PDA

View Full Version : Welcome to the socialist Paradise. We don't have any electricity here.



Leader
16 Jun 04,, 07:35
PARIS, France -- Electricity workers have cut power to parts of France as they began a national strike against government plans to partially privatize state-owned utilities.

About 12 percent of Electricite de France's output was cut off by wildcat strikes overnight -- plunging areas of Bordeaux in the southwest and Grenoble to the west, the officials of the Communist-linked CGT labor union told Reuters.

Among those targeted for power cuts were conservative deputies who back changes to EdF's legal status, which could allow the sale of up to 30 percent of the utility. The draft law will also change the status of the state gas utility Gaz de France.

Also affected by the power cuts was the Bordeaux home of Alain Juppe, a prime minister in the 1990s who now heads President Jacques Chirac's party.

The head of the CGT urged Chirac to abandon the draft law, which parliament debates later Tuesday.

"A decision of this nature and importance cannot be taken when there is so much controversy, when expert advice on other ways of responding to the challenges facing EdF and GdF have not been accepted," Bernard Thibault told RTL radio.

Protest marches also were planned Tuesday in Paris and other cities.

The government argues that changes would enable the utilities to attract private investors to help fend off growing competition in Europe's energy market, which is going through a process of deregulation.

It insists that the utilities will not be fully privatized and that the state will remain the majority shareholder.

Industry Minister Patrick Devedjian, whose chateau in southwestern France also had its power cut late Monday, said the government would not back down in the face of strikes.

"In a democracy, who decides. The street or parliament? The matter is being put before parliament, You have got to be kidding me! it represents the nation and EdF belongs to the nation. Parliament will decide," he said.

Job action late Monday and Tuesday is the latest in a series of disruptions in recent weeks.

Last week, workers cut power supplies to three Paris railway stations, leading to the cancellation or delay of trains ferrying half a million people to work. Who the hell do they think they are?

There also were media reports that dozens of households that had been cut off because of unpaid bills were reconnected by staff as part of protests. This is what you get with socialism. The bastards think they are entitled to shut off your electricity when they don't get their way

http://www.fuckfrance.com/read.html?postid...eplies=6&page=1 (http://www.fuckfrance.com/read.html?postid=694057&replies=6&page=1)

Aryan
16 Jun 04,, 15:13
Anyone remember that French communist farmer who drove his tractor through a MacDonalds?

Confed999
17 Jun 04,, 01:00
Extortion...

Leader
17 Jun 04,, 01:21
Extortion...

Can you imagine what people would do if that happened here? There'd be a lynch mob outside the power plant ready to put some heads on some pikes.

ZFBoxcar
17 Jun 04,, 03:29
*cough* California *cough* :biggrin:

The major difference between this and cali is that in cali it was business who fucked with the power and in france labor fucked with the power.

Confed999
17 Jun 04,, 04:04
*cough* California *cough* :biggrin:

The major difference between this and cali is that in cali it was business who fucked with the power and in france labor fucked with the power.
Yep, bad people everywhere. I believe in government regulation, just not the government doing the work, Cali is proof regulation is required.

Praxus
17 Jun 04,, 04:06
Actually it has to do with the fact that left wing politicians will not allow power companies to build more power plants in California. It is not the Companies fault. After all the more juice being used the more money they make, they wouldn't purposly cut the power off to screw people.

"Green" Protestors have caused the shutting down of numerous nuclear power plants resulting in a net loss of 2 gigawatts from the grid and they and their friends in the state senate will not allow any new power plants. In fact during the crises only one tiny 44 megawatt power plant was allowed to be built and completed.

Putting a gun to the Companies heads didn't and isn't going to solve the problem.

California is proff regulation is not required and only hurts.

Confed999
17 Jun 04,, 04:14
Actually it has to do with the fact that left wing politicians will not allow power companies to build more power plants in California. It is not the Companies fault. After all the more juice being used the more money they make, they wouldn't purposly cut the power off to screw people.

California is proff regulation is not required.
There's more to it than that. They have been doing what alot of power companies are doing now, cutting back on the voltage. This saves them money, costs you money and damages your electrical equipment. This has been done in Cali to the extreme. There are also accusations of artificial brown/black outs when power was available to be purchased from out of state in order to justify price increases, last I heard investigation continues. Regulation is just rules, there's nothing wrong with rules. For example, a rule could have required power plants to be built regardless of what wing was in government, right?

Praxus
17 Jun 04,, 04:21
There's more to it than that. They have been doing what alot of power companies are doing now, cutting back on the voltage. This saves them money, costs you money and damages your electrical equipment. This has been done in Cali to the extreme. There are also accusations of artificial brown/black outs when power was available to be purchased from out of state in order to justify price increases, last I heard investigation continues. Regulation is just rules, there's nothing wrong with rules. For example, a rule could have required power plants to be built regardless of what wing was in government, right?

If they claim they are giving you a greater voltage then they are giving you, that constitutes fraud.

They have every right to adjust prices as long as a contract does not say otherwise. If you don't like the prices you can always put some solar panals up on your house.

Confed999
17 Jun 04,, 04:23
If they claim they are giving you a greater voltage then they are giving you, that constitutes fraud.
There's no regulation and nowhere else to go for power.

Praxus
17 Jun 04,, 04:31
Yes there is, you can put up solar cells. No one is stoping you.

Confed999
17 Jun 04,, 05:28
Yes there is, you can put up solar cells. No one is stoping you.
Deed restrictions, cost, inefficency, inability to supply the required demand are all stopping me. What is your aversion to rules? Should there be no standards? Why should a monopoly be allowed to do as they please? How can this be solved without regulation, and no, solar is not the answer currently.

ursamajor
17 Jun 04,, 08:19
Power crisis in California was artificial created by the power companies with the intent of gouging. They did succeed and burdened California with billions of dollers in debt. Bush should have intervened but he refused because his buddies at Enron and other power companies were minting the money. Also Bush was indifferent because California did not vote for him.

Investigation into the matter has revelead price gouging and power companies have been asked to return the extra money they charged, with fine ofcourse.

Ask yourself, why has California not suffered another power crisis since then despite the fact that hardly any new facility have been built?
The answer is existing arrangement was more or less sufficient, and power companies last time had artificially created a crisis.

