The only way this would be truly unique is if you combine the short-throw projector optics with those pocket-sized projectors and have the motion sensing cameras built into the same unit as well... then you would literally have a pocket-sized, large area multitouch interface that could be used on any surface.
You mean like the laser keyboard, on a larger display scale?
The issue also isn't spending the $1.7B on something else--for the umpteenth time, the capital costs are not solely for this project.
So you're saying that their SEC filing was misleading? Fine. File a complaint with the SEC...
But wait. What proof do you have to counter PG&E's own SEC filing?
Not a damn thing. Not one reference. So, until you can produce any verifiable information counter to their own statement that this project, in itself, will cost that amount, you're simply full of shit.
Your continued attempts to derail the discussion into something outside the bounds of the topic will not succeed, no matter how much baiting you lay on.
Misleading how? Simple fact: The population of the state of California is growing well past its capacity to support. Take your average CA resident and ask them to give up their electronic goodies for the better good. Feel free...
Feel free to bask in the shit you catch for even suggesting it. Most Americans are too damn self-centered to even consider not cooling their McMansions.
That is the basic fact that begs for additional generation. These goobers aren't cutting back, and further draconian measures will only alienate the people that PAY those bills. These stopgap measures that get passed on to the customer are simply that: Mickey-moused schemes that ignore the fact that unless you make some SERIOUS infrastructure upgrades, you're simply digging the hole you're in at a slower rate.
In addition, your failure to even read the aforementioned reports suggests a rather... closed mind. I'd be happy to check YOUR sources... if you had any other than your navel.
You're attempting to force the discussion into irrelevant arenas.
You mean I'm asking questions concerning the long-standing California power crisis that you don't have the means to answer. Tough cookies. Don't get pissy with ME 'cause you can't produce any material that proves a word you've said.
You haven't managed to properly use any source yet, so why should anyone expect you to start now?
I make decisions based on a variety of sources, just a few of which I've named. Feel free to name yours anytime.
You won't. I guarantee it, and that's not bait. Any sound mind can give a source {or sources} for what they know, if they have one other than themselves.
You don't, and I think it's funny as hell that you try to convince people by force of will. You must be a hoot in PC shops: "My hard drive is the problem, even though you're telling me the problem is the motherboard! I'm right, and you better replace it now!"
I'm waiting to see if you've the intestinal fortitude to produce ANY figures whatsoever from ANY external sources. Numbers, not cheesy rhetoric. Show me that 1.74 billion couldn't be more appropriately used funding projects KNOWN to produce results, in less or comparable time. Better yet, any number of green technologies, which CPUC has indicated about 12 years hence, will be generating a greater chunk of PG&E power than you think. Check their site for details.
I'm ready when you are... but if you can't produce any other citations, calculations, or other verifiable sources of information other that just "what you think..." then don't waste your time replying.
Hint: In addition, be prepared to consider what amount of public education and awareness regimens would ultimately be necessary to effectively educate a sufficient portion of the populace as to the vital need to eschew its power-hungry ways... which is, ultimately, the only true solution.
If you can't provide numbers, cold hard numbers, then with all your yammering, you're not able to prove much.
At no point did you suggest an idle plan that is part of the normal replacement cycle (generally the scheme PG&E is following)--you created a bogus hypothetical that insisted they could get it done no faster than the allowance you made. This is patently incorrect.
I gave a rough guesstimate of around 13,000,000 units deployed. I never said EXACTLY 13,000,000, and anyone with sense would have read it as such. I never took your population count of 38 mil as meaning EXACTLY on the mark. H'wever, your estimate was off by double mine, and you loved those numbers... as long as they proved your little theory. Once, h'wever, you found the numbers were MUCH closer to my estimate, a game of "look at the monkey!" ensued. Nice try, but when it comes to who's closer, you've been way off. A pedantic mind-set isn't doing you any favors, it would appear.
The "$1.74 billion" project is not solely limited to the project started by the article referenced here (comprehension errors are now beyond count with you!)--the meters and the capital outlay do not solely benefit this project discussed in TFA.
You're hilariously lazy. Here I gave you the source and *page number* in the report from PG&E themselves, and you STILL couldn't be bothered to look. Here, Mr. Couch Potato, let me quote from their report directly:
The CPUC authorized the Utility to recover the $1.74 billion estimated SmartMeter(TM) project cost, including an estimated capital cost of $1.4 billion. The $1.74 billion
amount includes $1.68 billion for project costs and approximately $54.8 million for costs to market the SmartMeter(TM) technology.
Man, you'd look a lot smarter if you paid attention to the obvious. Must be all those trees in the way of that forest.
Starting today, a new PG&E generation facility would not be available before 2017, and that's being optimistic.
