Slashdot Mirror
Is the Net The Cause of California's Power Problems?
kenf writes "Salon Magazine has an article about folks from the power companies blaming the internet for their power shortage woes." Well, the net does consume a huge percentage of the nations electricity. The article makes a lot of good points. I'm glad I don't live in CA, but how long before it
affects the rest of us?
Power consumption is a factor of many things, not just one juicy target.
First, not all the power that is generated ever gets used. The wastage through heating up the power grid is significant, in itself.
Then, the generators themselves are horribly inefficient devices. The best theoretical conversion is only 50%, but the reality is probably not even close. Often due to poor maintenance, the use of cheap materials, etc. Short-term profits vs Long-term gains.
Once you -get- the power, though, you don't expect house wiring is any better, do you? Poor wiring is painfuly common, throughout the country. You could probably map cities by the RF emissions of the nearby buildings.
Finally, components in computers, etc, generate a very low-grade electronic smog. Below the legal limits, sure, but enough to be measurable and to cause endless problems with sensitive receivers.
By the time you get to the Internet, most of the waste has already happened.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Hopefully California's deregulation debacle will help other states that are going to undergo dereg. (such as here in Ohio) how not to do it. Now, if they could only learn from their own lessons...
Hi! This is the Sig, blatantly attached to the end of this comment.
In the old days, ca 1985, if I wanted porn, I had to drive to a newstand or an adult bookstore, burning precious gasoline.
Now I can sit at home and download it, saving energy.
You can apply this to any other kind of shopping you want to, also.
Somebody needs to spend a little more time in Econ class.
Waste is bad for an economy.
Efficient use of natural resources is good for an economy.
As a practical example:
Say I conserve gas by driving half as much as before. That leaves more money in my pocket for me to either purchase more useful products, or to invest in my businesses to enable me to more effectively produce goods and services.
Now if hundreds of people do this, that's a serious increase in capital investement, which will produce unparalleled growth.
First, they're NOT operating at maximum capacity. This means that LACK of power is not the issue per se, it's economics. The wacko way in which this so-called deregulation was implimented the retail power companies are forced to deliver power below cost (e.g., fix/regulated retail prices, with higher market prices). Though this may tie back into supply and demand, in the sense that increased demand makes that power more expensive, don't confuse this with lack of power.
Second, most of the power retailers are LOSING money hand over hand because of the current situation. If anyone is a cartel it's the wholesalers--which is a much more complex situation.
Third, the reason why the government can't merely say "build more powerplants or else" (as if that is the real problem right now), is because money doesn't grow on trees. If power costs more for the companies to acquire (or produce) then they can sell it for, then companies will simply not sell. The companies are not some magical entity that can just absorb these costs. In fact, given their relatively low margins, operating at below cost will QUICKLY put them out of business (as is being demonstrated now). This means that shareholders and lenders will not supply money to the power companies. In other words, the power companies either raise their retail prices OR the government itself starts paying. If the government pays this is coming out of tax payer pockets anyways. Either way, you're back at square one.
Deregulation has SUCCESSFULLY circumvented these problems in many markets by allowing the companies to respond economically to demand. For instance, when demand starts to rise relative to supply, prices increase. This increases the incentive for the companies to build powerplants. Whereas in California's poorly deregulated market, they're not allowed to raise prices. Furthermore, they are (rightly) nervous that the government will step in shortly after they've spent billions on new powerplants.
True, but we don't normally in the US. 220 is reserved for things that use a lot of power (twice the voltage means half the amps), most low power hosehold stuff is 110 volts. If they are using 220, then it means they are using a lot of power.
The posters point is this: for what are they using that power? Enertainment. So you can solve californias power problems easially, just turn off your TV, boycott movies, don't touch amusement park rides. There are plenty of things that can be done cheaply for entertainment that don't involve electrisity.
Fishing is a lot of fun, and catch and release is the norm for most fishermen. Get a sail/row boat/canoe, a cane pole and try some old fashioned fishing with out the electronic gagets.
