• Scam Diego alerts

The New York Times gives a big writeup today (Sept. 5) to the attempt by Dr. J. Craig Venter to create living creatures -- bacteria, algae, or plants -- that are designed from DNA. Venter wants these living creatures "to carry out industrial tasks and displace the fuels and chemicals that are now made from fossil fuels," says the Times. Venter is doing this from a San Diego company, Synthetic Genomics. He earlier stirred up controversy when his company Celera Genomics "nearly left the federally funded Human Genome Project in the dust in the race to determine the complete sequence of DNA in human chromosomes. He garnered admiration for some path-breaking ideas but also the enmity of some scientific rivals who viewed him as a publicity seeker," says the Times. His company has gathered $110 million in investment.

  • Scam Diego alerts

Comments

Don Bauder Sept. 6, 2010 @ 7:59 p.m.

Response to post #1: Wasn't there a sci-fi, big hit movie a few years back when that's exactly what was done -- recreate dinosaurs from DNA? Something like that. Best, Don Bauder

0

Visduh Sept. 6, 2010 @ 8:47 p.m.

Some geologists and biologists are thinking that petroleum was formed by bacteria. (Isn't it odd that we know how coal was formed from trees, but that we don't understand how oil was created?) Venter may be on the track to replace fossil petroleum. As described, he'd like genetically engineered bacteria that would produce gasoline, diesel, or jet fuel directly from some sort of feedstocks. But what are the feedstocks?

If anyone could push this forward, it is Venter. He may be an egotist and a publicity hound, but he had made some significant discoveries, and all seem to involve moving farther and faster than his rivals.

0

David Dodd Sept. 6, 2010 @ 10:20 p.m.

Bacteria alone can't form fuel. Bacteria need to consume, and so, in a round-about way, one could say that bacteria created fossil fuels, but the bacteria had to feed on something in order to do that. It's probably symbiotic.

Fossil fuels - oil and natural gas in particular, coal in general - will not be replaced by another fuel source until they are depleted. I say this not as a futurist, but as a pragmatist. There is no source of fuel currently known (including what we understand how to manufacture or fabricate) that is more economically attractive than "natural" hydrocarbons. In the form of fossil fuels, they are dirt cheap. What makes them expensive? The Countries and corporations that control the deposits.

Venter is a very mad scientist, and those who invest are suckers. It would cost over ten times the amount to make synthetic hydrocarbons than it does for even the obviously inflated and controlled price that we currently pay for what we have yet to suck out of mother Earth.

0

Don Bauder Sept. 7, 2010 @ 8:47 a.m.

Response to post #3: If Venter's dream could come true, the world's economic woes would certainly look far less ominous. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 7, 2010 @ 8:49 a.m.

Response to post #4: Do you see how much controversy Venter creates? We have two polar opposite responses from two of our brightest posters. Best, Don Bauder

0

Visduh Sept. 7, 2010 @ 9:36 a.m.

I was certainly not advocating that the everyday investor put his/her hard-earned funds into stock in Venter's enterprise. That's for the over-the-top speculators who have more money to invest than they know what to do with. But, with genetic engineering such as we now see, the opportunities seem limitless for the really talented to make some very significant discoveries. BTW, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist, and I wouldn't expect to see big progress with something like this proposal for a very long time, as in beyond my lifetime. We agree that fossil fuels are so hard to replace because of their cheapness and ease of use. Mankind will probably not find replacements for petroleum products until the stuff becomes far more costly than now. But any headway the US (and the rest of the West) can make in reducing its dependence upon a commodity that is controlled by "friendly" nations such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and the Emirates, not to mention Russia and Iran, deserves consideration.

For the same reasons, I favor a major push to develop fusion energy. We've been hearing about that for more than forty years, and seem to be getting closer to making it workable. But nobody claims to have a practical operation yet. If that breakthrough came along, it would radically alter the world's economic terrain, and those oil-rich areas would head back into the obscurity they deserve.

0

David Dodd Sept. 7, 2010 @ 12:29 p.m.

Visduh, I didn't mean to suggest that you were in agreement with the investment aspect.

The problem with fusion is that people are afraid of the waste. Germany is a great example. They refuse to build a reactor, and they currently burn tons of coal, it's the main energy source in Germany. Obviously, the trend world-wide is to get away from that fuel source, mostly everyone has jumped on that bandwagon. Of course, this has Russia drooling over the prospect that Germany will begin to have to rely on their vast reserves of natural gas.

Biofuel plants similar to what Venter is proposing will have to be powered, by fossil fuels, of course. And synthesized biofuel will cost substanitally more than fossil fuel for a good while. It is possible that eventually there will be a price crossover, but in order to realize when it would occur one would have to discover the end of the fossil reserves, and no one has. There is still a lot of completely unknown and undiscovered coal and oil. In fact, it is quite possible that the greatest technological advancement in the near future could be the development of methods to discover and extract fossil fuels.

In a nice, perfect world, we would all say, "Look, let's just bite the bullet and develop and use alternative energy sources even though they cost twice as much or more than what we currently use."

That would be great, except in order to make it work economically, the whole world has to agree on it. China certainly won't. It's unlikely that any country that relies on their own reserves would be willing, either. And I don't think I have to go into what the oil companies would have to say about it. So, any country that voluntarily decided to change their energy source away from fossil fuels would be at a great disadvantage.

0

Don Bauder Sept. 7, 2010 @ 1:16 p.m.

Response to post #7: You're saying that Venter's latest idea might be good for a well-heeled speculator who is willing to wait for a long time for a payoff -- if there is one. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 7, 2010 @ 1:19 p.m.

Response to post #8: Now there's a country taking the long view: putting money into something that may or not pay off in 30 to 40 years. France has patient capital -- a virtue. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 7, 2010 @ 1:22 p.m.

Response to post #9: It's not just China lacking patient capital. How about the U.S.? Best, Don Bauder

0

David Dodd Sept. 7, 2010 @ 1:42 p.m.

To #12: Good point. Also, while the U.S. is an importer of crude, they are an exporter of refined petroleum. Mexico, the #2 or #3 trading partner of the U.S. (depending on which week it is), is in the opposite position.

0

Founder Sept. 7, 2010 @ 2:02 p.m.

All this talk is fueling my thoughts!

My guess is that those Countries with BIG petroleum money will just buy into what ever tech looks like it will replace oil and their Energy Money Cycle will start again.

If you want to wish for something; wish for some friendly aliens to visit and leave US some energy generating tech that is both clean and cheap...

That would be a World changer, and then we could focus on BOTH feeding the Worlds poor and also moving into outer space...

0

David Dodd Sept. 7, 2010 @ 3:06 p.m.

Also, one more thing about nuclear vs. coal: It actually costs slightly more per MW to generate electricity from nuclear than from coal. But, if one wanted to pay the slightly more, it probably wouldn't be felt much, economically, as the difference isn't pronounced (perhaps 4%). So, you're left with deciding whether one is better than the other using other factors. For example, which is a worse scenario, a disaster in a coal-burning energy facility or a nuclear energy facility? Also, which is worse for the environment, the carbon waste or the nuclear waste? Either way, if you take a side you have to be willing to accept a negative aspect in current energy production.

