California To control home thermostats

[Peikko 1,575]

Actually, not re Anew. 4 degrees on every household would be mega compared with 20 degrees on 1,000 households.

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

On the other side of it I can see where they're coming from - California has problems supplying the demand for energy during the summer when everyone puts their a/c on full blast 24 hours a day. And the article does say this would be limited to emergency (presumably maximum demand) periods. Still outside of overriding people's ability to control the temperature in their homes, it seems to be a half-measure at best - surely the state and the power companies should ensure that there is sufficient supply to support the infrastructure.

Its unlikely that would pass.

Thats not the point. It is the fact that they would even try this that should scare the $h!t out of you.

If it doesn't pass then there's no issue. How many crackpot proposals like this get shot down on an annual basis? My guess - quite a few.

The reason that the energy situation is so dire in California is due to Lawsuits from environmental groups. Any attempt to expand or modernize the energy infra-structure is met with a court cases and lawsuits. The NIMBY syndrome (Not In My Back Yard) so the their has been little capacity added.

I do have a Question?

Why is it OK, for the rest of the world to generate 70 to 80% of their electricity with nuclear power, France and Japan come to mind, But it is not OK for the United States? No acid rain, No green house gas, couple them with desalination plants and we could have additional water supply with hydrogen gas to power fuel cell as a by product.

But we are restricted to coal, which is quite abundant, but dirty.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

On the other side of it I can see where they're coming from - California has problems supplying the demand for energy during the summer when everyone puts their a/c on full blast 24 hours a day. And the article does say this would be limited to emergency (presumably maximum demand) periods. Still outside of overriding people's ability to control the temperature in their homes, it seems to be a half-measure at best - surely the state and the power companies should ensure that there is sufficient supply to support the infrastructure.

Its unlikely that would pass.

Thats not the point. It is the fact that they would even try this that should scare the $h!t out of you.

If it doesn't pass then there's no issue. How many crackpot proposals like this get shot down on an annual basis? My guess - quite a few.

The reason that the energy situation is so dire in California is due to Lawsuits from environmental groups. Any attempt to expand or modernize the energy infra-structure is met with a court cases and lawsuits. The NIMBY syndrome (Not In My Back Yard) so the their has been little capacity added.

I do have a Question?

Why is it OK, for the rest of the world to generate 70 to 80% of their electricity with nuclear power, France and Japan come to mind, But it is not OK for the United States? No acid rain, No green house gas, couple them with desalination plants and we could have additional water supply with hydrogen gas to power fuel cell as a by product.

But we are restricted to coal, which is quite abundant, but dirty.

Where can I read about that?

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

There is nothing stopping nuclear plants from being built in the US. The major obstacle was cost. Nuclear plants are REALLY expensive.

Also, people tend to think of only Three Mile Island and Chernobyl when they hear "nuclear plant." This is obviously not the case, as nuclear has become very safe.

Now that fuel prices are rising, it is feasible again. The Shaw Group has recently been working to start building new nuclear plants in the US.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

California Energy Myths

California's energy shortage has given rise to a slew of myths and misperceptions about the causes of and solutions to the crunch. In an effort to separate fact from fiction, the Sierra Club has prepared this document. Sierra Club energy experts are also available to provide more information.

Myths and facts below:

To set up an interview or get more information, please contact the Sierra Club media staff: media.team@sierraclub.org.

MYTH: Environmentalists caused California's power shortage.

FACT: As the Los Angeles Times said in an editorial (Jan. 31, 2001):

"The California electricity shortage was not caused by environmental extremism..." And, as Paul Krugman of the New York Times said ("Smog and Mirrors" Jan. 31, 2001), "Nor, apparently, did environmental regulations play much of a role in California's failure to build new plants in the years since deregulation."

The California electricity shortage is mainly the result of a flawed deregulation plan compounded by mistakes made by the utilities.

* The Sierra Club has not blocked or delayed any new power plants in California over the last ten years.

