|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Sept 8, 2020 14:29:48 GMT -8
To tack on to beaverbeliever said, California's GDP growth in 2019 was 15th in the country behind Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. That is behind the three states that touch California and the five states that touch those three states. Moreover, California imports approximately 26% of its energy. California imports more energy than the two largest net importing states combined: Ohio and Virginia. The states surrounding California subsidize California's energy needs. And California's energy rates are still almost double what they are in the surrounding three states. California also imports water from Arizona, Nevada and Oregon. California gets 4.4 million acre feet of water per year (more than 10% of its total usage) from the Colorado River alone. Without the other states around to prop California up, California would not be California. The state is an unsustainable economic mirage. I didn't know that the Colorado River belonged to Arizona and Nevada. That's new to me. The mouth of the river is at the Gulf of California, also known as the Cortez Sea. That's Mexico. Maybe the river belongs to them. I've done a lot of large development work in California. California has the greatest percentage use of renewables of all the states. California spends billions and billions of dollars on that. The water from Oregon is from the Klamath basin. It goes to support the San Joaquin valley agricultural industry. It's not used for residential. And you would be amazed at the mitigation efforts even in the solar plants to protect Kangaroo rats. California's environmental standards are the strictest of any state. Rivers generally belong to upriver states. This is generally true within the United States and internationally. But not on the Colorado River. California gets 4.4 million acre-ft/year of the Colorado River's water, which is the largest share of any of the seven states on the Colorado. (New Mexico and Wyoming are not on the Colorado but are on tributaries.) And California gets the most despite its watershed being the smallest of the seven states and with no major tributaries flowing through California. By way of example, almost all of the water in Arizona feeds into the Colorado River (only some areas along the Mexican border go elsewhere), but Arizona is limited to 2.85 million acre-ft/yr. Instead, the water is diverted into the Coachella and Imperial Valleys, Los Angeles and San Diego. I was not talking about the Klamath Basin Water. There is no diversion of water there that takes water from Oregon. There are diversions, once the water crosses into California that feed into the Sacramento Valley. It is an oversimplification, but the San Joaquin Valley is the South half of the Central Valley. The Sacramento Valley is the North End of the Central Valley. The two rivers meet and jointly feed into the Bay. The diversion of water that I was referring to was the diversion of the Pit River. The North Fork of the Pit River used to connect to Goose Lake in Lake County (south of Lakeview, which is an increasingly ironic name) to the point that Goose Lake no longer feeds into the Pit River and was dry from 2013 to 2015. The diversion still keeps Goose Lake unnaturally low. The upshot of all of this is California decimates the Colorado and Goose Lake watersheds and ecosystems therein, but we are supposed to give them a pass, because they are spending billions and billions on renewables? Give me a break! Also, even after spending billions and billions on renewables, California still imports millions of Mwh from the other States in the WECC (mostly) and internationally. And they have the third-lowest GDP per Mwh consumed of any state in the country.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Sept 8, 2020 14:43:33 GMT -8
My post was in direct response to ATown's post and the other posts before and after ATown's post. The previous posts mentioned housing prices, how great the economy of California is and how much the Federal government takes in in taxes. If I am hijacking the thread, so be it. California is heavily subsidized by the states around it. California is unsustainable. It speaks to the great management of the states around it and the Federal government that California can do what it does without more problems. California is a mirage. It is an excellent example of what not to do. To try and assert otherwise completely ignores the larger picture. As Arizona, Nevada and Oregon continue to fill up, California is going to be put under more and more pressure to be more self-sustaining. I lived in California for three years before the Great Recession. The best view of California is in my rearview mirror as I cross over the Colorado River. The problem with California still is that there are too many Californians. I give about zero total f%#*s about California. My entire point is the idea that the west coast is full of stupid and/or incompetent socialist is... stupid. Long story short, 40 million people do not move to a place because it sucks. You do not build the largest economy in the US, by a massive margin, because everybody there are morons. Likewise, if you are going to put 40 million people in one place, you are going to have problems. Anybody can cherry pick whatever stat they want to make whatever point they want to make. Anybody can continue to be a malcontent about anything. It doesn't matter where you live, or how great the place is, there WILL be somebody there that hates it and thinks everything is terrible. As the old saying goes, if every where you go, it smells like s%#t, it is time to look under your shoes. People move to California because it is a visually beautiful place with lots to see and do. And with a Mediterranean Climate that has been a hit with people everywhere, since Romulus built Rome on April 21, 753 BC, if you believe the stories. (Or, depending what stories you enjoy, since the Phoenicians built Byblos.) California has the third-lowest GDP per Mwh consumed still. The GDP is great, but we should be seeing a bigger bang for our buck for all of the power that Arizona, Nevada and Oregon supply it, not the mention the unwanted water subsidies that the three states are supplying California with its necessary environmental devastation.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Sept 8, 2020 14:47:46 GMT -8
