You can think the Bush admin and the pubbies for the blackout

[Magiver]

*Originally posted by Reeder *
**Read the article Mr Mace.

They were to be loans.

You do know what a loan is don’t you? **

Last time I applied for a loan I didn’t see a space on the form requiring a bill from Congressman Sam Farr (D-CA). Of course there is a lot of fine print so maybe I missed it.

Ribbing aside, power companies have to answer to State utility commissions before they make changes. when they want more money for upgrades they apply for rate hikes.

The problem in this situation is not capacity. There is a national over capacity of about 15%. (I would personally like to see it raised to 30% for reasons not involving this discussion). The problem was the interconnection of power companies across state lines. Nobody wants to fund a new line that benefits another state.

From a political point-of-view, I also reject Federally backed “loans” because they are really a transfer of state wealth. If a state (say California) totally screws up their power grid through mismanagement (who proposed the bill?) then Arizona shouldn’t be sucked in (forced) to correct the problem.

What is scary is that it has been reported in the news that the entire event took 9 seconds. That could only happen by unassisted computer intervention. That may be a good thing because it should be correctable through software. There is no need to drop all power connections if the result is a change from 125 volts to 100 volts. Your washer motor and computer won’t like it but it wouldn’t be a continuous application of low voltage. I lived for years with crappy voltage because the private distributor I was stuck with didn’t have the experience to deal with it. I learned to save files when the voltage dipped to 90.

[Sam_Stone]

Anthracite: Is the rail line access really that critical? It seems to me that A) It’s hard to do enough damage to the rail lines that they couldn’t be repaired within 30 days, and B) in an emergency, couldn’t you truck coal in? I know it would take a huge amount, but this is a critical emergency, after all. I can imagine around-the-clock convoys bringing in coal until the rail lines are repaired.

[Gorsnak]

*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
Anthracite: Is the rail line access really that critical? It seems to me that A) It’s hard to do enough damage to the rail lines that they couldn’t be repaired within 30 days, and B) in an emergency, couldn’t you truck coal in? I know it would take a huge amount, but this is a critical emergency, after all. I can imagine around-the-clock convoys bringing in coal until the rail lines are repaired.

Indeed, my recollection of readings on attacks on logistics in WWII, etc, suggests that it’s very difficult to damage a rail line to the point where it cannot be repaired within a couple days (excepting bridges, and even there I suspect military engineers have techniques for coping). Granted, you won’t get the line back in 100% shape, and trains might have to slow to a crawl to traverse the crude repairs safely, but this is inconvenience, not catastrophe.

[Gorsnak]

*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
Anthracite: Is the rail line access really that critical? It seems to me that A) It’s hard to do enough damage to the rail lines that they couldn’t be repaired within 30 days, and B) in an emergency, couldn’t you truck coal in? I know it would take a huge amount, but this is a critical emergency, after all. I can imagine around-the-clock convoys bringing in coal until the rail lines are repaired.

Indeed, my recollection of readings on attacks on logistics in WWII, etc, suggests that it’s very difficult to damage a rail line to the point where it cannot be repaired within a couple days (excepting bridges, and even there I suspect military engineers have techniques for coping). Granted, you won’t get the line back in 100% shape, and trains might have to slow to a crawl to traverse the crude repairs safely, but this is inconvenience, not catastrophe.

[Chefguy]

*Originally posted by Bricker *
**The problem with this approach is that it permits you to present unsubstantiated opinion by proxy. The mere fact that you offer a link, rather than your own opinion, does not remove the burden of proof from you.

Now, if the link is a article that is cited, and offers supporting documentation, you’re not in bad shape. But if the link consists - as this one did - of a series of gratuitous assertions, then you cannot offer it for discussion without some additional support; as my debate teacher was fond of reminding us many years ago, “A gratuitous assertion may be equally gratuitously denied.” So it’s perfectly proper for someone to dismiss a set of gratuitous assertions out of hand.

No matter where an article comes from, it must consist of supported facts, not conclusory allegations and assertions.

However, to answer your question, if a Fox article offered citations to fact, and so did an article from the website you provided, I’d be more inclined to believe the Fox facts – and the New York Times would trump them both, nothwithstanding their recent difficulties.

