Cooking Grandma

Something all New Zealanders need to see. Click the links in the video description – you will be astounded at the corruption and fraud done in the name of green environmentalism.

Willis, you’re wrong – there is not “almost no benefit” to the environment, there is HUGE DAMAGE done to it by so-called “renewables” and the green power mandates in California.
To wit: despoiled landscapes, poisoned and destroyed habitats, all sorts of new pollutants, ranging from arsenic and mercury brought up by geothermal to the toxic lubricants and coatings on wind turbine blades and solar panels; noise pollution from wind turbines; and worst of all, the assault by these contraptions on endangered species.
One might ask why this is so, if it’s all for the environment? But it isn’t for the environment – it’s for control over people’s lives, it’s for perverse motives to cripple the economy, and maybe the most disgusting of all, to enrich der Fuehrer’s crony capitalist buddies and let them make money on grossly uneconomic investments.
The state’s renewable mandate is a piece of energy market manipulation that makes Enron look like child’s play. As a division manager at a California municipal utility, I personally watched the entire power crisis of 2000-2001 unfold – and all the market gaming that took place (in which the state itself, incidentally, was an even bigger participant and culprit than Enron) was peanuts compared to the renewables mandate.
As for cooking Grandma – low-income Grandma is wondering how she’s gonna cook for and feed those grandkids she’s raising when gasoline goes to $10 a gallon (former Energy Secretary Ah-CHU’s target price) and electricity to 40 cents/kWh – and the cost of all other necessaries that move by electricity or motor fuel go up in proportion.
The Democratic People’s Republic of Kalifornia’s (DPRK) renewables mandate is another dimension of the leftist elite’s assault on poor people, as part of their campaign to reduce them and everybody else to utter dependency. When the poor are starving, they’re supposed to go to Uncle Big Brother for help, and vote for der Fuehrer in return for his “generosity”.

Welkom to People’s Republik of Fornicatia. From this day on, official language of Fornicatia will be Swedish. Silence! In addition to that, all citizen will be required to change their underwear every half-hour. Underwear will be worn on outside so we can check….

What will happen in North Carolina when they start clear cutting all its timber to feed Drax UK power station with 7.5 million tonnes of wood pellets per year?

Smart meters are revealing their true purpose of individual control. Energy slavery is a new phenomenon where less electricity production makes extortionately more money for the energy producers and government.
Smart meters are part euthanasia machines – these enviromentalist created consumer theft devices, where “charging you more than you can afford when you need it” will see the demise of the poor and elderly.
Electricity is now the domain of the rich.
Smart meters = Energy slaves.

“Meanwhile, buy a diesel generator and plug your airconditioner into that to take the edge off the day.”
I have one with an original Yanmar diesel. Max 2800 watt, so around 2000 watt it should last, the generator(Italien).
It uses about 0.5 liter/Hour, I think. Since the diesel is not used for transportation on the road there is no tax on it, still it’s about 1 Euro here in Norway, which means about 25 cents/kWh.
What is happening in U.S.A. And California now is so mad and stupid that I am amazed. The only positive with it is that every politician behind this have failed the test to stay in office.

The only reason I can think of would be that it would meet the mandate and leave no room for the other renewables.

The power supplier to the Sacramento area should have a massive “accidental” failure of transformers, especially those supplying state governmental bodies & agencies and the governor’s mansion. The “accidental” failure should occur in the hottest part of the year and day and should last, oh, say, three weeks before all the transformers can be replaced. This would give the state government a good taste of the “green medicine” we all must swallow on a daily basis.
Probably wouldn’t hurt to have it happen in D.C, as well.
Need I put the tag [ /sarc?]

oops – between the Mississippi and the Rockies …

In the UK our politicians seem to want to emulate California, though thankfully we have yet to catch up with you guys. Though in a revival of true British Imperial tradition I believe that plans have been mooted to relive past glories and overtake the world, as some congenital imbeciles (h/t to w. for the phrase ) think we should legislate an 80% reduction in co2 output.
One difference between the UK and California perhaps is that along with the ever growing amount of unicorn legislation, we also have a steady ramping up of requirements for insulation in new-build houses and offices. Some subsidies are from time to time available for insulation of older properties. This may help those able to afford to move into newer housing stock, but as always it’s the poor who will be trapped into paying the higher bills or freezing.
Another peculiarly British anomalies that hasn’t entirely disappeared s the fact that in the UK we have had a charging structure for natural gas and electricity for many years that charged a lower price for units consumed above a certain threshold. Although this shows signs of changing, some utilities still have this feature on some of their many and confusing charging structures. I certainly did the last time I checked the small print on the back of one of my bills. I have never managed to get to the level where those price reductions kick in though.
I don’t think that whatever reductions in central heating use these measures lead to will offset the cost increases caused by the desire of the watermelons to power our homes with rocking horse manure and such like. There comes a point when it isn’t possible to reduce electricity use any further without inflicting either a reduction in the standard of living or real hardship.
Do we reduce to just one fluorescent light bulb in one room perhaps ? Should we cease to use or have a fridge or freezer as these use a substantial amount of electricity. Perhaps we shouldn’t run the central heating pump and instead return to the days when most people had just one gas fire in one room.
These are choices that have already been forced on many pensioners in the UK. Things will get worse before they get better. The watermelon culture is so firmly entrenched amongst our political numpties, that perhaps the only thing that might bring about an awakening is prolonged and steep cooling. We can only wait and see if the Livingston & Penn effect brings a change of direction.