My post was in direct response to ATown's post and the other posts before and after ATown's post. The previous posts mentioned housing prices, how great the economy of California is and how much the Federal government takes in in taxes. If I am hijacking the thread, so be it. California is heavily subsidized by the states around it. California is unsustainable. It speaks to the great management of the states around it and the Federal government that California can do what it does without more problems. California is a mirage. It is an excellent example of what not to do. To try and assert otherwise completely ignores the larger picture. As Arizona, Nevada and Oregon continue to fill up, California is going to be put under more and more pressure to be more self-sustaining. I lived in California for three years before the Great Recession. The best view of California is in my rearview mirror as I cross over the Colorado River. The problem with California still is that there are too many Californians. comparing total gdp to gdp growth. Cool. So you’re saying a state with smaller total gdp has a faster growth rate. And that proves what? GDP growth is the general measurement of fiscal health in capitalism. You generally want at least a 3% growth rate, which the United States hit in 2018 for the first time since 2005. That shows a healthy economy. The better the growth rate, the better the economy.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Sept 8, 2020 14:57:39 GMT -8
comparing total gdp to gdp growth. Cool. So you’re saying a state with smaller total gdp has a faster growth rate. And that proves what? FWIW, and not that I want to keep talking about California or even defending a place I really don't even care about.... their actual growth in economy between 2018 and 2019 was close to half of Oregon's total economic output. California grew one half an Oregon... yeah, that ranked 15th in percent growth, but lets think of the magnitude involved here. California was doing better than most states last year. A 2.6% growth rate is nothing to sneeze at. Still, I would point out that it is one of the least efficient states in turning energy and water into money. The importation of 50 million+ Mwh/year. You would expect California to generate even more money, if it were competently run. I would argue that California does great despite its government, not because of it. And anyone talking Calexit, if that is still a thing, is a dope. In fact, I would encourage all of the Californians out there for Calexit. I would love for Arizona and Oregon (especially and Colorado, Nevada and Utah to a lesser extent) to get their water back and to be able to effectively manage the animals and plants dependent upon that water, and for those states to make real money on exporting energy to California.
|
|
|
Post by beaverstever on Sept 8, 2020 16:32:01 GMT -8
I'm not really getting what point Winky is getting to, other than the dislike for CA's govt.
Based on your views of water rights though, I assume you take a very friendly view of the Canadian's perspective on the Columbia's management?
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Sept 9, 2020 11:52:01 GMT -8
I'm not really getting what point Winky is getting to, other than the dislike for CA's govt. Based on your views of water rights though, I assume you take a very friendly view of the Canadian's perspective on the Columbia's management? By the way, what does Oregon's GDP per Mwh look like compared to British Columbia and Alberta's?
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Sept 9, 2020 13:12:25 GMT -8
I'm not really getting what point Winky is getting to, other than the dislike for CA's govt. Based on your views of water rights though, I assume you take a very friendly view of the Canadian's perspective on the Columbia's management? The Columbia River Watershed is larger than the Colorado River Watershed and contains more than 12 times as much water. The Columbia River is the largest river by volume that empties directly into the Pacific Ocean in the World. The volume of the Columbia is so great that the true problem with the Columbia River Watershed is not how to divaricate the water but instead how to divaricate water storage. After Vanport was destroyed in the 1948 Columbia River Flood and in order to get the Bonneville and John Day Dams to operate as efficiently as possible, the United States of America agreed to pay approximately $319 million over 39 years (1964-2003) for Canada to construct the Duncan, Hugh Keenleyside and Mica Dams. In exchange, Canada is required by the Treaty to advise the United States of America as to how much water it will release and to store water on the Columbia in Canada upon request by the United States of America. The Columbia River Treaty is set to expire by its terms on or after September 16, 2024. At that point, Canada still must advise the United States of America as to how much water it will release and to store water on the Columbia in Canada upon request by the United States of America. However, the United States of America will then have to pay additional money to Canada every time that it requests that Canada store water. Focusing on just the American part of the Columbia River Watershed, though, the Columbia River Watershed involves water in seven states: Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. The Columbia Interstate Compact covers the water in those seven states. By the terms of the Compact, Nevada, Utah and Wyoming are each entitled to 2% of the water in the Columbia River Watershed. Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington are each entitled to 23.5% of the water in the Columbia River Watershed. A very straightforward division of water, in which one one state that has the smallest watershed does not receive more water than four of the other states with larger watersheds combined.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Sept 9, 2020 13:16:10 GMT -8
I'm not really getting what point Winky is getting to, other than the dislike for CA's govt. Based on your views of water rights though, I assume you take a very friendly view of the Canadian's perspective on the Columbia's management? By the way, what does Oregon's GDP per Mwh look like compared to British Columbia and Alberta's? Unlike the rather nonsensical border between Idaho and Montana, the border between Alberta and British Columbia is the crest of the Rocky Mountains. Alberta is not in the Columbia River's Watershed.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Sept 9, 2020 13:29:50 GMT -8
I'm not really getting what point Winky is getting to, other than the dislike for CA's govt. Based on your views of water rights though, I assume you take a very friendly view of the Canadian's perspective on the Columbia's management? Fun facts: The Mica Dam is the tallest dam in North America north of the Chicoasén Dam in Mexico. When the underground powerhouse was constructed in 1976, the Mica Dam featured the second-largest underground powerhouse in the World.
