NewGeography.com: America the Mostly Beautiful (http://www.newgeography.com/content/003352-america-mostly-beautiful)
QuoteIn the fall of 2010, as part of a book project, ex-newspaperman Bill Steigerwald retraced the route John Steinbeck took in 1960 and turned into his classic "Travels With Charley." Steigerwald drove 11,276 miles in 43 days from Long Island to the top of Maine to Seattle to San Francisco to New Orleans before heading back to his home in Pittsburgh. In "Dogging Steinbeck," his new e-book about how he discovered "Charley" was not nonfiction but a highly fictionalized and dishonest account of Steinbeck's real trip, Steigerwald describes the America he saw.
QuoteAs for the stereotypical complaints about America being despoiled by overpopulation, overdevelopment and commercial homogenization, forget it. Anyone who drives 50 miles in any direction in an empty state like Maine or North Dakota — or even in north-central Ohio or Upstate New York — can see America's problem is not overpopulation. More often it's under-population. Cities like Butte and Buffalo and Gary have been virtually abandoned. Huge hunks of America on both sides of the Mississippi have never been settled.
Dumb growth industry propaganda.
Quote from: NE2 on December 26, 2012, 10:25:09 AM
QuoteHuge hunks of America on both sides of the Mississippi have never been settled.
Hmmmm.... Wonder if there's a reason for that....
Quote from: NE2 on December 26, 2012, 10:25:09 AM
QuoteAs for the stereotypical complaints about America being despoiled by overpopulation, overdevelopment and commercial homogenization, forget it. Anyone who drives 50 miles in any direction in an empty state like Maine or North Dakota — or even in north-central Ohio or Upstate New York — can see America's problem is not overpopulation. More often it's under-population. Cities like Butte and Buffalo and Gary have been virtually abandoned. Huge hunks of America on both sides of the Mississippi have never been settled.
Dumb growth industry propaganda.
Compare and contrast the US (and North America for that matter) with Europe and far east Asia. There really is a lack of density when compared with those two. The US, minus Alaska and Hawai'i, has a population of 312,881,238 in an area of 3,119,902 square miles. Europe, including Scandinavia, European Russia, and the British Isles, has a population of 739,165,030 in an area of 3,930,000 square miles. Effectively, Europe has twice the density. Thus, yes, by that standard, the US is underpopulated. When you then look at where the density is concentrated, mostly in the Northeast, the rest of the country can seem very underpopulated by comparison.
Looking at density on just that large scale misses a key part of the picture, though: most of Europe's population is in cities and small (in terms of land area) towns. Suburban sprawl does not exist there to nearly the degree it does here.
A test for this: start in the center of downtown, draw a straight line and measure approximately how far you have to go before you get to the closest area dominated by farmland (or forest, desert, etc. - but open water doesn't count)
Compare the three largest metro areas in the US:
New York: 50 miles (NW)
Los Angeles: 15 miles (N, but it's much further to the south or east)
Chicago: 30 miles (S)
With those in Europe:
London: 20 miles (S)
Paris: 15 miles (W)
Madrid: 10 miles (N)
And you start to see the issue here... the US isn't overpopulated, but we are using a lot of land inefficiently compared to Europe.
Interestingly, the conclusion my mind then draws is that using land more "efficiently" would mean consolidating the population into smaller urban areas, which would then create more unsettled huge hunks of America.
Quote from: kphoger on December 27, 2012, 04:18:52 PM
Interestingly, the conclusion my mind then draws is that using land more "efficiently" would mean consolidating the population into smaller urban areas, which would then create more unsettled huge hunks of America.
anything's better than suburban blight.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnakedthanks.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F05%2FBreezewood_Pennsylvania.jpg&hash=e457b18312f919b6742f3a996ccd759f211349ae)
Quote from: kphoger on December 26, 2012, 12:19:55 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 26, 2012, 10:25:09 AM
QuoteHuge hunks of America on both sides of the Mississippi have never been settled.
Hmmmm.... Wonder if there's a reason for that....
A native of ANY Great Plains state should know better than to make such a statement. After all, there were good faith (such as it was) efforts to settle the Great Plains between the 100th Meridian and the Rockies. The Dust Bowl was but one example of why most of it was not suited for heavy farming/settlement.
