Say Anything Blog

As a free enterprise guy, I would love to see most public utils turned over to the market, but this problem is even worse than just not doing that; CA public utilities have betrayed the people who depend on them for their electricity needs, to pander to the enviros.  They take our taxes every year, and then don’t do their job, which is to provide our need for electricity.  They are guilty of malfeasance, at the very least.

Remember, the first sign of socialism disease is shortage of supply.

Nuclear power.  Clean.  Efficient.  Safe.

But California does not want power plants.  Instead they rely on external sources, namely plants in other places to send California its power.

And in the end, maybe voters will wise up.  But probably not.  Because this is not California’s fault, rather it is Enron’s.  Blame Ken Lay for California’s problems.

Democrats think that getting more electricity is as easy as throwing the switch.

Justin: No. Blame the Dem majority in the legislature and their cabal with the environmentalists.  You are just wrong about Enron being at fault.

TW: The Dems don’t want more electricity.  That is their agenda.

Sweet. North Dakota is 121st largest economy in the world.

Take that Lithuania and Vermont!

As a society, we have increased our demand for electricity in our lifestyles. Air conditioning, once considered a luxury is now regarded as a necessity. Personal computers, business networks and the supporting infrastructure of the internet and intranets adds 15% of the drain on the electrical supply. Excessive lighting for security doesn’t help either but it is certainly needed. Toss in all the other toys like big screen TV’s, VCR’s, DVD players, Printers, Fax machines, game machines, kitchen gadgets and home appliances. Every business has multiple fax machines and copiers. As a matter of fact, right now I have my 35 inch TV, a radio, my PC and the air conditioning running. I grew up in a home with 60 amp service. Todays new homes are being built with 300 amp service.

The digital revolution has made us more efficient in productivity and more dependent on electricity.

Nationwide, the typical electric infrastructure was last upgraded in the 60’s. If we want to maintain this modern lifestyle we will need to invest in new distribution systems and power supply.

Unfortunately, enviromentalist groups like the Sierra Society will continue to cause the cost of reinvestment to double with frivolent law suits against those utilities looking to reinvest. Nuclear power is a good idea, so is coal, natural gas, hydro, solar, biomass and wind. None of them alone is the answer. But every single source of power comes with team of lawyers ready to dig into the deepest pockets available.

We don’t have a shortage of resources as much as we have a shortage of the sense of common good.

Welcome to the machine.

California suffers from the NIMB (not in my backyard) syndrome. Politicians and enviros aside, most californians are opposed to power plants near their place of residence.

No real point. Just thought it was neat.

I’m a North Dakotan so I was genuinely impressed.

"California suffers from the NIMB (not in my backyard) syndrome. Politicians and enviros aside, most californians are opposed to power plants near their place of residence.”

Sorry, ellinas, but there is plenty of open space here in CA.  The enviros have spread their lies about power lines, though.

Robert 108 do you think you can built a power plant in the desert away from a water source? Remember power plants need a lot of water for cooling.

CAlifornia has a lot of sun and barren desert, have those environmentalist thought of Solar Power?

(please don’t tell me they think it is bad for the sun, lol)

docdave,

I can’t.

CAlifornia has a lot of sun and barren desert, have those environmentalist thought of Solar Power?

Economically it’s not a good solution.  The cheapest source of electrical power is still atomic power.  (I just read that Uranium is way up because of worldwide demand.) The second cheapest is coal. 

If you don’t believe me, look into powering your own home with solar. 

Plus I don’t think there are any practical solutions to store electricity in bulk for the nighttime.

Robert 108 do you think you can built a power plant in the desert away from a water source? Remember power plants need a lot of water for cooling.

Do coal plants need a ton of water (or even natural gas?)

If so there are still rivers in California (are there not)

CAlifornia has a lot of sun and barren desert, have those environmentalist thought of Solar Power?
(please don’t tell me they think it is bad for the sun, lol)
aNONOMISLY on July 25, 2006 at 7:50 PM
Well aNONOMISLY since most people are advocating free enterprise and given that your statement is true (solar power) I realy don’t know what the hold up is and power generating companies don’t jump on the bandwagon. Rest assured that this liberal will support any and all large scale power generation from solar power not just in the desert, but in my back yard as well.