Your local library has shelves full of free enertainment waiting for you. You can read by the light of a 5 watt bulb (I've done it), and even if everyone did the same the energy use wouldn't amount to anything.
Set up a community dance with old fashioned acustic insterments live. Sure it won't be as loud, but it will be just as much fun. There is a good chance that your community has musicians with more talent then the loud music that most people listen to today. Plenty of socalizing, when your not breathless from dancing. You might accually get to know someone too if once conversation quits drifting to the latest movie/soap opera. (get a life people, what happens on your TV show isn't the most interesting conversation topic, just the easiest)
There are countless other activities you can get into that don't need electrisity, and many of them are fun. I've listed three, trying to cover a broad enough range that nobody will like them all. (Even when your not the only one in the boat fishing is a silent activity, while reading is best a solitary activity, and you can't have a dance as I've suggested alone - but you can do whichever fits your personality)
Here is a rebuttal to this story from the Lawrence Berkeley Labs. They contend that nationally, computers use less than 2% of the power.
The power shortage in California is a fraud. There is only one entity to blame, the power companies, who wrote the deregulation bill and have been milking consumers and taxpayers since (and before, I might add).
The power shortage is artificially induced. California has not built any power plants in 10 years. The average age of a power plant in CA is 30 years. There is supposed to be built into the rates a surcharge (and this is older than deregulation) which provides these companies with cash to upgrade and invest in new power plants. This money, however, has gone straight to the pocketbook instead of being used for reinvestment. PG&E is now the largest own of power plants in Massachusetts. In 1995, PG&E bought out an independent power producer and proceeded to shut down 5 power plants.
The average number of power plants down at any one time in California has been historically around 10-12%, even in times of crisis like earthquakes and heavy storms. There have been times recently when this percentage has gone as high as 40%. Can anyone say price-fixing? Of course, the politicians have mentioned it a few times, but since they get heavy contributions from the power companies, they are reluctant to follow through on anything. We are told that these plants are down for "routine mainenance." Again, this is something which used to be fairly short-term, sometimes for just a few hours. Now, all these plants are going down for weeks and months. They conveniently come back on-line when the price of electricity has gone up.
Has anyone looked at PG&E or Edison's profits? They have been skyrocketing since deregulation... and, again, this should come as no surprise since they wrote the bills. First off, they made incredible profits by selling OLD power plants at a premium. It should be kept in mind, however, that they didn't sell off all their power plants. These companies made more profits in the first HALF of 2000 than they did in all of 1999. On top of this, they have raked in billions of dollars from deregulation, from tax-payer subsidies for "stranded assets" and sur-charges (on top of their subsidized decrease in rates).
So how are they in crisis? Well, if they were individuals, it would be called schizophrenia. Essentially, they are treating themselves as two individuals, one which takes on all the debt and one which takes in all the profits. If I tried that, I'd land in jail or a psycho ward in no time. They have one unit (retail) which is buys the power (in part from themselves) and then sells it to the consumer. This portion is not making a profit. But these same companies also have another unit which takes in the profits from selling themselves electricity, from the various billion dollar handouts the state of CA has given it, and by acting and brokers for the electricity, driving up the price, their stock, and their profits. There was an article in some papers yesterday about the Federal regulators approving of this scheme, PG&E being allowed to split itself in two to shelter its profits in one half, while taking billions of dollars in "bail-out" money from the state for the other half.
This is the way these companies work. They cook up a scheme to milk us and get their friends the politicians and journalists to help justify it and push it through. And of course, we don't believe them, even, but what are we going to do about it, we aren't organized? A poll printed in the L.A.Times last week revealed that something like 60-65% of us think this whole thing is concocted. They count on us not being able to do anything.
There is one reason, and one reason alone for the power shortages: lack of power. We knew that we needed to build more power plants years ago, but the government totally screwed it up.
And now they blame deregulation! It's just incredible gall, when the problem began way before deregulation.