Grandma rarely gets “cooked” in California, despite Mr. Eschenbach’s claims.
In fact, California has assistance programs for low-income customers. Some of those programs are described here:
http://www.liheap.ncat.org/profiles/California.htm
Also, the highest power prices only apply to those who consume substantial amounts of power. Most of the elderly that I know never come close to the top tier of power usage. Most of them stay within the first tier of usage, the cheapest price. California also has a larger first tier for low income customers.
Finally, almost every California town and certainly the cities have cool buildings available for anyone during heat waves.
[Reply: “…the highest power prices only apply to those who consume substantial amounts of power.” ‘Only’? Does that include Anthony Watts? ~mod.]

Some good thinking there, the whole concept of a ‘Just Price’ is an old one. Listen to this podcast, it has a short but great discussion on ‘Just Pricing’
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/11/munger_on_john.html

Why is it beneficial to encourage small hydro? Capitalization costs vs capacity? I am not in favor of big vs small, but I need to understand the logic. Further, they are the same type of energy. Why exclude large producers? Aren’t there ways to encourage the small plants while still including the large plants in the count?

@ W. Eschenbach, re censoring comments.
“Roger, As far as I know, I’ve never censored a comment of yours, but perhaps I’ve forgotten. Certainly it is not something I “normally” do, I rarely censor anything. I’ve occasionally snipped some stuff that was way off-topic, but I’ve never censored a scientific comment.”
I believe the post was a year ago or more, and the topic was some legal issue, perhaps the Freedom of Information laws and various exceptions that apply. I posted a comment that contained some statutory language, and you snipped it, then you added a sarcastic comment.
I don’t accept being told to shut up, or be censored, unless it’s from a judge in a courtroom. On WUWT, Anthony’s site policies govern and I don’t believe I’ve violated the policies.
You sometimes have a valid point in your long-winded posts, but you do not have on this one.

One explanation of the hydro-not-renewable statements in some places [link below]:
One reason renewable policies place qualifications on hydroelectric facilities is that most of them were already built when states started discussing the policies. Counting all available hydro would significantly water down the impact in some places.
“The whole point of a [renewable standard] is to increase the amount of renewable energy in a state,” says Kyle Aarons, a solutions fellow with the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. “Since hydropower has been around for over 100 years in some areas, if they counted all hydro their targets would have to be unrealistically high or they wouldn’t actually be encouraging any new renewables from coming online.”
http://www.midwestenergynews.com/2012/01/13/renewable-or-not-how-states-count-hydropowe/
Note there is a distinction between renewable and alternative – but apparently both terms apply to wind despite wind having been used as a source of power since waaay back.

@ W. Eschenbach re illiterate elderly persons.
“What Roger means is that he can’t see Grandma from his house.”
You, sir, are not allowed to put words in my mouth. You have no idea what I can see or not see from my residence. But just for the record, I spend quite a bit of time with the poor and elderly, with some of them clients who need my help. I have great compassion for the poor, because I come from a crushingly poor start in life. I know first hand what it is like to be the poorest person for miles around.
“Because if he could see her, he’d know that she’s illiterate, doesn’t have a computer, and won’t be following his link any time soon …”
False again. That is not “my link”, as i have nothing to do with it. I posted the link so WUWT readers (who are literate and do have computers) could verify my assertion.
The utilities still send out paper bills with all sorts of brochures in them, including ones in several languages describing the various assistance programs. Senior centers also spread the word. I certainly spread the word. Senior organizations such as AARP also spread the word. The seniors that I know also go to great lengths to help each other and share tips on cutting expenses.

I think you have it all wrong Willis. They’re very smart and using their heads. If you can cook all the grandmas, you up the statistics showing more deaths due to global warming. What better way than raising the price when it’s the hottest?

I’m surprised that California hasn’t yet legislated against people trying to bypass the consequences of their watermelon legislation by using their own generators or burning coal in an open fire to stay warm. No doubt in the fullness of time…

@ Warren in New Zealand
“Just they aren’t able to have their own homes cooled? To quote one of Willis’s favourite words, I get “angrified” to read green tripe postulated as gospel.”
Many homes and apartments in California have no air conditioning because the climate is normally pleasant. It makes little sense to spend thousands of dollars on an air conditioner that might be used four or five days per year. People here know this. It’s one of the big draws of California living.
For those with air conditioners, the assistance programs I described above are available.

I thank those who have replied to my questions. They always lead to further questions (unfortunately I do not know how to use this comment area to reply to previous posts and I am doing laundry making my replies untimely – I come from a state with off shore wind farms and it is cheaper to do at night). Hydro is hydro. So the goal was to improve renewables, they needed far more renewables than the existing hydro. So why not allow additional large hydro? Why not let large and small hydro fill the void?

“Catastrophic Anthropogenic Genocidal Warmistas” is what I call people who are so consumed fighting CO2 they don’t realize other humans are being sacrified by their cult practices.
Education is the only remedy.

Utterly fascinating to see the Warmist/Green mind at work as Roger Sowell, nit-picks minor points, tinkers with definitions and generally obfuscates to try and deflect attention from the fact that a bizarre cartel is forcing up energy prices, in what should be one of the most energy rich states, on the basis of discredited, millennial doomsday pseudo science.
Only an anally retentive, Warmist fanatic would label large hydro-electric power schemes as NON renewable energy.

Roger Sowell says:
July 4, 2013 at 10:56 pm

The utilities still send out paper bills with all sorts of brochures in them, including ones in several languages describing the various assistance programs. Senior centers also spread the word. I certainly spread the word. Senior organizations such as AARP also spread the word. The seniors that I know also go to great lengths to help each other and share tips on cutting expenses.

