 |
Re: Bonkers NWP news- Bonkers? Gambit? Zark, there you go again with those pesky facts....
Author: BOB2
Date: 09-04-2021 - 00:29
"NWP could turn a profit, it’s California Laws that killed it."
Really? I thought it was all the unstable ground (eel River Canyon, Island Mountain, Scotial Bluffs, etc.).
Zark, there you go again with those pesky facts....
The supposedly "environmentalist" nimby's in the Peoples Republic of Humboldt are opposed to windmills that would be fifty miles offshore, that coudl provide half of California's electrical needs, because it would be done by evil "capitalist" energy firms (probably the same ones that help for for my "socialist" pension fund), and would bring good paying jobs. So coal will likely be shipped out of Eureka, when hell freezes over, and solves the global warming problem.....
As to the economics of the restoring the NWP for this and ports improvements at Eureka compared to the Bay, of even Stockton, even with dredging (I'd be looking at California's original "coal port" at Pittsburg as a better choice), it is a questionable gamble.
As to "no" greenhouse gas problems in CA? Well, it is global levels that matter. If folks think that CA can solve the worlds CO2 problem, by singing kumbaya and buying a Tesla, then you need to learn just how much of this is now a China and India problem's
As to coal prices, it is indeed a reflection of gas prices spiking, and as prices have risen, so has production, and there is a lot of production of long run less costly gas from fracking, with less pollution and less transport cost. Of course, I'm old enough to remember, that when I first was involved in planning the Alameda Corridor, back in the mid 80's, it was so we could accomodate all of the export coal traffic to Asia, not to for all the the boxes from Asia... So the economics of coal in today's price spike might not look that attractive, or be as bad as they looked just last year, by the time a project like this could come on line.....
Really? I thought it was all the unstable ground (eel River Canyon, Island Mountain, Scotial Bluffs, etc.).
Zark, there you go again with those pesky facts....
The supposedly "environmentalist" nimby's in the Peoples Republic of Humboldt are opposed to windmills that would be fifty miles offshore, that coudl provide half of California's electrical needs, because it would be done by evil "capitalist" energy firms (probably the same ones that help for for my "socialist" pension fund), and would bring good paying jobs. So coal will likely be shipped out of Eureka, when hell freezes over, and solves the global warming problem.....
As to the economics of the restoring the NWP for this and ports improvements at Eureka compared to the Bay, of even Stockton, even with dredging (I'd be looking at California's original "coal port" at Pittsburg as a better choice), it is a questionable gamble.
As to "no" greenhouse gas problems in CA? Well, it is global levels that matter. If folks think that CA can solve the worlds CO2 problem, by singing kumbaya and buying a Tesla, then you need to learn just how much of this is now a China and India problem's
As to coal prices, it is indeed a reflection of gas prices spiking, and as prices have risen, so has production, and there is a lot of production of long run less costly gas from fracking, with less pollution and less transport cost. Of course, I'm old enough to remember, that when I first was involved in planning the Alameda Corridor, back in the mid 80's, it was so we could accomodate all of the export coal traffic to Asia, not to for all the the boxes from Asia... So the economics of coal in today's price spike might not look that attractive, or be as bad as they looked just last year, by the time a project like this could come on line.....
