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.

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.

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.

"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/

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.

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.

"Where there is competition" is one of the biggest load of ecomonic hoodoo voodoo ever.

It is a blatant lie to say that competition leads to lower prices and improved efficeincy and reliability.

Just look around you, we Australian's are paying through the nose from everything from our banks, mobile phones, power prices, petrol, food, clothing and housing.

Our country is one of the least densely populated, and yet we have some of the highest house prices in the world.

Whatever you might believe about the US system, Australia is now avoiding the problems that beset that country.. The reason why our power bills have been increasing of late is extensive investment in our distribution network. Its being overhauled as we write.

The reason for that is the on-going partial de-regulation of the system, and the need to cope with the problem of peak demand - in summer when everyone turns on their air conditioners. Although the mix of private-public involvement has had some odd results, at least we seem to be avoiding the US problems.

All that said the system would be better if we could ditch renewables as mostly a waste of time, even from the point of view of saving carbon. Some of the US problems may well be due to renewables.

When one is discussing the different carbon output of various comparable hydrocarbons, one first needs to understand how much total carbon is locked up in covalent bonds.
Coal for example is almost pure carbon. We would do far less environmental harm by cooking coal, burning the resultant methane, and then burying the coke in permanent carbon sequestering dumps.
Or ground down to produce activated carbon filters, or combined as carbon black, that mitigates against ultraviolet degradation, in recycled plastic etc.
Sure we can enhance the burn with oxygen injection or supercharging?
What we can do with coal will likely work with methane gas, which if combined with liquid oxygen, will produce mostly water vapour and little else of any environmental consequence.
We can actually enhance the burning of coal with super heated steam, which will automatically degrade into its component parts, hydrogen and oxygen, with enough heat.
Moreover, we can absorb all the carbon that exits smoke stacks, with closed cycle algae production.
We can add insitu precipitation, to eliminate the heavy metals that sometimes accompanies coal-fired power production, which can then be eventually collected and recycled as often expensive base metals.
Some algae, but particularly the hardier varieties suitable for the described closed cycle system, are up to 60% easily recoverable oil.
Meaning, power station operators can add another lucrative revenue stream to their business model, all while turning their operations, into carbon neutral ones.
It is said that our coal-fired power stations produce around 50% of all our carbon? Imagine, turning all that carbon into transport fuel, would firstly immediately halve our national total carbon output, and provide entirely endlessly sustainable, totally independent, total fuel supplies!
Rhrosty.

What we see in California is the worst of BIG government. All companies need income for production, maintenance, renewal, expansion and a reasonable profit (return on investment. However, in California, the state regulates the electricity prices, and is loathe to vote for sufficient rates to pay for generation, maintenance, replacement and upgrades to meet population growth. Even the slim profit it make is almost entire based on tax rebates. The result is that Pepco has to make cuts to continue running. This often comes out of maintenance and cutting of upgrades. No one else is stupid enough to invest in this market where returns are lower than can be obtained anywhere else.

The result is predictable.

if Cohenite is an American I'm guessing he is a Tea party kind of guy. He has most likely got shares in coal as well.
There are two basic reasons why power prices are going up, both here and most other places.
First is private companies like to make as much profit as the can therefore they will only invest when they have to. They will always look for a government handout whenever possible to increase profit at lower out lay.

The second is that most power is generated by burning coal and coal prices have gone up quite a bit in the last decade. That has nothing to do with the carbon tax but simple demand/ supply stuff the free market guys love but don't really.

http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=coal-australian&months=240

$20us to nearly $200 at one point is going to have an effect.

Bring on the flat Earthers oops I mean anti-sciences oops I mean anti-rational thinking oops I mean people who don't allow their ignorance to stop them from having strong beliefs. No let's just settle on denialist.

Cohenite; When you calculated the area for solar farm did you multiply
it by more than two to allow for sunset to sunrise ?

Rhrosty; actually the GFC was caused by the peaking of oil production in 2006.
The price went up from about $30 to to $147 in 2008 over two years and
ate up the US's GDP and left people with the choice of eating or
paying the mortgage.
That caused all those derivatives to fall as they were a house of cards.

More exactly crude oil production stopped increasing in 2006 and has
started a unsmooth plateau since then awaiting the start of depletion.