A huge MAYBE on that. H'wever, what about the ones about to come online that I mentioned earlier? Missed that, too? You must not've had your Wheaties today. Now, let's note that this quote is from their *2006* report. More on that later.
In addition to ongoing investment in our existing hydroelectric and nuclear facilities, for the first time in 20 years PG&E is also back in the business of owning and operating new power plants. As part of our long-term resource plan for customers,
construction recently began on the first of three state-of-the-art facilities. The plants will be on-line between 2009 and 2010 and will generate enough power for 950,000 homes.
Now, let's look at your "math" again. 2018-2008 = 10 years to not get more generating power online. Now, looking at THEIR math, with groundbreaking in 2006: 2010-2006 = *4* years from ground-breaking to online. That's less than HALF the time you said it'd take to do nothing. Pardon if I trust their math, as you apparently have trouble with yours.
Now you're just making things up.
I'm the one citing sources. You're the one that's not been able to provide ONE correct set of numbers so far. Even better, you seem to think that you're above having to prove your work. Fine. Show the numbers or shush.
In case you hadn't noticed, you're the only one relying on crutches and cute names.
Can't even remember your first post? Considering the rest of your material, it's not surprising. Here, let's refresh your memory:
Well, sunshine, that's how the world works, though here and in most other examples, the remedy is coming from them, not you.
That's funny. My profile name isn't "sunshine"... Could it be that you started the name-calling? No, even with basic proof in front of you, and considering you typed it yourself, you COULDN'T have started that. No sir, n
It's not a need to be right so much as marvelling at your ability to be off the mark entirely.
Actually, looking at both figures, I was MUCH closer to the mark. Sucks to be you! BTW, "marveling" only has one "l".
It's your need to be a bigger and bigger dumbass that is problematic.
...as contrasted with your need for name-calling...
Turns out it's closer to 40%, but it's a factor you utterly failed to include in this response or your original math!
Hey, sweet-cheeks? If you'd looked at the math to begin with, you would have HAD access to the same answers I had in the PG&E statement... but blow hards like you love to pull numbers out of their wazoo. Whining when you're proven wrong just cements the idea that you're of such ilk. I'm betting you've have NO field experience, and boy, does it show.
Introducing them in a five year plan also speaks to planned deployment, not possible deployment.
You gave clear estimates on the possible deployment. Don't try to hide the fact that your numbers were further from the mark than my "guesstimate"...
They could have them installed much more quickly should the need arise or via an add-on to existing meters, and since we're on the subject, we're nearly halfway into that period already, with, it would seem, nearly four million units already installed.
Feel free to cite your source for the "40%"...or is this another number pulled from your nether regions?
These meters are already in place in large portions of the service area with a feature that simply needs to be turned on.
Source cite, please!
The particular capability outlined in the article is one feature of the new meter installation, which adds a cost, but a marginal one.
Looks like you didn't bother reading the PG&E statement I so kindly referenced earlier...
Which leads to my next point. You sound just like the Sicilian in the Princess Bride, yelling "inconceivable" at anything you can't wrap your head around.... either that, or you're a PG&E employee whoring out time on/.
Either way, you're amusing the hell out of me {and a number of CA-based friends that've read your posts...}
You also, as is the norm with your kind, ignored the most important part of the prior post: That PG&E has NO idea whether this 1.74-billion-dollar pet project will show ANY kind of return WHATSOEVER. Instead, you'd rather moan that the power generation ideas out right now are somehow less desirable than spending the better part of 2 billion dollars on a program that the company pushing it can't guarantee results on. Now, feel free to look up "alternative" power generation methods, and THEN tell me that the needed power couldn't be generated by a less costly method...
It's not a $1.7 billion experiment in cut-load power--it's a CPUC-authorized expenditure to replace old meters with one benefit being the SmartRate metering technology.
Damn, son... How can you be that far off the mark? Fine, looks like I'll have to cite yet ANOTHER source while cheerfully pointing out your pitiful lack of source material. Ready? Here we go! From the CPUC site:
In response to D.06-11-049, PG&E filed AL 2946-E on December 8, 2006 for approval to install 5,000 devices by June 2007, giving PG&E up to 5 MW of AC Cycling. Based on research and analysis, PG&E recommends offering both residential and small commercial customers an option of choosing either a switch or a Programmable Controllable Thermostat (PCT).
Gee... How many did CPUC allow to be installed? Even including the 10,000 additional units with tentative approval, it's sure not 40% of 10 million, by a LONG shot....
Call all the names you want to. Your vitriol underscores your plight: dumb AND miserable. You have our sympathies.... and on that note, have a great day!
What cracks me up is your stubborn need to be right. I started this as a discussion. But hey, let's put an end to your rant once again by looking at the numbers. The official PG&E numbers, taken from their 2006 financial numbers. Found here, it states QUITE clearly on page 7 of said report that they've got 10,000,000 of these installs to carry out. That's right, Spanky. 10 mil. How long will it take them? Gee, look at page 7 again. Seems to say that it'll be done in 5 years. Does seem to make your statement seem a bit...well... uninformed.
