"John R. Carroll" wrote:

GM won't pull the trigger on a commitment to buy the batteries.
They can't and what they are going to try and do is have the US Treasury or
Congress fund the construction of US plants directly.
Let me be clear. GM wants the taxpayers to fund the construction of plants
for either the Chinese or Koreans.

I'm trying not to swear. Are they freaking nuts? If we pay for it, build it here. At
least our country has a chance to improve the technology and gain competitive advantage.


Ford Motor, on the other hand, can conclude an agreement and has the funds
and rating in the bond markets so that any order they place will be a real
order rather than a joke that you couldn't use to wipe your ass with. They
also haven't commited.


Does that sound like cutting edge, innovative thinking or stupidity?

Why should Ford, if GM gets a handout like that, it would put Ford at a disadvantage. If
your competitor is subsidized by the government it tilts the playing field.



Wes

Wes wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

GM won't pull the trigger on a commitment to buy the batteries.
They can't and what they are going to try and do is have the US
Treasury or Congress fund the construction of US plants directly.
Let me be clear. GM wants the taxpayers to fund the construction of
plants for either the Chinese or Koreans.

I'm trying not to swear. Are they freaking nuts? If we pay for it,
build it here. At least our country has a chance to improve the
technology and gain competitive advantage.


Ford Motor, on the other hand, can conclude an agreement and has the
funds and rating in the bond markets so that any order they place
will be a real order rather than a joke that you couldn't use to
wipe your ass with. They also haven't commited.


Does that sound like cutting edge, innovative thinking or stupidity?

Why should Ford, if GM gets a handout like that, it would put Ford at
a disadvantage. If your competitor is subsidized by the government
it tilts the playing field.

Because you can't lead from behind Wes. Ford could, and should, sieze the
moment. I think if they get the right signals from the incoming
administration they will.

--

L8TR
'Tater

"Dick 'Tater" wrote:

Does that sound like cutting edge, innovative thinking or stupidity?

Why should Ford, if GM gets a handout like that, it would put Ford at
a disadvantage. If your competitor is subsidized by the government
it tilts the playing field.

Because you can't lead from behind Wes. Ford could, and should, sieze the
moment. I think if they get the right signals from the incoming
administration they will.


I wonder if that would be all that legal? It would tend to have to be back channel in
nature. I doubt the incoming administration would publicly announce we picked Ford to
survive, so sorry GM.

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Dick 'Tater" wrote:

Does that sound like cutting edge, innovative thinking or stupidity?

Why should Ford, if GM gets a handout like that, it would put Ford at
a disadvantage. If your competitor is subsidized by the government
it tilts the playing field.

Because you can't lead from behind Wes. Ford could, and should, sieze the
moment. I think if they get the right signals from the incoming
administration they will.


I wonder if that would be all that legal? It would tend to have to be
back channel in
nature. I doubt the incoming administration would publicly announce we
picked Ford to
survive, so sorry GM.

The signal they will be looking for is a tax on gasoline or some other
genuine indication that if Ford jumps out they won't get clobbered.
One difficulty that goes largely unmentioned when people talk about hybrids
is the electricity.
It has to came from somewhere. Unless Obama and Co are serious about energy
Ford could end up producing and selling a million vehicles that would bring
the power grid down if plugged in all at once.

There needs to be a coordinated effort by the private sector to make all of
this happen more or less simultaneously.
That's going to require both political leadership, investment by both the
private and public sector, and then a couple well written laws.
There is a lot to think about and then get done and it's going to take all
of the parties working together to get it done.

JC

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:36:37 -0500, Wes wrote:

I wonder if that would be all that legal? It would tend to have to be back channel in
nature. I doubt the incoming administration would publicly announce we picked Ford to
survive, so sorry GM.

Wes
-----------
This would be historically congruent. At least back to
Eisenhower, GM has been a "Republican Company" (e.g. "Engine
Charlie" Wilson as SecDef under Eisenhower) while Ford has been a
"Democratic Company," (e.g. MacNamera as SecDef under Johnson).

