.

Not just Canada. The US Great Lakes states also signed legal agreements (namely the Great Lakes Compact) largely aimed at keeping Western states out of the Great Lakes.

To give an idea of the legal hassles this would create for someone trying to draw water across thousands of miles, Waukesha, WI applied to switch its water source to Lake Michigan. Because the city is still not in the Lake Michigan watershed, it took three years just to get that approved, and they're already in the Milwaukee metro area.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 24, 2021, 05:47:22 PM
If we were to do that why not draw from the Great Lakes? I've read water levels are rising there.

Only because there were a few wet years in a row in the late teens.  There's a long lag between wet years and water levels in the lakes, particularly Michigan/Huron.  Fluctuations in the levels on the Great Lakes are minor relative to the volume of these lakes.  The difference between high and low is barely over 2 meters.
Lake Michigan as an example:
(https://sewicoastalresilience.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/MH_WL_2019_July-1024x385.png)
After this last year, those levels will start coming back down soon.

I am really thankful there exists the Great Lakes Compact wherein any diversion of Great Lakes water out of the basin MUST be approved by all 8 states that border the lakes AND Ontario.  That way Canada can be a sanity check on bad American ideas about what to do with Great Lakes water.
Waukesha County, Wisconsin, had to jump through immense hoops to tap Lake Michigan water once they started depleting their aquifers in the early 00's.  And frankly I wish they had been denied access.  The compromise of piping treated sewage back over the divide still subsidizes the unsustainable growth of a place with mostly rich people that doesn't sit well with me.  Plus the symbolism of rich folks pumping their 'turds' toward poor folks is profound.  (Mostly Racine in this case since the pipes dump out into the Root River.)

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 24, 2021, 05:47:22 PM
^^^ well many people like living in the desert so that logic by itself doesn't hold up.

Well, many of us up here also like living in the Great Lakes region, so what about our feelings?

I'm just amused at this point poor ole Tulare Lake got a mention in this thread.  I do enjoy telling people they are on the bottom of a lake bed when they ask why we have an emergency action plan for flooding.  I'm even more amused when farmers put up signs asking for more dams like there is some great untapped source of water in the Sierra Nevada Mountains not already in use.

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on September 24, 2021, 06:08:09 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 24, 2021, 05:47:22 PM
^^^ well many people like living in the desert so that logic by itself doesn't hold up.

Well, many of us up here also like living in the Great Lakes region, so what about our feelings?

How will it affect you? The Great Lakes are actually having issues with water level rise.

But the Great Lakes idea was more tongue in cheek my main proposal is desalination

The "divert the Great Lakes" idea is logistically silly aside from politically impossible, come up with by some people who look at a map and go "ooh lots of water here" without thinking through the details.

If, in theory, you were to develop a megaproject to move water into the Colorado River from east of the continental divide... there's no reason to go all the way to the Great Lakes. The Missouri River has spare water and is a lot closer (and would require less pumping since you could find a higher intake point).

Before we even go there, though, let's consider something else: part of the reason the Colorado River basin has these problems is because we're already diverting a ton of water out of it. About half of Metro Denver's water comes from west of the continental divide, and therefore out of the Colorado and dumped into the Platte (and henceforth the Missouri and Mississippi). A bit further west, water is diverted out of the Gunnison (and therefore the Colorado) into the upper Rio Grande basin for irrigation. And over in Utah, Metro Salt Lake City is taking water out some tributaries of the Green River (and therefore the Colorado) and dumping it in the Salt Lake basin.

So while we're fussing over ways to add more water to the Colorado... how about we stop taking water out of it first!

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 24, 2021, 06:47:38 PM

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on September 24, 2021, 06:08:09 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 24, 2021, 05:47:22 PM
^^^ well many people like living in the desert so that logic by itself doesn't hold up.

Well, many of us up here also like living in the Great Lakes region, so what about our feelings?

How will it affect you? The Great Lakes are actually having issues with water level rise.

