Thanks for the comments.
Do you see any expansion of infrastructure? I mean serious expansion. I don’t see it and it disturbs me.
I’m not in the industry, but I do keep an eye on what takes place around these parts, and I just don’t see it.
What I see is a government and power production climate that is now geared toward conservation and limiting usage.
Power
Water
Freeways
These three concerns seem to have reached some magical point in time where the government and even the utilities seem to think we can’t expand them anymore. It’s as if they refuse to face the reality that populations expand and infrastructure must do likewise or we face serious problems.
As for your comments, I’m not completely opposed to your take on this. I agree with much of what you have said. It does seem to me though that our major emphasis is the large energy production facility. I know that there are people out there who are working on single property type solutions, but I’m not convinced they are truly qualified to do so.
It does seem to me that there could be ways to make homes more self-sufficient than they are. Vast improvements could be made. I have a few projects in mind for my own place that won’t cost much. If I could cut the need to have the air conditioner on by half, that would be a great savings in energy and cash.
You mentioned power transmission loss. Are we anywhere close to some new advancements that might cut that loss significantly?
It should disturb everybody.
The transformation began in the 60s in strange pockets of affluence, like Marin County California.
It became official and government-imposed with the passage of the Environmental Quality Act and the Endangered Species Act, and subsequent enhancements.
Prior to that time projects such as in the Tennessee Valley and Hetch-Hetchy in California, Hoover Dam, created infrastructures far in excess of what was necessary at the time. But the mood of society then was not "me, me me!" screw future generations. All of those projects would be impossible today.
When community General Plans are updated, now, as required by state laws, the most common criticism is that some elements are "Growth inducing".
The original legislation was sold, and later perverted to where we are now. It was never intended to ever stop any project; it was simply an attempt to identify all possible consequences and to either mitigate them or, if necessary, to simply accept all the consequences. The choice was the benefit to humans, with no surprises due to lack of thought.
That, clearly, is not the way it is presently interpreted, 40 years later.
To give you an absurd but true example:
In the 50s, Sacramento, Calif, the capital, was relatively small, but the spirit of community and the benefit to future generations was firmly in play. As a result, the decision was made to purchase the land necessary to circumvent the main parts of town in the future similar to the Paris Peripherique or DCs "Beltway".
Fast forward 30 years...
The new "thinking" became, if we actually plan ahead, we are inviting growth. Growth= bad. Let the future fend for itself, or let it happen somewhere else.
So the "new political evolution" forced the sale of all the land previously purchased for the express purpose of frustrating the original plan.
Repeat this countrywide and there is your explanation.