* The Sierra Club has long been in favor of updating old, inefficient generating plants with cleaner, more efficient ones and we support the proposed Calpine generating plant slated to be built near San Jose. Unfortunately, this plant has been blocked by Cisco Systems, who is planning to build an office park nearby.

* In 1995, the Sierra Club and other environmental organizations supported the construction of the 1400 megawatts of new, clean generating capacity. According to an article in the Los Angeles Daily News ("By Killing Plan, Socal Edison Helped Create Power Crisis," Jan. 21):

"...Southern California Edison and other utilities helped kill a state plan that would have authorized the creation of new power plants sufficient to power 1.4 million homes, records and interviews show." The utilities hoped that they could buy " plenty of cheaper power elsewhere..."

* To add insult to injury the same Daily New article reported: "By state law, much of the power was ordered to come from renewable energy such as wind, geothermal and solar."

* According to the California Energy Commission, no electric power plant in California has been rejected over air pollution issues.

MYTH: The Sierra Club is against building new power plants in California.

FACT: The Sierra Club has long advocated for modernizing or replacing older power plants with newer ones. New power plants are up to 50% more efficient and up to 90% cleaner than older ones. Utilities and power producers on the other hand, have resisted building new plants over the last ten years because, until recently, demand did not force them to do so and because the utilities knew that deregulation would force them to sell off plants.

In the last three years, a number of proposed power plants have been slowed by objections from competing energy companies. According to the Sacramento Bee (Jan. 28, 2001):

"Of the 21 power plants proposed for licensing since 1997, competing companies have intervened in 12 proposals, slowing the process in at least four situations..."

MYTH: Higher energy prices and the California energy crunch show that we need to increase our oil supply by drilling in the Arctic National Refuge.

FACT: California gets less than 1% of its electricity from oil-fired plants and, as the Los Angeles Times states ("Arctic Oil a Sham Answer," Jan. 31, 2001):

"Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, President Bush's signature energy cause, would not generate one kilowatt or electricity for California. It wouldn't even produce any oil for an estimated 10 years."

Instead of drilling in the Arctic, we could find a new source of oil by raising automobile and light-truck fuel-economy standards. If we increased fuel economy standards by just 6 percent each year, by the time oil from the Arctic became available, we could be saving 1.1 billion barrels of oil annually. That's more oil than we import from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, and estimates of oil in the Arctic, and national offshore oil combined.

MYTH: Air-quality restrictions have caused blackouts across the state.

FACT: Air-quality restrictions are not a major factor in the blackouts. In fact, dirty plants are highly inefficient and waste valuable fuel. The blackouts are due to a lack of energy production and are mainly the result of the flawed deregulation plan and mistakes made by the utilities.

According to an article in the LA Times ("Bush's Idea of Easing Smog Rules Won't Help, Experts Say," Jan. 25, 2001) with the exception of a small utility in Glendale, power plants around the state "are cranking out as many megawatts as possible to ward off blackouts."

MYTH: The Sierra Club supported California's energy deregulation.

FACT: The Sierra Club did not support California's energy deregulation because we thought it would not benefit consumers or the environment.

MYTH: Air pollution standards are unnecessary and too expensive.

FACT: Californians enjoy breathing cleaner air in part because we have taken sensible steps to reduce pollution from power plants and these limits have affected the price of electricity minimally.

According to an article in the LA Times ("Bush's Idea of Easing Smog Rules Won't Help, Experts Say," Jan. 25, 2001)

"Air quality rules in the Los Angeles region have had a role in raising the cost of power... But because only a fraction of the state's power is generated in the region, the overall price impact is limited."

And these pollution standards have helped clean-up LA's air pollution: In 1981 Los Angeles had 180 days where smog reached unsafe levels; in 1999, LA had only 42 unsafe days.

http://www.sierraclub.org/ca/energy/myths_facts.asp

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

On the other side of it I can see where they're coming from - California has problems supplying the demand for energy during the summer when everyone puts their a/c on full blast 24 hours a day. And the article does say this would be limited to emergency (presumably maximum demand) periods. Still outside of overriding people's ability to control the temperature in their homes, it seems to be a half-measure at best - surely the state and the power companies should ensure that there is sufficient supply to support the infrastructure.

Its unlikely that would pass.

Thats not the point. It is the fact that they would even try this that should scare the $h!t out of you.

If it doesn't pass then there's no issue. How many crackpot proposals like this get shot down on an annual basis? My guess - quite a few.

The reason that the energy situation is so dire in California is due to Lawsuits from environmental groups. Any attempt to expand or modernize the energy infra-structure is met with a court cases and lawsuits. The NIMBY syndrome (Not In My Back Yard) so the their has been little capacity added.

I do have a Question?

Why is it OK, for the rest of the world to generate 70 to 80% of their electricity with nuclear power, France and Japan come to mind, But it is not OK for the United States? No acid rain, No green house gas, couple them with desalination plants and we could have additional water supply with hydrogen gas to power fuel cell as a by product.

But we are restricted to coal, which is quite abundant, but dirty.

I'm sorry... Lawsuits are the primary problem here? Nothing to do with the way the state's energy policy is managed?

As far as Nuclear power goes - an area notoriously prone to earthquakes, sitting on one of the worlds largest tectonic fault lines probably causes a few logistical problems for planners, not to mention making construction rather more expensive.

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

California Energy Myths

California's energy shortage has given rise to a slew of myths and misperceptions about the causes of and solutions to the crunch. In an effort to separate fact from fiction, the Sierra Club has prepared this document. Sierra Club energy experts are also available to provide more information.

Myths and facts below:

To set up an interview or get more information, please contact the Sierra Club media staff: media.team@sierraclub.org.

MYTH: Environmentalists caused California's power shortage.

FACT: As the Los Angeles Times said in an editorial (Jan. 31, 2001):

"The California electricity shortage was not caused by environmental extremism..." And, as Paul Krugman of the New York Times said ("Smog and Mirrors" Jan. 31, 2001), "Nor, apparently, did environmental regulations play much of a role in California's failure to build new plants in the years since deregulation."

The California electricity shortage is mainly the result of a flawed deregulation plan compounded by mistakes made by the utilities.

* The Sierra Club has not blocked or delayed any new power plants in California over the last ten years.

* The Sierra Club has long been in favor of updating old, inefficient generating plants with cleaner, more efficient ones and we support the proposed Calpine generating plant slated to be built near San Jose. Unfortunately, this plant has been blocked by Cisco Systems, who is planning to build an office park nearby.

* In 1995, the Sierra Club and other environmental organizations supported the construction of the 1400 megawatts of new, clean generating capacity. According to an article in the Los Angeles Daily News ("By Killing Plan, Socal Edison Helped Create Power Crisis," Jan. 21):

"...Southern California Edison and other utilities helped kill a state plan that would have authorized the creation of new power plants sufficient to power 1.4 million homes, records and interviews show." The utilities hoped that they could buy " plenty of cheaper power elsewhere..."

* To add insult to injury the same Daily New article reported: "By state law, much of the power was ordered to come from renewable energy such as wind, geothermal and solar."

* According to the California Energy Commission, no electric power plant in California has been rejected over air pollution issues.

MYTH: The Sierra Club is against building new power plants in California.

FACT: The Sierra Club has long advocated for modernizing or replacing older power plants with newer ones. New power plants are up to 50% more efficient and up to 90% cleaner than older ones. Utilities and power producers on the other hand, have resisted building new plants over the last ten years because, until recently, demand did not force them to do so and because the utilities knew that deregulation would force them to sell off plants.

In the last three years, a number of proposed power plants have been slowed by objections from competing energy companies. According to the Sacramento Bee (Jan. 28, 2001):

"Of the 21 power plants proposed for licensing since 1997, competing companies have intervened in 12 proposals, slowing the process in at least four situations..."

MYTH: Higher energy prices and the California energy crunch show that we need to increase our oil supply by drilling in the Arctic National Refuge.

