WTF happened to American journalism?

https://www.businessinsider.com/ev-charging-getting-worse-thanks-to-inflation-energy-costs-2023-3?amp

This trash piece is just plain embarrassing. A quote or two with no details and no context does not make an informative piece.

For example....the only reason electricity is cheaper in off-peak hours is because of low demand. Change that and it won't be cheaper for long.
For example...look how SDGE, the leading "renewable" source electricity utility provider is managing their demand when renewable supply is inadequate. They've decided to rape you if you don't comply with their f'd up supply plan.

Here's one of SDGE's EV plans.
4:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.

81.6¢

Let that sink in for a minute.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/19/23 9:26 PM, ScottW wrote:

WTF happened to American journalism?

https://www.businessinsider.com/ev-charging-getting-worse-thanks-to-inflation-energy-costs-2023-3?amp

This trash piece is just plain embarrassing. A quote or two with no
details and no context does not make an informative piece.

I looked at this one. It's trash because it's a short piece based on a
real one, a JD Powers survey of EV owners to which they do not link.

This is quite different from you citing a poll with a quote or two and
no details here on RAO.

For example....the only reason electricity is cheaper in off-peak
hours is because of low demand. Change that and it won't be cheaper
for long. For example...look how SDGE, the leading "renewable" source electricity utility provider is managing their demand when renewable
supply is inadequate. They've decided to rape you if you don't
comply with their f'd up supply plan.

Here's one of SDGE's EV plans. 4:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.

81.6¢

Let that sink in for a minute.

You're quoting the peak demand cost, the time SDGE wants you to not
charge. Is your position that you don't think markets should ease peak
demand through pricing? Are you willing to pay the capital cost of the increased power capacity required if uniform pricing allows higher peaks?

https://www.sdge.com/residential/pricing-plans/about-our-pricing-plans/electric-vehicle-plans

Wait until midnight (or have a charger with a programmable schedule) and
it's 15.4¢.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 7:44:08 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/19/23 9:26 PM, ScottW wrote:

WTF happened to American journalism?

https://www.businessinsider.com/ev-charging-getting-worse-thanks-to-inflation-energy-costs-2023-3?amp

This trash piece is just plain embarrassing. A quote or two with no details and no context does not make an informative piece.

I looked at this one. It's trash because it's a short piece based on a
real one, a JD Powers survey of EV owners to which they do not link.

This is quite different from you citing a poll with a quote or two and
no details here on RAO.

For example....the only reason electricity is cheaper in off-peak
hours is because of low demand. Change that and it won't be cheaper
for long. For example...look how SDGE, the leading "renewable" source electricity utility provider is managing their demand when renewable supply is inadequate. They've decided to rape you if you don't
comply with their f'd up supply plan.

Here's one of SDGE's EV plans. 4:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.

81.6¢

Let that sink in for a minute.

You're quoting the peak demand cost,

Wrong, 4-9 is not peak demand but it is the time of lowest margin
between demand and supply.
In any case, I clearly showed the time.

the time SDGE wants you to not
charge. Is your position that you don't think markets should ease peak demand through pricing?

Remember when they put in the so-called smart meters and some people warned that they could use them for charging hourly rates on power.
Remember the utilitity claiming they would never do that....and then they did? In any case.....they don't have the capacity to charge cars from 4-9.
What makes you think they'll be able to charge millions of them after TVs turn off?

Are you willing to pay the capital cost of the
increased power capacity required if uniform pricing allows higher peaks?

They had the capacity but dumped it for renewables.

But here's the simple reality of the debacle were in.

"Despite expecting 12.5 million electric cars by 2035, California officials insist that the grid can provide enough electricity. But that’s based on multiple assumptions — including building solar and wind at almost five times the pace of the past
decade — that may not be realistic."

Look what happened to rates to pay for the current solar/wind infrastructure. Now multiply that by 5x.
And realize they deferred those costs (or basically hid them from consumers) for years.
And with the Fed forced to raise interest rates to combat inflation the future finance costs
for that 5x expansion is going to carry interest costs 5x as well.
Not to mention that the low hanging fruit of sites on cheap land and easy access to
major grid lines have already been built out. Future sites will be more and more expensive to bring on line.

https://www.sdge.com/residential/pricing-plans/about-our-pricing-plans/electric-vehicle-plans

Wait until midnight (or have a charger with a programmable schedule) and it's 15.4¢.

How long will that last when more EVs are sold? The excess capacity after midnight
can't support charging near the planned amount of cars and all those new renewables
planned won't do squat at night without some kind of storage.
We're paying through the nose now just for power production. Imagine when they have
to add the cost of storage on top of that.