No, they aren't.  There were a couple high years (2017 and 2019), but otherwise there is no such issue.  In fact, Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River have actually been LOW the past couple years, to the point that Dad damaged the prop of the boat going in/out of Chippewa Bay.  Twice.  In one ride.  The second time damaging the engine and causing an oil leak.  And due to parts shortages, the boat is still not fixed, even though it's been over a month now.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 24, 2021, 06:47:38 PM

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on September 24, 2021, 06:08:09 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 24, 2021, 05:47:22 PM
^^^ well many people like living in the desert so that logic by itself doesn't hold up.

Well, many of us up here also like living in the Great Lakes region, so what about our feelings?

How will it affect you? The Great Lakes are actually having issues with water level rise.

I don't know, the aesthetics of a bunch of pipelines taking water away from us to places thousands of miles away that they won't be giving back? Is that reason enough?

If people like living in the desert, they need to like or at least tolerate the results of living in the desert:  no lawns or gardens that require irrigation, no golf courses, no car washing, tightly regulated water use as far as length of showers and size of toilet tanks, possibly widespread use of grey water systems.

Desalinization is not a good idea on this scale.  It takes a huge amount of energy.  Just imagine if all the water you use in your house for all purposes had to be boiled to steam first.  That energy use will be contributing greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere.

People need to pick places to live that have water already, and state and local governments need to cut off water hookups for new construction in places where more development is unsustainable.

Quote from: kkt on September 26, 2021, 03:24:35 AM
If people like living in the desert, they need to like or at least tolerate the results of living in the desert:  no lawns or gardens that require irrigation, no golf courses, no car washing, tightly regulated water use as far as length of showers and size of toilet tanks, possibly widespread use of grey water systems.

Desalinization is not a good idea on this scale.  It takes a huge amount of energy.  Just imagine if all the water you use in your house for all purposes had to be boiled to steam first.  That energy use will be contributing greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere.

People need to pick places to live that have water already, and state and local governments need to cut off water hookups for new construction in places where more development is unsustainable.

Car washing is a must have in a dusty climate speaking from first hand experience of living in the Sonoran Desert for 13 years.  One average Sonoran Desert dust storm is enough to cause actual problems like clog air filters if a car isn't cleaned properly afterwards.  I'm all for sustainable lawns (grass and high utility bills suck anyways) but a bigger impact would be to restrict farming in desert climates given how much more water intensive they are. 

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 24, 2021, 06:16:49 PM
I'm just amused at this point poor ole Tulare Lake got a mention in this thread.  I do enjoy telling people they are on the bottom of a lake bed when they ask why we have an emergency action plan for flooding.  I'm even more amused when farmers put up signs asking for more dams like there is some great untapped source of water in the Sierra Nevada Mountains not already in use.

Yes I remember in the water debates there was talks that San Joaquin Valley farmers and Southern California wanted more water via Delta tunnels from the Sacramento River but Sacramento and Solano Counties were against the proposal because it was going into endangered species in the Sacramento Delta area also drought concerns.

Quote from: bing101 on September 26, 2021, 02:09:13 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 24, 2021, 06:16:49 PM
I'm just amused at this point poor ole Tulare Lake got a mention in this thread.  I do enjoy telling people they are on the bottom of a lake bed when they ask why we have an emergency action plan for flooding.  I'm even more amused when farmers put up signs asking for more dams like there is some great untapped source of water in the Sierra Nevada Mountains not already in use.

Yes I remember in the water debates there was talks that San Joaquin Valley farmers and Southern California wanted more water via Delta tunnels from the Sacramento River but Sacramento and Solano Counties were against the proposal because it was going into endangered species in the Sacramento Delta area also drought concerns.

Even more recently is the whole Temperance Flat Dam debate.  Said proposed dam is on the site of a current reservoir (Kerckhoff) on the San Joaquin River between Millerton Lake and Redinger Lake.  I get it that the Temperance Flat Dam is more intended for "water storage"  over power generation but it isn't tapping a new source that hasn't already been fully exploited by SoCal Edison.  I just don't see what the point of attempting to build another reservoir that will have a nominal impact on the San Joaquin River is.  Most of the Central Valley farmers have borderline descended to delusion with their theories about water usage. 

Quote from: kkt on September 26, 2021, 03:24:35 AM
Desalinization is not a good idea on this scale.  It takes a huge amount of energy.  Just imagine if all the water you use in your house for all purposes had to be boiled to steam first.  That energy use will be contributing greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere.

