Slashdot Mirror


Thousands of Gas Leaks Discovered Under Streets of Washington DC

First time accepted submitter gallifreyan99 writes "Researchers from Duke revealed today that they had discovered nearly 5,900 gas leaks under the streets of Washington DC, including 12 that posed a serious risk of explosion. And it's not just Washington: a gas industry whistleblower who is part of the team showed this was happening in cities all over America."

292 comments

  1. great! now maybe they can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    take care of the massive rat problem at 1st & Capitol NE?

    1. Re:great! now maybe they can by oneiros27 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not to worry, there are forces at hand already working on the rodent problem there.

      --
      Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
    2. Re:great! now maybe they can by rmdingler · · Score: 2
      Tod and Templeton battle an evil privatized energy infrastructure conglomerate.

      Yep, It has Pixar written all over it.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    3. Re:great! now maybe they can by Austrian+Anarchy · · Score: 2

      When sovereign immunity is given to any people the result is predictable.

      --
      Time Bomber the Book coming soon.
    4. Re: great! now maybe they can by OECD · · Score: 1

      They could gas the rats...

      --
      One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
    5. Re:great! now maybe they can by ctrimm · · Score: 1

      From you're comment, I'm not sure if you have rat problem that is massive, or if you have a problem with massive rats. Or perhaps both...

    6. Re:great! now maybe they can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > take care of the massive rat problem at 1st & Capitol NE?

      What part of "And it's not just Washington: a gas industry whistleblower who is part of the team showed this was happening in cities all over America." did you not comprehend?

      Better make sure your own area isn't affected before lobbing rocks at the rats...err, I mean politicians....

    7. Re:great! now maybe they can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      From you're comment, I'm not sure if you have rat problem that is massive, or if you have a problem with massive rats. Or perhaps both...

      Rodents of unusual size? I don't think they exist...

    8. Re:great! now maybe they can by jbgroup1 · · Score: 1

      ...at 1st & Capitol NE?

      There is no such intersection.

    9. Re:great! now maybe they can by C10H14N2 · · Score: 1

      At the post office?

    10. Re:great! now maybe they can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah that will just drive them westwards to 17th & K NW which is already at epidemic levels...

    11. Re:great! now maybe they can by suutar · · Score: 1

      In the fire swamp, no less.

    12. Re:great! now maybe they can by fast+turtle · · Score: 1

      Lucky Me, we had the Gas Co. (tm) come around a couple of years ago asking how many in my small neighborhood wanted natural gas run. Not a bad deal at $70,000 per home and you know what? We told them to go to hell - 98 percent of us home owners told em that. Of course the 30 percent yes response was from renters who don't get any say as they dont own the property. For those wanting/needing gas, propane is readily available and it's no more expensive then what the Gas Co. (tm) wanted plus you don't have the streets tore up while the run the lines.

      --
      Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
    13. Re:great! now maybe they can by TripleE78 · · Score: 1

      The 50 states will just send in 635 more rates to fill their place.

    14. Re:great! now maybe they can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Rodents of unusual size? I don't think they exist...

      Clearly someone who has not walked around Foggy Bottom after dark....
      all we lack is a fire swamp, to be honest.

    15. Re:great! now maybe they can by nobodie · · Score: 1

      DC is a massive coven of rats. They run the entire city from dusk till dawn. I used to watch them from my townhouse waddle across streets, alleys, in my back yard, up the walls of the house, in the windows......

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
  2. So.. by Captain+Coolwater · · Score: 0

    You thought you weren't going to die? Ha!

  3. Private enterprise to the rescue by captbob2002 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Good to know that private enterprise is taking such good care of their infrastructure - so much better than anything the government might operate *snort*.

    I am sure they will ask for a rate increase to perform the maintenance that they should have been doing all along - can't take that kind of money from the shareholders (owners.)

    Keep the profits private and the losses public - that's the ticket.

    1. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by blue+trane · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Utilities should be public, and not operated for profit. Since they're in the public good, money can be created (by the Fed, say, which then gives it to the government at no interest and keeps the loan rolling over forever, or forgives it) to make infrastructure safe. The free market has failed to provide secure infrastructure, because the free market does not care about the General Welfare; but the government is mandated to by the Constitution.

    2. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except that the government is, in many ways, controlled by corporations. And if the government really cared about the constitution, we wouldn't have the TSA, the NSA spying, stop-and-frisk, free speech zones, or suspicion-less border searches.

      Both the government and corporations are just trash.

    3. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by plover · · Score: 4, Funny

      Utilities should be public, and not operated for profit.

      But ... free markets! Capitalism! Invisible hands! Civil liberties! Competition!

      You socialists think that just because corporate greed has always won every decision in every board room ever, that means that every future corporation will be equally corrupt. We'll be the first to tell you that "past performance is no guarantee of future success." It could certainly happen that a private, for-profit utility would put the public good ahead of their profits.

      Well, it could happen.

      --
      John
    4. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by dcw3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is not an example of free enterprise by any stretch of the imagination. Public utilities are tightly controlled, with virtually no competition.

      So, while we can debate the virtues, or lack thereof, of public vs. private efforts, utilities fall into the grey area in between.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    5. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by JWW · · Score: 2

      Maybe they wouldn't directly put the public good ahead of profits, but they might put limiting their liability ahead of their profits.

      Having a large accident would be a large liability for an energy company, and they would naturally take steps to avoid it.

      While companies exist to make money the idea that only the government really cares about the people is a little too simplistic. Especially when you start talking into account how government entities like the NSA "care" about the people.

    6. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by jbmartin6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Monopolies are bad. Government makes a monopoly. Results are bad. Are you surprised? I am surprised at your apparent attitude, given the track record of government-managed systems. You think that would be better?

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    7. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could certainly happen that a private, for-profit utility would put the public good ahead of their profits.

      Happens all the time in the Maker movement. People are starting businesses left and right that profit from creating infrastructure that does nothing but help other geeks to be successful. As a result, often the profit is modest, but it is there. Publicly traded companies on the other hand never could, because the people funding it (buying shares) are only doing so for the sole purpose of getting the maximum profit they can in return. In this setup, if the management were to sacrifice profits for the greater good, it creates an incentive for people to cash out and buy a stock with a higher profit.

      Corporations aren't inherently evil, wall street is.

    8. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Creating money = tax on existing money = unpopular with people who have lots of money.

    9. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by N1AK · · Score: 1

      Utilities should be public, and not operated for profit. Since they're in the public good

      It's a pretty simplistic position. Why should gas infrastructure be public when surely it isn't as critical, or at least no more so, than food, water, medicine, logistics, drilling for oil?

      The argument that giving something to the government magically makes it safe is nonsense. Give something to a government department with the wrong targets and insufficient funding and you'll end up with a mess regardless of their motive.

    10. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you actually think it would be different if government ran the utility in DC?

      Yes, it would; there would never be mention of it in any news.

      If you're going to keep towing the big government mentality, dont bitch about the back pains in the future!

    11. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 0

      What a stupid comment blue trane. If you want to see how good nationalised industries are at managing infrastructure, just look at the UK in the 1970's. What this article doesn't tell you is that no gas network will always be 100% leak free. It's the same with water. What corporations do (that government utilities don't) is try to find the optimal point between economic benefit and infrastructure quality. They'll also innovate their way out of problems if there's a strong economic case for doing so. The only time this doesn't happen is when they become effective monopolies, which is what you're implying they should become with government control.

    12. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, public utilities are a real big free market.
       
      When can you people stop being asshats and discuss the issue at hand instead of the same old shit turned over to smell anew with each article addressing the matter?

    13. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What part about "bourgeois" did you forget?

    14. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excuse me blue trane...

      Gas leaks are not new or unexpected. Fixing the problem areas is part of normal upkeep. People who write these articles are fairly ignorant what they write about. They just want to produce a sensational article. 99.99% of these are so small, it takes special equipment to detect them.

    15. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Come to Pennsylvania and tell me how great government run programs are when you look at our roadways. Government isn't an automagic solution. There is just as much greed and corpution in the government as there is anywhere else.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    16. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh the magic hand will take care of it. It will sweep the corpses away like it does in the auto industry.

    17. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Gothmolly · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except that they aren't private, they're granted a monopoly and enjoy quasi-governmental rights. This is what happens when you have the worst of both worlds.

      --
      I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    18. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Problem is there will be a profit for somebody. Contractors regularly gouge the government primary as payback for jumping over the huge hurdles that replace responsible management. Even if it's all in house suppliers do about the same. I do not really blame them government jobs can take forever to actually get paid, sue you on general principle, and gouge you for political donations and rubber chicken dinners.

      Now I would love to see the local governments take over fiber to the home etc with open access policies. That could spawn another cycle of information revolution in the country. Instead were worrying about how to insure media companies continue to increase profit margins.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    19. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for the article which completely refutes that point, oh and the coal waste leak into the water, of and EVERY freaking corporate disaster in history. Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of things government bungles or makes more difficult than it needs to be but I trust the Army Corp of Engineers to manage things far better than private industry. Heck I trust healthcare.gov to give me better medical protections than private industry. I'm still waiting for my privately owned major healthcare company to fix their website.

    20. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by overshoot · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Having a large accident would be a large liability for an energy company, and they would naturally take steps to avoid it.

      That's not how regulated utilities work [1]. Their rates are set to guarantee a defined return on investment. To avoid having them "invest" in gold-plated executive toilets at Corporate Headquarters, the utility commission gets to decide what the company can invest in. If they approve an upgrade to the pipes, the Corporation gets to charge the customers for the cost plus ROI. If the Commission denies the request (to keep rates down) the liability is a business expense and the Corporation gets to charge the customers and add ROI to that, too.

      Private or public, utility infrastructure is a political decision.

      [1] City gas is a so-called "natural monopoly." Think about what an unregulated one would be like.

      --
      Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    21. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by ibwolf · · Score: 2

      Why should gas infrastructure be public when surely it isn't as critical, or at least no more so, than food, water, medicine, logistics, drilling for oil?

      If a grocery store isn't doing a good job it will likely go out of business. Setting up a new grocery store is fairly simple and doesn't require much capital.

      Now compare that to setting up a competing gas infrastructure.

      It's not about "being in the public good" per se. But being of an inherently monopolistic nature. Private gas infrastructure makes about as much sense as private road infrastructure.

    22. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Monopolies are bad. Government makes a monopoly. Results are bad. Are you surprised? I am surprised at your apparent attitude, given the track record of government-managed systems. You think that would be better?

      Yes. I trust the government more than a corporation. At least a government I can theoretically remove. A corporate monopoly I didn't want, and I'm stuck with it forever.

    23. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Translation: "Corporations cannot be controlled, and it's just too hard to control government, so we should just do nothing."

    24. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, the free marketeer idiocy abounds.

      Public utility does not equal "nationalised." In fact, in the U.S., I can think of no public utility off the top of my head that is operated even at the state agency level. In most cases, public utilities are either arms of local government (with authority delegated by the state to the appropriate local sub-department), or as tightly regulated, semi-independent corporations.

      The reason public utilities have been regulated this way is that public welfare (including individual safety, affordability, etc.) is seen as on balance being more important than having "a strong economic case," which generally means only implementing ex post facto improvements after whatever disaster has been caused by "efficiency" improvements.

      Given your spelling, I suspect you are from Europe, which one would think wold make you familiar with the precautionary principle. Here in the U.S., we don't tend to think about such things, which has led to the progressive deregulation of public utilities, leading to sky-high rates, and great outcomes such as rolling blackouts in the middle of dangerously hot weather.

    25. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by amck · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Monopolies are bad. Government makes a monopoly. Results are bad. Are you surprised? I am surprised at your apparent attitude, given the track record of government-managed systems. You think that would be better?

      Not necessarily. For example the method used in Former Yugoslavia: the bread business was nationalised to ensure cheap bread for the populace. Two government bread companies were set up (IIRC). They were made to compete with each other, but with within strict rules, so that profit-taking for the benefit of staff salaries was out, but they could find efficiencies and compete. Also, it was legal for private companies to set up and sell other types of bread, but obviously couldn't control the market.

      Similarly, Ireland had a nationalized shipping company to ensure shipping happened in Ireland ; during WWII no-one else would ship to Ireland because of the danger, and after the war they needed stable prices. Other companies could compete, but this meant there was a ceiling on prices and there was always someone capable of shipping.

      Secondly having spent half my life in the public and half in the private sector, the private-sector is just as bad, it just doesn't have public investigations into waste.