|
|
|
Post by seastape on Sept 9, 2020 15:28:48 GMT -8
California has roughly 40 million people. Ohio and Virginia have about 20 million people combined. I would assume California would use and need more energy than those two states. I don't know what the GDP is for those states mentioned but I am guessing that the GDP base for California is so high that even a moderate increase seems small as a percentage compared to a GDP from those other states. By the way where you going to get fresh fruit and vegetable in January if not for California. Just saying. I am talking about deficits. California only produces 74% of its actual electrical power needs. It imports the other 26% of its electrical power needs. California produces the 12th-most energy in the country but consumes the 2nd-most energy in the country. It has the United States of America's highest GDP, but is 48th in production of GDP per energy used. The only states that are less efficient at turning energy into wealth are Massachusetts and New York (and the District of Columbia).To put another way, the Continental United States is made up of 4-6 electrical energy grids, depending on how independent you consider the Midwest, Reliability First and SERC. They include Florida, the Midwest, the Northeast (seven states), Reliability First, SERC, Texas and Western. Florida, the Northeast, Reliability First and SERC make up what is known as the Eastern interconnection. Texas is its own interconnection and consists of most of Texas. The Western Interconnection consists of the seven westernmost continental states plus CO and WY, most of MT and NM (the Northeastern part of MT and the Southeastern part of NM are part of the Eastern Interconnection), and parts of South Dakota (the Black Hills) and Texas (extreme west). The Western Interconnection also consists of Alberta and British Columbia and part of Baja California. Focusing on the United States' portion of the Western Interconnection, California produces 29% of the grid's total power but consumes 39%. California, Colorado and Idaho are energy importers. Excluding the slivers of South Dakota and Texas, the other eight states in the Western Interconnection are energy exporters. As of 2018, Colorado operates at a deficit of 1,064,201 Mwh. Idaho operates at a deficit of 5,581,388 (the fourth-largest energy importing state per capita behind only DC, DE, MA and MD). California operates at a net deficit of 59,958,864 Mwh. That is more than 56 times larger than Colorado's deficit. Per capita, that is more than eight times larger than Colorado's deficit. The largest single electricity transmission Intertie in the United States is the Pacific Intertie (Paths 65--DC--and 66--AC--collectively), which together can transfer 7,880 MW (up to 69,028,800 Mwh/yr.) from the Bonneville and John Day Dams to California, Nevada and the rest of Oregon. The Intertie consists of four AC lines (three to California and one to Oregon) and one DC line. The DC line alone can serve between two and three million Los Angeles residences and supplies power to almost half of the power to Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (which includes the City of Los Angeles as well as parts of Bishop, Culver City, South Pasadena and West Hollywood). You have California's energy efficiency ranking backward: California is the third most energy-efficient state when computing energy use/GDP. California has the highest GDP by far (more than 1.5 times that of 2nd place Texas) and is second in the amount of energy consumed. Yet California uses the third least amount of energy of all the states (4th if you include Washington D.C.) per dollar of GDP.
You can look it up on the U.S. Energy Information Administration website. https:/www.eia.gov/state/seds. My work has strict limitations on cutting and pasting links so I can't paste the link. energy consumption.docx (19.64 KB)
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Sept 9, 2020 16:16:45 GMT -8
By the way, what does Oregon's GDP per Mwh look like compared to British Columbia and Alberta's? Unlike the rather nonsensical border between Idaho and Montana, the border between Alberta and British Columbia is the crest of the Rocky Mountains. Alberta is not in the Columbia River's Watershed. OK. BC.
