Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zeuspaul who wrote (84826)	1/20/2001 12:11:16 PM
From: gamesmistress	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

The goal should be to produce the most amount of power and to minimize the cost. If we want our businesses to compete in a world market then we should supply them with reliable low cost power. One big problem in California is their desire to "have it all" at the same time - cheap power, clean air, high growth, and keep those dirty, ugly power plants away from me. This has resulted in an entitlement mentality with no real awareness or debate on the necessity of trade-offs. Businesses, not government or scientists or engineers, are nuch more likely to produce something at the least cost because they have the incentive to do so. Government sure doesn't, and scientists and engineers, well, I worked for Bell Labs and in its heyday they were cranking out great discoveries because they weren't constrained by market forces AND WERE SUBSIDIZED by the telephone monopoly. I agree that because power is an essential there needs to be a way to ensure its availability, but I would like to know more about how Anaheim is managing to keep the lights on. Long-term contracts? Owning its own power plants? Subsidies? Plus, the power may be available, but I doubt if they have been immune to the rise in natgas and power prices - have they been able to pass on their costs to consumers? If so, the consumers have probably reduced demand - an natural market response. That't the kind of "planning" PG&E and SoCal Ed should have been doing but weren't, due to that screwy "deregulation" bill. And why they thought the price of power would stay the same as in 1996 I will never know. The rest of the country is experiencing big increases in electricity and natgas bills too, you know, but CA is the only state experiencing an energy crunch and blackouts because of their own stupid mistakes. Do you really think that the only reason power generators haven't been building plants in CA is because they "..employ economists with long term projections for the price of power and then build just enough...wouldn't want to overbuild and drive the price of power down."??? You don't think the overzealous environmentalists and the NIMBY and BANANA attitudes had anything to do with it? How would your "scientists and engineers" deal with them anyway? That would be confrontation I'd love to see.

To: Zeuspaul who wrote (84826)	1/20/2001 2:59:54 PM
From: Second_Titan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

Zuespaul - What you have in California reminds me of other government fiascos committed in past and present times where the officials in "control" screwed up and caused major harm. Millions have died from famines caused by mismanagement and the consequences from California's unfolding debacle will be felt for years to come. How did officials try to stop the spread of Black Plague that decimated a majority of Europe? By killing the cats that killed the rats that spread the disease. We can understand the ignorance of officials then, but not now. Today we have fools saying they wont pay over $5.5 MWHR which is below production costs??? Instead of starving to death, the average citizen of California will get screwed beyond belief for this problem. This is a good example of a vocal minority screwing the majority who may have been less vocal. I imagine over the next few quarters as the price of this disaster unfolds the silent majority may not be so quiet or forgiving. I think the only way to avert complete disaster is with very very high prices to reduce demand, a few months ago maybe simple cycle turbines could have been directed to California before Summer peak demand if reasonable payment could have been assured. I dont know who would be investing new money today until payment terms are settled. Perhaps Charleton Heston will lead the civil disobediance against the CA. government.

To: Zeuspaul who wrote (84826)	1/20/2001 4:21:37 PM
From: kodiak_bull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

Zeuspaul: I find it hard to believe you wrote: "It isn't market forces that has resulted in adequate supplies of power at reasonable cost. Their success is rooted in good planning. Power planning is best left to scientists and engineers. One need only project future needs and plan accordingly. There are too many considerations to leave power planning to the simplicities and fluctuations of market forces." Russia 1917-1989, China 1949-1982, North Korea 1949-today, Cuba, and the list goes on. Memorize this phrase: central planning does not work. It is, in fact, "the simplicities and fluctuations of market forces" that works, and works beautifully. Of course, the market won't work and won't be allowed to work in NIMBYlands like California. Power planning best left to scientists and engineers? Didn't you forget the politicians, who know that energy costs are headed south indefinitely and their constituents deserve a great deal?

To: Zeuspaul who wrote (84826)	1/20/2001 4:27:09 PM
From: patron_anejo_por_favor	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 95453

<<The immediate crisis can be fixed by reducing demand. The best way to accomplish this is with voluntary and mandatory conservation measures. It is done with water in times of draught..it can be done in this power/political crisis.>> Seems the "voluntary" conservation measures have failed miserably. Are not rolling blackouts a form of "mandatory" conservation? How else would you have it done? You and Gov. Davis are wrong on this point. The crisis won't be solved untill retail price increases are passed through and market based demand reduction is allowed to occur. If the state wants to pay rebates to users who are deemed to be most hurt by the price increases, they can as a separate issue. As long as Davis refuses to acknowledge the necessity of passing through higher prices, though, the crisis will deepen...and demand management will be forced (blackouts) rather than elective. Regards, Patron