FACT: California gets less than 1% of its electricity from oil-fired plants and, as the Los Angeles Times states ("Arctic Oil a Sham Answer," Jan. 31, 2001):

"Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, President Bush's signature energy cause, would not generate one kilowatt or electricity for California. It wouldn't even produce any oil for an estimated 10 years."

Instead of drilling in the Arctic, we could find a new source of oil by raising automobile and light-truck fuel-economy standards. If we increased fuel economy standards by just 6 percent each year, by the time oil from the Arctic became available, we could be saving 1.1 billion barrels of oil annually. That's more oil than we import from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, and estimates of oil in the Arctic, and national offshore oil combined.

MYTH: Air-quality restrictions have caused blackouts across the state.

FACT: Air-quality restrictions are not a major factor in the blackouts. In fact, dirty plants are highly inefficient and waste valuable fuel. The blackouts are due to a lack of energy production and are mainly the result of the flawed deregulation plan and mistakes made by the utilities.

According to an article in the LA Times ("Bush's Idea of Easing Smog Rules Won't Help, Experts Say," Jan. 25, 2001) with the exception of a small utility in Glendale, power plants around the state "are cranking out as many megawatts as possible to ward off blackouts."

MYTH: The Sierra Club supported California's energy deregulation.

FACT: The Sierra Club did not support California's energy deregulation because we thought it would not benefit consumers or the environment.

MYTH: Air pollution standards are unnecessary and too expensive.

FACT: Californians enjoy breathing cleaner air in part because we have taken sensible steps to reduce pollution from power plants and these limits have affected the price of electricity minimally.

According to an article in the LA Times ("Bush's Idea of Easing Smog Rules Won't Help, Experts Say," Jan. 25, 2001)

"Air quality rules in the Los Angeles region have had a role in raising the cost of power... But because only a fraction of the state's power is generated in the region, the overall price impact is limited."

And these pollution standards have helped clean-up LA's air pollution: In 1981 Los Angeles had 180 days where smog reached unsafe levels; in 1999, LA had only 42 unsafe days.

http://www.sierraclub.org/ca/energy/myths_facts.asp

Not exactly an unbiased source.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

California Energy Myths

California's energy shortage has given rise to a slew of myths and misperceptions about the causes of and solutions to the crunch. In an effort to separate fact from fiction, the Sierra Club has prepared this document. Sierra Club energy experts are also available to provide more information.

Myths and facts below:

To set up an interview or get more information, please contact the Sierra Club media staff: media.team@sierraclub.org.

MYTH: Environmentalists caused California's power shortage.

FACT: As the Los Angeles Times said in an editorial (Jan. 31, 2001):

"The California electricity shortage was not caused by environmental extremism..." And, as Paul Krugman of the New York Times said ("Smog and Mirrors" Jan. 31, 2001), "Nor, apparently, did environmental regulations play much of a role in California's failure to build new plants in the years since deregulation."

The California electricity shortage is mainly the result of a flawed deregulation plan compounded by mistakes made by the utilities.

* The Sierra Club has not blocked or delayed any new power plants in California over the last ten years.

* The Sierra Club has long been in favor of updating old, inefficient generating plants with cleaner, more efficient ones and we support the proposed Calpine generating plant slated to be built near San Jose. Unfortunately, this plant has been blocked by Cisco Systems, who is planning to build an office park nearby.

* In 1995, the Sierra Club and other environmental organizations supported the construction of the 1400 megawatts of new, clean generating capacity. According to an article in the Los Angeles Daily News ("By Killing Plan, Socal Edison Helped Create Power Crisis," Jan. 21):

"...Southern California Edison and other utilities helped kill a state plan that would have authorized the creation of new power plants sufficient to power 1.4 million homes, records and interviews show." The utilities hoped that they could buy " plenty of cheaper power elsewhere..."

* To add insult to injury the same Daily New article reported: "By state law, much of the power was ordered to come from renewable energy such as wind, geothermal and solar."

* According to the California Energy Commission, no electric power plant in California has been rejected over air pollution issues.

MYTH: The Sierra Club is against building new power plants in California.