As the data continues to bubble to the surface, one stinky item
after another, it is becoming ever more apparent that GM (and
GMAC) has no future short of total nationalization, while Ford
may well survive and prosper, particularly if GM and Chrysler go
b/k, and Ford is able to pick up most of this market share.

While I am not yet ready to call it, there is a fair chance that
Chrysler will never reopen after the January shutdown.

Over Xmas/New Years I was at my brothers in Fayetteville,
Arkansas, and all the new car dealers including the
imports/transplants are jammed to the gunnels with new cars [most
of them high end Hummers, Cadillacs, Lincolns Chryslers, etc.]
and all the used lots are crammed with used vehicles including
lots of trucks and SUVs. While not scientific, what does the new
and used light vehicle inventory look like in your area. If you
post be sure to include nearest big city and state.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 14:49:51 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

The signal they will be looking for is a tax on gasoline or some other
genuine indication that if Ford jumps out they won't get clobbered.
One difficulty that goes largely unmentioned when people talk about hybrids
is the electricity.
It has to came from somewhere. Unless Obama and Co are serious about energy
Ford could end up producing and selling a million vehicles that would bring
the power grid down if plugged in all at once.
-------------
This just in on the batteries. Note that the taxpayers will be
putting up 78% of the capital, with possibly more from state ED
grants, tax abatements, etc.

---------------
snip
A123 Systems says the plant will be the first of several across
the country that could eventually employ 14,000 people and supply
batteries for 5 million hybrid vehicles or 500,000 plug-in
hybrids by 2013. The company says it will spend $2.3 billion on
the factories, and has applied for $1.8 billion in federal loans
under the $25-billion advanced technology program that Congress
funded last year.
snip
---------------
http://www.freep.com/article/2009010...ESS01/90107042

Also note that at this point this is all plans and no shovel.

Ford is introducing some major advances in hybrids
http://www.freep.com/article/20090107/COL14/90107105
with a fully optioned cost of about 32k$. This would appear to
blow the Volt out of the water at 40K$.

Who/where are the commercials suppliers/sources of lithium? Are
we trading an oil dependency for a lithium dependency? (I
understand this also treats depression...)


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 14:49:51 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

The signal they will be looking for is a tax on gasoline or some other
genuine indication that if Ford jumps out they won't get clobbered.
One difficulty that goes largely unmentioned when people talk about
hybrids
is the electricity.
It has to came from somewhere. Unless Obama and Co are serious about
energy
Ford could end up producing and selling a million vehicles that would
bring
the power grid down if plugged in all at once.
-------------
This just in on the batteries. Note that the taxpayers will be
putting up 78% of the capital, with possibly more from state ED
grants, tax abatements, etc.

---------------
snip
A123 Systems says the plant will be the first of several across
the country that could eventually employ 14,000 people and supply
batteries for 5 million hybrid vehicles or 500,000 plug-in
hybrids by 2013. The company says it will spend $2.3 billion on
the factories, and has applied for $1.8 billion in federal loans
under the $25-billion advanced technology program that Congress
funded last year.
snip
---------------
http://www.freep.com/article/2009010...ESS01/90107042

Also note that at this point this is all plans and no shovel.

Ford is introducing some major advances in hybrids
http://www.freep.com/article/20090107/COL14/90107105
with a fully optioned cost of about 32k$. This would appear to
blow the Volt out of the water at 40K$.

Just keep in mind that you're comparing apples to oranges, George. The new
Fords are conventional, parallel hybrids with no plug-in capacity (not that
it would be useful for anything -- they won't go far enough on the
batteries). The Volt is a serial hybrid, the first in production, and it's
designed as a 40-mile plug-in. Even if they wind up getting 25 miles on
plug-in, it will be a huge success and their fleet mileage will dwarf
anything ever built.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 14:49:51 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

The signal they will be looking for is a tax on gasoline or some other
genuine indication that if Ford jumps out they won't get clobbered.
One difficulty that goes largely unmentioned when people talk about
hybrids
is the electricity.
It has to came from somewhere. Unless Obama and Co are serious about
energy
Ford could end up producing and selling a million vehicles that would
bring
the power grid down if plugged in all at once.
-------------
This just in on the batteries. Note that the taxpayers will be
putting up 78% of the capital, with possibly more from state ED
grants, tax abatements, etc.

