Blackout 2003, environmentalism and deregulation run rampant

[jj]

Now we have it, a material disaster in which money will be lost, people's retirements will be delayed or lost, some people will die, and all because of the combination of the looney-liberal branch of the demoratic party's environmental luddism with the right-wing steal-em-blind branch of the republigun party's deregulatory mania.

Both should have to compensate those of us in the middle.

One of them stopped the building of new powerplants on the most flimsy and paranoid of grounds.

Then, the other one made it possible to actually financially benefit, and wildly, from the resulting shortage.

[Mr Manifesto]

Evidence? Sources? Arguments?

Any of the above?

[reprise]

Huh?

What do either lack of power plants or deregulation have to do with this?

[Nasarius]

Well I'm glad you seem to know why this all happened when no one else seems to have a clue...
Got power back here in Suffolk county at around 11:20. Yay.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by jj
Now we have it, a material disaster in which money will be lost, people's retirements will be delayed or lost, some people will die, and all because of the combination of the looney-liberal branch of the demoratic party's environmental luddism with the right-wing steal-em-blind branch of the republigun party's deregulatory mania.

Both should have to compensate those of us in the middle.

One of them stopped the building of new powerplants on the most flimsy and paranoid of grounds.

Then, the other one made it possible to actually financially benefit, and wildly, from the resulting shortage.

You will find environmentalists appear like magic whenever a new power plant is proposed, not because they are particularly activists in general, but because of the NIMBY* syndrome.

No matter where a power plant is proposed, no one is going to want it. However, everyone does want the power for their air-conditioner.

(* Not In My Back Yard).

[Malachi151]

Ah yes, but the few environmentalists that have solar or wind powered homes are are selling energy back to the utilities are doing their part, and also still have power :) There is a famous house in Main that is all solar, and makes excess energy. He's probaby watchingsatallite TV now.

Maybe if we had MORE environmentalists likehim there wouldbe no problem eh? And yes Ido plan to builda solar andwind powered hom myself.

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
Now we have it, a material disaster in which money will be lost, people's retirements will be delayed or lost, some people will die, and all because of the combination of the looney-liberal branch of the demoratic party's environmental luddism with the right-wing steal-em-blind branch of the republigun party's deregulatory mania.

How on EARTH is the power situation in that area in any way deregulated?

Such a big area was affected, and affected everybody in that area, because all of their eggs were in one basket. This wouldn't have happened if the power were being delivered by the free market, being generated by multiple sources and delivered by multiple methods.

Then, the other one made it possible to actually financially benefit, and wildly, from the resulting shortage.

How did anyone benefit financially from the shortage?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


How on EARTH is the power situation in that area in any way deregulated?

Such a big area was affected, and affected everybody in that area, because all of their eggs were in one basket. This wouldn't have happened if the power were being delivered by the free market, being generated by multiple sources and delivered by multiple methods.



How did anyone benefit financially from the shortage?

You want everyone to have five power cables to their house?

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
You want everyone to have five power cables to their house?

Places with true cable deregulation have the choice of three or five or even more cable companies. Laying all the lines isn't a problem there.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


Places with true cable deregulation have the choice of three or five or even more cable companies. Laying all the lines isn't a problem there.

Do you have any idea what the cost of that would be?

[Dancing David]

I think that I to am amazed, there was all the discussion of the carbon trading, and then there was the reregulation of the clean air standard. So why aren't new power plants being built. Is it perhaps because it is easier to get the government to relax the regs on the old power plants than it is to build a new one. C'mon you go legaly burn coal to make electricity, the government overturned most of those regs under Clinton. They just aren't true capitalists because they don't know how to build capital.

Oh, well JJ go ahead blame the enviromentalists, not that there is real enviromental regulation, you just showed your true colors, can you tell me how the clean air act has not benefited our country? (Take a good look at the Chesapeke for me the next time you are out tthat way, and tell me that it isn't a collapsed eco system, and how the eviromenatlists have saved will you.)

Fuel cell if they aren't some pipe dream that back fires will put the power magnates out of bussiness!

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Do you have any idea what the cost of that would be?

Apparently it's not that bad, as the cable companies are finding out. This is the same excuse they always gave for having cable monopolies, but in areas that have completely deregulated cable, this has proven to not be a problem at all.

[Skeptic]

NONONONONONO, You've got it all wrong. The blackout is CLEARLY the jews fault!

C'mon, you all know that some of the store owners that sold bottled water yesterday were jews! And that in the enviormental movement, there are jewish members!

Clearly, this proves that the enviormental movement is merely a cover for the jews' usual money-making scheme! It was all planned!

Hey, I might as well start it now; after all, it's only a matter of time until the blackout is going to be blamed on everybody and anybody, from A (aliens) to Z (zionists).

[arcticpenguin]

Electrical engineer Dubya weighs in: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&e=3&u=/ap/20030815/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_blackout

"It's a wake-up call," Bush said. "The grid needs to be modernized, the delivery systems need to be modernized. We've got an antiquated system."

[shanek]

What, a system monopolized by the government ended up being inadequate and antiquated due to there being no pressure from competition to increase quality and update the systems? That's never happened before! :p

Everyone says how expensive it would be for different power companies to run different lines (ignoring the fact that they'd be absorbing these costs themselves); well, how much do you think it's going to cost to update a power system that's spanning at least five states, combined with the loss of money due to people, businesses, airlines, and other service providers being out of power? And who do you think is going to foot the bill for all of that?

[jj]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Evidence? Sources? Arguments?

Any of the above?

Every bit of the evidence was on the news last night. Now, I'm not saying that the news was the only source of the necessary information, either, so don't go there.

You're not missing the evidence, you're not putting it together.

You DO know that the eastern (and California) power grids traditionally run at capacity on hot days, yes? You do realize that when that's happening, ANY fault leads to some kind of blackout, yes?

You do realize that we haven't added more generation capacity, FIRST because of environmental churning about nuke plants (the only sensible way to do it, yes, I'm INCLUDING a reprocessing facility so that we use 75% of the energy in the uranium, not 5%, too...), and then because it was cheaper to run at capacity, not add capacity, and charge more.

All the evidence is there, obvious, and incontrovertable, now, so instead of whining for evidence, use your brain.

[jj]

Originally posted by reprise
Huh?

What do either lack of power plants or deregulation have to do with this?

WHAT?

What does lack of powerplants have to do with grid overload?

You can't be serious. The answer is self-evident unless you don't accept conservation of mass/energy.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
Electrical engineer Dubya weighs in: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&e=3&u=/ap/20030815/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_blackout



He is correct.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by jj
Now we have it, a material disaster in which money will be lost, people's retirements will be delayed or lost, some people will die, and all because of the combination of the looney-liberal branch of the demoratic party's environmental luddism with the right-wing steal-em-blind branch of the republigun party's deregulatory mania.

Until somebody actually dies as a direct result of this power outage, I am unable to consider the rest of your argument seriously.

[jj]

Originally posted by Nasarius
Well I'm glad you seem to know why this all happened when no one else seems to have a clue...
Got power back here in Suffolk county at around 11:20. Yay.

Begging the question, sir. I have no idea what the TRIGGER was, but the PROBLEM is obvious to anyone who reads the generation and transmission capacity statistics for the east coast. (Same applies to parts of California.)

And the PROBLEM is why it snowballed. The closer to capacity everything is, the less ability to compensate for an event. When everything is straining, all it takes is one "event', and you're in the dark.

No terrorists, accidents, etc, required, only the standard way that networks function. In other words, the "trigger" may not be anyone's fault. The fault lies in the 1960's nature of the grid, and the failure to add a bevy of new, clean nuke plants instead of all those coal plants that are aging. And that's not insulting coal plants, either. Equipment wears out.

[jj]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Ah yes, but the few environmentalists that have solar or wind powered homes are are selling energy back to the utilities are doing their part, and also still have power :) There is a famous house in Main that is all solar, and makes excess energy. He's probaby watchingsatallite TV now.

Maybe if we had MORE environmentalists likehim there wouldbe no problem eh? And yes Ido plan to builda solar andwind powered hom myself.

I agree that using alternative sources, where the stupid laws don't make it impossible, is a good idea.

No problem with that. When the net blows, cut yourself off, turn it back on, and relax.

The problem is, for instance (you may note I seem to have looked into this???) is that most municipalities or permitting agencies are horridly against things like fuel cells, co-generation (fuel cell for power, use the waste heat for water and space heating, or for AC via evap methods), and the like.

I'm not supporting their position, note, merely grumping about it.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


How on EARTH is the power situation in that area in any way deregulated?

Because it IS, Shanek, because it IS. I used to live there, until last August, and it IS DEREGULATED.

That's the facts. Live with the facts, Shanek, THOSE ARE THE FACTS, the simple, easily-researched FACTS. (Note, I"m talking about NJ, but NY, PA, and OH are either there or on the way, to the point that the financial people know not to build already...)

Such a big area was affected, and affected everybody in that area, because all of their eggs were in one basket. This wouldn't have happened if the power were being delivered by the free market, being generated by multiple sources and delivered by multiple methods.

Horsepucky. Do your homework about this "free market" claptrap, Shanek. You're right about some of the causes for network instability, because everyone's eggs are in the same basket when the system is running at 105% (used for example, I haven't managed to scare up the numbers for yesterday yet), and it only takes one event to take things down fast. Furthermore, that's not negligience on the part of the operators, it's simple physics.

How did anyone benefit financially from the shortage?
You mean "how do the generating plants benefit from the shortage" and it's easy, they just raise prices instead of building new capacity. DOH.

[jj]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Do you have any idea what the cost of that would be?

I do :) :) :)

[jj]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Oh, well JJ go ahead blame the enviromentalists, not that there is real enviromental regulation, you just showed your true colors, can you tell me how the clean air act has not benefited our country?

David, David, David, who said anything about clean-air standards? I am talking about REALLY CLEAN power, i.e. nuclear power.

Let me ask you a question, David, and before you snap off an answer, LOOK FOR THE ANSWER, it's not either simple or obvious, and people DO NOT try to make it easy to answer.

Answer me this:

Which of the two events would release more total radioactivity into the environment:

1) All of the 'accidental' and 'emergency release' at TMI, from start of accident to present.

2) A 500 MW coal plant using (as most do on the east coast) using appalachan coal, running for a month.

Some keywords: Thorium, radon, Uranium, Radium, actinium

(Take a good look at the Chesapeke for me the next time you are out tthat way, and tell me that it isn't a collapsed eco system, and how the eviromenatlists have saved will you.)

Fuel cell if they aren't some pipe dream that back fires will put the power magnates out of bussiness!

The chesapeake is a disaster. Your point?

I suppose I should have expected a knee-jerking set of straw me from somebody. :mad:

[Dancing David]

The power liones are owned and operated by private corporations who could update the system anytime they want, they choose not to do so because they want it for free. because they are not true capitalists, sorry it is the fault of the companies, not the government.

JJ, the fear of nuclear power is widespread i don't think that you can blame the enviromental movement for that. there are enviromentalists who support nuclear power, masinly in Europe. Why isn't it the fault of the companies who want to make a profit but never invest in new capital.

This is just like the steel industry, they are the ones who refused to retool , when they had the chance.

The power companies could have spent the last twenty years finding to burn coal and change the emission of various stuff. I see the problem as the companies that just want to make money without investing, despite the fact that there profit margins are huge.

So please don't blame the enviromental movement for capitalists who don't know what capital is.

[jj]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
Electrical engineer Dubya weighs in: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&e=3&u=/ap/20030815/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_blackout
---
"It's a wake-up call," Bush said. "The grid needs to be modernized, the delivery systems need to be modernized. We've got an antiquated system."
---



He may not be my choice for president, but he's got that dead to rights. Not, mind you, that it's hard to figure that out if you've ever BEEN in a powerplant (I have).

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek
What, a system monopolized by the government ended up being inadequate and antiquated due to there being no pressure from competition to increase quality and update the systems? That's never happened before! :p

New Jersey HAS deregulated power generation, Shanek.

You are tilting not only at a straw man, but a FALSE straw man. I suggest that you look into the last 5 years of activity in utility regulation in NJ, NY, PA, OH, before you make more embarrassing mistakes.

[Malachi151]

Here you go:

POWER OUTAGE TRACED TO DIM BULB IN WHITE HOUSE --- The Tale of The Brits Who Swiped 800 Jobs From New York, Carted Off $90 Million, Then Tonight, Turned Off Our Lights

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=257&row=0

I can tell you all about the ne're-do-wells that put out our lights tonight. I came up against these characters -- the Niagara Mohawk Power Company -- some years back. You see, before I was a journalist, I worked for a living, as an investigator of corporate racketeers. In the 1980s, "NiMo" built a nuclear plant, Nine Mile Point, a brutally costly piece of hot junk for which NiMo and its partner companies charged billions to New York State's electricity ratepayers.

To pull off this grand theft by kilowatt, the NiMo-led consortium fabricated cost and schedule reports, then performed a Harry Potter job on the account books. In 1988, I showed a jury a memo from an executive from one partner, Long Island Lighting, giving a lesson to a NiMo honcho on how to lie to government regulators. The jury ordered LILCO to pay $4.3 billion and, ultimately, put them out of business.

And that's why, if you're in the Northeast, you're reading this by candlelight tonight. Here's what happened. After LILCO was hammered by the law, after government regulators slammed Niagara Mohawk and dozens of other book-cooking, document-doctoring utility companies all over America with fines and penalties totaling in the tens of billions of dollars, the industry leaders got together to swear never to break the regulations again. Their plan was not to follow the rules, but to ELIMINATE the rules. They called it "deregulation."

It was like a committee of bank robbers figuring out how to make safecracking legal.

But they dare not launch the scheme in the USA. Rather, in 1990, one devious little bunch of operators out of Texas, Houston Natural Gas, operating under the alias "Enron," talked an over-the-edge free-market fanatic, Britain's Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, into licensing the first completely deregulated power plant in the hemisphere.

[jj]

Originally posted by Dancing David
The power liones are owned and operated by private corporations who could update the system anytime they want, they choose not to do so because they want it for free. because they are not true capitalists, sorry it is the fault of the companies, not the government.

Surely you don't think I'm disagreeing that it's the fault of the companies, David. It is, however, also the fault of the government, because it was utterly evident how the companies would react before deregulation was installed.

JJ, the fear of nuclear power is widespread i don't think that you can blame the enviromental movement for that. there are enviromentalists who support nuclear power, masinly in Europe. Why isn't it the fault of the companies who want to make a profit but never invest in new capital.

It is. Why EVER do you think I disagree? There's a lot of fault to go around, but the POWER COMPANIES are also, present, the GOVERNMENT, dude. Saying it's the responsibilty of the energy companies is the same as saying it's the fault of the government right now.

This is just like the steel industry, they are the ones who refused to retool , when they had the chance.

Agreed, except that we can buy steel from overseas, we can't do that with electrical power in the same fashion. Btw, I grew up near Youngstown, Ohio, you're preaching to the choir on that one.

The power companies could have spent the last twenty years finding to burn coal and change the emission of various stuff. I see the problem as the companies that just want to make money without investing, despite the fact that there profit margins are huge.

And in this they are both encouraged and enabled by a government that they presently effectively control. So, this makes me wrong? I don't think so.

So please don't blame the enviromental movement for capitalists who don't know what capital is.
The environmental movement is responsible, at least in the USA, for the anti-Nuke hysteria, for the regulations that make NIMBY work so well, and for a continuing hostility to modern science and technology. So it's fully sharing in the responsibility.

[jj]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


Until somebody actually dies as a direct result of this power outage, I am unable to consider the rest of your argument seriously.

In other words, money and materals lost don't matter? Really?

[jj]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


He is correct.

Entirely correct. Now, how did this come about?

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by jj


In other words, money and materals lost don't matter? Really?

Sure they do; but your post's preamble was so hyperbolic that it's difficult to attempt to take your conclusions seriously, at least from my end. If your introduction is proven to not be hyperbolic - that is, if you're correct and somebody actually does die as a result of this outage - then I'll admit my mistake and consider the conclusion.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


Apparently it's not that bad, as the cable companies are finding out. This is the same excuse they always gave for having cable monopolies, but in areas that have completely deregulated cable, this has proven to not be a problem at all.

Do you understand that coaxial cable is a great deal cheaper than 4-ought copper?

Do you understand that you can put miles of one on the truck, and 1000's of feet of the other on the truck?

That one person can handle coax, and it takes heavy machinery to handle power cable?

That coax can be run w/o insulators external to it and power wiring can't?

That the protection issues (safety and lightning resistance) are entirely different?

"More power cables" is a major expense, mostly an unjustifiable one, and in many places the poles in existance do not allow for proper separation of the old cables from the new, so you'll have to replace a large number of the poles, too.

Then, in places like Manhattan, where the underground vaults are already full, you'll have to tear up the streets and make new vaults, deal with the utterly cluttered underground system already there (and unmapped) ...

I don't think you understand the enormity of what you propose.

[jj]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


Sure they do; but your post's preamble was so hyperbolic that it's difficult to attempt to take your conclusions seriously, at least from my end. If your introduction is proven to not be hyperbolic - that is, if you're correct and somebody actually does die as a result of this outage - then I'll admit my mistake and consider the conclusion.

***shrug***

All the evidence is plainly visible in the public domain, Joshua.

You can ignore it if you want. There's not a d**n bit of hyperpole in what I said, it's simple fact.

I suggest that instead of running from it, you think about it for a while.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by jj



I suggest that instead of running from it, you think about it for a while.

I will do just that - as soon as somebody dies as a direct result of the blackout.

[jj]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


I will do just that - as soon as somebody dies as a direct result of the blackout.

How EVER do you determine that something was a 'direct result', Joshua?

And, why does it matter?

None of the heart attacks in NYC last night (and they happen every few minutes, you know) were worsened by the lack of AC, the rescue impeded by snarled traffic, etc?

Really?

I think the issue is clear, here, and you're grasping desparately at something to allow you to remain blind to obvious facts already in your possession.

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
Begging the question, sir. I have no idea what the TRIGGER was, but the PROBLEM is obvious to anyone who reads the generation and transmission capacity statistics for the east coast. (Same applies to parts of California.)

I would think so...The government-induced lack of new power sources, combined with government-induced limits on price, means people are trying to suck more power out of the system than is being generated, and that situation makes blackouts like this inevitable.

The thing that made the California situation really nasty was that the power generators were allowed to set their prices at market value (which was arificially high due to the shortage) but the power providers had price caps. That was a recipe for disaster. No one who knows anything about economics would have expected any other result.

And they called it deregulation...Typical of the government. Blame the free market for problems that it itself causes.

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
Because it IS, Shanek, because it IS. I used to live there, until last August, and it IS DEREGULATED.

In what way? You've spent several posts b!tching about all the regulations! Hint: If you have regulations, it's not deregulated!

Could companies build new power plants whenever they needed them? No.

Could competitors emerge to the existing provider? No.

Could alternate means of power delivery be implemented by the providers? No.

So, with all these regulations, how is it by any stretch of the imagination deregulated?

Now, compare that to Pennsylvania, where real deregulation is underway and is working like gangbusters.

You mean "how do the generating plants benefit from the shortage" and it's easy, they just raise prices instead of building new capacity. DOH.

Even though they went through a period of time when they were not delivering a product nor getting any money from it. D'OHH!!! :rolleyes:

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
New Jersey HAS deregulated power generation, Shanek.

How can it be deregulated with all those regulations?

PA is really the only state where true deregulation is underway. At the time, you have a choice of at least three power providers even if you're in the remotest area. Prices have dropped to a third of what they were, and quality and availability has soared. The only part they haven't deregulated yet is the power delivery.

So maybe YOU should learn what YOU'RE talking about.

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
Do you understand that coaxial cable is a great deal cheaper than 4-ought copper?

Do you understand that you can put miles of one on the truck, and 1000's of feet of the other on the truck?

That one person can handle coax, and it takes heavy machinery to handle power cable?

That coax can be run w/o insulators external to it and power wiring can't?

That the protection issues (safety and lightning resistance) are entirely different?

And do YOU understand that logically there is no difference between your argument about power delivery and the previous arguments about cable delivery?

Sure, there are different costs, different issues. But the market has proven time and time again that it can meet exactly these kind of challenges.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by jj


The chesapeake is a disaster. Your point?

I suppose I should have expected a knee-jerking set of straw me from somebody. :mad:

The point is that youy can't blame the enviromental movemnet for what corporations haven't done. It is easy to point to the enviromental movement and say that they are at fault.

My point is that there are as many ratioanl ecologist/enviromentalists as there are rational conservatives.

the enviromental movement has been positive for our quality of life, it is not to blame for the failures of the capialist system.

So should I make little red angry faces just because you smear enviromentalism for the failures of the capitalist system?
:mad: :p

You are as big a straw man as they come, I support rational nuclear power, I don't like the fact that my local power company made a boon doggle out of nuclear power, but I am not afread, should I throw out my smoke detector because it is radio active? I hope not. Anymore than I fear the radio isotope they put in me when I was sixteen.