FACT: The Sierra Club has long advocated for modernizing or replacing older power plants with newer ones. New power plants are up to 50% more efficient and up to 90% cleaner than older ones. Utilities and power producers on the other hand, have resisted building new plants over the last ten years because, until recently, demand did not force them to do so and because the utilities knew that deregulation would force them to sell off plants.

In the last three years, a number of proposed power plants have been slowed by objections from competing energy companies. According to the Sacramento Bee (Jan. 28, 2001):

"Of the 21 power plants proposed for licensing since 1997, competing companies have intervened in 12 proposals, slowing the process in at least four situations..."

MYTH: Higher energy prices and the California energy crunch show that we need to increase our oil supply by drilling in the Arctic National Refuge.

FACT: California gets less than 1% of its electricity from oil-fired plants and, as the Los Angeles Times states ("Arctic Oil a Sham Answer," Jan. 31, 2001):

"Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, President Bush's signature energy cause, would not generate one kilowatt or electricity for California. It wouldn't even produce any oil for an estimated 10 years."

Instead of drilling in the Arctic, we could find a new source of oil by raising automobile and light-truck fuel-economy standards. If we increased fuel economy standards by just 6 percent each year, by the time oil from the Arctic became available, we could be saving 1.1 billion barrels of oil annually. That's more oil than we import from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, and estimates of oil in the Arctic, and national offshore oil combined.

MYTH: Air-quality restrictions have caused blackouts across the state.

FACT: Air-quality restrictions are not a major factor in the blackouts. In fact, dirty plants are highly inefficient and waste valuable fuel. The blackouts are due to a lack of energy production and are mainly the result of the flawed deregulation plan and mistakes made by the utilities.

According to an article in the LA Times ("Bush's Idea of Easing Smog Rules Won't Help, Experts Say," Jan. 25, 2001) with the exception of a small utility in Glendale, power plants around the state "are cranking out as many megawatts as possible to ward off blackouts."

MYTH: The Sierra Club supported California's energy deregulation.

FACT: The Sierra Club did not support California's energy deregulation because we thought it would not benefit consumers or the environment.

MYTH: Air pollution standards are unnecessary and too expensive.

FACT: Californians enjoy breathing cleaner air in part because we have taken sensible steps to reduce pollution from power plants and these limits have affected the price of electricity minimally.

According to an article in the LA Times ("Bush's Idea of Easing Smog Rules Won't Help, Experts Say," Jan. 25, 2001)

"Air quality rules in the Los Angeles region have had a role in raising the cost of power... But because only a fraction of the state's power is generated in the region, the overall price impact is limited."

And these pollution standards have helped clean-up LA's air pollution: In 1981 Los Angeles had 180 days where smog reached unsafe levels; in 1999, LA had only 42 unsafe days.

http://www.sierraclub.org/ca/energy/myths_facts.asp

Not exactly an unbiased source.

True, but neither was the OP and at least one can verify whether those statements are factual or not.

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

On the other side of it I can see where they're coming from - California has problems supplying the demand for energy during the summer when everyone puts their a/c on full blast 24 hours a day. And the article does say this would be limited to emergency (presumably maximum demand) periods. Still outside of overriding people's ability to control the temperature in their homes, it seems to be a half-measure at best - surely the state and the power companies should ensure that there is sufficient supply to support the infrastructure.

Its unlikely that would pass.

Thats not the point. It is the fact that they would even try this that should scare the $h!t out of you.

If it doesn't pass then there's no issue. How many crackpot proposals like this get shot down on an annual basis? My guess - quite a few.

The reason that the energy situation is so dire in California is due to Lawsuits from environmental groups. Any attempt to expand or modernize the energy infra-structure is met with a court cases and lawsuits. The NIMBY syndrome (Not In My Back Yard) so the their has been little capacity added.

I do have a Question?

Why is it OK, for the rest of the world to generate 70 to 80% of their electricity with nuclear power, France and Japan come to mind, But it is not OK for the United States? No acid rain, No green house gas, couple them with desalination plants and we could have additional water supply with hydrogen gas to power fuel cell as a by product.