Boiling for desalination ended decades ago. Membrane process is the name of the game
(https://www.kurzweilai.net/images/Naam-Limits-of-Earth-Part2-Figure05-800x554.jpg)
To put things in perspective: 1 cubic meter is about 260 gallons. US in-house consumption is 80-100 gallons, so 1 cubic meter a day will cover 3 people - using 2 kWt-h of power a day.
US average residential electric consumption is 11 kWh per person, CA is on a low side with 7 kWt-h daily per person. 

Quote from: kalvado on September 26, 2021, 02:32:42 PM
US in-house consumption is 80-100 gallons, so 1 cubic meter a day will cover 3 people - using 2 kWt-h of power a day.
US average residential electric consumption is 11 kWh per person, CA is on a low side with 7 kWt-h daily per person.

So it will be an increase of 9% (7x3 kWh / 2 kWh) for a 3-person household in CA.  Sure, that capacity exists. 

Quote from: GaryV on September 26, 2021, 02:44:30 PM

Quote from: kalvado on September 26, 2021, 02:32:42 PM
US in-house consumption is 80-100 gallons, so 1 cubic meter a day will cover 3 people - using 2 kWt-h of power a day.
US average residential electric consumption is 11 kWh per person, CA is on a low side with 7 kWt-h daily per person.

So it will be an increase of 9% (7x3 kWh / 2 kWh) for a 3-person household in CA.  Sure, that capacity exists.

Sure doesn't seem like it the last couple of years during the summer time rolling blackouts. 

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 26, 2021, 02:45:51 PM

Quote from: GaryV on September 26, 2021, 02:44:30 PM

Quote from: kalvado on September 26, 2021, 02:32:42 PM
US in-house consumption is 80-100 gallons, so 1 cubic meter a day will cover 3 people - using 2 kWt-h of power a day.
US average residential electric consumption is 11 kWh per person, CA is on a low side with 7 kWt-h daily per person.

So it will be an increase of 9% (7x3 kWh / 2 kWh) for a 3-person household in CA.  Sure, that capacity exists.

Sure doesn't seem like it the last couple of years during the summer time rolling blackouts.

Thing is, it is not an impossible number. Not 2x or 5x of current demand.  Especially if some large storage is used to run more desalination at the times of low consumption and/or high generation. As far as I know, San Diego already has 7% of consumption covered by desalination.
desalination is a big can of worms, sure - but compared to relocation of coastal CA population, this is something worth discussing.

Quote from: kalvado on September 26, 2021, 02:50:43 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 26, 2021, 02:45:51 PM

Quote from: GaryV on September 26, 2021, 02:44:30 PM

Quote from: kalvado on September 26, 2021, 02:32:42 PM
US in-house consumption is 80-100 gallons, so 1 cubic meter a day will cover 3 people - using 2 kWt-h of power a day.
US average residential electric consumption is 11 kWh per person, CA is on a low side with 7 kWt-h daily per person.

So it will be an increase of 9% (7x3 kWh / 2 kWh) for a 3-person household in CA.  Sure, that capacity exists.

Sure doesn't seem like it the last couple of years during the summer time rolling blackouts.

Thing is, it is not an impossible number. Not 2x or 5x of current demand.  Especially if some large storage is used to run more desalination at the times of low consumption and/or high generation. As far as I know, San Diego already has 7% of consumption covered by desalination.
desalination is a big can of worms, sure - but compared to relocation of coastal CA population, this is something worth discussing.

The way I see it if things like a increased hypothetical desalination policy coupled with the 2035 passenger car EV mandate there will be need for increased generation state wide capacity.  Considering there is nothing really large scale on the table at present moment to increase generation capacity is one of the primary reasons I'm skeptical about the latter mandate being realistic.  There is still a ton of issues with companies like PG&E which have deferred maintenance for decades and are now paying the price in lawsuits due to fires originating from their infrastructure.  Expecting everyone inland to flee to already dense and pricy coastal cities where they aren't using their entire generation capacity really isn't really realistic. 

