2 2
Phil1111

Republicans in Texas

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, billeisele said:

Doubt that additional federal regulation is the answer. The last cold event was 1940.

 

10 minutes ago, ryoder said:

From my Wednesday posting of the report on the 2011 event. A quote from the summary of that report:

He didn't make it clear so it confused me too. I'm pretty sure that part of his post was referring to his home state of SC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ryoder said:

There were prior severe cold weather events in the Southwest in 1983, 1989, 2003, 2006, 2008, and 2010. The worst of these was in 1989, the prior event most comparable to 2011.

The 1989 event was when work sent us home early, and I got there just in time to see that the water was down to a very slow trickle; had we stayed at work all day, at least our outside inlet pipe would have frozen solid. As it was, I put the heating pad on it, and we were back in water.

The rent house didn't fare as well; the tenants had gone skiing, and a neighbor turned the water off at the street when he saw it running out the front door.

A lot of people in those infrequent-cold-weather places also discover that four-wheel-drive doesn't mean four-wheel-stop ;)

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
10 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

The 1989 event was when work sent us home early, and I got there just in time to see that the water was down to a very slow trickle; had we stayed at work all day, at least our outside inlet pipe would have frozen solid. As it was, I put the heating pad on it, and we were back in water.

The rent house didn't fare as well; the tenants had gone skiing, and a neighbor turned the water off at the street when he saw it running out the front door.

Ugh!

I'm halfway between Denver and Boulder. I woke up Tuesday to -8F and no running water.  Some tracing of water lines led me to believe the supply line is inside a drywall-covered soffit in the garage. (The garage is attached, but unheated.) It was cold as hell in there, so I opened the door between the den and the garage, and cranked up the heat. Then I turned on the kitchen faucet, and left an empty pitcher under it. At 1pm I suddenly heard the kitchen sink running, and I had water again. Thankfully, I had no broken pipes.

Edited by ryoder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, billeisele said:

The TX situation and every other grid is massively complicated. No one thing caused this problem and federal regulation won't fix it. Well, it could. They could easily require more redundancy, additional transmission capacity, more dispersed generation and just about anything else.

I agree with most of what you said, but a note on the above - 

Texas has gone out of their way (i.e. spent money and time) to ensure there is no redundancy in their grid that would connect to grids outside of Texas, because doing so would have triggered federal requirements under FERC.

So this was a conscious decision to remain independent.  That has both a monetary cost and a reliability cost.  And IMO they absolutely have the right to do that; it's their state.  Still, it leads to questions as to how much emergency aid the US should give to Texas for a problem of their own creation.  It's somewhat hypocritical to demand independence (and refuse to assist other states with their own power problems) only until such time as that independence causes problems, at which time they ask for $$$ from the Feds.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, billvon said:

I agree with most of what you said, but a note on the above - 

Texas has gone out of their way (i.e. spent money and time) to ensure there is no redundancy in their grid that would connect to grids outside of Texas, because doing so would have triggered federal requirements under FERC.

So this was a conscious decision to remain independent.  That has both a monetary cost and a reliability cost.  And IMO they absolutely have the right to do that; it's their state.  Still, it leads to questions as to how much emergency aid the US should give to Texas for a problem of their own creation.  It's somewhat hypocritical to demand independence (and refuse to assist other states with their own power problems) only until such time as that independence causes problems, at which time they ask for $$$ from the Feds.

That only holds true for blue states, don't you know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, billvon said:

I agree with most of what you said, but a note on the above - 

Texas has gone out of their way (i.e. spent money and time) to ensure there is no redundancy in their grid that would connect to grids outside of Texas, because doing so would have triggered federal requirements under FERC.

So this was a conscious decision to remain independent.  That has both a monetary cost and a reliability cost.  And IMO they absolutely have the right to do that; it's their state.  Still, it leads to questions as to how much emergency aid the US should give to Texas for a problem of their own creation.  It's somewhat hypocritical to demand independence (and refuse to assist other states with their own power problems) only until such time as that independence causes problems, at which time they ask for $$$ from the Feds.

 

7 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

That only holds true for blue states, don't you know?

Yah beat me to it. Hurricane after hurricane, freeze after freeze flood after:

"Hurricane Harvey offers the clearest lesson why Congress should not perpetuate the federal National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which expires at the end of September. The ravages in Houston and elsewhere would be far less if the federal government had not offered massively subsidized flood insurance in high-risk, environmentally perilous locales. But this is the same folly that the feds have perpetuated for almost 50 years.

Two years before NFIP was created, the 1966 Presidential Task Force on Federal Flood Control Policy warned that a badly run program “could exacerbate the whole problem of flood losses. For the federal government to subsidize low premium disaster insurance ... would be to invite economic waste of great magnitude.” That sage advice was ignored."