Power companies are UTILITIES, they are supposed to charge reasonable prices.

Gio
17 Jun 04,, 08:53
Praxus is right. California hadn't approved a new power plant by a time frame older then I am, something like that. We can't even do hydro here because the sirrea club nuts will sue to stop it.

The market wasn't allowed to work properly. They created a really flawed system, they allowed wholesale prices to soar while they used price controls for consumers, not allowing the market to work at all. Also, they forced the 3 major utilties: Pacific Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas and Electric to sell all their generating plants with the exception of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear generating plant and san onofore nuclear generating plant. Again, Government created most of the problems.

Praxus
17 Jun 04,, 16:38
Power companies are UTILITIES, they are supposed to charge reasonable prices.

What if they don't want to, are you going to jail them or perhaps point a gun at their head?

tw-acs
17 Jun 04,, 16:50
Well I know that we (USA) is building power plants across the Mexico border that have power lines that run directly across the border back into the United States. In fact the power plants are not even attached to the Mexican power grid.
The reason for this is to avoid safety standards and pollution controls.

Monopolies are supposed to be regulated and controlled by the government. THat is when a single person cannot create change a body of representation of many persons can and should (gov't).

I believe that the main reason people should not use solar panels is dioxins.

I mean that if an alternative solution is not better than the previous solution then why would someone use the alternative?

At the same time I would like to ask why would an alternative solution that is better not be used?


$

ursamajor
17 Jun 04,, 19:04
What if they don't want to, are you going to jail them or perhaps point a gun at their head?


Price gouging is illegal, if they do it they will be breaking the law. Apart from that their are other Rules and Regulations on the book pertaining to UTILITIES.

Leader
17 Jun 04,, 21:30
At the same time I would like to ask why would an alternative solution that is better not be used?


$

You pay for it then.

Praxus
17 Jun 04,, 22:26
Price gouging is illegal, if they do it they will be breaking the law. Apart from that their are other Rules and Regulations on the book pertaining to UTILITIES.

This is what happens when you artificially lower prices like you are suggesting. I will use Gas as an example.

Say there is an oil shortage and they can not produce enough gas to keep up with demand. So in order to still turn a profit they increase prices on feul. Now say the Government arbitrarily comes in and says they are price gauging and force them to cut down the price. Now since it is cheaper people will buy more guess then they would under the higher prices. Then what happens is, there is gas shortages so they ahve to ration it and there are long annoying lines to get in to buy feul. Then while all this happening oil companies begin to go out of buisness which decreases competition.



Monopolies are supposed to be regulated and controlled by the government. THat is when a single person cannot create change a body of representation of many persons can and should (gov't).

The only monopolies that last very long are ones that keep prices low and ones enforced by Government. The later is most cases.

tw-acs
17 Jun 04,, 22:51
We are all paying for the energy solutions we have of today.

It is quite simple.

The Carbon cycle.

Dinosaurs and plants take in carbon through the life cycle.
The life cycle is completed as they die.
Through time they decompose into fossil fuels.
Man discovers fossil fuels and uses them.
Thus releasing the carbon that the dinosaurs and plants to in back into the atmosphere.
Humans came to be through evolution.
If humans change the environment( earth ) too much we might become extinct. Completing the life cycle.

There is a simple way of solving the problem.

Use fuels that, in their creation take in carbon and release carbon when being used, however the cycle at which the carbon is taken in from the atmosphere must be shorter than a human life. It would be great if you could just grow the stuff in the ground.









oh wait

We can do that.

Why dont we?

Leader
17 Jun 04,, 23:28
Why dont we?

Why don't you?

ursamajor
18 Jun 04,, 02:37
This is what happens when you artificially lower prices like you are suggesting. I will use Gas as an example.

Say there is an oil shortage and they can not produce enough gas to keep up with demand. So in order to still turn a profit they increase prices on feul. Now say the Government arbitrarily comes in and says they are price gauging and force them to cut down the price. Now since it is cheaper people will buy more guess then they would under the higher prices. Then what happens is, there is gas shortages so they ahve to ration it and there are long annoying lines to get in to buy feul. Then while all this happening oil companies begin to go out of buisness which decreases competition.



The only monopolies that last very long are ones that keep prices low and ones enforced by Government. The later is most cases.


Praxus, point you are missing is that the California power crisis was artificially created by the colluding power companies.

The judge incharge of the investigation into the crisis found most of the companies involved guilty of price gouging and have ordered them to refund California to the tune of $9 billion.

The company involved are Williams, AES, ElPaso, Enron, and a few more.

These companies artificially created a shortage and then charged California 12 times more ( $750 MW/hr instead of the nominal $63 MW/hr)!

Confed999
18 Jun 04,, 04:24
The market wasn't allowed to work properly. They created a really flawed system, they allowed wholesale prices to soar while they used price controls for consumers, not allowing the market to work at all. Also, they forced the 3 major utilties: Pacific Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas and Electric to sell all their generating plants with the exception of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear generating plant and san onofore nuclear generating plant. Again, Government created most of the problems.
Sounds more like control than true regulation, I'm not for government control, just government standards.

Praxus
18 Jun 04,, 05:07
"De"REGULATION BILL (AB 1890)
First Problem: They(power companies) were forced to sell off many of their power plants, all power they generated on their own had to be sold at prevailing market prices with no discounts for themselves. This made them completly dependent on the prices charged by independent generators.

Second Problem: They outlawed long term contracts between supplier and consumer, making it impossible to get a long term fixed price.

Third Problem: It capped the price that companies could charge the consumers. (this is why I gave the example of the gas)

So essentially when their was a power shortage due to increased demand or spiking feul cost (coal, etc), they couldn't raise prices to reduce demand, they couldn't generate their own power, and they couldn't lock in prices more then 24 hours in advance.


Sounds more like control than true regulation, I'm not for government control, just government standards.

What do you think regulation is?

It is control!

Socialism has failed 99 out of the last 99 times what makes you think it will work the 100th time?

Confed999
18 Jun 04,, 05:17
What do you think regulation is?

It is control!

Without it there can be no industry standard. Without it there is no recourse against the people who will take advantage of the lack of regulation. Like it or not there have to be standards, call it socialisim if you want.

