RE: So now the kooks in Calif. want to control your thermostat

RE: So now the kooks in Calif. want to control your thermostat (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

ownedgirlie -> RE: So now the kooks in Calif. want to control your thermostat (1/12/2008 2:02:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FangsNfeet Pregnant and Menopausal women are not going to stand for this. Leave the thermostat alone. Otherwise, I can see a population expansion in the goveners mansion. Wow, you're not kidding. I'm not menopausal yet, but the meds I'm on have my body temperature running up and down the scale. I go from heat to opening the door several times in a day. I want to control my own temperature, thank you very much, and I'm willing to pay the bill, whatever it is.

CalifChick -> RE: So now the kooks in Calif. want to control your thermostat (1/12/2008 3:24:19 PM)
FR From the article: The changes would allow utilities to adjust customers' preset temperatures when the price of electricity is soaring. Customers could override the utilities' suggested temperatures. But in emergencies, the utilities could override customers' wishes. In an emergency situation, if the utility doesn't override the customer, then the result is a brownout or a complete power failure. Which is the lesser of two evils? Rolling brownouts (as in recent years) and power failures, or forced temperature change? And whoever said "just build more power plants"... if only it were that easy. I'm not saying it's right, so don't jump on me (unless you're doing it in a GOOD way), I'm just saying, look at all the alternatives. Cali

Bufotenin -> RE: So now the kooks in Calif. want to control your thermostat (1/12/2008 3:59:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CalifChick FR From the article: The changes would allow utilities to adjust customers' preset temperatures when the price of electricity is soaring. Customers could override the utilities' suggested temperatures. But in emergencies, the utilities could override customers' wishes. In an emergency situation, if the utility doesn't override the customer, then the result is a brownout or a complete power failure. Which is the lesser of two evils? Rolling brownouts (as in recent years) and power failures, or forced temperature change? And whoever said "just build more power plants"... if only it were that easy. I'm not saying it's right, so don't jump on me (unless you're doing it in a GOOD way), I'm just saying, look at all the alternatives. Cali But if we don't have brownouts and blackouts, how are we supposed to solve the Social Security problem? It's amusing to see people from outside California paint this as some crazy leftist thing, whereas during the Energy Crisis when prices were being fixed (anyone remember that? Enron?) and the elderly were dropping like flies because they couldn't get air conditioning, the rest of the country was like "Yeah, Cheney's right! Fuck you guys!" I can't say I like the idea, but I'm cheap and use industrial fans and my windows during the summer anyhow. I doubt the sick and elderly, who need air conditioning the most, are going to be too upset about a few degrees difference when the option is blackouts and baking.

cyberdude611 -> RE: So now the kooks in Calif. want to control your thermostat (1/12/2008 4:38:54 PM)
The reason california has an energy crisis is because they havnt built a power plant in that state in decades, yet the state has grown like crazy. The power grid is now obsolete. And the environmentalists would rather people sit in the dark than build another power plant. California is now buying power from neighboring states who are using that money to build up their power grids in order to sell more power to California. So pretty soon, California is going to be reliant on Nevada, Arizona, and Oregon for their energy. And if something happens and they cant pay the power bill.....lights out because California doesnt have the power or the plants to sustain their own grid. Also when you buy power from other states or other sources, it is very expensive. And that's energy costs are rising in California.

luckydog1 -> RE: So now the kooks in Calif. want to control your thermostat (1/12/2008 4:51:38 PM)
It seems to me that if you want someone else to take the pollution for your energy you should expect to more for it. If California wants to outsource its pollution and enviromental degredation, it should expect to pay extra. Or produce energy in California and deal with the full cost. The position California took was incredibly selfish. And I thank the Lord our state is not connected to the California grid or we would have had our energy stolen by the feds to give to California, like happened to Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Texas and Wyoming. The unrealistic feel good approach taken by California in the 90s cost the entire nation a lot.

juliaoceania -> RE: So now the kooks in Calif. want to control your thermostat (1/12/2008 5:19:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FangsNfeet Pregnant and Menopausal women are not going to stand for this. Leave the thermostat alone. Otherwise, I can see a population expansion in the goveners mansion. This idea is worse than wanting to ban Fire Places to help stop the contribution to Global Warming. If this is what the majority of Californians want, then fine. Otherwise, I hope the good people of Cali will decide not to vote for any one next election who supports this Energy Conservation bill. Decade after decade, more people move here than to any other state... over 35 million people live here. I wish some of them would move away... more jobs for me. And more electricity for me too