---------------
snip
A123 Systems says the plant will be the first of several across
the country that could eventually employ 14,000 people and supply
batteries for 5 million hybrid vehicles or 500,000 plug-in
hybrids by 2013. The company says it will spend $2.3 billion on
the factories, and has applied for $1.8 billion in federal loans
under the $25-billion advanced technology program that Congress
funded last year.
snip
---------------
http://www.freep.com/article/2009010...ESS01/90107042

Also note that at this point this is all plans and no shovel.

Ford is introducing some major advances in hybrids
http://www.freep.com/article/20090107/COL14/90107105
with a fully optioned cost of about 32k$. This would appear to
blow the Volt out of the water at 40K$.

Just keep in mind that you're comparing apples to oranges, George. The new
Fords are conventional, parallel hybrids with no plug-in capacity (not
that it would be useful for anything -- they won't go far enough on the
batteries). The Volt is a serial hybrid, the first in production,

The first serial hybrid in real production is that Chinese thingy Ed.
The Prius plant is on hold so unless you want to lok at Fords Hydrogen Fuel
Cell test, there isn't anything in North America.

As far as GM is concerned, their salvation might lie in the assertion that
they are on the way to lowering their per vehicle cosr by $5K.
I'm skeptical but dumping their health care and pension benefit overhead
combined with the downsizing under way might get that result.

All they need to do then is come up with a ten thousand dollar vehicle that
works.

JC

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 14:49:51 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

The signal they will be looking for is a tax on gasoline or some other
genuine indication that if Ford jumps out they won't get clobbered.
One difficulty that goes largely unmentioned when people talk about
hybrids
is the electricity.
It has to came from somewhere. Unless Obama and Co are serious about
energy
Ford could end up producing and selling a million vehicles that would
bring
the power grid down if plugged in all at once.
-------------
This just in on the batteries. Note that the taxpayers will be
putting up 78% of the capital, with possibly more from state ED
grants, tax abatements, etc.

---------------
snip
A123 Systems says the plant will be the first of several across
the country that could eventually employ 14,000 people and supply
batteries for 5 million hybrid vehicles or 500,000 plug-in
hybrids by 2013. The company says it will spend $2.3 billion on
the factories, and has applied for $1.8 billion in federal loans
under the $25-billion advanced technology program that Congress
funded last year.
snip
---------------
http://www.freep.com/article/2009010...ESS01/90107042

Also note that at this point this is all plans and no shovel.

Ford is introducing some major advances in hybrids
http://www.freep.com/article/20090107/COL14/90107105
with a fully optioned cost of about 32k$. This would appear to
blow the Volt out of the water at 40K$.

Just keep in mind that you're comparing apples to oranges, George. The
new Fords are conventional, parallel hybrids with no plug-in capacity
(not that it would be useful for anything -- they won't go far enough on
the batteries). The Volt is a serial hybrid, the first in production,

The first serial hybrid in real production is that Chinese thingy Ed.

Then the first serial hybrid that any Westerner would drive. g There are
some neat serial hybrids running around, built by hobbyists. One guy even
has an all-electric Honda CRX that runs something like 100 - 120 miles on a
charge. He won't say how much he has invested, but my understanding is that
he has over $30,000 worth of ultracapacitors for acceleration, alone. God
knows what the batteries cost.

The Prius plant is on hold so unless you want to lok at Fords Hydrogen
Fuel Cell test, there isn't anything in North America.

You mean, no serial hybrids? Right, there are none in production. There are
lots of parallel hybrids being sold by a variety of manufacturers, including
Ford and GM.