'A recent Pew Charitable Trust study revealed that 1% of the 5 million properties insured have produced almost a third of the damage claims and half the debt." of $25 billion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

 

Yah beat me to it. Hurricane after hurricane, freeze after freeze flood after:

"Hurricane Harvey offers the clearest lesson why Congress should not perpetuate the federal National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which expires at the end of September. The ravages in Houston and elsewhere would be far less if the federal government had not offered massively subsidized flood insurance in high-risk, environmentally perilous locales. But this is the same folly that the feds have perpetuated for almost 50 years.

Two years before NFIP was created, the 1966 Presidential Task Force on Federal Flood Control Policy warned that a badly run program “could exacerbate the whole problem of flood losses. For the federal government to subsidize low premium disaster insurance ... would be to invite economic waste of great magnitude.” That sage advice was ignored."

'A recent Pew Charitable Trust study revealed that 1% of the 5 million properties insured have produced almost a third of the damage claims and half the debt." of $25 billion.

There shouldn't be a national dumbass disaster program. Give folks one bite at the apple and then if they build back it is so, so sorry next time. I can't wait for Phoenix to be declared a Federal Disaster Area when average temperatures reach 130 degrees and you need snowshoes to keep from sinking in to the asphalt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Give folks one bite at the apple and then if they build back it is so, so sorry next time

This. Your rates go up to unaffordably high in some locations after enough damage in the area.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billvon said:

I agree with most of what you said, but a note on the above - 

Texas has gone out of their way (i.e. spent money and time) to ensure there is no redundancy in their grid that would connect to grids outside of Texas, because doing so would have triggered federal requirements under FERC.

So this was a conscious decision to remain independent.  That has both a monetary cost and a reliability cost.  And IMO they absolutely have the right to do that; it's their state.  Still, it leads to questions as to how much emergency aid the US should give to Texas for a problem of their own creation.  It's somewhat hypocritical to demand independence (and refuse to assist other states with their own power problems) only until such time as that independence causes problems, at which time they ask for $$$ from the Feds.

Hi Bill,

I could not have said it better.  Back when they made the no-FERC decision, I was travelling down to the DFW area quite a lot.  I remember talking to some of them about this decision.  THEY were not going to have those feds telling THEM what to do.

:`(

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  I have owned personal houses for 45 yrs, I have never had a day without Home Owner's Insurance.  I have never made a claim on any policy.  I will not go without it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's kind of like the people who think that being an adult means you don't have to do anything you don't want to (which is kind of what put-upon-feeling 13-year-olds think). There are consequences for decisions. It's nice when there's a safety net, but you have to acknowledge it.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

It's kind of like the people who think that being an adult means you don't have to do anything you don't want to (which is kind of what put-upon-feeling 13-year-olds think). There are consequences for decisions. It's nice when there's a safety net, but you have to acknowledge it.

Wendy P.

Hi Wendy,

Re:  There are consequences for decisions.

Yes, there are.  I am a believer that if you are not listed as an organ donor, you should not be eligible to get one.

And then there is this:  Anti-vaccination protesters have gathered across Australia

Covid: Anti-vaccination protests held in Australia ahead of rollout - BBC News

I would not give them a hospital bed if they get infected.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  I was reading the other day that 30% of the US military is refusing the vaccination.  When I was in 'No' was not an option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

This. Your rates go up to unaffordably high in some locations after enough damage in the area.

Wendy P.

Better, let the taxpayers in the county that issued the rebuilding permit pay for it. That would bring it to a screeching halt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Better, let the taxpayers in the county that issued the rebuilding permit pay for it. That would bring it to a screeching halt.

Hi Joe,

I've lived in my current house for 25 yrs now.  About 20 yrs ago, a neighbor, down the road had a creek near his back yard overflow & flood his daylight basement.  I felt sorry for the poor bugger, having to do all of that repair work.

So, he built a berm to hold back the water.

A few years later, the water came over the berm & he got flooded again.  I thought, 'Man, you cannot get a break.'

A few years later, I saw a large claw machine tearing down the house.  I stopped to see what was going on.

The homeowner was a lawyer ( he did not build the house ) and he sued the city of Beaverton for issuing a building permit in a flood plain.

He won, the city bought him out, and that lot is now a wild, natural area.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's come to the point where people have to look out for themselves and their immediate family (and some friends) to a certain degree. I was never a classic prepper, but now I have a fair amount of emergency gear going, extra food, bottled water, med supplies, gas/propane generator, emergency radio, and the like. 