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Sept 10, 2020 8:01:05 GMT -8
I didn't know that the Colorado River belonged to Arizona and Nevada. That's new to me. The mouth of the river is at the Gulf of California, also known as the Cortez Sea. That's Mexico. Maybe the river belongs to them. I've done a lot of large development work in California. California has the greatest percentage use of renewables of all the states. California spends billions and billions of dollars on that. The water from Oregon is from the Klamath basin. It goes to support the San Joaquin valley agricultural industry. It's not used for residential. And you would be amazed at the mitigation efforts even in the solar plants to protect Kangaroo rats. California's environmental standards are the strictest of any state. Rivers generally belong to upriver states. This is generally true within the United States and internationally. But not on the Colorado River. California gets 4.4 million acre-ft/year of the Colorado River's water, which is the largest share of any of the seven states on the Colorado. (New Mexico and Wyoming are not on the Colorado but are on tributaries.) And California gets the most despite its watershed being the smallest of the seven states and with no major tributaries flowing through California. By way of example, almost all of the water in Arizona feeds into the Colorado River (only some areas along the Mexican border go elsewhere), but Arizona is limited to 2.85 million acre-ft/yr. Instead, the water is diverted into the Coachella and Imperial Valleys, Los Angeles and San Diego. I was not talking about the Klamath Basin Water. There is no diversion of water there that takes water from Oregon. There are diversions, once the water crosses into California that feed into the Sacramento Valley. It is an oversimplification, but the San Joaquin Valley is the South half of the Central Valley. The Sacramento Valley is the North End of the Central Valley. The two rivers meet and jointly feed into the Bay. The diversion of water that I was referring to was the diversion of the Pit River. The North Fork of the Pit River used to connect to Goose Lake in Lake County (south of Lakeview, which is an increasingly ironic name) to the point that Goose Lake no longer feeds into the Pit River and was dry from 2013 to 2015. The diversion still keeps Goose Lake unnaturally low. The upshot of all of this is California decimates the Colorado and Goose Lake watersheds and ecosystems therein, but we are supposed to give them a pass, because they are spending billions and billions on renewables? Give me a break! Also, even after spending billions and billions on renewables, California still imports millions of Mwh from the other States in the WECC (mostly) and internationally. And they have the third-lowest GDP per Mwh consumed of any state in the country. So Minnesota owns the Mississippi? You know that is not true. You also know there is absolutely not basis in US law whatsoever that "ownership" of a river is given to "up river states" You also know that makes zero sense. You are spinning on this one dude. The majority of water law in the Western US is based on Prior Appropriation Doctrine. Who ever used the water first, owns the water. Upstream, downstream, doesn't matter. If you put the body of water to significant use first, you owned that body of water. Every western state, Including California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado and Arizona use the Prior Appropriate Doctrine to establish water rights. This same doctrine allows for the selling, division and buying of water rights. The Colorado River Compact was signed in 1922 and established water rights for the seven states that the river runs through. Allotments for water were assigned in 1928, Nobody "owns" the Colorado river. It isn't Colorado's river. it isn't Arizona's river. it is property of the people. That is how it works in the US. Multiple states agree an amount of water right to it. It doesn't mean it hasn't been contentious... But making the claim California imports it's water on the Colorado is factually AND legally incorrect. The river is in the state, they have legal right to 4.4 million ft acres. In Colorado, where the river is in their state, they have the legal right to 3.86 million ft. acres. In Arizona, where the river is in their state, they have the legal right to 2.8 million ft acres...
|
|
|
Post by jdogge on Sept 10, 2020 8:29:22 GMT -8
Um, silly me; I don't get it. What has bashing/defending California got to do with the OP?
|
|
|
Post by seastape on Sept 10, 2020 9:28:30 GMT -8
Um, silly me; I don't get it. What has bashing/defending California got to do with the OP? That is silly of you. This is Benny's House. Sticking to the original topic is merely an option.
|
|
|
Post by obf on Sept 11, 2020 9:13:38 GMT -8
I know we are WAY off in the weeds at this point, but it isn't like there is actual Beaver FOOTBALL to talk about Maybe someone can answer this question. I was reading about a local company in town who is designing a nuclear power plant that is going to be built in Idaho. However, no one in Idaho is going to own the plant or use the power. It is a bunch of Utah power companies building it. Further complicating the issue is that it is being built in the Idaho National Lab compound which, I think(?!), is Federal land. So, who is important/exporting power to whom? Is Idaho exporting and Utah importing even though Idaho pretty much has nothing to do with the project? Is the Federal government exporting since it is being built on Federal land? Is Utah even importing anything since it is paying for an building the whole shebang? Is the location that the uranium was mined involved in the import/export of power at all?
|
|