As a Californian, I have to take issue with some of Richard's statements... The only unapathetic are the tree huggers and folks who have stirred up the screams for no new power plants. For as they posit, they harm the environment, they kill us, they kill the flora and fauna. They are correct to a degree if
In point of fact, California consumes less electricity, per capita, than most other states, and has been a leader in conservation. Also, the demand for power in California has not risen all that much (and, in fact, has risen slower than predicted) over the last 10 years, so it isn't a lack of generating capacity (which HAS grown) that is causing the problem.
It is almost entirely a "market failure" that keeps the power unavailable. Generators allege that they are afraid they won't get paid, and so, need to jack the rates up well above the actual generation cost to cover their "risk". Add to that a quasi-regulation scheme that almost guarantees that providers can "game" the system.
Nuclear energy, (fission) steadily brought on line would have avoided this situation and will at some point probably be brought it hastily (frighteningly) to solve the woes of nation wide brown outs.
>> Recent article on NPR (which I haven't verified..) claims that if you were to start tomorrow to replace all US generating capacity with nuclear power in (I think it was) 20 years would require construction of 100 plants per year. It aint going to happen...
Created on Thursday, March 29, 2001 11:17 AM EDT by James Lux