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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (191518)	10/12/2001 4:15:01 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769669

As soon as the suppliers were assured they were going to get paid, there was plenty of power. You really think the problem in CA was a shortage of power? If we could have just schlepped it to CA they wouldn't have had brownouts.

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (191518)	10/12/2001 5:36:41 PM
From: J.B.C.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769669

>>2) No, I wasn't assuming that 'all energy use is for gasoline'.<< Then you'd have to show me some real creative calculation that justify the statement of reducing 2-3 months of oil imports. Not to mention how having a car that gets twice as much mileage being driven twice as far saves any fuel. You avoided the issue that restricting mileage on an auto does nothing to reduce energy consumption. >>) Even the Bush EPA is considering tougher standards for diesels as a result of these new studies... and so are the Europeans.<< You mean just like they did when they added META (?) to fuel to clean-up air pollution but end up polluting the water supply even worse. Just because they look at doing it makes it a correct solution. >>4) No, our energy grids are only LOOSELY interconnected. That is why during the recent Calif. 'energy crisis' they couldn't bring in meaningful amounts of electricity to alleviate the problem of under-generation in Calif. After all, there is a SURPLUS of electricity in many markets (like here in the South East)<< First of all, there is nothing about that statement above that would result in the 40% savings you claim. So again you conveniently avoided you're original swiss cheese assertion. 2nd the amount of energy to drive that power over that distance makes it essentially impractical. There is a grid that exist as far east as Colorado from CA and as far North as Canada. So how does generating a megawatt of power in Colorado and shipping it to Ca result in a 40% energy savings. >>which in some cases are upwards of 60%. << Ok let's bring us back to earth. There might be some poor system out there that has losses like this out there, but in general the line losses are much lower than 10% in the current system. BUT it doesn't change the fact that it takes roughly the same amount of energy to produce a megawatt of power in California as it does in North Carolina. There is absolutly no huge energy saving out there based on your claim of "decentralizing grids and increasing interconnections between them" >>After all, there is a SURPLUS of electricity in many markets (like here in the South East)<< There is a surplus of CAPACITY, but the electricity still has to be generated and that takes energy whether it's CA or NC. >> propose would also return great efficiencies... easily on the order of 40% or greater, because it would greatly reduce line losses. << Pure BS, most energy is produced at the relatively local area to usage. Most energy has a high efficiency factor at point of use to generation. Grids are in place to handle extreme situations where neighboring systems can sell power when beneficial. But if you think that I'm(In Colorado) constantly using energy from an outside souce such California you're badly informed. I would say that 99% of my electrical usage over the past 7 years here was produced here. Bottom line is there is little savings in energy in this scheme. >>The REASON the grids are only lightly inter-connected is because it is NOT IN THE POWER GENERATORS OWN ECONOMIC INTEREST to allow competing power producers to come into to their backyards and maybe under-price their electricity sales.<< Pure BS again. Most grids in existence now were created before ANY states allowed competetion. The Utilitiy Companies still in the vast majority of states are protected under state level regulations as a monopoly. Where do you get these fantasies? But back to the bottom line where is the energy savings that you claim? It still takes roughly the same amount of energy to produce 1 megawatt of power in Maine as it does in Florida or California or Montana. >>5) Actually the most recent 'Tomak' nuclear fusion test results announced that they were right at break-even on power input / output. Obviously still a ways to go, but a mighty good candidate for government funds if I ever saw one... considering the immense payoff.<< Yeah, Yeah I know. I worked with these yahoo's in the late 80's early 90's. It's just not there. Those same claims were made then. That's how they continue to get funding. >> 6) Do you think oil will STAY cheap, as world populations & economies grow, and proven reserves dwindle? << As long as we don't vote in the Al Gore's of the world that falsely believe that $5/gallon fuel is the answer to all our woes. Yes gas will remain cheap as long as it continues to be there. Pull the plug on our usage from the ME and watch them pump more just so they can sell more and generate that same amount of revenue. THEY DON"T WANT THE ECONOMIC DISASTER OF NO ONE WANTING THERE OIL, THINK ABOUT IT! >>Personally, I'd rather that we LEAD our competitors, rather than FOLLOW in this effort.<< I know which country that I'm betting on to come up with alt fuels when fossil fuels run out in the next 200 years or so. >>7) 'Lose a year of potential lifespan'... I didn't make it up, I was quoting the Academy of Sciences study. Obviously, improvements in nutrition, healthcare, etc., serve to increase our lifespans... while opposing those beneficial effects are environmental toxins, lung cancer (nearly unknown at the turn of the 20th. century), etc., etc. Why is it so hard to understand that there can be countervailing forces?<< Because it's not supported by real life facts. The same group studied caffeine in the 80's and said that too much coffee was dangerous, now they say maybe not. These studies are reversed often. Our society breeds those that like to knee jerk react like you. Like I said, your statements are narrow minded scare tactic position and I don't see you changing your mind. cya Jim