California power supply pushed to limit

New York and St. Louis dealing with outages

 

Tuesday, July 25, 2006; Posted: 10:55 a.m. EDT (14:55 GMT)

SACRAMENTO, California (AP) -- As the death toll from a scorching heat wave rose and record demand tested California's power supply, energy managers feared they may have to trigger rolling blackouts.

 

Authorities were investigating at least 29 possible heat-related deaths, most in the smoldering Central Valley where temperatures reached 115 degrees over the weekend and were forecast to remain in the triple digits for the next few days.

 

The intense heat pushed electricity usage to a peak of 50,270 megawatts on Monday -- a record for California but still short of the 52,000 megawatts experts had predicted.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/25/powerwoes.ap.ap/index.html

 

--whats goin on here???? Oh and of course.. this power crisis has nothing to do with global warming.... nooooooooooooo.... :rolleyes: You'd have to be an idiot not to think its at least in some way related... whether its natural to happen or not.. we should all try to do something about it...

hmm maybe i shouldnt move to cali.

 

ps. we cant change earth's natural processes. global warming is something we cannot stop. its how the earth works.

Sounds like it's time to call in the Governator............................... :rolleyes:

I hate that guy.

I hate that guy.

 

And why might that be??:rolleyes:

He's a horrible leader. he sucks at life, people like him shouldnt be in power.

He's a horrible leader. he sucks at life' date=' people like him shouldnt be in power.[/quote']

 

 

and he's a Republican.. one of Bush's biggest supporters at that!!! :lol: I didn't imply we should do something to stop the earth from evolving you nit.... I meant as humans we can do things to help the enviroment....

Yeah, like 20 people died in France... other some in Spain by heat shocks too.

 

Temperature is around 40°c :confused:

and he's a Republican.. one of Bush's biggest supporters at that!!! :lol: I didn't imply we should do something to stop the earth from evolving you nit.... I meant as humans we can do things to help the enviroment....

 

Try to make yourself more clear next time;)

Try to make yourself more clear next time;)

 

 

you're the only fool who didn't understand..... nobhead.

hmm maybe i shouldnt move to cali.

 

ps. we cant change earth's natural processes. global warming is something we cannot stop. its how the earth works.

 

Maybe, but humankind has accelerated it through its "unnatural" actions, particularly over the past century or so. This is something that could be avoided.;)

global warming wouldn't be so bad if human didn't emit so much shit into the atmosphere. i swear, one day our country's going to just stop running and then we will be screwed.

amen sista!! AMEN!! Preach on!!! ;)

you're the only fool who didn't understand..... nobhead.

 

sorry, there is only one fool on here, and that title belongs to you.:o

global warming wouldn't be so bad if human didn't emit so much shit into the atmosphere. i swear' date=' one day our country's going to just stop running and then we will be screwed.[/quote']

That's so true, we're destroying our own planet, hopefully i wont live enough to see what will happen in 50 years but the next generations have to pay for our mistakes.

thats a load of bull. were not doing that much damage, global warming is mostly natures fault, only a little bit of it is because of humans. be we havent done enough to make a difference.

Have you been living under a rock?Humankind is resposible for this,sure its something natural but we accelerated this like 20,000 years.Concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases are at the highest for at least 650,000 years thanks to pollution, and that's a fact.

 

And certain president of certain country refused to join the comunity of nations and do soemething about it , ironic eh?

Not really, since what he would have joined would have done no one any good, only hurt the nations that joined it and would do nothing for the earth. nothing ironic about it. in fact a waste of time.

So the Kyoto Protocol is a waste of time for you? hmm ok. The irony of all this is that The US contains 4% of the world's population but produces about 25% of all carbon dioxide emissions and yet the usa government refused to take part of this protocol and try to do something about it.

 

Consequences will be seen years from now but something we cant deny is that we are the cause of this.

So the Kyoto Protocol is a waste of time for you? hmm ok. The irony of all this is that The US contains 4% of the world's population but produces about 25% of all carbon dioxide emissions and yet the usa government refused to take part of this protocol and try to do something about it.

 

Consequences will be seen years from now but something we cant deny is that we are the cause of this.