Mr Sowell, I’m sorry but I think you miss the main point of what Willis has written. Electricity is, and should be the cheapest commodity that is available. It is easy to produce, easy to transmit, and should be available to everyone if the will is there.
If you wish to make it expensive, controlled and subject to various taxes (carbon etc) in order to prevent some spurious and conjected possible and maybe future warming/climate catastrophe then please explain how what you propose or wish to foist upon us will help to either prevent this future/possibly catastrophic calamity, will lift the millions of humans that live in what are basically stone age conditions up to even 3rd world standards, will help lift those stone age cultures up from a subsistance life style, where having children is an insurance policy because so many die as infants.
I am gratified to read that you are involved with helping seniors in your area, I would suggest you cast your altruistic tendencies wider, and spend time in the Solomons, South East Asia, the Hill Tribes of the Golden Triangle, then come back and tell me that poverty, subsistance living, childhood mortality are what you wish to bring to the western world by making a cheap source of power too expensive to sustain the many who use it to increase their well being.
I appreciate that you may be more learned than I am, all I have done for the last 20 years is live among those people and seen the needless waste of potential, life and resources caused in main by various *AID* agencies that promote *sustainable* lifestyles, which prevent even the most basic of civilised amenities being introduced.

What’s the carbon footprint of my cremation, years before I should need it? Heat make me weak and lethargic and cold makes my blood pressure spike. I have to bite the bullet when the utility bills arrive because I have a lot of living to do and my house temperature will be healthful. I don’t make the “assistance” level income to get a 20% discount, so I grow a garden, cook all our meals (even my own bread) and cut costs in many other ways.

Where is CA’s Tahrir square? The elites live on the coast, and zone it so nobody else can live there. Force most of us to the interior, and then empty our bank accounts when we try to survive the heat. Well, maybe it’s time to take back the coast.
The good news is, most of these old hippies won’t be around much longer. They’ve made a real mess of things. If we actually had a free market, there would be no problem. But they’ve done quite a good job twisting markets for “our” good, which has worked out really well for them.

read it all:
2 July: WLRN Florida: Transcript: Former Energy Secretary Wants Power Generation Decentralized
President Obama announced, last week, a hugely ambitious plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and push the country towards cleaner energy. Right now, just nine percent of our energy consumption comes from renewable sources.
Former U.S. secretary of energy, Stephen Chu, would like to see us get to 50 percent by the middle of the century. Chu left the cabinet in April, but even before that, he began talking to utility companies could adopt a radically different business model.
STEPHEN CHU: Well, it goes back to an old business model that the old AT&T used to have. They sold you phone service. They would supply you with the phone. They owned the phone. They maintained the phone.
MONTAGNE: Similarly, Chu would like utilities to start installing solar panels and batteries storage units in people’s homes. The idea hasn’t gained much traction yet, but Stephen Chu remains hopeful, and discussed with us how he sees utility companies making this work.
CHU: They will say, allow us to use your roof, allow us to use a little corner of your garage, and we will equip you with solar power. We own it. We maintain it. We’re responsible for it. You don’t have any out-of-pocket expenses. You just buy electricity at the same rate, or maybe even a lower rate. In addition to that, you have, you know, like five kilowatts of energy storage in your home. And five kilowatts – when you’re in a blackout situation and you want to keep your refrigerator going, you want to keep a couple of energy-efficient light bulbs lit at night – that goes a long way…
http://wlrn.org/post/former-energy-secretary-wants-power-generation-decentralized

1. Why provide very expensive and inefficient “assistance” when all that is needed is easily available cheap power?
2. The worlds very first hydro power scheme is still operational. It was built in 1868 and is a place of beauty and a superb natural habitat.

@ W. Eschenbach, re being poor…
“You should be poor sometime, Roger, or at least read up on them. Cheap electricity was created for the poor. You are taking it away from them.”
I believe I addressed that earlier. I have been poor, for many years. Too poor to have new clothes, or decent food, or health care, or air conditioning. Being dirt poor is one reason I worked so very hard to obtain an education in engineering, then law school. It is another reason I help the poor and elderly at every chance. I just don’t brag about it.
I also champion the rights of the poor and elderly, and warned against the suffering that AB 32 in California would create for those groups. Some of my writings on this can be found here:
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/search?q=poor
“AB 32 Hits Poor the Hardest”
“AB 32 Hypocrisy vs Health and Poverty”
Again, Eschenbach, you make statements with zero basis in fact.

Roger, can I suggest you stop defending yourself and start defending the poor. They do not want “assistance”, they want food and energy at affordable prices. Your replies indicate that you do not think they should have that but “assistance” instead.

Just visited Roger Sowell’s blog, and find my first impression of him was dead wrong.
This gent should be welcome at WUWT but perhaps his inbuilt legal hums and haws mitigate against him here.
I suggest others do what I did.
Just my 2 cents worth.

Seeing that there is a global price for coal, oil, gas etc, why do the poor in the UK have to pay as much for a bucket of coal as the global price in tonnes (rhetorical)?
Seeing that there is a global price for building electrical capacity, as near as matters, USD one million per megawatt.
Seeing that there is a global price for generating electricity around US cents 4 per KW/Hr.
Why in the hell should anybody pay silly prices. The major and immediate effect of that is to disadvantage and penalize the poor, the weak, the infirm.
They do not want “assistance”, they want self sufficiency, dignity and freedom of choice.
Similarly, Wind power needs land, That comes free, its not subject to the laws of supply and demand, Landlords will just sit back and give their land away!

Rather than engage in an endless, and apparently fruitless, round of comments and answers, I have prepared a Guest Post on this matter. I hope that Anthony will post it.

Willis’ eagle soars again. At the end of this comment I am going to repeat a comment I have made on one of Willis’ excellent posts. I, perhaps fatuously, suspect he noticed my comment and that led to this post. After all Willis notices everything.
This is for you Roger Sowell: There is no circle in Dante’s Inferno COLD enough for these warmists and energy poverty instigators.

I also wonder why nukes are not counted among the non-CO2 emissions power generators. The US is about 19% nuke and that is never counted. Or maybe it’s not actually about CO2?

Everything is priced according to supply and demand. Even cars. Definitely vacations — you pay more in school holidays. Why shouldn’t electricity be the same?
It’s cheaper and less risky for electricity companies to charge more for what they *can* provide, than to build more power stations so they can charge the same for higher volume. Why go to all that effort building more power stations if they can make just as much profit simply by charging you more?
But a previous commenter was right, there should be the option for users to shop around at the point of consumption. Without that, the market is not free and suppliers have us over a barrel. It’s a good job regulation is there to protect us :).

@ Other_Andy says:
July 5, 2013 at 12:49 am
“@roger Sowell
Read your comments with interest.
You make some good points but then you duck and dive.
You haven’t answered the most important question yet.
OK, you’re a lawyer, comes naturally.
The main question is:
Why would you want to artificially raise energy prices, why is that good in any way?”
I don’t want energy prices high. That is an assumption by Eschenbach, and others. If you read just one of my blog posts linked above in a comment, you would see that I’m against high power prices. That’s one of many reasons that nuclear power is wrong: it raises power prices. That’s why I’m against the present form of wind and solar power, they raise power prices. I’m on record stating that wind and solar will be economical only when cheap, reliable energy storage is discovered.
My argument on this post is the very one-sided version posted by Mr. Eschenbach, who clearly did not present a balanced review of electric power prices and their consequences in California. He also did not know, or chose not to state, that small hydroelectric power is considered renewable in California.

If something is in limited supply and demand rises then so does the price.
Limit supply of anything enough and it becomes a luxury.
Always so. Shakespeare gave us, “The farmer who hung himself on expectation of plenty”.
But if California stopped burning coal to make electricity, you should expect hundreds of smoky choky power stations to spring up just past it’s borders and supply expensive electricity to an unreal market.

Roger (and Willis). Only talking about heat and expensive AC affecting the poor is just a small problem compared to heating prices and cold.
In the UK alone, there are 20,000 to 35,000 excessive deaths, every year, from the cold Most of the deaths are the elderly, and many are in fuel poverty. Its literally “eat or heat” for many here in the UK.
And yes, there are subsidy programs, and warm buildings for the people to go to, but still 20,000 to 35,000 people die every year.
Related to this, is the excess mortality in cold and heat events. In cold events, the mortality rate increases during and after the event, eventually falling to the norm.
In heat events, the mortality goes up during the event, and falls after the event. Over the period, the mortality rate is essentially unchanged. The mortality rate is “displaced”, not increased. In coarser terms, people that were likely to die anyway, did so a little early. There is rarely “excess” deaths. Even in the famous European heat wave of 2003, the fall in mortality rates after the event nearly matched the increase during the event.

@ W. Eschenbach, here is the link to your earlier post and my comment you snipped.
“Yes, Virginia, there is an FOIA
Posted on July 2, 2011 by Willis Eschenbach
Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/02/yes-virginia-there-is-an-foia/#comments
My comment reads:
“Roger Sowell says:
July 3, 2011 at 3:10 pm
The FOIA requests for University of Virginia regarding Dr. Michael Mann’s correspondence, data, and other records are not nearly as simple as it may seem. Below is, verbatim, a section of Virginia’s state law known as “Virginia Freedom of Information Act”. This section describes the numerous exclusions to application of this law – meaning that every single record must be compared to each exclusion, and if it matches that exclusion it will not be disclosed.
source: Chapter 37, Code of Virginia, Title 2.2, beginning at Section 3705 and following, found at
http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?000+cod+TOC02020000037000000000000
§ 2.2-3705.1. Exclusions to application of chapter; exclusions of general application to public bodies. … [Scads of legalese snipped. If people want to read it, you have the link. Please don’t post tons of text, folks. It weakens whatever argument you might be making. For example, in this case I have no idea what Roger’s point is, he lost me with the miles of text … – w.]”
I’ll leave it to others to decide if I’m a liar, as you claim. Here is the evidence, in black in white, in your own hand.

Les Johnson says:
July 5, 2013 at 1:48 am
//////////////////////////////////////
The existence of this fact, the lack of publicity given to it, the lack of governmental concern and lack of action to redress this appallling state of affairs is the biggest scandal and disgrace in UK politics.
Just reflect on steps taken to increase road safety which action may save a handful of lives a year(at most measured in hundreds). Just reflect upon the number of news bulletins where there has been a car crash of coach crash claiming even just a few lives, Yet there is almost no mention of something where tens of thosands of people are needlessly and avoidably dying prematurely and in misery (there is little more misserable than feeling cold in one’s own home, and facing the choice at being uncomfortable and lethargic with hunger pains, or unconfortable and lethargic shivvering in the cold).
I know the missery that this inflicts. I have been there as a student when I have been so cold that I could not pick up a pen to write. I can recall on one occassion setting my jumper alight. I could not afford to run the gas fire in my student digs at a rate that would warm the room, so I ran it very low but had to sit right on top of it to feel any warmth. I was sitting so close that on one occassion my jumber set on fire. This was the only time that I was warm that evenning!
But seriously, this is a public disgrace. The MSM needs to get on the case, and then there may be some political will to address the problem. The only workable solution is one that will deliver reliable and abundant energy at a cheap a price as possible. This should act as an incentive for the UK to push ahead with shale, and to abandon its carbon floor price and all taxes on carbon.