And no, conservation is not the answer. Not in the past, not now, and never will be. The pie is not limited, and doesn't have to be. More technology is the answer to the problems of technology. We are not going to return to the caves, so I hope people will just deal with the fact that most people like civilization.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
In one way or another. You or your company most likely buys a product from a company in Silicon valley...and if the price of electricity is going up and the outages are costing the companies..the price will slowly be passed on to you or your company as the consumer.
To me, it seems simple: people want to buy power off the companies. Companies want to sell power to make money. Why the heck can't they sort it out properly?
;-)
Anyway, a typical desktop uses, say 350 watts, which is 252 kwh/month.
An A/C, or heater (and let's face it, Californians are going to have those on 24/7/365, too) is going to use 4 kw, which is 2880kwh/month.
Hmm. Why not blame those lazy Californians for wanting a perfect 70 degrees year round, rather than blaming them for wanting deathmatch, year round
Man, I have never heard such a load of concocted bullshit in all my life. 'The Tech Industry' is responsible for overloading 19th Century era electic lines, as stated in the article.
HELLO? MCFLY? HELLO?!
What the hell were all the SoCal electric companies doing when the rest of the world was busy upgrading their infrastructure over the last 10 years to cope with the technology boom? Here, in Pissant Amarillo, TX, *all* the utilities have slowly been upgrading their infrastructure. Both SWB and Cox Cable have been putting in fibre lines. SPS Electric has been slowly upgrading their capacity, both in terms of generators, lines and high-tension poles.
At *some* point, deregulation or no, the SoCal power companies made the decision that upgrading infrastructure would not look good on the bottom line. Rather than use half a coked-up brain cell to figure out that the industry was growing fast and they needed to keep up with it to stay profitable in the future, some power executive chose profit *now* rather than survival *later*.
This is so damn typical...
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Having just moved away from California (and thank gawd!), I was able to see a lot of local news shows and newspapers about the power crisis. There's a lot of fingerpointing going on, except all in the wrong direction.
The public is unwilling to realize that they are the problem. I saw a city of San Diego official come on TV last summer and tell her constituents only to "pay what is fair". I don't think I have ever seen such an irresponsible act from any public official ever (in my short and naive 26 years). What does she think? Is the electricity fairy going to come down from heaven and make everything right?
I happened to catch a bit on CNBC (financial television channel) yesterday about the stage three emergency delclared by either the state or Southern California Edison (power company). The reporter said that the emergency was declared for financial reasons and not because there is an actual shortage of supply. SoCalEd also is putting off making an interest payment on a bond they have outstanding (read: that doesn't happen unless the company is in trouble).
Californians think they can just have the power companies bail them out until the current crisis is over. Well, it will never be over, because the power companies can not make any money, because the citizens won't let them make any money. So, thus, SoCalEd cannot afford to increase production, build power plants, etc.
Not only that, no one wants to get into the market there, because they cannot make any money. So then there's not competition.
And now they're all screaming that the power companies are taking advantage of the "high fuel prices" to make a quick buck off of the public.
All I can say to California. You reap what you sow...
SDG&E (distributor) is owned by Sempra Energy(Producer). Sempra Energy sells wholesale power to SDG&E. While SDG&E whines about losing money, Sempra dramatically increases it's profits. As I see it Sempra is raping its subsidary company until SDG&E is allowed to increase prices, at which time Sempra will make even more money.
Funny how back in july when my power bill(for 525KwH) was over $150 they were reporting 34% growth. Now that retail prices have been capped, Sempra is still projecting higher earnings.
Add to all this, last week when CA had a state stage 3 emergency(power reserves drop below 2% of availble power) 1 THIRD of California's production capacity was off line for "routine maintenance or other factors."
It's not about low production, it's about greed.
--Alex
Banned from moderation 01-27-2002. Fuck you too
Here is a critique of California's "deregulation" of the power industry.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
Hey, Easterner, the entire West Coast is on power saving cutbacks - Washington, Oregon, California. That's 25 percent of the population of this country and more than half of the high tech areas. That's half of the broadband service customers.
...
That's like George Bush saying the West supports him, when he lost in all three Western states. Nobody lives in the rest of that area you call the West - I know, I grew up back east in the Rockies.