So bark up another tree JJ, the enviromental movement is not to blame.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by jj

I think the issue is clear, here, and you're grasping desparately at something to allow you to remain blind to obvious facts already in your possession.

You don't seem to want to "get" what I'm trying to tactfully tell you (perhaps it's a communication failure on my part), so let me just tell you straight: we don't even know the direct cause of this incident yet. It may be days before we do. Preliminary reports from all points indicate that the blackouts caused no unusual or excessive crime rates or emergency medical requests. In fact, the only problems this seems to have led to were less than a single day's loss in sales for various businesses, and a longer than usual rush hour.

Before we start overblowing the problem and playing the blame game, I think we ought to find out just what the hell happened. Your quick deduction of exactly what caused the problem is reminiscent of news agencies' deduction, in the minutes following the event, that the Oklahoma City bombing was carried out by Islamic terrorists.

[jj]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


You don't seem to want to "get" what I'm trying to tactfully tell you (perhaps it's a communication failure on my part), so let me just tell you straight: we don't even know the direct cause of this incident yet. It may be days before we do.

Irrelevant. The only thing we need to know (and we do know that already) is that the net was running so heavily loaded as to be potentially unstable. We do know that. Once we know that, we KNOW that something, somehow, somewhere, will take it down.

The proximate cause may be (I'm not saying it is) utterly beyond reproach. Given the state that the northeast and great lakes grids put up with in the summer, it had to happen somewhere, somehow, sometime. That, sir, is the problem, not the proximate cause. S**T always happens. You have to design the network to cope, and that becomes impossible as you reach full capacity. (and I mean both theoretically and practically impossible in the scientific and mathematical senses, the condition of the network when it's fully loaded is an unstable equilibrium, literally)

The ISSUES are stability and recovery.

Preliminary reports from all points indicate that the blackouts caused no unusual or excessive crime rates or emergency medical requests. In fact, the only problems this seems to have led to were less than a single day's loss in sales for various businesses, and a longer than usual rush hour.

Then you're not looking. Yes, people have behaved exempliarly so far, most of the places, although CNN and somebody else were reporting looting in several cities last night (not NYC, curiously enough, that's good, I think). (I recall reports from Ottawa, and somewhere else I've forgotten. Yes, people have for the most part been very calm about this, and that's good. That doesn't address in any fashion the issue of what happened to people on the edge when the power went out.)

Before we start overblowing the problem and playing the blame game, I think we ought to find out just what the hell happened. Your quick deduction of exactly what caused the problem is reminiscent of news agencies' deduction, in the minutes following the event, that the Oklahoma City bombing was carried out by Islamic terrorists.

Ok. I've modeled power distribution networks. Have you? Do you really have the chops to say that a network at full or beyond intended load is stable and fault-tolerant? (You'd be wrong if you did say that, but we'll ask if you have the right to resort to authority here. Yes, while I'm stale on the subject, I do have some credentials in the area, and I am not speaking from wild supposition. How about you?)

We may not even find out what caused the initial fault, simply because that's how power networks work, especially heavily loaded power networks with no safety margin, which does factually describe the northeast on any hot day in the summer, and which has accurately described the northeast some time now (at least 10 years), is not a supposition, it's an easily determined fact, determinable quite outside any of the news reports on this blackout.

In fact, if you check out some of the technical reports on the grid, the authors will not be the least surprised about this latest blackout, because it had to happen sooner or later.

And the reason is simple, first nobody COULD build power plants, and then later nobody was willing to spend the money. Facts, easily found in the news media, the regulatory agencies, and now even modern history books, sir, simply facts.

No suppositions, just facts. Why aren't you willing to examine the facts. You don't have to take my word, you can find the reports, you can find the models, and you can see the results for yourself.

I won't bother to further summarize for you, because you're playing the classic ethically bankrupt, circular rhetorical game of "you gave no specifics", followed, when your opponent summarzies the specifics by "but you have no facts and I won't look until you do", which exercises an obvious circularity, because you won't believe your opponent, and you're using that as an excuse not to collect the facts for yourself, yet you use the "fact" you claim to have no facts to avoid collecting them.

Game, set, match, jj.

[shanek]

Before you claim victory in whatever game you think you're playing, jj, I would ask you to consider your own FACTS when you were talking about environmental regulations on power generation, and ask that you please explain how an industry can be both regulated and deregulated at the same time.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


In what way? You've spent several posts b!tching about all the regulations! Hint: If you have regulations, it's not deregulated!

Rhetorical cheating, plain and simple. The fact of the matter is simple, who you buy your power from in NJ is deregulated, you can buy from anybody who sells on the net. So you can stop trying to backslide.

Could companies build new power plants whenever they needed them? No.

Willful escape from context. Presently, they just about can, so the answer is "yes" now, even though in the 1970s' it was "no".

Could competitors emerge to the existing provider? No.

Yes, they can, and that's a fact, easily determined if you have your NJ electricity bill. They can, they have, they exist. Q.E.D.

Could alternate means of power delivery be implemented by the providers? No.

That part is regulated by the economics, not by the law. It's economically impossible, as I've demonstrated in another posting. I thought you liked to let economics regulate, Shanek?

So, with all these regulations, how is it by any stretch of the imagination deregulated?

Straw man. Each one of your suppostions is factually incorrect, most of them constitutiong either confutations of schedule or context, in a fashion suggesting that you care more for the argument than the facts.

Now, compare that to Pennsylvania, where real deregulation is underway and is working like gangbusters.

Pa an NJ are very close in their policies. Part of PA went out, too.

Even though they went through a period of time when they were not delivering a product nor getting any money from it. D'OHH!!! :rolleyes:
Your assertions as to "no", "no", "no", etc, are entirely wrong. You can't reach any useful conclusions based on your utterly wrong, trivially refutable premises.

When you have some facts to argue with, get back to me.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek

Sure, there are different costs, different issues. But the market has proven time and time again that it can meet exactly these kind of challenges.

Surely you can't be arguing that the difference in cost, and the extreme impractiality of putting in multiple sets of power wires, when there is no ROI is somehow the same as putting in a cheap cable that is easily supported and handled, for which there is an obvious ROI?

I suggest that once again you check your facts and get back to me.

To reiterate: There is no ROI visible for putting up multiple sets of delivery wires to the home.

There is an obvious ROI to put up something like cable TV that costs something like 1/100th or less of the power distribution cable total cost where there is a market after the TV cables go in.

One market expands, the other doesn't. One market is limited by programming, the other is limited by basic energy costs. There is just about ZERO similarity to the two situations.

You are going on about PA without knowing what the situation is elsewhere, so I'd suggest you brush up on what the states around PA are doing.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by jj

And the reason is simple, first nobody COULD build power plants, and then later nobody was willing to spend the money. Facts, easily found in the news media, the regulatory agencies, and now even modern history books, sir, simply facts.

Well, here we have something a bit more concrete. This coincides more with my idea of what went wrong - simple bad planning. Not caused by "deregulation" or partisan blockades in Congress, but simple "expecting too much of too little". There are also shades of incompetence, given constant reports that there were "safeguards" in place to prevent this sort of thing, and that those safeguards simply didn't function properly.

The simplest explanation tends to be the right one. Now that you've managed to get my attention anyway, can you offer any compelling reason why this mess must have been caused by poor legislation as opposed to simple incompetence, or failure to plan properly?

Edited to add: I hope you weren't trying to impress me with your "credentials", because it didn't work. I have "credentials" in computer programming - fear me! (But since my knowledge involves VB, I'll admit that probably the biggest Windows application I could write with C# would be a calculator.)

[Sundog]

I heard a Washington Post reporter who covered the energy industry on CNN at noon (sorry don't remember the name) and he said the problem was not at all in lack of power plants, but in the distribution system. He contended that there are plenty of power plants, but that in the Northeast there were political pressures not to integrate the grid any better.

Just reporting what I heard; I don't know anything about it.

[Skeptic]

Somehow, I would have been a LOT more impressed by these "in depth analyses" of the "real cause" of the blackout if any of the pundits now blaming this or that cause would have spoken up BEFORE the blackout occured.

Can any of you--jj, Shanek, Malachi, etc.--tell us, if it is so "obvious" who the bad guy is, what the NEXT crisis is going to be?

After all, you seem to privy to the most inner thoughts of what the "evil government" or "evil capitalists" So please, enlighten us: what's their NEXT plan, now that they finished being the "real cause" of the blackout?

[jj]

Originally posted by Dancing David


The point is that youy can't blame the enviromental movemnet for what corporations haven't done. It is easy to point to the enviromental movement and say that they are at fault.

Especially when they are entirely at fault through the 1960's and 1970's, which is the relevant time period. Please do not confute the time periods like Joshua is doing.

My point is that there are as many ratioanl ecologist/enviromentalists as there are rational conservatives.

I think we can agree on that. I won't ask "how many". :D

the enviromental movement has been positive for our quality of life, it is not to blame for the failures of the capialist system.

It is to blame for the bad science, sheer overweening hysteria, and anti-scientific attitudes that it fostered. You notice I HAVE handed half of the guilt to the bad capitalists (I don't mean that capitalism is bad, to be clear, but rather that the people impliementing the capitalism aren't very good at it in the long run.)

So should I make little red angry faces just because you smear enviromentalism for the failures of the capitalist system?
:mad: :p

You can make any kind of faces you want, but the lunatic wing of the environemental movement is half to blame in my opinion, and you'll be hard put to make a case otherwise, given the ridiculous regulations demanded in the 1960's and 1970's, that persisted through the 1980's and provoked the present anti-evironment backlash.

You are as big a straw man as they come, I support rational nuclear power, I don't like the fact that my local power company made a boon doggle out of nuclear power, but I am not afread, should I throw out my smoke detector because it is radio active?

You talk about straw men and then ask that question. You're a sheer, overweening hypocrite. You seem to be assuming that I mean YOU. I was quite specific about what times and kinds of people I was referring to, if you're not one of them, stop taking it personally.

There were, and still are, a wide variety of anti-science, anti-technology "environmental activists". They are part of the reason that the USA has close to a 3rd world power grid. Note, PART. I'm perfectly willing to hand out a good portion of blame to the people who raided cash instead of building powerplants when they could, as you should be noticing, but appear not to credit.

I hope not. Anymore than I fear the radio isotope they put in me when I was sixteen.

So bark up another tree JJ, the enviromental movement is not to blame.
I've proven conclusively that it is. You've admitted that it had excesses itself, you've stipulated part of the blame when you said that.

I haven't said it's totally to blame, so don't bother fighting that battle. I have said, and say again, that it's half of the cause for the present situation where the grid is preposterously unstable on hot days (and on any other day where load is way up).

The other half is the businesses whose owners ran with the cash instead of using it to further the business. I think we actually agree on that part.

Deregulation is part of what let them run with the money. That's what Shanek won't cope with.

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
Rhetorical cheating, plain and simple. The fact of the matter is simple, who you buy your power from in NJ is deregulated, you can buy from anybody who sells on the net. So you can stop trying to backslide.

Really? The power providers are under no regulations whatsoever? And they can either generate the power themselves or purchase it from someone who likewise is under no regulations whatsoever?

This isn't rhetorical cheating. The rhetorical cheating comes from politicians who use the term "deregulation" when the industry is stull under intense regulation, and then blaming the free market for the problems that regulation is causing.

Willful escape from context. Presently, they just about can,

This contradicts what you said earlier.

Yes, they can, and that's a fact, easily determined if you have your NJ electricity bill. They can, they have, they exist. Q.E.D.

No, they have to be licensed and approved by the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities.

From Chapter 23 of the New Jersey Electric Discount and Energy Competition act:

Maintain adequate regulatory oversight over competitive purveyors of retail power and natural gas supply and other energy services to assure that consumer protection safeguards inherent to traditional public utility regulation are maintained,

Maintain traditional regulatory authority over non-competitive energy delivery or other energy services, subject to alternative forms of traditional regulation authorized by the Legislature;

Authorize the Board of Public Utilities to approve alternative forms of regulation in order to address changes in technology and the structure of the electric power and gas industries; to modify the regulation of competitive services; and to promote economic development;

Prevent any adverse impacts on environmental quality in this State as a result of the introduction of competition in retail power markets in this State;

Certain regulatory authority, including requiring electric power suppliers and gas suppliers to maintain offices in this State, is necessary to ensure continued safety, reliability and consumer protections in the electric power and gas industries; and to ensure accessibility to electric power suppliers and gas suppliers by the Board of Public Utilities, consumers, electric public utilities and gas public utilities;

The electric power generation marketplace and gas supply marketplace should be subject to appropriate consumer protection standards that will ensure that all classes of customers in all regions of this State are properly and adequately served.

Provide the Board of Public Utilities with ongoing oversight and regulatory authority to monitor and review composition of the electric generation and retail power supply marketplace in New Jersey, and to take such actions as it deems necessary and appropriate to restore a competitive marketplace in the event it determines that one or more suppliers are in a position to dominate the marketplace and charge anti-competitive or above-market prices.

Awful lot of regulation for deregulation!

Of course, they did deregulate the monopoly, allowing competitive services to be offered, but how do they define competitive service?

"Competitive service" means any service offered by an electric public utility or a gas public utility that the board determines to be competitive pursuant to section 8 or section 10 of this act or that is not regulated by the board;

Yep—they get to say who can compete and who can't!

By the way, this act was passed on 9 Feb. 1999, so you can't accuse it of being archaic either!

When you have some facts to argue with, get back to me.

Abive this line of text is a whole post full of facts...from New Jersey's own deregulation act!

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Places with true cable deregulation have the choice of three or five or
even more cable companies. Laying all the lines isn't a problem there.

Do you have any idea what the cost of that would be?

Oh, you just don't know your Shanek do you.

He'd say the cost would be less because the companies providing the
power would reach agreements among themselves to share the cost
of the lines where it provides them a competitive advantage resulting
in more lines perhaps, but not nessarily more copper used to provide
the same units of power nor a higher cost per unit of power.

;)

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
Surely you can't be arguing that the difference in cost, and the extreme impractiality of putting in multiple sets of power wires, when there is no ROI is somehow the same as putting in a cheap cable that is easily supported and handled, for which there is an obvious ROI?

I'm saying that the exact same arguments were made for cable tv, and they turned out to be bogus. What evidence is there that it wouldn't work with power deregulation, too?

To reiterate: There is no ROI visible for putting up multiple sets of delivery wires to the home.

Shouldn't the power companies be allowed to make that decision for themselves?

There is an obvious ROI to put up something like cable TV

It wasn't so obvious to people before they deregulated it.

And I've clearly demonstrated I know far more about the power deregulation situation than you do.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Sundog
I heard a Washington Post reporter who covered the energy industry on CNN at noon (sorry don't remember the name) and he said the problem was not at all in lack of power plants, but in the distribution system. He contended that there are plenty of power plants, but that in the Northeast there were political pressures not to integrate the grid any better.

I hadn't heard that, but it's often the case that political pressure leads to exactly things like this. That's a big reason to get the politics out of it.

[jj]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


Well, here we have something a bit more concrete. This coincides more with my idea of what went wrong - simple bad planning. Not caused by "deregulation" or partisan blockades in Congress, but simple "expecting too much of too little". There are also shades of incompetence, given constant reports that there were "safeguards" in place to prevent this sort of thing, and that those safeguards simply didn't function properly.

And, "expecting too much of too little" was PERMITTED by the deregulation, and the dropping of any meaningful (or in some cases any at all) downtime limits. In the short term it's cheaper to not build plants and grid connectivity and let the downtime happen, and that's what deregulation has permitted.

By the way, that is exactly what my FIRST ARTICLE, the one you so insultingly, scornfully, and direct rejected, said. How come you agree now?

The simplest explanation tends to be the right one. Now that you've managed to get my attention anyway, can you offer any compelling reason why this mess must have been caused by poor legislation as opposed to simple incompetence, or failure to plan properly?

Once more, let's see if it takes.

In the late '60's, and '70's, there was a lot of pressure from extremist environmental groups not to build nuke plants, not to build any plants, to "conserve" any way possible, to tell other people how to live their lives, etc, but DO NOT BUILD MORE POWERPLANTS. That's step 1 of the problem, we move closer, much closer, to the edge

The load keeps growing, the plants don't. That's step 2. That's just fact, look at the excess capacity in the northeast.

Then, when we deregulate, and drop statutes onuptime, etc, in a business climate KNOWN for short-term cash taking, we know that there won't be any reinvestment of any monies made by deregulation.

And what do we get? Darkness. Big surprise? NOT!

Edited to add: I hope you weren't trying to impress me with your "credentials", because it didn't work. I have "credentials" in computer programming - fear me! (But since my knowledge involves VB, I'll admit that probably the biggest Windows application I could write with C# would be a calculator.)
I'm simply asking if you have the chops to defend your asssertions about network stability, etc, which are IMPLICIT AND REQUIRED in your dismissal of my argument.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Somehow, I would have been a LOT more impressed by these "in depth analyses" of the "real cause" of the blackout if any of the pundits now blaming this or that cause would have spoken up BEFORE the blackout occured.

Can any of you--jj, Shanek, Malachi, etc.--tell us, if it is so "obvious" who the bad guy is, what the NEXT crisis is going to be?

Hey, don't include me in that. We've discussed power deregulation before, and each time I've said that situations like the above are bound to happen.

And any time someone comes around and says what the natural consequence of an action is, you turn around and try to make it sound like we're talking about some big conspiracy or master plan. We're not; at least, I'm not. This is just what happens when you can't get enough power generated, and/or can't get an adequate power delivery system to the consumers, and/or can't charge the market rate for the power.

[jj]

Originally posted by Sundog
I heard a Washington Post reporter who covered the energy industry on CNN at noon (sorry don't remember the name) and he said the problem was not at all in lack of power plants, but in the distribution system. He contended that there are plenty of power plants, but that in the Northeast there were political pressures not to integrate the grid any better.

Just reporting what I heard; I don't know anything about it.

I actually support that. Countrywide we have more than enough generation capacity, but we can't get it from here to there.

As in most physical things, it's hard to beat proximity.

The grid in the northeast suffers form political problems, they are also a reason for the technical imbalances, indeed.

But the reasons are the same, political pressures by one extremist group or another.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Synchronicity
He'd say the cost would be less because the companies providing the power would reach agreements among themselves to share the cost of the lines where it provides them a competitive advantage resulting in more lines perhaps, but not nessarily more copper used to provide the same units of power nor a higher cost per unit of power.

Actually, no I wouldn't. That may be a possibility, but I wouldn't think it to be very likely. I think it's more likely you'd have two or three companies dedicated as power delivery agencies and the power generating companies would license those lines and generate the power to put over them.

[jj]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Somehow, I would have been a LOT more impressed by these "in depth analyses" of the "real cause" of the blackout if any of the pundits now blaming this or that cause would have spoken up BEFORE the blackout occured.

Can any of you--jj, Shanek, Malachi, etc.--tell us, if it is so "obvious" who the bad guy is, what the NEXT crisis is going to be?

After all, you seem to privy to the most inner thoughts of what the "evil government" or "evil capitalists" So please, enlighten us: what's their NEXT plan, now that they finished being the "real cause" of the blackout?

Don't put words in my mouth, that's dishonest.

As to predictions, I've been pointing out this weakness, as have others, for years. It's nothing new, nothing surprising, and entirley predictable AND IT HAS BEEN PREDICTED by power engineers, in every respect except "when" which is a simple, random event.

So it was predicted, and long ago. The randomness prevents any exact predictions either in "where" or "when", but if you bother to read some of the IEEE journal papers, for instance, nobody who's studied the network is surprised.

So take your ignorance and stuff it. Just because you don't know somebody "predicted" something doesnt make that so.

No, I don't have the Cites at hand. I don't have any copies of the power engineering journal handy any more, either.

What's going on here is that nobody likes the message, which is that the two of the most opposed kind of extremist around are jointly responsible for what just happened. It gores everyone's ox, and now the oxen are bleating. Thank heavens oxen can't reproduce!

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
And, "expecting too much of too little" was PERMITTED by the deregulation,

You mean it was permitted by the regulations that comprise the deregulation. Ain't politispeak fun? :)

In the short term it's cheaper to not build plants and grid connectivity and let the downtime happen, and that's what deregulation has permitted.

That's why you need a sensible transition plan to cover the short term. You just aren't going to make the money spent on a power plant back in the short term. And it takes years to plan and build them and get them working anyway, even without regulations getting in the way.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek
Before you claim victory in whatever game you think you're playing, jj, I would ask you to consider your own FACTS when you were talking about environmental regulations on power generation, and ask that you please explain how an industry can be both regulated and deregulated at the same time.

Your exercise of the excluded middle is duly noted. Your misstatement of what I said likewise.