      --
      Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist
    26. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I think the problem American politics has with regulating is a false dichotomy. Voters here are confused and scared by the economy. Believing that there is good side and an evil side, with free market freedom jesus on one side and the DMV devil on the other side is a lot more comforting than various shades of grey wrapped up in numbers and statistics. So we get overzealous with letting companies do what they want, with faith that it will somehow work out for the best.

      It's stupid, but lets not move from that into another oversimplification: either way can go horribly wrong. And regulation gone wrong combined with corporate greed can sometimes worse than either individually. So lets not make statements implying that a public utility would be inherently better than a private corporation, lets focus on data. Are there any public utilities in DC which have a better safety record? If so, then maybe try making the gas lines a regulated public utility.

    27. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Petron · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Like Chernobyl? Run by the government for the public good... then it exploded in 1986. Then it was brought back online and ran until the end 2000 because the public good needed cheap power.

      The problem is the lack of free markets. In most cities you don't have the option of 5 different gas companies. You get one. That is because the city leaders in their infinite wisdom on what is good for the people decided that ABC Company will handle all the hardware and maintenance.

      I worked at an ISP as a Tech support manager years back, and our DSL lines had to use the local TelCom's lines. We had to pay a rental fee for those lines (to pay for maintenance) and at the end of the day, we made very little on DSL. You see they had the government contract. All phone lines in the area were controlled by them. Any other TelCom had to use their lines (with the rental fee). They had a monopoly, where the competition had to buy from them. And the TelCom had crappy lines and had no interest in fixing them. One section of town was wired with 'Paper lines'... copper wire wrapped in wax paper. These lines were meant to be used as a temporary fix while real line can be ordered and laid... but they used it as normal line. When ever it rained we had calls in and you can year popping on the line. If you can hear noise... think on what the computer picks up. The only resort they had was call the TelCom to fix it... and a few days later, when things dried out... "Everything is fine'. We got sick of it and we started to put up wireless routers all over town. We offered wireless internet, and started to move all our DSL customers to wireless... only then did the TelCom started to replace those paper lines with real lines. Funny how competition forces improvements heh?

      With the utilities we don't have a free market. We have a strongly regulated, heavily controlled, government backed monopoly... and then we blame the free market when it becomes corrupt. I have one choice for a gas company. I have one choice for an electric company. I have one choice for a TelCom. That is not the Free Market.

      --
      if (it != oneThing) it = another;
    28. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, if we let government run the utilities we would all still be shoveling our coal deliveries and grousing about how the government needs to do something about the smog. The government regulates the utilities, that voids the idea that the utilities are free market right there.

    29. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Ksevio · · Score: 2

      I am sure they will ask for a rate increase to perform the maintenance that they should have been doing all along

      They do one better - they charge the customers now for the line-loss as a percentage of what they use. They actually have incentive to have leaky pipes because it means they're selling more gas to the same number of customers.

    30. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Army Corp of Engineers

      Is this the same army that can not even tell you how many boots it owns (something every one of its employees should have)? Used and new. Their inventory system is a disaster. Wonder why they keep asking for more money? They do not even know what they have. It is run by zillions of little fiefdoms. Yet somehow magically they will get this infrastructure correct?

      Let me put this in terms a slashdot code grunt can understand.

      You have company A who makes software. There is a team working on it. The code is a bit knarly. But they know it and know what to leave alone and what to fix.

      Here is the 'slashdot fix' for government stuff applied here.

      Disband company A. Fire all the guys who work on it and make them work on something else. Then give all of the code to company B because they have a product that works all the time. This old nasty code will somehow magically become better right?

      http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/chap02p1.html
      http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/chap03p1.html
      http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/chap04p1.html

    31. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Translation: Nonsensical straw man.

      Stating reality != stating that we should do nothing.

    32. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by operagost · · Score: 1

      I'm not quite sure what your point is. Do you believe that a government-enforced monopoly is somehow capitalist? These utilities are as heavily regulated as one that was owned by the government. Why do you believe that a government that is too corrupt to properly regulate a monopoly will suddenly become competent and reliable once it is in charge of all operations?

      The compete lack of logic here astounds me.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    33. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by operagost · · Score: 0

      Yet the people who called a state-sponsored monopoly "capitalist" are modded up, and your comment remains at 1.

      Slashdot is over.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    34. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by operagost · · Score: 2

      Again, in what universe would a government-enforced monopoly be called "capitalism"?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    35. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1
      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    36. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by necro81 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Having a large accident would be a large liability for an energy company, and they would naturally take steps to avoid it

      If you had bothered to RTFA, you would have noted that dangerous leaks are usually addressed immediately; just as you say, it's a liability thing.

      But the thousands of smaller leaks (ones that don't affect buildings or subterranean infrastructure, for instance, just leaking gas into the ground), because they don't pose an immediate safety risk, are largely ignored and never fixed. From a climate change standpoint (hell, even from a horticultural standpoint - gas kills plants), these are costs that don't show up as liabilities to the company. In other words, another example of an externality that the magical hand of capitalism has failed to account for. If the gas company were charged a premium rate for lost gas (i.e., the difference between what they take delivery of and the sum of all they deliver to customers) to account for those methane emissions, or were charged $5,000 to replace a tree killed by a gas leak, then they might take it more seriously. So why don't we?

    37. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

      Come now, they don't use the magic hand. They've got automated machinery for that, AND the depreciation on it is a deductible business expense. . .

    38. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Bigby · · Score: 1

      Secondly having spent half my life in the public and half in the private sector, the private-sector is just as bad, it just doesn't have public investigations into waste.

      It just has private investigations into waste.

    39. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      I am surprised at your apparent attitude, given the track record of government-managed systems.

      The track record of government-managed systems is actually pretty good overall. To name a few:
      - US Postal Service, which is still delivering stuff everywhere in the country at a ridiculously low cost using a system that is the envy of other country's postal systems. Seriously. It's good enough that to cover a lot of the country FedEx and UPS simply contract the delivery to the USPS. It's good even with a bunch of people in Congress trying to kill it by forcing them to fund the retirements of future postal workers who will be born 5 years from now (something no private company has ever done or ever had to do).
      - Municipal water supplies. They have their problems, but the vast majority of the time Americans have safe and clear tap water without even thinking about it, and you can thank your local water works for that.
      - The Veteran's Administration, the most cost-effective health care system in the United States. (Runners-up: Medicare, Medicaid)
      - Social Security spends approximately 0.05% of its budget on administration and overhead. You may disagree with the existence of Social Security as a matter of policy, but the implementation has been stellar.
      - OSHA has dramatically reduced the number of workers killed or maimed at work.
      - Government-run schools have made basic literacy near-universal (the "near" part is mostly older African-Americans who were denied proper schooling in their youth, and people with severe mental problems).
      - You use a government-run road system probably every day of your life. You've come to rely on them without thinking about it. There are a lot of countries where you can't.
      - The Internet was a government program.
      - Your chance of food poisoning is extremely low, thanks to government inspections and regulations.
      - When you pump what shows up as a gallon of gas on the pump at the gas station, you will get a gallon of gas. There are government inspectors that make sure of this.

      Generally speaking, the reason you think that the government sucks is that you only hear of a lot of agencies when something bad happens. Most of the time, they're just doing their jobs and keeping things humming along.

      And if your argument is that government employees have no motivation to help you, consider this: Private enterprise employees are actively motivated to screw you over.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    40. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by YumoolaJohn · · Score: 1

      In the copyright/patent cartel's universe.

    41. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by tibman · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting unregulated energy companies? craaazy. Pure profit unregulated oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear? oh god we would not survive a decade before being poisoned or blown up.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    42. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 1

      The Precautionary Principle is bullshit. The Law of Unintended Consequences beats it every time. State planning and control has failed wherever it's been tried. Reams of regulation that nobody fully understands also creates a mess that's impossible to police and also creates such a financial burden on new entrants to the market that competition effectively ceases. We see this in financial services which has (in the UK at least) 10,000 pages of regulation. I guarantee that not a single legislator passing judgement on these plans and controls has ever read them in full, or understands them in their entirety.

    43. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by necro81 · · Score: 1

      Monopolies are bad. Government makes a monopoly. Results are bad. Are you surprised?

      But infrastructure is a situation where true competition is difficult if not impossible. Are you proposing that several companies compete to lay identical sets of natural gas pipes down every street to serve every building? What a waste of capital! The business-case math on that just doesn't work out. (N companies, each investing C capital, to compete for X customers. Compared to the caes where there's just one company (N=1), each company either has to accept 1/N return on investment, or the customers have to pay the expected ROI on N*C, rather than just C.)

      As with telcos, the barrier to entry is really hard, meaning that whoever gets there first tends to become a de-facto monopoly. Would you prefer that private monopoly to one granted by a municipality that, at least theoretically, can flex some muscle as the grantor? Even better would be for the municipality to build and own the infrastructure outright, just like roads, and then allow lots of companies to compete on providing the service. The municipality charges any service provider the same rate (toll, lease, whatever) to cover the costs of operating and maintaining the infrastructure. This results in a single fixed costs that is publicly borne, while letting competition rule for the variable costs.

    44. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speak for yourself, Just the next state south: Maryland Has excellent roadways. You can see and feel the difference just driving across the state line anywhere. maybe yours is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    45. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Isca · · Score: 1

      The issue with wireless is that you just can't get the bandwidth that cable or fiber can bring. It's different per industry. There's no reason why water and sewage need to be for profit companies. I think natural gas is close behind simply because it's hard to have multiple companies provide the product at a central distribution point in whatever city/town. However communications services CAN be split into their components to be set up as a utility and a service. I think more cities should invest in municipal fiber with this type of setup. There have been multiple studies showing it can be economical for most cities to recoup costs over a thirty year period for around $25/month per drop for the actual infrastructure (fiber to the home/switches/etc on backbone). You can make that cheaper for people in your city by adjusting how much businesses are charged for the infrastructure versus residents. Some cities have lowered the monthly infrastructure cost having residents pay a larger amount for hookup (300-400) and have that cost spread out over a few years in the same way the city will spread out payments for a new sidewalk. The key thing is that they should not be allowed to offer service themselves - allow others to sell the service. Heck, if google wants to come in and make no profit off of it but sell it at the same cost as what the city is charging google per customer, let them. There will still be some who might op for other, better add services with other companies. It's easy to add other providers in this scenario. .

    46. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Then plenty of people are fooled because PA is typically rated on the low end of national surveys when it comes to roadways.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    47. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes me scratch my head is why they aren't investing in newer materials instead of metal piping that is obviously going to corrode!!!!

      Just down the woods they had a major [MAJOR] leak. And on the other side there is a 10-12 inch pipe that as been exposed and it too is leaking. The rust scaling seems to be the only thing preventing it from a full blown hole. But with the rocks rolling down the hill it should be a firework show when that scale is busted off.

      This makes about as much sense as are state or many states refusing to use a hybrid rubber asphalt, considering we live in a freeze -- thaw "belt line" [probably not the right term, but hey I'm a caveman] during the winter months, that just destroys the roadways, I guess wasting money because of the Unions is more important, then trying to cut spending on road repair every winter, and repave every freakin' 3-5 years!

       

    48. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Ha? Gas companies are not private. They are monopolies deemed "essential" and entirely controlled by the government.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    49. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by tibit · · Score: 2

      The biggest thing I don't get: why the fuck don't they use the foreverlasting polyethylene piping like you see in Europe? The standard method of joining those PE pipes is thermal welding, essentially making the entire pipe system one contiguous piece of material. Why does anyone approve any steel or iron piping for intra-city gas distribution at all? It's nuts. You can have copper or iron piping inside of the buildings, for fire safety, if those pipes can be routed in non-condesing environment. That's about it. Iron pipes routinely rust on external threaded connections. Almost anywhere in the U.S. you go and see iron gas pipes exposed to the elements (like they always are around gas meters), it stinks due to leaking gas. Gas stink is everywhere in the U.S., it's like going full retard and being proud of it.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    50. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by superwiz · · Score: 0

      Utilities should be public, and not operated for profit.

      No, they should be operate entirely privately without any government oversight other than penalties in cases when they cause any harm. Anyone who thinks like you should be hospitalized for insanity and certainly should not have their fragile mind exposed to the dangers of the Internet.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    51. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Last I heard water bottling companies can provide clean water despite having no free infrastructure. While water utilities often fail at this task despite having free pipes (which they inherit from generations ago). Water companies don't have compete for their customers. Water bottling companies do. Water comapnies are given natural monopolies by the government. Yeah.. capitalism, faux news ... blah blah blah. Morons who think badly of capitalism forget that anti-communism was a fight over the right to be xenophobic towards Russia. Funny, how every part of the world embracing capitalism does better and yet we complain that hampering capitalism makes private entities less capable... and we say that is somehow the fault of them being private. Idiots. Complete and utter morons.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    52. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's good even with a bunch of people in Congress trying to kill it by forcing them to fund the retirements of future postal workers who will be born 5 years from now (something no private company has ever done or ever had to do).

