Wow! What a reputation: Alaska number one in sexually transmitted diseases? (Fairbanks: appliances, felony)

[OneDawg]

Originally Posted by jdhpa

There should be a license plate for that

Here's your sign

[Metlakatla]

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-...ready-in-2018/

What's the solution then? This project is supposed to supply the area with "cheap power."

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by Metlakatla

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-...ready-in-2018/

What's the solution then? This project is supposed to supply the area with "cheap power."

It's doubtful that GVEA will provide cheap electrical power, even with new coal-burning power plants. Electric power is very expensive in Fairbanks and vicinity, and once the price goes up, it seldom comes down. For example, the cost of kWh‎ should have been a lot lower when the price of oil was down last year, and now that the price of oil is going up GVEA will provably charge higher rates. During the power outages we had a winter or two ago, the line maintenance cost increased because they had to have large work crews cutting trees and working to restore the power to customers. But in this case what GVEA did was to pass the added cost of maintenance (higher fuel usage) to its customers.

That said, natural gas would be the only cheaper alternative for reducing wood burning to stay warm during the winter months, but our legislators, just like in Congress, are more interested in preserving their power than work on a cheaper source of energy. There is lots of natural gas deposits in Nenana, and probably in the Tanana Flats (right close to Fairbanks), but nothing is done about it in Juneau.

Cheaper electrical power would be nice, but it won't help relating to staying warm during the winter, since most of the boilers and furnaces burn heating fuel.

[riceme]

Hey, cheap power is great. It would be an improvement on what we're getting now. I'll believe it when I see it.

But, is the objective cheap power, or is the objective clean air? Or, is clean air the objective only when it's the responsibility of the homeowners? Why is that? Because the borough and the state need oil and gas, the mining industry, and coal, so they don't want to place expensive restrictions on them that might drive them out?

I wish I could remember or find the statistics on how much air pollution *just the haul trucks* at Fort Knox produce each year. It's a staggering statistic. But, I never read about anyone lobbying to smog the heavy equipment up at the mine, or for FGMI (Ft Knox) to stop hauling dirt on the bad air quality days. Yeah, I know, they're outside the neat little polygon on the map, and we don't care about diesel emissions. Besides, you know, that would cost Kinross money, and they're super strapped. (I heard through the grapevine that Usibelli runs a test haul truck that's smogged, and I would love to see that data!)

I'm not saying that we shouldn't actively strive for clean air. We should. I just question the approach by the borough. I think the weird little polygon on their map sucks. I think their criteria for what and who is causing the problem sucks. I think poor people burn wood to stay warm, poor people live inside their stupid polygon, and it's sh*tty to target them. I think they go after homeowners because they're easy targets and when they do they can say to the EPA that they're addressing the problem.

Level the playing field. If air quality is a problem that we're addressing, then it's everybody's problem. Not a select few unfortunate people.

So, as it stands, I don't know that there are solutions that are good for all parties in the interior. I think natural gas is great, and I'm glad we're (someday) getting a pipeline, but by the time you either build, install, or convert power plants, furnaces, boilers and whatnot, then you get it up here either by train, truck, or pipeline, then... seriously, who can afford it? One of my buddies moved to town last summer and now has natural gas. His heating bill this winter was 2x what it used to be in a new house that's less than 1.5x the size of his old drafty cabin, and much more efficient. Wow.

Rant over. Full disclosure - I injured myself and am on pain medication, so it's possible that this is all stupid-talk.

[Metlakatla]

I think it's unrealistic to expect cheap power/heat in a cold climate, but the coal-fired plant is probably the most cost-effective option for now.

It's my understanding that hardship permits are available, though, for those who can't afford heating options besides wood and coal.

Personally, I'd do my part for clean air before I contributed to this kind of hell:
this was five years ago. Seems like it's just gotten worse since then.

Fairbanks chokes on wood stove pollution in battle to stay warm - latimes

I wonder to what extent the conditions described in the article would exist if fossil fuels and vehicle emissions weren't part of the picture.

[Arktikos]

Locating the power plant supplying Fairbanks out of the inversion area might be a consideration.

Natural gas is fairly clean, regarding particulates. Wood burning is the worst, followed by coal and diesel.

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by Blind Cleric

Locating the power plant supplying Fairbanks out of the inversion area might be a consideration.

Natural gas is fairly clean, regarding particulates. Wood burning is the worst, followed by coal and diesel.

According to the local news reports I have read, it causes nearly 50% of the particulate emissions on the days of air inversions, or just days with a lack of wind. The problem is that even if there was no wood burning, the amount of particulate emissions from the other 50% would still be a problem on days without winds or during the inversions. But the Borough and State aren't addressing the latter 50% of the pollution, just the first (wood smoke). It is much cheaper for the State and Borough to drop the problem on the residents. To pipe natural gas to homes in interior would take a lot of State money.

[Metlakatla]

Well, if residents considered something besides "the check" when and if they vote, they'd have politicians who actually care if they breathe clean air.

Alaska's a mess, and everyone wants to point fingers.

[Arktikos]

Originally Posted by RayinAK

To pipe natural gas to homes in interior would take a lot of State money.

If gas was used to power a new plant then people wouldn't need it piped to their homes, they'd just need an electric heat source.

Actually that coal fired power plant may be cheaper than anything else in the short run, since the original construction was funded in half by the feds. And since it's located in Healy, it is out of the inversion area (right?).

[Arktikos]

Originally Posted by Metlakatla

I think it's unrealistic to expect cheap power/heat in a cold climate, but the coal-fired plant is probably the most cost-effective option for now.

Right. Cheap heat isn't even a reality in SE, despite relatively reasonable low cost hydro electric.