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 26, 2021, 04:20:31 PM

Quote from: kalvado on September 26, 2021, 02:50:43 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 26, 2021, 02:45:51 PM

Quote from: GaryV on September 26, 2021, 02:44:30 PM

Quote from: kalvado on September 26, 2021, 02:32:42 PM
US in-house consumption is 80-100 gallons, so 1 cubic meter a day will cover 3 people - using 2 kWt-h of power a day.
US average residential electric consumption is 11 kWh per person, CA is on a low side with 7 kWt-h daily per person.

So it will be an increase of 9% (7x3 kWh / 2 kWh) for a 3-person household in CA.  Sure, that capacity exists.

Sure doesn't seem like it the last couple of years during the summer time rolling blackouts.

Thing is, it is not an impossible number. Not 2x or 5x of current demand.  Especially if some large storage is used to run more desalination at the times of low consumption and/or high generation. As far as I know, San Diego already has 7% of consumption covered by desalination.
desalination is a big can of worms, sure - but compared to relocation of coastal CA population, this is something worth discussing.

The way I see it if things like a increased hypothetical desalination policy coupled with the 2035 passenger car EV mandate there will be need for increased generation state wide capacity.  Considering there is nothing really large scale on the table at present moment to increase generation capacity is one of the primary reasons I'm skeptical about the latter mandate being realistic.  There is still a ton of issues with companies like PG&E which have deferred maintenance for decades and are now paying the price in lawsuits due to fires originating from their infrastructure.  Expecting everyone inland to flee to already dense and pricy coastal cities where they aren't using their entire generation capacity really isn't really realistic.

The problem is the people that want all the electric cars are afraid of nuclear energy, which would clearly assist with the problem.

Quote from: SectorZ on September 26, 2021, 04:34:26 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 26, 2021, 04:20:31 PM

Quote from: kalvado on September 26, 2021, 02:50:43 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 26, 2021, 02:45:51 PM

Quote from: GaryV on September 26, 2021, 02:44:30 PM

Quote from: kalvado on September 26, 2021, 02:32:42 PM
US in-house consumption is 80-100 gallons, so 1 cubic meter a day will cover 3 people - using 2 kWt-h of power a day.
US average residential electric consumption is 11 kWh per person, CA is on a low side with 7 kWt-h daily per person.

So it will be an increase of 9% (7x3 kWh / 2 kWh) for a 3-person household in CA.  Sure, that capacity exists.

Sure doesn't seem like it the last couple of years during the summer time rolling blackouts.

Thing is, it is not an impossible number. Not 2x or 5x of current demand.  Especially if some large storage is used to run more desalination at the times of low consumption and/or high generation. As far as I know, San Diego already has 7% of consumption covered by desalination.
desalination is a big can of worms, sure - but compared to relocation of coastal CA population, this is something worth discussing.

The way I see it if things like a increased hypothetical desalination policy coupled with the 2035 passenger car EV mandate there will be need for increased generation state wide capacity.  Considering there is nothing really large scale on the table at present moment to increase generation capacity is one of the primary reasons I'm skeptical about the latter mandate being realistic.  There is still a ton of issues with companies like PG&E which have deferred maintenance for decades and are now paying the price in lawsuits due to fires originating from their infrastructure.  Expecting everyone inland to flee to already dense and pricy coastal cities where they aren't using their entire generation capacity really isn't really realistic.

The problem is the people that want all the electric cars are afraid of nuclear energy, which would clearly assist with the problem.

Plenty of places for a station or two in the coast ranges away from major population centers but close enough to take advantage.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 26, 2021, 04:36:28 PM

Quote from: SectorZ on September 26, 2021, 04:34:26 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 26, 2021, 04:20:31 PM

Quote from: kalvado on September 26, 2021, 02:50:43 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 26, 2021, 02:45:51 PM

Quote from: GaryV on September 26, 2021, 02:44:30 PM

Quote from: kalvado on September 26, 2021, 02:32:42 PM
US in-house consumption is 80-100 gallons, so 1 cubic meter a day will cover 3 people - using 2 kWt-h of power a day.
US average residential electric consumption is 11 kWh per person, CA is on a low side with 7 kWt-h daily per person.

