<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 15 2008, 11:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 15 2008, 11:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 15 2008, 11:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The thing I hate about man-made global warming, is that the debate on whether man has or has not caused global warming is stifled by enviornmentalists, the media, and other liberals like Al Gore.</div> Well, lets broaden it a bit. I know that China is polluting as much as any country in the world. Their air pollution is reaching us all the way on the California coast. What can we do about it? Not much really. </div> The Chinese are a bunch of fucking hypocrites. Sign the Kyoto, then build more coal power plants. And according to the liberal enviornmentalists we're the one not addressing the issue. </div> Right, so California is getting it from multiple directions. Now do you see why they are so strict on environmental control?
Ken Lay, one of Bush's BEST FRIENDS... One of the energy wholesalers that became notorious for "gaming the market" and reaping huge speculative profits was Enron Corporation. Enron CEO Ken Lay mocked the efforts by the California State government to thwart the practices of the energy wholesalers, saying, "In the final analysis, it doesn't matter what you crazy people in California do, because I got smart guys who can always figure out how to make money." The original statement was made in a phone conversation between David Freeman (Chairman of the California Power Authority) and Kenneth Lay (CEO of Enron) in 2000, according to the statements made by Freeman to the Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Foreign Commerce and Tourism in April[10] and May[11] 2002. S. David Freeman, who was appointed Chair of the California Power Authority in the midst of the crisis, made the following statements about Enron's involvement in testimony submitted before the Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Foreign Commerce and Tourism of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation on May 15, 2002: "There is one fundamental lesson we must learn from this experience: electricity is really different from everything else. It cannot be stored, it cannot be seen, and we cannot do without it, which makes opportunities to take advantage of a deregulated market endless. It is a public good that must be protected from private abuse. If Murphy’s Law were written for a market approach to electricity, then the law would state “any system that can be gamed, will be gamed, and at the worst possible time.” And a market approach for electricity is inherently gameable. Never again can we allow private interests to create artificial or even real shortages and to be in control." "Enron stood for secrecy and a lack of responsibility. In electric power, we must have openness and companies that are responsible for keeping the lights on. We need to go back to companies that own power plants with clear responsibilities for selling real power under long-term contracts. There is no place for companies like Enron that own the equivalent of an electronic telephone book and game the system to extract an unnecessary middleman’s profits. Companies with power plants can compete for contracts to provide the bulk of our power at reasonable prices that reflect costs. People say that Governor Davis has been vindicated by the Enron confession." Enron eventually went bankrupt, and signed a US$1.52 billion settlement with a group of California agencies and private utilities on July 16, 2005. However, due to its other bankruptcy obligations, only US$202 million of this was expected to be paid. Ken Lay was convicted of multiple criminal charges unrelated to the California energy crisis on May 25, 2006, but he died due to a massive heart attack on July 5 of that year before he could be sentenced. Because Lay died while his case was on federal appeal, his record was expunged and his family was allowed to retain all its property.
Guys, you need to be careful.... China could soon be demanding an apology from you for blasting them the way some of you have done in this thread.
Ken Lay was Bill Clinton's buddy, too. Enron donated $100,000 to the Clinton campaign in 1992, and paid another $25,000 for various parties celebrating Clinton's election. The Clinton administration helped Enron in numerous power plant deals around the world. You won't have a hard time finding excerpts of letters by Ron Brown and other Clinton administration trade reps on behalf of Enron, like this one: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articl.../28/12723.shtml <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>"Enron power, a world renowned private power developer, is in the final stages of negotiating two combined cycle, gas turbine power projects," wrote Brown in his 1995 letter. "The first, a 500 MW plant in East Java, should bring commercial power generation by the end of 1997 if it can promptly negotiate a gas supply Memorandum of Understanding with Pertamina. The other project, a smaller plant in East Kalimantan, also awaits a gas supply agreement. "I urge you to give full consideration to the proposals," concluded Brown to