Quote from: NE2 on December 26, 2012, 10:25:09 AM
QuoteAs for the stereotypical complaints about America being despoiled by overpopulation, overdevelopment and commercial homogenization, forget it. Anyone who drives 50 miles in any direction in an empty state like Maine or North Dakota or even in north-central Ohio or Upstate New York can see America's problem is not overpopulation. More often it's under-population. Cities like Butte and Buffalo and Gary have been virtually abandoned. Huge hunks of America on both sides of the Mississippi have never been settled.
Dumb growth industry propaganda.
I would submit to you that there would be something seriously wrong with America if a place like Butte, MT, were to ever get "gentrified." Abandonment in small doses (Butte certainly qualifies, and so probably does Gary, IN) is quite OK. Comforting, in fact; it's a sign that the world can get along just fine without your little center of the universe.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 27, 2012, 04:24:31 PM
anything's better than suburban blight.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnakedthanks.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F05%2FBreezewood_Pennsylvania.jpg&hash=e457b18312f919b6742f3a996ccd759f211349ae)
That's not suburban blight - that's blight created by two state government agencies kow-towing to private owners of real estate in the middle of nowhere.
Quote from: brad2971 on December 27, 2012, 06:25:32 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 26, 2012, 12:19:55 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 26, 2012, 10:25:09 AM
QuoteHuge hunks of America on both sides of the Mississippi have never been settled.
Hmmmm.... Wonder if there's a reason for that....
A native of ANY Great Plains state should know better than to make such a statement. After all, there were good faith (such as it was) efforts to settle the Great Plains between the 100th Meridian and the Rockies. The Dust Bowl was but one example of why most of it was not suited for heavy farming/settlement.
The places in my mind that should not be large cities are Las Vegas and Phoenix. Not enough water to support the population
Quote from: jwolfer on December 27, 2012, 09:12:32 PM
Quote from: brad2971 on December 27, 2012, 06:25:32 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 26, 2012, 12:19:55 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 26, 2012, 10:25:09 AM
QuoteHuge hunks of America on both sides of the Mississippi have never been settled.
Hmmmm.... Wonder if there's a reason for that....
A native of ANY Great Plains state should know better than to make such a statement. After all, there were good faith (such as it was) efforts to settle the Great Plains between the 100th Meridian and the Rockies. The Dust Bowl was but one example of why most of it was not suited for heavy farming/settlement.
The places in my mind that should not be large cities are Las Vegas and Phoenix. Not enough water to support the population
The issues with settlement of most of the Great Plains aren't totally around water. Back in the 1920s, a wet period enticed hundreds of thousands of settlers to farm areas of western Kansas/Nebraska/Oklahoma and eastern Colorado/New Mexico. Those settlers plowed that ground from fenceline-to-fenceline, not knowing that the grass that was built up over thousands of years kept that ground from blowing around like a sand dune. They painfully found out that hard lesson during the mid-1930s.
Speaking of Phoenix, it should be noted that even with its explosive population growth, 68% of water usage in Arizona is for agricultural purposes.
Las Vegas only exists because, at the time, every other state had overly-restricted blue laws against gambling. Had they been laxer in the other states, there would have been no real reason for Las Vegas to have turned into what it did.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 27, 2012, 04:24:31 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 27, 2012, 04:18:52 PM
Interestingly, the conclusion my mind then draws is that using land more "efficiently" would mean consolidating the population into smaller urban areas, which would then create more unsettled huge hunks of America.
anything's better than suburban blight.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnakedthanks.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F05%2FBreezewood_Pennsylvania.jpg&hash=e457b18312f919b6742f3a996ccd759f211349ae)
WOW, I'd never seen that view of Breezewood, that is UGLY!
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 27, 2012, 09:38:18 PM
Las Vegas only exists because, at the time, every other state had overly-restricted blue laws against gambling. Had they been laxer in the other states, there would have been no real reason for Las Vegas to have turned into what it did.
That's part of it, but the other part is that a rather large dam was built not too terribly far away and the owner of the dam did not want gambling (or other vices) in their model city for the workers near their dam. Hence, the workers went inland to a dusty town that provided sex, drink, and gaming - Las Vegas, from their model town - Boulder City.
Factor in that what was legal in Nevada was illegal elsewhere making certain folks legitimate who otherwise were crooks back home, and you have the makings of a metropolis where none might otherwise be. Thank Bugsy Siegel the next time you go to Vegas for a trip.