Game, set, match - jj.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek

Abive this line of text is a whole post full of facts...from New Jersey's own deregulation act!

Special pleadings and restrictive definition noted.

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
Your exercise of the excluded middle is duly noted.

How was I committing a fallacy of the excluded middle? I'm pointing out that the power situation is far from deregulated. The only part that was deregulated was the choice of power providers, and it wasn't even completely deregulated at that.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


I'm saying that the exact same arguments were made for cable tv, and they turned out to be bogus. What evidence is there that it wouldn't work with power deregulation, too?

They aren't the same arguments. Given the safely and environmental issues they can't be the same. The two technologies are fundamentally different.

Shouldn't the power companies be allowed to make that decision for themselves?

Just like they made the decision to build new facilities and new transmission networks like they did in the last 10 years, right?

Yeah, sure.

It's a fact, Shanek, that they make MORE money if they set the network reliability point at .99 instead of .999999 and we are seeing that, although not so baldly stated, right now.

And that "make more money" is exactly what they are on about.

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by jj
You do realize that we haven't added more generation capacity,
FIRST because of environmental churning about nuke plants (the
only sensible way to do it, yes, I'm INCLUDING a reprocessing facility
so that we use 75% of the energy in the uranium, not 5%, too...),
and then because it was cheaper to run at capacity, not add capacity,
and charge more.

Nuclear energy is junk technology. Just look at the cost compared
to hydroelectric at three cents, wind at five cent, and natural gas at
six or seven cents, coal at eight cents per kilowatt hour. Only solar
power costs more and even the cost has been falling over time.
The big deal about nuclear power is passing off the toxic materials
to the most unlucky state in the union. Remove the governments
role in subsidizing nuclear power and the cost makes solar look cheep.

By the way, environmentalists and NIMBY people have different goals.
Most environmentalists support advanced technologies that work.
NIMBY people object to anything they think is ugly, good or bad.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


You mean it was permitted by the regulations that comprise the deregulation. Ain't politispeak fun? :)

No, it's a waste of time and it only annoys the cranky moderate.

That's why you need a sensible transition plan to cover the short term. You just aren't going to make the money spent on a power plant back in the short term. And it takes years to plan and build them and get them working anyway, even without regulations getting in the way.

I'll agree with part of that last paragraph, but it's interesting how the service gets worse as time goes on in cable, telephone, and electrical power situations, isn't it?

It's a fact, it's cheaper to build to .99 than to .999999 when you don't have to pay for what happens to people in the downtime.

[jj]

Originally posted by Synchronicity

Nuclear energy is junk technology. Just look at the cost compared
to hydroelectric at three cents, wind at five cent, and natural gas at
six or seven cents, coal at eight cents per kilowatt hour. Only solar
power costs more and even the cost has been falling over time.
The big deal about nuclear power is passing off the toxic materials
to the most unlucky state in the union. Remove the governments
role in subsidizing nuclear power and the cost makes solar look cheep.

And there we have it, claims without fact.

1) Reprocessing gets rid of nearly all of the 'toxic materials', and makes the lifetime of the rest shorter. It also increases the factor of the fuel-use efficiency by a stunningly huge multiplier.

Claiming, in light of the fact that we use approximately 1/20th of the power in the nuclear fuel we use at present, because of really stupid fears about reprocessing plants, that nuclear power is "more expensive" is like saying "if we burn 1/20 th of the coal, it's junk technology". That's the actual facts, in terms of the FUEL efficency of reactors at present, because of the lack of fuel reprocessing. THAT decision is criminal, it assures us of MORE dangerous waste and HIGHER cost.

By the way, environmentalists and NIMBY people have different goals.
Most environmentalists support advanced technologies that work.
NIMBY people object to anything they think is ugly, good or bad.
I'll agree on your NIMBY definition. In my experience, many environmentalists, perhaps including you, don't understand the idiotic restrictions that the USA has placed on nuclear power by is decisions to not build more, outlaw reprocessing, etc.

But I will agree that presently, MOST environmentalists are, in fact, more supporitve of advanced technlogies than they were in the 1960's and 1970's when their scare tactics initiated the current problems. This, also, I agree, a good thing.

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
Just like they made the decision to build new facilities and new transmission networks like they did in the last 10 years, right?

When were they given the freedom to? The only place I know where they were actually given that is Pennsylvania, and there they've done exactly that! And they're managing that power much better since they're able to charge market prices during peak usage times, thus encouraging people to save energy.

The utilities are also very flexible in PA. The consumer is not bound to a particular utility authority, and so the power companies have no method of forcing people to pay a certain amount. They even have technologies available that will, with the homeowner's consent, change the thermostat settings to reduce the power consumed so they aren't hit with these high charges and the power grid won't be strained. Customers who participate are given financial discounts as a reward.

PA's PUC Chairman Glen Thomas has had nothing but good things to say about this, and even admitted that you couldn't get this level of service under government regulation.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek
PA's PUC Chairman Glen Thomas has had nothing but good things to say about this, and even admitted that you couldn't get this level of service under government regulation.

Ok. Now go look at the blackout map cited in the blackout thread in the science forum. :)

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
Ok. Now go look at the blackout map cited in the blackout thread in the science forum. :)

Which would prove what? PA hasn't gotten to the point of deregulating power delivery yet, so it's to be expected that they could easily be hit by the blackout, even if they weren't the ones that caused it.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


Which would prove what? PA hasn't gotten to the point of deregulating power delivery yet, so it's to be expected that they could easily be hit by the blackout, even if they weren't the ones that caused it.

You're good at apologia, I'll give you that.

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by jj
And there we have it, claims without fact.

1) Reprocessing gets rid of nearly all of the 'toxic materials', and makes the lifetime of the rest shorter. It also increases the factor of the fuel-use efficiency by a stunningly huge multiplier.

Claiming, in light of the fact that we use approximately 1/20th of the power in the nuclear fuel we use at present, because of really stupid fears about reprocessing plants, that nuclear power is "more expensive" is like saying "if we burn 1/20 th of the coal, it's junk technology". That's the actual facts, in terms of the FUEL efficency of reactors at present, because of the lack of fuel reprocessing. THAT decision is criminal, it assures us of MORE dangerous waste and HIGHER cost.

What? Direction changed...
I'm not talking about efficency of fuel used.
I'm talking about the total cost to provide nuclear power based upon
the past history and future disposal costs passed onto the rest of us.
It makes no sense to build nuclear power plants in the united states.

It does makes sense to build nuclear power plants in europe.
In france they standardized the design and have costs equal
to fossil fuels and have good reprocessing facilities. See?

[Skeptic]

What, a system monopolized by the government ended up being inadequate and antiquated due to there being no pressure from competition to increase quality and update the systems?

I dunno about that, Shanek. This is the second such blackout in what, twenty years? That would make the "inadequate" system about 99.99% efficient (measured in days) in supplying the needs. Government monopolies have their obvious shortcomings, but if there is one thing a government monopoly is GOOD at, it is in supplying basic services like water or electricity, where "non-failure" is more important than "maximum efficiency" or "maximum profit".

The reason is not that private companies are evil, of course (although the risk of the electricity supply being controlled by a "rotten apple" company needs to be taken into account--remember what a disaster California had two years ago, when Enron charged people for electricity as if it was coming out of a hotel room's mini bar, complete with never-ending power shortages?). The reason is that most companies have no economic incentive to make their systems 99.99% efficient rather than 99% or 95% efficient, due to the law of diminishing returns.

This is usually justified--and people are quite willing to take an additional small risk of "product failure" rather than rely on more expensive "failure free" government products... BUT NOT IN THIS CASE OF BASIC NECESSITIES, where failure isn't (or shouldn't be) an option.

If a private company will run the electricity supply, it will be more efficient, yes, and cheaper, in general--but you'd have blackouts like this a few times a year, not every twenty years. In this case, I'd say most people would much rather have the "inefficient" government monopoly, since a private company is, in most cases, not justified economcially

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
You're good at apologia, I'll give you that.

Uh-huh. Answer straight: How could PA deregulation have averted the blackouts when nothing yet has been done to deregulate the power delivery?

[jj]

Originally posted by Synchronicity

What? Direction changed...
I'm not talking about efficency of fuel used.

Yes, you are. You are arguing about precisely and exactly that.

The more efficiently the fuel is used, the less the remainder. It really, truly is that simple.

I'm talking about the total cost to provide nuclear power based upon
the past history and future disposal costs passed onto the rest of us.

Stuff and nonsense. Future disposal costs presently are predicated on the very foolish, ignorant law that prevents fuel reprocessing. Future disposal costs, as I already wrote, and you ignored, drop enormously when you do fuel reprocessing, because you get to use up more of that radioactivity before you have to simply throw it into a pool. You can also selectively get rid of the hard-to-control unstable isotopes, which are much more highly active, but have a MUCH shorter storage period, which reduces the long-term cost by a gigantic multiplier.

It makes no sense to build nuclear power plants in the united states.

Proof by assertion. You offer no, and I mean ZERO evidence for your assertion.

It does makes sense to build nuclear power plants in europe.
In france they standardized the design and have costs equal
to fossil fuels and have good reprocessing facilities. See?
We can do exactly the same thing, if we abandon the hysterical, dangerous regulations that we have now. See?

It is quite clear that you're responding to a straw man here, you're PRESUMING that the law can never change in the USA, and applying the costs, etc, according to that, to argue not to use nuclear power in the USA, EVEN THOUGH the proof, as you've just admitted, is in the European model, which only ignorance and paranoia keep us from doing.

Why not help stamp out ignorance instead of saying "nuclear power is junk technology", thereby increasing the body of ignorance?

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


Uh-huh. Answer straight: How could PA deregulation have averted the blackouts when nothing yet has been done to deregulate the power delivery?

Why, PA is your model. You kept pointing to it, and were complaining vigorously that the deregulation I was pointing to wasn't deregulation, but now you are saying that YOUR deregulation isn't deregulation.

Circularity, thy name is Shanek.

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
Why, PA is your model. You kept pointing to it, and were complaining vigorously that the deregulation I was pointing to wasn't deregulation, but now you are saying that YOUR deregulation isn't deregulation.

Circularity, thy name is Shanek.

I said at first that the deregulation wasn't through yet, and I've said that all along. Nice try.

Now, answer the question!

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


I said at first that the deregulation wasn't through yet, and I've said that all along. Nice try.

Now, answer the question!

You haven't asked any that are well-formed enough for you to be unable to manipulate the answer, so YOU GET IT STRAIGHT. You claim your questions are "simple" but you've already shifted definitions, ducked, weaved, and obfuscated, and we can all tell that your "question" is nothing but asking me to hand you the rhetorical equivelent of a loaded gun.

So ask a PROPER question and I'll think about it.

The present question, whatever it's gotten to be, is pretty close to "so, did you beat your wife on thursday or friday"? Get real.

Btw, I realize it must hurt to realize that deregulation factually doesn't work, but you have to own up.

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
You haven't asked any that are well-formed enough for you to be unable to manipulate the answer,

Bull$#!7. All I'm asking you to do is support YOUR claim that the power outages in PA are evidence that deregulation doesn't work. To do that, you need only answer this question:

What could the portions of the power system in PA that were fully deregulated have done to avoid the disaster in their area?

The answer only has to be something other than "nothing at all."

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


Bull$#!7. All I'm asking you to do is support YOUR claim that the power outages in PA are evidence that deregulation doesn't work. To do that, you need only answer this question:

What could the portions of the power system in PA that were fully deregulated have done to avoid the disaster in their area?

The answer only has to be something other than "nothing at all."

That's not my claim.

Grow up.

[jj]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/15/power.outage/index.html


About two thirds of the way down the article, I quote:
---
Three reported deaths have been tied to the outage
---

If that's it, that's really, really, REALLY good.

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
That's not my claim.

Yes, it is. It is exactly your claim. You tried to point out the fact parts of PA were involved in the blackout as some sort of rebuttal to my post on the benefits of deregulation. I'm simply asking that you support what you're claiming.

If you can't, then maybe it's you who needs to grow up.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by jj
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/15/power.outage/index.html


About two thirds of the way down the article, I quote:
---
Three reported deaths have been tied to the outage
---

If that's it, that's really, really, REALLY good.

Now I'm willing to take you seriously. See how easy that was? I'm a man of my word if nothing else.

The reason I don't see the connection with deregulation is the fact that Northern Ohio is not deregulated, yet experienced the same problems.

I suppose you could say that deregulation caused a problem in wherever deregulation is in effect, and that other non-deregulated but connected grids suffered as a result...but that is most likely not the case, as the problem is being traced, at least by some, to Northern Ohio.

OHIO: Regulated. Possibly the Flashpoint location.

NEW JERSEY: Deregulated. Likely a secondary victim.

Deregulation may have made New Jersey more vulnerable to such a problem, but you've shown nothing which explains how deregulation in Jersey could lead to an incident in Ohio. Surely, the very same "expecting too much from too little" was done in Ohio, but it wasn't "permitted" by deregulation, because deregulation has nothing to do with Ohio.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


Yes, it is. It is exactly your claim. You tried to point out the fact parts of PA were involved in the blackout as some sort of rebuttal to my post on the benefits of deregulation. I'm simply asking that you support what you're claiming.

If you can't, then maybe it's you who needs to grow up.

Once again, you have mis-stated my claim, and you have once again exercised the fallacy of the excluded middle. You appear unworthy of discourse.

[jj]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


Now I'm willing to take you seriously. See how easy that was? I'm a man of my word if nothing else.

The reason I don't see the connection with deregulation is the fact that Northern Ohio is not deregulated, yet experienced the same problems.

Indeed, let's say that even if Ohio was the flashpoint, and Ohio is regulated, Ohio is vulnerable to outside disturbance, and is also subject to disturbing the outside, all it requires is a near-max-load condition. The "9 second event" recorded around Lake Erie looks like a classical "energy dump" when the network has to readjust phase in order to start delivering power suddenly.

IDeregulation may have made New Jersey more vulnerable to such a problem, but you've shown nothing which explains how deregulation in Jersey could lead to an incident in Ohio. Surely, the very same "expecting too much from too little" was done in Ohio, but it wasn't "permitted" by deregulation, because deregulation has nothing to do with Ohio.

Let's say that Ohio, in and of itself, is regulated, and keeps enough excess capacity.

Let's say PA, NY, and NJ aren't regulated, and don't have sufficient stabilizing capacity (it takes a substantial amount of energy to keep the network stable, you know).

Ohio, unless it is COMPLETELY DISCONNECTED, is going to be entirely able to both excite and suffer from events in the instable network.

Simple network theory. Any model of a power network that is even moderately complete can show it.

[T'ai Chi]

At http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/15/blackout.cause/index.html they say that "We're not absolutely sure that's where it happened, and we won't be sure for the next couple of days.".

If someone here knows, then by all means, please contact those in charge who apparently don't know.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by jj


Let's say that Ohio, in and of itself, is regulated, and keeps enough excess capacity.

Let's say PA, NY, and NJ aren't regulated, and don't have sufficient stabilizing capacity (it takes a substantial amount of energy to keep the network stable, you know).

Ohio, unless it is COMPLETELY DISCONNECTED, is going to be entirely able to both excite and suffer from events in the instable network.

Simple network theory. Any model of a power network that is even moderately complete can show it.

Yes, I said that already - deregulation may make the network more vulnerable (I'm still waiting to hear exactly how, by the way...fewer power plants are not necessarily the fault of deregulation, nor was the network stable until deregulation suddenly sprang into existence). My question was, how in that case can a problem which starts in Ohio be the result of deregulation? If the event was in fact begun in Ohio, then deregulation is not a contributing factor.

[jj]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I like power plants and I like the environment, so I thought I'd clear some things up.

So far, I haven't seen any real evidence from anyone. Does anyone have evidence? Notice I didn't ask if anyone had credentials, because I'm sure people do, but rather if they have evidence. Notice I didn't ask if there is evidence, I asked if anyone has actual evidence or can point anyone *directly* to the evidence.

At http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/15/blackout.cause/index.html they say that "We're not absolutely sure that's where it happened, and we won't be sure for the next couple of days." ,so I doubt anyone here can know if the people in charge don't know. That isn't opinion, that is a fact. There is a quote and all of that.

If someone here knows, then by all means, please contact those in charge who apparently don't know.

As far as I can see, nobody here has claimed to know the proximate cause, only the root problem.

Perhaps you don't understand what "random" means, in terms of "random network perterbutation"???

[jj]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


Yes, I said that already - deregulation may make the network more vulnerable (I'm still waiting to hear exactly how, by the way...fewer power plants are not necessarily the fault of deregulation, nor was the network stable until deregulation suddenly sprang into existence). My question was, how in that case can a problem which starts in Ohio be the result of deregulation? If the event was in fact begun in Ohio, then deregulation is not a contributing factor.
DEAD FLAT COMPLETELY WRONG AND BASED ON A COMPLETELY FAULTY UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE POWER NETWORK WORKS.

Consider:

If the network OUTSIDE Ohio is unstable, never mind why for now, the fact that Ohio perturbs the unstable network is all that it takes. If Ohio, a perfectly designed network, glitches, and either pushes or pulls load as a result, that will couple right into the unstable network next to them. You are making extremely incorrect assumptions, in particular that the problem and the proximate cause have to be in the same place. They do not.

Do you understand this very basic fact or not?

It is a fact. A fault could come about by many mechanism, even including solar wind (yes, it's tripped out long distance transmission of power more than once), and could start outside the unstable part of the network. All it has to do is hit the unstable network in the right way, and ***poof***.

If you check the articles, you'll note that the "Erie Ring" has been seriously troublesome for a long time. That was already true in the 1970's when I worked at a power plant directly connected into it, I can quite comfortably say. According to the best hypothesis I've seen yet, it appears that what happened is that a line opened for whatever reason, lengthening the path for the power->load for at least one plant from "close" to "all the way around the lake". That requires a rather startling phase change all the way around the lake, including changing the relative phase of all the generation equipment, rotating motors, etc, and can easily (these models are easy to demonstrate) create quite startling current (and voltage, sometmes) spikes across the net, which often faults out more lines, leading to more spikes, more faults, etc. The problem is that you can't just STOP a plant, it has inertia, the boiler has inertia in the form of heat, etc, so what happens is that the phase change is gradual, and not even necessarily well-damped. (The dynamics require deliberate loss in the network to enforce any kind of damping without real-time load control between two plants in question, and very little of that is in place to date.)

Now, regulation or not, this will eventually reach Niagara, and trip Niagara, and *poof* both Toronto and Con-Ed are in crisis load instantly. This is currently hypothetical on my part, but the data is pointing very strongly in that direction. Niagara makes a LOT of power in a critical place, and ships a lot of it way far away, making it a very easy place to perturb lots of network in a short time.

The effect of dropped regulation is that the "on time" and "response time" to faults that was written into law, with penalties, etc, included, is gone, and as a result, the fault tolerance is ignored. I know that some part of that is more than supposition, yes, because of what I've seen in terms of maintence in NJ. This is part building plants, part siting plants, part building lines, part phasing the network and spending some energy in the network to keep it stable, etc. You notice I haven't used the word "simple", yes?

A few managers' decision to let someone else spend the energy to hold the network stable is all it takes to destabilize a large net. We have no idea if that was going on at the time, but it has been rumored to happen in the northeast, with one company trying to get some other company to spend money instead of them on network stability. (I don't have any "one company" in mind, a few operators I know referred the behavior as "playing chicken".)

If this Cleveland fault hit while they were playing chicken, that would (Note, this is a purely hypothetical statement at this time!) sum it all up, too.

But I don't think they needed to be doing that, since the net was running so close to max, to start with. The closer to max, the less ability to shift load and handle transients. If most everything is at full load, one perturbation can require a complete load-rearrangement. If you can't do that inside of 10 cycles, i.e. 1/6 of a second (edited to remove cycle, it's second), things will start to trip out and make it all worse.

For instance, after the 1965 blackout, some of the lines across the Delaware and Hudson were set to trip on ONE, yes, ONE cycle of voltage drop or surge. That kind of reaction is what keeps one at least partly up, if the back-surge (power in a transmission line is a travelling wave, and the lines are long enough, even at 60Hz, to store substantial energy) doesn't make you trip out, too.

It really is that simple.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by jj

As far as I can see, nobody here has claimed to know the proximate cause, only the root problem.

Perhaps you don't understand what "random" means, in terms of "random network perterbutation"???

I haven't heard of those. I have heard of "random network perturbations" though.

Anyway, the power system that, I take it, environmentalists didn't build, breaks down and the environmentalists get blamed? That's interesting.

More nuclear power plants? Ever notice how no one really wants to live by one?

I'm all for putting small kids to work to generate our energy somehow.

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
Once again, you have mis-stated my claim,

Then why don't you tell us what you were really claiming when you pointed out the areas of PA that were part of the blackout in response to my post about how well deregulation was working in PA?