TW, it may well not be the solution but I believe it can be a PART of the solution, specially given the ‘constrains’.

The Whistler asks: “Do coal plants need a ton of water (or even natural gas?)”
Ellinas responds:” NOT JUST YES, BUT HELL YES.”

OK, build them upstream on the Colorado river.

OK, build them upstream on the Colorado river.
The Whistler on July 25, 2006 at 8:15 PM
And I say “You go girl”

Thirty four deaths, all possibly from a lack of enough electricity to run air conditioning.

No, not quite.  We had a Stage 2 emergency yesterday, which in layman’s terms means that those customers (not very many) that get reduceded prices year round got their power turned off.  Customers in some markets can volentarily put themselves on the list for voluntary blackouts in exchange for reduced prices.

Sadly, these deaths are simpy the result of AC units not being serviced and breaking down when they are needed most.  CA hasn’t run out of electricity since be booted Grey-Out Davis back in ‘03.  We came close yesterday, due to the regulations of our insane Legislature, but we didn’t run out.

Just wanted to set the record straight…

By the way, I’d also like to comment on the record we reached today in Sacramento, California.  Today is the 11th straight day of reaching 100 degrees or higher.  Today it was close to 110 where I live.  It’s averaged about 106-107 for the last 11 days.  That’s a new record for consecutive days over 100… But don’t worry about us, we’ll be in the cool, breezy 98-99 degree mark by Thursday…

.... please, someone kill me!!!

Sphagnum, thank you for setting the record straight.

docdave on July 25, 2006 at 8:38 PM “ell, you a power engineer? Didn’t think so.” How about you docdave, are you a power engineer? Steam turbines do need a lot of water. Gas turbines though work differently. I believe that most coal fired power plants use steam turbines.

Whatever water the generators need is potentially reusable after being recycled through cooling ponds.

Are you implying that there is a secret power generation plant at the Bellagio?

ellinas: Sorry I have to tell you this, but there is plenty of open space in CA that is not desert.  The enviros+the Dem-controlled legislature are the problem.  Period.  Socialists don’t care about demand.  In fact, they think free choice is evil.  They should tell us what we should want.  Right now, they are telling us we shouldn’t want electricity.

The combination of failed govt. regulation, lack of sufficient generating capacity and the unwillingness of politicians and regulators to allow retail consumer’s to be charged for their actual energy costs, were a sure cause of major problems in CA around the turn of the century.  These problems have not been cured., BUT much of the issue now is the media using deaths to advance the cause of combatting global warming…

Robert 108 and docdave I agree with both of you. However liberal dems and envirocrazies are not the only ones responsible for Californias power woes. Remember it was republican governor Pete Wilson that signed into law that sorry deregulation plan, that allowed speculators and crooks to fleece California.

Pete Wilson that signed into law that sorry deregulation plan,

That was signed by a Republican, but it was not a true deregulation.  It was stupid.  I imagine the idea was to try to get private enterprise to supply more power.  If I recall correctly it was more socialism than deregulation.

Because that’s what the problem is E.  California does not have enough generating capacity.  In the scheme of things I don’t think Wilson’s deal had anything to do with the problem, it just didn’t help.

The reason why you’re getting fleeced is because your buying electricity on the spot market.

Whistler, I said sorry you said stupid,
We agree on that. We also agree with the solution. I think you are continuing to argue with me because you are afraid to admit that a .......(you fill the blank space) has the same opinion as you. Wow! I am amazed at what blind partisanship make people say.