I'm sure Boulder City's blue laws helped the situation, but it wouldn't have turned into the destination that it was if every state had its own Las Vegas.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 28, 2012, 12:15:43 AM
I'm sure Boulder City's blue laws helped the situation, but it wouldn't have turned into the destination that it was if every state had its own Las Vegas.
Both those things together with a few other factors amounted to maybe about half of everything that came together just right for the creation of Vegas. The other half of everything was Bugsy Malone. Without him, probably something much different would have happened, if anything at all.
Quote from: brad2971 on December 27, 2012, 09:37:38 PM
The issues with settlement of most of the Great Plains aren't totally around water. Back in the 1920s, a wet period enticed hundreds of thousands of settlers to farm areas of western Kansas/Nebraska/Oklahoma and eastern Colorado/New Mexico. Those settlers plowed that ground from fenceline-to-fenceline, not knowing that the grass that was built up over thousands of years kept that ground from blowing around like a sand dune. They painfully found out that hard lesson during the mid-1930s.
I spotted on Youtube this vintage video of a big aborted project of diverting various rivers to irrigate that part titled the NAWAPA (North American Water and Power Alliance). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Water_and_Power_Alliance Former Quebec premier Robert Bourassa once suggested the idea of a "Grand Canal" linking James Bay to the Great Lakes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recycling_and_Northern_Development_Canal
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 28, 2012, 12:15:43 AM
I'm sure Boulder City's blue laws helped the situation, but it wouldn't have turned into the destination that it was if every state had its own Las Vegas.
Covington, Kentucky; Atlantic City, and even Memphis and New Orleans are going, "Huh?" at your suggestion.
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on December 29, 2012, 11:28:19 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 28, 2012, 12:15:43 AM
I'm sure Boulder City's blue laws helped the situation, but it wouldn't have turned into the destination that it was if every state had its own Las Vegas.
Covington, Kentucky; Atlantic City, and even Memphis and New Orleans are going, "Huh?" at your suggestion.
With the possible exception of Atlantic City, I want to say gaming was brought to all of these places following Las Vegas's example. Yes, just about every state has gambling now, either legitimately or through tribal gaming, but Las Vegas still dominates because it was built into the gaming mecca that it is now during the period where you couldn't have set something like that up any other place.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 30, 2012, 12:17:32 AM
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on December 29, 2012, 11:28:19 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 28, 2012, 12:15:43 AM
I'm sure Boulder City's blue laws helped the situation, but it wouldn't have turned into the destination that it was if every state had its own Las Vegas.
Covington, Kentucky; Atlantic City, and even Memphis and New Orleans are going, "Huh?" at your suggestion.
With the possible exception of Atlantic City, I want to say gaming was brought to all of these places following Las Vegas's example. Yes, just about every state has gambling now, either legitimately or through tribal gaming, but Las Vegas still dominates because it was built into the gaming mecca that it is now during the period where you couldn't have set something like that up any other place.
I wonder how Las Vegas has done with the "Indian casinos" popping up everywhere. So many people around here go to their local casino, whether in CT, Yonkers, PA, upstate NY, etc., on and on. I know Atlantic City has struggled to hold itself afloat.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 30, 2012, 12:17:32 AM
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on December 29, 2012, 11:28:19 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 28, 2012, 12:15:43 AM
I'm sure Boulder City's blue laws helped the situation, but it wouldn't have turned into the destination that it was if every state had its own Las Vegas.
Covington, Kentucky; Atlantic City, and even Memphis and New Orleans are going, "Huh?" at your suggestion.
With the possible exception of Atlantic City, I want to say gaming was brought to all of these places following Las Vegas's example. Yes, just about every state has gambling now, either legitimately or through tribal gaming, but Las Vegas still dominates because it was built into the gaming mecca that it is now during the period where you couldn't have set something like that up any other place.
Legal gaming was brought to these following the example of Las Vegas, but they, especially New Orleans, have a very long history of illegal gaming, even if it was out in the open as in New Orleans. Shoot, even Chicago has a very long history of vice that predates Vegas - speakeasies, anyone?
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on December 29, 2012, 11:28:19 PM
Covington, Kentucky; Atlantic City, and even Memphis and New Orleans are going, "Huh?" at your suggestion.