It makes Venter's idea attractive, but I have to reiterate that it won't be economically feasible for several decades or longer. And, there isn't any way to speculate if his proposed process will or will not become dangerous to people or the planet once set in motion.

0

Founder Sept. 7, 2010 @ 4:28 p.m.

Reply #15 RE: "It actually costs slightly more per MW to generate electricity from nuclear than from coal."

You must be referring to the initial costs, because the nuclear waste storage and handling problems last for generations if not "lifetimes" and will increase the cost of Nuclear generation...

If I had to guess, I'd say "clean" coal (with the kind of funding that fusion is receiving) would be the next big answer in power generation, because coal is very plentiful and the areas stripped for mining can be recovered then replanted easily! Regular Coal can be converted into clean burning coal, liquid "oil" and water when processed!

A San Diego Company called SGI was into clean coal and even build a working demo plant in WY but the numbers did not pencil out when oil was around $40 a barrel! At today prices for oil, it is just a matter of time and savvy investors!

0

David Dodd Sept. 7, 2010 @ 4:39 p.m.

"You must be referring to the initial costs, because the nuclear waste storage and handling problems last for generations if not "lifetimes" and will increase the cost of Nuclear generation..."

Actually, that's included according to my source which is a pro-nuclear energy site:

http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/costs.htm

So, yes, there could be even more of a difference if they are leaving out information.

0

nan shartel Sept. 7, 2010 @ 5:50 p.m.

bugs, or to be more precise the genetic alteration of bugs – very, very small ones – so that when they feed on agricultural waste such as woodchips or wheat straw, they do something extraordinary. They excrete crude oil.

well i guess it's a bugs life afterall

0

Founder Sept. 7, 2010 @ 6:07 p.m.

Reply #17 One just has to view the ongoing debate about the long term storage of Nuclear waste to realize that what ever "fee" they are charging is not going to be enough and if there is ever an accident, spillage of waste or the pollution of say the water of the Colorado River, then we will realize the true cost of Nuclear Generation! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mo...

Here are my two favorite methods of getting rid of "hot" waste:

  1. I think the "Best" and safest method of getting rid of the waste is to encapsulate it and sink it into the subduction zone so that in time, one Tectonic Plate will transport the waste inward the center of the Earth! That would be true recycling!

  2. The next best method would be to transfer the encapsulated material into low Earth orbit and then use a rocket motor to push it in an orbit that would send it into the Sun! This would require waiting for cheap Earth to Orbit transportation, like the Earth Elevation now being studied by the Japanese...

0

Don Bauder Sept. 7, 2010 @ 6:19 p.m.

Response to post #13: I haven't looked at the Mexican oil situation for some time, so can't comment. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 7, 2010 @ 6:21 p.m.

Response to post #14: Yeah, but those Martians may not be friendly, especially since we are sending space vehicles to crash on to their land. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 7, 2010 @ 6:24 p.m.

Response to post #15: Venter's idea is inchoate -- just in the idea stage. Who knows about the side effects? Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 7, 2010 @ 6:27 p.m.

Response to post #16: I did a bunch of columns on SGI when I was at the U-T. That technology was always suspect. The company was suspect. It disappeared. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 7, 2010 @ 6:29 p.m.

Response to post #17: The nuclear waste problem is a nagging one. It has even been proposed that we put the nuclear waste into a spaceship and launch it into the void. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 7, 2010 @ 6:31 p.m.

Response to post #18: Gosh, I feel terrible. Every night I kill several bugs. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 7, 2010 @ 6:34 p.m.

Response to post #19: You beat me to the orbital solution. But neither of us suggested it first. Best, Don Bauder

0

Founder Sept. 7, 2010 @ 6:43 p.m.

Reply #26 I hope we both get to space in our lifetime and if we do, it will probably be by Space Elevator due to the Super High cost of rocketry...

0

Founder Sept. 7, 2010 @ 6:48 p.m.

Reply #18

I can see the new commodity listing now:

"San Diego Sweet Bug Crude Oil...

0

Twister Sept. 7, 2010 @ 8:06 p.m.

Just as there’s no mention of moving from waste-centered “profit,” toward a more efficiency-centered “earned increment” there seems to be little interest in moving away from an inefficient, energy-wasting move toward “alternative fuels” and a stubborn tolerance of low-priority energy “uses” (waste) to increasing emphasis upon treating energy as a scarce (and increasingly expensive) resource and emphasis on high-priority uses (e.g. kidney dialysis machines or whatever instead of billboards, ad nauseam.

SP is joking, I hope. Some people really DO think oil came from dinosaurs.

If I understand correctly, both coal and petroleum are the result of (primarily) anaerobic decomposition of different kinds of organic matter under different conditions. Decomposition is primarily the result of the action of microbes.

The central problem with "making" oil from organic "feedstocks" is that the making costs more energy than it produces--unless you can bribe or coerce "scientists" into leaving out some of the factors in the calculations.

Algae may or may not prove to be an exception, but as has been pointed out, algae need nutrients and an ideal environment in which to grow/reproduce in high enough quantities quickly and efficiently enough to achieve an economically viable net energy production quantity and quality. Switchgrass may be the most insane, the most deceptive "alternative" after corn, and the numbers for sugarcane have been made seductive, but all biological systems have fundamental requirements for water and nutrients--and the right kind of space (habitat) for them to work their alchemy, transferred genes or no transferred genes.

There's no free lunch, but the closer you get to the sun, and the farther you get from waste heat in the delivery to the point of work, the more efficient you are likely to be. That means a higher level of self-contained, autonomic energy conversion to use and a lower level of centralized power. Sound like a democracy that should appeal to the most fanatical right and left wings? Or heresy?

All energy is limited by the costs of conversion to a unit of work--that's the elephant in the drunken fantasy. There's no Santa Claus either, and no . . . well, let's not get into über-taboo subjects. Being an unbeliever in alternative energy is already enough to get you burned at the stake.

0

David Dodd Sept. 7, 2010 @ 8:38 p.m.

@ #29: I'm not a "non-believer" in alternative energy, but as I've pointed out, in this type of forum I'm forced to be entirely pragmatic. You've echoed - slightly differntly than I did - sort of the same thing. Now, if I were to become speculative (and in economics that's sort of taboo), I would think that hydrogen would become the key to energy sources of the future. However, with 110 million dollars being thrown at algae, the most abundant element in the known universe seems to be taking a back seat.

Weird, much?

0

Twister Sept. 7, 2010 @ 9:47 p.m.

As long as "pragmatic" means realistic, I'm all for it.

Bottom line:

  1. Sooner or later, we gotta cut consumption of petroleum and save it for lubricants, plastic syringes, and other products that can only be made "economically" or pragmatically with petroleum.