I started this program three years ago, mostly through Amazon. Shop, check, pick this, maybe that. See where the deals are. 

Eventually, I got to the point that if anything bad happened, we could still have communication, radio and TV, power, and necessary supplies for at least a week. And so far I have had to tap into those resources three times, mostly after windstorms or big snow events. If a serious natural disaster happens, remember that FEMA doesn't just show up an hour later at your door. Sometimes it takes a while to get service, kind of like the Post Office. ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much every part of the country has natural disasters that can interrupt things. Hurricanes, tornadoes, ice storms, whatever. People who really can't prepare (poverty and disability come to mind) are the ones who should get preference. I have a disabled friend who leaves Houston several days before a possible hurricane; not in the final evacuation, but in time to go to another city inland, and rent a motel room. It's not cheap, but he's entirely dependent on his scooter and his phone, and can't go without power. That's also preparation.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

The homeowner was a lawyer ( he did not build the house ) and he sued the city of Beaverton for issuing a building permit in a flood plain.

 

But he bought the house. Caveat emptor, he might have pointed out were the plaintiff a client and not his own miserable sorry ass. It's funny, well maybe not funny as I now think about it, but I've spent a lot of hours and a commensurate amount of money in the company of attorneys. They always loathe going further than a threatening letter for something that will be argued on technicalities in court. Unless it's their money, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, gowlerk said:

True. But if SpaceX had been given the project it likely would have been done on half the budget with a profit left for more R&D.

It was a bargain even at NASA’s price. But for some that’s not good enough. NASA regularly pulls off amazing stuff, and yet they seem be the government entity most commonly cited as a waste of money. They are the one government run organization that not only does what it sets out to do, they often knock the ball out of the park. Then they have to beg for more operational funding because their spacecraft last so much longer than they were designed to.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big spacex fan too, They have pulled off some impressive feats of engineering, and yes, at reduced cost. They are a for profit corporation and that’s what they should be doing. But even if they are not as efficient, NASA does scientific exploration of space better than anyone else. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Wendy,

Re:  There are consequences for decisions.

Yes, there are.  I am a believer that if you are not listed as an organ donor, you should not be eligible to get one.

And then there is this:  Anti-vaccination protesters have gathered across Australia

Covid: Anti-vaccination protests held in Australia ahead of rollout - BBC News

I would not give them a hospital bed if they get infected.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  I was reading the other day that 30% of the US military is refusing the vaccination.  When I was in 'No' was not an option.

Yeah people are stupid. It is not compulsory to have the vaccine here. However they are in the process of making updates to the national vaccination register compulsory, at the moment it is voluntary. They are also trying to figure out the legal position of businesses. So can you deny an airline passenger a flight if they aren’t vaccinated for example.

I’m slightly concerned at the growing requirements that are moving towards some sort of compulsory identity card. Although growing up in Zimbabwe national ID card was mandatory so I’m fairly familiar with it and it wasn’t abused there.
 

To re enter Western Australia you need a pass issued by the police. It’s a difficult situation because while I have concerns I believe that WA is 6th in the world for handling Covid. Our economy is thriving as a result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What isn't complicated is that a state that consistently rejects federal intervention in its affairs and whose senator opposed federal help for other states after a weather induced disaster comes cap in hand to the feds when it has a problem.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2021 at 12:57 PM, wmw999 said:

This. Your rates go up to unaffordably high in some locations after enough damage in the area.

Wendy P.

"The National Flood Insurance Program, which provides the vast majority of United States flood insurance policies, would have to quadruple premiums on high-risk homes inside floodplains to reflect the risks they already face, according to data issued on Monday by the First Street Foundation, a group of academics and experts that models flood risks.

By 2050, First Street projected, increased flooding tied to climate change will require a sevenfold increase."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2021 at 6:24 AM, kallend said:

What isn't complicated is that a state that consistently rejects federal intervention in its affairs and whose senator opposed federal help for other states after a weather induced disaster comes cap in hand to the feds when it has a problem.

This needs to be screamed out loud non-stop. Texas exceptionalism, my ass. They should pay their own exceptional way out of this mess and the next hurricane, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

I say give them their independence, and remind them that freedom isn't free. They'll start having to negotiate trade deals, too.

As a sovereign country (2016), Texas would be the 10th largest economy in the world by GDP, ahead of South Korea and Canada and behind Brazil.

SOURCE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it would. But still behind California and Great Britain, and Great Britain seems to be having some trouble with trade issues...

I just read a good article in Texas Monthly Online about the blackout. Plenty of blame to go around, but frankly isn't it better to plan and fix than blame? Only if you are more interested in establishing your position as superior than in fixing a problem for others is blame superior. Says something, doesn't it?

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

2 2