Because the summer has, so far, been cooler than average and because consumers have been conserving as asked, the state now has too much power. (12% less power was used this past June than in June of 2000. July temperatures have, been between 8 to 12 degrees below normal) Power that was purchased for $138 per megawatt is being sold off for as little as $1.00 per megawatt.
Someone explain to me again how we got into this fucking mess.
It must be intensely frustrating to be a large power company, to announce that you’re low on electricity, to get the Federal Gubmint all cranked up on your behalf, to get everybody’s attention focussed on YOU YOU YOU–and then to have the whole dang crisis fizzle like a Wal-Mart helium balloon with a pinhole.
I feel SOOOOOO sorry for them.
:rolleyes:
Er, well, increasing population, increasing power usage, no construction of new power plants, need to buy power from out of state, inability to pay market rates for power purchases due to constraints on how much the utilities can charge consumers. Something like that; I may be forgetting one or two things.
Don’t tell any of your fellow residents that there’s too much electricity. As soon as they go back to their former levels of consumption, the same problems are likely to reappear.
Bonus request: somebody 'splain to me again why so many of those car-driving, natural gas-using Californians are against drilling in the offshore waters of their state…
Are you familiar with the NIMBY phenomonon? They don’t give a rat’s ass where their fuel comes from as long as they don’t have to personally see the pollution that results from its production.
And has anyone heard about California’s plan to require that a certain percentage of cars sold there be electric? Are they still planning to go ahead with it?
Wait a minute, wait a minute… I thought that, by lowering the cost of electricity and making power readily available, we were getting out of the mess?
Make up your mind already: Is the problem “not enough power” or “too much power”?
According to an extensive article on this subject in the August Car & Driver, CARB is adamant that starting in 2003, 10% of all vehicles sold new in California must be zero emissions. Some credits are allowed for so-called ultra-low emissions vehicles.
Presently it appears that only GM has a saleable offering, in the EV1, and even that vehicle costs far more to make than the market is likely to accept. Development costs have been in the $1.5 billion range, with only about a thousand produced, so far. We must assume that GM will not be charging $1.5 million a pop when this vehicle goes on sale to the general public. Nice car, as long as you are only carrying one other passenger, and don’t mind stopping for six hours of recharging every hundred miles or so.
Then of course there’s the idea that during a time of increasing power shortages, CARB is mandating adding thousands of vehicles that will require regular plugging in to the electricity grid. Seems one hand doesn’t know what the other is doing.
Or, one hand doesn’t give a shit what the other is doing. Same effect, different source.
I guess we’ll have to mandate that someone has to buy one of these things.
I would expect that the CARB board members will be first in line to buy when they become available. Let’s just wait and see 
Uhm, SPOOFE, the point is that the state, with tax dollars, bought power when it was expensive, and now we are selling power for less than a penny on the dollar. We paid $138 per megawatt. Some people say we’re now selling it to other states for as little as $1 per mw. Understand now? (To be fair, Sacramento says they’re getting as much as $25 per mw. Yippie. It means we’re losing “only” $113 per sale instead of $137. I feel so much better.) It’s poor planning; it’s the result of running around like Chicken Little.
As for the electric car, this story from New Times L. A. says the Detroit automakers are deliberately dragging their heels about bringing electric cars to the market. They say people don’t want them, so they don’t advertise them, not even GM’s EV1. However, how are people going to want something they don’t know exists?
“We won’t advertise till there’s a demand.”
“But there’s no demand because you don’t advertise.”
That’s some catch, that Catch-22.
Most people would re-charge their electric cars at night when the demand for power is at its lowest. Also, GM has never said the EV1 was for more than the daily commute to and from work. It’s ideal for people who want a second car just for commuting. Surely 10% of Californians would fall into that category.
Doesn’t Honda or Nissan make a hybrid car that has both an electric motor and a gasoline-fueled engine? You use the g-f engine to acclerate and the e-motor to maintain your speed. And the batteries are re-charged (wholly or partly, depending on the length of the trip) while you drive.
And does anyone really think the oil industry is going to sit by and watch their market shrink?
Nobody’s buying the Honda Hybrid.
Do bicycles count as emission-free? Hey, anybody remember pedicars?
My husband and I are honestly thinking of buying a hybrid car (Toyota one?) next time we buy a commuter car.
Of course, by that time, our other “car” will be an SUV or a pick-up so I’m sure we’ll probably be negating any good we’ll have done.