It was more Newport than Covington, and gambling there was never legal. It was very much an underground operation.
Quote from: Steve on December 30, 2012, 01:10:11 AM
I wonder how Las Vegas has done with the "Indian casinos" popping up everywhere. So many people around here go to their local casino, whether in CT, Yonkers, PA, upstate NY, etc., on and on. I know Atlantic City has struggled to hold itself afloat.
The thing is, Las Vegas has a reputation for more than just gambling, in a way that no other place quite does. People go to Las Vegas from all over because it's Las Vegas. Atlantic City, meanwhile, has mostly regional appeal and naturally suffers from having more local competition.
Quote from: Duke87 on December 30, 2012, 11:03:12 PM
Quote from: Steve on December 30, 2012, 01:10:11 AM
I wonder how Las Vegas has done with the "Indian casinos" popping up everywhere. So many people around here go to their local casino, whether in CT, Yonkers, PA, upstate NY, etc., on and on. I know Atlantic City has struggled to hold itself afloat.
The thing is, Las Vegas has a reputation for more than just gambling, in a way that no other place quite does. People go to Las Vegas from all over because it's Las Vegas. Atlantic City, meanwhile, has mostly regional appeal and naturally suffers from having more local competition.
It's been about 20 years since I've been to either place, but the main advantage Vegas had over AC is the prices.
Vegas casinos had ungodly cheap prices for hotel rooms and food. I don't know what the going rate is today, but back then they were dirt cheap. AC, on the other hand, was outrageously expensive.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 30, 2012, 12:17:32 AM
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on December 29, 2012, 11:28:19 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 28, 2012, 12:15:43 AM
I'm sure Boulder City's blue laws helped the situation, but it wouldn't have turned into the destination that it was if every state had its own Las Vegas.
Covington, Kentucky; Atlantic City, and even Memphis and New Orleans are going, "Huh?" at your suggestion.
With the possible exception of Atlantic City, I want to say gaming was brought to all of these places following Las Vegas's example. Yes, just about every state has gambling now, either legitimately or through tribal gaming, but Las Vegas still dominates because it was built into the gaming mecca that it is now during the period where you couldn't have set something like that up any other place.
So Las Vegas had legal gambling in the 1800s? Mark Twain would like to hear this.
Riverboat gambling was something different. Wasn't that not so much legal as just being impossible to shut down because of the fact that the boat was essentially operating in a no man's land between two states?
In any event, it's splitting hairs. A Mississippi riverboat doesn't compare to an entire town built around facilitating the pastime.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 03, 2013, 01:36:59 AM
Riverboat gambling was something different. Wasn't that not so much legal as just being impossible to shut down because of the fact that the boat was essentially operating in a no man's land between two states?
In any event, it's splitting hairs. A Mississippi riverboat doesn't compare to an entire town built around facilitating the pastime.
This just begs me to re-tell one of my favorite stories.
Kentucky is, of course, famous for horse racing, and the parimutuel betting that accompanies it.
When Illinois approved riverboat gambling a couple of decades ago, one of the first casinos was built at Metropolis, across the river from Paducah. Remember that Kentucky controls the Ohio River up to the low-water mark on the north side of the river as it existed in 1792 when we separated from Virginia and became a state. This does not give an Illinois-based boat a lot of room in which to operate. The attorney general of Kentucky at the time issued a threat to Illinois that legal action would be forthcoming if the boat strayed into Kentucky's waters because, and I try to quote as accurately as memory will allow, "We don't allow gambling in Kentucky."
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 27, 2012, 09:05:46 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 27, 2012, 04:24:31 PM
anything's better than suburban blight.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnakedthanks.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F05%2FBreezewood_Pennsylvania.jpg&hash=e457b18312f919b6742f3a996ccd759f211349ae)
That's not suburban blight - that's blight created by two state government agencies kow-towing to private owners of real estate in the middle of nowhere.
I did not mean Breezewood specifically. I just figured that a google search for Breezewood would give me the type of image that I was looking for. that "six-lane arterial, with mile after mile of horseshit to prop up the consumerist culture" can be found
anywhere.
