Blackouts

[tw]

George Jr is pushing for more energy consumption because lights went out in CA again. Do we have a pending energy problem? Yes. Is George Jr attacking the problem - or just its symptoms. The problem may be too complex for a politican. Symptomatic cures always fit nice into soundbytes. Politicans love soundbytes - intelligence be damned.

Recently I talked with a corporate employee of Southern Cal Gas. She too had the "we need more energy" mentality. But then she learned things about her industry she did not know. Here we are one of the world's largest producers of natural gas - and now we even have to import natural gas! Once we were an exporters of oil. Then when we became the world's third largest producer AND still imported 50% or our needs, then we had the energy crisis. IOW we don't have a shortage of energy. We have a shortage of efficiency.

When Allentown PA becomes a suburb of NYC, then we have a problem - not just with the kid. When someone is too hot in a 75 degree room during the summer, then he has a problem. When it is 60 degree out at night and air conditioners are running, then we have a problem. We are not penguins. We are humans who once found 80 degree summer nights normal and confortable.

Old prices will rise drastically this summer; hopefully returning to normal price levels of between $1.70 and $2.00 per gallon. Maybe even higher prompting some less innovative industries to finally talk to their innovators.

Meanwhile, serious problems have arisen everywhere in the nation almost exactly as in late fifties and 60s US. We have a serious problem of electric transmission as we did back then. In the low growth PA and NY regions, there have been little extensions to the electric distribution system. Not much of a problem there. However that same problem exist in moderate and high growth regions of the country. Some regions have not constructed new plants or transmission lines in the last decade to meet this decades demand. Long Island, CA and New England are on that list. However even worse is the ability to get energy into those regions. Long Island may build an underwater transmission line under the sound. But most regions do not have sufficient transmission facilities to deal with 'contingencies'.

None of this is mentioned by Geroge Jr since he gets his bribes from energy producers (who did Cheney work for?) - not the middle men. The current CA blackouts are not due to generation shortages. They are traceable to MBA mentalities who now play money games with their suppliers - who stall paying the bills playing games of cash flow. When will George Jr attack the real reason that the CA blackout - accountant money games? Those are the people who legally bribe him - notice the silence. Instead he blames enviromentalism for a problem created by too much inefficient usage.

BTW, is there global warming? Greenhouse gases let less heat escape as IR radiation - heating the lower atmosphere. The final nail is in the coffin. Satellite data from IRIS (some 15 years ago) was compared to recent data from IMG. There is a decrease in the earth's IR transmission consistent with the predictions of global warming. Yes, the greenhouse gases are holding the heat in - according the the theory - and now according to experimental evidence.

Again, we don't have an energy shortage - and the resulting global warming. We have an efficiency shortage. We also know that those who advance eneregy efficiency, who create less pollution producing equipment, then also create new jobs for decades to come. During the US 1970 and 1980 recession, Germans scored most electric production equipment jobs (at American expense) because their products were more efficient - less pollution. Japan did same with automobiles. The George Jr solution is Tim Allen's "More Power". Sounds nice but only creates recessions, global warming, and energy crisis in the future. Notice you won't hear any of this from a soundbyte politican such as George Jr. because he knows the country does not read or understand this post.

[russotto]

Originally posted by tw
George Jr is pushing for more energy consumption because lights went out in CA again.

George Jr. is using the CA problem as a convenient and transparent excuse to back down from a campaign promise about treating CO2 as a pollutant. There's no real causal relationship. Personally, since I'm opposed to most proposed environmental measures, I happen to agree with this.

Recently I talked with a corporate employee of Southern Cal Gas. She too had the "we need more energy" mentality. But then she learned things about her industry she did not know. Here we are one of the world's largest producers of natural gas - and now we even have to import natural gas! Once we were an exporters of oil. Then when we became the world's third largest producer AND still imported 50% or our needs, then we had the energy crisis. IOW we don't have a shortage of energy. We have a shortage of efficiency.

No shortage of efficiency. Simply a surfeit of uses for energy -- it's damn useful.

When Allentown PA becomes a suburb of NYC, then we have a problem - not just with the kid. When someone is too hot in a 75 degree room during the summer, then he has a problem. When it is 60 degree out at night and air conditioners are running, then we have a problem. We are not penguins. We are humans who once found 80 degree summer nights normal and confortable.