Praxus
18 Jun 04,, 05:30
Without it there can be no industry standard. Without it there is no recourse against the people who will take advantage of the lack of regulation. Like it or not there have to be standards, call it socialisim if you want.


What do you mean no recourse...

The only thing the Government ought to protect us from is force and fraud and if a company commits force or fraud there is legal recourse as their should be.

Leader
18 Jun 04,, 05:39
What do you mean no recourse...

The only thing the Government ought to protect us from is force and fraud and if a company commits force or fraud there is legal recourse as their should be.

What about safety at something like a nuclear power plant?

Confed999
18 Jun 04,, 05:43
What do you mean no recourse...

The only thing the Government ought to protect us from is force and fraud and if a company commits force or fraud there is legal recourse as their should be.
If there is no rule, no regulation, against something how can there be recourse? If it weren't for regulation I could legaly use dangerous materials to wire a house and if it burnt down, well I didn't technically do anything wrong. As I've repeatedly said, I'm all for regulation that sets industry standards, if you wish to argue that there shouldn't be industry standards fine, otherwise you're arguing just to argue. Regulation doesn't have to be communism, it isn't all or nothing.

Praxus
18 Jun 04,, 05:46
If there is no rule, no regulation, against something how can there be recourse? If it weren't for regulation I could legaly use dangerous materials to wire a house and if it burnt down, well I didn't technically do anything wrong. As I've repeatedly said, I'm all for regulation that sets industry standards, if you wish to argue that there shouldn't be industry standards fine, otherwise you're arguing just to argue. Regulation doesn't have to be communism, it isn't all or nothing.


Sure they would have recourse if their house burnt down because of faulty wiring. Last time I checked burning someones house down even if by accident is innitiating force.

Confed999
18 Jun 04,, 05:48
Sure they would have recourse if their house burnt down because of faulty wiring. Last time I checked burning someones house down even if by accident is innitiating force.
It isn't faulty, in my example, as there is no standard to say it is faulty.

ursamajor
18 Jun 04,, 15:32
Here is one example why regulations are required.

Just one of the example of how the California power crisis was artificially created by the power companies with the intent of price gouging.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/reports/power/20020924-9999_1n24elpaso.html

El Paso Corp. withheld gas during crisis, judge rules





By Joe Cantlupe
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE

September 24, 2002

WASHINGTON – El Paso Corp. illegally manipulated California's natural gas market during the height of the state's energy crisis and should be penalized, a regulatory judge ruled yesterday.

Judge Curtis Wagner Jr. issued a finding that El Paso subsidiaries "withheld extremely large amounts of capacity that could have flowed to its California delivery points" from November 2000 to March 2001.

Wagner, the chief judge for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, said El Paso's actions resulted in soaring prices while California was reeling from an energy crisis and rolling blackouts. It was the first ruling by a federal regulatory official that widespread energy manipulation had taken place.

California officials praised Wagner's decision and said it reflected their long-standing view that corporate market abuses contributed to the state's electricity crisis. Natural gas is used to fuel many power generating plants in California.

In the 23-page ruling released yesterday, Wagner sided with California Public Utilities Commission officials who filed a complaint in 2000 accusing El Paso and its affiliates of inflating the price of natural gas by reducing deliveries to the state. California officials said the firm's price manipulation cost consumers $3.7 billion.

Wagner said El Paso "substantially tightened the supply of gas" by withholding capacity from at least 21 percent of its pipelines that delivered natural gas to the California border.

As a result, Wagner recommended that FERC "institute penalty procedures" against El Paso subsidiaries for violating its conduct standards and for the "unlawful exercise of market power" by its El Paso Natural Gas Co. subsidiary.

But an aide to Gov. Gray Davis, a frequent critic of the power industry and federal regulators, was wary that FERC would carry out the judge's recommendations.

"Consumers in California have known about these abuses all along," said Steve Maviglio, a spokesman for Davis. "The big question is: What is FERC going to do next? They are awfully slow to responding to consumers' concerns."

Yesterday, El Paso's president criticized Wagner's decision, saying the judge's findings ignored evidence that the company properly operated its pipelines.

"Given the critical safety and deliverability concerns associated with operating a natural gas pipeline, it is inappropriate and without precedent to second-guess a pipeline's day-to-day operations," El Paso president William Wise said.

Following the judge's decision, El Paso's market shares fell sharply on the New York Stock Exchange.

Harvey Morris, principal attorney for the PUC, had argued before Wagner during lengthy hearings that El Paso shareholders earned enormous profits "from increasing natural gas prices to California."

Yesterday, Morris said the PUC was vindicated by Wagner's decision against El Paso, which owns the largest natural gas interstate pipeline serving California.

"California's natural gas customers really suffered during the winter of 2000-2001, and we've waited 21/2 years for this ruling," Morris said. "But we won't be satisfied until we get rate relief from FERC for California consumers."

California officials suggested that they would seek relief for the price of natural gas they said was two to three times more than elsewhere in the United States.

But FERC officials said they cannot decide on a penalty until they review possible appeals. Appeals and opposing arguments must be filed within 50 days, officials said.

The judge's decision came on the heels of a PUC report released last week that said several power generators withheld electricity to drive up prices, contributing to the state's power blackouts from 2000 to 2001.

Although El Paso Corp. was not named in the PUC report, the Houston-based company has been targeted by federal regulators in a sweeping investigation following "preliminary evidence" of electricity price manipulation in the California energy crisis.

Last month, FERC revealed findings of an initial investigation into the power crisis, and said it was conducting a more in-depth investigation into Enron Corp., the fallen energy giant, and two other energy companies that dealt with Enron, including El Paso.

California authorities are seeking $8.9 billion in refunds from power sellers stemming from inflated electricity prices, including El Paso.

Federal authorities yesterday declined to say whether Judge Wagner's finding about El Paso's role in the natural gas market would have an impact on its investigation.

But Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. said she will seek a hearing "so that this new evidence can be evaluated and that we can learn the extent of this manipulation."

Feinstein called the judge's decision a "tremendous victory."

"Judge Wagner's decision validates what I have long suspected – and described in floor speeches and other speeches – that by withholding natural gas capacity in the pipeline, El Paso Natural Gas caused natural gas prices to increase by nearly 600 percent." El Paso Natural Gas was one of the El Paso Corp. affiliates cited by Wagner.

As a result of El Paso's actions, Feinstein said, "customers in Southern California were forced to pay exorbitant prices for natural gas."

According to Wagner, El Paso had the capacity during 2000-2001 to deliver about 3.3 billion cubic feet a day to the California border and was obligated to make the full capacity available to natural gas shippers. But millions of cubic feet were withheld each day, the judge said.

In the meantime, prices for gas along the California-Arizona border soared more than eightfold from November to December 2000, according to Wagner.

Wagner's finding yesterday partially reversed a ruling he made in October when he declined to say that El Paso abused its market power. Wagner made his initial finding after lengthy hearings into PUC complaints.

Two months later, FERC ordered more hearings after regulators found evidence of unused pipeline capacity through the winter of 2000-2001.

"The new evidence produced in this case shows a clear withholding of substantial capacity during the relevant period, which clearly indicates an exercise of market power," Wagner said yesterday. Market power is a term for the ability of a company to improperly influence prices.

Confed999
18 Jun 04,, 22:21
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE
Is that one of your unbiased "mainstream" news services?

tw-acs
19 Jun 04,, 16:39
I do not use the alternative energy sources because the United States governemnt has taxed them out of feasible use. This may have been done to help eliminate competition to create a monopoly for the petroleum industry.

ursamajor
19 Jun 04,, 18:40
Is that one of your unbiased "mainstream" news services?

You think this is fake news!

Here is the news of El Paso Energy coughing up the gouged money from couple of days ago. These guys should be in jail!

These power comapnies are supposed to pay back california to the tune of $9 billion.

http://www.mlive.com/business/ambizdaily/bizjournals/index.ssf?/base/abd-0/1087360801136580.xml

El Paso pays $570M to settle energy crisis suits
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
Houston Business Journal
Pipeline operator El Paso Corp. is paying $570 million as part of an agreement announced last year to settle the principal litigation and claims related to the sale or delivery of natural gas and electricity to Western U.S. power and gas markets during the 2000-2001 power crisis.

The payment was funded by: $323 million of cash payments from the company. $195 million from the proceeds of 26.4 million shares of El Paso common stock that were issued on behalf of the settlement parties. $50 million related to price adjustments for the period of June 24, 2003, through June 11, 2004, under two power contracts with the California Department of Water Resources. $2 million in accrued interest on deposited funds.


In July, El Paso will make the first of 40 semi-annual payments to the settlement parties that will total approximately $876 million over the length of the obligation.

El Paso expects the second settlement agreement to become effective by the end of this month. Under this settlement, the company will make a cash payment of about $34 million, which represents a previously agreed to upfront payment as well as the prepayment of an obligation to pay approximately $24 million over a 20-year period.

Confed999
19 Jun 04,, 19:35
You think this is fake news!
Is that what I said? Read what I write and not extra, you liberals have a real tendancy to add extra to everything anyone says.

Leader
19 Jun 04,, 20:17
I do not use the alternative energy sources because the United States governemnt has taxed them out of feasible use. This may have been done to help eliminate competition to create a monopoly for the petroleum industry.

If your product is so much better then start a company and sell it.

Leader
19 Jun 04,, 20:19
Is that what I said? Read what I write and not extra, you liberals have a real tendancy to add extra to everything anyone says.

I've noticed that as well.

Confed999
19 Jun 04,, 20:30
If your product is so much better then start a company and sell it.
If it's any good I'll buy it.

ChrisF202
19 Jun 04,, 20:52
Can you imagine what people would do if that happened here? There'd be a lynch mob outside the power plant ready to put some heads on some pikes.
I know how it feels, last summer I was inclined to do the above. We had to have these rolling blackouts following the "Big One" on August 14th to save power, they choose the hottest day and since we couldent run the AC, or the TV or the computers I was very pissed. LIPA (Long Island Power Authority) = greedy SOB's who hog taxpayers money yet refuse to bring in a cable from CT or NJ w/ more power to decrease the # of angry people on hot days. If they do rolling blackouts this summer (which they probably will as it will be even hotter) ill storm the power substation in the next town over and restore power.

Praxus
19 Jun 04,, 21:36
I do not use the alternative energy sources because the United States governemnt has taxed them out of feasible use. This may have been done to help eliminate competition to create a monopoly for the petroleum industry.

Yup the Government is the only entity that can enforce a monopoly.

But last time I checked I havn't seen to many taxes on solar pannels, batteries, capaciters, etc beyond the usual state sales tax.


ou think this is fake news!

Here is the news of El Paso Energy coughing up the gouged money from couple of days ago. These guys should be in jail!

These power comapnies are supposed to pay back california to the tune of $9 billion.

Last time I checked the citizens bought the power, not the state of California.

And no they should not be in Jail. The politicians who proposed and passed the so called deregulation bill which is nothing more then a new set of debilitating regulations should be in jail.

Get the god damn Government out of our god damn lives.

tw-acs
19 Jun 04,, 23:19
Praxus

Do you know waht Dioxins are ?

And what do you propose to do with all those batteries?

LEADER

TAXED OUT OF FEASIBLE USE. Is the sentence prior in an alien language? I have said this so many times. I do not enjoy repeating myself, though obviously you all enjoy it, cause you all do it so damn much.

Leader
19 Jun 04,, 23:55
TAXED OUT OF FEASIBLE USE. Is the sentence prior in an alien language? I have said this so many times. I do not enjoy repeating myself, though obviously you all enjoy it, cause you all do it so damn much.

I only repeat myself when you ignore what I have to say. I have no reason to believe that it is "TAXED OUT OF FEASIBLE USE," and since you seem to have no evidence, neither do you.

tw-acs
20 Jun 04,, 01:00
Marijuana Tax Act

Leader
20 Jun 04,, 01:17
Marijuana Tax Act

What, is that drying up your supply?

Confed999
20 Jun 04,, 01:50
What, is that drying up your supply?
LOL! Hemp is the only answer still huh? :tongue: Personally I would like to see someone come out with a really good solar cell. That way there is no processing, no fermentation, no crop production, etc...

ursamajor
20 Jun 04,, 16:32
Is that what I said? Read what I write and not extra, you liberals have a real tendancy to add extra to everything anyone says.


Where did I say that you said that?

Since your statement "Is that one of your unbiased "mainstream" news services?" showed skpeticism about the news source, I conjectured if you thought if the news was fake.