  2. Decentralize.

  3. Cut consumption. And population growth.

  4. Live for life, not expensive, wasteful "amusements."

I don't think it's feasible to make lubricants, etc., from Hydrogen.

I'm not sure H is technically feasible, pragmatic. Need specifics, not hopeful speculations.

Other planets are not options, Buck Rogers fantasies notwithstanding.

0

David Dodd Sept. 7, 2010 @ 9:58 p.m.

Petroleum based products, as I've been insisting here, aren't so necessary as they are economically desireable. Glass syringes, for example, work just fine.

Hydrogen fuel is already a reality, it's simply too expensive to manufacture and too dangerous to develop at this point in time. Hence, the speculative. Maybe someone will invest a few hundred million into that issue.

And speaking of speculation, lubricants might not be necessary in the future. There are many ways to combat friction.

But as I say, pragmatically, fossil fuels are relevant NOW, and I don't see that changing for quite a few decades.

0

Founder Sept. 8, 2010 @ 8 a.m.

Reply #31 & #32 OK, we have spoken about future science energy tech and future replacements for Petroleum but what are "WE" to do right now, beside whine about the price of oil and the Global impacts of shifting large amounts of our Wealth to other Countries?

Lets talk about things that are doable today:

  1. Replace CA's CPUC with a new Board chosen at random and then require our Utilities to "RE-invest" in Solar instead of giving all these Monopolies profits to their own shareholders! Re-examine the rate structure to insure everyone is paying a fair rate and each Utility is doing it's best to generate low cost Energy.

  2. Pay ANY Solar energy generator the same amount that SDG&E charges for that unit of energy at the time it is added to the grid; this will transform CA's "need" for Energy, as small generators (Homeowners) all add Solar to their roofs.

  3. Double the tax credits for electric vehicles, including motorcycles, scooters, bicycles, mobility chairs etc}. Prioritize low speed roads 10 mph (bikeways), so more folks can commute safely using electric vehicles listed above!

  4. Require all new construction to have a specific amount of Solar per bedroom based upon the square footage of the house, apt. or Condo.

  5. Start a new $10 MILLION lottery, with all profits going to Adding Solar power to the Grid, more winners would fund more clean energy!

  6. Dedicate all "NEW" profits from smart meter billing to installing more Solar!

Solar may not be the "BEST" but every panel we install is that much less energy that we do not have to generate somewhere by oil, coal, gas or nuclear...

0

Don Bauder Sept. 8, 2010 @ 8:54 a.m.

Response to post #s 27 and 28: If I ever get into space, I don't want to go on a junk spaceship carrying nuclear waste. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 8, 2010 @ 8:57 a.m.

Response to post #29: It takes energy to burn someone at the stake. It takes less to do the job with a guillotine. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 8, 2010 @ 9:41 a.m.

Response to post #30: In the larger scheme of things, $110 million is not a lot of money for a capital investment. You could raise that easily for your hydrogen project. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 8, 2010 @ 9:46 a.m.

Response to post #31: Already, Americans are cutting consumption and paying off debts. The savings rate is improving, although it does wiggle up and down a bit. So what is the government doing? Trying to pump up consumption. Again, it's the short term thinking. Nobody thinks long term. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 8, 2010 @ 9:50 a.m.

Response to post #32: I just bought a couple hundred shares of Royal Dutch, to add to the several hundred I already owned. So I must say I agree with you. Oil will be around for awhile. Best, Don Bauder

0

nan shartel Sept. 8, 2010 @ 9:53 a.m.

25

from now on Pooh...just carefully pick them up and deposit them in some woodchips in ur yard...hahahahahahahahahaha ;)

0

Don Bauder Sept. 8, 2010 @ 9:55 a.m.

Response to post #33: Those are all good ideas. Solar takes a long time to pay off. We looked at it two years ago and decided to wait until the technology improves. We were assured that better technologies were near. We'll look again soon. Best, Don Bauder

0

nan shartel Sept. 8, 2010 @ 3:11 p.m.

38...good on ya...those Dutch Bugs make the best oil

0

Don Bauder Sept. 8, 2010 @ 3:48 p.m.

Response to post #39: How about dumping them in the fireplace? Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 8, 2010 @ 3:53 p.m.

Response to post #38: Except Royal Dutch is now based in London, I believe. It was formerly a two-headed company with its headquarters in both London and Holland. It is now more concentrated. Best, Don Bauder

0

fatalgae Sept. 9, 2010 @ 5:38 a.m.

To learn about the fast-track commercialization of the algae production industry you may want to check out the National Algae Association, the trade association. The NAA Engineering Consortium has designed the first 100 acre algae production plant with all the CAPEX and OPEX.

0

Don Bauder Sept. 9, 2010 @ 7:54 a.m.

Response to post #44: Fascinating. I hope our readers do some research on it. Best, Don Bauder

0

Founder Sept. 9, 2010 @ 8:04 a.m.

Reply #40 San Diego is now just starting a program that will allow home owners to buy Solar now with City money that will be listed as a lien on their house! As more folks buy Solar, the panel price, warranty and the "BEST" tech will continue to evolve!

You might like this: http://www.sandiegoreader.com/weblogs...

BTW: he has posted a number of great Solar factual blogs..

0

Don Bauder Sept. 9, 2010 @ 5 p.m.

Response to post #46: That's one more example: you have to read the Reader. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 10, 2010 @ 1:29 p.m.

Response to post #48: Utilities are different than other companies. Government control is inherent in their mandates. Regulators have a lot of power over utilities, although I agree that the CPUC as current constituted is in the utilities' pockets. Best, Don Bauder

0

Founder Sept. 10, 2010 @ 5:15 p.m.

Reply #48 & #50 Yes everyone is entitled to their own opinion That said 1. The CPUC is not doing anything to make SDG&E more user friendly! Smart metering will make them more profit, that is why they are doing it!

  1. In fact as the CPUC allows SDG&E to side step important safeguards( like under-grounding) that they could be doing now, they are in essence allowing SDG&E to give all that "saved" money to their shareholders. If getting "screwed" is not making the maximum return on dollar invested, then all the rate payers that are NOT shareholders are now getting "screwed" by SDG&E!

  2. I'm happy that you have lots of properties, but just because you could afford to pay "list" price for your solar panels does nothing to help all the others afford Solar.

  3. Why should SDG&E get to sell my kilowatt (if I had Solar panels, I do not yet) at a higher price than they give me for the exact same thing they are instantaneously selling to another user! BTW: the grid is "ours" not SDG&E's!

  4. Why should ratepayers allow SDG&E to generate Solar and get top dollar while SDG&E will not pay that same rate to all those that put energy into the Grid?

  5. Regarding "Tax incentives and rebates" SDG&E is a public monopoly and they are getting GIANT amounts of public dollars via their rate payers, yet they are shining those same folks when it come to providing Energy at the lowest possible prices.

  6. I do pay for a "Dawn to Dusk" light mounted on a street "telephone pole" and I get charged 59kWh (which is all unmetered) and on my last bill, 7 days of the month were billed at Rate 2, that is a rip off, yet I have no recourse.

  7. Here is one poem, from another blog: -- Bill Shock 2U -- 10-07-27

Try and wake Up San Diego do something before the big Blow.

When you see the size of your big SMART new electric bill, it won't be your air conditioner that gives you a chill!

Residents who get big bills, will not think it's very funny, when it's ONLY Big Business that gets to save all their Money.

Sure it's OK if you are wealthy or have lots of money to spare, but if you are a poor rate payer, all you can do, is pull your hair.

Talk to all your friends and your neighbors now, going into debt will give you a cow,

Ask all your City Leaders what can be done, being part of a Class Action is no Fun.

0

Don Bauder Sept. 10, 2010 @ 5:30 p.m.

Response to post #50: Utility regulators already determine how much of a return utilities can make. Right now, California regulators are telling electric utilities how much green energy they must use by a certain date. Best, Don Bauder

0

Founder Sept. 10, 2010 @ 5:51 p.m.

Reply #52 And you can bet that the Utilities will generate as much of the required Energy themselves so they will keep as much of the money as they can, that's why they call it Green Energy,

Our Green for only their Energy, not someone else's Energy!

What's wrong with that picture?

0

Don Bauder Sept. 10, 2010 @ 10:26 p.m.

Response to post #53: Money is green. Study a utility's statements from a semantic perspective. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 10, 2010 @ 10:28 p.m.

Response to post #54: No ad hominem attacks on this site! Yeah, sure. Best, Don Bauder

0

Founder Sept. 11, 2010 @ 7:59 a.m.

Reply #54 Let's do this point by point to see what you are really saying! I'll add in the CAPS as my reply and sorry for the 2 separate entries:

Part 1 Every utility is in business to make money. Of course they are to do things that make themselves a profit and avoid those that don't. Name a for profit business that doesn't.

PUBLIC MONOPOLY'S SHOULD BE HELD TO A HIGHER STANDARD! THEY SERVE US FIRST!

That said, I agreed with you that they should be using that technology for our benefit also. I have no argument that changes need to be made to the CPUC. Whether they will occur anytime soon is an entirely different matter.

THE CPUC IS IN THE POCKET OF SDG&E!

Perhaps you missed that I agreed with you that with smart metering they should be able to do as you suggest.

SMART METERING SHOULD "LEVEL" THE ENERGY FIELD NOT ADD YET MORE PROFITS TO SDG&E.

However perhaps you can tell me why you believe any utility should even be required to pay you for excess electricity that you generate. It is entirely your option to be grid connected. If you generate enough to have an excess, then go off grid.

SDG&E BUYS ELECTRICITY TO SELL, WHY NOT PAY HOMEOWNERS THE SAME AMOUNT? TO DO OTHERWISE IS RIPPING OFF ALL THE SMALL GENERATORS; WHAT IS SDG&E AFRAID OF BEING PUT OUT OF BUSINESS AS MILLIONS OF FOLKS INSTALL SOLAR!

My point wasn't that we could afford it. My point was we did it in part just for the fact we are helping to cut down electric usage and just a little bit of the amount of fossil fuels used to generate electricity. It's not always just about the money.

GOOD FOR YOU, BUT SDG&E'S BUYBACK POLICY IS PREVENTING MILLIONS OF OTHERS FROM DOING THE SAME THING YOU WERE ABLE TO AFFORD TO DO!

I agree that it's wrong that the utilities are getting huge amounts of tax dollars. However, you seem to be suggesting that if the utilities are getting it, so should private citizens. The "I want mine too" defense. My point was nobody should be incentivised. Again, robbing from Peter to pay Paul.

THE HUGE TAX DOLLARS SHOULD BE FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD INSTEAD OF THE SHAREHOLDERS GOOD! WHY SHOULD SDG&E'S SHAREHOLDERS PROFIT INSTEAD OF SDG&E INVESTING THOSE DOLLARS FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD?

And finally, as far as what we're are doing personally not helping others to afford solar, please tell me what you are doing personally to help others afford solar? I'm not talking about your suggestions or ideas, but what you yourself are personally doing? In what way are you helping those that can't afford it.

0

Founder Sept. 11, 2010 @ 7:59 a.m.

Part 2 I have my opinions on your suggestions. Some I agree with, some I don't. But nowhere did I criticize or attack you personally.

HA HA HA NO WHERE DID I "criticize or attack you personally", THIS IS JUST A PLOY TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT! WHY SHOULD I NOT BE HAPPY TO SAY THAT "I'm happy that you have lots of properties" comment, WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT, IT'S TRUE?

But that kind of comment really does reflect poorly on your character. Makes you sound envious of someone who has something you don't." There is no reason at all for the ad hominem attack on me in the form of your "I'm happy that you have lots of properties" comment. As I have said many times before, I don't really care what anyone writes to or about me; you're all just anons to me. But that kind of comment really does reflect poorly on your character. Makes you sound envious of someone who has something you don't.

I THINK YOU SHOULD REREAD WHAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN AGAIN AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHY YOU EVEN WENT DOWN THIS "ENVIOUS" PATH BECAUSE YOU ARE JUST TALKING TO/ABOUT YOURSELF!

BTW: IT MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE YOU ARE DOING THIS BLOGGING "FOR" SOMEONE (AS IN BEING PAID) INSTEAD OF DOING IT FOR YOURSELF... "I don't really care what anyone writes to or about me; you're all just anons to me." IS JUST TOO CUTE TO BLOG ABOUT!

0

Founder Sept. 11, 2010 @ 8:11 a.m.

Reply #55 to my #53

"Reply #52 And you can bet that the Utilities will generate as much of the required Energy themselves so they will keep as much of the money as they can, that's why they call it Green Energy,

Our Green for only their Energy, not someone else's Energy!"

I was "trying" to be humorous about who is getting the "green" (money) and relating it to the "eco" GREEN generation of energy! SDG&E will try very hard to be the entity that is doing "that" green generation rather than paying someone else to do it at a higher price. + Every kilowatt that SDG&E gets cheap (because a homeowner has added it to the grid and only gets paid a tiny amount of what SDG&E can then sell it for) is also real monetary "GREEN" kilowatt for them...

Think Double Green Energy!

0

Founder Sept. 11, 2010 @ 4:49 p.m.

Reply #60 My reply in CAPS:

Founder, I was here long before you arrived, and I'll be here long after you depart. WHY DO YOU ASUME THAT? YOUR USER NAME SAYS JULY 20, 2010; NOT HAPPY WITH YOUR OLD NAME?

I took your comment about my property ownership as sarcasm. If it wasn't intended to be such, that's my mistake. OK

As evidenced by your "green" remark above and a recent post suggesting ALL city employees take an immediate 50% pay cut, your use of sarcasm and humor tends to be somewhat convoluted, at least in the way I read some some of your remarks. Kind of a rule of thumb is when you have to explain your humor, it's not working. PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH AND ALSO NIX THE PHONY NAME CALLING!

Let me ask you a couple of question about SDGE, since I am not a customer. OH, REALLY AND WHERE DO YOU GET ALL YOUR ELECTRICITY FROM? WHERE ARE YOU BLOGGING FROM, IF NOT SAN DIEGO?

1 During which time period of the day is residential electricity usage the most expensive. MIDDAY 2 During which part of the day is residential electricity usage least expensive. NIGHTTIME

3 I still don't understand your preoccupation with how much residential customers get paid for feeding their excess electricity into the grid. I don't understand your logic that the customers are getting ripped off. Logically speaking,they are getting paid for something that costs them nothing and would otherwise go to waste so if they didn't feed it back, they would receive nothing for it. So the fact that they do receive credit for it, makes it pure profit for them. How is SDGE's "buyback policy" preventing people from generating their own solar? Since they have to be generating in the first place to receive credit for their excess, then they are not being prevented from using solar in the first place. Like I said, I just don't understand your logic on this. Perhaps you can explain in detail.

SURE, RIGHT NOW, SDG&E ALSO GENERATES "FREE" SOLAR ELECTRICITY AND THEY CHARGE FULL PRICE FOR EVERY KILOWATT OF IT THEY THEY SELL. WHY THEN, SHOULD THEY TAKE "HOME OWNER" "FREE" GENERATED KILOWATTS AND NOT PAY FULL PRICE TO THE HOME OWNER FOR THE SAME KILOWATTS?

THE ANSWER IS THAT THEY ARE A PUBLIC MONOPOLY AND GET TO SET THEIR OWN RULES (WITH A KISS FROM THE CPUC); REMINDS ME OF THE "ONLY GAME IN TOWN" RIGGED GAMBLING HALLS OF THE OLD WEST OR EVEN BETTER YET THE JOKE ABOUT WHY DO DOGS LICK THEMSELVES, BECAUSE THEY CAN... ONLY RIPPING IT'S CUSTOMERS IS NO JOKE IN THESE HARD (FOR MOST OF US) TIMES.

SDG&E "BUYBACK" POLICY IS PREVENTING MILLIONS OF FOLKS FROM INSTALLING SOLAR BECAUSE WITHOUT A "FULL PRICED" BUYBACK POLICY, BUYING SOLAR PANELS DOES NOT PENCIL OUT AS GOOD FOR HOME OWNERS AS IT DOES FOR SDG&E'S OWN SOLAR INSTALLATIONS... PLUS EVERY ADDITIONAL SOLAR PANEL HOMEOWNERS INSTALL EATS INTO SDG&E'S FUTURE PROFITS AND MAKE CA MORE EARTHQUAKE INDEPENDENT!

IF YOU ANSWER THIS POST, PERHAPS YOU WILL ALSO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS I ASKED YOU ABOVE...

0

Don Bauder Sept. 11, 2010 @ 7:11 p.m.

Response to poset #57: You mentioned the key to the energy dilemma without using the word: conservation. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 11, 2010 @ 7:14 p.m.

Response to post #58; I certainly hope we don't have any flaks getting paid for putting propaganda on this site, but I wouldn't be surprised if we do. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 11, 2010 @ 7:17 p.m.

Response to post #59: Sempra has so many ways to extract money from consumers but isn't very generous paying it back to shareholders. The yield is not that good in comparison with other utilities' yields. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 11, 2010 @ 7:19 p.m.

Response to post #60: Your turn, Founder. Best, Don Bauder

0

David Dodd Sept. 11, 2010 @ 8:17 p.m.

Founder, while I don't defend the energy companies and their shinanigans, I'm unsure of how energy created by SDG&E's energy could be generated free in any way. Investments into solar panels are not cheap, but generally pay off in the long run. But it's an investment, never the less. And for any homeowner that invests in solar panels, if they produce more than they use, it makes sense that SDG&E would buy that energy back at a reduced price and simply add it back into the grid to sell to everyone else.

Maybe this isn't the best analogy, but think of electricity as a commodity, like grains or pork bellies. If I grow grain or raise pork and I produce more than I consume, shouldn't I be able to sell that back to market? If I chose not to grow these things, I would have to pay market value for them. If I invest in their production, I should be able to sell excess back to markets where other people can purchase them at market value.

0

Don Bauder Sept. 11, 2010 @ 9:18 p.m.

Response to post #61: The key is that solar panels don't pay off on the short or intermediate term. But better technology may be coming along. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 11, 2010 @ 9:22 p.m.

Response to post #66: You basic idea is defensible, but remember what happened when Enron traded energy as a commodity. Sempra, too. Best, Don Bauder

0

David Dodd Sept. 11, 2010 @ 9:50 p.m.

Re #68: Certainly, but that was criminal. Many bank robberies are inside jobs, but should that reflect negatively on the banking industry?

0

Founder Sept. 12, 2010 @ 7:25 a.m.

Reply #70 1. Yup, I've only started commenting on the On-line Reader this year! 2. Instead of "previous thread" why not just say where you live? KISS applies! 3. SDG&E should be a public monopoly in that it exists to supply it's customers with energy, I think a good analogy would be a cooperative, some folks put in more than others and everyone pays the same for what they use if it exceeds what they put in. If there is extra then the shareholders get some of it. 4. If smart metering will allow time of use billing then it is only fair that SDG&E also pay for energy supplied the same way. This will help promote more folks adding solar which will benefit everyone AND REDUCE our dependance upon foreign oil! By the Utility dragging it's feet and making it hard for folks to get a fair return for each kilowatt, they are not servicing the public but their own shareholders!

0

Founder Sept. 12, 2010 @ 7:38 a.m.

Reply #71 1. The amount generated is not the issue, equal pay for equal kilowatt at time of use will benefit our State and our Country!

  1. Why should SDG&E be allowed (by the public it serves) to install their own Solar panels and get more money from those kilowatts than the exact same kilowatt generated by a homeowner's panel connected to the grid? SDG&E exists to supply the grid and they should accept local supplied power before "foreign" power!

  2. If SDG&E did what I suggested then they might not have to build the Sunrise link at all, which would save all SDG&E users huge money and eliminate another source of fires since those lines would not be going through Cleveland Forest!

0

Don Bauder Sept. 12, 2010 @ 7:41 a.m.

Response to post #69: The big Wall Street banks have been hiding their liabilities offshore for years, thus giving a false picture to their shareholders, potential shareholders, regulators and the public. That's criminal. But nobody will go to prison. In fact, regulators may not do anything significant. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 12, 2010 @ 7:47 a.m.

Response to post #70: I joined the Reader in April of 2003. The debates on the posts, and my active participation, didn't really get started in earnest until 2007. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 12, 2010 @ 7:52 a.m.