We may have found them normal, but probably never comfortable. We slept in caves, which tend to be cooler. Lots of humans migrated out of places with 80 degree summers.

Old prices will rise drastically this summer; hopefully returning to normal price levels of between $1.70 and $2.00 per gallon.

Normal? It takes a cartel and taxes to keep them even as high as they are. And the cartel has a problem -- cutting production raises prices, but hurts the economies of their customers, who naturally buy less oil as a result, causing prices to fall. If they cut production even further they may find themselves in a positive feedback loop where no one wins.

Meanwhile, serious problems have arisen everywhere in the nation almost exactly as in late fifties and 60s US.

Everywhere? Seems to me it's only in California and those places forced by Federal rules to provide power to California.

Not much of a problem there. However that same problem exist in moderate and high growth regions of the country.

Sure. Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone. Follow that credo, and you end up with problems. California hasn't build significant generating capacity in 20 years; they are now reaping what they have sown.

However even worse is the ability to get energy into those regions. Long Island may build an underwater transmission line under the sound. But most regions do not have sufficient transmission facilities to deal with 'contingencies'.

Long Island has a problem, mainly because it's an island. California has no such excuse; if transmission capacities are strained, it's because there's not enough indigenous generation capacity.

None of this is mentioned by Geroge Jr since he gets his bribes from energy producers (who did Cheney work for?) - not the middle men. The current CA blackouts are not due to generation shortages. They are traceable to MBA mentalities who now play money games with their suppliers - who stall paying the bills playing games of cash flow. When will George Jr attack the real reason that the CA blackout - accountant money games? Those are the people who legally bribe him - notice the silence. Instead he blames enviromentalism for a problem created by too much inefficient usage.

ROTFL. Make up your mind; is it inefficient usage or MBAs?
The current CA blackouts have many causes, not the least of which is a rule prohibiting distribution companies from making long-term contracts with energy suppliers. This means they have to buy on the spot market, which is MUCH more expensive. And since the prices they charge are still regulated (except in San Diego), that means they are selling electricity for less than they are paying for it. This quickly leads to insolvency, MBAs or no MBAs. Suppliers are understandably reluctant to provide electricity to insolvent companies, on the grounds that they might not get paid.

[elSicomoro]

It would seem that God is punishing Californians. ;-)

Seriously though, judging from my understanding of the dereg bill in California, a good intention went horribly wrong. They are now saying that NYC is headed for the same blackouts this summer.

This is a good example though of what happens when too many people live in too small a space...and the government can't keep up with the people.

[Griff]

"BTW, is there global warming? Greenhouse gases let less heat escape as IR radiation - heating the lower atmosphere. The final nail is in the coffin. Satellite data from IRIS (some 15 years ago) was compared to recent data from IMG. There is a decrease in the earth's IR transmission consistent with the predictions of global warming. Yes, the greenhouse gases are holding the heat in - according the the theory - and now according to experimental evidence."

Should we be convinced by data collected by very different instrument packages, with the 1970 data effected by the solar maximum and a weak La Nina, while the 1997 data was taken at the start of an El Nino event during a solar minimum? The idea of a static climate is ahistorical, Gaia has had a much colder and much hotter climate in the past. Could man be contributing to a general warming of the planet? Yes. If this is occuring is it staving off the next ice age? To me climate change theory is simply a useful tool for folks who would prefer a managed future and politicians who want to do the managing. It looks like the modern variant of the old timey "end o' the world is near" religion. Would it be so popular if the fear was still global cooling and our only hope was increased emissions? I could be totally off base on the whole thing but somebody needs to challenge assumptions. (I am now ducking below my keyboard as my wildly unpopular, poorly researched, and shakey argument is posted)

PS
My favorite hard left writer Alexander Cockburn puts in his tuppence here.

http://www.nypress.com/content.cfm?c...tent_section=1

[russotto]

Not only very different instruments under very different conditions, but a very small portion of the sky. Certain scientists have been desparately searching for satellite confirmation of global warming for quite some time (since many satellite measurements show cooling!); they'll grasp at anything.

