----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 12:40 PM Subject: Re: Bitter Fruit
> Dan wrote: > > > I'm sure you read a report that stated that, but I've read lots of > > reports on all sorts of things like that and I take them with a very > > large grain of salt: e.g. I really really don't believe that the > > evidence for Clinton > > murdering his aids is reliable. > > > > So, I would check the versimilitude of such reports. The DOE has, at > > it's website > > You're aware, I'm certain, that the Secretary of Energy reports directly > to George Bush. But, when websites like the DOE contain statements that are not interpretation, but statements of verifyable historical fact, I'd guess that outright falsehoods, such as company X got contract Y, would be checked and refuted pretty soon. There are a zillion websites out there, claiming a lot. > And speaking of bias, you may or may not be aware that you yourself > project a strong, pro oil/energy industry bias. You displayed it > prominently in discussions about the California energy crisis, in > discussions about alternative energy and here in discussions about > Bush/Iraq. But, then why am I so in favor of nuclear power? I'm certainly not going to get a job in that industry...being a particle physicist is not enough to do that. Cost effective technologies have a way of happening. If alternatite sources of energy really were practical, they would spread without being highly subsidized. Solar power and wind power were just around the corner 30 years ago....as was fusion energy 50 years ago. There are physical facts that tend to make these much harder to use than something like nuclear power or fossil fuels. > I don't fault you for it; it is understandable given your profession and > your geographic location. I understand that you will probably deny it > vigorously. But from my POV it's blatant and obvious. As is my view on cosmology, because I'm a physicist, right? Let me ask you one question. When oil was at 10 dollars/barrel, how did that fit into the vast oil industry conspiracy to ruin the world? Is there something inherently wrong with folks in the oil patch that when it suffers through 80% drops in employment that's justice? I agree that, without a doubt, companies will seek profits whichever way they can. So, you can blame the evils of industry when supplies are so tight that one company out of many can game the system all by themselves. Me, I'd look at insisting on buying on the spot market because the spot market prices were in the basement in 1999, and say that it's asking for trouble. It works if and only if supplies never again become tight. Texas was deregulated too, and the only brownouts we had were after Katrina. It worked because they had long term contracts. I can see the argument that those companies that were going bankrupt buying natural gas at the market rate and then selling electricity at a price that only paid for part of the cost deserved to go bankrupt. Companies that make bad guesses should lose money. But, the problem is that, if they did go bankrupt, California would be scrambling. So, they gamed the system. My guess is you think this gaming is the core problem. My argument is that the core problem is the lack of a long term supply of natural gas for electricity. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