Guys, it’s not that complicated.  In CA, supply is insufficient to meet demand.  Fact.  Despite the efforts of some, so new supply is being built.  Fact.  Even the Rep gov you attempt to demonize, Wilson, tried to do something about it, something that didn’t work.  The problem was already there when he signed the partial deregulation measure, and as could be predicted, it didn’t work.  The situation exists because the Dem politicians who have been running the state for the past 20-30 years won’t let the pub utils do their job, which is to supply demand for electricity.  That is where the fault lies.  They are beholden to powerful political and environmental interests who want to restrict electricity use in the state, and people are dying from that, like the original article above says.  Fact.  Until the public officials are forced to do their job, which is to supply the state’s electricity demand, the problem will continue to exist.  Once again, taxes and regulations are being used to implement social policy, at the expense and inconvenience of the taxpayers.  Having insufficient electricity at a necessarily higher cost also costs us in the economic area, as well.  IMO, this is criminal behavior.

Whistler, I said sorry you said stupid,
We agree on that. We also agree with the solution. I think you are continuing to argue with me because you are afraid to admit that a .......(you fill the blank space) has the same opinion as you.

I actually don’t recall if you’re a always-liberal commentator or someone on the fence.  Obviously we both agree that the Wilson plan was stupid/sorry.

I’m not from California, but I do know (barely)a local guy that peddles electricity on the spot market.  It’s amazing how much the wholesale price of electricity varies depending on the demand.

When you’re relying on buying electricity for a significant portion of your supply you’re going to take it in the shorts.

I deal with two different utilities, one investor owned-xcel and one that’s a coop.  Surprisinly the coop has very little regulation due to the laws.

Guess which one I prefer?

Robert108,

Absolutely!  You can’t “de-regulate” one side of the supply/demand equation, as California has done, and expect that everything will work out just fine.

Only a complete moron (or an arithmetically-challenged leftist) would de-regulate demand, restrict supply, and then stare at you in abject amazement when the result was shortages and wildly fluctuating prices… mostly up.

Bat: Not only that, but one of the dirty little secrets of the “Enron” flap in CA was that the “high-priced” electricity came from generating plants classified as “dirty” by the enviro ayatollahs, and subject to heavy taxation to suppress their use.  When the inevitable happened, and that electricity was needed, it came with a very high tax penalty, due to the environmental regulations.  In other words, Enron didn’t rip us off, it was our own state officials.  They blamed Enron, of course.

They blamed Enron, of course.

That’s what liberals do, screw things up and blame somebody else.

Environmental policies have prevented energy companies from building new plants, in many instances, and using cheaper - but perhaps more polluting - methods for producing power.

Sure, let’s just burn a shit ton of coal and speed up global warming even more.  Anymore bright ideas?

Sure, let’s just burn a shit ton of coal and speed up global warming even more. Anymore bright ideas?

I think if that’s what you believe you should have your power disconnected and quit driving your car.

YOU should suffer for your environmental stupidity.

The enviros+the Dem-controlled legislature are the problem. Period. Socialists don’t care about demand. In fact, they think free choice is evil. They should tell us what we should want. Right now, they are telling us we shouldn’t want electricity.

Fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas—are America’s primary source of energy, accounting for 85 percent of current US fuel use. Most of the coal used in the US is burned by power plants for the production of electricity. There are more than 500 major coal-fired power plants in the US today, and the vast majority are decades old. For over thirty years the oldest, dirtiest coal-burning power plants have circumvented the most protective air emissions standards required of modern plants. As a result, these so-called “grandfathered” power plants produce the largest share of the particle-related air pollution and are permitted to emit as much as 10 times more nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) than modern coal plants.

Therefore, power plants are one of the leading sources of the harmful air pollution that is taking its toll on America’s health.  Power plant emissions, especially those from older, more polluting, coal-burning plants release unacceptable levels of unhealthy sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and carbon dioxide.

Scores of new studies each year demonstrate that air pollution can be harmful to human health and that children are most susceptible.  Power plants are the source of 67% of total U.S. emissions of sulfur dioxide, and approximately one third of the nation’s nitrogen oxide.  Power plants also emit fine carbon soot particles directly from their smokestacks. In 1999, power plants directly emitted nearly 300,000 tons of fine carbon soot particles. Studies indicate that exposure to such air pollutants can result in reduced lung function, increased asthma attacks, more visits to the doctor’s office and to emergency rooms, increased hospitalization rates, and even death.

Power plants are the source of approximately one third of the nation’s mercury pollution. Mercury released from power plants accumulates in the food chain and can be ingested as part of our diet.  Individuals can also inhale mercury in the air, or be exposed to mercury in the water or soil. 

Mercury is a potent neurotoxicant that interferes with brain development, especially in the fetus. Even at low levels, fetal exposure to mercury can result in deficits on neurobehavioral tests, particularly on tests of attention, fine motor function, language, and memory.  Young children are also particularly vulnerable to the effects of various air pollutants.

Power plants are the source of 40% of carbon dioxide emissions.  Carbon dioxide contributes to the blanketing effect of greenhouse gases, trapping excess heat in our atmosphere.  This in turn forces global average temperatures to rise, and the climate to change.  Higher temperatures also take their toll on human health, leading to an increase in cases of heat-related illnesses, water- and vector- borne disease, and exacerbating respiratory illnesses by increasing smog levels.

Sounds like BOTH republicans AND democrats need to pull their heads outta their asses to figure out a solution.....  We’re BOTH to blame.  To sit there and point fingers, such as the comment in italics, is pretty pathetic.  Obviously burning coal on a long term basis is not even a conceivable option.

The whistler, I don’t drive a car.  I take the bus and ride my bike.  The coal burning plant in my neighborhood does not even have a filter system.  Sounds inviting, huh?  The problem with republicans is that that are so fucking obsessed wiht MONEY that they would be perfectly happy destroying the planet while pinching a penny in their tight asses.

I take the bus and ride my bike.

Do you think that the bus doesn’t burn hydrocarbons?  Do you think that it didn’t take energy to produce both the bus and the bike?

The problem with republicans is that that are so ****ing obsessed wiht MONEY that they would be perfectly happy destroying the planet while pinching a penny in their tight asses.

In case you didn’t notice the commies had/have a much much worse environmental record than the capitalistic west.  In fact it’s the dynamism of capitalism that produces the surpluses and innovation to protect the environment.

I would also recommend you only eat food you grow in your backyard.  It takes energy to produce and transport food.

I believe, Jimma Carter was instrumental in seeing that the coal plants would produce more energy? I know he was pro coal and anti oil and natural gas.

Carbon dioxide contributes to the blanketing effect of greenhouse gases, trapping excess heat in our atmosphere. This in turn forces global average temperatures to rise, and the climate to change.

By the best scientific guesses the temperature has gone up one degree in the past century.  80% of that is because the sun is hotter than it was last century.

Higher temperatures also take their toll on human health, leading to an increase in cases of heat-related illnesses,

Come-on, one degree?

Nuclear power plants don’t produce Carbon Dioxide and they are the most economical besides.

The buses and taxis here run on propane, which is a slight improvement, but not much.  The city I live in is too large to ride bike and walk everywhere so the bus is necessary at times.  Also, two wrongs don’t make a right.  I don’t care what decisions where made by whom in the past, it is the direction that we want to go in the FUTURE.  I try to do what I can to not be WASTEFUL, and I believe that MANY Americans are very wasteful.  People are setting their air conditioning at 69 degrees and things like that.  Mickey made this point very clear earlier.  Much change is needed.

I believe that MANY Americans are very wasteful.

I think most Americans are great!

People are setting their air conditioning at 69 degrees and things like that.

And obviously you should have central control of everyone’s thermostat.  I hate to tell you that I keep my office 68 degrees.  You can have my thermostat when you pry it out of my cold dead hands.

The Whistler,

When the nuclear power industry releases itself from the public tit I’d be more than happy to support them.

If coal burning plants could invest in newer, more environmentally friendly technology such as: baghouse technology, low sulfur coal, and low NOx burners, it would be a HUGE improvement.  Unfortunatley not many power companies are doing this or anything AT ALL to reduce toxic sulfur, mercury, and carbon dioxide.

Jeneile...That is good that you are doing your part! We all need to conserve energy as best as we can.