      With pension debacles rising, Congress forced the USPS to fully-fund its pension obligations.

      The problem with fully-funding pensions is that no one can accurately calculate and invest for that. (Incidentally, Warren Buffett, who started out working actuarial tables for a life insurance company, claimed this in a memo that was re-published by CNN a couple of years ago, so I would be extremely skeptical of anyone that claims they can compute and reliably invest for fully-funded pensions.)

      So Congress forced the USPS into an extremely conservative formula for calculating/funding pension obligations. If the USPS unions would accept a change from pensions to 401(k) or 403(b), which are a more rational solution to the problem of retirement benefits anyway, the problem would vanish in an instant.

    53. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like Chernobyl? Run by the government for the public good... then it exploded in 1986.

      You do know that what happened at Chernobyl was because of individual decisions to conduct an "experiment" without proper control, regulation and training, right?

      Nothing about the accident was a result of government or public policy decisions. It was reckless individuals out for their own gain.

      Then it was brought back online and ran until the end 2000 because the public good needed cheap power.

      There was no functional problem with the operation of the rest of the reactors at the site, so why shut them down?

      Three-mile Island didn't get closed down either.

      With the utilities we don't have a free market. We have a strongly regulated, heavily controlled, government backed monopoly... and then we blame the free market when it becomes corrupt. I have one choice for a gas company. I have one choice for an electric company. I have one choice for a TelCom. That is not the Free Market.

      All your example shows is that an improperly regulated public utility is a bad thing.

      And then you look at an example like Enron, where it was a private company manipulating the so-called free market for their own gain. That was also a bad thing.

      None of this should be news to anybody.

    54. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1


      Again, in what universe would a government-enforced monopoly be called "capitalism"?

      C'mon, man, that's Page 1 of the fascism playbook.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    55. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think you should have taken this argument further.

      The problem with utilities, public or (most) private, is that they're really NOT "free enterprise". They are either run by the government, or highly regulated by the government, often in a "crony capitalism" fashion... which is about as far from "free enterprise" as it gets.

      I think it's hilarious how Statists will see businesses regulated -- badly -- and then use that as an excuse for even more government intervention. "Look! It's not working! Let your benevolent government step in and fix it!"

      Yeah, right. When was the last time THAT worked?

    56. Re: Private enterprise to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In PA the roadways have been underfunded by about $3.5 billion a year for the last ten years. The reason: taxpayers demanded no new taxes and the politicians listened to their constituents like they should. The result was predictable, underfund the repair and maintenance of roadways and of course they'll start crumbling.

    57. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for a couple of interesting examples, I will try to read up on them. I've spent some time in the public sector, and the waste there was a thousand times worse than anything I have seen in the private sector. Experiences differ, I am sure.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    58. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Yet the people who called a state-sponsored monopoly "capitalist" are modded up, and your comment remains at 1.

      Slashdot is over.

      s/Slashdot/society/

      Slashdot is just a subset of the society, and that's what kids are taught in school - and that's the point of the government monopolization of education.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    59. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by amorsen · · Score: 2

      You do know that what happened at Chernobyl was because of individual decisions to conduct an "experiment" without proper control, regulation and training, right? Nothing about the accident was a result of government or public policy decisions. It was reckless individuals out for their own gain.

      That is a vast simplification at best. Chernobyl suffered from everything from design to management problems. There is no evidence that any individuals were out for their own gain, as you put it.

      The operators did wrong, but they were operating an unsafe reactor design with insufficient training while lacking proper management.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    60. Re: Private enterprise to the rescue by east+coast · · Score: 1

      This has lasted a lot longer than the last 10 years. I'm a resident for 40 years and it has been an issue in all of that time. Don't try to make this into something that it isn't.

      I'd also like to point out that PA has the 15th highest gas tax in the nation. So maybe it's valid that the tax payers are sick of getting reamed by the state and given a crap service instead? As my OP on this topic stated, there is corruption in the government too... this only further proves my point. Thank you.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    61. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by east+coast · · Score: 2

      Except for that utilities are very much regulated throughout the entire country, sir. There is no free market to speak of. Pricing adjustments, policies and procedure and budgets are denied and approved by the government. What "private" utilities would be better termed as would be subcontractors.

      The gaslines in DC are already a regulated utility. You're trying to act centralist but your language shows that you're clearly in the government-owned camp.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    62. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by airdweller · · Score: 1

      "Like Chernobyl? Run by the government for the public good... then it exploded in 1986."
      That seems to be too subtle for trolling so I guess you're just not very smart.
      Yes, the Chernobyl power plant was government-run. Did it happen b/c of that? No. Was it made worse b/c of the party? Yes. Anybody who bothered to actually read up on the accident knows it.
      Now, do you by any chance remember any accidents that happened at private companies? Like, I don't know, about four years ago in the Gulf of Mexico? Also, does the term "superfund site" ring a bell? Come one. You were a techsupport manager. This is junior high level of research. You can do it. I believe in you.

      PS. Anybody who thinks accidents are a government "thing" is an idiot.

    63. Re: Private enterprise to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most other states also partially fund their roadways out of their General Fund. PA only uses gas taxes, license and registration fees. We may be 15th in gas taxes, but we're also 4th in milage maintained. Sounds like they're efficiently using the dollars they have to me.

      One other thing, gas taxes are the fairest way to fund roadway work. The more you use, the more you pay. Want to pay less taxes, buy a more fuel efficient car, carpool when possible, ride the bus, don't make unnecessary trips, etc. If someone wants to buy and drive a gigantic SUV for single occupant trips, that's their choice but they'll pay at the pump for that choice.

    64. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by airdweller · · Score: 1

      "your comment remains at 1."
      Maybe b/c the comment is stupid and - although there are some stupid people here - there's still more smart people on /.

    65. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      You've written a cherry picked list of government programs that you consider successful, the original comment was about monopolies. Mail delivery, the Internet, health care, Social Security, inspection regimes aren't monopolies so I won't comment on them.

      "According to a study conducted in late April [2013] by the U.S. Department of Education and the National Institute of Literacy, 32 million adults in the U.S. can't read. That's 14 percent of the population. 21 percent of adults in the U.S. read below a 5th grade level, and 19 percent of high school graduates can't read." That isn't near universal.

      Are you claiming that roads wouldn't exist without government? You make no claims about relative quality, which was also the original comment.

      Water utilities, now that seems a parallel example. See West Virginia. Yep, a private actor had an accident. Now the government supplied water is unusable. This doesn't seem very reliable or successful to me, a monopoly of course doesn't have to do any contingency planning

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    66. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      Private enterprise employees are actively motivated to screw you over.

      A ridiculous exaggeration. I have been in the private sector for decades and have never been actively motivated to screw anyone over, nor have I worked for any company that was. The reason that you think private sector sucks is that you cherry pick a few rare instances when a crime is committed. Most of the time people are just doing their jobs and keeping things humming along.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    67. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that area called "fascism"?

    68. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      An excellent point, I believe this is sometimes referred to as a 'natural monopoly' problem. I am not going to claim to have a solution. If one person or agency were capable of knowing everything that would work the Soviet Union would be ruling the world today. My comment was merely in response to the parent's attitude that somehow private enterprise was to blame as opposed to the simple global fact that large entrenched organizations of any sort tend to be pretty cruddy.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    69. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Utilities should be public, and not operated for profit. Since they're in the public good

      It's a pretty simplistic position. Why should gas infrastructure be public when surely it isn't as critical, or at least no more so, than food, water, medicine, logistics, drilling for oil?

      I'm a pretty hardcore free-market capitalist, but I agree utilities should be public. They key is the distribution system.

      Food, medicine, logistics, and oil have multiple channels via which they can be delivered from source to final consumer. It's not obvious which of these channels will be the optimal means of distribution, so you need a market system to try them out and determine which is most effective.

      Utilities OTOH require building a distribution system, and once it's built it is the most optimal since producing a new channel incurs the expense of building a new distribution system. i.e. When the major cost of distribution is the recurring costs (e.g. trucking, oil tankers, grocery stores, etc), a market solution is most effective at reducing costs. When the major cost of distribution is building the system (e.g. telephone and power lines, gas and water pipes, fiber optic lines to the home), a public utility is most effective at reducing costs because it prevents the construction of multiple redundant distribution infrastructure.

      Note that by this reasoning, internet service should also be a utility.

    70. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Many reasons exist
      not the least of which is due to the pressure involved, and the number of times ground get's dug up here in North America.

      Ever lay poly pipe in the ground (~2m down I hope, it freezes like a motherfucker 'round these parts) and try digging within ~3m of it? you're asking for trouble given the softness of the ground. All it takes is one fairly large rock having made it's way on-top of the pipe, and a grader going over it to sever it.

    71. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by hubie · · Score: 1

      As I recall it, they wanted to test some part of the system where the the safety systems would have normally interfered, so they purposefully disabled all the automatic safety systems. The system was put into an unstable condition where the reactor design flaws became readily apparent. I would argue that it was not an unsafe reactor design, provided one operated it in the conditions for which it was designed.

    72. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      I have been in the private sector for decades and have never been actively motivated to screw anyone over, nor have I worked for any company that was.

      Sure you are:
      1. If you're in sales, you are incentivized (either formally or informally) to both sell people stuff they don't need (increasing volume), and sell people stuff at a price higher than they really want or need to pay. If you can sell a $200 product at $40,000, I guarantee you you'll get nothing but cheering from your bosses.
      2. If you're in operations, you are incentivized to cut costs whenever possible. That includes cutting corners and making products cheaper and less resilient than they're billed as to the buyer. Again, if you succeed in doing this, you will get cheers and congratulations and perks from your bosses.
      3. Even if you aren't cutting corners, when you cut costs to, say, save $15 on the manufacture of your $200 product, the last thing you want to do is pass those savings on to the customer by selling your product at $185, because that doesn't help the company at all. You will wait until one of your competitors figures out how to cut their prices to $185 before you make a similar move.
      4. If you work in finance department of a corporation, part of your job is to make your bosses look good by making the company appear more attractive to investors. You are actively encouraged to fudge the facts a bit in your reports, and if you can bring in investment you will get approval from your bosses.

      If you work in IT, then you're a support function for either sales, operations, or finance, depending on what you're actually doing. You personally didn't screw anyone over, but you are part of a system that actively encourages bad behavior.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    73. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I'm having a Sheldon moment; I thought you were serious. Mr. Poe is bitch-slapping me again, I guess, since there are so many here that actually believe that bullshit (or troll effectively). So I'm going to pretend you're serious even though I know you're not.

      We'll be the first to tell you that "past performance is no guarantee of future success."

      True, but past lack of performance is a solid indication of future failure.

      The GP said "Utilities should be public, and not operated for profit." I half agree with that, based on my own experience of living in Springfield (yes, we have an Alderman named Gail Simpson). CWLP is owned and operated by the city. We have the lowest rates, the best uptime, and the best customer service in the state. And yes, CWLP turns a profit which helps keep taxes down (they sell power to other power companies as well as residents and businesses).

      In 2006 two almost EF3 tornadoes tore through springfield, completely destroying much of the south end and east side's infrastructure. There wasn't a single utility pole left standing in my neighborhood. You could still see the scars the tornado left years later. A couple of months after our tornadoes, one hit the St Louis area. I visited my friend who lived on the east side of the river, who had been without power for a month. His lack of electricity was the only indication that there had ever been a tornado.

      If you're on Amerin or other private company and your rates are high and customer service sucks and the power goes out every time it rains, tough shit, buddy. It's not like you can go down the street to the competitor. You have no power over its CEO whatever; he's beholden to the stockholders, not you. OTOH if my service degrades or my prices go up, the Mayor will lose the next election -- it's happened several times before.

    74. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I think you need more coffee.

      Monopolies are bad. Government makes a monopoly. Results are bad.

      Utilities are natural monopolies, governments don't create those. Do you have a choice of who you can buy your natural gas, water, or electricity from? Look, if the city runs the utility and the utility is badly run, the mayor will lose his or her job, as has happened here in Springfield more than once. Know what happens when the next administration gets into office? Rates go down and service improves. Springfield owns CWLP and we have the lowest electric rates and best service in the state, simply because Amerin customer's can't vote Amerin's CEO out of office, but we CWLP customers can.

      I'll take my democracy over your "free" market any day.

