From: Dennis P. Harris on
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 11:40:24 -0500 in
misc.consumers.frugal-living, "Dave" <noway(a)nohow.not> wrote:

> The main problem I see with this free land is that the land has only
> electricity for utility that can be used for heat. Figure a thousand bucks
> or more per month (likely much more) to heat in the cold months.

uhhh... most folks there heat with OIL or wood. you've never
heard of heating oil?

at least the land's on the electric grid. about 95% of alaska is
totally off any grid. and it's on a highway, so the price of
oil, while expensive, is not as unreasonable as in bush villages
where it has to be barged or flown in.

From: Dennis P. Harris on
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 19:17:30 -0500 in
misc.consumers.frugal-living, "OhioGuy" <none(a)> wrote:

> There are actually several other sources of energy to consider:
> 1) Coal - there are plenty of coal mines out in the Montana and SW Canada
> region. There are also trains that go to Alaska, so it shouldn't be too
> hard to get coal delivered. Chances are that it is already being delivered
> to the area for power plants and electricity generation
uhhh... there's a huge open pit coal mine (and associated power
plant) about 2 miles down the road.

you know, you might actually look up FACTS before you start
spewing idiocy.

From: Dennis P. Harris on
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 16:14:44 -0500 in
misc.consumers.frugal-living, "Dave" <noway(a)nohow.not> wrote:

> Anthony - This is alaska we are talking about. Think about asking someone
> to deliver oil for you to antarctica and you'll get the idea. Worse, the
> town only has a population of 300 to begin with, 80 miles or so from the
> next nearest town. Yikes.
> I'm betting propane/oil is either not available, or prohibitively
> xpensive. -Dave

I'm betting that you're blowing smoke, and don't have a clue.