So it will be an increase of 9% (7x3 kWh / 2 kWh) for a 3-person household in CA.  Sure, that capacity exists.

Sure doesn't seem like it the last couple of years during the summer time rolling blackouts.

Thing is, it is not an impossible number. Not 2x or 5x of current demand.  Especially if some large storage is used to run more desalination at the times of low consumption and/or high generation. As far as I know, San Diego already has 7% of consumption covered by desalination.
desalination is a big can of worms, sure - but compared to relocation of coastal CA population, this is something worth discussing.

The way I see it if things like a increased hypothetical desalination policy coupled with the 2035 passenger car EV mandate there will be need for increased generation state wide capacity.  Considering there is nothing really large scale on the table at present moment to increase generation capacity is one of the primary reasons I'm skeptical about the latter mandate being realistic.  There is still a ton of issues with companies like PG&E which have deferred maintenance for decades and are now paying the price in lawsuits due to fires originating from their infrastructure.  Expecting everyone inland to flee to already dense and pricy coastal cities where they aren't using their entire generation capacity really isn't really realistic.

The problem is the people that want all the electric cars are afraid of nuclear energy, which would clearly assist with the problem.

Plenty of places for a station or two in the coast ranges away from major population centers but close enough to take advantage.

Pretty much entire CA coast is a seismic zone. And cooling water requirements aren't trivial. So I don't think "pacific coast" and "nuclear power" should really be used  in the same paragraph. 

Quote from: kalvado on September 26, 2021, 05:11:39 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 26, 2021, 04:36:28 PM

Quote from: SectorZ on September 26, 2021, 04:34:26 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 26, 2021, 04:20:31 PM

Quote from: kalvado on September 26, 2021, 02:50:43 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 26, 2021, 02:45:51 PM

Quote from: GaryV on September 26, 2021, 02:44:30 PM

Quote from: kalvado on September 26, 2021, 02:32:42 PM
US in-house consumption is 80-100 gallons, so 1 cubic meter a day will cover 3 people - using 2 kWt-h of power a day.
US average residential electric consumption is 11 kWh per person, CA is on a low side with 7 kWt-h daily per person.

So it will be an increase of 9% (7x3 kWh / 2 kWh) for a 3-person household in CA.  Sure, that capacity exists.

Sure doesn't seem like it the last couple of years during the summer time rolling blackouts.

Thing is, it is not an impossible number. Not 2x or 5x of current demand.  Especially if some large storage is used to run more desalination at the times of low consumption and/or high generation. As far as I know, San Diego already has 7% of consumption covered by desalination.
desalination is a big can of worms, sure - but compared to relocation of coastal CA population, this is something worth discussing.

The way I see it if things like a increased hypothetical desalination policy coupled with the 2035 passenger car EV mandate there will be need for increased generation state wide capacity.  Considering there is nothing really large scale on the table at present moment to increase generation capacity is one of the primary reasons I'm skeptical about the latter mandate being realistic.  There is still a ton of issues with companies like PG&E which have deferred maintenance for decades and are now paying the price in lawsuits due to fires originating from their infrastructure.  Expecting everyone inland to flee to already dense and pricy coastal cities where they aren't using their entire generation capacity really isn't really realistic.

The problem is the people that want all the electric cars are afraid of nuclear energy, which would clearly assist with the problem.

Plenty of places for a station or two in the coast ranges away from major population centers but close enough to take advantage.

Pretty much entire CA coast is a seismic zone. And cooling water requirements aren't trivial. So I don't think "pacific coast" and "nuclear power" should really be used  in the same paragraph.

It's not too difficult to locate parts of the Diablo Range east of the San Andreas Fault Line on the more stable North American Plate.  Either way, generation capacity isn't likely to be solved by putting more reservoirs on heavily developed rivers.  There is a lot of solar out in the Diablo Range being developed but I don't know the details on how much those stations are generating. 

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 26, 2021, 02:45:51 PM

Quote from: GaryV on September 26, 2021, 02:44:30 PM

Quote from: kalvado on September 26, 2021, 02:32:42 PM
US in-house consumption is 80-100 gallons, so 1 cubic meter a day will cover 3 people - using 2 kWt-h of power a day.
US average residential electric consumption is 11 kWh per person, CA is on a low side with 7 kWt-h daily per person.

So it will be an increase of 9% (7x3 kWh / 2 kWh) for a 3-person household in CA.  Sure, that capacity exists.

Sure doesn't seem like it the last couple of years during the summer time rolling blackouts. 

And we're probably going to be plugging in a lot more electric and chargeable hybrid vehicles too.

I wonder if I'd make any headway trying to convince the kid to major in electrical engineering instead of art...

Quote from: kkt on September 27, 2021, 01:20:12 AM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 26, 2021, 02:45:51 PM

Quote from: GaryV on September 26, 2021, 02:44:30 PM

Quote from: kalvado on September 26, 2021, 02:32:42 PM
US in-house consumption is 80-100 gallons, so 1 cubic meter a day will cover 3 people - using 2 kWt-h of power a day.
US average residential electric consumption is 11 kWh per person, CA is on a low side with 7 kWt-h daily per person.

So it will be an increase of 9% (7x3 kWh / 2 kWh) for a 3-person household in CA.  Sure, that capacity exists.

Sure doesn't seem like it the last couple of years during the summer time rolling blackouts. 

And we're probably going to be plugging in a lot more electric and chargeable hybrid vehicles too.

I wonder if I'd make any headway trying to convince the kid to major in electrical engineering instead of art...

That's the rub, you'd think some sort of major infrastructure proposal would be on the table by now if 2035 is the target goal.  If not for the EV car thing then to replace some of the decaying corporate grid infrastructure that keeps spawning summer fires.   

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 27, 2021, 08:15:08 AM
That's the rub, you'd think some sort of major infrastructure proposal would be on the table by now if 2035 is the target goal.  If not for the EV car thing then to replace some of the decaying corporate grid infrastructure that keeps spawning summer fires.   

I believe the plan is "announce we're banning ICE cars and hope the market will figure it out".

Quote from: vdeane on September 27, 2021, 04:44:08 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 27, 2021, 08:15:08 AM
That's the rub, you'd think some sort of major infrastructure proposal would be on the table by now if 2035 is the target goal.  If not for the EV car thing then to replace some of the decaying corporate grid infrastructure that keeps spawning summer fires.   

I believe the plan is "announce we're banning ICE cars and hope the market will figure it out".

That being the case letting the auto and energy sectors move that way naturally would have been the correct course.  The auto sector clearing was moving in that direction anyways with EVs.  Trouble is in California much of the power grid outside of the biggest cities is owned by companies that aren't in the fiscal shape to reinvest in new infrastructure so quickly.  In the case of PG&E it is likely they will have some financial issues from the current fire season.  Without some sort of public works project push in California I don't see how 2035 is plausible for the elimination of consumer ICE sales.  That's not even getting into this like building enough charging stations to supplement what is available for gas and diesel.

Here is what the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has to say, including the question about grid capacity:

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/governor-newsoms-zero-emission-2035-executive-order-n-79-20

Quote from: vdeane on September 24, 2021, 09:13:30 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 24, 2021, 06:47:38 PM

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on September 24, 2021, 06:08:09 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 24, 2021, 05:47:22 PM
^^^ well many people like living in the desert so that logic by itself doesn't hold up.

Well, many of us up here also like living in the Great Lakes region, so what about our feelings?

How will it affect you? The Great Lakes are actually having issues with water level rise.

No, they aren't.  There were a couple high years (2017 and 2019), but otherwise there is no such issue.  In fact, Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River have actually been LOW the past couple years, to the point that Dad damaged the prop of the boat going in/out of Chippewa Bay.  Twice.  In one ride.  The second time damaging the engine and causing an oil leak.  And due to parts shortages, the boat is still not fixed, even though it's been over a month now.

Roger. I was under the impression rising levels have been a long term thing so thanks for the correction.