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by jj

DEAD FLAT COMPLETELY WRONG AND BASED ON A COMPLETELY FAULTY UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE POWER NETWORK WORKS.


Please try to calm down, this really isn't that serious.

So what you're saying, in essence, is that "deregulation" may not have caused the problem (in fact it probably didn't), it just resulted in the relevant states being more adversely affected by said problem. Aye?

[Cinorjer]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by a_unique_person
Do you have any idea what the cost of that would be?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apparently it's not that bad, as the cable companies are finding out. This is the same excuse they always gave for having cable monopolies, but in areas that have completely deregulated cable, this has proven to not be a problem at all.

You've been misinformed. As someone who works in the cable industry, I can tell you that laying, upgrading, and maintaining the cable infrastructure is hugely expensive. In fact, the cable industry is currently hurting because of the huge debt the companies ran up just upgrading to carry broadband and digital cable. The stock prices have fallen through the floor in most cases. Customers demand new services like more networks, HDTV, VOD, and of course Broadband internet access, yet scream when the rates are raised to cover the cost. Cable companies are not in the business of laying cable: they're in the business of providing a service to a customer, and much of your bill goes straight into the network's hands for allowing the cable company to put it on their system.

The current power outage is NOT caused by lack of production. Many power plants had to shut down during the blackout, and more power plants would have meant more shutdowns. This blackout is an example of the cold, hard equations every systems engineer knows: Consolidation equals efficiency. Efficiency equals vulnerability. Vulnerability can only be reduced by redundancy. That's when the bean counters of the company throw in a monkeywrench. To them, reduncany is capital spent that's just lying around not doing anything most of the time. In the allmighty race to squeeze every last nickle out of the quarterly profits, redundancy is always eliminated from the plans. Power companies are not in the business of stringing power lines: they're in the business of buying and selling power.
Jerry

[davefoc]

IMHO, this discussion has gotten a little off track with people attempting to shoe horn the events into a defense of their particular ideology.

It seems like the failure was proably a three part event (I stand ready to be blasted by JJ here), first there was a precipitating event (a bolt of lightning, a downed line, etc), then a system loaded near capacity could not respond adequately to the event and finally hardware and software that should have isolated the problem failed to act quickly enough to prevent a widespread shutdown. I am sure a fundamental goal of the designers and operators of the system was to prevent such a scenario. But they didn't succeed.

Engineers that work for completely unregulated companies make mistakes and engineers that work for completely regulated companies make mistakes. Deregulation that can often be a good thing can't be done without some constraints in any large scale enterprise because at a minimum damage to third parties needs to be mitigated and compensated and in the case of power companies national secuirty considerations may argue for regulations that require more system reliability than would otherwise be implemented by suppliers.

The point here is that the problem needs to be understood and solved perhaps by a combination of market incentives and regulations but trying to prove that socialism doesn't work or laisse-faire capitalism doesn't work as a result of this event seems like a stretch.

[jj]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


I haven't heard of those. I have heard of "random network perturbations" though.

Anyway, the power system that, I take it, environmentalists didn't build, breaks down and the environmentalists get blamed? That's interesting.

More nuclear power plants? Ever notice how no one really wants to live by one?

I'm all for putting small kids to work to generate our energy somehow.

Your specious logic is obvious. Try again. Next time, it would be good of you to admit fully the hysterical behavior of 1960's and 1970's environmental activists, a hysteria still demonstrated by your own comments about nuclear plants.

As to environmentalists, it appears that you are simply too logically bankrupt to realize that what environmentalists PREVENTED from being built is PART of the problem. It would be good of you to cease using the logical fallacy that enforcing an absense creates no ethical liability, though, your logic regarding environmentalists is exactly parallel to saying that anti-hot-water activists (a hypothetical, I hope) are not to blame for the lack of hot water, even though they prevented the building of water heaters that someone ELSE might have built.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


Then why don't you tell us what you were really claiming when you pointed out the areas of PA that were part of the blackout in response to my post about how well deregulation was working in PA?

No, I'm not going to restate my claim, you're the one who's been bandying about the straw men, YOU knuckle down and figure out what I DID write.

[jj]

Originally posted by Cinorjer
[BThe current power outage is NOT caused by lack of production. Many power plants had to shut down during the blackout, and more power plants would have meant more shutdowns. This blackout is an example of the cold, hard equations every systems engineer knows: Consolidation equals efficiency. Efficiency equals vulnerability. Vulnerability can only be reduced by redundancy. That's when the bean counters of the company throw in a monkeywrench. To them, reduncany is capital spent that's just lying around not doing anything most of the time. In the allmighty race to squeeze every last nickle out of the quarterly profits, redundancy is always eliminated from the plans. Power companies are not in the business of stringing power lines: they're in the business of buying and selling power.
Jerry [/B]

All I can say is "Amen".

I will point out that deregulation is one way to ensure a lack of redundancy. So is, of course, poor regulation.

[jj]

Originally posted by davefoc
The point here is that the problem needs to be understood and solved perhaps by a combination of market incentives and regulations but trying to prove that socialism doesn't work or laisse-faire capitalism doesn't work as a result of this event seems like a stretch.

Ok, I agree with that part entirely. My comments are not directed to general ideology, but to what actually happened in this political climate.

(Edited to add: Btw, the IEEE ex-president reported on the TV the other evening that the deregulated companies are laying off power engineers right now. Those are the guys who can keep it running, err, ***cough*** .)

I'm not sure if the protection failure came in second or third place, and we may never know, but you've got the basics pretty well, I think.

One thing that people (well you do realize, but most don't) seem not to realize is that high-power distribution networks are a touchy, touchy thing. In some sense, power engineering is simple, it has less elements, etc, BUT and this is a size-32 BUT, each of the elements is huge, and operates, when working propertly, at a stunning efficiency, i.e. with very little loss.

When something goes wrong and the loss goes from 1% to 2%, that means it's going to melt in a second or two if you don't DO SOMETHING FAST. (note, that's not precisely true for all components, but the point is simple, a system, especially one very near maximum load (which means maximum sustainable loss, by the way) can't cope with any sort of perturbation without either melting or shutting down to protect itself.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by jj


Your specious logic is obvious. Try again. Next time, it would be good of you to admit fully the hysterical behavior of 1960's and 1970's environmental activists, a hysteria still demonstrated by your own comments about nuclear plants.

As to environmentalists, it appears that you are simply too logically bankrupt to realize that what environmentalists PREVENTED from being built is PART of the problem. It would be good of you to cease using the logical fallacy that enforcing an absense creates no ethical liability, though, your logic regarding environmentalists is exactly parallel to saying that anti-hot-water activists (a hypothetical, I hope) are not to blame for the lack of hot water, even though they prevented the building of water heaters that someone ELSE might have built.

So I still wonder how many people live by power plants?

Can you tell us how the behavior of environmentalists was/is hysterical? Do you know that 'environmentalists' doesn't only mean hippies hugging trees but also many many scientists?

[T'ai Chi]

I just read:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/16/power.outage/index.html

It doesn't say anything about environmentalists. It must be a conspiracy.

[Cinorjer]

All I can say is "Amen".

I will point out that deregulation is one way to ensure a lack of redundancy. So is, of course, poor regulation.

I'll have to say "Amen" back to you. There's a reason why Franklin Roosevelt, in 1933, pushed through strict regulation for our electric companies. By setting standards (like forcing investment in carrying capacity) while allowing a reasonable profit, it assured a strong industry and a steady supply of power to the American people. He understood the danger of being held hostage to blackouts by an industry where profit was unimpeded by consequences. When something like California or now the East Coast blackout happens, it's not the power companies who suffer: it's the people. They know you're not going to stop buying power because (oops!) you don't get any for a couple of days.

When Bush, Sr. left office, he left behind massive deregulation and insured huge donations for his political party and son. Since then, we've had the California disaster, Enron, and now this. Yet, people still won't accept that, in the case of a vital monoply, regulations are necessary. I predict that even this blackout will be used as an excuse by Bush, Jr. to call for more deregulation.

Jerry

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
No, I'm not going to restate my claim, you're the one who's been bandying about the straw men, YOU knuckle down and figure out what I DID write.

Ah. I see. I'm misrepresenting what you're saying, but you can't be bothered to clarify yourself. :rolleyes:

[shanek]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
So I still wonder how many people live by power plants?

:w2:

I live within two miles of both a nuclear power plant and a hydroelectric dam.

[T'ai Chi]

That's 1.

;)

[shanek]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
That's 1.

;)

Also, in this area within two miles of the power plant, there is residential housing all up and down my street, a number of back roads off of the highway, and the highway itself. They're also building an apartment complex on this side of the plant and a community of condos on the other side.

Maybe there are people who wouldn't want to move here because of the nuke plant, but that still leaves no shortage of people in the area.

[jj]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


Please try to calm down, this really isn't that serious.

So what you're saying, in essence, is that "deregulation" may not have caused the problem (in fact it probably didn't), it just resulted in the relevant states being more adversely affected by said problem. Aye?

As someone else has now pointed out, redundancy prevents fault propagation.

Faults will ALWAYS happen. The proximate cause WILL ALWAYS BE THERE. Life is like that.

What deregulation (among other things) does is encourage a lack of redundancy, creating a situation where the fault can spread.

The point, of course, in regard to your comment, is that the original fault doesn't even have to be in the unstable part of the network, all it has to do is propagate there.

[jj]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


So I still wonder how many people live by power plants?

Can you tell us how the behavior of environmentalists was/is hysterical? Do you know that 'environmentalists' doesn't only mean hippies hugging trees but also many many scientists?

Go read the history. You've made it clear that you won't accept what I say, so it's entirely bogus on your part to ask me to tell you more.

Go study the actions of environmentalists in the 1960's and 1970's. They are quite a bit different than those who remain now, at least for the most part.

I used to live close enough to a power plant to commute there in 5 minutes to work. Does that count? Never saw anything from it, either, but the stacks on the horizon. No smell, no debris, no particulates ...

Powerplants do NOT have to be dirty. This one was built in 1952 and was fairly clean.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


Ah. I see. I'm misrepresenting what you're saying, but you can't be bothered to clarify yourself. :rolleyes:

You left out the "again". If you haven't gotten it by now . . .

[jj]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I just read:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/16/power.outage/index.html

It doesn't say anything about environmentalists. It must be a conspiracy.

Oooh, more grade-school misdirection.

The article isn't bad in discussing the "why" of the proximate cause.

Your misbehavior, however, in terms of ignoring all but the proximate cause, in specific ignoring the simple, easily researched FACTS about how the system got the way it is, is typical of the 1960's environmentalist, who was always ready for a cheap sound bite instead of a deep examination.

Some of the anti-nuculer activists were the same, of course, but I haven't gotten your entire take on that.

Once again, the question is:

Which of the two releases more radiation into the environment:

1) The TMI "disaster" (which was primarily a regulatory disaster, but we'll let that out), including all releases from the reactor.

or

2) A 500 Megawatt Appalachan coal powered power plant operating for one month.



Do tell.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by jj

Go read the history. You've made it clear that you won't accept what I say, so it's entirely bogus on your part to ask me to tell you more.

Go study the actions of environmentalists in the 1960's and 1970's. They are quite a bit different than those who remain now, at least for the most part.


If you want to opine that I won't accept what you say (even though I accept many things that you say), fine. If you want to provide *actual* evidence of "the history" and "the actions", that would be fine too.

I know that the environmentalists did a lot of good and still do. Environmentalist is such a loaded word. A more accurate term would be environmental scientist. We'd probably still be slurping down DDT if it wasn't for them.

[Supercharts]

"Ohio Line Failure Likely Caused Blackout
36 minutes ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!


By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - A failure to contain problems with three transmission lines in northern Ohio just south of Cleveland was the likely trigger of the nation's biggest power blackout, a leading investigator said Saturday.

Alarm systems that might have alerted engineers to the failed lines were broken, according to FirstEnergy Corp., the Akron, Ohio-based utility that officials said owned at least two of the three lines.


It was not immediately clear whether that impeded efforts to isolate the local line disruptions, some of which occurred an hour before power system shutdowns cascaded Thursday from Michigan to New York City and into Canada.


"We are fairly certain at this time that the disturbance started in Ohio," Michehl Gent, head of the North American Electric Reliability Council, said in a statement. "We are now trying to determine why the situation was not brought under control after three transmission lines went out of service."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&ncid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20030817/ap_on_re_us/blackout_investigation

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
What deregulation (among other things) does is encourage a lack of redundancy,

How so?

Granted, power plants aren't like computers, but I find it hard to believe that the financial concepts are all that different. There is every incentive to get rid of excess or unnecessary systems that cost extra money but don't give you much in the way of value. The big trend starting about five years ago is "server consoludation," which is taking all of the features that are spread out over several servers and putting them on a single box. For example, you might go from a web server on one box and an EMail server on the other to a single box for both web and EMail.

There is a price of this, though. If you lose your server, you lose both web access and EMail. Whereas before, a hardware failure meant only the loss of one service.

HOWEVER...there is also a big trend towards redundancy as well. This is where you have your box with your web and EMail server like before...but if it's crucial to have them available all the time, you can have a failover system (also called a "cluster"). Let's say you're Amazon.com and if your web server is down for even 15 minutes it can mean the loss of thousands and thousands of dollars in revenue because people can't get to your site to buy stuff. You will definitely want another box that can take over in the event that the first box goes down. You may even want "load balancing," which is where each server is active all of the time and serves its fair share of requests. Google is set up that way. There are over 10,000 Linux machines making up the Google search engine. That's why that thing never goes down.

Despite what you claimed and failed to back up earlier, this blackout is going to cost the power companies a LOT of money. Not only is there the lost sales since people are not consuming their product, there's also the expense of repairing or replacing the equipment and getting people back online.

And contrary to what you claimed earlier, they can't just make it back by charging more for the power. If they do, people are going to work to conserve more power and that will also mean a loss of revenues for the power company.

Add to all of that the loss resulting from negative consumer feelings.

What it really boils down to is this: Does the total amount of the losses mentioned above, taking into account the frequency of such outages, reach or exceed the costs of installing and maintaining proper failover systems? If it does, they WILL be put in!

The problem is, under regulation, the companies aren't even going to ask the question because they are bound by whatever system the regulation mandates.

But again, notice that in PA, the closest thing to a free market power system we have in the US, you have the aspects I mentioned above that encourages people to use less power during peak times, and even automates this to a degree. Those measures would at least help ease the problem...if, of course, the government allows them to pursue those options.

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
I used to live close enough to a power plant to commute there in 5 minutes to work. Does that count? Never saw anything from it, either, but the stacks on the horizon. No smell, no debris, no particulates ...

Across the treeline from my property, when it's a hazy night, people ask me what the orange glow is. I tell them it's the nuclear plant. After they panic for a few seconds, I tell them it's from the artificial lighting that lights the outside areas of the nuke plant. :D

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
You left out the "again". If you haven't gotten it by now . . .

Again? When did you clarify it before?

I mentioned the benefits of deregulation in PA. You responded with nothing more than the fact that parts of PA were caught in the blackout. You NEVER explained what you meant by pointing that out. And that is all I'm asking you to do.

[Supercharts]

"Alarm systems that might have alerted engineers to the failed lines were broken, according to FirstEnergy Corp., the Akron, Ohio-based utility that officials said owned at least two of the three lines. "

Find out who in FirstEnergy Corp. is responsible and sue them in Federal court for allowing the alarm systems to be inoperable.
Or have the Fed due a survey, gather data on the state of 'alarm systems', and propose regulatory changes and impose standards backed up with fines in a criminal court.

Like POTUS said - find the cause, fix it and upgrade an antiquated system.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Supercharts
Find out who in FirstEnergy Corp. is responsible and sue them in Federal court for allowing the alarm systems to be inoperable.

And make them pay due restitution to the other power companies who have lost revenues because of their negligence. Works for me.

Or have the Fed due a survey, gather data on the state of 'alarm systems', and propose regulatory changes and impose standards backed up with fines in a criminal court.

What good would this do? The alarm systems were there, they just weren't being properly maintained. How will regulating them help?

[a_unique_person]

What is clear is the fragility of the system. It could go again at any time should another glitch occur. And nothing will be able to remedy the situation for a number of years.

What is being experienced is a classic case of 'cost shifting'. That is, making profit at the expense of some other economic entity.

The power companies profit when their is a shortage of power, for example, the recently privatised power system in Victoria has seen prices rise at peak times, such as this one, on a hot day when the air conditioners are working over time.

So, it is to their advantage to run the system to it's limit. They spend the least on capital expenditure, while making the most money.

Now, this is a closed system, so someone is losing on this deal, and the loser is the consumer. The inevitable blackouts cost the consumer far more than it would have cost the power companies to run a better system. The power companies, however, don't need to worry. They have done their job and maximised their profits.

[Cinorjer]

What it really boils down to is this: Does the total amount of the losses mentioned above, taking into account the frequency of such outages, reach or exceed the costs of installing and maintaining proper failover systems? If it does, they WILL be put in!

You would think so, wouldn't you? From my own work experience, that's not how the suits in a company think. To them, every capital dollar spent out of this year's budget must include an explaination on how it's going to save the company at least twice that in revenue the same year. They don't want to hear about something that might or might not happen sooner or later. Like the government, it takes a disaster to convince the people in charge that long term planning cannot be ignored forever.

Your talk about the internet is specious. The web works as well as it does because of truely massive redundancy. It's inefficient to the Nth degree because it is still in its infancy, and is in many ways a cottage industry.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The power companies profit when their is a shortage of power, for example, the recently privatised power system in Victoria has seen prices rise at peak times, such as this one, on a hot day when the air conditioners are working over time.

How does this make them profit from an outage?

And they don't profit from the shortage any more than other industries do when there's a shortage. The supply curve has been pushed to the left, and that causes prices to rise. But that ALSO causes fewer people to purchase the product. People will conserve power more during peak times, resulting in less of a load on the system than there would be...which is exactly what is needed!

As I said earlier, PA has some options for the customer to turn down the a/c during peak times and thus save them some money. Why would they do this if they're such money-grubbers?

And this still doesn't explain how they profit from an OUTAGE.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


How does this make them profit from an outage?

And they don't profit from the shortage any more than other industries do when there's a shortage. The supply curve has been pushed to the left, and that causes prices to rise. But that ALSO causes fewer people to purchase the product. People will conserve power more during peak times, resulting in less of a load on the system than there would be...which is exactly what is needed!

As I said earlier, PA has some options for the customer to turn down the a/c during peak times and thus save them some money. Why would they do this if they're such money-grubbers?

And this still doesn't explain how they profit from an OUTAGE.

Yeah, right. Prices go up, but that is only going to impact the poorest people who can't afford an A/C unit anyway. I have yet to hear of anyone turning down an airconditioner when it is getting hotter.

They don't profit from the outage, from the much greater length of time spent on the edge of an outage.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Cinorjer
You would think so, wouldn't you? From my own work experience, that's not how the suits in a company think. To them, every capital dollar spent out of this year's budget must include an explaination on how it's going to save the company at least twice that in revenue the same year.

From my experience, the companies whose managers think that way have lower profits and are always struggling because of longer-term costs and suffer at the hands of their better-run competitors. Many of them even go out of business as a result.

Any good businessman will recognize the power and worth of long-term investing.

Your talk about the internet is specious.

When did I talk about the Internet? I was talking about an individual company managing its servers.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Yeah, right. Prices go up, but that is only going to impact the poorest people who can't afford an A/C unit anyway.

No, it's not. Prices are going to affect everyone concerned.

I have yet to hear of anyone turning down an airconditioner when it is getting hotter.

I'm not responsible for your ignorance. Many people do exactly that.

No response to my other points that debunk your claim?

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek
HOWEVER...there is also a big trend towards redundancy as well. This is where you have your box with your web and EMail server like before...but if it's crucial to have them available all the time, you can have a failover system (also called a "cluster").

Computers cost 500 dollars. Powerplants are a lot more expensive, and yes, there are stupid regulatory issues that keep them from being sited where they need to be. There is also the needs of the power grid (phasing, etc) that one must consider.

Redundant 1000 dollar machines is not a reasonable comparison.
Despite what you claimed and failed to back up earlier, this blackout is going to cost the power companies a LOT of money.

I didn't say that either.

You never stop with the straw men and misplaced positions do you?
And contrary to what you claimed earlier, they can't just make it back by charging more for the power. If they do, people are going to work to conserve more power and that will also mean a loss of revenues for the power company.

Prove that. Conservation hasn't worked yet.

Add to all of that the loss resulting from negative consumer feelings.

Perhaps you should talk to them on the phone, I have (although not since I've moved out here), and tey DO NOT CARE HOW NEGATIVE THE CONSUMER FEELS. There may be a loss, but they are very explicit and direct about it, they DO NOT CARE, and the reason is that in dereguled systems LIKE NJ AND PA HAVE, THEY DO NOT HAVE TO CARE. (No, NJ and PA are not the same, but they both share this basic problem.)

What it really boils down to is this: Does the total amount of the losses mentioned above, taking into account the frequency of such outages, reach or exceed the costs of installing and maintaining proper failover systems? If it does, they WILL be put in!

And you're ignoring a basic fact. It costs more to get a .999999 network than it does to get a .99 network. So, since they still, despite the "deregulation", are working in a stiff market, they DO NOT CARE THAT THEY ARE RUNNING AT .99.

That's a fact. It shows the complete bankrupty of your entire nonsensical ranting about regulation, too.

But again, notice that in PA, the closest thing to a free market power system we have in the US, you have the aspects I mentioned above that encourages people to use less power during peak times, and even automates this to a degree. Those measures would at least help ease the problem...if, of course, the government allows them to pursue those options.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

You are really ridiculous. Wait, just wait. And when the dark comes, start singing "california, here we come". It's all you'll be able to do. I had a generator in NJ, it kept my furnace and freezer going. I suggest a Honda, they are twice as expensive but much quieter and more reliable. Go buy one now, if you're smart.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek

Again? When did you clarify it before?


I'm referring to YOUR misrepresentations, not anything I've said. Given that it was ambiguous, I won't dock you for malicious misrepresentation THIS time.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


How does this make them profit from an outage?



You need to look at the current political climate and see what's actually happened.

After you do that, get back to us, and explain that this actually has happened.


When you do that, you'll also understand the point about .99 networks vs. .999999 networks.

Then maybe you'll give up your quest to destroy all of the power grid.

[jj]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Yeah, right. Prices go up, but that is only going to impact the poorest people who can't afford an A/C unit anyway. I have yet to hear of anyone turning down an airconditioner when it is getting hotter.

They don't profit from the outage, from the much greater length of time spent on the edge of an outage.

I often find you merely annoying, but you've got this one down cold.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


No, it's not. Prices are going to affect everyone concerned.


That is logically equal to the argument that a dollar has the same value to me that it does to a starving street person.

Do you believe that? Really?
[/B]

You really ought to think before you shoot off your mouth, Shanek.

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
Computers cost 500 dollars.

Server-grade systems cost a LOT more than $500.

Prove that.

I did. See my post on how the PA power companies are working to conserve power in peak times.

Perhaps you should talk to them on the phone, I have (although not since I've moved out here), and tey DO NOT CARE HOW NEGATIVE THE CONSUMER FEELS.

ONLY WHEN THEY'RE A MONOPOLY! The power generating companies in PA have been MUCH more responsive to consumers now that they're in something resembling a free market situation.

And you're ignoring a basic fact. It costs more to get a .999999 network than it does to get a .99 network.

No, I'm not ignoring it at all. If the difference in the cost of maintaining five nines (BTW, I've NEVER heard anyone mention "six nines" as you have as being in any way attainable) and the cost of maintaining two are less than the losses that will occur because of an outage, then they WILL seek the five nines or be put out of business by other power providers who have better uptime.

Again, I have to go back to the cable example: In areas with competition among cable industries, they're experiencing not only fewer outages but also the length of those outages aren't as great as those with cable monopolies. Companies WILL do this if the costs are justified.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

You are really ridiculous. Wait, just wait. And when the dark comes, start singing "california, here we come". It's all you'll be able to do. I had a generator in NJ, it kept my furnace and freezer going. I suggest a Honda, they are twice as expensive but much quieter and more reliable. Go buy one now, if you're smart.

Your inability to formulate a logical rebuttal to that point has been noted.

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
I'm referring to YOUR misrepresentations, not anything I've said. Given that it was ambiguous, I won't dock you for malicious misrepresentation THIS time.

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to tell us what you REALLY meant?

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
You need to look at the current political climate and see what's actually happened.

I rest my case.

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
That is logically equal to the argument that a dollar has the same value to me that it does to a starving street person.

Do you believe that? Really?

You really ought to think before you shoot off your mouth, Shanek.

I said everyone would be affected. I never said everyone would be affected EQUALLY. Maybe you should read before you go shooting your mouth off...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


Any good businessman will recognize the power and worth of long-term investing.



"Now who's being naive?", Homer Simpson.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek

ONLY WHEN THEY'RE A MONOPOLY! The power generating companies in PA have been MUCH more responsive to consumers now that they're in something resembling a free market situation.


What what DO you get when you deregulate?


**cough**

Reality check, please, Shakek.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


Wouldn't it be a lot easier to tell us what you REALLY meant?

I already have. You routinely mis-summarize or mischaracterize my answers.

I've got your number, it's about the argument. You have to win, even when you're wrong.

"It was great when it all began
I was a regular Franky Fan "

[T'ai Chi]

I'm still waiting for anyone to show ACTUAL EVIDENCE for environmentalists being the cause.

[jj]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I'm still waiting for anyone to show ACTUAL EVIDENCE for environmentalists being the cause.

No, you're not. You're waiting to find something you can argue with.

You wouldn't bother to do your homework, and you've made it clear you won't trust any summary I give you, so you are willfully inconvincable.

FNORD.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by jj

No, you're not. You're waiting to find something you can argue with.

You wouldn't bother to do your homework, and you've made it clear you won't trust any summary I give you, so you are willfully inconvincable.

FNORD.

That is an excuse to not provide any evidence.

Of course, you probably don't have any anyway, or you would have provided it over the course of the 3+ pages of this thread. But, I could be wrong. But I doubt it. But I could be.

I'll stick with CNN reports rather than guesses and opinions, thanks. But feel free to poopoo environmentalists (even though reports say nothing about them. I wonder why that is??)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by jj


What what DO you get when you deregulate?


**cough**

Reality check, please, Shakek.

In Victoria Australia, there was a big dregulation of Power Generation, with some interesting results.

As the free-market was to introduce lower prices, to prevent profiteering, prices are capped relative to the pre-privatisation levels. That is, the basic assumption was that, after privatisation, end prices for consumers would drop.

The privatisation was done at several levels. Local distribution companies were created and power generation companies.

Consumers would be able to choose the distribution company after a certain period of time. In effect, however, since there is only one set of power cables going to a house, you are really only changing the people who print the bills.

The big complaint of the old system was that it was a 'gold plated' system with over investment, redundancy, excessive cost, etc.

The new system is now being run down on the strength of the old system. The gold plated power supply is being translated into gold plated executives taps.

The power companies have engaged in highly suspicious activities in bidding for power blocks, with ample evidence of collusion and ramping up prices. The architects of the scheme did not apply any caps to the sale from the producers to the distributors. The consumer price, however, has been capped. This has seen a big walk out of the distributors from the business, with the change in distributors going from many suppliers back to a virtual monopolhy again. The, mainly American, investors in distribution have lost billions.

At the same time, there is a lot of talk about the need for new generating plants. Why do the generators need to build new plant, when the existing ones are making excellent profits. Prices double on a summer day.

The old system had a gas fired stating built close to the city. You can always tell when it is on because there is white smoke coming out of the stack. I have seen days when it has not been turned on in 100F heat. It is cheaper to leave it off and make the money from the baseload stations.

I have even read of baseload stations being treated as peak load stations in England. Shutting down and starting up these generators wears them down a lot, but that doesn't matter if you make a good profit for this financial year.

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
What what DO you get when you deregulate?

I've shown that in the case of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania power companies, with rates already less than a third of what they were before, have given people the option of installing meters in their house that would turn up the a/c or turn down the heat some during peak times, and even give them a discount for doing so!

So, it seems to me like you get cheaper electricity and better management of peak time usage.

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
I already have.

Where? A link to the post will be sufficient, or you can just quote it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
In Victoria Australia, there was a big dregulation of Power Generation, with some interesting results.

From what you've said in this post, this sounds more like the California version of "deregulation" than any actual usable meaning of the term. To wit:

The architects of the scheme did not apply any caps to the sale from the producers to the distributors. The consumer price, however, has been capped.

That is exactly what went wrong in California, and exactly what caused all of the problems and the rolling blackouts. The market simply is not allowed to set a fair price and pass it on to consumers.

Why would anyone think that's a free market situation? And why would anyone think it's preferable to one?

[Dancing David]

Me, an overweening hypocrite, thats makes you a patronising doofus. Get off your superior pony old man!


Gee JJ, I think that the reasons that there aren't more nuclear power plants has a lot more to do with society than it does the enviromental movement. But perhaps I should hold all conservatives in contempt for the way the religous right acts. So I guess you are responsible for the abortion clinic bombings the same way that the enviromental movement is responsible for power failure.

Take it back to the sixties and seventies? I suppose that it directed at the nuclear power issue? Because at that time the power industry was still trying to get coal power plants with zero emission controls. So I would assume that you are talking about the nuclear power issue, unless you think we should over turn the clean air act in the name of more power plants.

Do you think that the enviromental movement is responsible for people fear of nuclear power, that is quite a strech there Plastic Sam! Maybe all the cold war hype and fear of nuclear war has a lot to do with it.

I understand your point JJ, thatsomehow the enviromental movement is responsible for there not being nuclear power plants, just like we have really feul efficient cars and mandatory recycling!

[Dancing David]

ShaneK,
See you deregulate the power system, it doesn't cost them anymore to make the power , but they triple the price anyhow, and you say it's because ot isn'yt a free market. Maybe it's becauase there are some greedy pigs and they just want to rip off whoevere they can whenever they can.

It didn't cost them anymore to make the power, they just charged more for it, capitalism run amok. So where were the other power companies that were supposed to sell energy at a lower price, can you say CARTEL. Thats not the fault of the government, thats the fault of the regulations that the Power Companies shoved through Congress.

A free market works only when consumers have a choice, fortunately, if power feul cell work out, all power will be made in the homes that consume it, and we will do away with the current system.

Deregulation is fine in a truely open market, but it is the corporations that want to keep the market closed.

[Valmorian]

I don't have the details on it, but a while back Alberta also de-regulated power. Subsequently, the cost of power went up dramatically. They may not be related, but there's always lots of discussion here in the papers about whether deregulation was a mistake.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


I've shown that in the case of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania power companies, with rates already less than a third of what they were before, have given people the option of installing meters in their house that would turn up the a/c or turn down the heat some during peak times, and even give them a discount for doing so!

So, it seems to me like you get cheaper electricity and better management of peak time usage.

You haven't shown ANYTHING about the actual long-term effects in Pa, Shanek.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


Where? A link to the post will be sufficient, or you can just quote it.

Why? You've falsely summarized it several times now, so it's evident that YOU have read what I said. Go back and read what I wrote, and then write a legitimate question, and I will CONSIDER giving you the priviledge of an answer.

[jj]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Gee JJ, I think that the reasons that there aren't more nuclear power plants has a lot more to do with society than it does the enviromental movement.

Of course there is more than the environmental movement involved, but it was the environmental movement then that created the massive hysteria against nuclear power by creating all sorts of nonsensical, really scary propaganda that was of the "we will destroy the planet next week" variety.

The social climate was right for it, of course, but that's still no excuse for deliberately creating hysteria. Now, the same movement is also somewhat responsible for fighting coal plants, although there are certainly a large variety of reasons to object to more coal plants (ones that make sense) so I can't hold that against the folks who did that as much. I don't like the methods, but at least there was more science involved.

But perhaps I should hold all conservatives in contempt for the way the religous right acts. So I guess you are responsible for the abortion clinic bombings the same way that the enviromental movement is responsible for power failure.

How stunningly dishonest of you! I've specified who I mean, which is not "all environmentalists". I've been clear about that, and now you've dishonestly suggested I'm blaming "all environmentalists". I'm sorry, David, but that lame stunt has just lowered my estimation of you by a great deal. Oh, and how am I responsible for the "abortion clinic bombings"? Jedi Knight says I'm a "dupe of leftism", and "American" says I'm a "commie wuss". Could you guys make up your minds? I guess you don't like moderates, do you? I gored both the silly-party wing of the environmentalist movement and the present set of money-grubbing-conservatives. I guess you forgot that in your haste to build up and burn down a straw man? (having finished reading your nasty little diatribe, I see you not only forgot it, you effectively denied that I said what I said, below)

Take it back to the sixties and seventies? I suppose that it directed at the nuclear power issue? Because at that time the power industry was still trying to get coal power plants with zero emission controls. So I would assume that you are talking about the nuclear power issue, unless you think we should over turn the clean air act in the name of more power plants.

Exercise of the excluded middle, sir, you're using the basic, well-honed fallacy that proposes if I don't agree 100% with your line, I must hold the exactly opposite position. If you'd bother to read what I wrote instead of knee-jerk you'd know already I don't hold either your apparent position OR the exact opposite. I guess you, like Jedi, can't concieve that somebody might be a moderate who actually gives a d**m.

Do you think that the enviromental movement is responsible for people fear of nuclear power, that is quite a strech there Plastic Sam! Maybe all the cold war hype and fear of nuclear war has a lot to do with it.

It has something to do with it, indeed.

I understand your point JJ, that somehow the enviromental movement is responsible for there not being nuclear power plants,

Obviously you don't understand my point, and you're making excessively strong claims so you can attempt to illicitly portray my position as extreme, when in fact it's not. The environmental movement (look, I was there, I was a witness) deliberately fanned the flames, conciously (I was there, remember?) took advantage of people's fears about the cold war, etc, and fanned them as hot as possible, and so on.

That does not make them solely responsible. They are, however, entirely responsible for the deliberate hysteria that they created.

just like we have really feul efficient cars and mandatory recycling!
My my, it appears that you've conveniently forgotten the other half of what I said, where I complained about the present "conservatives" caving into the short-term business interest by deregulating things.

You appear to be unable to fairly or accurately summarize what I've said, and your illicit argument techniques echo those of the lunatic-fringe in the 1960's to a 't'. Perhaps I've inadvertantly gored your own ox? Are you one of those people who was deliberately whipping up hysteria against nuclear plants and (worse) against reprocessing plants? Is that why you're so upset and being so inequitable?

I would suggest a humble apology. Perhaps you should keep track of what your opponents actually say a bit better. You've moved right into Shanek territory with the post quoted here.

[jj]

Originally posted by Dancing David
ShaneK,
See you deregulate the power system, it doesn't cost them anymore to make the power , but they triple the price anyhow, and you say it's because ot isn'yt a free market. Maybe it's becauase there are some greedy pigs and they just want to rip off whoevere they can whenever they can.


I will say that sometimes you get it right.

Why, then, did you deny that I have said effectively the same thing you do in this quote, although not quite as directly, in my original position in the first post in this thread?

How could you EVER have missed the s**t-slinging Shanek has been sending my way ever since I dared to gore his anti-regulatory ox?

He (and how you) have complete derailed this discussion, because someone (me) dared to state what really happened and happens instead of granting the ideal outcome.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by jj

My my, it appears that you've conveniently forgotten the other half of what I said, where I complained about the present "conservatives" caving into the short-term business interest by deregulating things.

You appear to be unable to fairly or accurately summarize what I've said, and your illicit argument techniques echo those of the lunatic-fringe in the 1960's to a 't'. Perhaps I've inadvertantly gored your own ox? Are you one of those people who was deliberately whipping up hysteria against nuclear plants and (worse) against reprocessing plants? Is that why you're so upset and being so inequitable?

I would suggest a humble apology. Perhaps you should keep track of what your opponents actually say a bit better. You've moved right into Shanek territory with the post quoted here.

I haven't forgotten what you said, I just happen to disagree withit, there are enviromentalists, so called, who are screaming mimis when it comes to nuclear power, but unlike Europe, they don't represent the majority of people opposed to nuclear power. In your initail posts you certainly did not make any reference to the fringe elements of the enviromental movement. I was young in the sixties, but very aware in the sevenites.

At that time there was still a substantial amount of debate over the economic cost of air quality and water quality issues, it was not the done deal that it may seem now. Many of the enviromentalist were more involved in making sure that the clean air act and the clean water act stayed in force, especialy during the wonderful Ford,Carter and Regan recession, here in the Midwest all the corporations did waas begrudge every sensible provision of the clean air and clean water act.

So while I agree that there are some in the enviromentaol movement who did as you say, there are other people involved in that movement who do alot more than oppose nuclear power plants.

I am not trying to misrepresent your views, but perhaps if you review your posts , you will see that you condemn the enviromental movement at large, here in the Midwest we are more involved in things like trying to stop the logging of old growth timber (what little remains) and the restotation of wet lands than we are nuclear power. In fact mega hog farms and mega dairy farms are the current hot button topics. Nuclear power is very low on the list.

[jj]

Originally posted by Dancing David


I haven't forgotten what you said, I just happen to disagree withit, there are enviromentalists, so called, who are screaming mimis when it comes to nuclear power, but unlike Europe, they don't represent the majority of people opposed to nuclear power.

True, but they built the opposition, encouraged it, fostered it, and launched all kinds of quack science about to support their paranoia.

Disagreement is one thing, but you certainly not get to project false positions on me because you disagree. Your portrayals of my positions were simply flat-out false.

In your initail posts you certainly did not make any reference to the fringe elements of the enviromental movement. I was young in the sixties, but very aware in the sevenites.

"looney-liberal branch of the demoratic party's environmental luddism" seems pretty clear to me.

At that time there was still a substantial amount of debate over the economic cost of air quality and water quality issues, it was not the done deal that it may seem now. Many of the enviromentalist were more involved in making sure that the clean air act and the clean water act stayed in force, especialy during the wonderful Ford,Carter and Regan recession, here in the Midwest all the corporations did waas begrudge every sensible provision of the clean air and clean water act.

And the extremist views that started the argument are one of the reasons that the corporations were as successful as they were, and one of the reasons that the money-grubber backlash of today is so injuriously successful.

So while I agree that there are some in the enviromentaol movement who did as you say, there are other people involved in that movement who do alot more than oppose nuclear power plants.

I've said that. You don't imagine I disagree, do you?

I am not trying to misrepresent your views, but perhaps if you review your posts , you will see that you condemn the enviromental movement at large,

NO
I
DO
NOT

here in the Midwest we are more involved in things like trying to stop the logging of old growth timber (what little remains) and the restotation of wet lands than we are nuclear power. In fact mega hog farms and mega dairy farms are the current hot button topics. Nuclear power is very low on the list.

I grew up in the midwest. You left out mega-chicken-farms. (ugh!)

[Dancing David]

'looney-liberal branch of the demoratic party's environmental luddism'

As someone who believes that we alreday have technology and that it issn't the culprit, I just find this do be a sweeping generalization of the enviromental movement. I , and many others aren't luddites, we may be involved in restoration and preservation, but we drive cars, ride bikes when possible, and in general have the same believes that all Americans do. There are many enviromentalists who don't want to live as our Amish bretheren do!

And while Diablo Canyon is perhaps the best example of enviromentalism run amok, you are still mischaracterising the enviromental movement. Not all of us would sit in a redwood tree for a year when they could be preserving more valuable old growth timber!

Just because some people with an agenda stick out in your mind, it does not mean that the whole enviromental movement is anti technology, current issues are more about the removal of lead in the urban setting than they are nuclear pwoer.

No apology forthcoming, I again am just stating that you have characterised the enviromental movement as being antin technological troglodytes. Some are but they are the vocal monority. Here in Illinois there are much more important issues!

[jj]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


That is an excuse to not provide any evidence.



Rather, it represents understanding of your repeated use of logical fallacies in this "debate".

Nobody here has said that environmentalists are the "proximate" cause of this blackout, what I've said is that they (especially the lunatic-fringe wing) have contributed substantially to the situation that allows it to happen and propagate like this.

You are routinely misrepresenting the discussion here, simply so you can keep making the same old sound bite about how you haven't seen "environmentalists in the news", when everyone, including you, knows that comment is misleading, hypocritical, and completely without relevance to this discussion.

Why are you doing that?

[jj]

Originally posted by Dancing David
'looney-liberal branch of the demoratic party's environmental luddism'

As someone who believes that we alreday have technology and that it issn't the culprit, I just find this do be a sweeping generalization of the enviromental movement. I , and many others aren't luddites, we may be involved in restoration and preservation, but we drive cars, ride bikes when possible, and in general have the same believes that all Americans do. There are many enviromentalists who don't want to live as our Amish bretheren do!


Now maybe I understand, do you read every statement about environmentalists as all-inclusive despite the obvious, clear, and incontrovertable presence of the words "looney-liberal branch"?

Since when is a branch the whole tree, David? That's "branch" as in "part", "not the whole", etc, etc.

As I said, it's clear. What I said was clear. Why won't you just read what I said?

You appear to be tilting against your own ghosts, David. (P.S. I have myself been accused of being a lunatic environmentalist, if that makes any difference to you.)

Btw, did anyone (I haven't noticed anyone) answer this question:

Which of the two released more radioactivity into the environment:

1) TMI, including the accident, gas releases, etc, etc, i.e. the whole works,

or

2) A coal plant, burning appalachan coal, generating 500 MW, operating for one day.