I note that the photo is not the perfect example. I mean fewer gas stations and motels, and more car dealers, Walmarts, Home Depots, strip malls, Walmarts, etc. we all know what it looks like; I just can't find a good photo online because I don't know a perfect search term for it.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 03, 2013, 12:09:42 PM
I did not mean Breezewood specifically. I just figured that a google search for Breezewood would give me the type of image that I was looking for. that "six-lane arterial, with mile after mile of horseshit to prop up the consumerist culture" can be found anywhere.
I note that the photo is not the perfect example. I mean fewer gas stations and motels, and more car dealers, Walmarts, Home Depots, strip malls, Walmarts, etc. we all know what it looks like; I just can't find a good photo online because I don't know a perfect search term for it.
I don't know that the picture depicts mile-after-mile. It's really only about 1 mile of shit. The mountainous wilderness in the background also looks un-sprawl like.
I guess I'm just voicing my opinion that a picture of Breezewood is actually a horrible example of "Suburban Blight".
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8224%2F8315033138_b4d84f1dd5_c.jpg&hash=6b26d078a68ae364851aa3886969015ad718ea05)
Does this picture make my Breezewood look bigger? :-D
Yay for unfettered capitalism.
Quote from: Mr_Northside on January 03, 2013, 03:44:44 PM
I don't know that the picture depicts mile-after-mile. It's really only about 1 mile of shit. The mountainous wilderness in the background also looks un-sprawl like.
I guess I'm just voicing my opinion that a picture of Breezewood is actually a horrible example of "Suburban Blight".
I feel like it was good enough to get the point across, but you are right - a better photo would be appreciated.
anyone got some photos of crap?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 03, 2013, 04:39:52 PM
Quote from: Mr_Northside on January 03, 2013, 03:44:44 PM
I don't know that the picture depicts mile-after-mile. It's really only about 1 mile of shit. The mountainous wilderness in the background also looks un-sprawl like.
I guess I'm just voicing my opinion that a picture of Breezewood is actually a horrible example of "Suburban Blight".
I feel like it was good enough to get the point across, but you are right - a better photo would be appreciated.
anyone got some photos of crap?
Next time I poo, I'll inbox you.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 03, 2013, 03:48:30 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8224%2F8315033138_b4d84f1dd5_c.jpg&hash=6b26d078a68ae364851aa3886969015ad718ea05)
Does this picture make my Breezewood look bigger? :-D
I've been on this site for a couple of years & have read lots of posts talking about "the Breezewood situation". I have been lost as to the meaning of the situation. Now I think I see what y'all mean. Is that REALLY I-70 going thru a suburban area as a non-divided interstate highway?? :confused: :wow:
Quote from: cjk374 on January 03, 2013, 11:01:32 PM
I've been on this site for a couple of years & have read lots of posts talking about "the Breezewood situation". I have been lost as to the meaning of the situation. Now I think I see what y'all mean. Is that REALLY I-70 going thru a suburban area as a non-divided interstate highway?? :confused: :wow:
It's in the "MTR FAQs" on roadfan.com, but briefly - I-70 gets onto I-76 at an interchange that was built for US 30. It is possible and relatively simple to direct connect the two, but the established businesses at Breezewood by that point all complained and successfully blocked the direct ramps. In order to make I-70 a continuous route, it therefore has to follow US 30 from its terminus to the I-76 interchange. "To Breezewood," instead of meaning "putting an Interstate on surface roads," means "to have two freeways interchange using surface streets."
Quote from: jwolfer on December 27, 2012, 09:12:32 PMThe places in my mind that should not be large cities are Las Vegas and Phoenix. Not enough water to support the population
There actually /is/ enough. The problem comes in with all the snowbirds who want to have a pretty green lawn like they had back home, thus they're wasting copious amounts of water trying to make a place into something it's not. Seriously, people, lawns are not for the desert...if you want a lawn, MOVE BACK EAST.
The general rule of thumb is that the water allocations in a given area find the highest-value uses over time, with municipal tap water ranking higher in the value hierarchy than agricultural uses such as irrigation and stock watering. This means that if there is enough available water in the area to farm, it is not "about to run out of water" in any real sense. Thanks to Carl Hayden and the US taxpayer, Arizona has the Central Arizona Project and I believe it is still the case that agriculture is the dominant user of the water it supplies. If I were looking for an area in the US which was most likely to suffer a "water crunch," it would not be in Arizona but rather in eastern Colorado, where investments in the water supply infrastructure have not kept up with rising salinity and recent unfavorable court decisions regarding water allocation between Colorado and Kansas, with the result that municipal water users are slowly squeezing out agricultural users.
