Since the Preliminary Challenge to PATH's 2009 ATRR was filed, I've been contacted by a plethora of interesting people. Yesterday, I was contacted by one of the partners of Electric Pipeline Corporation. It seems that he's been trying to make some headway with at least one of the major energy companies who is planning to embark on a "national grid" (also unneeded and they intend to make us pay for it, but that's another story). Electric Pipeline Corporation believes they have come up with an effective way to underground extremely high-voltage transmission lines, Elpipes, but the power companies are loyal to their beloved, horse-and-buggy, overhead transmission lines.
Not that undergrounding PATH would make any difference, since we all know PATH isn't really needed at all. Why would a certain power company rather fight horrendously expensive and painful battles with opposition groups than contemplate underground transmission? We know they lie when they tell us, "the technology to underground the lines is not available". Elpipes proves it. It just costs more. However, once you figure in the cost of 16 years (in the case of Jacksons Ferry-Wyoming) of opposition, what's really more expensive? And what do they care anyhow, it's our money they're spending. Could it be because a big price tag up front may cause some consternation from those forced to pay for it without receiving any benefit? Take a look at the financial statements that go along with a transmission line project and you'll probably find it ends up costing the same, when you figure in what opposition costs vs. the extra material costs of undergrounding, however opposition is a by-product expense that they neglect to mention.
Logic and brainpower: sorely lacking at the corporate headquarters of a common "friend" of both the PATH opponents and Elpipes.
Anyone else find the picture at the top of the Elpipes brochure frightening? That's a 765kV line in relation to a house, in case you were wondering what PATH would look like in your backyard. Anyone else remember the 1981 film Neighbors that was set on a suburban street with gigantic overhead transmission lines running through the backyard? Love that film, but don't want to live it!
Not that undergrounding PATH would make any difference, since we all know PATH isn't really needed at all. Why would a certain power company rather fight horrendously expensive and painful battles with opposition groups than contemplate underground transmission? We know they lie when they tell us, "the technology to underground the lines is not available". Elpipes proves it. It just costs more. However, once you figure in the cost of 16 years (in the case of Jacksons Ferry-Wyoming) of opposition, what's really more expensive? And what do they care anyhow, it's our money they're spending. Could it be because a big price tag up front may cause some consternation from those forced to pay for it without receiving any benefit? Take a look at the financial statements that go along with a transmission line project and you'll probably find it ends up costing the same, when you figure in what opposition costs vs. the extra material costs of undergrounding, however opposition is a by-product expense that they neglect to mention.
Logic and brainpower: sorely lacking at the corporate headquarters of a common "friend" of both the PATH opponents and Elpipes.
Anyone else find the picture at the top of the Elpipes brochure frightening? That's a 765kV line in relation to a house, in case you were wondering what PATH would look like in your backyard. Anyone else remember the 1981 film Neighbors that was set on a suburban street with gigantic overhead transmission lines running through the backyard? Love that film, but don't want to live it!
RSS Feed