@roger Sowell
“I don’t want energy prices high. That is an assumption by Eschenbach, and others.”
Thanks for the reply.
Please read your comments, there is a reason they make the assumption.
From what I read here you seem supportive of subsidized energy for the ‘poor’. This is very admirable but in this way you seem to tolerate an artificially created problem.
“If you read just one of my blog posts linked above in a comment, you would see that I’m against high power prices.”
Looked but couldn’t find it.
Which blog post?

Roger: I also don’t see where Willis called you a “liar”. He asked for documentation, as I recall.

@roger Sowell
I read the blog post.
I find your stance somewhat confusing.
What is ‘Environmental Justice’?
Do you support higher energy prices but only if they don’t impact the poor?
Do you think ‘greenhouse gasses’ as a problem?
“Most states have similar assistance programs for low-income customers and their utility bills. California is not alone in this. ”
Just because others do it doesn’t make it right.

@ Other_Andy
Environmental Justice, in California, is a movement to have polluting industries located in rich neighborhoods as well as in poor neighborhoods. Community organizers in poor neighborhoods obtain great concessions on this basis.
My stance is very well established on my blog posts. I am for the cheapest power prices, that bring safe, reliable power to customers.
I do not think that greenhouse gases are a problem, and have written extensively and made many speeches on this. See my posts at
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/warmists-are-wrong-cooling-is-coming.html
and
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/from-man-made-global-warmist-to-skeptic.html
Perhaps I misunderstand you. You wrote: “Just because others do it doesn’t make it right.”
Providing assistance to low-income customers for their utility bills is not right? If that is your position, I must disagree. Helping those who are in need is a crucial function of society, and an excellent use of taxes.
It is quite interesting to me that people who present a one-sided version of the CAGW science are skewered here on WUWT, (Mann, Hansen, Phil Jones, and others), and many posts here bring balance by presenting the skeptic side, the other side. I’m a skeptic and have written a half-dozen posts on WUWT. Yet, when a one-sided argument is made as was done in this post, and some of it is flat wrong, criticism is hurled against the one who points out the flaws in the argument.
Well, I don’t mind the slings and arrows, y’all. Bring it. Take your best shot. I’m quite used to it. But, bring some facts and good logic to your arguments. I regularly get booed and criticized on WUWT for my stances on nuclear power and renewable energy. I also have some supporters. Nuclear is dead in the US, and for excellent reasons. In this, I rejoice. Wind and solar forms of renewable energy will have their day, but only when cheap, reliable energy storage is discovered. Another viable renewable energy is one that is continuous, 24 hours per day. Believe it or not, there are actually a few renewable energy sources that are continuous, but not yet economic.
For the long-term survival of the human race, renewable energy MUST be made affordable and reliable and safe. That is a fact that cannot be ignored.

Mr Eschenbach,
I think you’re putting the blame on the symptoms, rather than the cause. Looking at the subject from an economics perspective, using price to ration limited supply (rather than rolling brownouts) is the preferable choice. Regulating consumer prices while purchasing electricity on the open market is what caused the energy crisis in California around the turn of the century, so allowing prices to fluctuate is a good thing.
However, having a price mechanism to regulate demand in and of itself does nothing to cause high energy prices. Indeed, setting a fixed, regulated price (especially a low one to make consumers and voters happy) will usually cause long-term underinvestment into the system, setting it up for complete failure down the road.
Instead, as you’ve pointed out in previous articles, the real cause is a lack of supply, which is caused by California’s incessant regulatory meddling and half-witted “market reforms”.

Why shouldn’t price track with generation cost. That seems like a great advantage. Now having the generation cost be $$ is unacceptable, but blaming variable rate pricing masks the solution.

“Perhaps I misunderstand you. You wrote: “Just because others do it doesn’t make it right.”
Providing assistance to low-income customers or their utility bills is not right? If that is your position, I must disagree. Helping those who are in need is a crucial function of society, and an excellent use of taxes.”
No, you didn’t misunderstand me. I think it is a stupid idea to hold people to ransom by artificially inflate their power bills and then pretend to be all ‘caring’ and use the ransom money to give assistance to customers who can’t pay their power bills.

@ Janice Moore, thank you kind lady. 🙂
I’ve been bang ill for over 2.5 years now, & unable to work. 🙁
To keep my mind active, I decided to look into Global warming, & was horrified to find that it’s a huge global scam.
I dug further & came to this totally horrifying conclusion:
Global warming is for genocide.
The 1%s, basically are employing dozy, bent or blackmailed politicians & the mad marxists of the “environmental” NGOs: WWF, Greenpeace, etc to force through “Green” policies designed to de-industrialise & impoverish the first world, & depopulate the whole world.
I’ll post further to back up my outrageous conclusions, later when it’s cooler. It’s midday here in the UK, & it’s roasting this grandpa. 🙂
But please beat these facts in mind:
If you pop a frog into a pot of boiling water, it’ll hop right out.
If you pop that frog into a pot of cold water & raise the temperature by degrees you can boil that frog to death.
Well we’re frogs in a global pot & they’re turning up the heat.
The CO2 producers they’re after is you & I, & our kids & grandkids, & the control freak cowards at the govt political & NGO level think it’s saving the planet.
Those above them have the old power & money & personal survival, no illusions there.
As I posted earlier this is neatly summed up at:
http://www.thrivemovement.com
Which also contains the best exposition of UN Agenda 21 I’ve so far seen, by John Anthony.
On thrive, please start with the problem, a fairly lengthy essay. Then see The Movie. 2 hrs 12 mins. John Anthony’s film is 1 hr 23 mins.
All are well worth your time, there is no more important issue on this planet.
All the best,
JD.