PG&E technicians are salaried, so those costs are fixed. There is an opportunity cost of added strain on scheduling, and that's certainly a cost factor, but a recoverable one.
Fine... you want the TOTAL cost of this fiasco? Check page 79, Cupcake. It's ok, we'll wait...
Wow, you might be saying to yourself. They estimated this project cost at 1.74 BILLION dollars. That's right, billion, with almost *55 million* going out to tell you just how nifty this project is. That's right, $55,000,000 goes to the marketing department, and the most damning statement is at the end of that paragraph:
PG&E Corporation and the Utility cannot predict
whether or to what extent the anticipated benefits and cost
savings of the advanced metering infrastructure project will
be realized.
So you're advocating a 5-year, $1,740,000,000 project that may never, in their words, realize any real savings whatsoever, and does NOTHING to add new power capacity. Great police work there, Lou!
Like your short-sighted citation of Texas (which also has its own rolling blackout problems in summertime), your head just isn't screwed on straight and you continually fail to grasp the entirety of the situation.
Count the number of blackouts in CA. Feel free to compare to Texas's rate. If you need to be schooled again, I'll be more than happy to engage.
Maybe you should finish before running yours, especially when you've laughably compared a $5 million *pilot project* to an actual full-scale deployment and operations plan for production and connection to the grid.
Got REAL numbers, Twinkie, or are you just blowing more smoke out your wazoo?
PS - There is no such place as 'San Fran'--just like 'Cali' doesn't exist.
Gee, guess you're SO anal that you can't handle basic abbreviations used the world over to refer to the Land of Nuts and Flakes. Not my problem, since you evidently figured out which locales I was referring to....and as I was born near Victorville, I'll call my home state whatever the hell I please...
It does nothing to address the fact that part of that management solution is a forced curbing of available power--rolling blackouts or reduced feeds into homes are the only options.
...and here's where your entire rant breaks down. You ignored the deploy time, Einstein. Just how long will it take to outfit California with these thermostats, at what cost?
Let's break it down for you. At the 2006 census, there are 13,174,378 homes in Cali. We'll ignore industry for right now. Now, let's take what might be the average install time for this. Call it 30 minutes per install for getting there, installing and testing it. That's 6,587,189 man-hours of work. That's around 274,466 *days* of work, or around 751 *years*. Now, with PG&E having around 20,000 employees, we might figure about 10% of that will be actual install techs. That's actually par, as they'll only deploy around 2000 of them at a time for any outages/installs. Dividing 274,466 by 2000 gives you an answer of around 137 days, 24/7. Can't do 24/7, of course. 8-hour shifts, lets say, and only half of their day will be installing these; the rest is dealing with whatever emergencies arise. So, you're telling me that in 2.25 years, (figuring $15/hour, at a cost of around $98,807,835), you'll have a solution.
But wait... where's your solution for NOW?
By that time [2 years hence], you could already be WELL on the way for a renewable energy source already being studied in San Fran: the tidal harness. At that time as well, according to PG&E, they'll have a plant ready to service another 950,000 homes.
Note the TOTAL cost of the tidal project. $3,000,000 to $5,000,000. Looks pretty darn reasonable compared to that $98,000,000 for your little quick-fix patch. Also, at 2.7 million per plant {after initial deploy}, you're going to be hard-pressed to find a more cost-effective power solution. In addition, it's clean, renewable, and scalable.
Congrats on the spelling error of mine, BTW... It's one of the few I tend to make, and you must feel {in CA parlance} just like, totally special. Still doesn't change the fact that you're too dumb to run the numbers before you run your mouth.
Don't assume complacency. The way it SHOULD be is irrelevant to solving the immediate problems. It's philosophical hot air. The problem needs to be addressed now.
Complacency is exactly what we're getting in a crisis situation. As these yutzes are evidently scandal-ridden, what's needed is to get a competent management team in first. As for the way it "should be"? You need to know where you're going before you get there, Princess. Knowing where you "should be" is a good start.
You want to complain about infrastructure, do it. But to do so at the expense of ignoring the current situation in places like California and New York, which is a preview of what other states face in the coming decades, is an egregious error.
Who's complaining? I'm pointing out the obvious: The emperor ain't wearing a stitch.
The current situation in CA and NY shows political short-sightedness unparalleled. H'wever, "business as usual" isn't going to cut it anymore. New solutions are needed...and where do they start?
There isn't power to give. Purchasing power at astronomical rates is not a solution.
"There's no power!"
"Wait, there's power, but we don't want to PAY for indulging our excess!"
Make up your mind.
