Bill Z.

David Nebenzahl <[email protected]> writes:

> kkt spake thus:
>
> > [email protected] (Bill Z.) writes:
> >
> >>RJ <[email protected]> writes:
> >>
> >>>On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 20:59:11 -0800, [email protected]
> >>>([email protected]) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>With MUNI in San Francisco, the city owns
> >>>>a hydroelectric facility which provides a fair amountof the power for the
> >>>>municipal trains and electric buses.
> >>>
> >>>That particular facility drowned a valley (Hetch Hetchy) that was said
> >>>to be even more beautiful than Yosemite. That's pretty sad.
> >>
> >>I've been there: it's not more beautiful than Yosemite, although I
> >>guess they could have put the damn at a lower location, or used
> >>multiple smaller dams, as it would have been a neat place for
> >>people to go.
> > You were there before the dam was built? If not, how can you judge
> > what the underwater portion was like?
>
> Yes, and keep in mind that Hetch Hetchy is always referred to as "the
> dam that broke John Muir's heart". There must have been *something*
> there worthwhile if it had that effect on him.

The dam is kind of an ugly structure, and you can see a 'rim' at the
high water mark, which also doesn't look great. For a current picture,
go to <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/36/Hetch_Hetchy_Valley_in_Yosemite_NP-1200px.jpg>.

BTW, here's a piture of what it looked like before the damn was put in
<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fd/Hetch_Hetchy_Valley.jpg>.
Kkt was apparently too uninformed to have ever seen it (I saw similar
pictures years ago). Differences in the water falls reflect the time
of the year each picture was taken.

It is just as I said - the valley floor is pretty much like what you'd
find in many parts of the Sierra Nevada, and what makes it interesting
is the surrounding rock formations. It isn't in my opinion more
beautiful than Yosemite Valley, but certainly is unique enough to
have been worth preserving.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Kkt

[email protected] (Bill Z.) writes:

> kkt <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > [email protected] (Bill Z.) writes:
> >
> > > RJ <[email protected]> writes:
> > >
> > > > On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 20:59:11 -0800, [email protected]
> > > > ([email protected]) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >With MUNI in San Francisco, the city owns
> > > > >a hydroelectric facility which provides a fair amountof the power for the
> > > > >municipal trains and electric buses.
> > > >
> > > > That particular facility drowned a valley (Hetch Hetchy) that was said
> > > > to be even more beautiful than Yosemite. That's pretty sad.
> > >
> > > I've been there: it's not more beautiful than Yosemite, although I
> > > guess they could have put the damn at a lower location, or used
> > > multiple smaller dams, as it would have been a neat place for
> > > people to go.
> >
> > You were there before the dam was built? If not, how can you judge
> > what the underwater portion was like?
>
> Didn't anyone ever tell you that the surrounding walls are above the
> water level. All that is missing are the meadows and forests. In
> case you really don't know, Yosemite Valley is noted for the granite
> formations that surround it plus the waterfalls that run down those in
> a few place, not specifically its meadows, rivers, or forested areas
> that are similar to what you would find elsewhere in the Sierra Nevada
> range.

In other words: no, and you're speculating.

I've been there post-reservoir too, but I take the word of people who
did see it pre-reservoir about how it looked then.

-- Patrick

Bruce_nocal

Ahh.... The sweet smell of off-topic bullshit spam..

Bill Z.

kkt <[email protected]> writes:

> [email protected] (Bill Z.) writes:
>
> >
> > Didn't anyone ever tell you that the surrounding walls are above the
> > water level. All that is missing are the meadows and forests. In
> > case you really don't know, Yosemite Valley is noted for the granite
> > formations that surround it plus the waterfalls that run down those in
> > a few place, not specifically its meadows, rivers, or forested areas
> > that are similar to what you would find elsewhere in the Sierra Nevada
> > range.
>
> In other words: no, and you're speculating.

No, I'm not speculating - years ago I saw pictures of how it looked
before the dam was put in, and I even posted a URL to a similar
picture today. Odd that you ignored that. :-)

Also, with as much climbing experience as I've had, what you'd
expect to see is pretty obvious.

> I've been there post-reservoir too, but I take the word of people who
> did see it pre-reservoir about how it looked then.

Did it occur to you that the "word of people who did see it pre-
reservoir" were the words of people trying to stop the dam, and that
"it isn't quite as beautiful as Yosemite Valley" isn't exactly a good
talking point (to use today's lingo)?


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bolwerk

Bill Z. wrote:
> sechumlib <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On 2007-02-12 01:58:59 -0500, [email protected] (Bill Z.) said:
>>
>>> What are you talking about? SF muni's electric trains are powered
>>> by at least one of the above (hydroelectric power, due to
>>> the electric generator at Hetch Hetchy dam), and have been for
>>> approximately a century.
>> Oh, good. Now I can be sure to ride "SF muni's electric trains"
>> whenever I want to travel between my home in Niskayuna, NY, and the
>> nearby cities of Albany and Schenectady.
>
> You mean New York does not get electric power generated at Niagra
> Falls and can't figure out how to run long-distance electric trains
> like they do in Europe?

Actually, it has proven shockingly difficult for the state to figure out
how to do it cost-effectively. (Corruption probably.)

Bill Z.

Bolwerk <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > sechumlib <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> On 2007-02-12 01:58:59 -0500, [email protected] (Bill Z.) said:
> >>
> >>> What are you talking about? SF muni's electric trains are powered
> >>> by at least one of the above (hydroelectric power, due to
> >>> the electric generator at Hetch Hetchy dam), and have been for
> >>> approximately a century.
> >> Oh, good. Now I can be sure to ride "SF muni's electric trains"
> >> whenever I want to travel between my home in Niskayuna, NY, and the
> >> nearby cities of Albany and Schenectady.
> > You mean New York does not get electric power generated at Niagra
> > Falls and can't figure out how to run long-distance electric trains
> > like they do in Europe?
>
> Actually, it has proven shockingly difficult for the state to figure
> out how to do it cost-effectively. (Corruption probably.)

Maybe the state needs adult supervision. Maybe they should simply
ask die Schweizerische Bundesbahnen to put them into receivership.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bolwerk

Bill Z. wrote:
> Bolwerk <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bill Z. wrote:
>>> sechumlib <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 2007-02-12 01:58:59 -0500, [email protected] (Bill Z.) said:
>>>>
>>>>> What are you talking about? SF muni's electric trains are powered
>>>>> by at least one of the above (hydroelectric power, due to
>>>>> the electric generator at Hetch Hetchy dam), and have been for
>>>>> approximately a century.
>>>> Oh, good. Now I can be sure to ride "SF muni's electric trains"
>>>> whenever I want to travel between my home in Niskayuna, NY, and the
>>>> nearby cities of Albany and Schenectady.
>>> You mean New York does not get electric power generated at Niagra
>>> Falls and can't figure out how to run long-distance electric trains
>>> like they do in Europe?
>> Actually, it has proven shockingly difficult for the state to figure
>> out how to do it cost-effectively. (Corruption probably.)
>
> Maybe the state needs adult supervision. Maybe they should simply
> ask die Schweizerische Bundesbahnen to put them into receivership.

Well, not for lack of trying, but I think they spent tens of millions of
dollars refurbishing locomotives alone over the past 10 years for a
really botched high-speed rail initiative.

Bill Z.

Bolwerk <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > Bolwerk <[email protected]> writes:
> >

> > Maybe the state needs adult supervision. Maybe they should simply
> > ask die Schweizerische Bundesbahnen to put them into receivership.
>
> Well, not for lack of trying, but I think they spent tens of millions
> of dollars refurbishing locomotives alone over the past 10 years for a
> really botched high-speed rail initiative.

Alas, people can try really hard and still need adult supervision. :-(

Seriously, though, the Europeans have been doing this for years and
they probably could run it much better than we could.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[email protected]

In article <[email protected]>, "Jack May"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "Daniel Bowen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected] oups.com...
> > On Feb 7, 4:52 pm, "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Errrr... the per km/mi pollution might drop as new cars replace old,
> > but of course the more you use them, the more overall pollution. (And
> > you haven't counted the pollution to manufacture the new cars.)
>
> The measured data says you are very wrong
>
> http://www.highways.org/Mar06-speaker-slideshows/Schwartz.ppt#15
>
> You seem to be assuming that somehow modern cars are still highly polluting
> with only small reductions in pollution levels. The reality is totally
> different.


Nonsense. The reality is that the USA fuel efficiency is not
significantly different now than it has been. If we are talking about CO2
emissions (as the subject of this thread suggests) then there have been no
siginficant changes, because about the same amount of fuel is still being
consumed per vehicle mile.


> You seem to be stuck in a car hatred mode assuming every other mode of
> transportation is far better. With the large dollars going into reduction
> of car pollution and far less dollars going into reduction of pollution in
> other modes, your hatred of modern technology is probably far off the mark.


Modern technology so far has done nothing particularly spectacular in
terms of causing fuel efficiency to increase. It's better than the 1960s
I suppose, but that change had more to do with overall vehicle size and
weight than any pure technological change.

--
-Glennl
The despammed service works OK, but unfortunately
now the spammers grab addresses for use as "from" address too!
e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.

[email protected]

In article <[email protected]>, RJ
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 20:59:11 -0800, [email protected]
> ([email protected]) wrote:
>
> >With MUNI in San Francisco, the city owns
> >a hydroelectric facility which provides a fair amountof the power for the
> >municipal trains and electric buses.
>
> That particular facility drowned a valley (Hetch Hetchy) that was said
> to be even more beautiful than Yosemite. That's pretty sad.