Response to post #71: You may argue that electricity is a commodity, but there is a difference. Commodities are traded in relatively (notice I said RELATIVELY) free markets. Utilities are regulated. They try to jack up profits by going into regulation-free businesses. But their buying and selling of electricity should be considered part of the regulated side of their business. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 12, 2010 @ 7:57 a.m.

Response to post #72: Utilities should serve shareholders but are duty-bound to serve the public, too. Regulators should make sure the utilities meet both obligations. The CPUC is not doing its job in California by permitting utilities to put shareholders first. It will be interesting to see what comes out of the San Bruno investigations -- whether PGE neglected its customers' interests, just as SDGE did with the fires. Or will PGE get off with a wrist slap, as SDGE did? Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 12, 2010 @ 7:59 a.m.

Response to post #73: You are correct. The Sunrise Powerlink is a disgrace. Best, Don Bauder

0

Founder Sept. 12, 2010 @ 9:51 a.m.

Reply #74 -#77 Right On! I especially enjoyed your comment:

"Utilities should serve shareholders but are duty-bound to serve the public, too. Regulators should make sure the utilities meet both obligations. The CPUC is not doing its job in California by permitting utilities to put shareholders first."

The CPUC is now just SDG&E's cheerleaders, helping push our rates onward and upward!

The CPUC all be replaced with a new Board randomly chosen off the same voter lists that our jurors are; then we would see true oversight, instead of unfair "power promotion"!

Many promote Raising rates because that will encourage energy conservation BUT LEFT UNSAID is that it will also make SDG&E shareholder very happy...

0

nan shartel Sept. 12, 2010 @ 1:04 p.m.

81/82 etc...founders comments in general

from the 70's money has a;ways been called Green Energy...with the emphasis being that it wasn't real and had no final impact on those who viewed life with a higher state of consciousness

Green has become immensely important now in this downward spiraling economy SDG&E's long term Mission Statement is

The increased renewable energy supplies called for in the long-term energy plan will help in complying with California Senate Bill 1078. This bill requires the state’s three investor-owned utilities, including SDG&E, to increase their purchases of power generated from renewable resources by 1 percent each year, reaching 20 percent of all purchased electricity by 2010.

To meet your energy needs now and in the future, we are advancing key renewable projects as part of a long-term energy plans. Increased renewable energy supplies, when combined with other existing sources of energy, are integral to meeting the future energy needs of customers in our service area.

will they encourage us and help us to pay to GO GREEN and then charge others for the excess of our GREEN produces on the backside??

i think a good example of the publics disgruntled attitude about following a utilities lead is the Water Companies

SAVE WATER THEY SAY!

and each year we have..brown unkempt lawns and cactus gardens r the sign of it...then the Water Companies say

WE AREN'T MAKING ENOUGH MONEY AND WE'RE RAISING YOUR RATES

Founders skeptical comments r a printed touchstone to how many people feel about everything...SDG&E, the WATER COMPANY, city and state government,and the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ad nauseam

today THE TEA PARTY IS RALLYING IN WASHINGTON DC to encourage the Federal Government to stop haggling and show more Fiscal Responsibility

the PUBLIC pays for everything...and we want a fair dollar spent for a fair product price received

as to where u like to spend some of ur summers Crystal Cove, i looked into the place the first time ur name came up and got very excited about the place...have even talked my husband into a vacation there...I LOVED IT!!!

if i do Cap's it because i want to emphasize or when i hit a THE CAP LIGHT WAS LIT BY MISTAKE

THIS IS A WONDERFUL AND INSIGHTFUL DISCUSSION!!!

i'm to old and poor to pay the credit fees for D Bauders classes so i simply audit them here at the READER...best Don and thx all

0

nan shartel Sept. 12, 2010 @ 1:07 p.m.

83

to shorten that statement

they made the rules then changed the rules to fatten their pocketbook!!!

0

nan shartel Sept. 12, 2010 @ 1:12 p.m.

42

hey that might make the fire burn longer...good idea Don

0

Don Bauder Sept. 12, 2010 @ 1:50 p.m.

Response to post #79: Technically, SDG&E shareholders are Sempra shareholders. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 12, 2010 @ 1:54 p.m.

Response to post #80: To be responsible, an advertiser should not show a bear hugging a human affectionately. That's dangerous. That's always been one thing that bothered me about Winnie the Pooh. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 12, 2010 @ 1:57 p.m.

Response to post #81: 13K sounds low to me. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 12, 2010 @ 1:59 p.m.

Respose to post #82: The battle continues... Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 12, 2010 @ 2:05 p.m.

Responses to posts #s 83-85: Back in 2004, the City of San Diego was forced to tell its citizens that there might have to be fee and tax increases, along with service slashes. The administration delayed implementing anything as long as possible. No longer. Prepare for higher fees. Best, Don Bauder

0

Founder Sept. 12, 2010 @ 2:42 p.m.

Reply #87 I agree, it should have a disclaimer for all the folks that don't realize that Polar Bears are VERY dangerous!

This one must be Smoky's Northern Brother, Whitey!

0

Founder Sept. 12, 2010 @ 2:48 p.m.

Reply#83 Right On nan

The "People" cannot afford to turn their other hind cheek to getting ripped off by their "OWN Utilities, or their OWN City's any longer, despite what our Leaders & our BIG Unions say is good for US and their own pocketbooks..

0

Founder Sept. 12, 2010 @ 2:58 p.m.

Reply #81 1. Pay attention yourself, just list where you live, instead of "on THIS thread"! 2. SCE is just RIPPING it's customer more than SDG&E is, that's nothing to be proud of! I've spoken to lots of Solar installers and potential Solar panel buyers and the partial buy back IS a factor; even our OWN Don B says it doesn't not pencil out for his family yet! 3. So PG&E is RIPPING it's customers as much as SCE, trying to squeeze as much money a it can until the new law is enacted!

0

Founder Sept. 12, 2010 @ 3:13 p.m.

Reply #82 1. RE AB920, is just a tiny first BABY step in the right direction forced upon the Utilities by rate payers that are angry with how their Leaders have allowed them to get RIPPED by their own PUBLIC Utility!

  1. What percentage of the rate payers can afford to do what you are happy to do, gift their money to their Utility? Here is a thought for you, demand equal pay for your energy and then donate your unused energy to someone besides the Utility! Maybe you can use the tax credit!

  2. I am NOT now nor have I yelled, using the CAPS allows me to "bold" and or not have to type everything over again, while adding to what you are posting; hopefully soon the Online Reader will allow us to use different color or types of font...

  3. I also Pray, for low cost Energy for all, this and every Sunday!

  4. You still have not told us if you are somehow associated with these Utilities or are just interested Energy User, as I am...

0

Founder Sept. 12, 2010 @ 3:31 p.m.

Reply #84 about #83 nan that's really fabulous writing, much better than me

I wish I could have thought, to say it that way! Really well written, is just all I can say!

Please continue to, add your comments because what you say, makes so much sense

0

Russ Lewis Sept. 12, 2010 @ 8:27 p.m.

It may be none of my business, but Don is the wrong person to call lazy, Crystal.

0

Russ Lewis Sept. 12, 2010 @ 10:22 p.m.

My apologies then. I wasn't aware that Founder and the esteemed Mr. Bauder shared the same given name. Presumptuous of me to think that Mr. B. needs me to defend him.

0

David Dodd Sept. 12, 2010 @ 10:47 p.m.

By the way, concerning solar energy in Mexico, many in the areas where gringo retirement is popular have purchased land and built homes and use solar. The electric company, which is owned by the government, will not pay for what is produced as excess. Will that ever change? Who knows...

0

Don Bauder Sept. 12, 2010 @ 10:48 p.m.

Response to post #s 92 and 93: Some think Wall Street bears are dangerous, too. I don't agree. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 12, 2010 @ 10:51 p.m.

Response to posts #94-96: SCE and PGE are not responsible citizens. Sempra isn't alone in its attempts to take from the consumers and give to the shareholders. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 12, 2010 @ 10:58 p.m.

Response to posts #97 and 98: Interesting you note that a utility is ripping people off, but doing so within the law. One of the basics of fraud investigative reporting is that scams are very often -- if not usually -- legal. That's why fraudsters hire the best-connected and most expensive lawyers. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 12, 2010 @ 11:02 p.m.

Response to posts #s 99-101: Here I do my best to stir up wrath -- particularly that which is directed at me -- and russl feels he has to defend me. Hey, russl, we're always sharpening our teeth around here, as you know from your own biting comments. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 12, 2010 @ 11:04 p.m.

Response to post #102: I, for one, doubt that it will change. Best, Don Bauder

0

David Dodd Sept. 13, 2010 @ 4:31 a.m.

@ #107: Things here are obviously different. For one, as I mentioned, electricity is Nationalized. But beyond that, it's different. In the U.S. in most locations, for example, 220V is piped into the main breaker and is split at that breaker into 2 poles of 110V each split. In Mexico, they bring in 110V off of the line. Residents get 1 pole at 110V, and if they want 220V, the government puts you on a waiting list and charges you a more-than-modest fee in order to run it into your box.

0

David Dodd Sept. 13, 2010 @ 4:47 a.m.

Oh, and another tidbit that most people don't know about: Mexico has nuclear power. There is a plant in Veracruz with two reactors, the first beginning operations in 1990.

Frank Zappa once said, "You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline - it helps if you have some kind of football team, or some nuclear weapons, but in the very least you need a beer."

Well, Mexico has good beer, and an airline, and football teams. They could probably have some nuclear weapons if they wanted them, but I don't think they want to get that involved. A nuclear power plant is close enough.

0

Don Bauder Sept. 13, 2010 @ 7:51 a.m.

Response to posts #s 108 and 109: If I'm not mistaken, Mexico has futbol teams and not football teams. Correct me if I'm wrong. The U.S. is returning to nuclear-generated power. Our airlines are ailing and being consolidated. Our beer is being taken over by high-quality micro-brewers (although they have a long way to go to capture the market.) Best, Don Bauder

0

Founder Sept. 13, 2010 @ 9:18 a.m.

Reply #98 "crystalcove" 1. Happily, nothing is the matter with me and yes, I don't use my "given" name (Don) because I started using the user name I'm using, but mine IS listed; how about telling us your "given" name unless that makes you afraid or ?

BTW: It's also much less confusing when Don Bauder write many of the stories I blog on.

  1. What is so hard about typing in "OC" when asked where you live? I'm proud to say I live in NP, am active in NP and have been since the Mid 80's.

  2. Why is asking you if you are associated with any Utilities "Off the wall"? When I see any user post really long, really detailed posts, really fast it makes me wonder if they are "Really Professionals"!

  3. RE: "SCE and PGE are ripping people off and I agree to an extent, but it's within the law" --> it's STILL A RIP OFF, even if it is legal.

  4. By "donate your energy", I was actually thinking you could donate the money you received since you don't need it; why give it to the Utility Shareholders?

  5. Yup, my payback would be kinda small as you indicated, but when you multiply all the rate payers times that amount then the number of Dollars get big fast and why should those BIG Dollars go to Utility Shareholders!

  6. I'm curious, what exactly do you think, "mildly eccentric" really means? Since you picked up on that quote, I'd like to know what it means to you.

  7. What do you think I should pray for, beside "low cost Energy for all" maybe less RIP OFF's Worldwide, a new CPUC Board, Less GREED; what do you pray for?

0

Founder Sept. 13, 2010 @ 9:20 a.m.

Reply #109 "Mexico has nuclear power. There is a plant in Veracruz with two reactors,"

I guess that is where they make the really "HOT" sauce!

0

Founder Sept. 13, 2010 @ 12:37 p.m.

Reply #113 crystalcove (what, still not mentioning your name, why aren't I not surprised?)

  1. To me a "RIP OFF" is a "RIP OFF", even if you buy by choice...

  2. To many folks (like me) the "$9.00 for a beer at a Padres game" is only one of the reasons NOT to support Baseball and Football Stadiums in San Diego.

  3. A. Surprise, Not getting paid for the Energy WAS THE BIGGEST FACTOR that keep me from getting solar panels at the time that I could afford them; with electric cars just about here and electric motorcycles now available*, folks should design their systems to provide more energy than they are now using so they can recharge their new vehicles.

... B. I'm proud to say that I helped NP install the first Solar streetlights in California years ago, so I think it is fair to say that if I had as much money as you seem to enjoy; I'd have as much Solar capacity as I could BUT I still would continue to promote for myself and all the other folks that are being RIPPED OFF by our Utilities and the CPUC!

... C. NP now has a Solar Program for folks on limited budgets to get forgivable 10 year loans to install solar and or fix up their homes: http://www.sandiego.gov/redevelopment-agency/ah.shtml#enhanceloan

  1. I wonder did you get comp'd to attend the 2007 DoE’s Solar Decathlon?

BTW: I'm still waiting for you to list your "Given" name, since you must be a "man of integrity", because it take one to know one, right?

0

nan shartel Sept. 13, 2010 @ 2:13 p.m.

the esteemed Mr Bauder is still just 2 dreamy for words

~~runs out and hides in the 100 acre woods~!

0

David Dodd Sept. 13, 2010 @ 2:28 p.m.

Re #110: Mexico plays American football at the University level, they have several teams. Half of those teams are called "Rams". Apparently, it's a popular logo style.

0

nan shartel Sept. 13, 2010 @ 2:49 p.m.

92...i just gotta go there...i'm ubercurious to see it...and a whole summer!!!

~~be still my heart~~!!!

0

nan shartel Sept. 13, 2010 @ 2:59 p.m.

87

hahahahahahahahaha...u can when u choose to be one funny sh*t Don!~!!

0

Don Bauder Sept. 14, 2010 @ 8:39 a.m.