Didn’t we just celebrate Independence Day?
It appears Roger Sowell sees nothing wrong with the supply of cheap electricity being artificially limited through government regulation using the guise of saving some mythical future world. After all nothing demonstrates the extent the government cares better than taking the crumbs off the table of the poor and making them increasingly dependent on government. Is this what this country is really about? No doubt, at some point in the future we will instead be celebrating Day and Roger will also see nothing wrong with that.
Frankly, I think Willis did a good job decribing the situation.
One other thing. It appears Roger was so eager to besmirch Willis he fumbled putting his website link under his name in his first few comments.

Doh!
Missing /. Sentence should read. No doubt, at some point in the future we will instead be celebrating Day and Roger will also see nothing wrong with that.

A 12 Kw/h power generator from Briggs&Stratton consumes 2.12 gallons of propane. The price of propane at this moment is around $ 1.50 per gallon. So it would produce 12 Kw/h for a little more than $ 3.-. Of course you also need to calculate the price and the maintenance costs of the generator and the costs of the propane tank. There are propane tanks in the market with a pump that allows you to fuel up your propane converted car.
http://www.bsapowersolutions.com/pages/EM12-Generator.php
The combined use for propane to heat/cool your home, generate electricity and fuel your car(s) could be highly profitable but also provides you with the advantage of having your own fuel stack that could last a few months and it provides you with the opportunity to get completely independent from the grid.

Roger Sowell says:
This is a science blog. State your position clearly and defend it with facts and cogent arguments.
Being lawyerly, and weaving and dodging will win you no converts.
Frankly, all I see from you is evasion of the issues.

@ Eric Worrall
You ask why I oppose nuclear power. I refer you to my article on this:
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/reconsider-nuclear-power-is-it-ever.html?m=0
And no, your arguments are not persuasive. Nuclear is deadly, dangerous, creates Millenial-long toxic wastes, and is too costly.

The US rate you quote, Willis, is higher than I thought it would be. Here in England I’m on a fixed-rate until 2014 and pay 12p (18 cents) per kWh. We’re all-electric and pay £2,280 ($3415) a year for a rather modest-sized home. Five years ago it was half this!

Yet another reason to get the world’s population down to a billion or less.
[Reply: You first. Show us the way. ~mod.]

Roger Sowell says: ……….
Mr. Eschenbach normally censors my comments, so let’s just see if he censors this.
====================================
Ahhhhhh …… rules for radicals ……… accuse the other side of your own sides bad behavior.

Eric Worrall says:
July 5, 2013 at 4:52 am
China and India are investing in Thorium nuclear technology in a big way. Its only a matter of time before they commercialise this technology, and start undercutting the cost base of economies too stupid to follow their lead.
==================================================================
Jeeeeze . . . not the thorium hoax again.
“Its only a matter of time” is not the same as “they have gotten it to work.”
In the real world, nuclear fuel created by thorium alchemy must compete with other sources of nuclear fuel. We are hundreds of years from that happening.

The cost of delivering electricity is likely to be more proportional to the peak rather than average power consumed. An idling transmission line is almost as expensive in terms of capital and maintenance as a fully loaded one. Similar story with power stations. Best solution is to charge more for power delivered or sourced at peak of demand, and allow market forces to decide.
If AGW/CO2 usage was the only consideration, then pricing would be purely based on the average.

u.k.(us) says:
July 4, 2013 at 10:56 pm
“Per Wiki:
An engineer is a professional practitioner of engineering, concerned with applying scientific knowledge, mathematics, and ingenuity to develop solutions for technical problems.”
US engineering students in the early ’60’s were taught that the solutions were to be cost-effective.
Cost-effective power generation today is best represented by CCGT. Relative low first cost, high efficiency, small foot print , relative low emissions, plentiful fuel.

I believe, Roger Sowell, that once California cuts supplies of electricity from coal-fired power plants, you’ll find your electricity rates will “necessarily skyrocket”.
From what I’ve read, the US Government isn’t supportive of petroleum/natural gas exploration and development on their lands, so natural gas-fired plants won’t be expanding (which, from what I’ve read in your comments, you believe to be the only source of cheap, more plentiful electricity).
What is your solution to cheaper electricity? And please don’t use the “subsidize the poor” argument–that doesn’t make electricity cheaper; it simply requires that somebody else pay for it.
Your plan is…….what?

Every year the weather precipitates(snow, rain etc.) upstream from the dam.
Is this not (potential) energy that has been renewed? Of course it is.
Hydro-electric power is obviously renewable. To say it’s not is false.
For that to be in California’s legislation is blatant propaganda, crony capitalism for solar and wind boondoggles.

Ah, but see, as insane as this is, low income grandma doesn’t have to worry. The ever benevolent state will step in a take some money from those of us who really can’t afford it, but our raw numbers say that we can. They’ll take it in the form of taxes and make programs to subsidize low income grandma so that she can power her air conditioner. It’s you and I who will have to find other ways to cool off when we have to cut back on our energy use because our money was taken and we can’t pay for energy during peak hours.

Here’s a website about the avialebility of LPG in California: http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/transportation/afvs/lpg_propane.html
I also have some German sites about LPG applications including home block heating systems with an efficiency of 90%. Just translate with Google translate and most of the content will be readable.
http://www.propan.de/anwendungen/heizenergie/blockheizkraftwerke
http://www.fas.de/
http://www.brc.de/
http://www.fluessiggas-direkt.de/?gclid=CJaLocetmLgCFXMdtAodRRoAog
http://www.progas.de/uploads/tx_rmbmdownload/Betriebstankstellen_0211_02.pdf

