h a l f b a k e r y
Where life irritates science.
idea:
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
meta:
news, help, about, links, report a problem
account:
Browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
or Create a new account.
|
|
|
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
NIMBY to PIMBY
Policy change to bring about Please In My Back Yard attitude | |
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."
Annotation:
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
You could also give them a more constant preferential treatment by setting up a cost differential based on proximity to the plant. The closer your house, the less you paid. If your yard shared a fence with the power plant then your bill would be zero. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
. . . 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. |
|
| |
[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. |
|
| |
Power only brings corruption and eventual disruption of the town's services like power. |
|
| |
hangingchad - True, bragging rights to free power might not be enough. I think what would probably happen in that case is that the land around power plants would quickly be rezoned industrial and a ring of companies would circle it to get the free power. If those companies built their buildings high enough, and made them aesthetically pleasing, the power plant would no longer be an eyesore because you couldn't see it (unless you were in trouble at your company and they moved you to a window office that had a beautiful view of the stack). |
|
| |
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 - 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. |
|
| |
And a 'good rate for power' can't compete with 'free power' from an industry perspective. The only thing industries would be required to do is make the outward-facing part of their building aestheically pleasing. |
|
| |
//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. |
|
| |
//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. |
|
| |
Property values reflect eyesores of all types already. Buy a generator. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
EXACTLY . . . now just look at all the people that live near there - - they're French. |
|
| |
Not in my Backyard, mister. |
|
| |
//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). |
|
| |
I'm my town water plant's biggest fan, by these standards. |
|
| |
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? |
|
| |
// 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. |
|
| |