Response to posts #s 111 to 114: A rip-off is a rip-off even if it is revealed. In securities, the scam is buried in legal Latin. At a ballpark, the scam is that $9 beer is basically a monopoly unless you smuggle your own in. Best, Don Bauder

0

Founder Sept. 14, 2010 @ 4:10 p.m.

Reply #120 about #111 and #114 But in your previous post, you just called me Don, so I was paying attention CC, and this just exemplifies (as I mentioned) why I use Founder...!

BTW:

  1. I still don't see you listing your "given" name, why is that; maybe it's actually you, that "simply don't pay attention", see BOTH #111 & #114

  2. And since you are being so very specific, you didn't reply to my #111 (item #8) either: "What do you think I should pray for, beside "low cost Energy for all" maybe less RIP OFF's Worldwide, a new CPUC Board, Less GREED; what do you pray for?" question...

Should I pray for your answers, CC?

0

Don Bauder Sept. 14, 2010 @ 10:35 p.m.

Response to post #120: Our utility is a rural cooperative. The state was offering solar rebates through the cooperative, but it wound up being a lottery, because there weren't enough offerings to go around. So it was a bit of a crapshoot. We could have installed solar and then not gotten the rebate. But that wasn't the deterrent; we elected to wait because we think technology will improve. We believe in the concept. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 14, 2010 @ 10:37 p.m.

Response to post #121: Pray that utilities don't prey. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 15, 2010 @ 6:25 a.m.

Response to posts #s 124 and 125: A travelogue and philosophy lesson. Profound. Best, Don Bauder

0

Founder Sept. 15, 2010 @ 7:43 a.m.

Reply #124 RE: #121 RE:Reply #120 about #111 and #114

Too bad, "I had far too little time for such a reply." yet you had plenty of time to post travel info.

Anyone that calls others by their "given" name yet refuses to list theirs is suspect! crystalcove YOU are suspect; if I'm wrong then post your "Given" name, I've only ask many times in previous posts.

Your technique of massive posts, "side-stepping" issues and shifting Blog conversation makes me think of someone that is promoting someone else's agenda instead of their own!

0

Founder Sept. 15, 2010 @ 3:03 p.m.

Reply #128

"It's either that or I prefer to remain an enigma. I've never really been sure about this"

I think you meant "Enema" instead of "Enigma", because you are full of it, that I am sure of!

0

Founder Sept. 16, 2010 @ 7:10 a.m.

Reply #130 - #132

Lots and lots of flowery words, but still no "given" name! That's the bottom line from you, you post others, yet refuse to list yours!

You even try to shift the conversation, citing other usernames, yet they did not post "given" names, like you did, this is yet another example of just more faux "redirection", instead of taking part in true and honest discussion...

You promote a Double standard, no matter how you flower it up with family history...

Your statement,"persons like you never know the actual truth and in most cases simply don’t care."

Expresses your Arrogance, not you're Understanding!

Pity

0

nan shartel Sept. 16, 2010 @ 11:32 a.m.

128

quote:It's either that or I prefer to remain an enigma. I've never really been sure about this because I'm trying to be less popular.

hahahahahahahahaha...that aint gonna work homey..u's popular like crazy already

0

nan shartel Sept. 16, 2010 @ 11:34 a.m.

erudite well spoken men r always POPULAR Crystal Cove...that's why da POOH is so popular...that and he's smart as a whip!!!

0

Founder Sept. 18, 2010 @ 7:13 a.m.

Reply #137 about Comment #133

Yours is a double standard, which despite quotes to the contrary defines you as someone that is out of touch with reality because you consider yourself Special compared to others...

Your attitude only "fuels" the discussion's change in direction and promotes your "change the subject" agenda.

SDG&E rates will increase for most folks once Smart meters are installed and that is not beneficial in these tough times, except for SDG&E shareholders; that is why we should demand that the next Governor of CA, replace the entire Board of the CPUC!

0

nan shartel Sept. 18, 2010 @ 3:46 p.m.

http://www.energycircle.com/blog/2009/07/21/smart-meters-are-consumers-an-afterthought

i think Founder has a real point on the value of Smart Meters to the public who have them...check out the link

~~but u r special CC~~ ;-)

0

Don Bauder Sept. 19, 2010 @ 9:14 p.m.

Response to posts #s 127-131: Put on the gloves and come out for round two. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 19, 2010 @ 9:16 p.m.

Response to post #132: You go to the U-T for sports and to the Reader for anti-sports. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 19, 2010 @ 9:21 p.m.

Response to posts #s 133-141: Enigma. Erudition. Good words, those. Best, Don Bauder

0

Founder Sept. 20, 2010 @ 11:32 a.m.

Reply #145 Reply #137 about Comment #133+

I'll repeat myself, so you can see it in print again: "Yours is a double standard, which despite quotes to the contrary defines you as someone that is out of touch with reality because you consider yourself Special compared to others...

Your attitude only "fuels" the discussion's change in direction and promotes your "change the subject" agenda.

SDG&E rates will increase for most folks once Smart meters are installed and that is not beneficial in these tough times, except for SDG&E shareholders; that is why we should demand that the next Governor of CA, replace the entire Board of the CPUC".

  1. I said it above and I'll say it again, post your given name or admit that you "deserve" the "double standard" label, CC. +
  2. SDG&E has already started "over billing" those folks without $mart Meters by estimating how much money to charge them on their last bill. SDG&E could not wait to get "actual" readings from all the folks that do not yet have $mart Meters so they figured, they might as well make up some and then charge the difference in price. This is a RIP, and the CPUC should not only fine SDG&E, but make them refund a percentage of everyones bill; anything less, will be an indication that the CPUC is just too friendly with SDG&E, for the Public's good!
0

Don Bauder Sept. 21, 2010 @ 12:29 a.m.

Response to post #145: Who was the late San Diegan who uttered those perspicacious words? Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 21, 2010 @ 12:31 a.m.

Response to post #146: Important information. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 21, 2010 @ 12:34 a.m.

Response to post #147: Founder has a very good point: don't trust Sempra. And by all means don't trust the PUC as presently constituted. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 21, 2010 @ 12:37 a.m.

Response to post #148: Please don't check out. You are adding so much class to the joint. We love your philosophical observations and the articulation with which you express them. Best, Don Bauder

0

nan shartel Sept. 21, 2010 @ 2:43 p.m.

thanks for not leaving Crystal Cove...many of us would miss ur enlightened repartee...whether we may agree with u or not...that's what makes great debate!!!

i learn a lot here at Dons...as i've said before i don't always just come here to lure him into the 100 arce woods to pin Eeyore's tail back on

and commentors teach a great deal 2...bring up things i've yet to discern for myself

thx for hangin' homey!!!

0

Don Bauder Sept. 22, 2010 @ 5:47 p.m.

Response to post #153: I loved to read Dr. Seuss's Scrambled Eggs Super to my two sons. I loved it more than they did. After awhile, they would ask for another Seuss book. Best, Don Bauder

0

Sign in to comment

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close