Yes, unfortunately the same thing happened here on the Columbia River.
The Columbia River Gorge is still a popular tourist attraction, but the
before and after photos show how much damage was done when they put in the
dams. On the other hand, electricity was only part of the reason the dams
were put in. The river current could sometimes top 60 mph and in order to
provide flood control as well as navigation it meant submerging quite a
lot of spectacular scenery.

On the other hand, if those had been coal fired power plants most Pacific
Northwest residents would be dead now from the mercury poisoning. It's
bad enough as it is that they suggest that people only eat fish in *very*
limited quantities.

--
-Glennl
The despammed service works OK, but unfortunately
now the spammers grab addresses for use as "from" address too!
e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.

Bolwerk

Bill Z. wrote:
> Bolwerk <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bill Z. wrote:
>>> Bolwerk <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>
>>> Maybe the state needs adult supervision. Maybe they should simply
>>> ask die Schweizerische Bundesbahnen to put them into receivership.
>> Well, not for lack of trying, but I think they spent tens of millions
>> of dollars refurbishing locomotives alone over the past 10 years for a
>> really botched high-speed rail initiative.
>
> Alas, people can try really hard and still need adult supervision. :-(
>
> Seriously, though, the Europeans have been doing this for years and
> they probably could run it much better than we could.

I'm sure they could, and I'd be all for it. But it seems to me that
there's a lot of protectionism when it comes to rail. With Amtrak
Acela, I think the parts had to be American-made (which means a
Bombardier plant in Vermont or something) - the project I was referring
to was actually a state partnership with Amtrak, if I recall.

I don't know if that's an issue with the state rail system (which has
been talked about, most recently by Joseph Bruno, but not seriously
attempted), but it doesn't seem like they made much effort to import
European technology and, perhaps more importantly, know-how. But then
there are probably hordes of FRA regulations preventing that too.

Bill Z.

Bolwerk <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:

> > Seriously, though, the Europeans have been doing this for years and
> > they probably could run it much better than we could.
>
> I'm sure they could, and I'd be all for it. But it seems to me that
> there's a lot of protectionism when it comes to rail. With Amtrak
> Acela, I think the parts had to be American-made (which means a
> Bombardier plant in Vermont or something) - the project I was
> referring to was actually a state partnership with Amtrak, if I recall.
>
> I don't know if that's an issue with the state rail system (which has
> been talked about, most recently by Joseph Bruno, but not seriously
> attempted), but it doesn't seem like they made much effort to import
> European technology and, perhaps more importantly, know-how. But then
> there are probably hordes of FRA regulations preventing that too.

Maybe the FRA needs some adult supervision too. :-)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bolwerk

Bill Z. wrote:
> Bolwerk <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bill Z. wrote:
>
>>> Seriously, though, the Europeans have been doing this for years and
>>> they probably could run it much better than we could.
>> I'm sure they could, and I'd be all for it. But it seems to me that
>> there's a lot of protectionism when it comes to rail. With Amtrak
>> Acela, I think the parts had to be American-made (which means a
>> Bombardier plant in Vermont or something) - the project I was
>> referring to was actually a state partnership with Amtrak, if I recall.
>>
>> I don't know if that's an issue with the state rail system (which has
>> been talked about, most recently by Joseph Bruno, but not seriously
>> attempted), but it doesn't seem like they made much effort to import
>> European technology and, perhaps more importantly, know-how. But then
>> there are probably hordes of FRA regulations preventing that too.
>
> Maybe the FRA needs some adult supervision too. :-)

Congress as well.

Jack May

"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> sechumlib <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On 2007-02-12 01:58:59 -0500, [email protected] (Bill Z.) said:
>>
>> > What are you talking about? SF muni's electric trains are powered
>> > by at least one of the above (hydroelectric power, due to
>> > the electric generator at Hetch Hetchy dam), and have been for
>> > approximately a century.
>>
>> Oh, good. Now I can be sure to ride "SF muni's electric trains"
>> whenever I want to travel between my home in Niskayuna, NY, and the
>> nearby cities of Albany and Schenectady.
>
> You mean New York does not get electric power generated at Niagra
> Falls and can't figure out how to run long-distance electric trains
> like they do in Europe?

Power on the east coast uses coal for a lot of its fuel. They just realized
that 20% of California electricity is generated by coal. Electric
propulsion creates very dirty energy.

One grid covers the western states. The electricity a train uses could be
from any power generator, coal or hydro.

Jack May

"David Nebenzahl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] .com...

> Indeed. And to answer another poster up yonder, how is it that a train (or
> for that matter any other kind of conveyance) powered by electricity
> cannot use juice produced by photovoltaics, wind, or any other non-fossil
> fuel and non-nuclear source?

Not practical to select where the energy comes from since it is all added
together on one grid for the western states.