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.

Pastimes : The California Energy Crisis - Information & Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (548)	6/15/2001 3:21:18 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1715

Ray, Somehow no one has mentioned the NYT & ABC report that oil refiners in the mid-1990s were far from trying to build refineries that the goo-goo environmentalists are alleged to have opposed. In fact, a Chevron document claimed that "If the US petroleum industry doesn't reduce its refining capacity, it will never see any substantial increase" in refining profits. (NYT, today, p. 16). The report also says that despite not adding new refineries, refining capacity has increased since 1995 due to efficiency improvements and expansion of already built plants, though capacity was increased at a slower rate than demand. The wonders of "competition."

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (548)	6/15/2001 3:52:28 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1715

As I've said before, A.B. 1890 seems to have been largely written in the executive suites of the utes, by the utes and for the utes. Well, there is obviously an element of incest between industries and the agencies that regulate them. Often, these govt agencies become "captive" due to their reliance upon the industry for input on policy making. That said, given that PG&E is now bankrupt, I would suggest that few executives would have desired such an outcome. Btw, the reason you are paying so much for power is because California wasn't proactive in securing those long-term power supplies. Now they are over a barrel of their own making and paying more than they would have had to pay had they enacted long-term contracts for power. That was penny wise and pound foolish, imo. And now that suppliers understand the level of scarcity that exists in California, the state can hardly expect the private market to forgive them for their own stupidity and naivete. And like I've stated, if they can implement wind, solar, or any other form of power generation, go for it. Long-term contracts with these alternative providers will go far to advancing this technology, now that prices are such that these technologies might be cost effective. There is nothing preventing these folks from selling futures contracts on future power production, and using the money from those contracts to finance the construction of their wind turbines (if a bank is willing to front them the credit to undertake such a transaction). That's one benefit to a futures market. The private market can be assured that they have a guaranteed customer for power they have yet to produce, or even may lack the current capability of producing. But they have an onus to deliver that power upon the execution date of that contract, so they will have to take the money and build that capacity. But from the demand side, you're quite correct. It's hard to roll back the damage that has already been done. They will just have to do the best they can over the next couple of years and businesses will have to add energy "surcharges" to their sales, which will make their goods less competitive to other parts of the nation where there are no power shortages. And again, this is why it's important to build long-term power generation like nuclear. When you build a nuke, you have power for at least 40-60 years, not the measly 13-20 years from a wind farm. And they take a heck of a lot less acreage. Imo, nuclear is the ULTIMATE alternative fuel. Hawk