But we are restricted to coal, which is quite abundant, but dirty.

Where can I read about that?

http://www.nocaliforniapipeline.com/reasons.php

http://www.enn.com/press_releases/2315

http://www.earthjustice.org/news/press/003...xico_to_us.html

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...751C1A9679C8B63

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

On the other side of it I can see where they're coming from - California has problems supplying the demand for energy during the summer when everyone puts their a/c on full blast 24 hours a day. And the article does say this would be limited to emergency (presumably maximum demand) periods. Still outside of overriding people's ability to control the temperature in their homes, it seems to be a half-measure at best - surely the state and the power companies should ensure that there is sufficient supply to support the infrastructure.

Its unlikely that would pass.

Thats not the point. It is the fact that they would even try this that should scare the $h!t out of you.

If it doesn't pass then there's no issue. How many crackpot proposals like this get shot down on an annual basis? My guess - quite a few.

The reason that the energy situation is so dire in California is due to Lawsuits from environmental groups. Any attempt to expand or modernize the energy infra-structure is met with a court cases and lawsuits. The NIMBY syndrome (Not In My Back Yard) so the their has been little capacity added.

I do have a Question?

Why is it OK, for the rest of the world to generate 70 to 80% of their electricity with nuclear power, France and Japan come to mind, But it is not OK for the United States? No acid rain, No green house gas, couple them with desalination plants and we could have additional water supply with hydrogen gas to power fuel cell as a by product.

But we are restricted to coal, which is quite abundant, but dirty.

I'm sorry... Lawsuits are the primary problem here? Nothing to do with the way the state's energy policy is managed?

As far as Nuclear power goes - an area notoriously prone to earthquakes, sitting on one of the worlds largest tectonic fault lines probably causes a few logistical problems for planners, not to mention making construction rather more expensive.

You mean that you should not build nuclear plants in an earthquake prone area?........Say like Japan.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

On the other side of it I can see where they're coming from - California has problems supplying the demand for energy during the summer when everyone puts their a/c on full blast 24 hours a day. And the article does say this would be limited to emergency (presumably maximum demand) periods. Still outside of overriding people's ability to control the temperature in their homes, it seems to be a half-measure at best - surely the state and the power companies should ensure that there is sufficient supply to support the infrastructure.

Its unlikely that would pass.

Thats not the point. It is the fact that they would even try this that should scare the $h!t out of you.

If it doesn't pass then there's no issue. How many crackpot proposals like this get shot down on an annual basis? My guess - quite a few.

The reason that the energy situation is so dire in California is due to Lawsuits from environmental groups. Any attempt to expand or modernize the energy infra-structure is met with a court cases and lawsuits. The NIMBY syndrome (Not In My Back Yard) so the their has been little capacity added.

I do have a Question?

Why is it OK, for the rest of the world to generate 70 to 80% of their electricity with nuclear power, France and Japan come to mind, But it is not OK for the United States? No acid rain, No green house gas, couple them with desalination plants and we could have additional water supply with hydrogen gas to power fuel cell as a by product.

But we are restricted to coal, which is quite abundant, but dirty.

Where can I read about that?

http://www.nocaliforniapipeline.com/reasons.php

http://www.enn.com/press_releases/2315

http://www.earthjustice.org/news/press/003...xico_to_us.html

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...751C1A9679C8B63

I don't have time to look through each link right now, but your last one...what does it have to do with California?

From the article...

Environmental groups today brought what they said was the first lawsuit against President Bush's environmental policy, saying the administration had approved a dozen leases allowing oil and gas exploration on federal lands in Utah without considering the effect of the drilling.

Please check your sources and post ones that actually echo your argument above. Thanks.

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

You mean that you should not build nuclear plants in an earthquake prone area?........Say like Japan.

You got it.

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

good thing i have a generator.

