The Cost of Natural Gas [was Re: The Cost of California Liberalism]

[Reese]

At 03:33 PM 12/29/00 -0500, auto58194 at hushmail.com wrote:
 >
 >"James A. Donald" wrote:
 >>
 >> He describes the california system as "deregulated", but the fact that
 >> it takes many years to get permission to build a power plant -- that it
 >> takes longer to get permits than to actually build one, is undoubtedly
 >> a contributing factor to the crisis.
 >>
 >
 >Of course it is.  With plenty of excuses to hand out, a deregulated
 >industry will act more boldly.

Without interference from a save-the-"X" crowd, they'll actually be able
to act.

 >If it's so hard to build power plants in California, what is the obsession
 >with building them in California?

Oh, I dunno.  Self-sufficiency, maybe?  One for all, before all for one?
Pull your weight, we'll help but goddamit pull your own goddamned weight?

 >Looking at the queue of plant requests within California they also seem
 >to be obsessed with building them in highly populated areas.

Easy commute for the workers, and a large pool to draw workers from?

 >I suppose one has to consider the plight of the capitalist here.

What, because CA lacks foresight and has it's head up its ass, it has
suddenly become a capitalist plight?  Since when has CA been a paragon
of capitalist virtue?  It seems that, despite several big (read corporate) 
names being based there, they have been the source of many non-capitalist 
things.

 >Given
 >that the ROI on a plant closer to demand is higher (less additional
 >infrastructure such as transmission lines and substations) than one far
 >away, it becomes a no-brainer which to build from a profit standpoint.

Another consideration, for building closer to where the demand is.
These are self-evident considerations.

 >Considering power plants were competing with dot-coms for investment
 >capital, it's no surprise that ROI on a plant needed to be made as high
 >as possible to have any chance of being funded.

Another manifestation of myopia.  Checked www.fuckedcompany.com lately?

 >Thinking about it that way, it shouldn't be too surprising the result
 >is high-ROI plants get built where people don't want them but eventually
 >accept them after a year or two's delay.   The capital for the plant is
 >just invested elsewhere during the delay, so the delay doesn't harm the
 >capitalist.

Any delay in earnings, harms.  Corporate earnings do more than line the
pockets of a nameless, faceless board of directors somewhere.  If that
is allowed for, isn't this really just another example of how piglets
want to have their cake and eat it too?  CA'ans want electricity, but
they don't want the powerplant (in their back yard), or the higher rates
of a (potentially) volatile market?  Just exactly how do you spell welfare, 
anyhow?

S-U-B-S-I-D-I-E-S????

 >If anything, it helps as the delay just serves to let shortage warnings
 >and emergency notices go out, lets prices go up, makes people worry about
 >blackouts, and then the next plant can be built with an even higher ROI.
 >
 >So in a perverse sort of way, the system works just fine.
 >For the capitalist anyways.

Capitalists have been trying to build plants for years (the need for more
ability to generate electricity was recognized a decade ago) and have been
dissuaded by CA rules & regs (too much red tape and environmentalist wacko 
interference).

Go wash out your mind with soap, you've been dallying with the dark side.