    75. Re: Private enterprise to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One bonus fact: the State Police use $600+ million of the gas taxes collected each year. What's left goes to PennDOT to maintain the roads.

    76. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      As long as nothing went catastrophically wrong that would have been helped by a containment building that they didn't have...

      But yeah, your description sounds pretty accurate. It's not like the operators were just doing it for shits and giggles; it was an experiment to see how much juice they could get out of the turbines while they spun down after shutting down the reactor. But the reactor took awhile to cool down even after you SCRAMed it, which also produced a burst of radiation that could cause an out of control reaction if most of the safety systems were disabled and you were operating outside the approved safety parameters with a small margin for error.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    77. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by blue+trane · · Score: 0

      The basic idea is that "Return on Investment" is not a factor when the government runs the utilities. The government is not a business. The government does not have to make a profit. The government can be funded by created money; the Fed loans it money and refunds the interest and keeps the loan rolling over forever. The Fed does this for banks.

      Utilities and other commodities such as food should be guaranteed by the government, because it is in the General Welfare. They should be provided at below-market cost, or free. There should be no profit motive involved, just providing basic services to people.

    78. Re: Private enterprise to the rescue by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Most other states also partially fund their roadways out of their General Fund. PA only uses gas taxes, license and registration fees.

      You're either ignorant or a liar.

      One other thing, gas taxes are the fairest way to fund roadway work. [blah blah blah]

      Totally irrelevant to the points I've been making but thanks for trying for present a little misdirection to make yourself look more insightful than what you really are.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    79. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by blue+trane · · Score: 0

      What if the government guaranteed a basic income, and people could work on creating infrastructure to benefit others without having to worry about "making a living"? They would still be free to make a profit of course; but if they were more interested in just building things and didn't care about finance, they wouldn't have to worry about paying their rent or whatever.

      Let Wall Street play their game, but provide a Public Option in the form of a Basic Income so that we have the choice of not playing Wall Street's game.

    80. Re: Private enterprise to the rescue by blue+trane · · Score: 0

      Why can't government create the money, or have the Fed create it and give it to the government at zero borrowing cost, for infrastructure maintenance?

      The idea that government can only spend what it takes in is feudal, and has been disproved over and over again by history, including the United States which started out with a national debt that the naysayers predicted would make things worse for their grandchildren. But their predictions have been continually disproved for the life of the nation.

    81. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You listed all the negatives, now list the positives. I suspect there are far more. It is so east to complain, but let's hear your plan to do it better. Got a good plan, then lets hear how you are lobbying it. It is easier to sit back and complain, isn't it.

    82. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      The point of disentangling the free market from utilities is that you want engineers making decisions about infrastructure repair and maintenance, not accountants.

      Central to this point is that the government does not have to limit itself to spending only what it takes in. The government can and should create money (or borrow it at no cost from the Fed) to do things in the public interest.

      Get good engineers out examining the lines, and do not limit them with budget constraints. Let them make decisions based purely on engineering, not finance.

    83. Re: Private enterprise to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're getting "Transportation Funding" and funding for road repairs mixed up. Transportation includes all modes (bus, rail, pedestrian, etc), roadway repairs are just that: Highways and Bridges only.

      Roadway/Bridge repairs only come from the MLF. Those general funds, lottery funds, etc go to Transit Agencies and other programs. For example the Lottery funds pay for reduced rate bus rides for senior citizens. I stand by my statement that No General Funds in PA goes to roadway repairs.

      The Motor License Fund was specifically setup to fund two things: State Police and Roadway repairs. It also keeps the politicians from "borrowing" from it for other uses per the Legislation that created it. Transit cannot even be paid for out of the MLF, thus the other sources of money.

      I love how you need to resort to name calling.

    84. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by CowTipperGore · · Score: 1

      Their rates are set to guarantee a defined return on investment.

      Actually, the rates are set to ensure a utility does not exceed an allowable return. The utility tries to get as much investment included in that calculation, so that these costs are included in the rate base. However, the PUC/PSC does not guarantee any minimum rate of return. My employer approached their allowed 9.9% return last year, for the first time in at least 8 years.

      If the Commission denies the request (to keep rates down) the liability is a business expense and the Corporation gets to charge the customers and add ROI to that, too.

      While there are exceptions, this generally is not true. The general rule for regulatory accounting in this space is that capitalized costs can be recovered but O&M (expenses) cannot be. There are some allowances for liabilities like bad debt.

      In our state, the cost of the gas is a pass through - no mark up and (eventually) no loss, although it isn't uncommon to be over or under by millions from year to year. The return is built into the flat customer charge.

    85. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by real+gumby · · Score: 1

      Especially when you start talking into account how government entities like the NSA "care" about the people

      Oh they care about the people, don't worry about that! They care like the bull cares about the cow.

    86. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      The difference between the free market and government is that the market wants to be free to make mistakes and then maybe pay for them after (unless they go bankrupt). The government, in areas of public safety such as utilities and other infrastructure, should try to build it right the first time, cost be damned. The government should not be profit-motivated. Profit drives the free market and results in putting money over people. The government should put people over money.

      The government can create money to do the right thing with infrastructure and other things in the General Welfare. Or the government can borrow it from the Fed at zero cost. Finance should not be the concern of government when it comes to public safety.

    87. Re: Private enterprise to the rescue by east+coast · · Score: 1

      And I love how you didn't read my cite as it clearly shows that all the funds you listed, bar none, contribute to the MLF. I know how to read, thank you.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    88. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by CowTipperGore · · Score: 2

      Generally gas distribution companies are allowed a baseline "lost and accounted for" amount of gas that is built into their rates. Anything above that either requires serious documentation/explanation or is taken out of the company profit. There is incentive to get to that baseline number but extremely diminishing returns after that. As you say, that could change if other costs were factored into the equation.

    89. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by CowTipperGore · · Score: 1

      I work for the largest gas distribution company in our state and I agree completely. Like any utility (electric, water, sewer, cable, telephone) there is almost never a business case for a second company to invest in duplicate infrastructure. Our state semi-deregulated gas distribution by requiring local distribution companies to provide transportation services to any customer who requests it. This means that you can go find your own source of natural gas and pay us for the use of our pipes. This isn't a consumer-friendly process, but for industrial and larger commercial customers, they can save money and not be stuck with whatever the regulator says our rate is.

    90. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't speak to polyethylene being the future, but I believe this problem is due to the age of the system, before such materials were available. It appears that nobody has put these pipes, now 50-80 years old, on a replacement schedule. I would think that even a "forever" pipe would eventually succumb to natural movement of the land, freeze/thaw cycles, etc. In the end it comes down to short sightedness, in not planning for replacement.

    91. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by CowTipperGore · · Score: 1

      Government didn't make a monopoly. Government is regulating a natural monopoly in an attempt to protect the citizenry.

    92. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last I heard water bottling companies can provide clean water despite having no free infrastructure.

      You do realize that most bottled water is simply tap water (nominally filtered)? It's not like there's a babbling brook in the wild where they bottle up just water for you when they sell billions of bottles a year.... Despite Poland Spring's ads.

    93. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by CowTipperGore · · Score: 1

      Except they are private, they just operate in a highly regulated market. Government did not create this monopoly, it exists naturally. Are you suggesting that a completely unregulated approach would be more successful?

    94. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Calling at least the distribution component of utilities a private enterprise is a fucking joke, or a lie told by statists to make the argument for ever expanded state power. Speaking as libertarian the only thing I find worse than a government operated entity is these unholy public/private mixed entities we create like public utilities.

      A company that operates a effective regional monopoly because it alone has been give right of way across public lands and been the benefactor of eminent domain in order to get easements on otherwise private property is not private. A company that does not get to set its own rates, but has rates decided for it by a government utilities commission is effectively not private. A company that enjoys special legal limits on its liability for accidents, etc is not private.

      In summary the notion that your gas company is a "private" is a fiction. Now there may be logistical problems with gas and electric distribution being private, I don't have answers for all them. Perhaps they are an example of something that should be public, I'll concede that might be the case.

      I will say that if they were fully private though, these other issues aside we would not have problems like this. They bad actors would be out of the market in a hurry. Why? Both their employees and their customers would sue them into oblivion inside of a week; were they unable to escape responsibility for the injuries and property damage they cause. If they had to negotiate access to the land they needed, someone would know where all the pipes were, because they'd want to charge the utility rent and or get a discount on their rates in exchange for the land use; being economically evolved the property owners would probably watch those pipes for problems pretty closely as well.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    95. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Water utilities, now that seems a parallel example. See West Virginia. Yep, a private actor had an accident. Now the government supplied water is unusable. This doesn't seem very reliable or successful to me, a monopoly of course doesn't have to do any contingency planning

      You seem to be a naysayer - you are just complaining about what is present, but not actually offering a specific solution.
      What recourse would a private supplier of water have that the government does not?

      The local voters can vote out the government reps they feel are responsible if it gets bad enough (and 5 days w/o water may do that), they can't vote out a landowner that decides, in a free market, that he's ok with poisoning his land for profit.

    96. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by azadrozny · · Score: 1

      You are correct. Also consider that many of these utilities are regulated such that they cannot increase rates with market demand. Pepco (a DC area power company) had its rates fixed in many areas for a long time. They sacrificed long term maintenance projects so that they could hold to those rates. This is not to say there wasn't other mismanagement, but it is a factor.

    97. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      The government can and should create money (or borrow it at no cost from the Fed) to do things in the public interest.

      That does nothing but create inflation. Its exactly the same as taxation, except worse. It specifically targets the middle class and the poor. They very wealthy have their wealth in assets that move with inflation, commodities contracts, corporate ownership, real-estate, etc. Everyone else sees their savings mostly cash and money markets which tend to hold debt instruments like bonds, effectively devalued, and the buying power of their wages lowered.

      And don't try repeating that claptrap about how federal deficits don't hurt. I can't dispute the overall standard of living continues to rise, but its fundamentally altering our society in ways most of us don't like. It absolutely IS the cause of the growing wealth gap. It is destroying social mobility. It puts things like home ownership perpeturally out of reach for some, it puts college out of reach for many, etc.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    98. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      But those with lots of money are creating money all the time, as we speak. Loans are created out of thin air, the financing to pay for toxic assets are tricks of accounting, the valuations of a rising stock market are money creation. Where's the tax on existing money, why haven't the tens or hundreds of trillions that have been created out of thin air in the past five years resulted in this "tax on existing money"?

      Conclusion: the quantity theory of money must be revised, because empirical data doesn't support it. Inflation is psychological, not a physically necessary consequence of increasing the money supply. Psychology is flexible.

    99. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      If you can sell a $200 product at $40,000, I guarantee you you'll get nothing but cheering from your bosses

      Another ridiculous exaggeration. My bosses would be appalled if I did something like this, they know it would be very bad for business.

      you are incentivized (either formally or informally) to both sell people stuff they don't need

      Another ridiculous exaggeration. Is this how you think business works? Yep, there is a bit of this, but luckily we are not subject to your opinion of what people need and don't need. The vast majority of business transactions are people voluntarily purchasing things that they want or need. I know, your goddamn store keeps selling you food that you don't want, by all means have them closed. And your clothes, ugh, some slick Willy talked you into buying them when you really could just walk around naked right? Those bastards!

      Of course, your real failing is attributing to 'private sector' what is simply human nature. If you believe that these things you list don't happen in public sector, well, good luck with your life as a North Korean peasant farmer.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    100. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Are you claiming that roads wouldn't exist without government?

      If we're talking about paved roads suitable for long-distance travel, absolutely. There's no law that I'm aware of that makes it illegal for somebody to buy a strip of land between two places that people might want to travel between, build a highway, and set up tollbooths to pay for it. But nobody does so and nobody has for about a century, which means either that the free market cannot provide this service at a favorable rate, or the government can do it cheaper.

      There are private streets, but those are almost always short, and there's usually massive contention between neighbors about who's going to maintain it, who's going to clear it in the winter, how much money everyone's going to have to kick in, and so forth. Their primary purpose tends to be keeping out members of the public that the residents believe are "undesirables", not being a model of efficiency.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    101. Re: Private enterprise to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might want to check that chart at the bottom again (and your reading comprehension). Each line is one Transportation funding source, they do not roll up into the MLF. There's a Total line at the bottom that sums up each of the individual funding sources (MLF included as one of those sources otherwise the Total is short by the MLF amount).

    102. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Burz · · Score: 1

      Doesn't the widespread American belief that private enterprise 'knows best' and must remain self-regulating result in that trashy government in the first place? From where I'm standing, it does.

    103. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      Hoover Dam's a failure? National parks are a failure?