The transmission system can't support the kind of plan you have for continuous purchasing from other states, and it's not a solution.
I never said it was a long-term solution. I was simply refuting your assertation that "OMGPONIES, THERE'S NO POWER!!!"
...and if the other citizens of CA want to let the McMansions you mentioned suck up all available power, fine. Otherwise, get some SANE zoning ordinances. This, once again, is a problem for the politicians to solve instead of fobbing it off on constituents.
As for the other, what about for the next five to ten years before those plants and grid modifications are online. You are not solving the problem of RIGHT NOW.
...and you're missing the obvious: PG&E does NOT have the field staff to drop these in all at once. Not by a LONG shot. If you look at the time needed to deploy these boxes in a sufficient number of locations to make a difference, you might just find that you could deploy some tidal harnesses like the ones PG&E shanghaied in San Fran instead. Long-term, renewable power. It's what you asked for, but why don't you have it? Thank PG&E, the folks you seem to tout as having a solution. Indeed.
Hospitals, datacenters, certain kinds of factories and warehouses...
Hospitals have backup generators. So do most datacenters and critical factories. Here's a thought: if you do NOT allow exemptions, how long d'ya think it'd be before "industry leaders" start looking for a solution?
So what country do you live in? 'Healthy power grid' is oxymoronic in the United States.
Like it's our fault California uses less power than Texas yet can't meet their power needs due to political maneuvering. Wake up, Buttercup. You need to go look for your prince instead of hand-wringing and wailing.
Well, sunshine, that's how the world works, though here and in most other examples, the remedy is coming from them, not you.
Ye gads, man... Just because "that's the way it is at current" does NOT mean that it's as it SHOULD be. When was the last time you showed up at a meeting of your local utility board? Created some noise? Don't think your complacency is universal.
Regardless of whether it is poor planning, poor policy, poor enforcement, or some uncontrollable outside force (greedy people chilling McMansions while they're at work, for example), power is a finite resource. It runs out when it runs out. This is an unavoidable fact. If there is no power to give, your philosophical argument is meaningless. Coulda, woulda, shoulda.
Did the power in California "run out", or did they not buy power from other grids for monetary reasons? There's power to give, but they'd rather inconvenience their customers rather than hitch up their drawers, bite the bullet, and listen to gripes about rate increases. "The easy thing to do" != "the RIGHT thing to do."
How would you rather manage it? Either way we're talking about forcibly reducing demand to keep the grid online.
Bond issue. New plants vs. increased rates for power purchases from other grids. NEXT!
hat can either mean a few tens of thousands of customers get their power cut for a while, or 38 million people have their thermostat reset five degrees up (with obvious concessions where applicable) for a few hours?
Which "obvious" concessions were you thinking of?
I choose the latter, if for no other reason than that I hate resetting clocks and get annoyed when the DVR or Internet cut out while recording/downloading. Most sensible people would, too.
I choose to live in a state with a healthy power grid. Most sensible people would, too
not wanting to be rude, but slashdot is posting some story about thermostats and meanwhile KDE 4.0 is out, but there is no story about it. or did i miss it?
Personally, I can't believe that people are buying into this. I'm paying the utility companies for service. Failure to plan/build the appropriate infrastructure is no excuse. In short:
Failure to plan upon their part should in no way necessitate a remedy on our part.
I have to call BS here. During a court case, the "expert witness" was testifying concerning medical & dental practice software packages.
When asked what made him so experienced in the field, the guy answered, and I kid you not:
"Oh, I browsed the web for 4 hours on the topic."
If you blinked there, join the club. Even worse, the judge BOUGHT that line.
To quote Daffy Duck: "You call this a close-up?!?!?"
Re:Morals aside - what's the end result?
on
Sony BMG Dropping DRM
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
In context, I presume you mean pirating their work.
No. No pirating necessary.
I'll use Sony as an example. When a client comes in, engage the standard/. rant on Sony. There's MORE than enough material there to hurt their bottom line without a single CD/DVD rip. Remember, folks, people many times trust our decisions on technical matters. If you tell 'em that Sony's not a brand to buy {and why}, many times they'll take that as gospel. Let 'em know where the problem is and why... they'll listen.
This problem has nothing to do with "Hollywood [not being] quite as thrilled about my new HD Media Dream Machine and they've decided to punish me by revoking my Watch Now privileges from Netflix."
DRM did NOT come from the DRM Fairy. It came from the media companies... so yes, I'm quite happy to point at the nincompoops that requested this farcial setup to begin with.
And to Hollywood... There's not an encryption scheme you can make that we can't break. Stop wasting time and energy on this crap if you want a healthier revenue stream.
Send a 'simple' remote with the devices in question, make the device itself capable of outputting its codes for programming (like, an OSD with send-code for each function, or even better, a _standard_ for rapidly programming remotes, or even better than that, a standard for remote codes), clearly write the function codes in the manual, and make sure the specs are widely published and available on the net.
I'd be happy to find a trainable remote for under $30....
Slashdot Mirror
Read the original article for details on the "hero" robots in this group...
You mean like the laser keyboard, on a larger display scale?
Suit yourself, stupid...
The issue also isn't spending the $1.7B on something else--for the umpteenth time, the capital costs are not solely for this project.So you're saying that their SEC filing was misleading? Fine. File a complaint with the SEC...
But wait. What proof do you have to counter PG&E's own SEC filing?
Not a damn thing. Not one reference. So, until you can produce any verifiable information counter to their own statement that this project, in itself, will cost that amount, you're simply full of shit.
Your continued attempts to derail the discussion into something outside the bounds of the topic will not succeed, no matter how much baiting you lay on.Misleading how? Simple fact: The population of the state of California is growing well past its capacity to support. Take your average CA resident and ask them to give up their electronic goodies for the better good. Feel free...
Feel free to bask in the shit you catch for even suggesting it. Most Americans are too damn self-centered to even consider not cooling their McMansions.
That is the basic fact that begs for additional generation. These goobers aren't cutting back, and further draconian measures will only alienate the people that PAY those bills. These stopgap measures that get passed on to the customer are simply that: Mickey-moused schemes that ignore the fact that unless you make some SERIOUS infrastructure upgrades, you're simply digging the hole you're in at a slower rate.
In addition, your failure to even read the aforementioned reports suggests a rather... closed mind. I'd be happy to check YOUR sources... if you had any other than your navel.
You're attempting to force the discussion into irrelevant arenas.You mean I'm asking questions concerning the long-standing California power crisis that you don't have the means to answer. Tough cookies. Don't get pissy with ME 'cause you can't produce any material that proves a word you've said.
You haven't managed to properly use any source yet, so why should anyone expect you to start now?I make decisions based on a variety of sources, just a few of which I've named. Feel free to name yours anytime.
You won't. I guarantee it, and that's not bait. Any sound mind can give a source {or sources} for what they know, if they have one other than themselves.
You don't, and I think it's funny as hell that you try to convince people by force of will. You must be a hoot in PC shops: "My hard drive is the problem, even though you're telling me the problem is the motherboard! I'm right, and you better replace it now!"
Got numbers, bitch?
I'm waiting to see if you've the intestinal fortitude to produce ANY figures whatsoever from ANY external sources. Numbers, not cheesy rhetoric. Show me that 1.74 billion couldn't be more appropriately used funding projects KNOWN to produce results, in less or comparable time. Better yet, any number of green technologies, which CPUC has indicated about 12 years hence, will be generating a greater chunk of PG&E power than you think. Check their site for details.
I'm ready when you are... but if you can't produce any other citations, calculations, or other verifiable sources of information other that just "what you think..." then don't waste your time replying.
Hint: In addition, be prepared to consider what amount of public education and awareness regimens would ultimately be necessary to effectively educate a sufficient portion of the populace as to the vital need to eschew its power-hungry ways... which is, ultimately, the only true solution.
If you can't provide numbers, cold hard numbers, then with all your yammering, you're not able to prove much.
At no point did you suggest an idle plan that is part of the normal replacement cycle (generally the scheme PG&E is following)--you created a bogus hypothetical that insisted they could get it done no faster than the allowance you made. This is patently incorrect.
I gave a rough guesstimate of around 13,000,000 units deployed. I never said EXACTLY 13,000,000, and anyone with sense would have read it as such. I never took your population count of 38 mil as meaning EXACTLY on the mark. H'wever, your estimate was off by double mine, and you loved those numbers... as long as they proved your little theory. Once, h'wever, you found the numbers were MUCH closer to my estimate, a game of "look at the monkey!" ensued. Nice try, but when it comes to who's closer, you've been way off. A pedantic mind-set isn't doing you any favors, it would appear.
The "$1.74 billion" project is not solely limited to the project started by the article referenced here (comprehension errors are now beyond count with you!)--the meters and the capital outlay do not solely benefit this project discussed in TFA.
You're hilariously lazy. Here I gave you the source and *page number* in the report from PG&E themselves, and you STILL couldn't be bothered to look. Here, Mr. Couch Potato, let me quote from their report directly:
The CPUC authorized the Utility to recover the $1.74 billion estimated SmartMeter(TM) project cost, including an estimated capital cost of $1.4 billion. The $1.74 billion amount includes $1.68 billion for project costs and approximately $54.8 million for costs to market the SmartMeter(TM) technology.
Man, you'd look a lot smarter if you paid attention to the obvious. Must be all those trees in the way of that forest.
Starting today, a new PG&E generation facility would not be available before 2017, and that's being optimistic.