My concern with living in Arizona has more to do with energy supply. Phoenix and Tucson are both heavily dependent on HVAC and it is arguable that neither would have experienced their rapid growth in the mid- to late twentieth century without refrigeration technology (current population of Phoenix is 1.4 million; population in 1920 was just 30,000). HVAC in central and southern Arizona is largely refrigeration, so it is very electricity-dependent. If the carbon cost of electricity rises steeply without corresponding investments in cutting electricity consumption or reducing the carbon intensity of the electricity supply, then energy alone could drive a steep spike in the cost of living in those two cities.
If I had to live in a HVAC-dependent part of the country (which includes pretty much everywhere except northern California) and wanted to hedge against escalation in energy costs, I would probably go for an area that needs heating in winter more than it needs A/C in the summer, on the basis that with current technology and approaches to building construction, it is easier to keep a house passively warm than it is to keep it passively cool.
Yeah the Colorado River fails to reach the Gulf of California because it's water is used to turn the Imperial Valley from a 130 degree wasteland into a lush agricultural cornucopia. More so than Vegas casino fountains and golf courses. (I still think those are both stupid uses of water in a desert, though.)
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 20, 2013, 12:51:59 PM
If I had to live in a HVAC-dependent part of the country (which includes pretty much everywhere except northern California) and wanted to hedge against escalation in energy costs, I would probably go for an area that needs heating in winter more than it needs A/C in the summer, on the basis that with current technology and approaches to building construction, it is easier to keep a house passively warm than it is to keep it passively cool.
My electricity bill disagrees with you.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 20, 2013, 04:05:53 PMMy electricity bill disagrees with you.
Are you using electricity for heat?
Quote from: hbelkins on January 20, 2013, 04:05:53 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 20, 2013, 12:51:59 PM
If I had to live in a HVAC-dependent part of the country (which includes pretty much everywhere except northern California) and wanted to hedge against escalation in energy costs, I would probably go for an area that needs heating in winter more than it needs A/C in the summer, on the basis that with current technology and approaches to building construction, it is easier to keep a house passively warm than it is to keep it passively cool.
My electricity bill disagrees with you.
My gas bill feels all the better for it.
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 20, 2013, 04:46:06 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 20, 2013, 04:05:53 PMMy electricity bill disagrees with you.
Are you using electricity for heat?
Yes. No natural gas service here, but when I had natural gas it was very expensive too.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 20, 2013, 08:14:16 PMQuoteAre you using electricity for heat?
Yes. No natural gas service here, but when I had natural gas it was very expensive too.
Then it sounds like the underlying problem is that energy is expensive in general, so the only way to cut your outgoings on energy for climatization would be to live in a house designed to
Passivhaus standards, or something approaching them, so that either no or only a very small amount of energy would be required to maintain a comfortable indoor temperature.
It doesn't surprise me that electricity for heating is expensive in your area. Aside from transmission and distribution costs, which I suspect contribute a larger share of the cost in your area than in Kansas and other cheap-energy states, electricity introduces load profile issues. That means you pay more for enough generating capacity to ensure that the lights stay on at times of maximum demand of electricity for heating (e.g., cold snaps). I don't like electricity for home heating because (1) it is thermodynamically inefficient and (2) it can lead to widespread blackouts, as happened in Britain during the winters of 1947-48 and 1948-49.
Quote from: Steve on January 03, 2013, 11:07:22 PM"To Breezewood," instead of meaning "putting an Interstate on surface roads," means "to have two freeways interchange using surface streets."
is that really the definition? here I thought it was the first - because one cannot drive I-70 in its entirety without taking the surface streets.
would I-5 at CA-56 be a partial Breezewood, since several of the turns require surface streets?
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 21, 2013, 10:52:18 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 20, 2013, 08:14:16 PMQuoteAre you using electricity for heat?
Yes. No natural gas service here, but when I had natural gas it was very expensive too.
Then it sounds like the underlying problem is that energy is expensive in general, so the only way to cut your outgoings on energy for climatization would be to live in a house designed to Passivhaus standards, or something approaching them, so that either no or only a very small amount of energy would be required to maintain a comfortable indoor temperature.