Well-constructed nuclear power plants have an important advantage when it comes to electrical power generation—they are extremely clean. Compared with a coal-fired power plant, nuclear power plants are a dream come true from an environmental standpoint. A coal-fired power plant actually releases more radioactivity into the atmosphere than a properly functioning nuclear power plant. Coal-fired plants also release tons of carbon, sulfur and other elements into the atmosphere

I like this.  A lot.  However.......
~Improperly functioning nuclear power plants can create big problems. The Chernobyl disaster is a good recent example. Chernobyl was poorly designed and improperly operated, but it dramatically shows the worst-case scenario. Chernobyl scattered tons of radioactive dust into the atmosphere.
~Spent fuel from nuclear power plants is toxic for centuries, and, as yet, there is no safe, permanent storage facility for it.

Any suggestions?  It would be nice to find a way to produce energy without killing ourselves in the process.......

Demo: Sorry to burst your bubble, but all pub utils are just that: public.  It’s not a matter of choice, but of legislation.

Calif. has a very complex situation. The combination of the lack of elec. generating plants and the environmental issues have created politicians and voters that refuse to see the bigger picture. So every summer the people of CA will find themselves blaming and griping and unfortunately dieing…

The whistler, you don’t think that jacking your thermostat down to 68 degrees when it is 100 outside is wasteful????  No wonder we have the problems that we do......  It isn’t all about YOU.  All people need to do their part to reduce the DEMAND for so much energy.  It takes small changes from EVERYONE to make a huge impact.  For example, regular incandescent bulbs are inefficient, converting only 10% of the electricity used into light. The other 90% is wasted as heat. Compact fluorescent torchieres are a safe and energy-efficient alternative, saving about $50 per year in energy costs if used four hours per day. If most people did this, it would save a HUGE amount of energy over time.

This is something that the power plant in my city is experiementing with.  I would like to see more of these projects nation wide.

Virent Energy Systems, Inc. (Virent) delivered the first-ever demonstration system capable of converting of sugar-based and other biomass derived feedstocks into power. Virent refers to the System as GEM™, short for Green Energy Machine. 
http://www.ecw.org/biomass2power/index.html

Not to mention that Federal Enviromental Regulation restricts which plants can, and how much it costs to, convert to enviro-friendly scrubber systems to reduce harmful emmissions. Hi!! I’m from the government and I am here too HELP you!

When the nuclear power industry releases itself from the public tit I’d be more than happy to support them.

Demo,

Is this anything like the alternative fuels research industry, the bio-diesel industry, the HIV/AIDS research industry, etc.???

Le sauce de l’oie?

And Jen of the unusual name, more people, more use, generate more. 1+1+1=3, not 5 or 2. Your state generates less power and has more people than 30 years ago. You don’t see this as the root of your problem? Then you need some chemo-psychiatry, stat!

How about we release the nuclear power industry from the federal chains?

TwoHotel9, my point was that we can do things to REDUCE the demand for energy.  Of course more people= more use of energy.  However, we tend to waste things that we dont appreciate.  Perhaps an energy crisis isn’t such a negative thing if it forces people to change wasteful ways of living.

my point was that we can do things to REDUCE the demand for energy

And obviously we appoint someone like you (or Algore) to make these decisions for us.  Central planning works for those lucky enough to be doing the planning.

My point, Jen of the unusual name, is that increased population=increased demand. Increased Agricultural output=increased demand. Increased manufacturing=increased demand. Increase of means of production has been fought, tooth&nail, by the political left and enviro-movement. Get it?

Jeneile,

The energy “shortage” we face is something of a misnomer, for we are not running out… or even running low… on energy.

The problem is that incresing demand has pushed up the cost of generating the energy we need (mostly electricity) beyond what we are accustomed to paying.

Noor is conservation likely to be any help.  Conserving energy will not reduce the cost of the electricity we need, not will it increase the supply available to meet the growing demand.  Anything less than substantially increased generating capapcity, whether it is nuclear, oil-fired, or low-sulphur coal as you have suggested, is simply a pointless, self-delusional bandaid.

Our population keeps growing, our economy keeps growing, and the resultant increased demand far, far exceeds any savings garnered from turning the thermostat up or down another notch.  The only way to bring down the price in a growing demand environment, is to dramatically increase the supply.

Thank you, Bravo1. Steel on the target, fire for effect, full battery.

Decreasing your energy consumption DOES lower energy costs.  By setting your thermostat back a few degrees you can save hundreds of dollars per year.  Less energy consumed lowers demand.  On the scale that you’re refering to, that isn’t “peanuts”, but like I said, small changes can add up big of everyone participates.

As a society, we have increased our demand for electricity in our lifestyles. Air conditioning, once considered a luxury is now regarded as a necessity. Personal computers, business networks and the supporting infrastructure of the internet and intranets adds 15% of the drain on the electrical supply. Excessive lighting for security doesn’t help either but it is certainly needed. Toss in all the other toys like big screen TV’s, VCR’s, DVD players, Printers, Fax machines, game machines, kitchen gadgets and home appliances. Every business has multiple fax machines and copiers. As a matter of fact, right now I have my 35 inch TV, a radio, my PC and the air conditioning running. I grew up in a home with 60 amp service. Todays new homes are being built with 300 amp service.

Micky stated this earlier, and it is along the same lines as what I’m saying.  We all have to pay for other people’s wasteful habits.

jeniele:  “Decreasing your energy consumption DOES lower energy costs. By setting your thermostat back a few degrees you can save hundreds of dollars per year.” A common pipedream.  It would be true in a static model, but pub utils are guaranteed a fixed return on capital as a part of the monopolistic pub util model, so conservation results in higher rates.  It’s just another socialistic scam.  Where I live, there was a “water scare” about ten years ago, and we were all asked to conserve, and we did.  We even had “water police(Nazis to the locals) that would write you a ticket for watering your lawn during the day.  The result: lots of conservation, making it necessary for the water company to raise its rates to keep up its guaranteed return.  More leftie lying, I’m afraid.  In the political world, conservation doesn’t work.

BTW: Less energy consumed is the definition of lower demand.  In case you think that’s a good thing, the Great Depression, the meat of it, was caused by lower overall demand, which caused a disastrous deflation.  Very bad.  Demand is a good thing, and is definitely not evil.  We need supply to match the demand, and everybody is happy.

By setting your thermostat back a few degrees you can save hundreds of dollars per year.

If you wouldn’t exaggerate so much someone somewhere might believe you.

We all have to pay for other people’s wasteful habits.

Hey clueless who pays your electric bill?  I pay for my own.

Let’s see if I get the party line.  Success is bad.  Living well is bad.  Being dependent is good.

Seems counterintuitive to me.

"We all have to pay for other people’s wasteful habits.”

This is flawed Marxist thinking, based on the mistaken concept of the “fixed-pie” concept of economics.  If the pie is fixed, then if one person has more, others must have less.
The truth is, we live in a world where prosperity can be created.  The size of the pie is always increasing, so we can all have more, if we are willing to be productive. It takes a free enterprise economic system where the movement of capital is based on demand.  In your world, jeneile, who gets to decide what is “wasteful” and what is not.  This is why individual independence with free people making free choices works so well to provide at ever higher levels.  It is also the solution to the Malthusian dilemma.

In your world, jeneile, who gets to decide what is “wasteful” and what is not.

Jeneile.

TW: In the free enterprise world, the individual decides for him or herself what is wasteful.  That is the magic of demand.

In your world, jeneile, who gets to decide what is “wasteful” and what is not.

Fidel Castro

BatOne, I understand your point.  It just seems to me, someone who cares about the environment and what the world will be like for my grandchildren, is that we USE, USE, USE and USE somemore.  We NEED, NEED, NEED.  People are building these 8,000 square feet houses everywhere and then sucking tons of energy to keep the damn thing heated at 70 degrees in the winter and cooled to 68 degrees in the summer.  It just seems quite wasteful.  It is their choice and their right.  But in the end, we all pay the price.  Insatiable is not sustainable.