the Indonesian minister. In October 1995, Brown wrote another letter, this time to Hartarto Sastrosurarto, Indonesia's Coordinating Minister for Trade and Industry, pressing him to conclude the Enron power plant deals. "I would like to bring to your attention a number of projects involving American companies which seem to be stalled, including several independent power projects. These projects include the Tarahan power project, which involves Southern Electric; the gas powered projects in East Java and East Kalimantan, which involves Enron," wrote Brown. "Your support for prompt resolution of the remaining issues associated with each of these projects would be most appreciated," concluded Brown. On Nov. 18, 1996, Enron CEO Ken Lay announced that the deal with Suharto was complete. According to Enron's public statement, the U.S.-led energy company had finally won the East Java Power project.</div> Gray Davis was a complete asswipe as Governor. He gambled with the peoples' money on energy futures, which is a highly risky type of thing for anyone to invest in (any futures trading is). No amount of political spin can change this fact, or the fact he left office with the state spending at a $60B deficit with $60B in income. California simply does not generate all the energy it requires. I live 10 miles from the Hoover Dam, which generates hydroelectric power, and the bulk of it goes to Los Angeles. Since California went through its energy crisis, our electric bills here have doubled. Enron was a legitimate business for quite a while, but got into the dot bomb craze and blew it all. They're not the only big company that went under in the Clinton era this way. AT&T was so old a company that it's stock symbol was a single letter (T), and ended up getting sold off in pieces; it exists today as a brand name, the brand having been bought by Cingular. MCI, people joked, stood for "Money Coming In" and it got rolled up in a dot bomb kind of play along with several other actual profitable internet companies and went under as WorldCom. Sears, another very old company with a single letter stock symbol (S) was on the brink. I do not in any way want to diminish the actual crimes that Ken Lay committed, which were more related to corporate governance than anything to do with the California energy crisis. However, Lay wasn't an evil man; he was quite generous and a pillar of the Houston community for years. He contributed large sums of his own money to all kinds of charities. He produced quality jobs for a lot of people for years, but when his company got into trouble, he did a lot of bad things that he deserved to go to prison for. The situation in California was entirely due to REGULATION. You can read an accurate description of California's problems here: http://www.reason.com/news/show/34215.html I'll quote a relevant part of the above link here: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Here's how the current crisis was created. A half-decade ago, energy deregulation became big buzz in Sacramento's political circles. In 1996, Assemblyman Steve Peace, considered by some to be the Sen. Pat Moynihan of the California legislature, decided to get in front of this parade. He organized the relevant players —big industrial customers, utilities, environmental groups, and consumer groups—and the result was an electricity restructuring bill that passed the legislature unanimously. Whenever that happens, you can safely bet something screwy is going on. Politicians claimed the plan would provide consumers with more choice and lower prices. Big business figured its purchasing power would allow it to secure lower prices, of the sort the feds deliver up in the Pacific Northwest with the heavily subsidized Bonneville Power Administration. Consumer and environmental groups got lots of restrictions on how the utilities could operate, including price controls, which, as Cuba shows, do a great job of protecting consumers from such things as consumer goods, including necessities such as food, clothing, and, well, electricity. They also got a guaranteed 10 percent rate cut right off the bat. California has both public utilities and investor-owned ones. The investor-owned utilities had to sell off their power plants, since vertical integration is considered almost as sinful as giving out free Web browsers. Still, they too got what they thought was a good deal: They got to charge their customers a "competitive transition charge," which almost offset the 10 percent rate cut and allowed them to recoup their "stranded costs," a euphemism for stupid investments in inefficient plants. They also got a cartel scheme worthy of trial lawyers and Big Tobacco: New competitors had to charge customers the same "competitive transition fee" and hand the money over to the state. Between the price controls and the rate cut, any new competitor entering the California market would have to price their juice so cheaply that it wouldn't be worth the effort. Seeking a tightly managed market, the pols behind the restructuring made another costly error, the result being a totally mangled market. They mistook a physical marketplace (e.g., the New York Stock Exchange) for the market itself. But the latter is simply individuals or firms agreeing to voluntary transactions wherever they may be, a sort of floating crap game that takes place all the time, everywhere and nowhere. The pols not only created an actual, centralized marketplace called the Power Exchange in a building in Pasadena, they also mandated that all electricity must be bought and sold there. Concerned that all transactions be revealed to the public, they further prohibited buyers and sellers from agreeing to individual contracts and mandated that everyone pay the same -- and highest -- price offered on any given day. So that's how the "market" price for power would be set for the utilities. Here's another catch: Regulators would set the price the utilities could charge energy consumers. Now this scheme may be many things, but a deregulated market it certainly isn’t. But none of this mattered much as long as electricity was plentiful and wholesale prices remained sufficiently under the politician's price caps, a situation which existed until 2000.</div> Keep in mind that govt. has the power to define what is a crime, and when they looked for a scapegoat, they found an easy mark in Ken Lay. A classic govt. cover up. I think you would be smart enough to figure it out given the true facts. As for California... The NYC and Chicago metropolitan areas are nearly as populated as L.A. and don't have the pollution issues or the need for the strict kinds of regulation California has. What is unique about California's situation is not the people or number of cars, but the geography. LA is in a bowl formed by mountain ranges; this stagnates the air circulation in the area, causing pollution to not be disbursed as readily. The SF Bay Area, especially the Peninsula, is similarly surrounded by mountains. I read your link to the LA Times article. In response: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/16/business...&ei=5087%0A My comment on the NY Times article is that GM is one of the greenest automakers in the world, with a wide array of vehicles that run on ethanol in various concentrations, natural gas, etc., etc.
Going back to your logic on why Houston beat out LA in 1999 as the most polluted city... <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 15 2008, 11:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Houston's pollution sources include a huge chemical industry and refining industry as well as generating a lot of electrical power for surrounding states, including California. Remember Enron selling power to California? All California is doing is offloading the polluting of the air to elsewhere.</div> California didn't have power pumped into the state until energy companies began shutting down their plants in 2000, and thus the rolling blackouts that we were going through. How can you accuse California of driving up the pollution in Houston when they had already been doing so on their own before we even asked them for additional energy? That makes zero sense. <u>Houston</u> is responsible for how Houston is polluting in their own city, period.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 16 2008, 09:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Gray Davis was a complete asswipe as Governor. He gambled with the peoples' money on energy futures, which is a highly risky type of thing for anyone to invest in (any futures trading is). No amount of political spin can change this fact, or the fact he left office with the state spending at a $60B deficit with $60B in income. California simply does not generate all the energy it requires. I live 10 miles from the Hoover Dam, which generates hydroelectric power, and the bulk of it goes to Los Angeles. Since California went through its energy crisis, our electric bills here have doubled. As for California... The NYC and Chicago metropolitan areas are nearly as populated as L.A. and don't have the pollution issues or the need for the strict kinds of regulation California has. What is unique about California's situation is not the people or number of cars, but the geography. LA is in a bowl formed by mountain ranges; this stagnates the air circulation in the area, causing pollution to not be disbursed as readily. The SF Bay Area, especially the Peninsula, is similarly surrounded by mountains.</div> Couple of things here. The laws regarding California's energy were put into the books only a couple of years before the whole crisis occurred. I understand some of the problems that were directly tied to Davis, but blame can't be entirely thrust at his feet for what a previous administration put into law. In fact, one could say that the previous governor, Pete Wilson, was the one who gambled on California's energy future when he pushed the bills through in the first place. Four or five years after, it must be all Gray Davis's fault, that is what Gray's opponents will say. Post 2000, we now don't generate all the electricity we need. That is not because we don't have the capacity to do so. If you recall, one of our biggest energy suppliers in the state went bankrupt after all this, and ended up turning their power plants off! Of course that is going to have an effect on our ability to power ourselves. I'm not surprised at all that we are still buying power from other states