A huge MAYBE on that. H'wever, what about the ones about to come online that I mentioned earlier? Missed that, too? You must not've had your Wheaties today. Now, let's note that this quote is from their *2006* report. More on that later.
In addition to ongoing investment in our existing hydroelectric and nuclear facilities, for the first time in 20 years PG&E is also back in the business of owning and operating new power plants. As part of our long-term resource plan for customers, construction recently began on the first of three state-of-the-art facilities. The plants will be on-line between 2009 and 2010 and will generate enough power for 950,000 homes.
Now, let's look at your "math" again. 2018-2008 = 10 years to not get more generating power online. Now, looking at THEIR math, with groundbreaking in 2006: 2010-2006 = *4* years from ground-breaking to online. That's less than HALF the time you said it'd take to do nothing. Pardon if I trust their math, as you apparently have trouble with yours.
Now you're just making things up.
I'm the one citing sources. You're the one that's not been able to provide ONE correct set of numbers so far. Even better, you seem to think that you're above having to prove your work. Fine. Show the numbers or shush.
In case you hadn't noticed, you're the only one relying on crutches and cute names.
Can't even remember your first post? Considering the rest of your material, it's not surprising. Here, let's refresh your memory:
Well, sunshine, that's how the world works, though here and in most other examples, the remedy is coming from them, not you.
That's funny. My profile name isn't "sunshine"... Could it be that you started the name-calling? No, even with basic proof in front of you, and considering you typed it yourself, you COULDN'T have started that. No sir, n
Actually, looking at both figures, I was MUCH closer to the mark. Sucks to be you! BTW, "marveling" only has one "l".
It's your need to be a bigger and bigger dumbass that is problematic....as contrasted with your need for name-calling...
Turns out it's closer to 40%, but it's a factor you utterly failed to include in this response or your original math!Hey, sweet-cheeks? If you'd looked at the math to begin with, you would have HAD access to the same answers I had in the PG&E statement... but blow hards like you love to pull numbers out of their wazoo. Whining when you're proven wrong just cements the idea that you're of such ilk. I'm betting you've have NO field experience, and boy, does it show.
Introducing them in a five year plan also speaks to planned deployment, not possible deployment.You gave clear estimates on the possible deployment. Don't try to hide the fact that your numbers were further from the mark than my "guesstimate"...
They could have them installed much more quickly should the need arise or via an add-on to existing meters, and since we're on the subject, we're nearly halfway into that period already, with, it would seem, nearly four million units already installed.Feel free to cite your source for the "40%"...or is this another number pulled from your nether regions?
These meters are already in place in large portions of the service area with a feature that simply needs to be turned on.Source cite, please!
The particular capability outlined in the article is one feature of the new meter installation, which adds a cost, but a marginal one.Looks like you didn't bother reading the PG&E statement I so kindly referenced earlier...
Which leads to my next point. You sound just like the Sicilian in the Princess Bride, yelling "inconceivable" at anything you can't wrap your head around.... either that, or you're a PG&E employee whoring out time on /.
Either way, you're amusing the hell out of me {and a number of CA-based friends that've read your posts...}
You also, as is the norm with your kind, ignored the most important part of the prior post: That PG&E has NO idea whether this 1.74-billion-dollar pet project will show ANY kind of return WHATSOEVER. Instead, you'd rather moan that the power generation ideas out right now are somehow less desirable than spending the better part of 2 billion dollars on a program that the company pushing it can't guarantee results on. Now, feel free to look up "alternative" power generation methods, and THEN tell me that the needed power couldn't be generated by a less costly method...
It's not a $1.7 billion experiment in cut-load power--it's a CPUC-authorized expenditure to replace old meters with one benefit being the SmartRate metering technology.Damn, son... How can you be that far off the mark? Fine, looks like I'll have to cite yet ANOTHER source while cheerfully pointing out your pitiful lack of source material. Ready? Here we go! From the CPUC site:
In response to D.06-11-049, PG&E filed AL 2946-E on December 8, 2006 for approval to install 5,000 devices by June 2007, giving PG&E up to 5 MW of AC Cycling. Based on research and analysis, PG&E recommends offering both residential and small commercial customers an option of choosing either a switch or a Programmable Controllable Thermostat (PCT).Gee... How many did CPUC allow to be installed? Even including the 10,000 additional units with tentative approval, it's sure not 40% of 10 million, by a LONG shot....
Call all the names you want to. Your vitriol underscores your plight: dumb AND miserable. You have our sympathies.... and on that note, have a great day!
What cracks me up is your stubborn need to be right. I started this as a discussion. But hey, let's put an end to your rant once again by looking at the numbers. The official PG&E numbers, taken from their 2006 financial numbers. Found here, it states QUITE clearly on page 7 of said report that they've got 10,000,000 of these installs to carry out. That's right, Spanky. 10 mil. How long will it take them? Gee, look at page 7 again. Seems to say that it'll be done in 5 years. Does seem to make your statement seem a bit...well... uninformed.