You could have answered or no.

ursamajor
20 Jun 04,, 16:44
Last time I checked the citizens bought the power, not the state of California.

I don't think you checked last time otherwise you would not be making such uninformed statement!

Yes the citizens/enduser/consumers bought power and paid higher prices, but State of California also bought power for its grid. Ulitimately ofcourse it was California's taxpayers money.



And no they should not be in Jail. The politicians who proposed and passed the so called deregulation bill which is nothing more then a new set of debilitating regulations should be in jail.

Do you know price gouging is crime? These companies when they artificially created a crisis and then gouged their consumers they committed a criminal act. Do you understand this concept?

Or are you saying that corporate criminals are above law?



Get the god damn Government out of our god damn lives.

Ever thought of moving to Alaska?

tw-acs
20 Jun 04,, 17:00
Plants are the best way to convert the suns energy.

Nature came up with the best one, and man has yet to top it and I doubt it ever will.

Thanks Mom

Confed999
20 Jun 04,, 17:15
Where did I say that you said that?
Said what?

Since your statement "Is that one of your unbiased "mainstream" news services?" showed skpeticism about the news source, I conjectured if you thought if the news was fake.
Do you speak English? What words in "Is that one of your unbiased "mainstream" news services?" do you not understand? Is COPLEY NEWS SERVICE mainstream? Is COPLEY NEWS SERVICE unbiased? Duh... :rolleyes: You are the "mainstream" is allways right, they never spin the news appologist, so why then is this not from something more "mainstream"?

Praxus
20 Jun 04,, 17:22
I don't think you checked last time otherwise you would not be making such uninformed statement!

Yes the citizens/enduser/consumers bought power and paid higher prices, but State of California also bought power for its grid. Ulitimately ofcourse it was California's taxpayers money.

Congratulations, so I didn't realize California was such a Cluster Fuck of a Socialist Nightmare.




Do you know price gouging is crime? These companies when they artificially created a crisis and then gouged their consumers they committed a criminal act. Do you understand this concept?

Or are you saying that corporate criminals are above law?

Ever thought of moving to Alaska?

"Price Gouging" is a crime but it should not be. It violates no one's rights.

They did not artificially create a crises, there were real power shortages caused by left wing politicians in the California state senate. I already explained to you how it was caused but you continue to shout your anti-capitalist non-sense.

Guess what happens when you loose power stations and you have to provide more power then before you lost it. There are shortages!!!

The only way to stop this is to raise prices to decrease demand but the so called "de"regulation bill put a cap on how much they could charge, making this impossible.

So guess what if they are required by law to provide service to everyone, then there will have to be blackouts because there is only so much power being produced.

Leader
20 Jun 04,, 23:22
Plants are the best way to convert the suns energy.

Nature came up with the best one, and man has yet to top it and I doubt it ever will.

Thanks Mom

So you want to grow pot? LOL

Praxus
20 Jun 04,, 23:48
Plants are the best way to convert the suns energy.

Nature came up with the best one, and man has yet to top it and I doubt it ever will.

Thanks Mom

Allow the building of more Nuclear Reactors and Hydroelectric dams then there will be no need to grow Hemp.

Hemp is not a realistic feul source.

Leader
21 Jun 04,, 01:38
Hemp is not a realistic feul source.

It's amazing that this needs to be stated.

Confed999
21 Jun 04,, 03:17
It's amazing that this needs to be stated.
You guys are going to make him sad or mad... :tongue:

Leader
21 Jun 04,, 06:11
You guys are going to make him sad or mad... :tongue:

I'm going to go with the latter. He seems like a rather angry individual. :mad: :mad:

tw-acs
21 Jun 04,, 22:07
Actually soy and hemp are damn good and your stupid asses should know that by now.

Here is an expirement to see if vegetable oil is good energy source.

Put vegetable oil in a frying pan turn the burner on high.

Stand on your drive way and call the fire department.

Try it and find out why.

Or what does your body use to make energy.

I said plants not hemp.

Oh dumb fucks as the United States Government makes very clear hemp and pot are not the same thing.

Your dams destroy the environment. The environment that let life evolve to allow you to exist. If you do not think it would be a good thing to preserve life then kill it. Kill it all including yourself.

Chernobyl.

Have you seen the film "The Day After Tommorow" if man continues with his ignorant ways that will be our future and our demise.


Hemp is not a realistic feul source.
-Praxus

Why so?

Do you have a problem with soybeans?

Leader
21 Jun 04,, 22:20
Actually soy and hemp are damn good and your stupid asses should know that by now.

See he's very angry. Maybe he'll take it out on himself.


Here is an expirement to see if vegetable oil is good energy source.

Put vegetable oil in a frying pan turn the burner on high.

Stand on your drive way and call the fire department.

Try it and find out why.

LOL why don't you?


Or what does your body use to make energy.

Your argument is illogical the human bady is not a car.


I said plants not hemp.

"Marijuana Tax Act" You’re the one that brought pot up. Maybe you should go smoke some. It would make you relax a little.


Oh dumb fucks as the United States Government makes very clear hemp and pot are not the same thing.

:rolleyes:


Your dams destroy the environment.

:rolleyes:


The environment that let life evolve to allow you to exist. If you do not think it would be a good thing to preserve life then kill it. Kill it all including yourself.

This is you: :mad: LOL


Have you seen the film "The Day After Tommorow" if man continues with his ignorant ways that will be our future and our demise.

That movie isn't even based on science. Even the people made it said that.

Confed999
21 Jun 04,, 23:20
See he's very angry. Maybe he'll take it out on himself.
Yep! You were right! I don't think he understands how bad it is for the enviornment to grow and process crops, let alone burn the result! It's bad enough we have to grow them to eat.

Praxus
21 Jun 04,, 23:58
-Praxus

Why so?

Do you have a problem with soybeans?

It would cause property prices to sky rocket. There is not enough land to grow even close to enough feul.

Trooth
22 Jun 04,, 00:41
It would cause property prices to sky rocket. There is not enough land to grow even close to enough feul.

Can we have some stats on that please?

Cars will happily run (with some adjustment) on vegetable oil. So the power output isn't an issue.

Yield might be an issue, but unless you know a quick way of crushing and processing dinosaurs vegetable based oils are likely to be a better long term solution than any other oil based solution.