      The point is not to regulate away the free market, but to provide a Public Option that each of us is free to choose. Let the financiers play with money, but provide a Basic Income to all who want it so that we can choose to opt out of the moral hazards and perverse incentives of the free market.

    104. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And fixing a tiny leak will require a bunch of heavy equipment, which spews carbon, costs a lot, and introduces the potential of other problems.

      Very small leaks aren't worth fixing from any standpoint, be it environmental, economical, climate change, whatever. This doesn't change regardless of who runs the systems. Both private and public utilities have these issues.

    105. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by moerre · · Score: 0

      I don't understand why anyone modded your comment "insightful": Competition is just NOT POSSIBLE. It's not possible to have 10 or even just 3 different companies lay pipes into the ground to all houses. And don't say they could be forced to share those pipes with competitors - that's a model we have in Germany with the telephone lines of the former government-owned "Telekom" and the prices have to be set by a regulatory commission, which is a political process - no (external or Telekom.internal!) accounting in the world can give you an "accurate" picture of the "true" price, ask an accountant about the issues even if you are well-intentioned to start with, something Telekom definitely has no incentive for. So your complaint that there is "virtually no competition" is strange, given that under no (practical) circumstances there would be competition in any case.

    106. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Secondly having spent half my life in the public and half in the private sector, the private-sector is just as bad, it just doesn't have public investigations into waste

      More importantly, if Intel has huge inefficiencies, I laugh at them and buy my next computer from AMD. If the government has huge inefficiencies, I'm paying for that with my tax money.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    107. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by fast+turtle · · Score: 1

      give the man a pocket protector as he's already got the calculator where 2+2=1.8

      --
      Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
    108. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by plover · · Score: 1

      As you guessed, I was completely being not serious. I just had to sputter some stereotypical /.outrage.

      And as far as utilities go, I have zero(!) complaints about mine. My electric company is a co-op, which is a fantastically reliable provider when compared to the giant utility on the north side of the river from me, and at a significantly lower rate. My natural gas provider has never given me cause for complaint, because it's always just worked 100% of the time, an important factor living here in the Frozen North. Even Comcast practically flies out of their trucks to service my house (one of the benefits of paying a premium price for their premium package is premium service.)

      --
      John
    109. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      I liked this response, substantive and informed. Thanks. I am now interested in the history of road building, do you know of any good works on the subject?

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    110. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      Government should be investing in alternative, clean energy sources. China's government is. The US govt created hydroelectric dams such as Hoover Dam and Grand Coulee. So the story you've constructed about the govt's incompetence and lack of innovation is not really accurate. Government can and should fund investment in energy research. Carter had the right idea in creating the Department of Energy and installing solar panels on the white house; Reagan turned us down the wrong path by ripping out the panels and defunding DOE (source: http://proposalexponent.com/nondefense%20trends-2013.jpg).

    111. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      We tried that in New York with Aaron Burr's Manhattan Water Company:

      The company apparently did a poor job of supplying water, using hollowed out tree trunks for pipes and digging wells in congested areas where there was the danger of raw sewage mixing with the water.[2] After a multitude of cholera epidemics a water system was finally established 1842 in NYC with the building of what is now known as the Old Croton Reservoir.

    112. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      The point is that utility companies are operated for profit. They should not be; they should be operated in the public interest, and financing should not be a concern. Government can operate in such a manner by creating money (or getting it from the Fed at zero borrowing cost).

      Engineers should be in charge of making decisions about the safety of the infrastructure, not Chief Financial Officers.

    113. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      The problem is that private companies create messes that government then has to clean up. The most recent example is the West Virginia Elk River contamination.

      Another is the Butte, Montana toxic lake that has so contaminated the city's water supply they have to pipe in water from another watershed.

    114. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, right. When was the last time THAT worked?

      Constantly.(*)

      (*) I do not live in the US.

    115. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      The solution I want is for government to pay for the repairs and monitoring of the infrastructure without regard to distractions like debt. It's a good idea, it's in the public interest, it's in the General Welfare for infrastructure to be maintained; the tactic of using economics to subvert that idea is wrong.

    116. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but in government, you at least have a voice. In a lot of the big corporations, you have no voice and no real choice.

    117. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by superwiz · · Score: 1

      whose tap? to get billions of gallons of water, you'd have to have infrastructure to deliver it to the bottling plan. i doubt the water companies built the infrastructure for them. which means they laid the pipes themselves. and i very much doubt that it "nominally" filtered as you put it. i am sure they go through quite a bit of measures to make sure their water is not contaminated if for no other reason than that they are such a lucrative target for law suits.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    118. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      From wikipedia:

      Private utilities, also called investor-owned utilities, are owned by investors.

      Utilities should not be run for profit. They should not have to balance their books. Government should make up any deficits in their accounts with created money (perhaps by the Fed, which loans it to the government at zero cost). Utilities should be run by engineers, not accountants or profit-hungry bosses.

    119. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Having a large accident would be a large liability for an energy company, and they would naturally take steps to avoid it.

      Steps, yes, but not leaps and bounds. There exists a breakeven point where the expense of making something safe exceeds the profits of running the plant. At this point the energy company can do three things, cut safety expenditure, increase price to cover expenses, or shutdown the unsafe plant. If the energy utility is operating in a fungible market then the price is fixed and there's only two things left.

    120. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Look! It's not working! Let your benevolent government step in and fix it!"

      Yeah, right. When was the last time THAT worked?

      Unlike in, say, New Zealand where the electricity market was deregulated and so the prices just kept on increasing.

      Because the free market will police itself, and only increase prices by the rate the market will bear.

    121. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kinda like how Australians whinge about so-called "gold plating" of the electricity grid (aka building in excess capacity to deal with exceptional circumstances and future growth), then whine even harder when it can't cope with the load next time a heatwave hits.

      You either spend the money or deal with the substandard infrastructure: there is no alternative, and the profit motive tends to be somewhat antithetical to spending money.

    122. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is frightfully easy to see the deception you're hiding in your comment, as it is the same deception used by all Corporatists.

      As we have seen in literally every other deregulated industry, this is a ploy to enact sole ownership of industries. Financial institutions used to be heavily regulated, until the bankers became their own regulators, and thus regulations were ignored, and thus we're STILL in a recession from 2006 while those institutions are enjoying the most windfall profits in the history of the world.

      They came up with a plan, and it was executed flawlessly, and not only are very few people even suspicious, many people cheer on this unethical behavior while a few people got extremely rich and will never suffer the consequences of redistributing massive amounts of wealth upward into their own pockets. This has happened in so many industries I'm amazed more people haven't noticed the obvious patterns.

      At some point you must take responsibility of your life, and stop letting the social norm of wealth worship cloud your reality.

    123. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will finish your thought, as you have woefully avoided some important information. Regulatory capture is only possible when there is a conflict of interest (i.e. a financial CEO who bankrupted his company and parachuted to safety gets selected as chairman of the FED). The solution to this problem is extremely simple: the real problem is that nobody in the position to fix it wants to.

    124. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've spent time in both, and by far the private sector takes the cake in generating and covering up waste. There are Fortune 50 companies that literally throw away millions of dollars a month on things that were improperly implemented. One company had a hosting bill for their infrastructure that was nearly half a billion a year, yet no matter how many proofs of concept were produced with numbers out front about the cost savings of using a different methodology for the software (and 1/4 less server hardware, incidentally), nobody would approve of changes to turn a $500m expense into a ~$1m. The most sad part is that almost all of that waste came from "world class talent" that most definitely still work at that place.

    125. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends on the industry. Having worked in the financial industry for many years, I can certainly verify that the bottom line is the most important factor. Considering there are now studies showing that the most profitable industries are also the least consumer conscious (going as far as to actively screw over their customers), this trend will only get worse.

      It just hasn't reached your industry yet obviously.

    126. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by amorsen · · Score: 1

      Chernobyl has graphite-tipped control rods for one thing. This means that when you insert the control rods further, you get an INCREASE in power at first, until the rods are in far enough. If that increase in power is large enough to deform the control rods so that they cannot go all the way in...

      I understand the need to simplify Chernobyl to simple causes. This need shows even in the official independent report, INSAG-1, which had to be revised as INSAG-7.

      In some ways it is reassuring that it took so many problems to cause the Chernobyl disaster. On the other side it is scary that so many things were allowed to go wrong without anyone stopping them.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    127. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by gmanterry · · Score: 1

      Maybe they wouldn't directly put the public good ahead of profits, but they might put limiting their liability ahead of their profits.

      Having a large accident would be a large liability for an energy company, and they would naturally take steps to avoid it.

      While companies exist to make money the idea that only the government really cares about the people is a little too simplistic. Especially when you start talking into account how government entities like the NSA "care" about the people.

      It does work that way sometimes. Here in Arizona, APS used to provide both electric power and natural gas. They replaced a bunch of gas pipe with a material that was supposed to be superior. I guess it was never tested in the extreme heat because it started cracking and leaking. The leaks caused a couple of explosions and when a local Phoenix TV reporter was killed by an explosion things started happening. APS replaced all that new pipe with a proper heat resistant pipe and the sold the entire gas operation for ten cents on the dollar to South West Gas in Nevada. For profit corporations do do the right thing at times. They just need some prodding from some more powerful entity.

      --
      Since when is "public safety" the root password to the Constitution?
    128. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      I think the emotion betrayed by the language in your post (absolute syntactical constructions such as "nothing but", "exactly the same"; the prejudicial pejorative "claptrap") clouds your reasoning.

      First, the Quantity Theory of Money doesn't hold for empirical data: the money supply in the US has increased at an exponential rate for data available from 1959, but the "inflation tax" has always been less than flat tax proposals.

      Second, why not deal with inflation by indexing? This scheme worked for Israel for a few decades. With automation, indexing can be seamless so that we don't even notice inflation; it's handled automatically. Compare Brazil's experience creating the Real, quoting prices in it, and ending their hyperinflation in a very short period. Inflation is psychological. There are tested ways of dealing with the psychology.

      Third, federal deficits did not cause the most recent Wall Street crash; private mortgage-backed instruments created out of thin air and booked as assets today on presumed risk-free cash flows decades into the future were the instigation. The government's deficits helped to get us out of the resulting recession; but the government hasn't spent enough. Instead, the Fed created tens (or hundreds) of trillions of dollars and gave it to the banks, which haven't been making loans.

      Deficits are the way to increase home ownership. Instead of bailing out the banks, the government should have bailed out homeowners.

      And college can be free online now.

    129. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      A co-op has the same advantages as city-owned; you're both customer and shareholder.

    130. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bridges.

    131. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 1

      The "public option" costs money that has to be raised through taxation. You're effectively asking those who choose private to also pay for those who choose public. Investment isn't provided by the private sector, it's provided by tax payers.

    132. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      So what do you do when your carrier has large inefficiencies they share with every other carrier available to you, and none of them bother to compete?

    133. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I whine on Slashdot

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    134. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by cavebison · · Score: 1

      Having a large accident would be a large liability for an energy company, and they would naturally take steps to avoid it.

      Exactly. Just how banks took steps to avoid collapsing, by becoming "too big to fail". The banks survived, thanks to bailouts from taxpayers. So that turned out well - except for those very same taxpayers who lost their homes. I don't recall them being paid back. But basically you're correct, large companies are very good at "avoiding" (ie. displacing) risk.

    135. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by sjames · · Score: 1

      I assure you, they do everything they possibly can to avoid the liability (except fixing the problems, of course). Personal responsibility is for poor people.

    136. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by sjames · · Score: 1

      So we should remove the regulations and let BP and Exxon deliver the gas?

    137. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by sjames · · Score: 1

      You want me to bathe in water that costs more than gasoline?

    138. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by sjames · · Score: 1

      Most of those regulations are the result of the industry exploiting a loophole or otherwise causing a problem. Generally whenever you see 5 regulations where one would do it's because some legislator screeching about the free market refused to allow the one, possibly due to a pay-off.

    139. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by sjames · · Score: 1

      So how many separate and leaky gas lines do you want on your property? And just imagine the fun when you smell gas and each claims that one of the others must be at fault. Imagine how much you'll enjoy playing your part in the free market when you have to hire your own repairman to fix their infrastructure for them so your house doesn't explode.

    140. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by sjames · · Score: 1

      It seems a good match to the cherry picked list of failures paraded by free market supporters.

      And yes, illiteracy HAS been on the increase in lock step with voucher and other privatization efforts.

    141. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by volmtech · · Score: 1

      It was a few years before my time but there was a previous "depression". From what I learned in school banks were just allowed to fail. People who couldn't pay their mortgages still lost their homes.