Bufotenin -> RE: So now the kooks in Calif. want to control your thermostat (1/12/2008 5:23:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 The reason california has an energy crisis is because they havnt built a power plant in that state in decades, yet the state has grown like crazy. The power grid is now obsolete. And the environmentalists would rather people sit in the dark than build another power plant. Haven't built a power plant in decades? Should I assume that's hyperbole or ignorance? Are you speaking solely of nuclear power plants? quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 It seems to me that if you want someone else to take the pollution for your energy you should expect to more for it. If California wants to outsource its pollution and enviromental degredation, it should expect to pay extra. Or produce energy in California and deal with the full cost. The position California took was incredibly selfish. And I thank the Lord our state is not connected to the California grid or we would have had our energy stolen by the feds to give to California, like happened to Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Texas and Wyoming. The unrealistic feel good approach taken by California in the 90s cost the entire nation a lot. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/05/10/MN24643.DTL "One was nicknamed "Ricochet" by Enron traders but is referred to as megawatt laundering by many energy experts. The company bought power in California under the state's price limits, shipped it outside the state, only to buy it again and sell it back to the state. Because the energy was coming from outside California, it wasn't subject to price limitations." http://www.guardian.co.uk/enron/story/0,11337,1406480,00.html "On one tape, an Enron official named Bill tells an employee called Rich at a Las Vegas power plant to take the plant offline on a confected excuse." Paying for imported energy is one thing, but that wasn't caused the inflation during the crisis. And, if you're so concerned about the environmental effects of the energy production, wouldn't it be better if that money went to the state of production rather than the corporation producing the pollution?

luckydog1 -> RE: So now the kooks in Calif. want to control your thermostat (1/12/2008 5:33:17 PM)
Bufo, that a few illegal deals were made durring the crisis, does not mean that the crisis was not real. It was a slow motion train wreck that was obvious for years before it happened. The companies that produce in a state pays the taxes ect, negotiated with the state, and the money paid for the energy is used to pay the taxes and tarrifs, to the state where production occurs.

Bufotenin -> RE: So now the kooks in Calif. want to control your thermostat (1/12/2008 5:47:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Bufo, that a few illegal deals were made durring the crisis, does not mean that the crisis was not real. It was a slow motion train wreck that was obvious for years before it happened. The companies that produce in a state pays the taxes ect, negotiated with the state, and the money paid for the energy is used to pay the taxes and tarrifs, to the state where production occurs. Of course there were other factors; production of new plants largely came to a halt because nobody wanted to construct while the issues of deregulation were still unresolved. And yes, prices would have gone-up sharply, but nowhere near to the extent of what occurred due to price-fixing schemes. You make it out to be an issue of the people of California simply not wanting to pay the extra cost of imported energy, which wasn't the issue, and grossly understate the effect of the market manipulation. edit: and so as not to ignore your pther point, the environmental impact fees etc. paid to the state are primarily based on production. If the company is artificially inflating prices by closing plants and rerouting energy back and forth, they're making an increased profit while paying less to the state.

KRANWEST -> RE: So now the kooks in Calif. want to control your thermostat (1/12/2008 5:52:29 PM)
Just when I thought that New England was a bad place to live................

HaveRopeWillBind -> RE: So now the kooks in Calif. want to control your thermostat (1/12/2008 5:55:18 PM)
Proud, Why not just move the thermostat to the bedroom?

luckydog1 -> RE: So now the kooks in Calif. want to control your thermostat (1/12/2008 5:58:23 PM)
That the people of California did not resolve thier regulation SNAFU is not a market manipulation. You are vastly underestimating having a Govenor who ran on a platform of no new Power plants, with the support of the "left" and "green". I do not think, and have never seen any evidence that Price fixing and a few illegals deals were more than 5% of the problem. There simply was not enough power in the Grid to keep it turned on, hence rolling blackouts. With out the price hikes there would have been far more blackouts.