Confed999
22 Jun 04,, 02:42
Can we have some stats on that please?
This looks like a good page: http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_yield.html . I found a few individual stats that were pretty close to these, and there are alot here. So taking one of the ones near the center it would take 2.7 billion acres to provide 30 million barrels of oil a day.
EDIT: The inefficency of veggie oils wasn't taken into account in the above calculation. It would be about 3.4 billion acres instead. An acre is equal to 43,560 square feet (4047 square meters).

Cars will happily run (with some adjustment) on vegetable oil. So the power output isn't an issue.
80% or so unfortunatly, so it will take 25% more veggie oil to do the same job. That inefficency is why sports cars don't have deisel engines.

Yield might be an issue, but unless you know a quick way of crushing and processing dinosaurs vegetable based oils are likely to be a better long term solution than any other oil based solution.
OK, firstly the veggie oils only take care of part of the problem as they are all light oils and heavy oils are still needed. Secondly after raping the enviornment enough to grow crops to provide 30+ million barrels of oil a day, one still has to process the stuff into fuel! Creating veggie oil, or even frementing it, then creates solid and liquid organic wastes, and in quantities that great it will definitely become a problem.

In short, as has allready been said, veggies alone aren't going to do the trick. Personally I like solar, hydro and thermal. Beyond their initial creation they produce little, if any, pollution and ones like hydro can be used to revive natural areas by creating lakes.

tw-acs
22 Jun 04,, 09:05
The phasing out of petroleum based fuels will allow for a smooth transition and allow for the yeilds of the vegetable oil crops to increase, through selective breeding and proper growing methods.

Inefficiency of the internal combustion engine could be greatly reduced if the heat that is produced from combusting the fuel was not wasted.

A 174 cubic inch steam engine is the equivalent of a 735 cubic inch internal combustion engine.

The heat from an internal combustion engine should be utilized by creating steam not just to cool the engine but to power it also; a hybrid engine with multiple powerplants: Bio-Diesel, Steam, Man power, Fuel Cell (if hydrogen is feasible - electrolysis to split hydrogen and oxygen atoms) for electricity storage and all other applicable available options.

Your math is strange. Bio diesel works just fine.

"A common objection to biomass energy production is that it could divert agricultural production away from food crops in a hungry world -- even leading to mass starvation in the poor countries.

True or not? Not true: at best it's an oversimplification of a complex issue. It just doesn't work that way, and neither does hunger."

That is from the same site you quoted. As is this:

Car facts
From Grist Magazine
http://www.gristmagazine.com/grist/counter/counter011900.stm

70 million motor vehicles were on the world's roads in 1950.
630 million motor vehicles were on the world's roads in 1994.
1 billion motor vehicles are expected to be on the world's roads by 2025, if the current growth rate continues.
50 million new cars roll off the assembly line each year -- 137,000 a day.
27 tons of waste are produced in the manufacture of the average new car.
11 million cars are junked annually in the US.
12,000 pounds of carbon dioxide are emitted by the average car each year.
5% of a car's fuel can be wasted by underinflated tires.
2 billion gallons of gasoline could be saved annually if 65 million car owners kept their tires properly inflated.
85% of auto fuel is consumed just to overcome inertia and start the wheels turning.
2.5 times more emissions are generated by SUVs (Sports Untility Vehicles) and light trucks than by standard cars.
33,000 natural gas vehicles were in use in the US in 1993.
75,000 natural gas vehicles were in use in the US in 1998.

12,000 pounds of carbon dioxide are emitted by the average car each year.

630 million motor vehicles were on the world's roads in 1994.

50 million new cars roll off the assembly line each year -- 137,000 a day.

2004 -1994 = 10 years

10 years * 50 million motor vehicles = 500 million motor vehicles

500 million motor vehicles + 630 million motor vehicles = 1,130 million motor vehicles

1,130 million motor vehicles * 12,000 pounds of Carbon Dioxide =
1,356,000,000,000 pounds of Carbon Dioxide released into the atmosphere from motor vehicles during 2004

Photosynthesis is the best process known to man to convert carbon dioxide.

Also notable is other wastes produced in association with automibles.

Horses would be so much easier.

Turbine Engines have plenty of power for race cars.

Bio diesel has much better mileage than gasoline.

Organic waste is natural and biodegrable, It is called compost...SHIT it comes out of your ass.

The significant impacts on the environment from your suggested methods of allocating energy raise my concern.

My suggested method will help reverse the increase of Carbon Dioxide in our atmosphere.

Go watch "The Day After Tommorow" it is a good movie.

http://www.thedayaftertomorrowmovie.com/

Check it out! How much extinction of life will wake you up!

Will you wake up when humans are extinct?

More Truth than Hype

Leader
22 Jun 04,, 09:40
Go watch "The Day After Tommorow" it is a good movie.

http://www.thedayaftertomorrowmovie.com/

Check it out! How much extinction of life will wake you up!

Will you wake up when humans are extinct?

More Truth than Hype

The movie is scientifically wrong. I'm sure it's a great disaster movie, but that doesn't make it reality. Your doom and gloom is laughable. If the world were as bad as you say, why would you bother living? According to you, Iraq is a disaster, America is based on murder, American policies are immoral, American economic system is immoral, the economy is the worst since the Great Depression, and humanity is on the verge of mass extinction. :eek: Rather Depressing.

tw-acs
22 Jun 04,, 19:23
I did not say it was reality, and as the creators of the movie said we would like to keep it that way, fiction. Human beings do not possess the computer technology to calculate the atmosphere and weather exactly and because we suspect that the increase in carbon dioxide released from volcanic eruptions and or from space debri caused the last ice age. I think it very relavent to be concerned about 1,356,000,000,000 pounds of Carbon Dioxide released into the atmosphere from motor vehicles during 2004 alone. Knowing the rate at which we consume and thus pollute increases with every unit of time I think it would be wise to find a way to not allow for the increase of carbon dioxide because simple we do no know how much could cause significant changes in the environment.

Praxus
22 Jun 04,, 19:36
30 Years ago: Global Cooling!!!

10 Years ago: Global Warming!!!

Now: Climate Change!!!


Make up your damn mind. The facts show that there is no significant rise or decrease in tempature and the climate is not changing at any significant ammount.

tw-acs
22 Jun 04,, 20:15
The facts
-Praxus
Lets see the facts.

I have noticed significant change.


1,356,000,000,000 pounds of Carbon Dioxide released into the atmosphere from motor vehicles during 2004 alone.
-tw-acs

Leader
22 Jun 04,, 20:27
I did not say it was reality, and as the creators of the movie said we would like to keep it that way, fiction. Human beings do not possess the computer technology to calculate the atmosphere and weather exactly and because we suspect that the increase in carbon dioxide released from volcanic eruptions and or from space debri caused the last ice age. I think it very relavent to be concerned about 1,356,000,000,000 pounds of Carbon Dioxide released into the atmosphere from motor vehicles during 2004 alone. Knowing the rate at which we consume and thus pollute increases with every unit of time I think it would be wise to find a way to not allow for the increase of carbon dioxide because simple we do no know how much could cause significant changes in the environment.

Ice ages are cyclical. I've never heard that carbon dioxide caused the last ice age. The most popular current theory is that Ice ages are caused small shift in the axis of rotation of the Earth. Either way they do not happen over night. They occur gradually over thousands of years.

tw-acs
22 Jun 04,, 22:21
Theories are still theories, nonetheless. A new theory that is not been proven does not discredit an existing theory that has not been proven.

I did not mean to say that Carbon Dioxide was the only factor involved in creating an Ice Age. I did not mean to say that an Ice Age would occur from the Carbon Dioxide but something of that degree becomes more likely to happen as we increase the amount of Carbon Dioxide without completing the Carbon Cycle by growing enough plants to purify the air.

Also producing food, fuel, textiles, compost, medicine, and not to mention the jobs from another US industy that would not replace petroleum and related industries but create much needed competition and an alternative that has potential to be a sustainable energy source and much more.

Confed999
22 Jun 04,, 23:51
I was actually way off, in 2002 the world required over 53 million barrels of oil a day!

So, approximately 4 barrels per acre into 53 million barrels per day equals 13.25 million acres per day times 365 days equals 4.8 billion acres per year times 1.25 for inefficency comes to a grand total of 6 billion acres per year.

Sorry about that! ;)

Trooth
23 Jun 04,, 00:03
OK, firstly the veggie oils only take care of part of the problem as they are all light oils and heavy oils are still needed. Secondly after raping the enviornment enough to grow crops to provide 30+ million barrels of oil a day, one still has to process the stuff into fuel! Creating veggie oil, or even frementing it, then creates solid and liquid organic wastes, and in quantities that great it will definitely become a problem.

In short, as has allready been said, veggies alone aren't going to do the trick. Personally I like solar, hydro and thermal. Beyond their initial creation they produce little, if any, pollution and ones like hydro can be used to revive natural areas by creating lakes.

I agree they aren't going to do the trick by themselves, but at some point we have to look at some alternatives because :-
1) we are going to run out of the animal oil
2) Our dependancy on crude is not only going to cause us a problem if we don't address it, but it doesn't exactly make the world a safer or politically more stable place.

I have no belief that one energy solution is going to solve the problem. But what is clear is that other stuff should be tried. When people in the UK converted their cars to run on vegetable oil (and they were using the waste fat from Fish and Chip shops so it burning stuff that was going to be dumped anyway) HMC&E came after tham as it was basically a fuel.

As for diesel powered sports cars one came 8th in the Le Mans 24hour this year. So i guess a diesel sports car won't be that far off our roads.

Confed999
23 Jun 04,, 00:13
As for diesel powered sports cars one came 8th in the Le Mans 24hour this year. So i guess a diesel sports car won't be that far off our roads.
Show me one that can top a nitro-methane dragster and I'll agree.

Trooth
23 Jun 04,, 00:17
Heehee. Do you have a lot of those on the roads near you?

Confed999
23 Jun 04,, 00:35
Heehee. Do you have a lot of those on the roads near you?
This is the country that made a car that goes mach 1.03, because they were bored. Really, my neighbor races amateur and he runs it up the street occasionally, does that count? ;)

Leader
23 Jun 04,, 00:44
I was actually way off, in 2002 the world required over 53 million barrels of oil a day!

So, approximately 4 barrels per acre into 53 million barrels per day equals 13.25 million acres per day times 365 days equals 4.8 billion acres per year times 1.25 for inefficency comes to a grand total of 6 billion acres per year.

Sorry about that! ;)

Given that the useable farming land on the earth is 15-20 billion acres max, it is unlikely that 30 to 40 % of that would be converted to create fuel. Not to mention that 3 to 4 billion acres of that number is rain forest.

Confed999
23 Jun 04,, 00:49
We need that to grow food! In order to prevent over farming approx. 25% need to remain fallow, so all of that is not usable at one time.

Trooth
23 Jun 04,, 00:58
I was actually way off, in 2002 the world required over 53 million barrels of oil a day!

So, approximately 4 barrels per acre into 53 million barrels per day equals 13.25 million acres per day times 365 days equals 4.8 billion acres per year times 1.25 for inefficency comes to a grand total of 6 billion acres per year.

Sorry about that! ;)

But does it all have to be replaced like for like and overnight? I wouldn't imagine so, no more than the horse was replaced by the car overnight.

Also, you can use waste material to make some fuels as well. Cars run well on methane, after all. "Where there's muck there's brass"

Confed999
23 Jun 04,, 01:09
But does it all have to be replaced like for like and overnight
My point is that it can't be, even in a million years. Burning things is an outdated process, and creates carbonization even in the cleanest fuels. I see continuing research in that same direction as foolish.

no more than the horse was replaced by the car overnight
It didn't happen overnight, but it was pretty close to that fast.

Also, you can use waste material to make some fuels as well. Cars run well on methane, after all.
I can tell you guys haven't been around massive farms or processing plants. They are nasty! You want a methane production plant next door to your house?

Trooth
23 Jun 04,, 01:17
Well. I have been near farms. I can smell the stuff that is a ready source of methane! However, scoop it up, bung it in some big vats and the smell wouldn't be as exposed to the air.

Oil isn't exactly a clean source of energy and i am not actually arguing this from an environmental viewpoint.

My point isn't that any single thing can replace oil over night. However until we actually start encouraging our societies to try and use other fuels etc, we may well one day be faced with an overnight choice away from oil.

for example in another thread we discussed the $100k tax incentive for buying large vehicles that has turned seemingly into an SUV loophole. Imagine if the same loophole was available to, say, hybrid cars or some such. People might be inclined to go for it as well. Not a good example, but i am sure you see where i am coming from.

Confed999
23 Jun 04,, 01:36
tax incentive for
I'm one of the people who don't think there should be tax incentives on anything except charity contributions.

Massive oil use is awful for the enviornment, simply awful.

BTW, I got what you were saying, I was just still talking to my favorite liberal. ;)

Praxus
23 Jun 04,, 02:04
The enviroment is irrelivent, technology built by man is our soul means of survival. It always has been.

ChrisF202
23 Jun 04,, 02:36
for example in another thread we discussed the $100k tax incentive for buying large vehicles that has turned seemingly into an SUV loophole. Imagine if the same loophole was available to, say, hybrid cars or some such. People might be inclined to go for it as well. Not a good example, but i am sure you see where i am coming from.
Nice idea Trooth, I like it

tw-acs
23 Jun 04,, 04:52
We should encourage alternative energy sources to further develop technologies of such.

Also fund education system more.

tw-acs
23 Jun 04,, 20:15
Did you see the hail storm down in Texas? It is going to take like 3 months to fix all of the windshields that were damaged. About 4" hail thats big.

Leader
23 Jun 04,, 20:19
Did you see the hail storm down in Texas? It is going to take like 3 months to fix all of the windshields that were damaged. About 4" hail thats big.

Which proves nothing.

tw-acs
23 Jun 04,, 21:03
What was it supposed to prove?

Leader
23 Jun 04,, 21:33
What was it supposed to prove?

Oh and I thought you had a point. My mistake.

tw-acs
23 Jun 04,, 23:22
I do not need to explain everything to you like you are a baby. If you do not understand something, you might try listening until you have something meaningful to say.

Ironduke
23 Jun 04,, 23:37
The enviroment is irrelivent, technology built by man is our soul means of survival. It always has been.
The environment isn't irrelevant. Everybody has a right to reasonably clean air and water, etc. These are necessities of life. If we destroyed the world's vegetation, there wouldn't be oxygen for long. If there's alot of global warming, much of the world's inhabited land would be underwater, other parts would be desertified, etc. We can't deprive men of life to make a quick buck.

Trooth
23 Jun 04,, 23:42
we live in the environemt. We eat and breath the environment. We are made out of the environment. When we die we become the environment.

When we arse up the environment we are hurting ourselves. If we are lucky we live on the top of a hill, the wind can blow our bad air away, the streams can wash our filth away. But it only goes back into the cycle. Eventually even the people on the top of the hill breath bad air, dirnk bad water, and eat bad food.

Leader
24 Jun 04,, 00:00
I do not need to explain everything to you like you are a baby. If you do not understand something, you might try listening until you have something meaningful to say.

LOL, well then why don't you enlighten me on what the hell it was that you were trying to prove. While you at it, why don't you try to post something that makes sense.

tw-acs
24 Jun 04,, 01:33
I just did.

Confed999
24 Jun 04,, 01:52
Which proves nothing.
Proves it hails in Texas. We have that stuff here all the time, it sucks but it's been happening for the hundred and some years my family has been in Florida. I'll take it over snow and sleet anyday though. ;)

Leader
24 Jun 04,, 01:56
I just did.

:rolleyes: Your obviously to deep for me.

Leader
24 Jun 04,, 02:01
Proves it hails in Texas.

I think his statement must have some deep elusive meaning because otherwise, what would be the point. After all, T is a near genius even since someone dropped him on his head (or whatever happened) as a child.

Confed999
24 Jun 04,, 02:22
After all, T is a near genius even since someone dropped him on his head (or whatever happened) as a child.\
Is that so? It explains alot.

ursamajor
24 Jun 04,, 15:33
Congratulations, so I didn't realize California was such a Cluster Fuck of a Socialist Nightmare.

California is not the only state.



Price Gouging" is a crime but it should not be. It violates no one's rights.

Are you advocating price gouging? You must me kidding!
Price gouging violates the fundamental principle of fairness, a principle which is the foundation of any justice system.



They did not artificially create a crises, there were real power shortages caused by left wing politicians in the California state senate. I already explained to you how it was caused but you continue to shout your anti-capitalist non-sense.

Guess what happens when you loose power stations and you have to provide more power then before you lost it. There are shortages!!!

The only way to stop this is to raise prices to decrease demand but the so called "de"regulation bill put a cap on how much they could charge, making this impossible.

So guess what if they are required by law to provide service to everyone, then there will have to be blackouts because there is only so much power being produced.

You don't seem to be well informed on this subject. Yes, California power crisis happened due to agregation of many different factors, and one of them was deliberate actions of energy companies which exacerbated the crisis.

Judge Wagner who was appointed by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to investigate into the matter found these companies guilty and has ordered them to refund California to the tune of billions of dollers.
Here is news pertaining to just three of the companies, there are dozens more.

Here is Williams and AES deliberately idling/shutting down their plants, and agreeing to pay over $1 billion for that.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/reports/power/20021116-9999_1b16power.html

Here is ELPASO company found guilty of deliberately reducing gas supply to California durign the crisis.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/reports/power/20020924-9999_1n24elpaso.html


Here is an article which discusses how ENRON used strategies like DEATHSTAR and RICHOCHET to gouge California.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/05/10/MN24643.DTL

Read part of the taped conversation of ENRON energy traders how they were trying to drive California to the ground.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/08/eveningnews/main621856.shtml

Your comment about California's leftist politician is off the mark since "deregulation" is actually a pro capitalistic thing to do.

Labelling me anti-capitalism was also off the mark, I not against capitalism, I am against "unfair trade practices".

Ask yourself this question, why has California not faced a crisis similiar to 2000-2001 since then? Has the generation capacity of California gone up significantly? NO.

It is because FERC regulation enacted after the 2001 power crisis, which prevents these corrupt energy companies from using unfair trade practice, what they used during the 2001 crisis.

Confed999
25 Jun 04,, 01:44
Except, as Praxus said, their "deregulation" was in fact more regulation. If it were a free market there couldn't be price gouging, competition wouldn't allow it.