Me too!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

On the other side of it I can see where they're coming from - California has problems supplying the demand for energy during the summer when everyone puts their a/c on full blast 24 hours a day. And the article does say this would be limited to emergency (presumably maximum demand) periods. Still outside of overriding people's ability to control the temperature in their homes, it seems to be a half-measure at best - surely the state and the power companies should ensure that there is sufficient supply to support the infrastructure.

Its unlikely that would pass.

Thats not the point. It is the fact that they would even try this that should scare the $h!t out of you.

If it doesn't pass then there's no issue. How many crackpot proposals like this get shot down on an annual basis? My guess - quite a few.

The reason that the energy situation is so dire in California is due to Lawsuits from environmental groups. Any attempt to expand or modernize the energy infra-structure is met with a court cases and lawsuits. The NIMBY syndrome (Not In My Back Yard) so the their has been little capacity added.

I do have a Question?

Why is it OK, for the rest of the world to generate 70 to 80% of their electricity with nuclear power, France and Japan come to mind, But it is not OK for the United States? No acid rain, No green house gas, couple them with desalination plants and we could have additional water supply with hydrogen gas to power fuel cell as a by product.

But we are restricted to coal, which is quite abundant, but dirty.

I'm sorry... Lawsuits are the primary problem here? Nothing to do with the way the state's energy policy is managed?

As far as Nuclear power goes - an area notoriously prone to earthquakes, sitting on one of the worlds largest tectonic fault lines probably causes a few logistical problems for planners, not to mention making construction rather more expensive.

You mean that you should not build nuclear plants in an earthquake prone area?........Say like Japan.

Meaning its more expensive.

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

On the other side of it I can see where they're coming from - California has problems supplying the demand for energy during the summer when everyone puts their a/c on full blast 24 hours a day. And the article does say this would be limited to emergency (presumably maximum demand) periods. Still outside of overriding people's ability to control the temperature in their homes, it seems to be a half-measure at best - surely the state and the power companies should ensure that there is sufficient supply to support the infrastructure.

Its unlikely that would pass.

Thats not the point. It is the fact that they would even try this that should scare the $h!t out of you.

If it doesn't pass then there's no issue. How many crackpot proposals like this get shot down on an annual basis? My guess - quite a few.

The reason that the energy situation is so dire in California is due to Lawsuits from environmental groups. Any attempt to expand or modernize the energy infra-structure is met with a court cases and lawsuits. The NIMBY syndrome (Not In My Back Yard) so the their has been little capacity added.

I do have a Question?

Why is it OK, for the rest of the world to generate 70 to 80% of their electricity with nuclear power, France and Japan come to mind, But it is not OK for the United States? No acid rain, No green house gas, couple them with desalination plants and we could have additional water supply with hydrogen gas to power fuel cell as a by product.

But we are restricted to coal, which is quite abundant, but dirty.

Where can I read about that?

http://www.nocaliforniapipeline.com/reasons.php

http://www.enn.com/press_releases/2315

http://www.earthjustice.org/news/press/003...xico_to_us.html

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...751C1A9679C8B63

I don't have time to look through each link right now, but your last one...what does it have to do with California?

From the article...

Environmental groups today brought what they said was the first lawsuit against President Bush's environmental policy, saying the administration had approved a dozen leases allowing oil and gas exploration on federal lands in Utah without considering the effect of the drilling.

Please check your sources and post ones that actually echo your argument above. Thanks.

Energy is a regional policy problem, not just California it affects me up here in Oregon also. Where do you think we sell our extra electricity from our Columbia river dams? If I remember right the last big power outage was from Canada, Washington, Oregon and into California. Were all in this together Bro! And it supports my claim that every time we try to attain more energy sources it is met with litigation. I just find the idea of trying to conserve our way out of the problem without additional energy sources and infrastructure upgrades is a joke.

Oh BTW, I picked up that article out of the American Thinker, but it could have came from anywhere. The Sierra Club on the other hand is not a credible source to give you an objective view of the truth.

http://nctimes.com/articles/2008/01/08/new...02_261_7_08.txt

http://www.ucan.org/energy/electricity/cal...mergency_events

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1950231/posts

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1278