Underseas cables for Nilsen!

[Nilsen]

I would not be suprised lol

[Angus]

A total coincidence, but last night there was a news coverage about Norwegian energy prices. Turns out that this high-bidder selling and privatization is hurting the wallets of the norwegian people, while some companies and the state are getting fat fingers.
To top that off, 2 days ago there was a coverage, - an interview with a former high caliber EU lawyer. He thinks we (Icelanders) should join and could do so quickly, and mentions "sharing" as a very importand fundamental issue.
That would apply to energy as well. Monsieur Jean-Claude Piris:
http://dagskra.ruv.is/sjonvarpid/4545027/2011/02/01/0/
Now, since Iceland is not in the EU (nor Norway), we can regulate our own energy prices, but were we in the EU we would HAVE TO run on the high-bidder price.
My curiosity for the cables was based on the idea that government owned connection to the continent would enable a good prifit margin, enabling the inhabitants to enjoy very low prices, or even almost free power. The EU joining would work the opposite way, so were we to join, I would be strongly against the cable.
In the Norwegian case, you don't need the EU, but you Norse guys are sort of getting ripped off.
BTW, I buy some 50.000 kW per year.

[Nilsen]

The reason for the high prices this year Angus is a few factors that hopefully wont happen again.
Some of the nukular plants in sweden have been having some issues with production combined with an unusually cold december leading to high prices in mid-norway were the main powerlines goes east into sweden and not south to were it is connected to denmark and the continent. These issues will be sorted with new main powerlines between north and south and a better swedish production soon.

and..

Because of weak government regulation the companies that produce with hydro sold too much power to europe and drained their magazies too much over the summer. Very little rain in the mountains created a situation of low fill rate when winter set in helped create the high price.

I am betting that prices will be more down to normal next winter but they will be abit higher this summer than normal. That doesnt matter though because we dont use much during the summer.

[Angus]

What I found particularly interesting about the cable was the possibility of evening things out. One would have thought that the odds of running the reservoirs too low would go DOWN when you can vent the electricity both ways.
Also, it was interesting to read about how much energy kicks in when the wind goes up.
All an engineering challenge, and IMHO fascinating.
The dark side of Iceland entering the grid would be the possible EU entry though. We would as far as I can see, not be allowed to keep our low prices. We're running on some 4 Eurocents/KwH where I live, but distribution comes on top in the rural areas, so I have to (grudgingly) pay a total of some 6 (incl VAT).
So, I bloody well hope we do NOT enter the EU

[Nilsen]

Thing is that the hydro power we make is extremly cheap to make vs the coal they use so much of down on the continet so in the summer that cheaper power flows down to them and they dont need to use that much expensive coal 

Result: Norwegian companies get more for the power during the summer than they did before we had the cables (it used to go to waste) The downside is the weak regulation that allowed them to go too far down in the water magazines as they speculated that heavy rain in the fall would fill them up. This will change and in the future they will have to have a higher fill rate at the end of the summer than they do now.

[Angus]

One could call this "teething problems" then, since the time elapsed is not that much.
Just got to stay out of the EU

[Nilsen]

Just got to stay out of the EU

[SIM]

Yeah, but our power distribution and grids are privately owned and maintained by these companies, even though they're interlocked and networked across the entire country to make one solid grid.  It's inefecient in my opinion and it is more evident in the communications industry (both land-based and mobile) since the same buisness model is applied to our telecomunications grid and buisnesses.  I think the buisness model originates from the railroad and telegraph days here in the states (the companies would buy a stretch of land, build the railroad (and later the telegraph lines that paralleled the tracks), charge passengers and freight that used their services, and then be responcible for maintaining their respective sections with their respective profits), where it kinda made more sence than it does now almost 200 years later.  Nowadays there is a bit more than a couple railroad tracks (or telegraph lines) running across this country to keep it inter-connected and comunicating.  We can have 5-6 cell towers jammed together within a square block because each company insists on having their own equipment on their own tower rather than working together to make a much more effecient, apealing and better shared tower/site.  Rather than join together to make a single and powerful fiberoptic backbone for our nations communications, they each opt to maintain and gradualy upgrade their own grids and systems independent of each other.

IMO all vital infrastructure like water, power, rail, road and land lines should be owned by the government either directly or through a business with the government as the major shareholder.

Babalonian, forget the last few years of power bills in California? There is your "government efficiency" at work for you! Those idiots have tried for years to push deregulation on the rest of the country only to have it blow up in the only state that liked the idea! How about the price gouging done by the grid coordinator? Remember how companies couldn't afford to buy power from the grid? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that your friendly government looking out for the little man in California? Lets take a look at how the "california" government has mandated that power companies install meters that give consumers real time usage information. That's not a bad idea actually, but why should it be the power company that foots the bill for the extra equipment? Shouldn't the consumer pay for the services and features or service that are desired by the consumer? Does anyone REALLY believe that the government provides the same services and features at a lower cost to consumers?

Nilsen, the government is the most inefficient entity known to man. There is not nor will there EVER be an industry that government can run as well as private ownership. That Sir has been proved throughout the ages. So I for one would oppose any sort of government mandate that cedes ownership of utilities to government control. That would be patently stupid and contradictory of the Constitution.

My apologies for jumping into your conversation, but I have spent the last few days working to restore power for customers in Indiana. Wonder if the government would have been able to get crews on site as quickly as we did(I was here when the so called storm hit Tuesday). I for one seriously doubt whether the government would even try.............

[Nilsen]

Nilsen, the government is the most inefficient entity known to man. There is not nor will there EVER be an industry that government can run as well as private ownership. That Sir has been proved throughout the ages. So I for one would oppose any sort of government mandate that cedes ownership of utilities to government control. That would be patently stupid and contradictory of the Constitution.

Well I dont live in the US so its not contratidictory to our constitution. The government may be less efficient than private ownership in running companies but the key issue here is not 100% $$$ efficiency. In my opinion key areas of national interst and security should not be owned by private enterprises. Our national grid will thankfully never be turned over to private ownership. I have no problem letting 49% of it going public and the company operates like a private company and not as part of the government. They also hire in alot of private companies doing the work for them around the country and that is how it should be.

[Babalonian]

Babalonian, forget the last few years of power bills in California? There is your "government efficiency" at work for you! Those idiots have tried for years to push deregulation on the rest of the country only to have it blow up in the only state that liked the idea! How about the price gouging done by the grid coordinator? Remember how companies couldn't afford to buy power from the grid? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that your friendly government looking out for the little man in California? Lets take a look at how the "california" government has mandated that power companies install meters that give consumers real time usage information. That's not a bad idea actually, but why should it be the power company that foots the bill for the extra equipment? Shouldn't the consumer pay for the services and features or service that are desired by the consumer? Does anyone REALLY believe that the government provides the same services and features at a lower cost to consumers?

<snip>

There's two issues there you're more than overlooking.  First is that the pacific northwest is heavily supplied with hydroelectric power.  This is reliable, cheap, and efficient power, and we got lots of it (especially with the prices of fossil fuels and the red tape and public relations nightmares nuclear plants had to pay to cut through around that time).  Back when the damns were being built by the grand ol' federal government, they didn't all get built in the deserts or desolate unpopulated areas, most were built in populated mountain rivers and valleys, where families and businesses had been settled for generations working their backs off in mining the gold and harvesting the lumber that made this country so great and the economic powerhouse it is today.  Entire towns, settled before the gold rush that then booned as families came West and settled and made their prosperous new beginnings were now being seized by the government and being proposed to have a few hundred feet of water floating ontop of them all in the name of agricultural and metropolitan irrigation, recreational fishing and camping, and electrical power generation (most of them didn't even have phones or a need for electricity) - even though they knew of the benefit it had of putting thousands of unemployed americans to work.  These families who had given up everything in the mid 1800s to come out here, find their dream, and who found it were more than displeased at the prospect of giving it up for these stimulus ideas coming out of Washington.  Eventually in the end, besides landowners being only partially reinbursed for their land taken from them by the law ala imminent domain, many concessions were made to them and other local residents of the county who wouldn't even have to move, primarily being the promise of cheap and subsidised power, federal educational funding for children, highway construction (many of these counties simply had wagon trails), telephone utility installation, and priority (if eligible) for employment at the job sites of these projects and the damn construction.

So now the damns have been there for a while, and things move on in the world, but these promises were made of cheap and subsidised power for these residents of these counties as a concession for them allowing the construction of these huge damns and reservoirs, and I for one strongly think they are still obliged to receive these heavily discounted power rates since most gave up a family farm for the equivalent of what is today a 1/4acre lot with a mobile trailer home on it.  End of discussion on that one.

As for those outside those counties but still in the northwest region, WHY should we be paying for the rest of this country's HEAVY dependence on fossil fuel power sources when WE have all this CHEAP hydroelectric power?.... Hmmmm?  I don't see any discounts coming from texas oil at my california gas pump, why should they expect to see a discounted rate on our behalves for their power bill?

Finally, about the meters, the utilities were sued for inaccurately overcharging consumers on their power bills.  Since they were ripping us off, since they own by law everything from and including the meter to the service (and thus supplied, installed and maintained faulty and deceitful meter equipment), and since it was decided that it is their liability to provide accurate and current power usage readings, why should WE pay them (and at the time, sentenced crooks) more money to make sure they don't rip off anymore of our own?

[Angus]

There is one good point about state ownership that has not been mentioned, - and yet it has.
It is the absence of the profit drive.
What is wrong with the profit drive anyway? Well, some things. Mostly the spark for very fast profit, and the slower profit which has it's base well within the human lifespan.
My country privatized the formerly state banks. It took them only few years to expand out into the blue, and some nameless (formerly) arshats went stinking rich. Then, they went bankrupt. Some 10 years maybe.
Also, remember that the world depression in 1929 was based on the same nonsense. The USSR was not affected by it.
(They however went to the extreme other direction, so they made their own mess)