That aside, the problem is not so much deregulation as a combination of rate wheeling (the stupidist idea since unsliced bread) and forced divestiture of power plants from power companies. This was a train wreck waiting to happen, paid for by idiots who've never had to switch a high voltage circuit in their lives. I used to be a Power Engineer, and did my best to keep Washington State from going down the drain with those turkeys, and just barely managed to pull it off. But now we get to provide power for those Californians in the middle of our low power generation capacity period, when it gets a bit cold up here and we can't run the dams flat out.
If it weren't for the fact that Washington and Oregon have put online many megajoules in wind energy over the last couple of years, California would be freezing in the dark right now. That plus the natural gas turbines we bought in anticipation of shortages
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
information wants to be expensive...nothing is so valuable as the right information at the right time.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Okay, about six years ago the Clinton administration came up with this irie Energy Star rating that is given to products with low-power mode capabilities. It seems that computers everywhere, especially in California, would switch their monitors (which consume 200 - 500 watts) into low power mode after a reasonable period of idleness. Take a few hundred watts per household, plus many thousands of watts per office, and there's a large amount of power wasted on keeping picture tubes warm.
However, the makers of the most popular consumer operating system in the world (and that's not an endorsement) do not have the low-power mode enabled by default; therefore, only true nerds and relatives/friends/s.o.'s of said nerds have their low-power monitor setting enabled!
Think about it--no one (but nerds, etc...) explores MS's non-default options. Look at the proliferation of j03 5cr1p7 k17713 who takes advantage of the enabled-by-default Windows Scripting Host and wreaks havoc across the internet.
The Energy Star thing is an example of a great idea that suffered from poor implementation. I see that the solution is to integrate the setting into the monitor and leave it on by default.
I'd rather be a unix freak than a freaky eunuch
Ewige Blumenkraft!
What's the average power consumption of a computer on a network? Assuming that it's always on and that it is configured to use its power saving features one can probably assume that it consumes on average about 166W (back of the envelope calculation for 8 hours of usage per day - 500W * 8/24 = 166W). That's well below 1000W. I don't claim that these figures are anything more than guestimates but I think my figures are less than conservative.
What's the power consumption of a 48 port cisco network switch? I have some cisco 3548 XL switches that consume about 150W (AFAIR) so that means we add 3W per workstation to the power cost.
If we assume that the per workstation power consumption cost decreases the further we get from the workstation, on the network, then we can probably more safely arrive at an average networked power consumption of 350 to 400 Watts.
These guys Mills and Huber (Hubris?) are suits. Their only agenda is finding a scapegoat so that the politicians will agree to build more power plants. Either that or they're just lackwits.
:wq
That's pretty funny, given that Dubya has jumped on the numbers given to help justify suggesting more drilling and mining in supposedly protected areas.
In any case, it wouldn't take a huge percentage increase over forecasts to cause problems, especially during peak use periods.
The Electricity Blame Game
The Deregulation of the Electricity Industry: A Primer
Congress and Electricity
The last article, written in 1998, suggested that as Congress look at electricity de-regulation, that it NOT follow the Californian model, for these reasons:
The short answer is that politicians rather than market forces designed the restructured California electricity system. Politicians, while paying lip service to deregulation and the magic of the market, could not bring themselves to simply let go of the industry. Reflecting the fear of both consumer activists and electric utilities that real markets would prove disastrous, the California legislature placed constraints on the restructured industry whose net effect was to stifle the very forces necessary to drive down California's utility rates. Consumer choice thus became a meaningless exercise.
I have 5 computers at home, and I used to turn off all but the server and the ip_masq firewall when I wasn't using them. But now I'm in competition with friends to have the most seti@home units completed (2761 so far) so I leave them all on.
Oh well, at least I turn off the monitors.
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
If the general idea of deregulation is to lower costs to consumers, why deregulate when it doesn't seem to have the desired effect? What was wrong with the regulated market that we have had for so long. It seemed to provide the power at a pretty good price to consumers. Why change?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer