Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

6884Re: Powering a carfree city

Expand Messages
  • dubluth
    Feb 11, 2004
      If you are going to reply, please read the entire post and make a good
      faith effort to understand before you begin.

      All this talk of electical generation source for a car free city is a
      bit beside the point. A modern city does need electrical power, but
      the issues of this group were originally building a city without cars
      and the exclusion of cars from cities. For other people, the source
      of power IS their issue and they are only interested in powering the
      proposed city with or without nuclear, depending on their inclination.

      As far as I'm concerned, the only thing of worth to come from this
      discussion is the reminder that there are a numerous necessary inputs
      to a city and energy is one of them.

      Electrical generation capacity already exists. I'm not moved by
      advocacy for more electrical generation capacity when it comes from
      someone who argues as though ever more energy for heating and for
      running machinery is virtue itself.

      How should society decide how much capacity to build? The market is a
      pretty good guide. Building more capacity has costs, and if the costs
      of building and operating aren't recovered from ratepayers over time,
      the investors have to figure they made a mistake.

      If a carfree city were built within this generation, its population
      would immigrate from other areas. Some of those areas would be
      supplied by the same grid that the city could tap into. It seems
      that, while the car-free city's per-capita energy demand would be well
      below the national average, the demand for electical power would
      likely rise because of the mass-transit system. Even if overall
      demand rises, that doesn't assure that the cost of building and
      operating a new power unit would be justified by the market.

      Of course since the building of domestic nuclear facilities in the US
      ended some time back, conditioning a car-free city on a new nuclear
      facility might be an assurance that no car-free city would happen for
      many more years. I don't favor inviting more impediments.

      As far as wind and hydro power, the unquestioning acceptance of these
      is no better than an over-reaction against or for nuclear (no pun
      intended). Not everyone believes that a unit of electricity
      generation should take precedence over the wildlife by harmed by dams
      and killed by windmills. Hopefully the environmental oversight
      process won't be gutted for the sake of erecting someone's favorite
      type of generating station.

      Bill Carr
    • Show all 8 messages in this topic