 

You seem to think it would help the world, when it wouldnt. so it was pointless.

http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/42198Science.pdf

 

Anyone who supports the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty (Kyoto Protocol), carbon dioxide emissions trading, and other carbon dioxide regulations needs to read the above statement carefully. Energy costs were (and are) a paramount consideration in siting a manufacturing plant and the high-paying jobs that go with it. "The Kyoto Protocol would therefore encourage investors to move the smokestacks, all their carbon dioxide, and the jobs underneath the smokestacks to other countries" (Levinson, 2002, Henry Ford's Lean Vision, available by September).

 

1. It has not been proven that man-made carbon dioxide is contributing to global warming. Earth got out of the last Ice Age just fine, thank you, with at most the help of a few cavemen's camp fires. The current warming trend might be part of a natural cycle.

2. Even if man-made carbon dioxide is contributing to global warming, the Kyoto Treaty will do absolutely nothing to solve the problem. Third World nations like China are not subject to the treaty's carbon dioxide limits. Enactment of Kyoto (or legislated limits on carbon dioxide, as contemplated in California) will simply encourage businesses to move even more manufacturing jobs offshore, thus destroying American jobs. The jobs will go to places like China, which will pump not only the same amount of carbon dioxide up their smokestacks, but also toxic pollutants that American companies do not emit.

3. Some of the treaty's most vocal advocates are from South American countries that burn down rainforests to clear land for agriculture. Their rampant destruction of "the world's lungs," as some call these rainforests, is prima facie evidence that many of Kyoto's most ardent supporters do not consider global warming a serious threat.

 

Far more dangerous is the chance of an asteroid striking the earth, as portrayed in Armageddon and Deep Impact. Geological evidence, and places like Crater Lake, shows that this has happened in the past. A large meteor struck Siberia in the early 20th century with force comparable to a nuclear weapon's; fortunately, the place was largely uninhabited. Furthermore, Earth's weather erases the evidence of such impacts, which would otherwise leave our planet looking a lot like the Moon. It would be indeed worthwhile to develop the ability to detect such objects well before they hit, along with nuclear-tipped surface-to-space missiles to deal with them. We don't have to blow the asteroid apart, we simply have to deflect it from its collision course. If the missile's warhead vaporizes thousands of tons of material and throws it off the asteroid along vector X, the reaction will push the asteroid in the direction -X. If done far enough away, this will cause the asteroid to miss.

 

The Kyoto Treaty also poses a clear and present danger to the economic and military security of the United States, as shown by these examples:

Gasoline would rise by 50 cents or more a gallon [about 33 percent versus 2000 prices]; the cost of running industrial plants and energy-hungry computers would soar. According to a consensus of projections, the growth of gross domestic product in the U.S. would be cut by more than half as businesses moved offshore to escape the high [carbon] tax.

 

Glassman, James K. 2000. "Forget Kyoto." Wall Street Journal, 11/30/2000, editorial pages. What part of "move jobs offshore" do the Kyoto Treaty's supporters not understand?

 

California's short-sighted energy policies turned value-adding manufacturers into non-value-adding middlemen:

 

"Locked into long-term contracts at $22 per megawatt-hour (while the going rate shot up to $300), many closed their mills and resold their electricity— realizing hefty profits even after paying idled workers"

 

Lavelle, Marianne. 2001. "The power hungry get powered down," U.S. News & World Report, April 30, 2001, 40.

California simply doesn't learn, given its new initiatives to regulate carbon dioxide emissions:

 

"…in San Jose, epicenter of the computer industry's drain on electric power, voters rejected a new power facility because it offended their 'aesthetic sensibilities.' … Environmentalists recoil in horror at suggestions of nuclear power, now a safe and clean source of electricity, or the use of cleaned-up coal to lower the price of natural gas that generates it."

"…Reducing pollution sensibly is laudable, but clean-air extremists become local heroes without telling constituents the danger of the loss of Intel jobs and cheap electricity's household convenience."

 

• "Rolling blackouts in the San Francisco Bay area last June 14 cost an estimated $100 million in Silicon Valley."

• "[California Steel] had to shut down seven times last December alone, causing havoc on production schedules and worker productivity."

• "Temporarily ceasing production is straining California businesses, making them vulnerable to permanently shutting down."