Quote from: kalvado on September 26, 2021, 05:11:39 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 26, 2021, 04:36:28 PM

Quote from: SectorZ on September 26, 2021, 04:34:26 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 26, 2021, 04:20:31 PM

Quote from: kalvado on September 26, 2021, 02:50:43 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 26, 2021, 02:45:51 PM

Quote from: GaryV on September 26, 2021, 02:44:30 PM

Quote from: kalvado on September 26, 2021, 02:32:42 PM
US in-house consumption is 80-100 gallons, so 1 cubic meter a day will cover 3 people - using 2 kWt-h of power a day.
US average residential electric consumption is 11 kWh per person, CA is on a low side with 7 kWt-h daily per person.

So it will be an increase of 9% (7x3 kWh / 2 kWh) for a 3-person household in CA.  Sure, that capacity exists.

Sure doesn't seem like it the last couple of years during the summer time rolling blackouts.

Thing is, it is not an impossible number. Not 2x or 5x of current demand.  Especially if some large storage is used to run more desalination at the times of low consumption and/or high generation. As far as I know, San Diego already has 7% of consumption covered by desalination.
desalination is a big can of worms, sure - but compared to relocation of coastal CA population, this is something worth discussing.

The way I see it if things like a increased hypothetical desalination policy coupled with the 2035 passenger car EV mandate there will be need for increased generation state wide capacity.  Considering there is nothing really large scale on the table at present moment to increase generation capacity is one of the primary reasons I'm skeptical about the latter mandate being realistic.  There is still a ton of issues with companies like PG&E which have deferred maintenance for decades and are now paying the price in lawsuits due to fires originating from their infrastructure.  Expecting everyone inland to flee to already dense and pricy coastal cities where they aren't using their entire generation capacity really isn't really realistic.

The problem is the people that want all the electric cars are afraid of nuclear energy, which would clearly assist with the problem.

Plenty of places for a station or two in the coast ranges away from major population centers but close enough to take advantage.

Pretty much entire CA coast is a seismic zone. And cooling water requirements aren't trivial. So I don't think "pacific coast" and "nuclear power" should really be used  in the same paragraph.

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.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 02, 2021, 11:23:03 PM

Quote from: kalvado on September 26, 2021, 05:11:39 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 26, 2021, 04:36:28 PM

Quote from: SectorZ on September 26, 2021, 04:34:26 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 26, 2021, 04:20:31 PM

Quote from: kalvado on September 26, 2021, 02:50:43 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 26, 2021, 02:45:51 PM

Quote from: GaryV on September 26, 2021, 02:44:30 PM

Quote from: kalvado on September 26, 2021, 02:32:42 PM
US in-house consumption is 80-100 gallons, so 1 cubic meter a day will cover 3 people - using 2 kWt-h of power a day.
US average residential electric consumption is 11 kWh per person, CA is on a low side with 7 kWt-h daily per person.

So it will be an increase of 9% (7x3 kWh / 2 kWh) for a 3-person household in CA.  Sure, that capacity exists.

Sure doesn't seem like it the last couple of years during the summer time rolling blackouts.

Thing is, it is not an impossible number. Not 2x or 5x of current demand.  Especially if some large storage is used to run more desalination at the times of low consumption and/or high generation. As far as I know, San Diego already has 7% of consumption covered by desalination.
desalination is a big can of worms, sure - but compared to relocation of coastal CA population, this is something worth discussing.

The way I see it if things like a increased hypothetical desalination policy coupled with the 2035 passenger car EV mandate there will be need for increased generation state wide capacity.  Considering there is nothing really large scale on the table at present moment to increase generation capacity is one of the primary reasons I'm skeptical about the latter mandate being realistic.  There is still a ton of issues with companies like PG&E which have deferred maintenance for decades and are now paying the price in lawsuits due to fires originating from their infrastructure.  Expecting everyone inland to flee to already dense and pricy coastal cities where they aren't using their entire generation capacity really isn't really realistic.

The problem is the people that want all the electric cars are afraid of nuclear energy, which would clearly assist with the problem.

Plenty of places for a station or two in the coast ranges away from major population centers but close enough to take advantage.

Pretty much entire CA coast is a seismic zone. And cooling water requirements aren't trivial. So I don't think "pacific coast" and "nuclear power" should really be used  in the same paragraph.

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.