It doesn't surprise me that electricity for heating is expensive in your area. Aside from transmission and distribution costs, which I suspect contribute a larger share of the cost in your area than in Kansas and other cheap-energy states, electricity introduces load profile issues. That means you pay more for enough generating capacity to ensure that the lights stay on at times of maximum demand of electricity for heating (e.g., cold snaps). I don't like electricity for home heating because (1) it is thermodynamically inefficient and (2) it can lead to widespread blackouts, as happened in Britain during the winters of 1947-48 and 1948-49.
The problem is with electric
resistive heat. If you get a heat pump it's much more efficient (uses about 60% less electricity). And you use the same equipment to cool in the summer, so it's two investments in one.
As for grid capacity issues, unless you live somewhere like Alaska, the highest demand peaks will occur during the hottest days of the summer, never in the winter. Almost everyone uses electricity for cooling, but comparatively few buildings use it for heating. Places that do not have access to gas mains usually either get gas delivered to a tank or use oil (currently the former is much cheaper).
Note that the British problems you cite occurred before air conditioning was commonplace. In those days electric heating would have absolutely strained the grid, but not today.
Quote from: Duke87 on January 21, 2013, 06:31:49 PMThe problem is with electric resistive heat. If you get a heat pump it's much more efficient (uses about 60% less electricity). And you use the same equipment to cool in the summer, so it's two investments in one.
All of that is true--but some caveats have to be noted: coefficient of performance drops the wider the temperature difference between "inside" and "outside" gets; in extreme cold resistive heating is preferred to minimize wear and tear on the heat pump.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pump
QuoteAs for grid capacity issues, unless you live somewhere like Alaska, the highest demand peaks will occur during the hottest days of the summer, never in the winter. Almost everyone uses electricity for cooling, but comparatively few buildings use it for heating. [. . .]
Note that the British problems you cite occurred before air conditioning was commonplace. In those days electric heating would have absolutely strained the grid, but not today.
In fact Britain uses very little air-conditioning even now. (I lived there for about ten years and can still count on the fingers of one hand the buildings I personally visited which I knew had air conditioning. One of these was the National Archives in Kew, where A/C is necessary partly to protect historical documents.) Part of the problem in 1947-48 was unusually low winter temperatures in combination with severe rationing of investment in new generating capacity. (Rationing of investment capital was general and also extended to a near-complete stoppage of new road construction from the end of World War II to the mid-1950's.)
One technique that is used in Britain nowadays to manage load profile issues, which does not really reduce energy consumption overall, is to have a special low tariff (popularly called "Economy 7" though in practice different electricity utilities have their own terms for it) that applies during the nighttime hours when base load would otherwise be low. Economy 7 electricity feeds heat resistively into separately metered storage heaters at night, and then these release the heat slowly during the day.
A storage heater is basically a separately wired unit, usually wall-mounted, which consists of bricks inside an insulated box with louvers on one side. It is certainly cheaper to install and to wire than building a completely new house to
Passivhaus standards, and I think in most cases it has a lower first cost than insulating an existing building by adding insulation and replacing existing single-pane windows. (I don't know if it is cheaper than using window inserts with existing single-paned windows, which is often a first resort, particularly with historic buildings.) But it is emphatically
not more energy-efficient. And unless you have an aggressive utility regulator, there is nothing to require the electricity company to provide preferential pricing for electricity supplied for heating at times of low base load, especially if the electricity is supplied by a separate firm and the utility only "passes through" the cost. My guess is that in H.B.'s area, nobody uses storage heat; nobody sees why they should make the initial investment in it in preference to insulating their houses better to reduce energy consumption for heating; and the Kentucky utilities regulator, being run (as most such agencies are) either by corporatist Republicans or clientelist Democrats, has no interest in ensuring that consumers have cheap heating.
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 22, 2013, 11:32:33 AM
All of that is true--but some caveats have to be noted: coefficient of performance drops the wider the temperature difference between "inside" and "outside" gets; in extreme cold resistive heating is preferred to minimize wear and tear on the heat pump.
For anything residential, yes - although there are commercial grade heat pumps out on the market now which can operate effectively down as low as -10 or -20 degrees (Fahrenheit). They do, however, operate less efficiently in such conditions, much as air conditioning operates less efficiently when it's really hot out. Note how SEER and IEER ratings, which consider a standard usage profile, are always higher than EER ratings, which are measured at full load.
