Knott's closes rides in California's power crisis

I saw this coming. No power=no rides. We all know Disney would never shut down... so what happens, Knotts decides to be nice to the CA public and try to conserve power. Good move if you ask me. BTW, what would happen if a rolling blackout hit a park all of a sudden? What would happen to rides that were in operation and such?

-------------
Matt B
http://www.6flagsohio.com *** This post was edited by SFOhio on 1/21/2001. ***

I heard Disneyland had gotten hit with one of the rolling blackouts. Back Up lights went on in the rides and were evacuated. Knott's trying to be nice? Disneyland gets way more guests and they need to be entertained with something. Knott's is a small park compared to Disneyland...

-------------
-Charlie Brown

I don't think they should have shut down Perilous Plunge, though. It's been closed so long. I know it takes up a heck of a lot of energy, but in my opinion, they should have gone with more of the flat rides that never have any lines. I think the closing of PP may have an ill effect on business here and there.

Closing PP is not realy a bad thing. It is freezing out here. I dont know about you, but I dont what to get wet when the weather is like this.

Plunge doesn't even have a 5 minute wait, it doesnt even take that much power
-------------
---Frank---Rodriguez---

For the lift hill, yes. But you don't want to know how much power those pumps consume!

I was wondering when we here about the parks and the power problem. When was Costerbuzz changed? It's only been a day since the last time I looked at the site and now it's green.

here is a question what happens this summer when there is a large power demand for air conditioning what will the parks do then and can a power outage be a safety hazard on certian rides????

By summer, the second reactor at San Onofre should be back on line. Had they no needed to take it off line for refurbishment, we would likely not have the problems we gave today.

I hate nuclair energy.

Why, because you can't spell it?

Nuclear energy is the cleanest and most abundant source of energy we have on this planet today. If people weren't so busy making unqualified "I hate it" comments, we'd realize that a giant percentage of the electricity used in the US comes from nuclear plants, with little impact to the environment.

-------------
Jeff
Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com

I just went their Friday and they had those rides closed, so I was dissapointed, but then at the last hour of the day they opened all of them for riding. I'm glad I stayed till the last hour.

Well California if you have Power come visit www.geocities.com/coasting_ohio it has Knott's Berry Farm for Rollercoaster Tycoon designed by TIMBOBARRY *** This post was edited by Coasting_Ohio on 1/22/2001. ***

Jeff, i would argue that hydro-electric power is the cleanest source of energy, but will admitt that nuclear, along with being the most efficient, is much cleaner than coal and somewhat cleaner than natural.
jeremy
--who is still working on his cold fusion reactor in the basement...

Nuclear Power is clean, however, you seem to forget that the waste produced is deadly to all life.
Personally I,m not for Nuclear Power, but in terms of the impact on the environment, I,d take it over hydro-electric power...

The alternative is coal, which is responsible for the phenomenon known as acid rain. The Europeans are not very thankful to the US for that.

I'm perfectly aware of what nuclear waste does, but the difference in quantity and long-term effects isn't even in the neighborhood of being comparable. The average coal burning plant produces 40 train car loads of sulfur-rich chemicals released into the air and water system. A nuclear plant, to produce the same electricity, releases nothing into the air or water, and produces a piece of used fuel about the size of a pencil. The spent fuel is buried where it continues to be dangerously radioactive for a few hundred years. That might sound like a long time, but consider how long many of the tombs of Egypt went undisturbed.

The fact of the matter is, there has never been a US fatality involving the production of electricity by nuclear power. Coal mining, which used to account for the majority of electricity production in the US, logged more than 33,000 deaths last century from mining alone, not counting the impact of acid rain and the destruction of plant and animal life (which in turn impacts human beings). The burning of these fossil fuels also contributes to the thinning ozone, which could potentially be attributed to a rise in skin cancer deaths.

The saddest thing about nuclear energy is that there would be zero long-term waste products if the government would permit the used fuel to be recycled. We use less than 1% of the energy stored in our uranium. If recycled, we could theoretically use it all, and never have to worry about generating electricity again. Because Jimmy Carter didn't understand the science behind the fission of uranium and its byproducts (plutonium), and the unfounded fear that terrorists could make a bomb out of it, we're prohibited from recycling the fuel.

There's a very excellent FAQ on this here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/etc/faqs.html
You might have to brush up on your chemistry a little, but it's fairly easy to grasp.

Bottom line: waste shouldn't be an issue, but even with the amounts we have to deal with, it sure beats the slow death that other forms of electrical generation produce.

-------------
Jeff
Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com

Yeah, Jeff, that's all nice and good, but the latest and BEST form of energy production is supposed to be that new-fangled "solair energy."

Seriously, this is the weirdest darn thread I've seen here yet.

Doug

Okay Doug,
If I could get my third arm to work properly, I'd slap you in the back of the head with it. Everybody knows that Nuclear energy is the best. It is not only good for the acid rain and ozone, but it is also good for my livestock. My hogs are so fertile now, and every one of the offspring has 3 tongues in BOTH heads and 6 legs. This is GREAT if you like Pickled tongue and pigs feet. Not to mention the chitlins are FANTASTIC.

But seriously, I think Doug has a good point. Solar, Wind, and Hydroelectric are all great alternatives.

Sure, those are great and I wish those would work but they are not efficient. First, Powering these amusement parks and Cities require a substantial amount of energy which cannot be attained by most alternate forms of Energy. Solar panel cells are ridiculously expensive and the only place the wind blows constantly enough is an area on the West coast, which still intern does not supply nearly enough energy.

Dams, which give us hydroelectric power may actually do more harm than good. A perfect example is the Dam for the Nile River, which I believe is called the Aswan High Dam. The Nile River basin in Egypt was one of the most fertile places in the world, until they damned the Nile. Seasonal floods would leave nutrient rich deposits of silt, which is now gone and it is taking it's toll on the soil. Water is not everything you need no grow crops. In addition to this, lakes formed by damns cause excess evaporation of water. The only Dam that really dose not effect anything is the Hoover, because there is no Farmland in that area to begin with.

I feel Nuclear is the way to go. If the little waste is stored correctly it will not be a problem. I believe they wanted to store all of the waste in a mountain somewhere in Nevada.