Yes, it was brought up many times after Chernobyl- boiling water reactors are intrinsically safe... And to learn the lesson in a hard way.
When containment is the only thing that stands between you and high energy trouble, you really don't want to challenge containment more than you have to.
As for logical way forward... My opinion is a bit too involved.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 02, 2021, 11:23:03 PM
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.

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 03, 2021, 12:56:10 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 02, 2021, 11:23:03 PM
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.

FWIW that's largely what is being pushed in California.  The trouble is the home solar market still has an unsavory reputation from all the predatory lease practices on panels that was once the norm.  There are some large new solar generation stations near me but I don't know enough about them really go into detail.

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 03, 2021, 12:56:10 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 02, 2021, 11:23:03 PM
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.

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 03, 2021, 12:56:10 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 02, 2021, 11:23:03 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: kalvado on October 03, 2021, 01:39:14 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 03, 2021, 12:56:10 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 02, 2021, 11:23:03 PM
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.)

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 03, 2021, 02:35:28 PM
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.

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 03, 2021, 02:49:16 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 03, 2021, 02:35:28 PM
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.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 03, 2021, 02:52:08 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 03, 2021, 02:49:16 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 03, 2021, 02:35:28 PM
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? :-D

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.

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 03, 2021, 03:15:51 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 03, 2021, 02:52:08 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 03, 2021, 02:49:16 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 03, 2021, 02:35:28 PM
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? :-D

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.

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 03, 2021, 02:41:16 PM

Quote from: kalvado on October 03, 2021, 01:39:14 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 03, 2021, 12:56:10 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 02, 2021, 11:23:03 PM
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.

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.

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.

Quote from: kalvado on October 03, 2021, 03:53:34 PM


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,

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.

Quote from: vdeane on October 03, 2021, 06:13:03 PM
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.

Quote from: vdeane on October 03, 2021, 06:13:03 PM
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.

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 03, 2021, 03:15:51 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 03, 2021, 02:52:08 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 03, 2021, 02:49:16 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 03, 2021, 02:35:28 PM
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? :-D

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.

Quote from: bwana39 on October 03, 2021, 06:50:20 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 03, 2021, 03:15:51 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 03, 2021, 02:52:08 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 03, 2021, 02:49:16 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 03, 2021, 02:35:28 PM
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? :-D

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.   

Quote from: kalvado on October 03, 2021, 06:30:44 PM

Quote from: vdeane on October 03, 2021, 06:13:03 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 03, 2021, 10:51:23 PM
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.

Quote from: bwana39 on October 04, 2021, 12:28:43 AM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 03, 2021, 10:51:23 PM
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.

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 03, 2021, 03:15:51 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 03, 2021, 02:52:08 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 03, 2021, 02:49:16 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 03, 2021, 02:35:28 PM
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? :-D

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.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 04, 2021, 07:35:16 AM

Quote from: bwana39 on October 04, 2021, 12:28:43 AM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 03, 2021, 10:51:23 PM
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

Quote from: kalvado on October 04, 2021, 07:39:19 AM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 04, 2021, 07:35:16 AM

Quote from: bwana39 on October 04, 2021, 12:28:43 AM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 03, 2021, 10:51:23 PM
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?

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 04, 2021, 07:41:04 AM

Quote from: kalvado on October 04, 2021, 07:39:19 AM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 04, 2021, 07:35:16 AM

Quote from: bwana39 on October 04, 2021, 12:28:43 AM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 03, 2021, 10:51:23 PM
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) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Post_Office_and_Customshouse_(Key_West,_Florida))

Quote from: kalvado on October 04, 2021, 07:41:57 AM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 04, 2021, 07:41:04 AM

Quote from: kalvado on October 04, 2021, 07:39:19 AM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 04, 2021, 07:35:16 AM

Quote from: bwana39 on October 04, 2021, 12:28:43 AM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 03, 2021, 10:51:23 PM
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.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 04, 2021, 07:44:55 AM

Quote from: kalvado on October 04, 2021, 07:41:57 AM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 04, 2021, 07:41:04 AM

Quote from: kalvado on October 04, 2021, 07:39:19 AM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 04, 2021, 07:35:16 AM

Quote from: bwana39 on October 04, 2021, 12:28:43 AM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 03, 2021, 10:51:23 PM
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!