    142. Re:Private enterprise to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The city tax payer funded infrastructure, of course.

      I'm not going to dig for more recent figure, but the first link said bottled city tap water went from 500M gallons to 2.5B gallons from 2008 to 2009. Even if growth slacked to 100% per year since, a not unreasonable estimate, that puts it at 40B last year.

      Basically, it's easier for a company to do a backl room deal with a city government to buy water than get community approval to extract it from the ground/water rights holders. Water is incredibly cheap from the tap since it is essentially subsidized. a 3/4 hose will deliver on average 10GPM, almost a half million gallons a month or about 5 million gallons a year. From a basic garden hose. When you can charge $16/gallon for water (16x8oz bottles for $1 each at retail), paying a penny or a dime to the city is a rounding error in costs.

  4. What a noobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is known tech, used extensively in many countries, yet they still can't manage to maintain a decent system quality.
    http://www.activistpost.com/2010/08/10-signs-us-is-becoming-third-world.html

    1. Re:What a noobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      worked in the gas industry in the 1980s, the company had SUVs fitted with gas detectors regularly surveying the network to schedule pipe renewall. The really bad leaks showed up with dead street trees as methane deprives the soil.

  5. Water World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If anyone was able to make it to the end of the movie, there's a scene where he drops the match down the shaft and the whole ship blows up.

    1. Re:Water World by hubie · · Score: 1

      Bugs Bunny did that to Yosemite Sam's ship in Captain Hareblower, but it is a powder room not a gas leak

    2. Re:Water World by operagost · · Score: 1

      Do that again, and I AIN'T a goin' after it!

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    3. Re:Water World by hubie · · Score: 1

      "Now look, would I turn on this gas if my friend Rocky was in there?"

      "Um, you might, rabbit. You might."

      "Well, would I throw a lighed match in there if my friend was in there?"

      [BOOM]

      "All right, rabbit, you've convinced me. I'll look for Rocky in the city."

  6. Fracking / Shale gas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What did they expect?

    But the biggest danger is of poisoning the water table and water supply.

  7. Shouldn't be a surprise... by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This happens all over the place, including serious enough leaks that can cause explosions. Occasionally you hear about a building/house/etc blowing up because gas has leaked in from a line out front, or was run under a building, or something else. The only solution is checking, that and running new pipe. In my area back about 15 years ago Union Gas replaced all of the old turn of the century cast iron pipe with plastic. There was no shortage of the old stuff cracking and having developed leaks over the last 100 years. And of course, they checked every house along the way to the meter and if need be they dug up your front yard and replaced the pipe.

    I'm actually not sure why the whistleblower thing is "needed" being that anyone who went to highschool(at least in Canada), knows that this is an issue. And yet, we have NG all over the place, or propane if you're too far off the line, or oil. And of course there's still plenty of people who don't have any of those, and are pure electric or wood.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
    1. Re:Shouldn't be a surprise... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      NG is hot - fracking is making it cheap and (even more) ubiquitous - the whistleblower thing is necessary to prod infrastructure improvements now before a major disaster gives this cheap new energy source a black eye, causing the demand for an already high supply commodity to fall.

    2. Re:Shouldn't be a surprise... by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      The big issue here is of the 12 cases where a leak was large enough to cause an explosion, the majority of them were still present a year later. Lots of leaks are expected, but serious ones should be fixed.

    3. Re:Shouldn't be a surprise... by Bigby · · Score: 1

      They could have all meters reporting into a central database and have a computer make sure the end-point meters are showing the same values as multiple distribution point meters. The more distribution/split point meters, the more quickly a leak could be narrowed down.

      I'm sure they've thought of this. They just don't want to do it, because there is not motivation to do it. They probably have no liability for explosions on public property.

    4. Re:Shouldn't be a surprise... by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      The lot to our south is empty, and according to long-time residents of the neighborhood, has been since the 1960s. At the time, an old lady lived in a little house there, and it blew up due to a gas leak. The property is still owned by the lady's daughter. No idea why she's never sold it or built on it again.

      There was a similar explosion a neighborhood over a few years ago. The burnt out frame remnants of this house are still there, behind the chain link fence. The house next door (on one side) was knocked a foot off its foundation and is still there, condemned. The house on the other side was fine because there was a row of trees between them to disrupt the force of the explosion. The only thing they've done to the site besides the fence was haul away the metal hulk of his car, I presume to recycle.
      http://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/crews-battle-north-austin-house-fire
      http://www.kvue.com/news/local/Two-injured-in-North-Austin-home-explosion-136939943.html
      http://www.kvue.com/news/Family-of-Austin-man-killed-in-gas-explosion-suing-Texas-Gas-Service-141829703.html

      Here's the google street view, still showing the house almost two years later:
      http://goo.gl/maps/mk8ck

      And here's basically what it still looked like the last time I drove past:
      http://media.kvue.com/images/459*264/9JessExplosion011012.jpg
      http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/lt/lt_cache/thumbnail/960/img/photos/2012/09/22/ed/61/020412gas_1323574a.jpg

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  8. Am I a bad person. . . by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

    . . . .for wanting several thousand lit matches in JUST the right spots, all around DC ???

    Of course, one DOES have to worry about the massive wind from all the politicians, blowing them out, which may explain why DC is still on the map. . . .

  9. wow a whole continent poked with gas leeks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it must have cost a fortune to test Rio and Mexico City.

    1. Re:wow a whole continent poked with gas leeks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have lots of leeks in Wales too.

  10. Ninjas by Chemisor · · Score: 1

    Check for ninjas in the basement.

    1. Re:Ninjas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Joey: What are you, a spy or somethin'?

      Haru: A spy is like a gnat compared to a ninja.

      Joey: Ninja? You're a ninja? Get outta here, you're a ninja!

  11. In other news ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The latest teenage prank is to throw lighted matches and cigarettes down manholes in Washington, DC."

    "Gas company announces it needs to raise rates to fix leaks."

    ...A few months go by of more efficient gas lines - meaning less wasted into the atmosphere.

    "Gas company CEO gets bonus for increased profits. Writes book on how to be a great CEO."

    He then appears on CNBC and is introduced as Blow Hard Jack and pontificates on how a business should be run. CNBC talking heads fawn all over him and blame Democrats for the poor business climate.

    DC residents stuck with higher rates while CEO and shareholders rake it in. But hey, they worked HARD for it - they had to READ a news headline in the paper about their operational stupidity. The thought of proactively looking for leaks never crossed their mind.

    1. Re:In other news ... by Bigby · · Score: 2

      That is what happens when you have autonomous public companies. Most of Jersey City works this way, including trash collection, parking authority, etc... Everything but the police and fire departments. And guess what? Jersey City is like 90% Democrat.

      This isn't a party issue. It is an issue with autonomous public companies. A company is either private or public. And guess what? Public companies are the ones that need most of the regulating. They are the ones raking profits that are not checked by other companies, since they were granted monopolies. The only check is to vote for someone else to appoint a new leader of the autonomous public company. But that never changes anything, because no one can overcome the power of free money when they are put in that position.

      Where else does the leader of the parking authority making $250K a year? Yes, the leader of the group of people that issue parking permits and drive around ticketing people. The leader...not the one doing it.

    2. Re:In other news ... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      CNBC talking heads fawn all over him and blame Democrats for the poor business climate.

      You don't actually watch anything produced by that network, do you? Didn't think so.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:In other news ... by airdweller · · Score: 2

      "The media blaming Democrats for anything?"
      Keep staying clueless. You're doing a great job.

    4. Re:In other news ... by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      I've seen the CNBC interview where they fawned over Allen Stanford: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtRkZ3i1ERQ

      "Sir Allen, is it fun being a billionaire?"

      Note: Stanford is now serving a 110-year prison sentence for running the Ponzi scheme that CNBC was so in awe of.

  12. Who needs terrorists... by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Corporate America manages to destroy critical infrastructure wholesale all bu itself...

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:Who needs terrorists... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Corporate America manages to destroy critical infrastructure wholesale all bu itself...

      Teh Eeeeevil Corporatist Fascists Are Destroying The Gas Lines!

      What are you, twleve?

      The issue is that the local government regulates the rates the utility can charge, meddles with budgets, complains about or outright blocks the needed tearing-up of streets that are required to do the millions of dollars worth of work ... and the utility company itself is stiffed by countless customers (including embassies, and even federal agencies that consume huge amounts of the product they deliver). Don't like the gas company's budgeting? Talk to the 100% corrupt DC Council about it, so they will allow the utility to raise the funds necessary to re-build decades old infrastructure that's buried literally in a paved-over tidal swamp.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:Who needs terrorists... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      No, I am European, and here a gas-leak is a big deal and rarely ever happens. Hence I point out the utter patheticness of the situation in your country.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:Who needs terrorists... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      No, I am European, and here a gas-leak is a big deal and rarely ever happens. Hence I point out the utter patheticness of the situation in your country.

      You are simply wrong. Every gas system has leaks. In a large city, thousands of them. The point is that such leaks are normal and completely insignificant under most circumstances. And when the leak is serious, it's dealt with. Here, just like there. Of course, you're deliberately ignoring Europe's fine history of houses and buildings blowing up from gas leaks.

      Right? Right.

      Why are you ignoring it? Because doing so fits into your holier-than-thou narrative. Or, you think it does. Mostly, it just makes you sound like an uninformed, pompous idiot.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:Who needs terrorists... by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      The issue is that utilities are run for profit, but they shouldn't be. They should be run by engineers making decisions about safe and sound infrastructure maintenance and development, not by financiers trying to squeeze out as much profit as possible.

    5. Re:Who needs terrorists... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Nothing "simple" here. And while there is a history, it is indeed a historic one. But by all means, keep kidding yourself. The decline of the US is fascinating to watch from the outside.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  13. Gas >"< by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And 545 of them are in the three branches of government.

  14. Jail the whistleblower by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Standard operating procedure in the U.S. is to shoot the messenger and ignore the problem.

    1. Re:Jail the whistleblower by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you're in the private sector, there are laws protecting you if you whistle-blow.

      If you've signed up for a security clearance, you waive those protections.

  15. So, this is why by hlavac · · Score: 1

    So this is why there is such a big campaign against smoking in US!

  16. Magnitude? by jc42 · · Score: 0

    So is there any data on the quantity of methane, etc. produced by this? How does it compare with cow farts, for instance?

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  17. Maybe they shouldn't fix it ... by MacTO · · Score: 1

    I live in a fairly small city that experienced two gas leaks in as many days (and I believe it was three within the span of a week) due to work being done to the lines by the gas company. The two gas leaks were significant enough to evacuate nearby residents and shut down power to the neighborhood.

    If these businesses aren't willing to hire and train competent work crews, maybe it's best that things are left alone.

  18. That's not gas by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 1

    That's hot air, the place is full of it

    --
    Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
  19. this explains it...finally! by Connie_Lingus · · Score: 1

    no wonder our elected officials all act like brainless tools...

    they are high on fumes.

    --
    never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
  20. Exploding manholes by oneiros27 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Back when I lived in DC (late 1990s) there were regular reports of exploding manholes ... with the best guess of the cause being a combination of gas leaks and electrical shorts. Of couse, in the report on the problem blamed PEPCO (electrical) not Washington Gas.

    About 10 years ago, they had a solution -- install manholes with vent holes in them, so the gas pressure can't build up as easily. Of course, you instead get extra water underground, which can lead to faster corrosion of pipes.

    Last year, when the methane levels were first reported, the estimate was 38 exploding manholes per year ... so I'm guessing the vented covers have been less than successful.

    --
    Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
    1. Re:Exploding manholes by complete+loony · · Score: 2

      Blowing the cover off the manhole is easy, the explosion could have been triggered a long way off underground. Plus ethane is slightly denser than air, so it's unlikely to vent off much through the manhole cover. You'd probably need to push air through to disperse the gas.

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    2. Re:Exploding manholes by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Now they need "power vents" to actively exchange the gas.

    3. Re:Exploding manholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exploding.. Man.. Holes?

    4. Re:Exploding manholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "which can lead to faster corrosion of pipes"

      Is water corrosion a significant factor? I'd think the pipes would leak or fail from hydrogen embrittlement first, assuming basic precautions such as a zinc rich paint applied to the pipes at install.

    5. Re:Exploding manholes by clickclickdrone · · Score: 2

      You can't call them manholes any more, it's sexist. They're called street level person apertures.

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    6. Re: Exploding manholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, methane explodes from man holes with an alarming degree of frequency.

