Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Romantic, but doomed to fail.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                             

NIMBY to PIMBY

Policy change to bring about Please In My Back Yard attitude
  (+15, -5)(+15, -5)
(+15, -5)
  [vote for,
against]

Give preferential treatment to those electric power consumers within sight of a power plant, transformer substation, power line etc. In the event of power shortages take steps to ensure that these consumers are the last to lose their power or have low voltage.

Were this politically possible in time a home owner would invite his guest out to the deck and point with pride at the cooling towers in the distance. He might say "This place cost more because it's within sight of the plant but it's well worth it. Remember last Summers heat wave? We never had a power outage."

hangingchad, Jan 07 2005

[link]






       Seems reasonable, as long as their priority comes after things like hospitals etc. After all, Mikey and Stan is probably going to need hospital treatment at some point.
david_scothern, Jan 07 2005
  

       There's probably more transient thousand volt spikes closer to the source.   

       I'll take mine, filtered downline, through multiple xformers for a smoother sine.
mensmaximus, Jan 07 2005
  

       . . . not so much. I don't think this would work. How often does the power go out in the average home? Once a year, maybe, and even then, only for a few hours. I wouldn't pay more for an eyesore and assurance that my power will stay on for two hours more than the guy down the block. Further, my electric bill is on the order of $50 a month. I don't think that could be discounted enough for me to live near a hideous power plant.
contracts, Jan 07 2005
  

       [longshot9999] My hypothetical home owner would not be proud to be within sight of the power infrastructure if it cost him less money. On the contrary, he would feel he had compromised his life style to save a few bucks. Even if he had more reliable power he would feel that others would look down on him because he spent less. To foster PIMBY, reliability and availability of electric powere should be the award. Towns should seek to have a power plant, wind turbine farm or whatever located near them in the same way they sought to be on the main line of a railroad in the 19th century.
hangingchad, Jan 07 2005
  

       Power only brings corruption and eventual disruption of the town's services like power.
mensmaximus, Jan 07 2005
  

       longshot9999 - Industry can often get a good rate for power without any relocating. For the general public the outlined policy simply makes the power company a better neighbor. If a location is coveted because it is within sight of something can that something be an eyesore?
hangingchad, Jan 07 2005
  

       //If a location is coveted because it is within sight of something can that something be an eyesore?//   

       Right, and what you're missing is that no one wants to live next to an eyesore. Nothing makes power-plants attractive. They are ugly and dangerous and unpleasant to be near, and your idea doesn't explain a feasible method to change that - - the idea relies on it being changed. Hence, fishbone. It'd be cool if you could do it though, and also make it coveted to leave near airports, train-tracks, and pig-rendering plants.
contracts, Jan 07 2005
  

       //Towns should seek to have a power plant, wind turbine farm or whatever located near them in the same way they sought to be on the main line of a railroad in the 19th century.//   

       Are you serious? I hope this never happens! This idea is so silly I can't help but laugh. lol.
PinkDrink, Jan 07 2005
  

       Property values reflect eyesores of all types already. Buy a generator.
yabba do yabba dabba, Jan 07 2005
  

       contracts - I don't propose that people would want to share a fence with a power plant or live hard by a wind turbine farm. I do propose that living a discreet distance from such facilities might become more acceptable if there were a real benefit. The trouble with the NIMBY crowd is that they don't just keep it out of their back yard, they keep it out of the state.   

       Many people considered the Eiffel Tower an eyesore when it was new.
hangingchad, Jan 07 2005
  

       EXACTLY . . . now just look at all the people that live near there - - they're French.   

       Not in my Backyard, mister.
contracts, Jan 07 2005
  

       //There's probably more transient thousand volt spikes closer to the source.//   

       I don't think very many spikes originate at the power plant. They're generally cause either be lightning strikes between the plant and the consumer, or by higher-voltage lines falling on lower-voltage ones (again, between the plant and the consumer). I see no reason to believe the risk of spikes would be greater near the plant than far away from it; if anything, I'd expect the reverse to be true (though the difference would likely not be large in any case).
supercat, Jan 07 2005
  

       I get it. Vote: "for"
Mustardface, Jan 08 2005
  

       I'm my town water plant's biggest fan, by these standards.
reensure, Jan 08 2005
  

       This has me thinking about what is the optimum wave form that my appliances could most efficiently use versus the supplier's computer designed minimum transmission loss waveform.   

       Can I take 'strips/sections' out of my AC waveform that I'm using and sell them to my neighbor? As in could my computer figure out how to efficiently run two motors for the price of one by manipulating the AC to each?   

       Could a home computer juggle all the AC appliances in the house to run them more efficiently?
mensmaximus, Jan 08 2005
  

       // I guess I'm just not sure having an uninteruptible power supply would be coveted enough to make the cooling towers a joyful sight instead of an eyesore.//   

       Longshot9999 - NIMBY to PIMBY would most likely be effective in those places such as California where NIMBY attitude has resulted in a significant shortage of power plants. The PIMBY policy gives a reasonable incentive for allowing the construction of new power plants in a locale. (The new Banning power plant will be first and foremost for Banning. When Los Angeles is hurting for power Bannings lights and industry will continue at full voltage.). After this policy has been set property within sight of existing power plants would also have this "reliable power" advantage and the NIMBY attitude becomes even more foolish. In time a cooling tower will bring a smile instead of a frown.
hangingchad, Jan 09 2005
  

       Party in my backyard.
normzone, Jan 09 2005
  

       There are people who consider construction equippment, trains, and hydroelectric dams to be beautiful. Most of these people are engineers, but an eyesore is not an eyesore to everyone any more than modern art is paint randomly splattered on a canvass to everyone.   

       My dad would shit bricks to have cooling towers in his backyard.
ye_river_xiv, Jan 25 2010
  

       I would love to 'PIMBY' a central office from the local telco so that I can get a T-1 line relatively cheaply.
Jscotty, Jan 25 2010
  

       [hangingchad] Yes, when I read this I thought of California too where referendums and NIMBYs have made electrical power unreliable. I think people vote seperately for no more power stations in California and no more price rises, inflicting this kind of disaster on themselves.   

       However I think increased power reliability and reduced cost is too feeble an incentive, unless you live somewhere with really dodgy power generation. Maybe we need a civic anthem to swell the pride of those tolerating things in their own backyard ...
Aristotle, Jan 26 2010
  

       I think that I would PIMBY a power plant just so I can taunt my neighbors during a major outage. It would be so worth it.
Jscotty, Jan 26 2010
  

       How about: government creates a power company with planning permission and enough money to set up a plant. All the shares of said company are distributed among nearby residents.   

       Since the locals would then own the company, they would then be within their rights to shut it down if they felt they had made a mistake.
Bad Jim, Jan 29 2010
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle