In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

So why hasn't California built any oil, coal, or hydroelectric power platns
in the last ten years?

Some folks would say it's the "NIMBY" problem (Not In My Back Yard), but I say
it's actually a "BANANA" problem (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near
Anything). It's not just generating facilities - transmission facilities have
the same problem.

I'll tell you. They too are being blocked by the
environmentalists.

Are you sure that's the only reason? Are none of the environmental
considerations reasonable? Think about how often the ground shakes out there...

Are they also economically unfeasible? It's unlikely.

No, it's very likely. Here's why:

First, for most of the past 10 years, investment capital has been drawn to the
high-payoff telecom and dotcom industries. Until the bubble burst, those were a
lot more promising to investors. A server farm can be put up in a fraction of
the time that a generating plant requires, with the promise (back then) of a
much larger ROI.

Second, the West has a long history of cheap electricity from govt. sponsored
projects, most commonly hydro. What dies a typical Californian pay per kWH?
Here in Philly, we pay something like 11 cents / kWH residential. NYC folks pay
even more. What do they pay in SF or LA? (If the retail is cheap, wholesale
must be even cheaper)

Third, the whold deregulation and Enron-type mess has caused anyone with any
sense to avoid building actual facilties like the plague, because the market
(which used to be one of the most stable and predictable ) became completely
unstable.

Fourth, the environmental/NIMBY/BANANA effects are greatest and most powerful
in places like CA. They definitely play a role - but not the only role.

73 de Jim, N2EY