As far as GM is concerned, their salvation might lie in the assertion that
they are on the way to lowering their per vehicle cosr by $5K.
I'm skeptical but dumping their health care and pension benefit overhead
combined with the downsizing under way might get that result.

All they need to do then is come up with a ten thousand dollar vehicle
that works.

Then all they need to do is to find someone who will buy it. It would need
to have a high roof so Richard doesn't have to bend over. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

Then all they need to do is to find someone who will buy it. It would need
to have a high roof so Richard doesn't have to bend over. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress




Hey now, I'm not the one that drives a Ford Probe in public!

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:47:18 -0600, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

snip
While I am not yet ready to call it, there is a fair chance that
Chrysler will never reopen after the January shutdown.
snip

Some more insight on this from the Detroit Free Press
http://www.freep.com/article/20090108/COL34/90108034
also lots of good comments/observations
http://www.freep.com/article/2009010...#pluckcomments


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

The signal they will be looking for is a tax on gasoline or some other
genuine indication that if Ford jumps out they won't get clobbered.
One difficulty that goes largely unmentioned when people talk about
hybrids
is the electricity.
It has to came from somewhere. Unless Obama and Co are serious about
energy
Ford could end up producing and selling a million vehicles that would
bring
the power grid down if plugged in all at once.


We have the carbon crowd wanting to get rid of coal fired power plants and
stopping the
construction of new ones so expanding our electrical generation seems a
bit difficult.
Wind generation isn't very significant.

Well Wes, you guys have that boondoggle they stopped working on in Midland.
Michigan is ripe for nuclear power with all of the water around.


Some people don't understand just how taxed their local distribution
system is. We don't
notice that until the lights go out. Maybe someone on the list that is
more familiar with
this can pipe up on this. A lot of housing developement went in w/o a lot
of upgrade to
the local distribution systems.

This is something the western states are accutely aware of. We don't
actually have power outages here, we have distribution failures.
The result is the same but the fix is entirely different.

Upgrading the system turns into a fight over NIMBY or
front yard for that matter. Generally means taller poles and another
substation that no
one wants in their designer neighborhood. Up the road, the locals fought
an expansion so
long that federals rules on reliablity changed so now the system they
didn't want has
become even bigger.

Do what San Diego did - put it all underground.


Taxing gasoline to make batteries more viable seems at odds with how Obama
wants to
stimulate the economy by tax credits.

Not really and the tax credits have nothing to do with gasoline.


Long term, most passenger vehicles are going to be a hybrid, I think that
is a given. How
the vehicle is constructed may be a mix of lotsa engine with not so much
battery to not
much engine with a lot more battery. Everyone has different needs.

I have read a little about LiPo batteries and they sure sound good. High
energy density
and if I read correctly, not as nasty to dispose of. Expensive though. So
were computers
once.

The cost of a top of the line PC CAD workstation hasn't changed much over
the years Wes. What's changed enormously is the performance.

JC

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

We have the carbon crowd wanting to get rid of coal fired power plants and
stopping the
construction of new ones so expanding our electrical generation seems a
bit difficult.
Wind generation isn't very significant.

Well Wes, you guys have that boondoggle they stopped working on in Midland.
Michigan is ripe for nuclear power with all of the water around.

Michigan has so much going for it and we can't get out of the ditch. I sure hope Grandholm
doesn't get on Obama's economic recovery team. I'd rather have him have success.



Some people don't understand just how taxed their local distribution
system is. We don't
notice that until the lights go out. Maybe someone on the list that is
more familiar with
this can pipe up on this. A lot of housing developement went in w/o a lot
of upgrade to
the local distribution systems.

This is something the western states are accutely aware of. We don't
actually have power outages here, we have distribution failures.
The result is the same but the fix is entirely different.



Upgrading the system turns into a fight over NIMBY or
front yard for that matter. Generally means taller poles and another
substation that no
one wants in their designer neighborhood. Up the road, the locals fought
an expansion so
long that federals rules on reliablity changed so now the system they
didn't want has
become even bigger.