Bufotenin -> RE: So now the kooks in Calif. want to control your thermostat (1/12/2008 6:18:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 That the people of California did not resolve thier regulation SNAFU is not a market manipulation. You are vastly underestimating having a Govenor who ran on a platform of no new Power plants, with the support of the "left" and "green". I do not think, and have never seen any evidence that Price fixing and a few illegals deals were more than 5% of the problem. There simply was not enough power in the Grid to keep it turned on, hence rolling blackouts. With out the price hikes there would have been far more blackouts. Are you referring to Davis http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/01/30/BU190969.DTL&hw=Davis+fast+track+power+plant+April+1999&sn=001&sc=1000 or his Republican predecessor Wilson? Because I don't remember Wilson pandering to the left, whereas he approved less than a third the number of plants Davis did. Either way I suggest you check your facts. I've read nothing to indicate that demand ever actually outstripped supply, but it did come close when power plants were unnecessarily closed for repair. No more than 5% of the problem? May I ask what evidence you've seen to indicate this? I know wikipedia isn't a reliable source of information, but perhaps you should look into it and at least go through the references because it really seems to me you're pulling statistics out of your ass and are making baseless arguments.

proudsub -> RE: So now the kooks in Calif. want to control your thermostat (1/12/2008 9:41:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HaveRopeWillBind Proud, Why not just move the thermostat to the bedroom? We've talked about doing that for the 28 years we've lived here. Procrastination at it's best.[:o]

juliaoceania -> RE: So now the kooks in Calif. want to control your thermostat (1/12/2008 9:44:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 That the people of California did not resolve thier regulation SNAFU is not a market manipulation. You are vastly underestimating having a Govenor who ran on a platform of no new Power plants, with the support of the "left" and "green". I do not think, and have never seen any evidence that Price fixing and a few illegals deals were more than 5% of the problem. There simply was not enough power in the Grid to keep it turned on, hence rolling blackouts. With out the price hikes there would have been far more blackouts. Which govenor ran on that platform of no new power plants... could you please supply a reference to that campaign platform because if Davis did promise that, he was lying. He signed a bill to build 14 new power plants, a couple of which were under construction when the rolling blackouts first hit... it was under Wilson that there was a freeze on building power plants, and he was a conservative govenor.

HaveRopeWillBind -> RE: So now the kooks in Calif. want to control your thermostat (1/13/2008 4:52:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: proudsub We've talked about doing that for the 28 years we've lived here. Procrastination at it's best.[:o] Well as long as you are giving it your best effort. I am a classic procrastinator, except in issues like this where it can cost me money. Sounds as though in your case moving the thermostat would save you both money and effort. That's the sort of thing that would get me moving. In fact I have a sort of similar issue here, which I solved by installing smart thermostats in both the living-room and bedroom. They are timed so that during the day the living-room thermostat is on line, and during the evening/night the bedroom thermostat takes over. This setup has saved me over $1000/year since I installed it. You could also go with just the hall location but replace the current thermostat with a smart unit that can be programmed for varying temps at different times of the day. Then just experiment until you find the nighttime setting that leaves your bedroom at the desired temperature.

proudsub -> RE: So now the kooks in Calif. want to control your thermostat (1/13/2008 1:58:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HaveRopeWillBind quote: ORIGINAL: proudsub We've talked about doing that for the 28 years we've lived here. Procrastination at it's best.[:o] Well as long as you are giving it your best effort. I am a classic procrastinator, except in issues like this where it can cost me money. Sounds as though in your case moving the thermostat would save you both money and effort. That's the sort of thing that would get me moving. In fact I have a sort of similar issue here, which I solved by installing smart thermostats in both the living-room and bedroom. They are timed so that during the day the living-room thermostat is on line, and during the evening/night the bedroom thermostat takes over. This setup has saved me over $1000/year since I installed it. You could also go with just the hall location but replace the current thermostat with a smart unit that can be programmed for varying temps at different times of the day. Then just experiment until you find the nighttime setting that leaves your bedroom at the desired temperature. Thanks for the suggestions. Considering we have a 4000sq. ft. house built in the 50's and poorly insulated, we spend very little on heat by manually controlling our 2 oil furnaces and supplementing with a wood fireplace and oil based electric heaters. It works well for us except for that one hair dryer thing.[:)]