    7. Re:Exploding manholes by dkf · · Score: 1

      Blowing the cover off the manhole is easy, the explosion could have been triggered a long way off underground. Plus ethane is slightly denser than air, so it's unlikely to vent off much through the manhole cover. You'd probably need to push air through to disperse the gas.

      It's very close to the density of air (heavier than pure nitrogen gas, lighter than pure oxygen gas) so it is very unlikely to either pool or disperse.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    8. Re:Exploding manholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, name half of them "womanholes" and see if that fares any better . . .

    9. Re:Exploding manholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're called street level person apertures.

      It can't just be me that thinks this sounds pretty dirty.

    10. Re:Exploding manholes by CowTipperGore · · Score: 1

      Natural gas is slightly lighter than air. It will rise and it disperses fairly quickly when given an opportunity.

    11. Re:Exploding manholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another source for methane in sewers is rotting of organic material. So I think these explosions can happen without gas leaks.

  21. Are they sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are they sure it's just not HOT AIR?

  22. Mythbusters by plover · · Score: 1

    Forget fiction. I would like to know how dangerous the Mythbusters think the situation is.

    Their tests on trying to create a manhole explosion was really interesting. They found they needed the right mix of air and methane, and a cluttered sewer pipe caused the fire to spread more effectively than a clear pipe.

    For example, the 50% concentration mentioned in TFA is way too concentrated to produce a big boom.

    --
    John
    1. Re:Mythbusters by dj245 · · Score: 1

      Forget fiction. I would like to know how dangerous the Mythbusters think the situation is.

      Their tests on trying to create a manhole explosion was really interesting. They found they needed the right mix of air and methane, and a cluttered sewer pipe caused the fire to spread more effectively than a clear pipe.

      For example, the 50% concentration mentioned in TFA is way too concentrated to produce a big boom.

      Yes but at some point that concentration was zero. Now it is 50%. There must have been a point in the middle where the methane was within the explosive limit. Getting exactly the right conditions for an explosion may be difficult but with thousands of leaks it happens eventually.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    2. Re:Mythbusters by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      I remember a couple decades ago a city near mine had some gas explosions in the sewer tunnels that caused manhole covers to pop 15 to 20 feet into the air. The local news ran footage of neighborhood kids eagerly crowding onto manhole covers that hadn't pop'd yet waiting for a free ride.

    3. Re:Mythbusters by hubie · · Score: 1

      Washington DC has exploding manholes now. Perhaps they know why now.

  23. Shhhh by LookIntoTheFuture · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do you hear that? That's the sound of the US crumbling under unregulated greed and power.

    --
    Brave Sir Robin ran away. ("No!") Bravely ran away away. ("I didn't!")
    1. Re:Shhhh by khallow · · Score: 1

      o you hear that? That's the sound of the US crumbling under unregulated greed and power.

      Sorry, but in this case, that greed and power sounds highly regulated to me. Even so-called "natural monopolies" need help keeping out the competition.

    2. Re:Shhhh by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      That's the sound of the US crumbling under unregulated greed and power.

      No, that's the sound of the DC City Council crumbling to local pressure, pandering to know-nothing residents, and refusing to allow the company that they completely dominate through stifling regulation and micro-management to raise the funds necessary to repair ancient pipes buried under asphalt in the mud of a tidal swamp along the Potomac. In this case, government is exactly the problem. Why? Because the city government doesn't want to explain to its residents that re-building very old infrastructure costs a huge amount of money that can't appear out of thin air.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  24. There is only one solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Prosecute the whistleblowers for leaking the leaks!

    Think of the^W^W^W Imagine what a terrorist could do with this information!

    1. Re:There is only one solution by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      You forgot that we need to grant Homeland Security the ability to declare matches and all forms of fire to be weapons of terror. Sure, a few innocent people might be arrested as they try to keep warm in the freezing cold, but that's a small price to pay for freedom from the terrorists. Remember: Anyone who opposes the bad on the terrorist tool known as fire is probably a terrorist and hates America!

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  25. Don't think too hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're going to sprain something.

  26. Cat tongue by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    Well, it's a good thing it's not a widespread problem

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  27. This is just a cover story by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

    This is government lies. They need to lay the groundwork for using 'gas leak' to explain all these vampire/zombie/werewolf/alien incidents.

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
  28. Need some sort of "but we have the most powerful.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps we can have some posts about how the US has the most powerful military in the world, outspending nearly the rest of the world combined.

    Infrastructure in crumbles and the roads are far worse then China but yeah, keep spending on weapons you dont need.

  29. There is only one thing to do... by 3seas · · Score: 2

    Call the NSA, CIA, FBI and all those who are against leaks.

    1. Re:There is only one thing to do... by 3seas · · Score: 1

      And give them a supply of matches.

    2. Re:There is only one thing to do... by PaddyM · · Score: 1

      Gives new meaning to the word burn notice.

  30. If you want to know how this would evolve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    look no further than this http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2106146,00.html

  31. Am I the only one not surprised? by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 3, Funny

    I always knew WDC was full of gas.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  32. Gummy-Candy-Sugarless by danielblues · · Score: 1
  33. Sensationalist headline is Sensational by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    There isn't anything ere to be worried about folks.

    There are thousands and thousands of miles of 60 plus year old cast iron and steel pipe. These pipes expand and contract over time and wiggle themselves loose. Typically these leaks are very small and are no danger to the public, which is why they are allowed to persist. Every natural gas utility in the United States is required to have a leak management program which is monitored by the state they reside in and the Department of Transportation. Most natural gas utilities have capital infrastructure projects in place to replace these old pipes with new plastic pipe, which is more flexible and creates a very strong joint. The creation of these programs is directly related to the regulatory agencies mandating a reduction in leaks each year.

    If you do ever smell natural gas (which actually doesn't smell, mercaptain is added for the fart smell) please call your utility and report it.

    I am an engineer at a natural gas utility and it is my job manage the installation of plastic pipe and deal with these leaks.

    1. Re:Sensationalist headline is Sensational by wired_parrot · · Score: 1

      Typically these leaks are very small and are no danger to the public, which is why they are allowed to persist.

      It's not about the danger of explosion from these leaks; it's about the large volume of methane escaping from these small leaks around the country. Given that methane is a potent greenhouse gas (20x more than CO2), the volume of leaks so far detected would make natural gas a dirtier fuel than even coal! The implications to national energy policy should be of concern to the public.

    2. Re:Sensationalist headline is Sensational by Error27 · · Score: 1

      Typically these leaks are very small and are no danger to the public, which is why they are allowed to persist.

      You didn't read the article. You didn't even read the summary. There were 12 which were dangerous. They reported them and the gas company had only fixed 3 of them four months later.

    3. Re:Sensationalist headline is Sensational by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typically (av): In an expected or customary manner; for the most part

      I think (5900 - 12) / 5900 leaks not being seriously dangerous fits the definition of "typically".

    4. Re:Sensationalist headline is Sensational by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      it's about the large volume of methane escaping from these small leaks around the country. Given that methane is a potent greenhouse gas (20x more than CO2)

      Hmm, running some numbers for North America, and using the 6% lost due to leaks mentioned in TFA, I get ~20 megatons of methane leaked annually, compared to ~7500 megatons of CO2 emitted annually.

      With the 20x factor for methane as a greenhouse gas, those leaks would account for ~6% of greenhouse gas emissions.

      While we'd be better off going nuclear, I can't see that extra 6% as being such a mind-boggling issue as y'all are making it sound like.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:Sensationalist headline is Sensational by ElementOfDestruction · · Score: 1

      How do you just write off 6% of total green house gas emissions? It's the equivalent of 450 megatons of CO2... more than every one but the top 11 national CO2 producers. Let's negate ALL of Italy's CO2 production by closing a few leaks? Yeah. Not mind-boggling but stop trivializing it. It's a big fucking number.

    6. Re:Sensationalist headline is Sensational by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The researchers must use the same dictionairy that you do because they said the same thing! It's amazing that two people could agree on the meaning of "typical"!

      I wonder which other sentences in the article you agree with? You should look up all the words in the article and then post the definition and then say if you agree with it or not! If you agree about this then maybe you agree about the meaning of other words and sentences as well!

    7. Re:Sensationalist headline is Sensational by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      If no one else is going to...

      "Mercaptain, my captain"

      --
      -
  34. The Anti-Fracking FUD campaign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This must be a conspiracy to get us to adopt wind and solar and drop coal and natural gas.

    Or maybe it's the home heating oil alliance.

    Maybe we should go back to nuclear power.

  35. Got Gas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    5800 methane detections while driving around in a car...only got out for further analysis 19 times. Of that, how many of the 5800 were farts?

  36. Well, that's one way by overshoot · · Score: 2

    The good news is that this may get the Government to notice the enormous deferred-maintenance problem in the USA.

    The bad news is that they'll only fix the stuff inside the Beltway and pay for it by shorting repairs somewhere else.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
  37. No no no by Greyfox · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's Ok! I don't see any need for job-killing regulations for the energy industry in Washington! If anything they need LESS regulation, or someone will outsource all those gas jobs to China! Congress doesn't want to kill jobs do they?

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:No no no by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      Not China but the undocumented who will do the work under the table and off the books for very low pay to fix the pipes

    2. Re:No no no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or someone will outsource all those gas jobs to China!

      How the fuck do you propose someone in China is going to work on infrastructure under the ground here?

      This is a problem caused by Republicans who don't want to spend money on critical infrastructure, and instead want to focus on tax cuts for the wealthy.

      The self-entitled rich and their paid-for political idiots are ruining this country. In fact, they're ruining all countries.

    3. Re:No no no by Greyfox · · Score: 2

      Aaaaaaand WHOOOOSH! :-P

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    4. Re:No no no by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      What, you've never fixed a busted pipe over Skype before? Geez.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  38. Greenhouse gas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is a greenhouse gas 30x-70x that of CO2.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane

    http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=116532&org=NSF&from=news

  39. look twice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At first glance I read this as "Thousands of Geeks Discovered Under Streets of Washington DC"

  40. Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Terrorists don't know how to light matches.

  41. I know! by operagost · · Score: 1

    Clearly, the answer is to raise taxes to pay for it. The rich aren't paying their fair share. The bad news is, the rich in D.C. all work for the government-- so good luck with that.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  42. the cult of innovation by epine · · Score: 1

    They'll also innovate their way out of problems if there's a strong economic case for doing so.

    Yes, they do. A typical innovation is to move head office to a foreign country so if they get in too much legal trouble in one place, they can continue to operate elsewhere.

    If at all possible, the first recourse in the private sector is to innovate your way out of bearing the downside. Contrary to your ideological end cap, this happens a great deal more often than just the companies who've gained some form of monopoly power. It would be tedious just to list the corporate inventiveness on this front (some of which is criminal, not that this makes much difference when prosecutors are left holding an empty cage.)

    Here's one they actually caught. Enron convict Jeffrey Skilling has reached a deal to be released early from prison

    Skilling was sentenced to 24 years in prison for his role in the Enron debacle. Under the deal, he could shave nearly a decade off the 15 years remaining on his prison term.

    He must have given a lot of blow jobs during his years in the can to collect enough cigarettes to make whole his many victims, justifying his early release for good behaviour.

    Actually solving the problem is the private-sector recourse of last resort, unless it leads to a future business model where there's a substantial likelihood of being able to innovate your way out of bearing the downside. Now there's an incentive to get the saliva flowing in the profit motive.

    The government isn't better or worse, just different. The worst outcomes occurs as a collaboration between the government and the private sector. Regulatory capture is a transaction between hookers and johns to bugger the public purse.

    Here's the concluding paragraphs of Michael I. Norton taking the piss out of Hayekian overreach in his Edge.org essay Markets Are Bad; Markets Are Good:

    When we think of groups, we think of the conditions under which groups are likely to behave well or behave poorly. We don't often think of them as self-correcting, as always performing well over time, or most importantly, as either inherently good or inherently bad.

    Applying the same logic to markets—think of them in this context as "groups writ large"—will assist with the development of a richer and more accurate theory of when and why markets are likely to have terrible or uplifting consequences.

    Mainly they behave well when something firmly bars the gate to behaving badly. Greenspan believed that Wall Street corporations could successfully police each other, if the government stayed out of the way.

    Greenspan admits 'mistake' that helped crisis

    Greenspan, 82, acknowledged under questioning that he had made a "mistake" in believing that banks, operating in their own self-interest, would do what was necessary to protect their shareholders and institutions. Greenspan called that "a flaw in the model ... that defines how the world works."

    Oops. By the downside-mitigating innovations of Goldman Sachs, who picked up the cheque for that mess? "Too big to fail" was cleverly crafted.