to bandaid this. Do not equate LA to "all of California". As for LA's pollution, that comes from the fact that every man, woman, and teenager in LA drives their own cars, and refuses to take public transit or carpool. They have the worst traffic, and drive the most cars, period. The geography has a little bit to do with that, but not as much as you might think. Where I work, up here, we have a valley called the Silicon Valley. It is very similar to LA in terms of population density, and physical geography ( a bowl). The biggest difference I have seen between the two areas is the enormous amount of public transit that exists here. People up here often carpool as well. Those two things combined keep this area from becoming what LA has always been for the better part of a century now.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thoth @ Jul 15 2008, 11:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I believe most of our electricity still comes from coal? T. Boone Pickens "may" be on to something. . I am skeptical of wind but Solar has merit as a stopgap in the sunbelt. another possibility </div> Here is a chart that shows where US electricity comes from: In regards to Solar power, its really terrible. It is incredibly expensive to set up and maintain if panels break or wear out. The energy produced is quite small, or else people would use them to reducy their electricity bills. Nuclear is probably the most viable, Hydroelectric the 2nd, then Wind (not as effective as the first 2 and cost a fair amount to build for the energy they produce), then using Tide changes to turn turbines along coasts. Oh and here is a potential solar power project that might be done in 2013. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Also known as a power tower, a solar power facility that uses a field of two-axis tracking mirrors known as heliostats. Each heliostat is individually positioned by a computer control system to reflect the sun's rays to a tower-mounted thermal receiver. The effect of many heliostats reflecting to a common point creates the combined energy of thousands of suns, which produces high-temperature thermal energy. In the receiver, molten nitrate salts absorb the heat energy. The hot salt is then used to boil water to steam, which is sent to a conventional steam turbine-generator to produce electricity.</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 16 2008, 08:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 16 2008, 09:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Gray Davis was a complete asswipe as Governor. He gambled with the peoples' money on energy futures, which is a highly risky type of thing for anyone to invest in (any futures trading is). No amount of political spin can change this fact, or the fact he left office with the state spending at a $60B deficit with $60B in income. California simply does not generate all the energy it requires. I live 10 miles from the Hoover Dam, which generates hydroelectric power, and the bulk of it goes to Los Angeles. Since California went through its energy crisis, our electric bills here have doubled. As for California... The NYC and Chicago metropolitan areas are nearly as populated as L.A. and don't have the pollution issues or the need for the strict kinds of regulation California has. What is unique about California's situation is not the people or number of cars, but the geography. LA is in a bowl formed by mountain ranges; this stagnates the air circulation in the area, causing pollution to not be disbursed as readily. The SF Bay Area, especially the Peninsula, is similarly surrounded by mountains.</div> Couple of things here. The laws regarding California's energy were put into the books only a couple of years before the whole crisis occurred. I understand some of the problems that were directly tied to Davis, but blame can't be entirely thrust at his feet for what a previous administration put into law. In fact, one could say that the previous governor, Pete Wilson, was the one who gambled on California's energy future when he pushed the bills through in the first place. Four or five years after, it must be all Gray Davis's fault, that is what Gray's opponents will say. Post 2000, we now don't generate all the electricity we need. That is not because we don't have the capacity to do so. If you recall, one of our biggest energy suppliers in the state went bankrupt after all this, and ended up turning their power plants off! Of course that is going to have an effect on our ability to power ourselves. I'm not surprised at all that we are still buying power from other states to bandaid this. Do not equate LA to "all of California". As for LA's pollution, that comes from the fact that every man, woman, and teenager in LA drives their own cars, and refuses to take public transit or carpool. They have the worst traffic, and drive the most cars, period. The geography has a little bit to do with that, but not as much as you might think. Where I work, up here, we have a valley called the Silicon Valley. It is very similar to LA in terms of population density, and physical geography ( a bowl). The biggest difference I have seen between the two areas is the enormous amount of public transit