9 Responses to “Up Next For California”

1. TheFedSucks Says:
   February 21st, 2017 at 7:24 am

   California ia really blowing it by not having more dams in the Sierras for safe storage of water and electricity.

   9% of all California power goes to pot growing.

2. Prince of Darkness_666 Says:
   February 21st, 2017 at 8:54 am

   smiting of the 1st born. trust me God’s pissed, plus me and the Angel of Death are buddies. A bunch of the plagues will be skipped.

3. The Big Stink Says:
   February 21st, 2017 at 11:55 am

   The Four Horseman of the Apocalypse will be changing horses in LA – on their way up CA-1 to San Francisco – to finish what God started in the earthquake of 1906.

4. Prince of Darkness_666 Says:
   February 21st, 2017 at 12:24 pm

   Is it bad that no matter when it happens I already know I won’t feel any sympathy for people in LA or San Francisco?

5. SmithStCrx Says:
   February 21st, 2017 at 12:27 pm

   Back when I lived in Montana, I would regularly hear about Californians b*tching about cost of electricity they bought from Montana. They didn’t like paying higher rates for the electricity they used than we did. They never seemed to understand that they paid for all the electricity pushed down the lines, both the amount they used AND the amount lost to resistance in the transmission lines.

6. bikebubba Says:
   February 21st, 2017 at 1:16 pm

   TFS is correct. 9% of household electricity use in California is to grow pot.

   https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-21/as-pot-growing-expands-power-demands-tax-u-s-electricity-grids

   I guess you’ve got to do something to cope with the pain of living there, but wow. You would figure a state with 250 to 300 days of sunshine each year would be able to figure out how to grow the stuff using sunshine, but apparently not. Wow.

7. Scott Hughes Says:
   February 21st, 2017 at 1:17 pm

   Rumor has it there’s a lot of reading of the book of Genesis going on in parts of Cali.

8. nerdbert Says:
   February 21st, 2017 at 1:34 pm

   From an engineering standpoint, locating the power generation as close as possible to the consumption makes a ton of sense both in terms of power loss (which goes as R*I^2) and well as lower load factor terms (losses from inductance and capacitance mismatches, etc).

   This is not the case from a political/bureaucratic standpoint. Have you ever seen what it takes to get anything through permitting in California? It’s no wonder that it’s easier and lower cost to buy power from someplace like Montana where you can build something industrial in less than a decade, then build very specialized HVDC systems to move the power to California (and even then the environmental wackos come out of the wall to oppose anything remotely resembling progress during the discussions about moving the power inside the state).

9. jimf Says:
   February 21st, 2017 at 6:06 pm

   Remember when we said climate change is causing the drought in California? We really meant rain. So, you know, we’re still right.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.