PG&E technicians are salaried, so those costs are fixed. There is an opportunity cost of added strain on scheduling, and that's certainly a cost factor, but a recoverable one.Fine... you want the TOTAL cost of this fiasco? Check page 79, Cupcake. It's ok, we'll wait...
Wow, you might be saying to yourself. They estimated this project cost at 1.74 BILLION dollars. That's right, billion, with almost *55 million* going out to tell you just how nifty this project is. That's right, $55,000,000 goes to the marketing department, and the most damning statement is at the end of that paragraph:
PG&E Corporation and the Utility cannot predict whether or to what extent the anticipated benefits and cost savings of the advanced metering infrastructure project will be realized.So you're advocating a 5-year, $1,740,000,000 project that may never, in their words, realize any real savings whatsoever, and does NOTHING to add new power capacity. Great police work there, Lou!
Like your short-sighted citation of Texas (which also has its own rolling blackout problems in summertime), your head just isn't screwed on straight and you continually fail to grasp the entirety of the situation.Count the number of blackouts in CA. Feel free to compare to Texas's rate. If you need to be schooled again, I'll be more than happy to engage.
Maybe you should finish before running yours, especially when you've laughably compared a $5 million *pilot project* to an actual full-scale deployment and operations plan for production and connection to the grid.Got REAL numbers, Twinkie, or are you just blowing more smoke out your wazoo?
PS - There is no such place as 'San Fran'--just like 'Cali' doesn't exist.Gee, guess you're SO anal that you can't handle basic abbreviations used the world over to refer to the Land of Nuts and Flakes. Not my problem, since you evidently figured out which locales I was referring to....and as I was born near Victorville, I'll call my home state whatever the hell I please...
...and here's where your entire rant breaks down. You ignored the deploy time, Einstein. Just how long will it take to outfit California with these thermostats, at what cost?
Let's break it down for you. At the 2006 census, there are 13,174,378 homes in Cali. We'll ignore industry for right now. Now, let's take what might be the average install time for this. Call it 30 minutes per install for getting there, installing and testing it. That's 6,587,189 man-hours of work. That's around 274,466 *days* of work, or around 751 *years*. Now, with PG&E having around 20,000 employees, we might figure about 10% of that will be actual install techs. That's actually par, as they'll only deploy around 2000 of them at a time for any outages/installs. Dividing 274,466 by 2000 gives you an answer of around 137 days, 24/7. Can't do 24/7, of course. 8-hour shifts, lets say, and only half of their day will be installing these; the rest is dealing with whatever emergencies arise. So, you're telling me that in 2.25 years, (figuring $15/hour, at a cost of around $98,807,835), you'll have a solution.
But wait... where's your solution for NOW?
By that time [2 years hence], you could already be WELL on the way for a renewable energy source already being studied in San Fran: the tidal harness. At that time as well, according to PG&E, they'll have a plant ready to service another 950,000 homes.
Note the TOTAL cost of the tidal project. $3,000,000 to $5,000,000. Looks pretty darn reasonable compared to that $98,000,000 for your little quick-fix patch. Also, at 2.7 million per plant {after initial deploy}, you're going to be hard-pressed to find a more cost-effective power solution. In addition, it's clean, renewable, and scalable.
Congrats on the spelling error of mine, BTW... It's one of the few I tend to make, and you must feel {in CA parlance} just like, totally special. Still doesn't change the fact that you're too dumb to run the numbers before you run your mouth.
Complacency is exactly what we're getting in a crisis situation. As these yutzes are evidently scandal-ridden, what's needed is to get a competent management team in first. As for the way it "should be"? You need to know where you're going before you get there, Princess. Knowing where you "should be" is a good start.
You want to complain about infrastructure, do it. But to do so at the expense of ignoring the current situation in places like California and New York, which is a preview of what other states face in the coming decades, is an egregious error.Who's complaining? I'm pointing out the obvious: The emperor ain't wearing a stitch.
The current situation in CA and NY shows political short-sightedness unparalleled. H'wever, "business as usual" isn't going to cut it anymore. New solutions are needed...and where do they start?
There isn't power to give. Purchasing power at astronomical rates is not a solution."There's no power!"
"Wait, there's power, but we don't want to PAY for indulging our excess!"
Make up your mind.
The transmission system can't support the kind of plan you have for continuous purchasing from other states, and it's not a solution.I never said it was a long-term solution. I was simply refuting your assertation that "OMGPONIES, THERE'S NO POWER!!!"