that exists here. People up here often carpool as well. Those two things combined keep this area from becoming what LA has always been for the better part of a century now. </div> First of all, I lived in Silicon Valley for 15 years and know it quite well. I travel there on business a few times a year, and it is amazing how busy the freeways are at all times of the day; I don't think it's any better than LA in that respect. There's just fewer people. See the part you quoted me that I bolded. Second, you are still describing the problems with California's attempt to <u><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%">regulate</span></u> energy. Pawn it off on Wilson, he deserves some of the blame. You can't ignore what Davis did as governor, which is exactly what I posted - he bankrupted the state and gambled the peoples' money on risky investments. Third, California has not produced its power needs for decades. The Hoover Dam began transmission of electricity to Los Angeles in 1936. Fourth, and a new point, LOL at California and how they regulated MTBE in their gasoline.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lavalamp @ Jul 16 2008, 08:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thoth @ Jul 15 2008, 11:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I believe most of our electricity still comes from coal? T. Boone Pickens "may" be on to something. . I am skeptical of wind but Solar has merit as a stopgap in the sunbelt. another possibility </div> Here is a chart that shows where US electricity comes from: In regards to Solar power, its really terrible. It is incredibly expensive to set up and maintain if panels break or wear out. The energy produced is quite small, or else people would use them to reducy their electricity bills. Nuclear is probably the most viable, Hydroelectric the 2nd, then Wind (not as effective as the first 2 and cost a fair amount to build for the energy they produce), then using Tide changes to turn turbines along coasts. </div> Solar's a joke. It only works _at all_ because the govt. subsidizes it. The more solar panels built, the less a % of all energy generated by solar panels. Figure that one out and you realize it's a scam. Hydroelectric has massive environmental ramifications. Windmills are a blight on the landscape. I do not fathom why people would protect ANWR and support a massive windmill farm covering much of the rockies. They're also a net energy loser like solar panels. Pickens' idea is intriguing to say the least. The things he says that make the most sense are twofold: we need to solve the supply side of the equation here at home (he suggests wind), and the transfer of money from the US to the middle east is outrageous.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 16 2008, 10:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>First of all, I lived in Silicon Valley for 15 years and know it quite well. I travel there on business a few times a year, and it is amazing how busy the freeways are at all times of the day; I don't think it's any better than LA in that respect. There's just fewer people. See the part you quoted me that I bolded. Second, you are still describing the problems with California's attempt to <u><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%">regulate</span></u> energy. Pawn it off on Wilson, he deserves some of the blame. You can't ignore what Davis did as governor, which is exactly what I posted - he bankrupted the state and gambled the peoples' money on risky investments. Third, California has not produced its power needs for decades. The Hoover Dam began transmission of electricity to Los Angeles in 1936.</div> I also have been to both areas, and I couldn't disagree with you more. LA is by far worse than anything I have faced in the bay area except for that stretch of highway 880 that extends from San Jose up to about Hayward. Other than that, it is a lot faster than trying to get anywhere in LA. That strech of 880 just happens to not have train access between the two spots. Coincidence? Also, the population density is roughly the same. The State went bankrupts under Davis' watch, but those forces were sent into effect during the previous administration. When did you start complaining about your electric bill going up? I seem to remember the biggest hits coming post 2000, when California lost much of its own production due to its power companies going belly up, to the tune of <u>doubling</u> my electric bills. With California sucking energy from the Hoover Dam since 1936, you would not have noticed any significant increases in your bill over the course of your lifetime until Hoover had to start making up for lost California production recently.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 16 2008, 11:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Solar's a joke. It only works _at all_ because the govt. subsidizes it. The more solar panels built, the less a % of all energy generated by solar panels. Figure that one out and you realize it's a scam. Hydroelectric has massive environmental ramifications. Windmills are a blight on the landscape. I do not fathom why people would protect ANWR and support a massive windmill farm covering much of the rockies. They're also a net energy loser like solar panels. Pickens' idea is intriguing to say the least. The things he says that make the most sense are twofold: we need to solve the supply side of the equation here at home (he suggests wind), and the transfer of money from the US to the middle east is outrageous.</div> Well I agree that a huge amount of US money is going to the Middle East. Yea, wind aren`t a very good sources as you said, they are represented by some portion of the 0.7% in other electricity production. Nuclear probably could, and there might be room for expansion of hydroelectric. Although, yes it does have massive environmental ramifications.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 16 2008, 10:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Fourth, and a new point, LOL at California and how they regulated MTBE in their gasoline.</div> You find that amusing? Funny? MTBE additive reduced air pollutants from gasoline burning. The other effect it had was polluting ground water and poisoning the population. Hindsight is always 20-20, right? Once they found out what it was doing to the population, they made them phase it all out. A Canadian company that was selling MTBE to us took us to court and sued us because they wanted to keep putting it into our gas after the fact. Pretty sick, if you ask me. You think its funny that people's tap water started destroying them and their children?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 16 2008, 09:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 16 2008, 10:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Fourth, and a new point, LOL at California and how they regulated MTBE in their gasoline.</div> You find that amusing? Funny? MTBE additive reduced air pollutants from gasoline burning. The other effect it had was polluting ground water and poisoning the population. Hindsight is always 20-20, right? Once they found out what it was doing to the population, they made them phase it all out. A Canadian company that was selling MTBE to us took us to court and sued us because they wanted to keep putting it into our gas after the fact. Pretty sick, if you ask me. You think its funny that people's tap water started destroying them and their children? </div> I find it amusing in the sense that in the State's fascist zeal to regulate things, they fucked up royally. Which is typical of regulation - it always has unexpected and undesired side effects. You don't need 20-20 hindsight to figure that one out. Isn't it sick that there's a lot of "green" companies in bed with the govt. getting money from the public taxpayers to invest in a hoax?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 16 2008, 09:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 16 2008, 10:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>First of all, I lived in Silicon Valley for 15 years and know it quite well. I travel there on business a few times a year, and it is amazing how busy the freeways are at all times of the day; I don't think it's any better than LA in that respect. There's just fewer people. See the part you quoted me that I bolded. Second, you are still describing the problems with California's attempt to <u><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%">regulate</span></u> energy. Pawn it off on Wilson, he deserves some of the blame. You can't ignore what Davis did as governor, which is exactly what I posted - he bankrupted the state and gambled the peoples' money on risky investments. Third, California has not produced its power needs for decades. The Hoover Dam began transmission of electricity to Los Angeles in 1936.</div> I also have been to both areas, and I couldn't disagree with you more. LA is by far worse than anything I have faced in the bay area except for that stretch of highway 880 that extends from San Jose up to about Hayward. Other than that, it is a lot faster than trying to get anywhere in LA. That strech of 880 just happens to not have train access between the two spots. Coincidence? Also, the population density is roughly the same. The State went bankrupts under Davis' watch, but those forces were sent into effect during the previous administration. When did you start complaining about your electric bill going up? I seem to remember the biggest hits coming post 2000, when California lost much of its own production due to its power companies going belly up, to the tune of <u>doubling</u> my electric bills. With California sucking energy from the Hoover Dam since 1936, you would not have noticed any significant increases in your bill over the course of your lifetime until Hoover had to start making up for lost California production recently. </div> You might want to factor in the mass migration of Californians to Vegas. So much so, they're ruining this place like they did SoCal. In other words, Vegas' demand for electricity from Hoover Dam has increased by 6000+ new monthly immigrants over the past several years.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 16 2008, 01:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I find it amusing in the sense that in the State's fascist zeal to regulate things, they fucked up royally. Which is typical of regulation - it always has unexpected and undesired side effects. You don't need 20-20 hindsight to figure that one out. Isn't it sick that there's a lot of "green" companies in bed with the govt. getting money from the public taxpayers to invest in a hoax?