It would appear, once again, that people don't understand some of the trace constituants of coal. :roll:

[Dancing David]

Given that there are probably some really dangerous elements in the coal, I would guess the coal plant, I didn't think that there was that big a release at TMI, didn't the reactor vessel conrol the radioactive plume, unlike Chernobyl?

I am not opposed to the burning of coal either, I would assume that there are low tech ways to reduce the release of the dangerous stuff, but it always comes down to polluting water instead of air in the current schemes.

[jj]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Given that there are probably some really dangerous elements in the coal, I would guess the coal plant, I didn't think that there was that big a release at TMI, didn't the reactor vessel conrol the radioactive plume, unlike Chernobyl?

Quite so. Thorium and Radon are both present in coal. The coal plant releases more radiation into the environment. It depends on what kind of radiation we're talking about if we use 6 hours or a month as the time length, though.

And TMI was contained properly. TMI was an event a great, huge amount worse than the "china syndrome" models claimed would start a catastrophic meltdown, by the way, and while it certainly overheated things horridly, barely melted anything to speak of, the whole guts of the reactor are NOT lying on the floor, bubbling, nor did that ever appear to be near happening.

Chernobyl is a different story altogether. Graphite piles are scarily unsafe designs, they are safest at full load, but shut down slowly, and are unstable when running at low power, the moderation material BURNS IN AIR, and on top of that they were doing exactly what the engineers who built it said "will make it blow up". I have no idea, and I don't think anyone else does, either, why they were playing, in the way they were, with a terribly unstable reactor like that.

I am entirely comfortable with outlawing Chernobyl-type reactors (i.e. graphite piles) forever. We know how to do better, and (*&(* we ought to do so. Thing is, we knew how to do better in 1960!!! To that kind of reactor, some hysteria IS appropriate, just in case my position wasn't clear.

I am not opposed to the burning of coal either, I would assume that there are low tech ways to reduce the release of the dangerous stuff, but it always comes down to polluting water instead of air in the current schemes.

You can pretty much trap the thorium oxide (it's the same stuff that gas lamp mantles are made out of) once you can capture the fine particles, because it's insoluable, refractory, and just not very mobile in the environment. Radon, though, just sinks back to earth (it's an inert gas, although it does appear to have a bit of chemestry, somewhat like xenon and krypton) and decays, though. Radon is a (*&&(*, simply because it IS an inert gas, it only is likely to combine with F, and then only briefly, if at all, and then it's back in the air again, like it or not. It's heavy, it doesn't leave the atmosphere, and it gets into lungs where it decays :(

By the way, you DO see my point about my original statement? Yes? It didn't EVER suggest "all environmentalists".

[Dancing David]

No, but there is some interpretation of how far and how many you include in phrases like 'democratic' and 'luddite', and I still disagree that the enviromental movement is responsible for fear of nuclear power.

I think that fear of nuclear power is just part of american culture, but maybe because I hang out with generaly rational people and have very strong opinions I tend to bounce the 'woo-woo' enviromentalists away. All you have to do is ask them if they own a car and run the air conditioner and they usually storm off in a snit.

So it coulod be that the sample of enviromentalist we encounter are different, as you know people in the Midwest are very pragmatic, so even enviromentalists are pragmatic. I will drive a feul efficient car, but I am still going to drive when using my bike or the bus is impratical.

Maybe it's a sample difference? I also have different recollection about the seveties than you do, the visionm I have of the envirometalists is that thier extremes were more about the snail darter, and preservation of trash forest more than the anti nuclear thing.

Where is ShaneK, is he off trolling somewhere else? I hold the corporations accountable for setting up a system where they make a profit but never have to reinvest in the capital of thier system unless they are given some reason.

[Dancing David]

'Perhaps I've inadvertantly gored your own ox? Are you one of those people who was deliberately whipping up hysteria against nuclear plants and (worse) against reprocessing plants? '

No, if you are talikng about the sixties I was born in 1958, so depending on the time I probably wasn't. I am more interested in the return of the Illinois prairie and it's restoration, along with creating a system that would encourage landowners to allow the river/lake system to return to Illinois.

I don't like the fact that our local nuclear power plant was a major boondoggle, to the tune of five billion dollars. But I don't oppose nuclear power, especialy if some of the more recent innovations are true.

If I would protest a reprocessing plant it would be to protest the developement of plutonium for weapons, I don't think that we should have more bombs. I was one of those kids who dreamed about nuclear fusion.

[jj]

Originally posted by Dancing David
'Perhaps I've inadvertantly gored your own ox? Are you one of those people who was deliberately whipping up hysteria against nuclear plants and (worse) against reprocessing plants? '

No, if you are talikng about the sixties I was born in 1958, so depending on the time I probably wasn't. I am more interested in the return of the Illinois prairie and it's restoration, along with creating a system that would encourage landowners to allow the river/lake system to return to Illinois.

Ok. I even like your position, we ought to conserve both the species and at least SOME of the *&(*& topsoil, too.

I don't like the fact that our local nuclear power plant was a major boondoggle, to the tune of five billion dollars. But I don't oppose nuclear power, especialy if some of the more recent innovations are true.

Presently, it's economically unsound to build them, because of both the reprocessing issues and ridiculous regulation that makes them both less economic and MORE DANGEROUS.

***sigh***

If I would protest a reprocessing plant it would be to protest the developement of plutonium for weapons, I don't think that we should have more bombs. I was one of those kids who dreamed about nuclear fusion.
Well, some of the best nuclear fuels are thorium and plutonium. Thorium will not support a reaction, but will provide energy in a neutron flux quite nicely. A SMALL plutonium reactor will provide lots of those. It's a nice combination. The nice thing about using thorium is that almost all the byproducts are SHORT SHORT SHORT lived, and there is lots of thorium about.

It's also some of the most refractory stuff around, so it makes an excellent choice for something that will get really hot.

So, a reprocessing plant SHOULD extract plutonium, but we should avoid making it in weapons form, which should be possible.

[jj]

Originally posted by Dancing David
No, but there is some interpretation of how far and how many you include in phrases like 'democratic' and 'luddite', and I still disagree that the enviromental movement is responsible for fear of nuclear power.

PART of the environmental movement, the part that ran around with the "no nukes" signs, the pictures of mutated cows, etc, is surely responsible for misleading the public, a public that was ripe to be misled because of the cold war.

I think that fear of nuclear power is just part of american culture, but maybe because I hang out with generaly rational people and have very strong opinions I tend to bounce the 'woo-woo' enviromentalists away. All you have to do is ask them if they own a car and run the air conditioner and they usually storm off in a snit.

Heh. Yeah, storm off or storm at ...

So it coulod be that the sample of enviromentalist we encounter are different, as you know people in the Midwest are very pragmatic, so even enviromentalists are pragmatic. I will drive a feul efficient car, but I am still going to drive when using my bike or the bus is impratical.

I don't agree with your take on Midwesterners, those I know are often creationists, some of the young earth variety, who don't understand science, who fear what they don't understand, and are afraid that once again their area will be the dumping ground for something somebody else richer didn't want, or perhaps the next strip mine. You must talk to a different grade of Midwesterner.

Maybe it's a sample difference? I also have different recollection about the seveties than you do, the visionm I have of the envirometalists is that thier extremes were more about the snail darter, and preservation of trash forest more than the anti nuclear thing.

In the '70's, I attended (mostly as heckler, I admit) anti-nuke rallies that equated bombs and reactors, announced to the public that any nuke plant could "explode like Hiroshima", and other complete horsepucky. Even Chernobyl didn't go off like that, although it was bad enough indeed.

Where is ShaneK, is he off trolling somewhere else?

No idea, tempted to reply "who cares". He's really tiresome, and he leans on rhetorical fallacies an awful lot.

I hold the corporations accountable for setting up a system where they make a profit but never have to reinvest in the capital of thier system unless they are given some reason.
Well, enlightened capitalism doesn't do that, but there is this thing called "Gresham's Law", that, I think, describes the current capatilist to a 'T'.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Dancing David
It didn't cost them anymore to make the power, they just charged more for it, capitalism run amok. So where were the other power companies that were supposed to sell energy at a lower price, can you say CARTEL. Thats not the fault of the government, thats the fault of the regulations that the Power Companies shoved through Congress.

How can they, when the government has regulated the prices?

A free market works only when consumers have a choice, fortunately, if power feul cell work out, all power will be made in the homes that consume it, and we will do away with the current system.

Where will the power to make the fuel cells come from?

Deregulation is fine in a truely open market, but it is the corporations that want to keep the market closed.

That's just laughable... :rolleyes:

[shanek]

Originally posted by Valmorian
I don't have the details on it, but a while back Alberta also de-regulated power. Subsequently, the cost of power went up dramatically. They may not be related, but there's always lots of discussion here in the papers about whether deregulation was a mistake.

A_U_P posted about that above. See my response to him.

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
You haven't shown ANYTHING about the actual long-term effects in Pa, Shanek.

Now, how can I show anything about long-term effects when it's only recently been deregulated, and the deregulation isn't even though yet? :rolleyes:

Try another excuse...

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
Why?

Oh, I don't know, so you can actually proce what you're saying???

Go back and read what I wrote, and then write a legitimate question, and I will CONSIDER giving you the priviledge of an answer.

How can I do that if you refuse to tell me which post you're talking about?

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
Where is ShaneK, is he off trolling somewhere else?

No idea, tempted to reply "who cares". He's really tiresome, and he leans on rhetorical fallacies an awful lot.

Oh, grow the fark up, you two! "Oh, man! It's been a whole SIXTEEN HOURS since ShaneK posted here! He must have run away!!! Ahahahahahah!!!!"

:rolleyes:

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by shanek


How can they, when the government has regulated the prices?



Where will the power to make the fuel cells come from?



That's just laughable... :rolleyes:

In Illinois ShaneK, the companies run the board that sets the prices , it allows them to make all sorts of sweethearts deals. I wouldn't mind the current scheme except it allows the people who make the powr to no longer maintain the lines, these are the same companies that have made a very high profits the whole time. My concern with deregulation is two fold, first that t be an open markey which it won't be , and that there be provisions for the maintainence of the power infrastructure.

I don't know about the feul cell, I would assume that we will be able to buy them on the open market, install them, and then purchase DC appliances.

You can call it laughable if you want ShaneK but corporations don't give a squat about consumers and they will gouge, as they did in california, but that was the fault of the government regulations, yeah right! But the fact is that it is the companies that have kept thier monlopoly staus and here in Illinois they just want to deregulate so they can get out of paying maintainence costs. ComEd and Illinois Power are only interested in profits.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by shanek


Oh, grow the fark up, you two! "Oh, man! It's been a whole SIXTEEN HOURS since ShaneK posted here! He must have run away!!! Ahahahahahah!!!!"

:rolleyes:

Go fark yourself, you gooney bird, I just asked where you were, no need to act like a high school drama queen!

[jj]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I don't know about the feul cell, I would assume that we will be able to buy them on the open market, install them, and then purchase DC appliances.


Fuel cell technology is currently viable. It is closer to 50% efficient, as opposed to 35% for power plants. The waste heat is local and can be, in enlightened systems that are presently illegal due to regulation :(, used to heat water, do space heating, and the like. Presently small steam air conditioning systems (yes, really, they exist) are not available, because of the lack of market, but they would be feasable for the waste heat, too, were they actually in existance. (The technology isn't the issue, rather the maintanence and availabilty equipment are the issue.)

That's running off of methane, i.e. natural gas, btw. If you can get H2, you can do better.

DC appliances isn't an issue, either, the cost of invertors for 5 kW systems is no longer prohibitive.

Here in Washington state, we'd have a bit of waste heat in the summer and none in the winter were we able to use fuel cells for both power and heat. In NJ, with a proper steam-evaporative system for AC, there would be almost no waste heat summer or winter, and a bit in the spring and fall, when neither AC or heat is necessary. Interestingly enough, the load usage would be more from the grid at lowest load, unless the rules were changed to pay back when you powered back to the grid.

That would also, with the right safety equipment, help OUT the utilities, but it does create some safety concerns that would justify inspecting each installation for a variety of safety cutoffs.

The barrier is regulatory, the equipment to connect your house, and have the bidirectional connection out to the grid, with cutoffs when s**t happens, does exist, but much of it is only covered under commercial and industrial electrical codes, and both the code and many municipalities ban it outright.

Shanek, you're welcome to blister that regulation, because it IS absurd. It's a problem in the USA, the codes are always way way behind technology.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Dancing David
In Illinois ShaneK, the companies run the board that sets the prices

If you have a board that sets prices, it ain't a free market. This is what happens when corporations get involved with GOVERNMENT, and it's a very scary pairing.

I wouldn't mind the current scheme except it allows the people who make the powr to no longer maintain the lines, these are the same companies that have made a very high profits the whole time.

Well, in a REAL free-market system, those who do maintain the lines would be able to charge the power generating companies for the costs of doing so.

I don't know about the feul cell, I would assume that we will be able to buy them on the open market, install them, and then purchase DC appliances.

But the fuel cell has to be made. A fuel cell is really just a glorified battery. Take a look at this (from the best website on the planet):

http://science.howstuffworks.com/fuel-cell.htm

So, you see you have to make the hydrogen for the fuel cell, and the best place to get hydrogen is from water. But to get the hydrogen out of the water, you have to use electricity. So SOMEONE has to generate the electricity to extract the hydrogen to make the fuel cell. You're not solving anything; you're only making the problem relatively invisible.

You can call it laughable if you want ShaneK but corporations don't give a squat about consumers and they will gouge, as they did in california,

CALIFORNIA WAS NOT TRUE DEREGULATION!!! They had capped the prices on what the providers could charge and prevented the suppliers from making enough electricity! This shortage made the price of eletricity rise but the providers couldn't pass the costs on to the consumers!

How many times do I have to point this out???

but that was the fault of the government regulations, yeah right!

Yes, it was, for the very reasons I keep saying, and the very reasons you keep ignoring.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Go fark yourself, you gooney bird, I just asked where you were,

Yeah. That's exactly what you meant when you said, "is he off trolling somewhere else?" I'm sure...

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
Fuel cell technology is currently viable. It is closer to 50% efficient, as opposed to 35% for power plants.

But again, you still have to generate the electricity to make the fuel cell in the first place. So that 50% efficience is of the 35% efficiency used to generate the power in the first place...so, all total, assuming your figures are correct (I haven't checked them), replacing the current power delivery system to our homes with fuel cells will actually reduce the current efficiency from 35% to 17.5%.

Where do you think the electricity to make the fuel cell comes from?

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek
But the fuel cell has to be made. A fuel cell is really just a glorified battery. Take a look at this (from the best website on the planet):

http://science.howstuffworks.com/fuel-cell.htm

So, you see you have to make the hydrogen for the fuel cell, and the best place to get hydrogen is from water. But to get the hydrogen out of the water, you have to use electricity. So SOMEONE has to generate the electricity to extract the hydrogen to make the fuel cell.

Wrong. As many many sources on fuel cells show, you can also use natural gas, burning off the C as CO2, and getting heat from that (to keep the proton exchange membrane hot among other things) and use the 4 H's in the fuel cell.

It is not necessary to have pure H2, and not even hideously inefficient, because power plants (steam/coal plants) are in the 35% range at best, and you can get near (if not past) 50% with the fuel cell, even not counting the ability to use the waste heat, which of course in any sensible system you can.

Fuel cells are NOT glorified batteries. Ones that use H2 are to some extent glorified batteries, but that's due to the lack of free H2.

Those that use CH4 don't hit the same power efficiency, but work just fine, and the "waste" heat does a splendid job of heating water, houses, AC evaporator pans, etc.

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
Those that use CH4 don't hit the same power efficiency, but work just fine, and the "waste" heat does a splendid job of heating water, houses, AC evaporator pans, etc.

Do you have more information on these CH4 fuel cells?

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


But again, you still have to generate the electricity to make the fuel cell in the first place. So that 50% efficience is of the 35% efficiency used to generate the power in the first place...so, all total, assuming your figures are correct (I haven't checked them), replacing the current power delivery system to our homes with fuel cells will actually reduce the current efficiency from 35% to 17.5%.

Where do you think the electricity to make the fuel cell comes from?

You don't have to "make the fuel cell" more than once, and then you can use it for at least 5 years with some of the modern membranes. You don't have to make the fuel, either, because they use CH4 (methane, natural gas). You seem wedded to the old-fashioned cells that use H2. There is no need to do that, CH4 works fine with modern designs.

The 50% is the overall efficiency BEFORE using the waste heat, and includes no 'fuel making' as none is necessary.

For H2 designs, you're right about having to make the fuel, but then the efficiency goes up. Still, H2 fuel cells are overall less efficient than CH4 cells, simply because you don't have to make the CH4, and you can use the waste heat from the CH4 cell constructively almost anywhere, anytime.

Your claim of 17.5% efficiency is nonsensical, inaccurate, total and complete quackery. You should do a bit more research before you spew forth your pseudoscientific nonsense.

I expect a full and complete acknowledgement that your information was completely wrong. I do not think it proper for you to be spreading misinformation in such an authoritive fashion, and I expect you to take responsibility for your inaccurate statements and amend them.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


Do you have more information on these CH4 fuel cells?

Err, well, other than the Sci-Am article, and what you can find on a web search, yes, I have more, but I am not sure I can talk about that part.

You can find the SciAm article and a lot more information, though, on the web, both for H2 and for CH4 cells.

For many years, the presumption was (rather nonsensically, I thought) that CH4 cells, because of the loss (that takes them down to 50% efficiency or so, which is still above a powerplant!), weren't interesting.

That presumption had "central generation facilities" on the brain, so to speak. When they are located in the home, the heat does a great job of heating water, houses, ... In the case where you can put the cell exhaust through a good hot-water or hot-air furnace, say one that usually gets into the 90% range, you can get 50% of the energy out as power, and anohter 50%*.9 out as heat or hot water.

Pretty good, that. You can't QUITE use a standard furnace, of course, because you have to be able to route the waste heat around the furnace when it's not needed.

But I really REALLY hope that some combined units hit the market. Basically, they would provide about 35% less heat than a present boiler with the same gas input, but provide enough electrical power to both make up for that, run the house, and then some. It would lead to an ironic situation, where you'd have to run some resistive elements to load the cell so you got the waste heat to heat the rest of the house, but being able to use about 30% electrical heating and the rest hot-air from the waste heat ought to actually simplify system design, I'd think, in terms of comfort and stability. Yes, it will cost more.

[jj]

Originally posted by jj

That's running off of methane, i.e. natural gas, btw. If you can get H2, you can do better.


Shanek, please notice I said this FAR FAR upthread.

Please read what others write before you respond. While none of us are perfect in that regard, it's a worthwhile effort to make.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by shanek


Yeah. That's exactly what you meant when you said, "is he off trolling somewhere else?" I'm sure...

What else could it mean you gooney bird, I have some old french fries if your hungry. Are you offended? But my dear sir you are a troll, a well spoken libertarian troll, but a troll nonetheless.

And that is exactly what I meant, unless you know something about me that I don't. (Arghh , matey, it's those devilish black helicopters again)

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
You don't have to "make the fuel cell" more than once, and then you can use it for at least 5 years with some of the modern membranes. You don't have to make the fuel, either, because they use CH4 (methane, natural gas). You seem wedded to the old-fashioned cells that use H2. There is no need to do that, CH4 works fine with modern designs.

I'll take your word for that until I have the chance to check it out on my own.

Still, H2 fuel cells are overall less efficient than CH4 cells, simply because you don't have to make the CH4, and you can use the waste heat from the CH4 cell constructively almost anywhere, anytime.

Doesn't the oxidation of CH4 release CO into the atmosphere, though? I don't know if I'd want that running next to my house 24/7.

Your claim of 17.5% efficiency is nonsensical, inaccurate, total and complete quackery.

No, it wasn't. If you start from a pool of energy, and you generate electricity at 35% efficiency, and you use that energy to make a fuel cell that is 50% efficient, then your OVERALL efficiency of the entire system is 17.5%—50% of 35%.

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
Shanek, please notice I said this FAR FAR upthread.

You may have; it gets hard to remember that far back in these threads.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


Doesn't the oxidation of CH4 release CO into the atmosphere, though? I don't know if I'd want that running next to my house 24/7.

No, it releases CO2, not CO.

And its exhaust is very clean, because it's a catalytic burn, not a flame burn, so CO is basically nonexistant.

No, it wasn't. If you start from a pool of energy, and you generate electricity at 35% efficiency, and you use that energy to make a fuel cell that is 50% efficient, then your OVERALL efficiency of the entire system is 17.5%—50% of 35%.
Except that efficiency of fuel cells using H2 is higher than 50%, so no, it's still wrong. 50% is for CH4 cells, unless a whole lot of people have gotten it wrong.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


From what you've said in this post, this sounds more like the California version of "deregulation" than any actual usable meaning of the term. To wit:



That is exactly what went wrong in California, and exactly what caused all of the problems and the rolling blackouts. The market simply is not allowed to set a fair price and pass it on to consumers.