A very enjoyable read. Electricity rates continuously vary according to demand. Supplier generation is either base load, picked up on “day ahead” estimates or spot demand estimates. The rates are all over the map, from positive to negative. In the PJM area they tend to stay in the $20-$80/MWh range. The rates also include peaking units that are paid when they run and when they don’t run (capacity payments) as well as subsidized RESIDENTIAL rates (granny’s rates).
Mr. Sowell seems to like the economic theory of arbitrarily raising rates and then subsidizing some of those hurt by the arbitrary rate raise. This is part of environmental justice. He sort of misses the lost economic opportunities from lower rates for every consumer. This is like keeping a water bucket with a hole filled and increasing the size of the hole as needed. I’m sure as an engineer he can give us the global (or even CA) temperature reduction from these actions and show that we can actually reliably measure the temperature change. One of the things I love about the AGW argument is that it is based on unreliable temperature measurements and then taken to resolutions you can’t measure.
The argument over who said what to whom is fruitless. Why, continue the argument, Willis? I buy the substance of your post, mostly.
PS. I’m not the expert others are on electrical rates and green energy. I’m the environmental manager for a company that has 16 landfill gas to electricity facilities in 6 states. We also convert LFG to pipeline gas that sells for about 3x the cost of natural gas. We produce electricity on the peaking market or to fill green energy portfolios. The RECs and green energy portfolio’s are scams in my opinion, but that’s our system now.

Roger Sowell says:
July 4, 2013 at 10:40 pm
You sometimes have a valid point in your long-winded posts, but you do not have on this one.
============
The point appears quite simple. Folks in California, in a country where the free market is supposed to operate, are not free to buy power from the lowest cost source. Instead they are held hostage to exorbitant prices based upon where they live.
The wholesale price of electricity in the US is something like 3 cents per Kwh. With smart meters there is no justification for not providing consumers with the lowest cost power available, similar to what happened with long distance telephone calls. Consumers should automatically get the lowest rate, or be able to buy from the lowest cost supplier, with the power grid viewed as a public trust, exactly as was done with long distance service. You should not be forced to buy for the power company that put in the power lines in your neighborhood, but from any company on the grid that connects to that power company. The company should only be able to charge you for the power lines, not the power.
Instead consumers are being held hostage via the transmission lines and monopoly pricing. The power companies buy cheap power, then jack up the prices via their monopoly. Something that used to be illegal in the US, under numerous laws, but apparently the Power Commission is above the laws and a force unto itself.

Terms of Reference were agreed at the first meeting of the Green Fiscal Commission on 29 May 2007
It will involve a substantial tax shift, such that, for example, 20 per cent of tax revenues come from green taxes by 2020;
http://www.greenfiscalcommission.org.uk/index.php/site/about/objectives/
make no mistake this has all been planed

ONLY $0.92 per Kwh?
Get real and live in the UK. $0.92 sounds less than I pay for the so called cheap rate, or off peak as some suppliers call it.
I think I will move to California.

Thanks Willis,
The fuel poverty deaths in the UK (65/day in winter 2011/2012) are what these B@$T@..Ds are aiming for. It is a great way to get rid of the ‘Useless Eaters’ who are no longer of any use to ‘Society’ (Read don’t make money for corporations or cough-up taxes for the government.) Just kill off the old, poor or crippled and voilà, no looming Social Security problem.
The other method is also seen in the UK is government controlled healthcare. The Liverpool Care Pathway: minister orders report into the use of payments to hospitals for getting terminally ill patients onto a controversial care “pathway” to death. Doctors decide you are going to die anyway so they withdraw not only medicine but food and water to hurry up death to free up hospital beds and save money. Except that there are reports that patients rescued from the Liverpool Care Pathway did not die. link
Some reports say 60,000 patients [were] put on death pathway without being told… Even sick Children [are] placed on controversial ‘death pathway’
And just to make sure you understand this is not by chance. The eugenics movement Britain wants to forget and 01 October 2004: Why is Royal Society hosting a pro-eugenics conference?
These methods of killing off the ‘Useless’ without getting the lily white hands of the politicians dirty will be forever linked in my mind with the Eugenics and Neo-Malthusians.
CAGW and sky high electric rates could be considered a typical political SNAFU until you look at the other policies in the UK. Me, I do not like the Political Class treating me as if I was their cattle chattel.

Well, you folks in Kalifornicatia made your own bed. And the nation has elected evil men to inflict suffering even greater pains than those pilgrims who fled Europe to the “free” world. The sheeple never change. All the “blue” cities with their progressive agendas rule. Freedom , liberty and justice are just old fashioned out of date rubbish to the ruling faction.
You want freedom from your power bill, then get off the grid. Make them eat their power bill. Or have a power bill revolt. Do something dramatic that gets their attention. Hurt them in the pocket book.
This is a good post that demonstrates how government really is about regulating and controlling. Logical thinkers are lost in the noise of do-gooder propaganda.

Roger Sowell says: “The seniors that I know also go to great lengths to help each other and share tips on cutting expenses.”
You just don’t get it Mr. Sowell. Here’s Willis’s tip for cutting expenses. Quit trying to save the world from an insignificant (if any at all) temperature rise a century from now and build more electrical capacity using the strategy of finding the cheapest power source available, instead of the most expensive.
And his “tip” will do far, far, more than all of the coupon-clipping tips the seniors share to make their lives more comfortable.
Alternatively, you can screw the productive members of society and use their taxes to alleviate the inevitable pressures on the poor via government programs that build dependency rather than independence among the poor you so generously serve.
You might be attuned to the needs of the poor, and willing and able to help them, sir. But you are very misguided as to the best way to help them. The liberal “plantation” is not just a metaphor; it exists, and is growing daily under present leadership, both in CA and nationwide. And you sir, by defending it’s arrangements, have become one of the overseers regardless of your generous intent and actions.
To be clear, people on my side of the argument don’t want people to starve, or cook. We do, however, object to public policies that obviously increase the need for people to have to depend upon government programs for their survival, as does a policy of limiting the building of plants that would provide inexpensive electricity to all.