Jab…
Yes, thank you for the clarification. Given the title of the thread, I assumed it was about an over-abundance of electricity (which would be silly) rather than about Californians getting screwed with the costs.
I wonder how Gray Davis will explain this one…
El_Kabong…
Well, Ford has a line of Environmental Vehicles, even if it’s not heavily advertised. I’m wondering… are the Fuel Cell cars considered “zero-emissions”? I was under the impression that they (or, at least, most) only made water vapor as a by-product of combustion.
Funny, I’ve seen a number of the things around Grass Valley.
If I wasn’t a soon-to-be college freshman with no money or driver’s license, I’d probably buy one.
Now there’s an unbiased article for you. I love this quote:
I love the implication that the car is somehow cheap and that the evil automakers (or is it the oil-industry? I get so confused) don’t want to sell them. Unfotunately, the facts are somewhat different.
First, you can’t buy an EV1, you have to lease it. The monthly lease runs from $399 to $550 according to this site, depending on local government subsidies.
Note the use of the term subsidy. The EV1’s price is kept artificially low (price caps?) by the government. I have no real problem with this, but it does change the argument a little. Plus, GM will throw in the home recharging station. Nice bonus.
Even with the subsidy, that lease is way more expensive than a comparable compact car. Current lease rates for a Honda Civic coupe are around $170 a month. Heck you can get an Accord for $239/month. At $399/month the EV1 is simply not competitive price wise, even with the subsidies. Plus, Hondas (most if not all) qualify as Ultra Low Emissions vehicles. I would not be surprised if, overall, the Honda had lower emissions than the EV1. Even worse, the EV1 is tiny even compared to the dimunitive Civic. It’s not looking so good for the EV1, is it?
Second, the EV1 is hardly zero emissions. Right now a signiifcant portion of California’s energy comes from coal (particulates, CO, CO2, NOx) and natural gas (CO2, some NOx). So the EV1 is not zero emissions, it just moves the emissions somewhere else.
So I think that the market for EV1s and similar vehicles is probably small, even with subsidies. Why would GM not want to sell as many EV1s as they could, to recoup their investment? Hell, if so many people want them, they should be able to make money off them right? What corporation wouldn’t want to make money?
If people want to buy electric cars, more power to 'em. If people want government wants to offer subisidies, tax credits, rebates, whatever to increase demand, no problem. I am unconvinced, however, that there is some grand cabal of car makers, oil companies, Dick Cheney, and who knows who else, conspiring to keep electric vehicles out of the hands of Americans.
Oh and one other thing.
I was under the impression that cars were sold by car companies, not oil companies. I could be mistaken however.
gEEk
And here’s something to consider: electric and hybrid vehicles are still highly expensive. IIRC, Honda is selling the Insight below cost in hopes of creating a market for such vehicles whole they try to make them cheaper to produce. If companies were required to sell 10% electric cars, the prices on the other 90% would have to go up significantly in order to cover the losses.
However, I heard that someone is planning to market one of those comically small, ultra-efficient European cars in the US soon. Some of those can get better mileage than the Insight without the need for complicated hybrid powertrains.
You’re kidding right? You really don’t realize that the oil companies make most of their profits selling gasoline? You really don’t realize that if EVs get popular, the oil companies will sell less gas?
Sheesh!
Just to clarify a few of the previous statements:
In one of my previous posts I said that CARB has mandated that 10% of all vehicles be zero-emissions types. Actually, I meant cars; currently pickups, vans and SUV’s are not included, but they will be counted as “cars” by 2007. The constraint also applies only to manufacturers who sell at least 60,000 cars annually in the state (up from 35K).
Jab1 asked:
Both Honda and Toyota offer hybrids, and I believe GM will soon introduce one as well. Unfortunately, CARB refuses to consider more than token credit for hybrid vehicles as part of the mandate. Zero emissions or nothing, sez they.
You’re kidding, right? Given the clearly adversarial position of CARB to both the oil and automobile industries, please explain how, in your view, the oil companies could in any way influence CARB to withdraw these mandates?
In any event, the market will speak for itself. If this supposed groundswell of public clamor for low-performance, ludicrously expensive electric vehicles really exists, it will reveal itself in the next couple of years, eh?
That’s true for the ones that run on pure hydrogen, but I’ve heard of some prototypes that use a catalyst to break down ethanol into hydrogen and carbon dioxide.