...and if the other citizens of CA want to let the McMansions you mentioned suck up all available power, fine. Otherwise, get some SANE zoning ordinances. This, once again, is a problem for the politicians to solve instead of fobbing it off on constituents.
As for the other, what about for the next five to ten years before those plants and grid modifications are online. You are not solving the problem of RIGHT NOW....and you're missing the obvious: PG&E does NOT have the field staff to drop these in all at once. Not by a LONG shot. If you look at the time needed to deploy these boxes in a sufficient number of locations to make a difference, you might just find that you could deploy some tidal harnesses like the ones PG&E shanghaied in San Fran instead. Long-term, renewable power. It's what you asked for, but why don't you have it? Thank PG&E, the folks you seem to tout as having a solution. Indeed.
Hospitals, datacenters, certain kinds of factories and warehouses...Hospitals have backup generators. So do most datacenters and critical factories. Here's a thought: if you do NOT allow exemptions, how long d'ya think it'd be before "industry leaders" start looking for a solution?
So what country do you live in? 'Healthy power grid' is oxymoronic in the United States.Like it's our fault California uses less power than Texas yet can't meet their power needs due to political maneuvering. Wake up, Buttercup. You need to go look for your prince instead of hand-wringing and wailing.
Ye gads, man... Just because "that's the way it is at current" does NOT mean that it's as it SHOULD be. When was the last time you showed up at a meeting of your local utility board? Created some noise? Don't think your complacency is universal.
Regardless of whether it is poor planning, poor policy, poor enforcement, or some uncontrollable outside force (greedy people chilling McMansions while they're at work, for example), power is a finite resource. It runs out when it runs out. This is an unavoidable fact. If there is no power to give, your philosophical argument is meaningless. Coulda, woulda, shoulda.Did the power in California "run out", or did they not buy power from other grids for monetary reasons? There's power to give, but they'd rather inconvenience their customers rather than hitch up their drawers, bite the bullet, and listen to gripes about rate increases. "The easy thing to do" != "the RIGHT thing to do."
How would you rather manage it? Either way we're talking about forcibly reducing demand to keep the grid online.Bond issue. New plants vs. increased rates for power purchases from other grids. NEXT!
hat can either mean a few tens of thousands of customers get their power cut for a while, or 38 million people have their thermostat reset five degrees up (with obvious concessions where applicable) for a few hours?Which "obvious" concessions were you thinking of?
I choose the latter, if for no other reason than that I hate resetting clocks and get annoyed when the DVR or Internet cut out while recording/downloading. Most sensible people would, too.I choose to live in a state with a healthy power grid. Most sensible people would, too
Yup. You missed 'em. Here and here, for starters.
Personally, I can't believe that people are buying into this. I'm paying the utility companies for service. Failure to plan/build the appropriate infrastructure is no excuse. In short:
Failure to plan upon their part should in no way necessitate a remedy on our part.
But by the above post, you might be able to infer that acquiring basic spelling skill is optional...
If more Christians noticed the stress on tolerance, you'd not be as surprised..
...That's making the assumption that the sum of the universe can be only expressed in said viewpoint.
I respectfully disagree.
Depends on your point of view...
...As far as you're aware...
...and as far as doctors in the 1700s and 1800s were concerned, leeches were the shizney...
I have to call BS here. During a court case, the "expert witness" was testifying concerning medical & dental practice software packages.
When asked what made him so experienced in the field, the guy answered, and I kid you not:
"Oh, I browsed the web for 4 hours on the topic."
If you blinked there, join the club. Even worse, the judge BOUGHT that line.
To quote Daffy Duck: "You call this a close-up?!?!?"
No. No pirating necessary.
I'll use Sony as an example. When a client comes in, engage the standard /. rant on Sony. There's MORE than enough material there to hurt their bottom line without a single CD/DVD rip. Remember, folks, people many times trust our decisions on technical matters. If you tell 'em that Sony's not a brand to buy {and why}, many times they'll take that as gospel. Let 'em know where the problem is and why... they'll listen.
DRM did NOT come from the DRM Fairy. It came from the media companies... so yes, I'm quite happy to point at the nincompoops that requested this farcial setup to begin with.
And to Hollywood... There's not an encryption scheme you can make that we can't break. Stop wasting time and energy on this crap if you want a healthier revenue stream.
That example, in particular, brought Yoda to mind:
"Do, or do not. There is no 'try.'"
If they were serious, they'd make compliance with standards a priority, rather than bribing to make their implementation a standard.
What worries me is that the RIAA will talk Congress into subsidies...
Ok, I'll bite. Which "good gestures" has Microsoft made that've been misinterpreted?
Hey... We don't care if you don't like Australians.. Take it elsewhere, bub...
{Ba-dum-DUM-Ding!}
What I found shocking was that you have to pay tax to even legally *watch* TV there...
I'd be happy to find a trainable remote for under $30....