    Unfortunately, markets are not some automatic panacea for all that ails the human condition. They are just one little piece of the puzzle that sometimes weave extraordinary magic. America's founding fathers weren't a market. They were just a bunch of extremely astute men well aware of how easily it all goes wrong, who sat down and tried to do the right thing, acting on moral sentiments rather than market incentives. What tangle of corporate i

  43. Thousands of Basement Dweller Leaks Discovered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thousands of Basement Dweller Leaks Discovered Under Washington DC. Mothers asked to provide Beano alongside Hot Pockets.

  44. All municipal gas systems leak by JazzHarper · · Score: 2

    This is not news. Natural gas lines leak--they always have. It has nothing to do with whether the utility is public or private. It has nothing to do with US politics. Natural gas utilities all over the world operate their systems at low pressure to minimize the leakage and fix significant problems when they're detected. It sounds like Duke students discovered something that civil engineers have known for 100 years.

  45. Global warming, not explosions is the concern by wired_parrot · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's not about the danger of gas explosions ; larger gas leaks that pose safety concerns are usually addressed if they are detected. It's about the thousands of small leaks, that the gas industry often ignores as being too small to pose any risk. In this the second link is very informative: not only are these small leaks killing trees and vegetation in the vicinity of where they occur, but collectively they are leaking a large amount of methane into the atmosphere that contributes to global warming. And given that methane is 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas, it means if the estimates of the leaks were to be correct, natural gas would actually be worse for global warming than coal. This would have powerful implications for US energy policy, given that natural gas is being sold as a cleaner burning fossil fuel, when the leaks completely undermine it's "clean" premise.

    1. Re:Global warming, not explosions is the concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod up, good point.

    2. Re:Global warming, not explosions is the concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re:Global warming, not explosions is the concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Completely undermine? That's a little dramatic, considering the fact that natural gas is very clean burning, methane is non toxic, and emissions from burning coal and oil are very toxic and they cause tens of thousands (if not more) of premature deaths annually, and that's just in the US.

  46. continually deferred maintenance by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    geeze, these things can turn out bad

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  47. Unexpected Consequences by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

    Clearly they should have never agreed to build Congress its own subway.

  48. lookin' for some shovel-ready projects... by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we properly maintain our crumbling infrastructure?

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:lookin' for some shovel-ready projects... by superwiz · · Score: 1

      "We"? I didn't put a man on the moon. I suspect you didn't either. This was an engineering accomplishment of 2 generations ago. "We" voted a celebrity into the White House just to prove that we could. I don't "we" can be accused of much wisdom.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  49. Hilarious by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

    I find it hilarious and sad that a libertarian can't understand that gas companies are doing everything they can to ignore and deflect problems that will cost them large sums of money to fix.

    If he wants the problems fix, maybe he should fix it himself.

    1. Re:Hilarious by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      I find it hilarious and sad that a libertarian can't understand that gas companies are doing everything they can to ignore and deflect problems that will cost them large sums of money to fix.

      Would you find it equally hilarious to discover that you're simply wrong? Or not so much, because you know the real story and you're just bitching at a straw man? Everybody knows it's expensive to replace ancient, rusty infrastructure buried in the Potomac mud under streets that nobody wants to tear up for the thousandth time. The problem is that it's the city government, in its micro-managing of the selling price of the gas delivery service, that is completely responsible for whether or not the utility company can raise the money needed to do the work, and in pandering to local, uninformed voters, deny that option.

      Combine that with the fact that the article is a sensationalist bit of mostly nonsense describing what amounts to every municipal NG system ever made, and you've got you, just complaining about things for the sake of doing so, so that you can rail against anyone who prefers less government involvement in things like costs and budgeting of private businesses.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:Hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is exactly what PG&E did in the case of their San Bruno gas line in California. The CPUC approved a rate increase for the company to spend on pipeline work that should have corrected the San Bruno line but PG&E pocketed the cash and didn't spend any of it on its intended purposes. Then, BOOM, the gas line exploded, engulfing a neighborhood and killing people. PG&E had to balls to ask the CPUC for another rate increase to do the work for real this time.

    3. Re:Hilarious by ilsaloving · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Riiiiiiight. And it has nothing at all to do with big businesses doing everything they can to hoard profits, and idiot apologists like you that think that there is nothing wrong with that fact.

      Electricity was deregulated in California. What happened? Prices shot up, service deteriorated. Do I need to mention Enron?

      How many times have you opened up the paper to see stories about companies laying off thousands of workers, not because the business is losing money, but because they arn't making *enough profit*. There is no such things as an honest public company as long as they are required by law to put their investors above all others. The sheer number of examples is virtually limitless.

      If Washington Gas (for example) was such a benevolent little angel, why did they have to be *ordered* by the commission to upgrade pipes? How many times has there been a massive ecological disaster because an oil company was too cheap to implement basic precautions?

      So spare me your bullshit. Libertarian is synonymous with "I've got mine, fuck you!", for good reason, whether you like it or not.

    4. Re:Hilarious by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      why did they have to be *ordered* by the commission to upgrade pipes?

      Because they're not allowed to change anything that involves the money they collect from customers and which impacts the ratio of how it's used to pay for operations, maintenance, and to make it worth it for investors to bother investing. You know, investors. Like the millions of people who own that stock as part of their retirement fund. Like the employees. Like many of their customers, right there in the DC area.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  50. Gas Canary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gas industry whistleblowers aka Gas Canaries
    I went into a dark place there.

  51. Is that a lot? by Nukenbar · · Score: 1

    It a city that size, that doesn't really seem like that many to me.

  52. this is part of the water / ground pollution probl by strstr · · Score: 1

    All ground water is being pumped full of gasoline, which turns it into a toxic mess. And it cannot be filtered out because of additives in the gasoline which make it cleaner to burn, more air soluable. People out in rural areas are especially effected, literally bathing in toxic water that's causing cancer, burns, and other injuries, and it tastes / smells really bad like chemicals.

    http://www.worldwatch.org/node/481

  53. Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One little spark could eliminate all of Congress and Obama at the same time. Our country could begin to heal.

  54. So all the al-quaeda needs . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    . . . is some matches. The cities are explosive already.

  55. Homeland Security Didnt Notice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Homeland Security Didnt Notice a huge risk to security and safety!

  56. Oh noes! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    Oh my god! Something that's been going on for a century but I haben't heard of it before so it's an emergency to me!

    Which:

    1. Idiot neophyte journalist trying to get his face in front of a camera?

    2. Union/Congressional behind-the-scenes effort to drum up support for spending? Hey, where did the bridge emergency infrastructure god damn now now now emergency go?

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  57. Corrections to the article by mstrcat · · Score: 1

    The article was pretty light on the actual science behind the leak detection, and what it implies. Here's a few facts to help you understand more. 5,000+ 'leaks': This is actually 5000+ areas where the concentration of methane is above some pre-determined number. The instruments used measure into parts-per-billion range, and they also classify every high reading as a leak. While this is likely true in the majority of cases, they seem to neglect things like anaerobic decomposition in sewers, drains and other such places. 'Explosion': Combustion of methane in an unenclosed space has a flame propagation speed that is sub-sonic. Enclosed spaces change the physics of the produced pressure wave and can explode. As methane is lighter than air, this is actually quite difficult to achieve naturally. Propane and higher hydrocarbons are heavier than air and tend to collection in low areas. '10 times the thresh hold for explosion': See above. Methane's lower flammability limit is 5% (in air), and the upper bond is 25%. This concentration would have been too rich to be flammable (5% x 10 = 50%). However at that concentration, the atmosphere in the space is approximately 10% oxygen and you would suffocate.

  58. Anybody got a match? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or a lighter.....

  59. Except: "little incentive to fix small leaks" by Geof · · Score: 1

    From the article:

    What puzzled Phillips, at first, was why the gas industry did nothing about it. In purely financial terms, the amount of gas lost nationwide had a value of more than three billion dollars. Why would they let so much money leak out of their pipes? The answer, he discovered, was that state regulators allowed the companies to pass on the cost of lost gas to ratepayers. Utilities had little incentive to fix small leaks.

    If this is true (I imagine it might vary by jurisdiction), then the incentive runs the other way: companies are paid to pump gas into the pipes regardless of whether it reaches its destination. They actually get to sell more gas if some of it leaks.

    In theory, there would be an optimal level of leaks that maximizes profits; from a financial point of view it would actually make sense for a company to ensure that leaks did not fall below this number. I'm certainly not suggesting companies are choosing to leak deliberately (it seems unlikely to me), but that's one hell of an incentive structure.

    If the quote is accurate and representative. Journalists have been known to get things wrong. I would be curious to hear whether you know about that side of things.

  60. If you ask me by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    The politicians are contributing enough gas for all of us!

  61. In my case by kilodelta · · Score: 1

    I keep getting these notices from my gas provider telling me that they need to change out my meter and inspect for leaks. Thing is, I watched them dig up the streets about 3 years ago and put in new PVC for gas service. So it's not a leak. I just failed to tell them I heat with gas.

    I failed to tell them because they want to charge extra on the customer charge and then the therm factor (Which in my thinking is a money grab and nothing more!) goes up significantly. To hell with them. And the language used in the letters - that my gas service COULD be discontinued - not that it will, but it something more nebulous that they COULD. I pay the bill every month. So what the hell do they care?

    1. Re:In my case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have every right to cut you off if you don't cooperate with access to their easement. You are required by law to grant easement holders access to your property for the purpose of exercising their rights under the easement.

      If you continue with you prepper get-off-my-lawn attitude, you might find yourself lighting your farts to stay warm.

  62. Write it off with chemistry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See, natural gas burns easily. That means that it's got some property that makes it reactive with oxygen. Now, if you weren't so proud of your ignorance, you'd know that methane has a half-life in the atmosphere, and that this isn't really that big a deal in the 100 year time frame, and not a big deal in the 10 year time frame. That's why nobody gets carbon credits for fixing leaks.

    Just to give you some context, in case you're not deliberately ignorant, carbon dioxide is so inert that it's actually put on flames to put them out. That means that in a highly energetic, ionized environment, it still remains carbon dioxide, stable enough to displace oxygen and put out fires. It takes something peculiar (a catalyst) and energy to break down CO2. We call that phototsynthesis, which uses chlorophyl and light. However, that's grossly limited by the available water and sunlight, so that doesn't happen nearly fast enough to compensate for burning millenia of stored up dead dinosaurs to drive SUVs a few blocks to the grocery store.

  63. "debate" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Legitimate debate is something that happened between the dead white dudes who wrote the Constitution. We've so far Progressed beyond that and all of those filthy old capitalist practices.

  64. silence of the whooshes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wow, way to totally miss the point and illustrate the joke at the same time. You must be an American, to miss an underplayed jab like that.
    That tired old man on the moon grouse hasn't been used for a generation, or more, for obvious reasons.
    And you manage to drag Obummer into it.

  65. Take our money don't spend on upkeep by ralphaostrander · · Score: 1

    Of the system their bread and butter instead give it to investors and expect tax payer bailout as per usual. Electric grid, water, sewer. Banks you name it. Only person not holding the back The companies investors. Take from everyone give and give to the wealthy. I am leaning anarchist more and more. None for one none for all.

  66. Gas Leakes Washington DC. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I blew the whistle on Washington Gas for not repairing leaks classified as dangerous according to there own guideline. Leaks would be repaired in wealthy white areas and almost completely ignored in poorer ones.This is not new news as I reported this well over 5 years ago. I was a technician for Washington Gas testing afd repairing gas leaks. On many occasions I was instructed to lie about leaks and saw foreman tear up leak reports or send another tech to down grade leaks. Washington gas lied so they could cut man power and make more money buy risking the lives of the public.The DC public service commission was contacted and tried to put this under the rug. Ben Eisler formerly of channel 7 news in the only reporter brave enough to investigate this. I was fired for alleged violence as the Teamsters were complicate in these actions. I worked for Washington Gas nearly 10 years and made a good salary, but not enough to put you all at risk.

  67. In soviet Russia by Kvasio · · Score: 1

    In Soviet Russia streets leak from gas pipes.

  68. Re:this is part of the water / ground pollution pr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Todd Giffen, also known as "StrStr", also known in Springfield Oregon as the Park Masturbater , as he likes to "whip it out" in a number of the public parks near his Centennial Blvd. digs... Todd will tell you (on his Twitter feed) that the NSA beams instructions into his head to "pleasure" himself...

  69. Finish the job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We've got a fuel source, all over DC.
    Can somebody just step in with an oven lighter and fix america for us?

    Cheers
    Australian Anon

  70. Molerats and Radroaches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Watch-out for them...

    Mirelurks too.