I say this because websites such as your offering seem all too eager to advance their agenda without a high regard for accuracy. Fox, while undeniably possessed of an agenda, does at least employ people whose responsibility it is to check the facts, and has at least some commitment to journalistic accuracy. It’s not the best, to be sure, but it beats the inaptly named “truthout.org” handily. And the Times, while arguably a hotbed of liberal thought, is much better than Fox in terms of assuring their facts are in order.

To what inferences those facts give rise is, of course, the purpose of debate. In this regard, the Times holds no particular high ground.

• Rick **

To all of which I must reply: my post was specifically addressed to Reeder, for his use in defending his position. I stated no position for general response, nor issued any challenge. All responses directed to me that are not from him are somewhat moot, I would think. The link is just that: a link. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

As for “truthout.org”, they have their moments. Their strength is in publishing articles from journalists that get little air time in the U.S. You may argue that the reason for that is because they are not credible, but I would have to see some proof of any allegation of that nature.

[elucidator]

Tax cut. Fix the whole problem.

[Magiver]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
**Tax cut. Fix the whole problem. **

PUCO’s run by adults. That would be my vote.

But I’ll take your tax cut if you don’t want it.

[Bricker]

*Originally posted by Chefguy *
To all of which I must reply: my post was specifically addressed to Reeder, for his use in defending his position. I stated no position for general response, nor issued any challenge. All responses directed to me that are not from him are somewhat moot, I would think. The link is just that: a link. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

E-mail is an excellent method of accomplishing what you describe above. A post in a GD public thread invites responses, as well as the inference that you are advancing a position.

As for “truthout.org”, they have their moments. Their strength is in publishing articles from journalists that get little air time in the U.S. You may argue that the reason for that is because they are not credible, but I would have to see some proof of any allegation of that nature.

Thanks, but I’ll advance my own arguments. I argued above that they have no particular infrastructure dedicated to fact-checking, no reputation for credibility, and a general practice of uncritically reproducing pieces critical of the Bush administration. For these reasons, the appearance of a piece under their “masthead” adds no particular credibility, a state of affairs not to be confused with a general reputation for inaccuracy.

• Rick

[Una_Persson]

*Originally posted by Tuckerfan *
So much so that a planned coal mine operation in TN is being hampered in opening because of it.

That may be that coal mine plans are hard to put into place, but when the economics drive it, the mines do open, and develop. Several new mines open up every couple of years, and new seams at existing mines get worked. Wyoming and Montana are in the top 3 States with coal resources, and most any reasonable mine plan that the industry comes up with gets worked. And as I said, those high-sulfur coal mines along the Ohio really want a market.

Folks are also trying to get TVA to switch to using something other than coal in their powerplants, because of air pollution.

Perhaps you haven’t been keeping up on it, but TVA has been undergoing a huge capital expansion at most of its coal power plants to install SCR systems and scrubbers over the last half-decade, with many more planned. I actually am personally working with three projects with them, so I cannot really say more, but it’s all public on their website and press releases.

What do you mean “folks” are trying to get them to switch? And what exactly are they proposing they switch to? TVA’s system has been near maximum capacity nearly every Summer for the last 5, and messing around with their generation is going to lead to some pretty dark days in that region of the country.

Last I heard was that employment in the coal mining industry was dropping across the country because the demand for coal was down.

You are presenting a picture of mines closing, coal disappearing, it being hard to impossible to open new mines, and major coal users (TVA buys more than $1 billion of coal per year) trying to move away…none of which is true at all. I need to see what sources you are getting this from, in order to respond more intelligently on this.

Mine employment has dropped in some areas, yes, but that is mainly due to the switch over the last decade or so to open-pit mining, which requires far fewer workers and has a much higher productivity per worker. In fact, comparing trends in terms of short-ton per miner-hour, coal mining efficiency has increased from about 2.0 in 1983 to about 7.02 in 2000.

**My point was that it might be easier to take out a mine (kind of difficult, I realize, but not impossible) and cause power disruptions than it would to try and take out a powerplant. **

Mines have fires, collapses, and flooding all the time, and people do fix them. And one would have to hit several mines at once - not an easy task - to make any impact in a region. Hitting an open-pit mine would be difficult to damage - it a monstrous hole in the ground, after all. I suppose someone could dump anthrax in the area and effectively shut it down, but this would have to be done for most mines in a region, at once, to have any real impact.