As for switching to resistive heating, burning something is still better, if it's an option.
QuoteOne technique that is used in Britain nowadays to manage load profile issues, which does not really reduce energy consumption overall, is to have a special low tariff (popularly called "Economy 7" though in practice different electricity utilities have their own terms for it) that applies during the nighttime hours when base load would otherwise be low. Economy 7 electricity feeds heat resistively into separately metered storage heaters at night, and then these release the heat slowly during the day.
Interesting to do this for heating, which seemingly arises from the prevalence of electric resistance heat in the UK. Such problems do not arise with fuel-based heating.
The idea of running HVAC at night and storing the energy for use during the day is not unheard of, but usually when implemented (at least in the US) it is on the cooling side, and it is done by making ice.
It should be noted that doing this for heating or for cooling actually uses more energy overall (due to inherent inefficiency in storing energy). The only reason it is done is to shave down demand peaks during the day. This benefits the grid if anyone does it however it is only worthwhile financially to any customer to do it if they are charged for their peak demand. In New York, commercial and industrial customers are, but residential customers are not.
Such systems are also more effective both in terms of efficiency and in terms of cost when scaled up. If you own a large factory or commercial building, great. For your house? Not worth it.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 21, 2013, 11:09:21 AM
Quote from: Steve on January 03, 2013, 11:07:22 PM"To Breezewood," instead of meaning "putting an Interstate on surface roads," means "to have two freeways interchange using surface streets."
is that really the definition? here I thought it was the first - because one cannot drive I-70 in its entirety without taking the surface streets.
would I-5 at CA-56 be a partial Breezewood, since several of the turns require surface streets?
Agreed. That's been the way I understood "Breezewood" ever since I started reading this forum. I mean, there is
any number of grade-level transitions between freeways out there.
I decided to see how long it would take me to find an example. I thought to myself,
I'll bet I can find one somewhere near Austin, TX. I found one at the
very first interchange I looked at: SB TX-1 (MoPac) to EB US-290. They're simply too common to all be included under the term 'Breezewood', which town is famous precisely for the reason you state: because I-70 passes through a signalled intersection.
Quote from: kphoger on January 22, 2013, 10:04:15 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 21, 2013, 11:09:21 AM
Quote from: Steve on January 03, 2013, 11:07:22 PM"To Breezewood," instead of meaning "putting an Interstate on surface roads," means "to have two freeways interchange using surface streets."
is that really the definition? here I thought it was the first - because one cannot drive I-70 in its entirety without taking the surface streets.
would I-5 at CA-56 be a partial Breezewood, since several of the turns require surface streets?
Agreed. That's been the way I understood "Breezewood" ever since I started reading this forum. I mean, there is any number of grade-level transitions between freeways out there.
I decided to see how long it would take me to find an example. I thought to myself, I'll bet I can find one somewhere near Austin, TX. I found one at the very first interchange I looked at: SB TX-1 (MoPac) to EB US-290. They're simply too common to all be included under the term 'Breezewood', which town is famous precisely for the reason you state: because I-70 passes through a signalled intersection.
I-70 at Breezewood is the most-craven instance.
But any junction of two freeways that requires traffic to use arterial roads or streets to reach the other freeway qualifies as a breezewood.
Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Turnpike are still the champion of breezewoods, and it is there to protect businesses that want to have interstate and/or long-haul traffic rolling by their locations.
My opinion is that the US isn't necessarily overpopulated, but it gives off that illusion since we have a society which has driven most businesses, and therefore job opportunities, to the big cities. If you were in NYC or LA, and never saw the rest of the country, you might think that the US is overpopulated. But the real problem is that we have too much population clustered around the big cities I think.
But, in my experience, small town folks would prefer that everybody not come flocking to them. I like the diversity in America. I think it's vital that we have truly rural and truly urban areas.
Quote from: kphoger on January 30, 2013, 10:47:49 AM
But, in my experience, small town folks would prefer that everybody not come flocking to them. I like the diversity in America. I think it's vital that we have truly rural and truly urban areas.
Yeah I understand what you mean about the small town folks. I agree; I like the diversity of the country, but I would also like to see some rural areas begin to turn into thriving mid-sized towns too. I think it would be cool to see part of it happening in our lifetime, you know?