A point missed I think.
The state takes from the poor/low middle incomes, via taxes and levees, in order that it can assist the poor to pay the Corporation. Meanwhile the Corporation takes the profits and shares it with its richest friends.
Seems kinda cool and very fair, not

Ya know, it is bloody pitiful when you sum up the purported position: (and I paraphrase):
“We are incredibly worried that the excess of anthropogenic CO2 emission is going to destroy the planet, and we MUST ACT NOW to do ANYTHING WE CAN TO SAVE IT, …. except we would like to specifically exclude the use of nuclear or hydro power, because that would be too cheap and easy.”
Dunno why I feel that perhaps short term profits and taxes, and mean green political power may be the main drivers.

Roger Sowell says:
July 4, 2013 at 10:03 pm
@ martha durham on July 4, 2013 at 9:47 pm
“Can anyone explain why hydro is not a renewable in California? Is it because it works?”
Yes, as usual, Mr. Eschenbach has several things confused if not flat wrong.
California DOES count hydroelectric power as renewable, but only for small plants. Large hydroelectric plants do not count as renewable. This was done to encourage building more hydroelectric plants, and it is working. The last I looked, the cutoff was at 30 megaWatts.
Mr. Eschenbach normally censors my comments, so let’s just see if he censors this.
***************************************************************************************************
I have read Roger Sowell’s posts in he past and remember the name as one associated with sensible comments. However, this looks like spoiling for a fight. The last sentence above refers to ‘normally censors my comments’ , but then in subsequent comments he refers to “can’t find THE COMMENT” and eventually gives just the one example. Are there any more, or is this legal training/misdirection kicking in?
Steve T

Thanks Willis for another great piece. I can’t help but think of the green industry presenting something along the lines of Swift’s ‘A Modest Proposal’, but it isn’t sarcasm.

“But lots of folks apparently approve of the part where the higher the demand for the electricity, the more the utilities charge for it. ”
In the long run, the supply curve will shift to the right in response to increased demand. Capping supply is the California way, so prices will rise.

timc says:
July 5, 2013 at 6:45 am
My two cents says some states have anti gouging laws and high rates in extreme heat would fall under that law for any business except a public utility, why? Because they failed to have enough capacity for their customers when it is all foreseeable mot a really good excuse.
====================================================================
DAFT.
Power plants sitting idle 364 days a year “to have enough capacity for their customers when it is all foreseeable” is massively expensive. Expenses that will be paid by the rate payer ALL YEAR.
Gouge me now, or gouge me later. You will pay, one way or the other.

Roger Sowell says:
Actually, California law now prohibits importing any electric power from power plants (like coal) that produce more than a very low amount of CO2 per kWh. This effectively erases coal-power from being imported, but does allow nuclear, wind, solar, and natural gas power if it is produced in the very efficient combined cycle gas turbine system. There is a brief time extension for existing contracts with coal-fired plants. Those contracts are not allowed to be renewed when they expire.
It seems to me that this policy is in violation of the Federal Constitution – Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress (and only Congress)s power to restrict and regulate commerce with both states and foreign governments.

Sandor Ferenczi, re your comment about population reduction:
So, are you going to go first matey?
Nah, thought not.

Roger Sowell,
IMO your entire premise is a convoluted and disingenuous contradiction.
You have been defending California’s unnecessary and purposeless high energy cost while at the same time claiming to be
“for the cheapest power prices, that bring safe, reliable power to customers.”
You have suggested poor people can request brochure offered assistance or seek refuge while ignoring the fact that it too adds to the cost of energy with relatively few people able to use it.
You pretend that the offered assistance and refuge is somehow sufficient to offset or balance the high energy cost they cannot afford.
That’s like a state lottery spending millions addressing gambling addictions and claiming they are offsetting any harm their lottery does.
All the while you have avoided the most cogent point and query Ellis raised.
“WHAT ARE WE GETTING FOR THE SACRIFICE? AND WHY MUST THE POOR SACRIFICE THE MOST?”
Because its sure not affecting the damn temperature … so tell us, Roger, you have the floor—what good has or will come from the California madness that justifies cooking Grandma? It won’t cool the planet enough to even be measurable? How is an unmeasurable benefit justify harming the poor?”
Roger, if you ignore the absence of benefits while justifying the sacrifice you are indeed a “callous, cold-hearted person.”
Would you have every state adopt California’s approach?
There is no upside to artificially high energy costs. And you have not provided any justification for the needless sacrifice.

kramer says:
July 5, 2013 at 6:06 am
“From what I’ve read, global warming looks to be a tool to redistribute wealth both within and between nations.”
Of course. Fighting an imaginary problem turned out great for expansion of the state’s powers. The only thing necessary is to relentlessly keep up the propaganda campaign. Therefore the controlled media; therefore the “climate scientists”.

Well, Willis, anybody that lives in a home with AC isn’t exactly POOR in my book.
In fact, when 1 billion people are starving in this world, nobody living in California is poor in my book, and complaining about your Granny not being able to afford AC is ridiculous.
As to “what kind of heartless bastards charge you more for something when you really need it?”:
That’s called supply and demand. It’s one of the key concepts of capitalism – the system that got most of the world to rely on (cheap! – but only for the power company) coal for electricity in the first place, when everybody knows the plants’ dust is hurting people’s lungs (including your granny, and mine).

timc says:
July 5, 2013 at 9:29 am
Gamecock says:
July 5, 2013 at 8:04 am
We have back up for wind and solar running at all times. A few small plants in rotation and able to add in for peak demand would not require them to be running all the time. It is called planing.
=============================================================
It’s called “fixed cost.”