The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Corruption and mismanagement see much of the US without power > Comments

Corruption and mismanagement see much of the US without power : Comments

By Jen Alic, published 20/7/2012

The entire US electricity system could collapse by 2020 without an immediate investment of $673 billion.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Jeremy Sammut wrote:

""The adoption of private sector methods, including greater involvement of private operators in the delivery of public health service, should be encouraged to enhance productivity and improve access to quality hospital services at the least cost."

Which is basically the same type of thinking that our politicans have.

Yet politicans, many who are share holders and have had the very same companies make political donations to their party, are unlikely to enforce regulation that would help protect the ordinary voter, even when they claim to be 'a representative of the people (electorate)' or what ever emotive false claim that they will make.
Posted by JamesH, Friday, 20 July 2012 9:00:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article is basically correct in pointing out the rorts and scams which have characterised some of the power generation companies in the US; the author is also correct when he points out the imminent power shortages which could characterise the network.

However, the greatest source of corruption and waste of funds in the US and everywhere, and the most likely cause of future power shortages is ignored in the article.

That source is AGW and its attendant foolishness, renewable energy. The money wasted on renewables, particularly wind and solar, is vast and NO energy is effectively produced. For instance one solar farm in California has the following costs:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/stacking-clean-energy-subsidies.jpg

Best case scenario: a return of $334 million on an investment of $1.6 Billion most of which is supplied by the taxpayers and for bugger all power.

The case of the Florida Power & Light company’s 75MW solar complex occupying 500 acres is instructive. Standing next to this complex on 15 acres is the same company’s natural gas plant that generates a massive 3.8 gigawatts whenever needed.

Now let us put these figures into perspective. The solar plant requires 33.3 times the area of the gas plant to produce a miserable 0.0197 of its output. Therefore solar, to produce 3.8 gigawatts would have to cover 25,333.3 acres or 63.36 square kilometres as against 15 square acres for the gas.

As disastrous as those figures are, it gets worse. It is easy to assume that to determine how much a solar plant capable of generating 3.8 gigawatts would cost we merely need to multiply 50.7 by $476 million (3,800 divided by 75 equals 50.7) = `$24 billion. This would be a grave mistake because it implicitly assumes constant returns to scale. For this to be the case there would have to exist an unlimited amount of idle land, labour and capital that can be freely drawn on.

Anyway, world-wide to introduce similar green schemes, $76 TRILLION:

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/14/76-trillion-to-engineer-a-green-economy/

$76 TRILLION; that's not just power shortages, that's living in caves.
Posted by cohenite, Friday, 20 July 2012 9:44:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah well, the par for the course results of privatisation of one of the key pillars of the economy. Perhaps the system ought to be allowed to collapse?
In its place ought to be a national gas grid and decentralised onsite power provision, via gas powered ceramic fuel cells, which work just as efficiently on biogas!
Which by the way, can be produced onsite utilising problematic biological waste and digesters.
One can only hope the system does collapse, allowing these vastly cheaper more reliable and much lower carbon producing systems to emerge as a matter of necessity.
The jobs that this truly massive nation building conversion will produce could possibly revive the failing American economy?
Even then, those who have simply allowed the system to run down while they creamed the profits, will use all the considerable power and influence they have to force the pollies, to subsidise their current revenue streams and or, fund the desperately needed repairs and infrastructure replacements.
Govt money will need to be spent and therefore, it may just as well be spent creating a vastly more reliable gas grid, which won't simply shut down when the temperatures rise, just when the demand for air conditioners is at its greatest.
Gas produces around 40% less carbon than coal!
Moreover, generating power onsite, will immediately, further halve carbon output!
With half the carbon output comes dramatically lower costs; given, consumers will no longer have to endlessly pay for transmission losses, or the repairs and renewal of an already outdated energy delivery system.
Ceramic fuel cells have no moving parts to wear out, and provide endless free hot water!
Building mass produced commercial digesters, ceramic fuel cells, and the pipes needed for new gas pipelines etc/etc, will reinvigorate the steel and manufacturing industries and flow on, 7 for 1, building remodelling and installation/maintenance job creation.
However, I'd bet my house that energy shareholders in both houses, self serving republican and democrat, will combine to block any such alternative energy supply reconstruction plan, regardless of the massive benefits/wealth/job creating economic recovery, it could well produce. Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Friday, 20 July 2012 10:30:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Gas produces around 40% less carbon than coal!"

Not when coal is burnt using Ultra Supercritical technology.

http://www.worldcoal.org/coal-the-environment/coal-use-the-environment/improving-efficiencies/
Posted by cohenite, Friday, 20 July 2012 10:44:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If utilities are privately owned they are motivated by profit like all other privately owned facilities. Where there is competition and the opportunity for the consumer to switch this is all for the good. However, it is not at all good in the case of privately owned utilities. If it is more profitable to get back on line after outages than to do maintenance and replace outmoded facilities that is what privately owned facilities will do. The solution is to socialise the utilities and use what assets they have along with raising taxes to bring the power network up to standard. Common sense should trump ideology.
Posted by david f, Friday, 20 July 2012 10:46:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cohenite: The GFC was caused it would seem, by the creation of 64 trillions worth of largely worthless derivites.
These are sometimes described as hedge funds? Or an insurance against possible losses.
[If only one could transfer that complex rationale to the racecourse, and the placement of losing bets on racehorses. Oh joy! One would only need 2 for 1 odds and reverse, or bet to lose, money placed on every runner? There being only one possible winner, you couldn't lose. Just the Mugs out there in Mugsville!]
However, and back on topic; given most of the world's economies are still functional, creating another 76 trillions as alternative/carbon neutral energy bonds, probably wouldn't do further harm.
Particularly if they were exclusively, thirty year bonds?
Moreover, the facts are, that energy demand will increase with the population/high tech manufacture/processing and production? And therefore, supply will produce a positive and guaranteed return!
Income producing infrastructure and the production of lower or carbon free power, is where all the recovery money ought to be invested.
Yes sure, education will likely result in a quite dramatic economic benefit eventually?
But what the stalled economies need now, is virtually instant or very short term results and turnarounds!
Most of the derivative market and those who created it, will need to take a truly massive financial haircut, rather than those, who had absolutely no part in their creation or distribution!
How could any right minded person ever expect a bet to lose be honoured, by people, who were never ever involved or in any way consenting to said arrangements?
Too big to fail?
Nonsense!
Too big to prop up would seem a more rational argument, particularly when its taxpayer funds that are being risked by a cadre of capitalists, who still seem to think everyone else is simply a mug to be exploited for their honest endeavour, enterprise, financial resources, business acumen or intellectual abilities!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Friday, 20 July 2012 11:14:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy