Homepage Forums Policy Taxpayers Right to Vote Act

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #784
    Avatarbenf
    Participant

    Proposition 16, the New Two-Thirds Requirement for Local Public Electricity Providers Act is on the June 8, 2010 ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment.

    Wouldn’t this be a problem for FF if it wins in California?

    California Prop. 16 Taxpayers Right to Vote Act

    #6283
    AvatarAeronaut
    Member

    benf wrote: Proposition 16, the New Two-Thirds Requirement for Local Public Electricity Providers Act is on the June 8, 2010 ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment.

    Wouldn’t this be a problem for FF if it wins in California?

    http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_16_(June_2010)

    Sorry, Benf, that’s a dead link. In general, the higher the official pressure for clean energy at an affordable price, the better we’ll look when we emerge with the solutions to many problems such as bio fuels, the tooling chain’s ability to lower the cost of solar cells, and desalination, to name just a few.

    If that really is designed to limit taxpayers’ right to vote, that’s supposed to be unconstitutional. If that’s the case, is it being challenged as such already?

    #6284
    Avatarbenf
    Participant

    Sorry about the link, Aeronaut. I’ve changed it to a different site for all to check out.

    California Prop. 16 Taxpayers Right to Vote Act

    PG&E Utility is sponsoring this initiative pouring millions into the campaign. It basically says that cities can’t set up their own independent utility service without a two third majority vote.

    #6285
    AvatarAeronaut
    Member

    benf wrote: Sorry about the link, Aeronaut. I’ve changed it to a different site for all to check out.

    California Prop. 16 Taxpayers Right to Vote Act

    PG&E Utility is sponsoring this initiative pouring millions into the campaign. It basically says that cities can’t set up their own independent utility service without a two third majority vote.

    Thanx for fixing the link, Benf.

    It boiled my blood just to read that short article. The $6.5M that PG&E has into that campaign so far could have been much better invested in a Stanford and/ or UC Irvine confirmation lab for FF and left them ~$5M to promote how green and visionary they are.

    UC Irvine developed the theory and initial experiments that Tri-Alpha’s CBFR design is built around, so I’m sure they’d be interested.

    #6286
    Avatartcg
    Member

    As a California resident, I have watched the barrage of ads for prop. 16 with keen interest. Clearly it is intended to preserve the grip of private companies on power generation by hiding behind a tax-and-spend smokescreen. The tipoff is that it is aimed solely at a municipality’s ability to assume debt for a specific purpose, power generation, and not against general indebtedness. So far I have seen no ads against the proposition.

    In my perspective, this is a struggle to preserve power generation as a prerogative of privately owned, for-profit companies and keep it out of the hands of public entities. If FF is a success, prop. 16 will certainly make it more difficult for cities and counties to make use of the technology, but I believe this difficulty would vary from community to community. Could the City Council in my town convince 2/3 of the voters that with perhaps half a million of borrowed money, we could cheaply generate all our own electricity and for a similar sum we could purify sea water for all our water needs? Personally I think this would be an easy sell. A more conservative town may not vote the same way, but it would be their loss, and they would continue to pay high prices, suffer water rationing and brownouts.

    Even if the proposition passes, it would only take a few communities climbing the 2/3 voter wall and benefiting to bring everybody else on line, so to speak.

    #6288
    Avatarbenf
    Participant

    I had to bone up on the public utility concept to try and get a grip on what this proposition involves. PG&E (Pacific Gas & Electric) is basically saying that communities shouldn’t be able to take on the huge responsibility of setting up their own utilities without jumping a voters hurtle. They want to be the ones to spend taxpayers money exclusively and make it very difficult for communities to compete.

    These two websites explain the problem with that better than I can:

    Powergrab

    SFGate

    Here in California public utilities are supposed to allow for competition and are regulated to do so, with a Public Utilities Commission overseeing the industry.

    Aeronaut-23 April 2010 06:09 PM
    It boiled my blood just to read that short article. The $6.5M that PG&E has into that campaign so far could have been much better invested in a Stanford and/ or UC Irvine confirmation lab for FF and left them ~$5M to promote how green and visionary they are.

    Good point Aeronaut. The campaign money that’s being thrown around…could be much better spent. >:(
    I wasn’t aware of the research that’s been going on out here. edit: (other than Lawrence Livermore Lab’s Inertial confinement fusion project.)

    #6438
    AvatarAugustine
    Member

    One of my coworkers lives in Moreno Valley (CA) where the city has moved into the power business because they saw it as a source of revenue. His power is interrupted so frequently that he has considered buying a backup generator. He and his neighbors joke that they are living in the third world. At the same time we see LA DWP pushing for a rate increase where a good deal of the extra revenue would go to the city of LA to cover their budget woes. I’d prefer to not give local government a revenue generating local monopoly, in particular when their commitment to reliable transmission is in doubt.

    I really don’t get why you think that SoCal Edison or PG&E wouldn’t use electricity from a FF device. Perhaps that is because I am a conservative Republican who thinks that nuclear fission is acceptable. As I am sure you all know CA has very expensive electricity rates due to heavy reliance on natural gas so it follows that if electricity from a FF device had the same cost as electricity from coal then that would be much cheaper than what we Californians pay and the cost savings alone would be a compelling argument. The only issue would be in educating people to get them over their fears of nuclear power.

    As for using the ad money for R&D, imagine how much money could be spent if the utilities weren’t investing in power generation with such a low power density (solar) and were spending it on FF. I guess we can dream 🙂

    #7295
    AvatarBrian H
    Member

    Even on a marginal basis, FF power should be about 1/5 that of coal to produce. What it would be sold for is another question, of course.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.