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.

   PastimesThe California Energy Crisis - Information & Forum

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: McNabb Brothers who wrote (46)2/19/2001 9:35:55 AM
From: Roger A. Babb
   of 1715
Hank, if Saddam is the problem then the problem should be dealt with directly!

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Ben Wa who wrote (43)2/19/2001 12:03:48 PM
From: hobo
   of 1715
Deport illegal aliens from California. A smaller population uses less energy. Alternative is to put them on treadmills like hamsters in order to generate electric power.

Be careful, what you wish, it just may come true, in ways you were not expecting.

While I do not disagree that a smaller population would reduce energy demands, defining:

1. who is the "alien"
2. who consumes more energy.
3. who is in the best form to withstand an energy crisis.
4. practical and utilitarian reasons of who depends on who is important, i.e. is illegal labor practical and utilitarian, and do we depend on them more so than they depend on us ?
5. who is (or will be), in position of power to dictate and define some (or all) of the above terms.

Posession of land is 9/10ths of the law. Not to mention that arrogant despots could stick out like sore thumbs.

Got any running shoes ? hamsters may not be the only ones doing the treadmill drill. Before making more "earth moving" statements, it would pay you to check on some simple population statistics around the Western states.

The "J" could very well be put back in Texas, or delete "Baja" from California.

Merely pointing out the ... er... "obvious".

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: hobo who wrote (48)2/19/2001 1:27:11 PM
From: Ben Wa
   of 1715
to answer the questions:
1- persons who are not in the US legally
2. likely legal residents
3. who would notice energy crisis more - entities who cannot afford higher energy costs.
4. vague and open ended question, also off the track of the issue at hand.
5. who would make the rules? - politicians, unfortunately.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Ben Wa who wrote (49)2/19/2001 2:33:08 PM
From: hobo
   of 1715
# 3 wrong. the question was, who is a better position to withstand an energy crisis. the answer is he who has less at risk. (from a crisis stand point)

who would make the rules? - politicians, unfortunately.

That's right, based on "votes" to obtain majorities, common sense be damned. So think and take it from there.

And as for "persons who are not in the US legally". that can change very easily at the mere signature of an "armistice" bill. I forget the exact year, I believe it was 1982, when mere proof of "having been in the US" for x number of years (I believe the qualifying time was 3 or 5 years , I forget), gave thousands of illegal aliens, US residency and for some eventual citizenship.

Re: open ended, vague and off track about the issue at hand ?

That is your opinion. Ignore the realities, keep it up. Your arrogance and intolerance still won't change the facts.

Makes no difference to me, just pointing out things.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: deepenergyfella who started this subject2/19/2001 2:57:34 PM
From: deepenergyfella
   of 1715
In reading the article linked below "Costly export: Golden State power AES finds investment in California plants pays off" By Russ Britt, I have chosen to add some of the companies mentioned to the 'watch list' portfolio.

Two sentences I found interesting in his article were;

1)"The problem, both sides say, is that it's next to impossible to trace which power goes where."

2)"California - is extremely difficult since many of these involve private companies that often don't have to open their books."

I guess that helps explain how 'collusion' accusations get quite obscure to ever argue about when the business side of the energy/util industry isn't really very transparent .


New additions to watch list portfolio:
Reliant Energy Corp. (REI) - operates 5 plants in CA.
Duke Energy Co. (DUK)- bought plants in CA
AES Corp. (AES) - sells the electricity to Williams
Thermo Ecotek Corp. (TCK) - alernative energy
The Williams Companies Inc. (WMB)
Mirant Corp. (MIR)

Some key California Energy Crisis followers mentioned:
George Sladoje, CEO of the California Power Exchange.
Keith Casey, economist California Independent Systems Operator.
Peter Navarro, public policy professor at UC Irvine.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: hobo who wrote (50)2/19/2001 3:45:59 PM
From: hobo
   of 1715
On a more important note: (From the LA Times)

Congress on Collision Course With Energy Issue

Capitol: A wide range of topics will be on the table as lawmakers warn of national crisis. Battles shape up as some push conservation, alternative fuels and others favor expanded drilling, nuclear power.

In the Senate, a key Republican is putting the final touches on a 250-page-plus omnibus bill that would promote new development of oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear power.

Democrats plan to counter with legislation that would put more emphasis on conservation, energy efficiency and alternative fuels such as solar and wind power.
Individual House and Senate members are weighing in with proposals of their own, from allowing West Coast states to regulate daylight saving time to boosting federal home energy assistance to low-income families.

Some of the measures, especially President Bush's favorite energy initiative--opening up Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling--are already drawing opposition from environmentalists, many Democrats and even some Republicans. Proposals to offer tax incentives to encourage domestic oil and gas production are opposed by some taxpayer groups.


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: McNabb Brothers who wrote (46)2/19/2001 6:51:51 PM
From: Patricia Trinchero
   of 1715
President Bush at a joint news conference with Mexican President Vicente Fox in San Cristobal, Mexico, Friday.

We bombed Iraq! What else is new?
But while Friday's campaign might have been "routine," it could still launch a different approach to Saddam Hussein.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Alicia Montgomery and Laura Rozen

Feb. 17, 2001 | There were plenty of reasons to think Friday's bombing of Iraq represented a newer, tougher approach to Saddam Hussein by the Bush administration. For one, there are the high-profile leaders returning from the previous Bush administration -- which oversaw the Gulf War -- including Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Then, there was the fact that this bombing -- coming just one month into Bush's presidency -- was the first of its kind since December 1998, when U.S. and British planes bombed Iraq for four days outside the southern no-fly zone

Plus, there was the constant speculation -- among hawks and doves and every animal in between -- that the new president would seek vengeance against Saddam Hussein, who has defiantly remained in power a decade after the war ended, and seven years after Saddam hatched a plot to have the older Bush assassinated. George W. Bush's constant references to "Saddam" during his election campaign suggested as much.