</div> So your stance is that there should be no regulations on anything. You would rather watch everyone hang themselves, so to speak. Taking action is far more responsible than taking no action, when faced with a growing problem, and that goes for everything in life. The only thing debatable about this, in my opinion, is the implementation. If something (whatever it is that you might be talking about, I have no idea) is indeed a hoax, then that is a different story.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 16 2008, 01:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You might want to factor in the mass migration of Californians to Vegas. So much so, they're ruining this place like they did SoCal. In other words, Vegas' demand for electricity from Hoover Dam has increased by 6000+ new monthly immigrants over the past several years.</div> Can you share with us the source of your data that suggests that Californians are ruining Las Vegas and single-handedly increasing their energy consumption based on migration patterns? With you having lived in the Bay Area for 15 years, and then migrating to Las Vegas, doesn't that mean that you are part of the very problem that you are accusing others of?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 16 2008, 11:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 16 2008, 01:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I find it amusing in the sense that in the State's fascist zeal to regulate things, they fucked up royally. Which is typical of regulation - it always has unexpected and undesired side effects. You don't need 20-20 hindsight to figure that one out. Isn't it sick that there's a lot of "green" companies in bed with the govt. getting money from the public taxpayers to invest in a hoax?</div> So your stance is that there should be no regulations on anything. You would rather watch everyone hang themselves, so to speak. Taking action is far more responsible than taking no action, when faced with a growing problem, and that goes for everything in life. The only thing debatable about this, in my opinion, is the implementation. If something (whatever it is that you might be talking about, I have no idea) is indeed a hoax, then that is a different story. </div> My stance is that government isn't good at regulating things. Govt. is made up of corrupt politicians and even if they weren't in bed with lobbyists for every industry and activist group under the sun, legislation is done by compromise. Compromise isn't the best of any world but compromise. I am a believer in free markets. You had a MacDonalds serving food in Styrofoam containers that didn't biodegrade and free market forces convinced their management to change their packaging. I already pointed out GM making a wide range of vehicles that use alternative fuels. The list is pretty big, along the same lines. Though corporations are hardly what they should be because they are ... regulated, thus a product of government and not free markets. And that is the implementation debate, I suppose. I'm not against regulation, per se, just against being in love with regulation as if it were the be-all, end-all. Solar power, as well as most of the so-called renewable energy technologies are a big hoax. Lobbyists for the ethanol industry, solar industries, etc., etc., are outright taking money from the govt. coffers to fund money losing and energy inefficient ventures. In fact, ethanol is another great case of a government clusterfuck. It doesn't make us energy independent in the least, and now our food costs and food supply are in serious jeopardy because of government tinkering in the markets. As for moving to Vegas... For much of my life, I've lived in Democratic Party Machine places. Chicago, then California, then Hawaii. Vegas has been the best place I've lived (WRT govt. interference). Two years ago, the state ran such a big surplus that it refunded money to everyone through the DMV. Now, thanks to ballot initiatives and the influx of Californians and their polluted way of thinking, we're running such a severe deficit they're cutting funding for the good things govt. has done here.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 16 2008, 01:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Solar power, as well as most of the so-called renewable energy technologies are a big hoax. Lobbyists for the ethanol industry, solar industries, etc., etc., are outright taking money from the govt. coffers to fund money losing and energy inefficient ventures. In fact, ethanol is another great case of a government clusterfuck. It doesn't make us energy independent in the least, and now our food costs and food supply are in serious jeopardy because of government tinkering in the markets. As for moving to Vegas... For much of my life, I've lived in Democratic Party Machine places. Chicago, then California, then Hawaii. Vegas has been the best place I've lived (WRT govt. interference). Two years ago, the state ran such a big surplus that it refunded money to everyone through the DMV. Now, thanks to ballot initiatives and the influx of Californians and their polluted way of thinking, we're running such a severe deficit they're cutting funding for the good things govt. has done here.</div> You mention lobbyists. Do you think that the more powerful energy industries have their own lobbyists who will stop at nothing to keep other energy devices held back in favor of their own? You must recognise that is also going on, and they have more resources to keep our current energy choices right where they are, as long as they can possibly get away with it. You keep bashing the little guys. Is there anyone claiming that ethanol is the be all end all energy source? Who is saying that? Ethanol reduces dependency on petroleum, not replaces it. For many years now, midwestern states have been using gasoline that is mixed with approximately 10% ethanol. During that same period, California was not using ethanol in their gasoline. It's allowed in some states but not others. If you know how car engines work, they are not built for a 100% ethanol fuel anyway. The compression ratios are vastly different. To go 100% ethanol means that all the automobile engines would have to be rebuilt, meaning everyone has to but a brand new car to support it. As for food costs, the midwestern states that have ethanol factories are only using corn because it is very cheap for them to get it, and its grown locally for faster transport. Are you aware that the ethanol industry is not married to edible plants? I have been to an ethanol plant that uses a grain called "milo" which people do not eat, or care to eat. It is very misleading to tell people that ethanol hurts food supplies. It doesn't have to hurt food supplies to make it, they simply choose to use food plants in some cases. Would it be that difficult to tell them they can only use non-food plants? No, it wouldn't. No one brings that up because they want to use this a a political tool to stop it. US farmers have been struggling to make ends meet for years. Often, they would produce surplus crops that no one would buy from them. Farms started shutting down. Now, with the emergence of the ethanol industry, they can now continue and are making more money. It's good for everyone. So, no, ethanol is not the huge clusterfuck that you claim it to be.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 16 2008, 02:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 16 2008, 11:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 16 2008, 01:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I find it amusing in the sense that in the State's fascist zeal to regulate things, they fucked up royally. Which is typical of regulation - it always has unexpected and undesired side effects. You don't need 20-20 hindsight to figure that one out. Isn't it sick that there's a lot of "green" companies in bed with the govt. getting money from the public taxpayers to invest in a hoax?</div> So your stance is that there should be no regulations on anything. You would rather watch everyone hang themselves, so to speak. Taking action is far more responsible than taking no action, when faced with a growing problem, and that goes for everything in life. The only thing debatable about this, in my opinion, is the implementation. If something (whatever it is that you might be talking about, I have no idea) is indeed a hoax, then that is a different story. </div> My stance is that government isn't good at regulating things. Govt. is made up of corrupt politicians and even if they weren't in bed with lobbyists for every industry and activist group under the sun, legislation is done by compromise. Compromise isn't the best of any world but compromise. I am a believer in free markets. You had a MacDonalds serving food in Styrofoam containers that didn't biodegrade and free market forces convinced their management to change their packaging. I already pointed out GM making a wide range of vehicles that use alternative fuels. The list is pretty big, along the same lines. Though corporations are hardly what they should be because they are ... regulated, thus a product of government and not free markets. And that is the implementation debate, I suppose. I'm not against regulation, per se, just against being in love with regulation as if it were the be-all, end-all. Solar power, as well as most of the so-called renewable energy technologies are a big hoax. Lobbyists for the ethanol industry, solar industries, etc., etc., are outright taking money from the govt. coffers to fund money losing and energy inefficient ventures. In fact, ethanol is another great case of a government clusterfuck. It doesn't make us energy independent in the least, and now our food costs and food supply are in serious jeopardy because of government tinkering in the markets. </div> Some regulations are good, some are bad. If there weren't rules against Abestos, DDT, Lead in gasoline, Lead paint, regulations on removal of poisonous chemicals that could contaminate water supplies, etc. Then I'm sure there would be some companies that would cut corners if needed. However yea, Solar Power is pretty dumb, and ethanol isn't much better.