KenDckey -> RE: So now the kooks in Calif. want to control your thermostat (1/13/2008 5:45:52 PM)
Californians came here, construction had a boon, property values quadroopled, and they found it wasn't any cheaper than in cali so they went back to cali and the place is becoming a ghost town and property values dropped again

shallowdeep -> RE: So now the kooks in Calif. want to control your thermostat (1/13/2008 7:27:15 PM)
I'd like to reiterate what CalifChick already pointed out, that the proposed automatic thermostat adjustments that can't be overridden by the consumer apply only in power emergencies, i.e. where the alternative is that somebody gets no power at all. Having the capability to do this makes a lot of sense, as the economic and health impact of what would otherwise have been an avoidable blackout make the discomfort of a few extra degrees minor in comparison. You can make the case that, if managed properly, such emergency situations should never occur. However, in general there is not an issue with electrical power supply in the state (see the Independent System Operator's System Status. Significantly over-engineering capacity to prevent emergencies during unusual demand peaks is one approach, but it's wasteful and, looking at it from a capitalistic perspective, unprofitable. quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 The reason california has an energy crisis is because they havnt built a power plant in that state in decades, yet the state has grown like crazy. As pointed out by Bufotenin, this is blatantly false. (Sort the spreadsheet by YEAR_ONLINE, or see a more limited fact sheet for the basic point.) In fact, 34% of the state's electrical power generation capacity was built in the past 20 years. You can argue that not enough capacity has been built, but that's not entirely the fault of the all-powerful (and apparently communist) state government. California often tries things not commonly adopted in the rest of the country - including not only energy conservation backed by environmentalists, but also energy industry deregulation backed by free market advocates. While environmental standards are stricter than elsewhere, there was never a ban on new (non-nuclear) facilities that I'm aware of. An audit completed in 2001 found that the approval process was longer than intended (at 17 months) but was reasonable and not that much longer than approval processes examined in other states (which ranged from 7 to 30 months). In the 90's private industry just didn't see the market, especially with deregulation uncertainties, as warranting the capital investment for many new large plants and, unlike a proper socialist state, California's government isn't in the business of building power plants. At any rate, the conservation efforts that, coupled with the weather, make California the most efficient state per capita in use of electricity seem to be working out pretty well. According to the ISO's news releases, there hasn't been a Stage 3 Electrical Emergency (i.e. a rolling blackout) since the energy crisis ended in 2001. quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Like most socialist theories about centralized control, it will only make the problem worse, as individuals turn up their less efficient window mounted a/c. A far better plan would be to encourage the installation of more efficient secondary systems like I have. Good points. The changes are only a (small) part of the proposed 2008 update to Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations: California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. So other methods of improving new buildings' efficiency are required as well, the thermostats are on top of them and, on average, I imagine the savings will probably well more than offset higher usage from those who compensate with window units or the like (just think of all the units that aren't even occupied when the A/C is on). I appreciate non-residents of California bringing this up (I hadn't heard of it), but can't say I share your concerns. It seems like a reasonable application of technology to help reduce power consumption to me. Conservation tends to be cheaper (and certainly has less environmental impact) than building new power plants. I'm certainly not upset about it, but I don't have air conditioning... =) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Enviro-pinkos in Sacramento: "And the increase in perspiration can help with the water crisis too!"

Sinergy -> RE: So now the kooks in Calif. want to control your thermostat (1/13/2008 7:47:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Californians are polluting Idaho more and more every day. They're moving here so fast that we can't possibly keep up with the growth and, if you want to know what the meaning of the word "excitment" is, try sharing an icy freeway with someone who just came to Boise from Los Angelas for the first time. Either they try doing 80 on it, or it's 2 - 3 mph with nothing in between Make you a deal, Sanity. We stop importing food to your state, and we will be happy to stop importing people to your state. Sinergy p.s. in terms of imports, this would probably need to include anything shipped into California ports to be truly fair. p.p.s. if you want to be a petulant baby and sulk in the corner about how badly you are being mistreated, please be prepared to accept the consequences of being a petulant baby pouting in the corner.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875