Retaliation speculation had even grown in the last 24 hours, when Bush officially nominated Paul D. Wolfowitz, a dean of advanced international studies at Johns Hopkins University, to be deputy Secretary of Defense. Wolfowitz, as writer Nicholas Lemann pointed out in a January New Yorker, is the "most prominent proponent of the argument that we should oust Saddam Hussein."

And yet Thursday's bombing appears to have been, as Bush said three times Thursday during the course of a brief statement, a "routine" one. Bush, in Mexico to meet with President Vicente Fox, was almost matter of fact, explaining that "since 1991, our country has been enforcing what's called a no-fly zone."

That same reaction echoed from most quarters. "What's the big deal?" asked longtime Pentagon watchdog John Pike, director of "They've been doing the same thing for years." Allied planes have been regularly striking Iraq since December 1998, when Hussein began actively challenging the so-called "no fly zones" established after the Gulf War, with well over a dozen strikes in the year 2000 alone. At that time, the Iraqi government estimated that 300 of its citizens had been killed and 900 injured over the preceding two years.

The main thing that distinguished Friday's action from the strikes that occurred under the previous administration, Pike said, is publicity. "Clinton carried out their strikes very quietly," Pike said. "They'd send out these extremely uninformative, extremely short news releases that said basically 'Iraqi targets bombed. No American casualties. No planes lost.'" In contrast, the Bush administration gave a full briefing to the press about the strikes.

According to Pike, Clinton kept the profile low on the strikes because he didn't want to antagonize Arab nations that were already ambivalent about America's hostility toward Iraq. "Every time there was an air strike," Pike said, "Saddam would say that [it] killed some innocent shepherd boy and all his sheep." Such stories, along with the reports of Iraqi citizens suffering under sanctions, made supporting the U.S. very problematic for Arab leaders.

That's why Pike is a bit puzzled by the fanfare that greeted the strike on Friday. "If they are going to have basically the same policy [as Clinton], I don't know why they are taking on a more visibly confrontational attitude toward Iraq," he said. "Maybe it was a slow news day."

But that could be because while the bombing conformed to Clinton's policy, change is still in the air, and the Bush administration wants to make that clear. The administration, for example, has released millions of dollars to opposition groups working within Iraq and, according to the Associated Press, leaders from those opposition groups were meeting Friday with State Department officials.

And, while Friday's retaliation itself might not be out of the ordinary, the timing may be, suggested Patrick Clawson, director of research for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "We bombed because Secretary Powell is going out there" –- to the Middle East at the end of February, in part to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the end of the Gulf War -- "and we wanted to show that we have other instruments than making concessions. Speak softly and carry a big stick."

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (40)2/19/2001 10:14:44 PM
From: Geof Hollingsworth
   of 1715
Hi Ray,

Good article, but misses a few important points about how we got here to begin with and who should be metaphorically hung for it. For that, you won't get any coverage out of the major California dailies-they are either busy helping in the rewriting of history or at least trying to keep us from thinking about it. The only remotely complete analyses I have seen were in the NY Times in late January and, a little more pointed (and enjoyable) in the following (and related links):

I disagree with those who say we shouldn't look for scapegoats in this mess. As long as the people who got us here are still running things, they will spend time trying to cover things up instead of taking decisive action. I suspect that explains the total lack of leadership on this issue from any perspective. Where are the boards of PG&E and SoCal Edison, and why haven't they fired their bumbling CEO's? Are the voters in San Diego going to make Steve Peace get a real job in the private sector? And did you see the move made by our vaunted governor in filling the open position at the PUC? In this time of government-created crisis, you would expect that the appointee would have some or all of the following characteristics:

1. Someone smart, a clear "big-brain" with the ability to synthesize detail quickly and act decisively.;

2. Someone articulate, charismatic, able to swing people to support solutions which will, inevitably, entail shared sacrifice;

3. Someone independent and apolitical, both for the reality and the perception of fair-dealing rather than butt-covering;

4. Someone with at least a smattering of background in the utilities industry or in the economics of utility regulation.

My model for the person to lead us out of the mess would be Felix Royhatan (sp?), who salvaged NYC after its brush with bankruptcy. So who did the Gov. pick? An individual with a long and not particularly distinguished career in the public defender's office in San Francisco. Huh, I sense you are saying? Well, it turns out he is also the nephew of former Governor Pat Brown, and as a result is unlikely to make waves for the current gov. He is also unlikely to do any good.

Most comical of all, in the SF Comical story about the most recent Plan de Jure one of the legislators quoted was none other than Don Peratta, the architect of the deal to bring the Raiders back to Oakland which was supposed to be no-cost to the taxpayers but in reality looks to cost them well in excess of $100 million. With guys like these helping us, there are dark days ahead, pun intended.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Geof Hollingsworth who wrote (54)2/20/2001 10:13:50 AM
From: Raymond Duray
   of 1715
Hi Geoff,

Thanks for the link to the Bay Guardian article. One of the clear things about this situation is that there is a "fog of war" aspect to the misinformation, disinformation and lack of information surrounding the issues.

Best, Ray :)

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: hobo who wrote (50)2/20/2001 12:36:07 PM
From: Ben Wa
   of 1715
You are correct in that I don't tolerate criminals.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10