Anonimously, I NOT trying to tell anyone what to do, nor do I give a shit what YOU do, I’m just making a point that people are wasteful.  I don’t like the government controlling public utilities anymore than you do.  I’m just trying to bring to light that we are a wastful society and no one seems to really ascknowledge this or even give a shit.  I’m not some “envirofreakshow”, I’m someone who is conerned for the future and try to do what I can to responsible such as take public transportation, recycle, conserve energy, etc.  There are many communities in the US that don’t even recycle.  At the ends of their driveways sit 6 bags of trash each week filled with laundry detergent bottles, pop cans, etc.  How sad.

Janiele your not the first to think this way.

in 1798, Malthus made the famous prediction that population would outrun food supply, leading to a decrease in food per person. (Case & Fair, 1999: 790). He even went so far as to specifically predict that this must occur by the middle of the 19th century, a prediction which failed for several reasons, including his use of static analysis, taking recent trends and projecting them indefinitely into the future, which almost always fails for complex systems.

Or for a new example of the same idiocy look here.

There are many communities in the US that don’t even recycle. At the ends of their driveways sit 6 bags of trash each week filled with laundry detergent bottles, pop cans, etc. How sad.

Obsessing over someone else’s trash is a sickness.

Environmental policies have prevented energy companies from building new plants, in many instances, and using cheaper - but perhaps more polluting - methods for producing power.

Are environmental policies not needed?  None?  Then what would happen?

The Whistler, open your mind.  Give me fucking break.  Obsessing?  It is hard to ignore that when I’m walking down the street.  I was making a generalization.

Are environmental policies not needed? None? Then what would happen?

I wouldn’t go that far.  However our current environmental policies seem to rely on Luddite junk science.

The Whistler, did I ever say that we’re going to run out of anything?  NO. Nor did I say or agree that California is having a “shoratge”.  I didn’t.  You’re crazy.  You should read things more clearly or quit being such a miserable sacrastic person.  There is nothing wrong with being passionate and caring about conservation.

It is hard to ignore that when I’m walking down the street.

I would recommend that you walk on the sidewalk.  (no need to thank me)

You might notice it, but that certainly doesn’t mean you have to dig through it.

At the ends of their driveways sit 6 bags of trash each week filled with laundry detergent bottles, pop cans, etc.

You should read things more clearly or quit being such a miserable sacrastic person.

I’ll have you know that I am a very happy sarcastic person.  You may not think I’m funny but I sure do.

There is nothing wrong with being passionate and caring about conservation.

You mean passionate about forcing your views on the the rest of us and making us live out the mistakes of your Luddite philosophy.

The Whistler, you’re unbelievable.  How do you sleep at night?

Luddite philosophy?  How interesting.  You mean to tell me, that I’m the MINORITY here?  Conserving energy is not a priority for most people?  What the hell planet are you living on.  I’m forcing anything on you.  I’m just foaming at the mouth like everyone else here.

The Whistler, you’re unbelievable.

A fan!

How do you sleep at night?

I generally need two or three pillows.  To get my mind off of the problems of the day I often listen to an old radio show.  This is one of my favorites.

If something is keeping me awake, I get up and write it all down.  Works everytime.

CORRECTION:  I’m NOT “forcing” anything.  Overzealous fingers.  Have a fabulous night!

I’m forcing anything on you. I’m just foaming at the mouth like everyone else here.

Admitting your obsessions is the first step towards freeing yourself of them.  I’m proud of you.

There you go again, Toot. Throwing gas on the fire. It is fun! Ain’t it?

Kisses and hugs to you Whistler.  Oh, BTW, you should read the earlier postings where I was voicing my support for new technology/ alternative means for producing power.  I even provided a link.  So apparently you accusation of my “luddite” philosophy is incorrect.  Have a fabulous night.

There you go again, Toot. Throwing gas on the fire. It is fun! Ain’t it?

small games for small minds.

should read the earlier postings where I was voicing my support for new technology/ alternative means for producing power.

You should read where I commented on how many alternative power sources are not currently unfeasible.  I believe I posted those before you joined the discussion.

Or you could read Robert108’s point how the government actually makes it harder to build new clean power plants.

But you’re probably not interested.

spoken like a true republican

I notice you are not mentioning to minor fact that government/enviro regulations make it far harder to develop alternative power AND cleaning up current power generation plants. How leftarded of you.