[tw]

Originally posted by sycamore
... Seriously though, judging from my understanding of the dereg bill in California, a good intention went horribly wrong. They are now saying that NYC is headed for the same blackouts this summer.

This is a good example though of what happens when too many people live in too small a space...and the government can't keep up with the people.

The rumored CA good intention was flawed because private industry - not government - is responsible for supplying electric. Nightline made this quite obvious in an interview of an east coast electric executive and a west coast executive. Therefore I did the list of top management that was listed here previously. That list demonstrates explicitly why CA has power problems.

Taking PG&E as example: a lawyer, mining engineer, bank executive, doctor of French language, MBA and forestry expert, hospital administrator, economist and conservationist, MBA and real estate executive, a BoD at Home Depot, a BoD of AirTouch, etc. What do any of these know about electricity? Only that they wanted deregulation and believed the business school (communism) philosophy that a good manager can manage any business.

Among stupid things the got in CA's deregulation plan was to deny utilities access to future markets. That sticks utilities to purchase only on the spot market during electric shortages - a guarantee for highest prices. Then what do those 'communist' educated managers do? Claim a shortage of electricity when the reality was they could not pay for that electricity. It was not a shortage of electriticy but an accounting problem. Of course the BoD list is people who don't come from where the work gets done. Even the current CEO was a lawyer. Therefore we have the problems always typical of such management - they would blame everyone else but themselves.

What created the latest blackouts? Utilities started playing 'cash flow' games with their accounts payable - and many independent suppliers just stopped providing electricity - as they should have. Those blackouts last week are directly traceable to MBA money games.

Again, there was no shortage of electrical generation. Again we have short term financial thinkers doing what all anti-Americans do - not understand the business they manage. Why is this not obvious?


NYC does not have generation problems nor problems created by government. It is not too many people in a confined space. It is a predictable problem created by a shortage of transmission lines and increasing inefficient use of electricity. There are plenty of lines to provide plenty of electricity - just not enough for contigencies.

Then there is the (most likely dominated by MBAs) NE Utilities who was to be purchased by Con Edision until Con Ed discovered NE management sold more electricity than they could generate. New Englandpreviously had some serious electric problems that most here never heard about because the past few summers were so cool (therefore not reported by Lisa Thomas Laurie or Jim Gardner). Among NE problems was that their incompetent management was covering up problems at all 7(?) nuclear plants until a problem in one (and the coverup) was discovered by the NRC. As a result, the rest of their plants were inspected and found defective while executives did what MBA school educated executive must do - coverup their incompetence - blame everyone else.

At last count, a few New England nuclear plant are on-line, but since we don't demand to hold top management accountable, then we have not heard any of this. New England power problems are a threat to NYC power supplies because New England will have to import electricity from Quebec, NY, and PA.

[tw]

Originally posted by russotto
Not only very different instruments under very different conditions, but a very small portion of the sky. Certain scientists have been desparately searching for satellite confirmation of global warming for quite some time (since many satellite measurements show cooling!); they'll grasp at anything.

"The results, nevertheless, were striking. In the parts of the spectrum absorbed by carbon dioxide, ozone and methane, the amount of longwave radiation escaping from earth dropped sharply between 1970 and 1997—and did so in a way that matched predictions based on the known increases in levels of those gases. A weaker, but similar, effect was seen for CFCs." The Economist 15 Mar 2001

More comprehensive data is expected in future studies. Much of the data available from IMG was eliminated becase IRIS did not measure those same paramters. But still the results were so striking - strongly confirms other data on global warming and provides absolutely nothing to indicate that global warming is not happening. Global warming is indisputable among those who don't use emotion to create their conclusions. The only part in dispute is the speed of global warming - and it is significant. See this chart from The Economist of 16 Nov 2000.



The above chart demonmstrates that greenhouse gases historically do create the greenhouse effect - for the past 400,000 years AND that the recent temperature climb is sharper, unprecidented, and significantly greater (overwhelmingly more significant) than any time in the past 1000 years. The greenhouse effective is proven, is a world wide problem, and is only denied by those who have opinion but cannot cite facts to prove those opinions.

[tw]

For those who FEEL that the US is not energy inefficient:


[Edited by tw on 03-23-2001 at 10:22 PM]

[Dagnabit]

As far as energy consumption goes, I don't mind being a guzzler. The only sin is not producing more than you consume in this world, and I produce a hell of a lot and I consume a hell of a lot too, and I'm damn proud of it.
<p>
But as far as creating efficiencies goes, nothing will make that happen than a bunch of high prices.

[Griff]

EMOTIONAL! WELL I OTTA! I've heard antis say the same thing about the pros. I'm not married to the anti side but I do naturally prefer to envision a positive future.

Thats a pretty effective chart, showing at least some relationship between the greenhouse gas co2 and temperature change. When an optimist looks at the temperature variation plot, however, he sees evidence of the cyclical nature of the earths temperature. Nonanthropamorphic heating and cooling cycles over the last 400,000 years. I would suggest that increases in plant growth caused by increased co2 levels or some other unknown(s) seem to be at work reducing the temperature as it reaches the + .5 c range. Is that charted properly? It seems like the baseline is below zero. Looks like an anti-warmer charted it.

[Griff]

How do they extrapolate temperature from an ice core?

[Dagnabit]

Looking at it in the light of day, the graph shown does not really demonstrate that greenhouse gases historically do create the greenhouse effect. It demonstrates a correlation, not causality.

Maybe I should only read the Cellar when I've not drinking Guinness?

[russotto]

Originally posted by tw


"The results, nevertheless, were striking. In the parts of the spectrum absorbed by carbon dioxide, ozone and methane, the amount of longwave radiation escaping from earth dropped sharply between 1970 and 1997—and did so in a way that matched predictions based on the known increases in levels of those gases. A weaker, but similar, effect was seen for CFCs." The Economist 15 Mar 2001

A rather perfect example of tunnel vision, actually. This data does not show warming; it rather shows that concentrations of CO2, O3, and CH4 have increased by the amount that is already known they increased. If you want to get warming, you have to show that this increase in absorbtion/decrease in emission was not compensated for by increases in emission elsewhere in the spectrum.

[tw]

The article has correctly noted that with the predicted increases in green house gases, the long wave radiation from the lower atmosphere has decreased - which is what must happen for global warming to happen. This with other data makes it quite obvious to responsible scientist - even those in the oil industry - that global warming is a problem that man has created.

Originally posted by russotto

A rather perfect example of tunnel vision, actually. This data does not show warming; it rather shows that concentrations of CO2, O3, and CH4 have increased by the amount that is already known they increased. If you want to get warming, you have to show that this increase in absorbtion/decrease in emission was not compensated for by increases in emission elsewhere in the spectrum.

[tw]

Originally posted by Dagnabit
Looking at it in the light of day, the graph shown does not really demonstrate that greenhouse gases historically do create the greenhouse effect. It demonstrates a correlation, not causality.

The graphs demonstrate an unprecedented increase in both global warming and in greenhouse gases. This transient never occured in all those previous years. The increases are very sharp, only recent, and have no other explanation for this unique, unprecedented, and overwhelmingly strong event.

This was part of an avalanche of facts so stunning that even oil industry scientists publically announced some years ago that global warming is indeed a serious problem. of course who are the gross waster of energy? That is the other chart. Ironically where do most energy efficiency technologies get invented? In America. Then why do so many of those technologies instead create new jobs in other countries such as Germany? Correct. For example, where do most technologies come from that make coal burning less dirty? Germany. Where were they originally developed? Mostly in the US.

Lets see. George Jr hired no science advisors. He then budgets most science money into medical research and into defense. Ironically George Jr is doing a Ronald Reagan type defense nonsense (see last nights Nightline for a return to cold war politics) and Cheney needs a new heart.

The science community is in an uproar over an obvious misallocation of funds since most medical breakthroughts come from basic reserach in other sciences.

Then there is the total reversal on Greenhouse gases - again in complete contradiction with intelligent science. Even George Sr's science advisor, Allan Bromley, is vocally appauled at an anti-science, pro-politican attitude of George Jr. - who still has no science advisors.

We know that global warming is a sudden and totally "unprecedented in earth's history" problem. But then that is science - a subject George Jr may never have taken in school?