Why would anyone think that's a free market situation? And why would anyone think it's preferable to one?

The simple logic was that a free market would be cheaper than the government one. Now if that was not the case, if the government run supply was cheaper, then it flies in the face of the simple premise of the free market right wing fundies out there.

You are basically saying that we should have stuck with the government owned power system, which was working fine.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


A_U_P posted about that above. See my response to him.

They did what you said should have happened. Allowed the retailer to charge what they want. The price went up to more than the pre-deregulation price. Shouldn't they have stayed with the government run system?

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj

Except that efficiency of fuel cells using H2 is higher than 50%,

YOU said 50%; that was the figure I used.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The simple logic was that a free market would be cheaper than the government one.

Too bad they apparently didn't try one.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
They did what you said should have happened. Allowed the retailer to charge what they want. The price went up to more than the pre-deregulation price. Shouldn't they have stayed with the government run system?

YOU said:

As the free-market was to introduce lower prices, to prevent profiteering, prices are capped relative to the pre-privatisation levels. That is, the basic assumption was that, after privatisation, end prices for consumers would drop.

The architects of the scheme did not apply any caps to the sale from the producers to the distributors. The consumer price, however, has been capped.

That's NOT free-market! Price caps are NEVER part of the free market!

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


YOU said:





That's NOT free-market! Price caps are NEVER part of the free market!

We are talking about two different cases here, one in Canada, one in Australia. In the Canadian example, consumer prices were not capped, and rose above those they had before the privatisation. In Victoria, Australia, the prices were capped, on the assumption that privatisation would lower costs. In this case, the retailers could not pass on the profiteering of the generators, and went broke.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


YOU said 50%; that was the figure I used.

Enough dissimilation. I said 50% for CH4 fuel cells. Even in that article I said it would be better for H2 cells!

You are the one who used the CH4 number for H2 fuel cells.

Now, to turn around and tell me that I said that applied to H2 cells is just dishonest.

Have you any ethics at all?

[Gem]

That's NOT free-market! Price caps are NEVER part of the free market!

True, but if the "free market" supposedly lowers prices, it shouldn't have been a problem now, would it?

Gem

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by jj

Nobody here has said that environmentalists are the "proximate" cause of this blackout, what I've said is that they (especially the lunatic-fringe wing) have contributed substantially to the situation that allows it to happen and propagate like this.


You said that environmentalists were a cause. You're right, I never mentioned proximate etc. because I am directly responding to your claim of environmentalists being a cause.

The CNN reports don't mention environmentalists AT ALL I said.

Interesting. :)

[Cinorjer]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's NOT free-market! Price caps are NEVER part of the free market!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

True, but if the "free market" supposedly lowers prices, it shouldn't have been a problem now, would it?

Gem

A valid point. In every one of the campaigns to deregulate the energy industry, the industry proponents have claimed, without qualification, that competition will bring efficiency and lead to lower energy bills. So we say, "All right, prove it. You're making a profit at the current price under the current regulations. So do it your way and keep the current price. You can keep the aditional profit for now. According to you, it won't be necessary to raise the price."

It's not surprising that in every case, the industry has failed to even keep their current level of profit at the regulated price once they're allowed to become power brokers instead of energy providers. But the same tired argument will again be trotted out when the next wave of campaign dollars reaches our government.

Jerry

[shanek]

Originally posted by Gem
True, but if the "free market" supposedly lowers prices, it shouldn't have been a problem now, would it?

It DOES have a problem when the costs go up and they're not allowed to pass those costs on to the consumers. That's exactly what resulted in the power outages in California. No economist would have expected any other outcome.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Cinorjer
It's not surprising that in every case, the industry has failed to even keep their current level of profit at the regulated price once they're allowed to become power brokers instead of energy providers.

That just isn't true! How many times am I going to have to mention Pennsylvania before people start listening to me?

[jj]

Originally composted by T'ai Chi


You said that environmentalists were a cause. You're right, I never mentioned proximate etc. because I am directly responding to your claim of environmentalists being a cause.

The CNN reports don't mention environmentalists AT ALL I said.


And, as is clearly shown in my statement, the proximate cause isn't necessarily related to anything but random events. Your impled objections are simply misleading, and your repeated question illicit and unethical.

If you can't argue to the point, and have to tilt at your own straw men, I'll have to assume you haven't a fact or valid argument in evidence.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


That just isn't true! How many times am I going to have to mention Pennsylvania before people start listening to me?

You keep mentioning Pennsylvania and then saying it doesn't count when people point out various facts. You want to have your cake and eat it too, regarding Pennsylvania, and your contradictory position is just so pathetically obvious that I'm not sure why I'm responding to your low-grade trolling.

[Gem]

It DOES have a problem when the costs go up and they're not allowed to pass those costs on to the consumers. That's exactly what resulted in the power outages in California. No economist would have expected any other outcome.

I was refering to Australia. The free market was suppose to lower prices, but it didn't.

Gem

P.S.: I think some links in your first post don't work.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by jj
And, as is clearly shown in my statement, the proximate cause isn't necessarily related to anything but random events. Your impled objections are simply misleading, and your repeated question illicit and unethical.

If you can't argue to the point, and have to tilt at your own straw men, I'll have to assume you haven't a fact or valid argument in evidence.

It is "unethical" to ask for actual evidence?

I gotta remember that one. :D

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
You keep mentioning Pennsylvania and then saying it doesn't count when people point out various facts. You want to have your cake and eat it too, regarding Pennsylvania, and your contradictory position is just so pathetically obvious that I'm not sure why I'm responding to your low-grade trolling.

That's bull$#!7 and you know it! You can't examine the power DELIVERY in Pennsylvania because THEY HAVEN'T DEREGULATED THE POWER DELIVERY YET!!! They HAVE, on the other hand deregulated the power suppliers and THAT is the information I've been using.

So quit your pathetic whining.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Gem
I was refering to Australia.

According to A_U_P, it was the same way in Australia.

P.S.: I think some links in your first post don't work.

Which ones? They all worked for me.

[Gem]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Gem
I was refering to Australia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



According to A_U_P, it was the same way in Australia.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S.: I think some links in your first post don't work.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Which ones? They all worked for me.

What I was pointing out, and other did too, is that one of the benefits you say (and other libertarians) is that private businesses lower costs and prices. Cinorjer said it best:

In every one of the campaigns to deregulate the energy industry, the industry proponents have claimed, without qualification, that competition will bring efficiency and lead to lower energy bills. So we say, "All right, prove it. You're making a profit at the current price under the current regulations. So do it your way and keep the current price. You can keep the aditional profit for now. According to you, it won't be necessary to raise the price."

So, Shanek says that price caps bars businesses from rising price. True. You also say that sometimes they need to raise the price because they need to pass on the costs on to the consumer. Doesn't the regulated system does this too?

It DOES have a problem when the costs go up and they're not allowed to pass those costs on to the consumers.

So why is privatization better if they pass on the higher costs to the consumer? And you haven't answered why when people said prices were going to be lower, they did not.

We are talking about two different cases here, one in Canada, one in Australia. In the Canadian example, consumer prices were not capped, and rose above those they had before the privatisation. In Victoria, Australia, the prices were capped, on the assumption that privatisation would lower costs. In this case, the retailers could not pass on the profiteering of the generators, and went broke.

So why is privatization better if it's main argument of lowering prices is not true?

Gem

P.S.: Sorry, wrong thread. I think it's the one about minimum wage.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Gem
What I was pointing out, and other did too, is that one of the benefits you say (and other libertarians) is that private businesses lower costs and prices.

Yes, but all of the regulations remaining after this so-called "deregulation" (Wouldn't a better term be re-regulation? But I guess then they wouldn't be able to blame the free market for the failures of government) interfere with that.

Again, I point you to the example of Pennsylvania, where even after prices have dropped to a third of what they were the power companies are still trying to find a way to save their customers money.

So, Shanek says that price caps bars businesses from rising price. True. You also say that sometimes they need to raise the price because they need to pass on the costs on to the consumer. Doesn't the regulated system does this too?

Apparently not, and apparently not as efficiently as the free market.

So why is privatization better if they pass on the higher costs to the consumer?

Because passing on the higher costs to the consumer gives them an incentive to do something to lower those costs.

And you haven't answered why when people said prices were going to be lower, they did not.

Because, as I keep pointing out, it's not, by any stretch, deregulation!

So why is privatization better if it's main argument of lowering prices is not true?

I never said that. In order for consumers to act in a way that results in a lower price equilibrium, they need to experience the higher prices.

Consider the following graph:Price | \ / Supply
| \ /
| \ /------- Price at Demand Level
| \ /|
| X-+------- Equilibrium Price
| / \|
| /---\------- Price Cap
| /| |\
| / | | \ Demand
|---+---+----------
| | Quantity
| |
Deficiency
So here we have a price cap below the market equilibrium. At this price, people are demanding an amount greater than the companies can supply at that price. That leads to the Deficiency, which is the difference between quantity supplied and quantity demanded.

In order to meet that level of demand, the companies would have to charge a much higher price (Price at Demand Level). If you remove the price caps, the price will spring upward to that level. But now the Deficiency has switched: People have stopped demanding that same amount of power, and now companies have a surplus of power.

Naturally, the price and the amount of power generated will drop down to the equilibrium level where people are actually buying the same amount of power that is being generated.

But by this point, things have changed. Since deregulation introduces competition (competition which cannot take place with these price caps), the power companies have an incentive to deliver lower prices. This is going to push the price down as each company tries to sell more power, pushing the supply curve out to the right. So the market equilibrium will now be at a lower price than before.

But it CANNOT happen as long as the price caps are there.

[Edited because I'm lysdexic.]

[Gem]

But by this point, things have changed. Since deregulation introduces competition (competition which cannot take place with these price caps), the power companies have an incentive to deliver lower prices. This is going to push the price down as each company tries to sell more power, pushing the supply curve out to the left. So the market equilibrium will now be at a lower price than before.

This paragraph doesn't make much sense. How is lowering the price pushing the supply curve to the left?

It would make more sense this way: The added competition pushes the supply curce to the RIGHT (new entry into the business, existing companies making more powerplants). Which lowers the equilibirum price.

But there's a problem. Entry into business has natural barriers. You can't jump in car production overnight. Nor can you jump into the energy business with a brand new powerline/powerplant. The car industry seems pretty profitable, but not many people join in quickly. Same with the energy business. A pushing the supply curve to the right would lower prices, but pushing it to the right is not easy. First, the new entries in the market can be bought off by the existing companies. Second, the companies do not have an incentive to build new powerplant IF the current high price profits would be removed by building such powerplants. (In other words, if the costs of building the power plant exceeds to profits gained, they won't do it)

Gem

[shanek]

Originally posted by Gem
This paragraph doesn't make much sense. How is lowering the price pushing the supply curve to the left?

D'OHH!!! You're right. Please excuse this dyslexic. It is to the right.

But there's a problem. Entry into business has natural barriers.

But we aren't talking about new entries. We're talking about the existing ones everyone says are conspiring to push up the price. The whole point of the post above was to show how the remaining and new regulations are what's preventing the price from going down.

A pushing the supply curve to the right would lower prices, but pushing it to the right is not easy.

They're doing it in PA, with prices and technologies designed to attract customers currently using a competitor.

[jj]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


It is "unethical" to ask for actual evidence?

I gotta remember that one. :D

That's another illicit question. You're asking for evidence for an assertion that nobody (as far as I can tell) has made, and using that lack of evidence to imply that a completely different assetion is false.

Your words are deceptive.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


That's bull$#!7 and you know it! You can't examine the power DELIVERY in Pennsylvania because THEY HAVEN'T DEREGULATED THE POWER DELIVERY YET!!! They HAVE, on the other hand deregulated the power suppliers and THAT is the information I've been using.

So quit your pathetic whining.

Whenever somebody cites something you don't like, you cry PENNSYLVANIA. When somebody points out something about Pennsylvania, then you cry BUT IT'S NOT DONE YET.

You have no, repeat NO example of success, yet you insist on trying to trump us all with PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA.

Can't you at least be consistent?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by jj


That's another illicit question.

I find that word mildly titillating. Is that wrong?

[jj]

Originally posted by Sundog


I find that word mildly titillating. Is that wrong?

Hey, far from me to argue personal preference, as long as the word is over 18 years old, at least. :p

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by jj
That's another illicit question. You're asking for evidence for an assertion that nobody (as far as I can tell) has made, and using that lack of evidence to imply that a completely different assetion is false.

Your words are deceptive.

You titled the title of this thread: "Blackout 2003, environmentalism and deregulation run rampant"

I wonder how I could have ever thought about environmentalists being in part responsible for the blackout?? I wonder what the evidence is for environmentalism running rampant that would in part have caused the blackout?

Several posts later you still don't offer anything, so I think I'll stop asking for evidence you don't have.

[jj]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Several posts later you still don't offer anything, so I think I'll stop asking for evidence you don't have.

More selective quoting, extraction from context, and dissimilation.

You are shown to be willfully deceptive and unethical, and your "hounding" with deceptive questions constitutes harrassment.

Perhaps you should rethink your passive-aggression?

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
Whenever somebody cites something you don't like, you cry PENNSYLVANIA. When somebody points out something about Pennsylvania, then you cry BUT IT'S NOT DONE YET.

That is a pathetic and deceptive mischaracterization of my arguments and you know it. You're sinking beneath contempt.

I've made it clear what parts of the electric system Pennsylvania has properly deregulated and which ones it hasn't. And despite your whining to the contrary, my arguments have been 100% constitent in those regards.

You're just desperate because you know you have no logical rebuttal.

[Gem]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But there's a problem. Entry into business has natural barriers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



But we aren't talking about new entries. We're talking about the existing ones everyone says are conspiring to push up the price. The whole point of the post above was to show how the remaining and new regulations are what's preventing the price from going down.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A pushing the supply curve to the right would lower prices, but pushing it to the right is not easy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



They're doing it in PA, with prices and technologies designed to attract customers currently using a competitor.

Ok, I think the flaw in your argument is how the supply curve goes to the right.

This is going to push the price down as each company tries to sell more power, pushing the supply curve out to the right. So the market equilibrium will now be at a lower price than before.

I think what technicly happens is that they want to sell more power (shifting supply curve to the right), which will reduce prices (which they can do because they're selling more power).

Now here's my argument: How do you shift the supply curve to the right? I was refering to high entry costs because new business entry means a shift to the right in supply curve. Current power plants can only produce so much electricity. The only way to produce more electricity (shifting supply curce to the right) is to either make more power plants, buy it from somewhere else, or new businesses starting there own power plants. The problem with this is that these things costs a lot of money, and it takes a real entreupreneur to start something like this.

Also, do you mind providing proof that prices in pennsylvania are cut 1/3 of what they were at regulation level?

Gem

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


That is a pathetic and deceptive mischaracterization of my arguments and you know it. You're sinking beneath contempt.

I've made it clear what parts of the electric system Pennsylvania has properly deregulated and which ones it hasn't. And despite your whining to the contrary, my arguments have been 100% constitent in those regards.

You're just desperate because you know you have no logical rebuttal.

Don't tell me what my position is, sonnie boy.

You've made it clear what you're talking about WHEN IT SUITS YOUR POINT and you have not WHEN IT DOES NOT SUIT YOUR POINT.

And that's plain as day, night, the full moon on a cloudless night, or your endless rhetorical manouvers to back up empty theories of government.

Go listen to Halley's 5th, why don't you?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Gem
I think what technicly happens is that they want to sell more power (shifting supply curve to the right), which will reduce prices (which they can do because they're selling more power).

That's a good rephrasing of my argument.

Now here's my argument: How do you shift the supply curve to the right?

The whole "supply curve shifting to the right" thing simply means that the company is willing or able to sell more power at a particular price level. So really, to shift it to the right you just make the decision to make more available.

Of course, that has consequences. Since that will result in the equilibrium quantity being greater, you'd have to make sure you can produce that much. With power, the real problem is the peak hours, and I've already written as to how the Pennsylvania power suppliers are making more efficient use of the peak time hours. They're not going to just let there be an extra amount be unused all of the time, so they're then going to try to sell more power.

If you think of the power output graph, the peak times being represented by mountains, if they tried to sell more power across the board they wouldn't have enough to supply everyone during peak loads. But that unused amount during non-peak time is power they could otherwise be selling. So there's the motivation to turn those mountains into hills, so they can increase supply across the board. The peak times will go back up to where they were, and the off-peak times will still be greater.

The only way to produce more electricity (shifting supply curce to the right) is to either make more power plants, buy it from somewhere else, or new businesses starting there own power plants.

Or to start using power more efficiently, as I just illustrated.

Also, do you mind providing proof that prices in pennsylvania are cut 1/3 of what they were at regulation level?

I couldn't locate my original source for that in a couple of minutes. I did find this one:

"We have delivered approximately $3 billion in savings, due to guaranteed rate cuts, savings from shopping, and avoided fuel costs," said Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Chairman John M. Quain. "Before electric choice, Pennsylvania electric rates were 15 percent above the national average, and now our rates are 4.4 percent below the national average. We established a new market environment in which the natural supply and demand forces flourish."

http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/issues/scan.htm?Id=416&Print=Y

[T'ai Chi]

Selective quoting? How else would quoting be done? Duh.

How is quoting the title of this thread, "Blackout 2003, environmentalism and deregulation run rampant", in any way deceptive and unethical?

Anyway...

Forget jj (on the iggy list), does anyone have evidence that environmentalism running rampant or whatever played a part in causing the recent blackout? And no rhetoric please.

[Cinorjer]

At least one person keeps pointing out that Pennsylvania is the shining example of deregulation working for the consumer. Might I point out that Pennsylvania produces more electricity than it can use, and sits on top of a major intersection of high capacity transmission lines (lines built under the old regulatory system). That makes it a winner in the game of escalating wholesale energy prices, for now. The reason Pennsylvania residents haven't seen the huge rise in electricity bills is because your energy plants are able to rake in huge profits selling your excess capacity. For now.

Congratulations. The shareholders of the energy companies in your state are making huge profits. So did Enron, until the bubble burst. Yes, your state is the exception. That has little to do with the benefits of deregulation and more to do with a legacy of strong production and distribution created under the old regulatory system. Now, who's going to maintain this system now that your energy companies aren't required to do so? And who's going to ultimately pay the bill?

Jerry

[jj]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Selective quoting? How else would quoting be done? Duh.

You know as well as I do that 'selective quoting' refers to removing comments from their context. It is time for you to admit that you routinely do that.

How is quoting the title of this thread, "Blackout 2003, environmentalism and deregulation run rampant", in any way deceptive and unethical?

When you imply, by isolating it from the article that follows it, that it means something that it does not.

Anyway...

Forget jj (on the iggy list), does anyone have evidence that environmentalism running rampant or whatever played a part in causing the recent blackout? And no rhetoric please.

You owe me a very serious, sincere apology, and an admission that I haven't said what you demand proof of, and you owe it now.

[Gem]

The whole "supply curve shifting to the right" thing simply means that the company is willing or able to sell more power at a particular price level. So really, to shift it to the right you just make the decision to make more available.

Are you sure? Shifting the supply curve to the right is NOT just the decision to make more electricity available, or that they are willing and able to sell more power at particular price level. That's called a "change in quantity supply," the movement along the supply line.

The textbook definition of "shifting to the right" is that an additional quantity of electricity is added at current price, which results in lower prices. (Simple demand/supply law). "A company willing or able to sell more power" is usually the result of an increase in demand (such as many people moving to california and demanding electricity).



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We have delivered approximately $3 billion in savings, due to guaranteed rate cuts, savings from shopping, and avoided fuel costs," said Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Chairman John M. Quain. "Before electric choice, Pennsylvania electric rates were 15 percent above the national average, and now our rates are 4.4 percent below the national average. We established a new market environment in which the natural supply and demand forces flourish."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/issue...?Id=416&Print=Y[/QUOTE]

Actually, I also did some research and found this:

Governor Ridge of Pennsylvania closed a recent National Energy Summit by making a series of false,
misleading, and deceptive claims in touting the benefits of deregulation, according to the Pennsylvania
Citizens Consumer Council and the Consumer Federation of America.
False: “Now we’re lower than the national average… with electric choice – rates are 4.4
percent below the national average.”
The claim that Pennsylvania rates are 4.4 percent below the national average (Press release dated
March 20, 2001) is contradicted by the most recent data from the U.S. Energy Information
Administration, the official energy data collection agency for the federal government, which shows that
Pennsylvania is about 9 percent above the national average. The Pennsylvania Public Utility
Commission and other officials in the state were told over a month ago that the claim that Pennsylvania
is below the national average is wrong, but they keep making it.

http://www.consumerfed.org/penna.pdf

I'll post later on what the EIA said.