Do what San Diego did - put it all underground.

That is very expensive though.


Taxing gasoline to make batteries more viable seems at odds with how Obama
wants to
stimulate the economy by tax credits.

Not really and the tax credits have nothing to do with gasoline.

Dollars are dollars. Add them here and take them back there and they cancel out.


Long term, most passenger vehicles are going to be a hybrid, I think that
is a given. How
the vehicle is constructed may be a mix of lotsa engine with not so much
battery to not
much engine with a lot more battery. Everyone has different needs.

I have read a little about LiPo batteries and they sure sound good. High
energy density
and if I read correctly, not as nasty to dispose of. Expensive though. So
were computers
once.

The cost of a top of the line PC CAD workstation hasn't changed much over
the years Wes. What's changed enormously is the performance.

I don't doubt you on that but the typical PC has dropped significantly in price. Cutting
edge always demands a premium.

Btw, saw you mentioned you were thinking of moving. Where to?

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Upgrading the system turns into a fight over NIMBY or
front yard for that matter. Generally means taller poles and another
substation that no
one wants in their designer neighborhood. Up the road, the locals
fought
an expansion so
long that federals rules on reliablity changed so now the system they
didn't want has
become even bigger.

Do what San Diego did - put it all underground.

That is very expensive though.

Yeah but so is fixing above ground systems all the time.




Taxing gasoline to make batteries more viable seems at odds with how
Obama
wants to
stimulate the economy by tax credits.

Not really and the tax credits have nothing to do with gasoline.

Dollars are dollars. Add them here and take them back there and they
cancel out.

With the following exception. A properly sized tax discourages the behavior
being taxed.



Long term, most passenger vehicles are going to be a hybrid, I think
that
is a given. How
the vehicle is constructed may be a mix of lotsa engine with not so much
battery to not
much engine with a lot more battery. Everyone has different needs.

I have read a little about LiPo batteries and they sure sound good.
High
energy density
and if I read correctly, not as nasty to dispose of. Expensive though.
So
were computers
once.

The cost of a top of the line PC CAD workstation hasn't changed much over
the years Wes. What's changed enormously is the performance.

I don't doubt you on that but the typical PC has dropped significantly in
price. Cutting
edge always demands a premium.

It's a competetiveness issue Wes.


Btw, saw you mentioned you were thinking of moving. Where to?

I'd like to have three or four thousand square feet of shop space intstead
of the 800 I have now.

JC

In article ,
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Upgrading the system turns into a fight over NIMBY or
front yard for that matter. Generally means taller poles and another
substation that no
one wants in their designer neighborhood. Up the road, the locals
fought
an expansion so
long that federals rules on reliablity changed so now the system they
didn't want has
become even bigger.

Do what San Diego did - put it all underground.

That is very expensive though.

Yeah but so is fixing above ground systems all the time.

The old rule of thumb is that underground costs five times as much as on
poles.

Columbia, MD has all underground utilities. Rouse (sp?), the developer,
did it that way from the beginning, which cut the initial cost a lot,
and pretty well eliminated maintenance costs (compared to above-ground).

Joe Gwinn

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Upgrading the system turns into a fight over NIMBY or
front yard for that matter. Generally means taller poles and another
substation that no
one wants in their designer neighborhood. Up the road, the locals
fought
an expansion so
long that federals rules on reliablity changed so now the system they
didn't want has
become even bigger.

Do what San Diego did - put it all underground.

That is very expensive though.

Yeah but so is fixing above ground systems all the time.

The old rule of thumb is that underground costs five times as much as on
poles.

For installation, and these systems aren't funded the way generation is.



Columbia, MD has all underground utilities. Rouse (sp?), the developer,
did it that way from the beginning, which cut the initial cost a lot,
and pretty well eliminated maintenance costs (compared to above-ground).

