I wrote:
California's importing power from elsewhere, so why didn't these other generators commit to natural gas suppliers?
Mac Norton wrote:
Perhaps because they don't burn gas at their stations. Duh.
My response to Raymond was in reference to natural gas price increases. Again, if they're not burning gas, how are they causing shortages leading to price increases? Who's burning the gas? Where'd it go? I wrote:
Hint: transmission losses aren't a recent discovery.
Mac Norton wrote:
No shit. That's why line loss is taken into account in prices. So, er, what?
So if line loss is taken into account in prices it should also be taken into account in figuring out how much power to generate and should also be taken into account when figuring out how much natural gas needs to be committed to. It doesn't matter where the plants are. Raymond's pointed out that some gas plants normally idle are now running full-time to meet demand. To me this reads the same as using idle plants instead of building new ones. Perhaps not a bright move in terms of safety, efficiency and reserve capacity, but nothing that should have changed natural gas commitments. "Raymond D. Mereniuk" wrote:
This power plant sits there mainly unused. The local tree hugger types whine too much about the pollution. The facility is not small, probably enough capacity for a city of 250K. It is used only at peak times and in emergency situations. When there are low reservior levels (which is part of your problem) it is used more often.
In a properly planned electrical system this type of extra capacity is considered essential. These plants were never intended to be used fulltime so they tend to have low natural gas storage capacity and smaller inbound pipelines. In your system you are using facilities such as these for full-time power generation.
In your state these plants has a quota of pollution they are allowed to produce on an annual basis. A number of these facilities had reached their annual quota of emissions so they shut down for maintenance. Since they were never intended to be used full-time they require some down time. Within the last two weeks your state government lifted the pollution quotas and pressured the operators to bring these plants back on stream.
OK, but do you deny that natural gas suppliers and pipeline operators are responsible for making the call for sizing their supply and their pipelines? Does California need to step in and do that for them? They sized for the expected usage from these plants and actual usage has ended up higher. Oops. The gas suppliers and operators could have also figured that without more power plants being built, these plants might need to run more (even despite regulations) and taken appropriate actions. Perhaps the suppliers aren't dumb and actually figured that out but ran some numbers that said they'd make more money by allowing a shortage to occur? (And hey, we can make it look like California's fault and get some good press in B.C. while ripping them off too!) In your eastern vs. western pipeline example, you showed a case where some supply problems would have been solved by connecting the two systems but then pointed out that the company didn't do that so they can charge a premium in the western system. Is that a cost of California Liberalism or a cost of Capitalism?
Energy production is big business in western Canada and a lot of people are making big dollars from the consumers in the northwest. The actions of the California voters have made this possible.
I just wish I was still in the energy business rolling in dollars rather
The actions of California voters have helped to make this possible. The cold weather has helped to make this possible. You and I heating our homes has helped to make this possible. Not connecting the eastern and western pipeline networks helped to make this possible. Lots of other things have helped to make this possible, but above all, Capitalism has made this possible. California's not responsible for making commitments to put the magic demand number over the limit to build new pipelines. Is it also God's fault for not committing to a cold winter? I'll let Tim make the causality rant if he feels it necessary. Californians don't want to live near power plants but have a huge electricity demand. Great! I smell opportunity for neighboring states to get lots of tax revenues from plants supplying California electricity. Why haven't they been built? Nevada liberalism? Oregon liberalism? Why not build plants in Mexico? Is Mexico a bastion of liberalism with stringent pollution laws? Why are natural gas suppliers and electric utilities not meeting demand? Are they morons or have they calculated that they make more money by risking and allowing shortages rather than by increasing capacity? This whole thing is no different than OPEC deciding to leave oil in the ground to raise prices except that instead of being honest bastards like OPEC, they're being dishonest bastards by babbling about California Liberalism. If anything it's the cost of not being liberal enough! Damnit, they told us we'd all become rich by investing in all these glorious deregulated energy companies and now look what's happened! We forgot the profit was going to come out of our pockets first. Those bastards told us competition would lower prices! We forgot all our anti-trust lawyers were busy with Microsoft and not making sure the energy industry wasn't acting in collusion. What hath we wrought? than
whining about paying an extra $1,000 per year for heating.
Shame on you. Bad capitalist! Bad capitalist!