 

"California Energy Problems Still Continue As More Companies Do 'Less With Less'," Engineering Times, March 2001. (Professional Engineers in Industry practice division, National Society of Professional Engineers)

 

http://www.ct-yankee.com/manfctry/kyoto.html

On "voluntary" greenhouse gas emission trading

An entrepreneur, upon learning that the government paid farmers not to raise hogs (to avoid an oversupply and low prices) decided to go into the business of not raising hogs. He asked the Department of Agriculture what kind of hogs were best not to raise, and so on. Then he began to wonder if he could earn twice as much money by not raising twice as many hogs.

National wealth and prosperity do not come from reselling electricity, "not raising hogs," or trading emission credits, baseball cards, comic books, or other collectibles. They come only from getting raw materials or adding value to those materials through manufacturing. Carbon dioxide emissions trading is simply a dysfunctional performance driver that might appeal to financiers and politicians, but is simply a diversion from the nation's business.

 

Kyoto supporters now want to limit U.S. family sizes and curtail immigration

 

Bette Hileman, "Greenhouse Gases: U.S. population growth complicates CO2 reduction and policy decisions," Chemical & Engineering News, 16 September 2002, page 21. Here are the highlights of the article's opinion on the source of the "problem," and some of its proposed "solutions."

 

1. Americans should drive dangerous, low-performing economy cars and live in shoebox apartments

* The article complains that the fuel economy of American passenger vehicles has gone down during the past decade, and "...the average size of single-family homes has risen greatly since the 1970s."

2. American population growth is the "problem."

* "...every year, the U.S. must provide transportation and heating and electricity for the equivalent of another large city, all of which add to its burden of greenhouse gas emissions. ...if the U.S. is ever to get serious about reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, an important part of the public policy debate will have to be about the consequences of immigration and fertility rates."

3. The government should use noncoercive-- that depends on what you mean by "noncoercive"-- policies to discourage large families.

* "It [the government] could curtail or zero out dependent tax exemptions for families with more than two children. It could cut off college aid for large families. It could take many other less drastic measures to encourage people to have small families." Note that doing this, however, would bring about the collapse of the Social Security pyramid scheme even sooner.

4. Immigration should be reduced

* "Politicians who dare to advocate a sharp cutback in immigration or incentives to motivate families to have fewer children would be stepping into a minefield. ...But a national debate over these issues is necessary..."

 

A national debate over these issues would indeed be beneficial, because it would be highly offensive to tens of millions of people from families with three or more children,* and to millions of first- and second-generation Americans. This could easily destroy any remaining public support for Kyoto, and this would be a good thing.

 

* In Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game, Earth limited families to two children, with "Third" (often shortened to a four-letter word for excrement) being a highly offensive pejorative. The hero, Ender Wiggin, was allowed to be born as a third child because the government thought his family had special abilities that would be useful in a war with an insect race. This is, apparently, the brave new world that Kyoto's advocates would give us.

 

The Asian Brown Cloud: the rest of the world's true concern over global warming

Note that Communist China, which is eager to take the United States' manufacturing jobs, is among the Kyoto Treaty's most vocal proponents.

 

"Asian Brown Cloud' poses global threat" (click for complete article) By CNN's Marianne Bray and wire reports, August 12, 2002

 

HONG KONG, China -- A dense blanket of pollution, dubbed the "Asian Brown Cloud," is hovering over South Asia, with scientists warning it could kill millions of people in the region, and pose a global threat.

..."Biomass burning" from forest fires, vegetation clearing and fossil fuel was just as much to blame for the shrouding haze as dirty industries from Asia's great cities, the study found.

 

We suggest that Asia remove the toxic pollution log from its own eye before pointing to the carbon dioxide mote in ours. "Do as I say, not as I do," say the Mainland Chinese:

"China, which is exempt from the Kyoto Protocol, is now the world's second largest emitter of greenhouse gases, after the U.S. Coal use in China has been climbing faster than anywhere else in the world." (Source: Physicians for Civil Defense)

 

Russia: Kyoto="Economic Auschwitz"

 

http://www.russiajournal.com/news/cnews-article.shtml?nd=43814 "Top scientists tell Putin to kill Kyoto"

"The Kyoto Protocol to limit greenhouse gases has no scientific basis and puts the Russian economy at risk, Russia's leading scientists said in official advice to President Vladimir Putin. In the document, obtained by Reuters on Monday, the Russian Academy of Sciences said the global treaty would not stabilise greenhouse gases even if it came into force."

 

"...Russia has vacillated over whether to agree to voluntarily limiting its emissions, and the Academy said there would be no point since the treaty would not halt global warming anyway. "The Kyoto Protocol is ineffective for fulfilling the aims of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, which it was created to fulfil,"

 

http://www.russiajournal.com/news/cnewswire.shtml?nw=42650#n42650 Andrei Illarionov: Kyoto Protocol is economic 'Auschwitz' for Russia

"Russian Presidential Advisor on Economic Issues Andrei Illarionov has described the Kyoto protocol as an 'economic Auschwitz for Russia.' ...'Ratifying this protocol would transform Russia into an economic dwarf or baby whereas at present it is just beginning to grow into adulthood.'"

 

http://www.russiajournal.com/news/cnews-article.shtml?nd=43326 Kyoto protocol is discriminatory against Russia

"Illarionov also stressed that the Kyoto protocol was not a universal instrument, as more than half of all countries around the world have taken no obligation to limit emissions of greenhouse gases. The economies of countries that have ratified the protocol grow at a slower pace, as the Kyoto protocol sets substantial restrictions on economic growth, he added."

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41561 Putin adviser says Kyoto 'smoke screen': Treaty will create Soviet-style 'monster' threatening freedom

For most of the world, writes Andrei Illarionov in the Financial Times, the protocol, set to become an international treaty next year, is "bad news."

"Like fascism and communism, Kyotoism is an attack on basic human freedoms behind a smokescreen of propaganda," he said. "Like those ideologies of human hatred, it will be exposed and defeated."

 

The Fuel Cell: Intelligent Environmentalism

 

Economic driving forces do support energy efficiency. As an example, the fuel cell bypasses the limitations of thermal power cycles (e.g. Carnot, Rankine, Otto internal combustion). Thermal power cycles recover only about 35-45 percent of the fuel's energy content. The fuel cell converts the fuel directly into electricity, which is roughly equivalent to mechanical energy, with around 80 percent efficiency.

 

So why not pass a lot of mandates to compel automakers and power generators to use fuel cells? At present, fuel cell technology is just becoming economically feasible. Several years from now, no mandates will be necessary to get businesses to use them because they will provide cheaper power. If it's possible to put a fuel cell in a car that will deliver even 60 percent efficiency (versus, for argument's sake, 40 for internal combustion) with no loss in mileage or performance, no one will want to buy a car that has an internal combustion engine. Who wouldn't want a sport utility vehicle that gets 24 instead of 16 miles per gallon with no loss in safety (due to size and weight), performance (acceleration), or mileage? What power company would burn coal to make electricity when it can use a fuel cell to make 50 or even 100 percent more electricity from the same amount of fuel?

The reaction of coal with steam produces hydrogen, which is an ideal fuel for fuel cells. Even Kyotoists who dislike the "discard to atmosphere" suggestion for the carbon dioxide will like the idea of bypassing the the efficiency limits of traditional power generation cycles that work by transferring heat from a hot reservoir to a cold one. The Carnot cycle (a theoretical best-case) does not limit the efficiency of the chemical reaction of hydrogen in a fuel cell to make electricity. This method therefore makes less carbon dioxide than a traditional coal-burning plant but it has the potential to reduce energy costs. The lesson here (as Henry Ford could have told us a long time ago) is to stop trying to legislate solutions to technological problems. Let industry and the free market do their jobs, and they will deliver a solution naturally.

OK. No real point jumping on this thread, but what the hell??? Assuming that man is responsible for only a small part of the long-term effects of global warming...and I believe we're responsible for more than a smal part, and assuming the Keyoto Accord will only fix a small part of the damage we've done, it sounds to me like the 2 small parts would balance each other out.

 

SO WHAT'S THE POTENTIAL HARM IN THE US SIGNING KEYOTO???

go read the above stuff i posted, it covered that.

 

It would be very detrimental to the nations that signed it and wouldnt solve anything