Above ground makes sense in limited cases but underground systems make sense
fo everyone except developers interested in keeping their up front costs as
low as possible.
A big upgrade to the delivery and transmission infrastructure in the
immediate future is a good idea from any point of view.
Diong it underground and converting existing systems would insure maximum
return of whatever investment was made. I don't have any data but it
wouldn't surprise me to learn that the pay back period is fairly short.

--

JC

In article ,
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Upgrading the system turns into a fight over NIMBY or
front yard for that matter. Generally means taller poles and another
substation that no
one wants in their designer neighborhood. Up the road, the locals
fought
an expansion so
long that federals rules on reliablity changed so now the system they
didn't want has
become even bigger.

Do what San Diego did - put it all underground.

That is very expensive though.

Yeah but so is fixing above ground systems all the time.

The old rule of thumb is that underground costs five times as much as on
poles.

For installation, and these systems aren't funded the way generation is.



Columbia, MD has all underground utilities. Rouse (sp?), the developer,
did it that way from the beginning, which cut the initial cost a lot,
and pretty well eliminated maintenance costs (compared to above-ground).

Above ground makes sense in limited cases but underground systems make sense
fo everyone except developers interested in keeping their up front costs as
low as possible.

I'm confused: Rouse *is* a developer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_W._Rouse.

Specifically, the developer of Columbia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia,_Maryland.

Joe Gwinn


A big upgrade to the delivery and transmission infrastructure in the
immediate future is a good idea from any point of view.
Diong it underground and converting existing systems would insure maximum
return of whatever investment was made. I don't have any data but it
wouldn't surprise me to learn that the pay back period is fairly short.

--

JC

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Upgrading the system turns into a fight over NIMBY or
front yard for that matter. Generally means taller poles and
another
substation that no
one wants in their designer neighborhood. Up the road, the locals
fought
an expansion so
long that federals rules on reliablity changed so now the system
they
didn't want has
become even bigger.

Do what San Diego did - put it all underground.

That is very expensive though.

Yeah but so is fixing above ground systems all the time.

The old rule of thumb is that underground costs five times as much as
on
poles.

For installation, and these systems aren't funded the way generation is.



Columbia, MD has all underground utilities. Rouse (sp?), the
developer,
did it that way from the beginning, which cut the initial cost a lot,
and pretty well eliminated maintenance costs (compared to
above-ground).

Above ground makes sense in limited cases but underground systems make
sense
fo everyone except developers interested in keeping their up front costs
as
low as possible.

I'm confused: Rouse *is* a developer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_W._Rouse.

Specifically, the developer of Columbia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia,_Maryland.


But not typical. There will always be companies around that understand the
difference between price and value.
Some of them even have what it takes to put value first.

JC

In article ,
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Upgrading the system turns into a fight over NIMBY or
front yard for that matter. Generally means taller poles and
another
substation that no
one wants in their designer neighborhood. Up the road, the locals
fought
an expansion so
long that federals rules on reliablity changed so now the system
they
didn't want has
become even bigger.

Do what San Diego did - put it all underground.

That is very expensive though.

Yeah but so is fixing above ground systems all the time.

The old rule of thumb is that underground costs five times as much as
on
poles.

For installation, and these systems aren't funded the way generation is.



Columbia, MD has all underground utilities. Rouse (sp?), the
developer,
did it that way from the beginning, which cut the initial cost a lot,
and pretty well eliminated maintenance costs (compared to
above-ground).

Above ground makes sense in limited cases but underground systems make
sense
fo everyone except developers interested in keeping their up front costs
as
low as possible.

I'm confused: Rouse *is* a developer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_W._Rouse.

Specifically, the developer of Columbia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia,_Maryland.


But not typical. There will always be companies around that understand the
difference between price and value.
Some of them even have what it takes to put value first.

Rouse is not a small developer. Nor is he unprofitable.

The difference was that Rouse built Columbia from scratch, so there was
nothing in the way, and he was able to do everything at once. This cut
the costs considerably.

Joe Gwinn