This is also interesting:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/fact_sheets/pennsylvania.html

(According to the EIA, this would mean that real price for electricity were actually decreasing under regulation, that is during the 1990s)

Gem

P.S.: This is only slightly relevant, but one of the reasons people don't trust free market is because even businesses lie about what a free market really is:

Pennsylvania's power market was one of the first in the nation to be deregulated.

All energy suppliers, like Pepco Energy Services, must be licensed by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. To obtain a license, suppliers must demonstrate that they have the financial and other resources necessary to meet their commitments to power customers.

I think this is why so many people don't understand "free market."

Also I checked, and I was wrong about one thing: there are many new suppliers in Pen, which proves me wrong when I said I thought not many suppliers would come in. (But according to the consumerfed link, many are going broke.)

[Gem]

I'll post later on what the EIA said.

This is also interesting:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electr...nnsylvania.html

(According to the EIA, this would mean that real price for electricity were actually decreasing under regulation, that is during the 1990s)


Looks like it was right under my nose.

Compared to many other States, and compared to national averages, these prices were relatively high.

I'm begining to beleive you Shanek about the lying weasels in office.

Gem

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


That's bull$#!7 and you know it! You can't examine the power DELIVERY in Pennsylvania because THEY HAVEN'T DEREGULATED THE POWER DELIVERY YET!!! They HAVE, on the other hand deregulated the power suppliers and THAT is the information I've been using.

So quit your pathetic whining.

Well, then don't refer to Pennsylvania, because it hasn't been dergulated, according to your own rules.

The cases we have been referring to have been deregulation of the generation and supply. In one case, prices were capped for consumers, in the other, prices weren't capped. In the case where the prices were capped, the generators and consumers won, the distributors lost. In the case where the prices weren't capped, the consumers lost, because the generators ramped up their prices and the distributors just passed those increases onto the consumers.

Ahh, the heady days of 2001, when it all looked like a textbook case of economics 101.

http://afr.com/specialreports/report3/2001/03/28/FFXE7BAOPKC.html

from the socialists, but the facts are correct. When Victorian homes were being turned off from the power grid, electricity was being sold to the state next door.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/mar2000/elec-m25.shtml



Privatisation of Australian electricity supplies leads to shortages and blackouts
By Will Marshall
25 March 2000
Use this version to print

Widespread electricity rationing in the state of Victoria last month—which cut supply to thousands of households and businesses in the middle of a heat wave—was not an unavoidable or unforeseeable development. It was symptomatic of what has prevailed in the power industry nationally since it was either corporatised or privatised, allowing market forces to dominate.

In February, Victorian Labor Premier Steve Bracks faced an outcry when it was revealed that while electricity was cut off to homes, the private power companies were profitably selling supplies to neighbouring New South Wales. Those sales were only the tip of the iceberg of the sacrifice of consumers' interests to the profits of the electricity companies



A book about the experience around the world.
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/sbeder/power.html


Description

Noted author Sharon Beder argues persuasively that the track record of electricity privatisation and deregulation around the world indicates that it is a confidence trick. Her book shows how simplistic ideology and economic theory have been used to mask the pursuit of self-interest; how control of electricity has been wrested from public hands to create profit opportunities for investors and multinational corporations; and how an essential public service has been turned into a speculative commodity in the name of ‘reform’.

Power Play explores the battles between private and public ownership in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia since the early twentieth century, and the agenda-setting and public relations strategies involved. It investigates the way that developing countries such as Brazil and India have been forced to allow foreign investors to exercise a stranglehold over their electricity systems. And it uncovers the campaigns waged by think tanks, corporate interests, and multinational companies such as Enron to swindle the public in dozens of countries out of rightful control over an essential public service.



http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/sbeder/afr-power.html


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sharon Beder - on the battle for control of the world's electricity

Since the mid-1990s dozens of governments around the world have chosen to restructure and privatise the provision of electricity. As a result there have been black-outs, price spikes, price manipulation, bankruptcies and electricity shortages. The privatisation of electricity is not something that their citizens have demanded or wanted. In fact, popular uprisings and mass protests have occurred in Argentina, South Africa, India, Indonesia, Ghana, Peru, Ecuador, Paraguay and the Dominican Republic.
Despite its lack of popular support electricity privatisation has become the accepted wisdom among governments and opinion leaders. "Liberalisation" has seen the goal of reliable, universal electricity service delivered at a reasonable price replaced by the goals of efficiency, competition and consumer choice.
Restructuring and privatisation are supposed to introduce competition into electricity provision and expose the newly privatised firms to the disciplines of the market so that they become more efficient and electricity prices are reduced. They are also supposed to raise revenue for governments, provide new sources of investment capital for expensive electricity infrastructure and reduce the government's role in the economy.
In reality, electricity prices have increased or at least become exceedingly volatile as a result of privatisation and restructuring. The supposed disciplines of the market have been eclipsed by price manipulation as electricity companies seek to boost electricity prices and maximise profits.
Increased government revenue has often turned out to be little more than a mirage because the loss of dividends and the cost of controlling prices has outweighed the financial gains.
The private sector has been slow to invest in new infrastructure because prices are higher if electricity is in short supply. And governments have had to become more involved, not less, in order to sort out the problems that have ensued.
Britain, which was one of the first nations to privatise electricity, is supposed to be the model of success. Although British prices for electricity have fallen since privatisation, this has been due to lower fuel costs rather than to the increased efficiency of privatised companies. Prices would have fallen even if electricity had remained in public hands.
The greatest share of benefit from those fuel cost reductions went to shareholders rather than consumers. The private electricity companies reaped huge profits, paying large dividends and executive salaries. But retail prices for small households remained high by European and US standards and many nations that have not liberalised their electricity markets continue to offer cheaper electricity.
The reason that the fuel savings were not passed on to consumers is that electricity generators manipulated the prices of wholesale electricity in the artificial power market established to facilitate competition and the market was abandoned in 1997. Efforts to disaggregate the industry to promote competition were counteracted by a wave of mergers and acquisitions. And although privatisation was supposed to reduce regulation it has actually led to more complicated regulation.
In a comparative study of total factor productivity rates in different countries, Mary O'Mahony and Michella Vecchi found that UK productivity growth rates before privatisation, at over 2 per cent, were similar to those achieved in the US and higher than those in Europe, apart from France, which had a strong state-owned electricity system. However, after privatisation productivity growth fell: "By 1997 productivity levels in the UK were some 20 per cent below those in the US and France."

[jj]

Originally posted by Gem


I'm begining to beleive you Shanek about the lying weasels in office.

Gem

As much as I disagree with him on other matters, a statement about "lying weasels in office" just doesn't give my BS meter a great big nudge at all, in fact, when I hear that kind of phrase, I'm almost not skeptical :)

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
You owe me a very serious, sincere apology, and an admission that I haven't said what you demand proof of, and you owe it now.

Geez...if that's the case, you owe me an apology for just about every post you made to me!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Gem
Are you sure? Shifting the supply curve to the right is NOT just the decision to make more electricity available, or that they are willing and able to sell more power at particular price level. That's called a "change in quantity supply," the movement along the supply line.

Movement along the supply line is exactly what's going to throw it out of equilibrium. In this case, the companies want to sell more at each price level, so the supply curve does indeed move to the right.

The textbook definition of "shifting to the right" is that an additional quantity of electricity is added at current price, which results in lower prices.

Right. And in this case, the fact that they've made the system more efficient, so that people are using less power during peak times, means they do have an additional quantity of electricity to sell at the current price, as I explained.

(According to the EIA, this would mean that real price for electricity were actually decreasing under regulation, that is during the 1990s)

If the regulatory prices were way above what the market price would have been, then that would make sense.

P.S.: This is only slightly relevant, but one of the reasons people don't trust free market is because even businesses lie about what a free market really is:

I think this is why so many people don't understand "free market."

That's true.

Also I checked, and I was wrong about one thing: there are many new suppliers in Pen, which proves me wrong when I said I thought not many suppliers would come in. (But according to the consumerfed link, many are going broke.)

I don't know how they're all doing, but I read somewhere that there were over 70 of them.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Well, then don't refer to Pennsylvania, because it hasn't been dergulated, according to your own rules.

Why are you people so pigheaded that you refuse to see something so blndingly simple?

POWER SUPPLIERS IN PA HAVE BEEN DEREGULATED. POWER PROVIDERS HAVE NOT.

Are we clear?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


Why are you people so pigheaded that you refuse to see something so blndingly simple?

POWER SUPPLIERS IN PA HAVE BEEN DEREGULATED. POWER PROVIDERS HAVE NOT.

Are we clear?

Yes, it is very clear. The providers have not been deregulated. So why use this as an example of deregulation when it is only half the job done? You stated that the Victorian deregulation could not be used as an example because the consumer prices were capped. This is even less of an example of deregulation when one of the most vital pieces, the generator, is not being considered as being relevant to the example.

[Gem]

Right. And in this case, the fact that they've made the system more efficient, so that people are using less power during peak times, means they do have an additional quantity of electricity to sell at the current price, as I explained.

But this doesn't mean a supply shift to the right. You still have the same ammount, but you have a lower demand (conservation), not a right shift of supply.

Movement along the supply line is exactly what's going to throw it out of equilibrium. In this case, the companies want to sell more at each price level, so the supply curve does indeed move to the right.

A movement ALONG the supply line would INCREASE the price. This is basic economics. Companies will increase the supply of electricity if they build more powerplants or buy it out of state, not just because they decide to produce more at high price levels.

Gem

P.S.: Nice articles AUP, except of course they probably aren't truly "deregulated."

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Yes, it is very clear. The providers have not been deregulated. So why use this as an example of deregulation when it is only half the job done?

I have used it to demonstrate how effectively they deregulated the power providers. Do I really need to draw you a map here?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Gem
But this doesn't mean a supply shift to the right. You still have the same ammount, but you have a lower demand (conservation), not a right shift of supply.

The demand only lowers during peak times. And this leaves them with enough overall power to sell more across the board.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


I have used it to demonstrate how effectively they deregulated the power providers. Do I really need to draw you a map here?

I predict the same will happen there as has happened here, the providers will mostly merge after a short period of time. You may also note Gems point that prices haven't fallen.

You also fail to note that a large part of the problem is the interaction between consumers/providers/generators. Taking the generators out of the equation really gives no example at all.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I predict the same will happen there as has happened here, the providers will mostly merge after a short period of time.

Okay, then—predict! There's over 70 of them now. How many of them do you think there will be this time next year? Then we can revisit this thread and see if you were right.

You might also want to beat the rush and give us your predictions for what's going to happen when deregulation is complete, scheduled in 2006.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


Geez...if that's the case, you owe me an apology for just about every post you made to me!

Really?

You know as well as I do that I owe you nothing but scorn and ridicule.

[jj]

A final followup to this thread, I hope.

I've managed to track down enough data from various places to come to a tenative conclusion that in fact the resistance to building powerplants, while a factor, is considerably secondary to a huge "tragedy of the commons" directly related to transmission facilities in times of deregulation.

So the 1960's environmentalists are due a raspberry, but a small, polite one, and the deregulation idealogues deserve several loud rude ones. In fact, some better plant siting (from the point of view of generation, not from the point of view of NIMBY or "emergency evacuation") would have mitigated things a fair amount, but the real problem was abandoned, ignored, lapsed, or uninstalled instrumentation on the grid, which makes no money for its owners, so they don't spend anything on it any more.

Or so I conclude. Given the inability of either the pro-environment or pro-dereg side to argue to a point here, I'm not much interested in discussing the conclusion, I'm simply comfortable with it based on the technical mumblings I've managed to dredge up.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by jj
A final followup to this thread, I hope.

I've managed to track down enough data from various places to come to a tenative conclusion that in fact the resistance to building powerplants, while a factor, is considerably secondary to a huge "tragedy of the commons" directly related to transmission facilities in times of deregulation.

So the 1960's environmentalists are due a raspberry, but a small, polite one, and the deregulation idealogues deserve several loud rude ones. In fact, some better plant siting (from the point of view of generation, not from the point of view of NIMBY or "emergency evacuation") would have mitigated things a fair amount, but the real problem was abandoned, ignored, lapsed, or uninstalled instrumentation on the grid, which makes no money for its owners, so they don't spend anything on it any more.

Or so I conclude. Given the inability of either the pro-environment or pro-dereg side to argue to a point here, I'm not much interested in discussing the conclusion, I'm simply comfortable with it based on the technical mumblings I've managed to dredge up.

thanks jj, it confirms what my suspicions were. I think the power of the environmentalists is a little overstated and that of the owners understated.

[jj]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


thanks jj, it confirms what my suspicions were. I think the power of the environmentalists is a little overstated and that of the owners understated.

Well, the thing is, AUP, in order to successfully fragment the grid when it goes unstable, you have to have the local generation capacity to at least keep essential servives and major tielines up.

That's part of where the environmental people get a bit of a drubbing.

Interestingly enough, the Ohio grid was only at 75% when it went unstable. That's pretty bad.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by jj


Well, the thing is, AUP, in order to successfully fragment the grid when it goes unstable, you have to have the local generation capacity to at least keep essential servives and major tielines up.

That's part of where the environmental people get a bit of a drubbing.

Interestingly enough, the Ohio grid was only at 75% when it went unstable. That's pretty bad.

I think I have mentioned elsewhere that apparently the power system for Victoria, Australia, has been known to go into low frequency oscillations. (I think that was how it was phrased). This is a sign that the system is peaking out and can crash without warning.

I think that what is supposed to happen is that people are told to turn off all power they don't need, industry has to shut down, or else rolling blackouts are started.

If this is not done, if I am correct, then the scenario that was experienced in NY follows, the whole system just collapses.

One other aspect of all this, of course, is the never ending demand for more power.

[jj]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I think I have mentioned elsewhere that apparently the power system for Victoria, Australia, has been known to go into low frequency oscillations. (I think that was how it was phrased). This is a sign that the system is peaking out and can crash without warning.


I don't know anything about the system in Victoria, but you describe a common, known problem with large power systems, so I can hardly argue with the statement :)

The thing is, 75% is not where this sort of thing usually happens, it's usually more like at 95% to 100%. Makes me wonder what the situation is with the oscillations starting at 75%.

Yes, there were two lines tripped that nobody noticed when things went completely unstable, but still, 75% is not a load condition that should encourage this kind of phase oscillations.

[Dancing David]

More sense and sensiibilty from JJ, I agree there probably are wacko enviromental issues on the eastern seaboard that we don't have here in the Midwest. You just have to mention contruction and business developement and towns will clamor to be first in line with lower tax incentives.
More local power sounds like a very good idea, especialy if that is needed to maintain the integrity of the network.
I am not sure exactly what you mean by the tragedy of the commons. But I think I agree, we had large evrticaly integrated and publicaly funded power providors who now want to make power, just not distribute it. It will probably take something like an excise tax to keep the transmission of local lines going in the future.

[Mr Manifesto]

Article from NY Times (may need to register <free>).

Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/24/business/24DERE.html?th)

New Kind of Electricity Market Strains Old Wires Beyond Limits
By NEELA BANERJEE and DAVID FIRESTONE


ith the lights back on after the biggest blackout in North American history, consumers have learned a difficult lesson about the electricity grid: it was an afterthought during the decade-long process of deregulating the power industry.

No single authority is in charge of the grid, and few have an incentive to invest the money needed to improve its reliability. Deregulation increased the vulnerability of the grid to failure, regulators and industry executives broadly concur.

Deregulation is actually a misnomer for the restructuring of the power industry, because only the generation of electricity was freed from strict government controls, beginning in 1992. Companies were allowed to charge market-based rates for generating electricity, creating the financial incentive to build more power plants.

But the transmission of electricity over high-voltage lines and the distribution into homes and buildings remained regulated. Power companies received only a relatively low, government-set return on their investment in the grid, so they allocated far less money to improving transmission reliability than to building power plants.


I don't know who's side this argues for (actually, the article seems to look at the pros for deregulation and regulation), but I thought it might be interesting.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
I don't know who's side this argues for (actually, the article seems to look at the pros for deregulation and regulation), but I thought it might be interesting.

The simple fact remains that the grid itself, as well as the direct providing of power, was never deregulated. If you set up a system where those who provide the power are not responsible for its delivery, and no one else is responsible for making sure the delivery is up to scratch, which is how it was in California, such things are inevitable.

Why is it so unreasonable to ask that we actually have an example of pure deregulation before passing judgement against it? As I've repeatedly said in this thread, the closes we have is Pennsylvania, but even they haven't deregulated the providers, only the suppliers (and the only response from the pathetic big government types was to accuse me of being "inconsistent" :rolleyes: ).

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


The simple fact remains that the grid itself, as well as the direct providing of power, was never deregulated. If you set up a system where those who provide the power are not responsible for its delivery, and no one else is responsible for making sure the delivery is up to scratch, which is how it was in California, such things are inevitable.

That is a selective and insufficient statement of what happened in California.

It's time you take full responsibility (in terms of ideology) for what happened in California. In fact, deregulation is what permitted the trading where network facilities were misused in the name of profit.

That had NOTHING to do with the network not being deregulated.

Why is it so unreasonable to ask that we actually have an example of pure deregulation before passing judgement against it?

Because the economics clearly shows that the best point for the transmission line providers is to allow repeated outages. It won't cost them anything to speak of and saves them a great deal of money in terms of personnel overhead, at a cost of restoring outages in days instead of hours.

Since the economics shows that so clearly, yes, there is a problem with moving to that solution. This kind of effect is already visible even in places where 'deregulation' isn't quite yet deregulation, for reasons having to do with the company's clear understanding of what their best business strategy (that ignores 6 9's service) is.

You're seeing the same thing in telco's now, too, and it's only going to get worse until we accept that we screwed up mightily and blew that one, too.

As I've repeatedly said in this thread, the closes we have is Pennsylvania, but even they haven't deregulated the providers, only the suppliers (and the only response from the pathetic big government types was to accuse me of being "inconsistent" :rolleyes: ).
Once again, you try to have your cake and eat it to. When somebody badmouths deregulation, you put up PA as the example of how it works, until somebody points out a problem,and suddenly PA isn't deregulated.

Your position is one of "I want to cite PA when convenient and deny it when convenient". After that, you have the brass temerity to roll your eyes at me.

You are inconsistant, hypocritical, and you ignore the basic economic issuesas well as technical issues in your political diatribes.

[Occasional Chemist]

An interesting article was linked from Slashdot today that seemed relevant to this old thread. Any comments from our resident power experts?

What's wrong with the electric grid? (http://www.tipmagazine.com/tip/INPHFA/vol-9/iss-5/p8.html)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist
An interesting article was linked from Slashdot today that seemed relevant to this old thread. Any comments from our resident power experts?

What's wrong with the electric grid? (http://www.tipmagazine.com/tip/INPHFA/vol-9/iss-5/p8.html)

At least this article, unlike most of the rest, does have the truth embedded inside it:

This law empowered the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to separate electric power generation from transmission and distribution. Power deregulation—in reality, a change in regulations—went slowly at first.

[Gem]

From the same article:

http://www.tipmagazine.com/tip/INPHFA/vol-9/iss-5/p8.html

The problems would be compounded, engineers warned, as independent power producers added new generating units at essentially random locations determined by low labor costs, lax local regulations, or tax incentives. If generators were added far from the main consuming areas, the total quantity of power flows would rapidly increase, overloading transmission lines. “ The system was never designed to handle long-distance wheeling,” notes Loren Toole, a transmission-system analyst at Los Alamos National Laboratory.

At the same time, data needed to predict and react to system stress—such as basic information on the quantity of energy flows—began disappearing, treated by utilities as competitive information and kept secret. “Starting in 1998, the utilities stopped reporting on blackout statistics as well,” says Ben Carreras of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, so system reliability could no longer be accurately assessed.



Gem

[shanek]

Originally posted by Gem
From the same article:

They're not really that random...they're placed far away from the consumers because the consumers don't want them in their back yard (NIMBY again). They're responding to market forces. Since people want their power delivered from a distance, that's what they're attempting to provide. However, since none of the power delivery systems operate under free market forces, there's been no effort to make sure the power can be delivered over a wider distance as people demand.

If everything were truly deregulated, one of two things would happen:

1) Either there would be methods to deliver the power reliably over longer distances; or

2) The cost of doing so would be so great it would outweigh the market benefits and so the power generation facilities would be moved closer to the consumers.

[Gem]

But you ignore the rest:

At the same time, data needed to predict and react to system stress—such as basic information on the quantity of energy flows—began disappearing, treated by utilities as competitive information and kept secret. “Starting in 1998, the utilities stopped reporting on blackout statistics as well,” says Ben Carreras of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, so system reliability could no longer be accurately assessed.

Now tell me, how are we suppose to know how good a deregulated business does when they stop reporting on black outs?

Gem