**Perhaps that’s because the mines don’t want to deal in small amounts. He stated that it was getting harder and harder for him to find it and that there weren’t many mines operating in this area anymore. **

Mines that will sell to individuals are hard to find. I doubt that Black Thunder coal, which sends out several tens of millions of tons at a time, is going to be interested in selling a single truck to a person. But still, there are loads of Mom-and-Pop mines out there that will sell coal, even in Kansas. I’m guessing it’s a combination of the metallurical-quality coal he needs being scarce, combined with lack of nearby small mine.

[Una_Persson]

I’m only going to respond to the last post on this, because the topic is the same, and I’m running low on time tonight.

*Originally posted by Gorsnak *
**Indeed, my recollection of readings on attacks on logistics in WWII, etc, suggests that it’s very difficult to damage a rail line to the point where it cannot be repaired within a couple days (excepting bridges, and even there I suspect military engineers have techniques for coping). Granted, you won’t get the line back in 100% shape, and trains might have to slow to a crawl to traverse the crude repairs safely, but this is inconvenience, not catastrophe. **

There are not only several key bridges for these single lines, but difficult mountain grades and tunnels at places throughout the Rockies and the Southwest. Take out 4 bridges in a row, or collapse a large piece of mountain embankment, and things will be disrupted for a while. I’m not going to give specifics, but look at a map of the freightworthy rail lines of the US, especially the SP lines and those crossing the Upper Mississippi. You’ll see what I mean. A coal unit train needs 100-120 cars of about 100-110 tons capacity per car. Yet there are several lines in such bad shape, and/or which have such high grades on them, that trains are limited to 70-80 cars per, at lower loadings (using aluminum bottom-dump cars). The situation is not good, and looking at what happened at the W.A. Parrish station in Texas when the rail system failed them in the 1990’s can give an indication as to how bad it can really be.

[Tuckerfan]

*Originally posted by Anthracite *
**Perhaps you haven’t been keeping up on it, but TVA has been undergoing a huge capital expansion at most of its coal power plants to install SCR systems and scrubbers over the last half-decade, with many more planned. I actually am personally working with three projects with them, so I cannot really say more, but it’s all public on their website and press releases.

What do you mean “folks” are trying to get them to switch? And what exactly are they proposing they switch to? TVA’s system has been near maximum capacity nearly every Summer for the last 5, and messing around with their generation is going to lead to some pretty dark days in that region of the country.**

Sorry no cites because the local paper only has the previous 14 days on-line. There’s been several battles over what TVA’s doing to clean it’s plants up. TVA was claiming some plants were exempt from certain regulations due to their age, environmentalists were claiming they weren’t. There was some question as to whether or not TVA had illegally expanded it’s operations at some of it’s older plants. I’m not claiming that TVA hasn’t been working at cleaning up it’s plants or has done anything illegal, I’m simply repeating what’s been in the media (which, of course, doesn’t mean it’s accurate).

As for what they want them to switch to, weellll that’s a horse of a different feather. The only remotely possible suggestion I’ve seen is natural gas. The rest is some vaguely worded handwaving that just says, “Coal is bad! Don’t use coal! And no nukes either!” with no real solution. Generally, whenever TVA makes a public announcement about something it’s doing the idiots come out of the woodwork and start protesting, etc. whatever it is. Remember this state is home to the snail darter.

[Una_Persson]

The specific case you are speaking on refers to the EPA claiming that TVA illegally increased output at its coal units. TVA claimed (rightfully so, IMEO, hainvg worked on them) that these increases were not planned to increase output specifically, but the result of making efficiency increases as part of maintenance. That is, for example, doing a turbine overhaul and putting in a new, high efficiency LP section that increases efficiency, but also allows them to produce 5% more power, should they chose to or need to do so. It was the increase in power that EPA objected to, as the EPA under Clinton wanted to call this “new coal generation” and subject the plants to current 2000-era regulations. Which would essentially have shut them down, or else have required billions of dollars in capital and O&M costs over the TVA system.

They also claimed the same with Virgina Power (now Dominion), AEP, Southern Company, and numerous other utilities. And IIRC, just this last month TVA won their case against the EPA (the press release is still at work), but I am uncertain exactly what the ruling said.

There isn’t enough natural gas in the region to replace the coal generation that TVA does. TVA has an enormous amount of coal generation, nearly 10,000 MW in Tennessee alone. People who think that’s going anywhere soon, without building 10 new 1 GW nuclear plants or some equivalent, are, quite simply, not rational.