This is going to snowball into an epic disaster and most people who are just now waking up
to unaffordable utility bills have no idea what happened and are oblivious to what's going to happen.
In another decade they'll be begging for 1$/KwH.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/20/23 9:19 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 7:44:08 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/19/23 9:26 PM, ScottW wrote:

Here's one of SDGE's EV plans. 4:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.

81.6¢

Let that sink in for a minute.

You're quoting the peak demand cost,

Wrong, 4-9 is not peak demand but it is the time of lowest margin
between demand and supply. In any case, I clearly showed the time.

SDGE labels that time as "On-Peak" so I don't see what distinction
you're trying to make.

the time SDGE wants you to not charge. Is your position that you
don't think markets should ease peak demand through pricing?

Remember when they put in the so-called smart meters and some people
warned that they could use them for charging hourly rates on power.
Remember the utilitity claiming they would never do that....and then
they did? In any case.....they don't have the capacity to charge cars
from 4-9. What makes you think they'll be able to charge millions of
them after TVs turn off?

No, and also don't care. These rates apply to customers with EV
chargers, so if you don't like the deal, don't get a charger.

Are you willing to pay the capital cost of the increased power
capacity required if uniform pricing allows higher peaks?

They had the capacity but dumped it for renewables.

SDGE has been trying to get out of the power buying business for some
time now:

https://voiceofsandiego.org/2018/11/19/sdgee-is-looking-to-leave-the-power-buying-business/

SDGE thought it would lose customers so increasing generating capacity
would have been a bad idea.

But here's the simple reality of the debacle were in.

"Despite expecting 12.5 million electric cars by 2035, California
officials insist that the grid can provide enough electricity. But
that’s based on multiple assumptions — including building solar and
wind at almost five times the pace of the past decade — that may not
be realistic."

Look what happened to rates to pay for the current solar/wind
infrastructure. Now multiply that by 5x. And realize they deferred
those costs (or basically hid them from consumers) for years. And
with the Fed forced to raise interest rates to combat inflation the
future finance costs for that 5x expansion is going to carry interest
costs 5x as well. Not to mention that the low hanging fruit of sites
on cheap land and easy access to major grid lines have already been
built out. Future sites will be more and more expensive to bring on
line.

I don't think multiplying by five is an accurate way to forecast.

https://www.sdge.com/residential/pricing-plans/about-our-pricing-plans/electric-vehicle-plans


Wait until midnight (or have a charger with a programmable schedule) and
it's 15.4¢.

How long will that last when more EVs are sold? The excess capacity
after midnight can't support charging near the planned amount of cars
and all those new renewables planned won't do squat at night without
some kind of storage. We're paying through the nose now just for
power production. Imagine when they have to add the cost of storage
on top of that.

Adding workplace charging will help by moving some demand to solar peak generating time.

This is going to snowball into an epic disaster and most people who
are just now waking up to unaffordable utility bills have no idea
what happened and are oblivious to what's going to happen. In another
decade they'll be begging for 1$/KwH.

You're biased because SDGE has nation-leading high rates, due in part to volatile natural gas prices.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 5:50:36 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/20/23 9:19 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 7:44:08 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/19/23 9:26 PM, ScottW wrote:

Here's one of SDGE's EV plans. 4:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.

81.6¢

Let that sink in for a minute.

You're quoting the peak demand cost,

Wrong, 4-9 is not peak demand but it is the time of lowest margin
between demand and supply. In any case, I clearly showed the time.

SDGE labels that time as "On-Peak" so I don't see what distinction
you're trying to make.

You don't see because you're an ignorant uninformed moron.
But to try to resolve this small part of your ignorance and stupidity
let me inform you that winter power consumption has two daily and nearly identical peaks, 9AM and 8PM. Yet the rates at the two times dramatically different.
It's not demand driving that difference, it's supply.

the time SDGE wants you to not charge. Is your position that you
don't think markets should ease peak demand through pricing?

Remember when they put in the so-called smart meters and some people warned that they could use them for charging hourly rates on power. Remember the utilitity claiming they would never do that....and then
they did? In any case.....they don't have the capacity to charge cars
from 4-9. What makes you think they'll be able to charge millions of
them after TVs turn off?

No, and also don't care.

So you don't care if Biden's big plan to electrify the personal transportation industry
is a gigantic failure after spending billions and wrecking millions of low-income
peoples lives.

You're a real POS.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/21/23 4:26 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 5:50:36 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/20/23 9:19 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 7:44:08 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/19/23 9:26 PM, ScottW wrote:

Here's one of SDGE's EV plans. 4:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.

81.6¢

Let that sink in for a minute.

You're quoting the peak demand cost,

Wrong, 4-9 is not peak demand but it is the time of lowest margin
between demand and supply. In any case, I clearly showed the time.

SDGE labels that time as "On-Peak" so I don't see what distinction
you're trying to make.

You don't see because you're an ignorant uninformed moron.

I do see "On-Peak" on the chart you presumably cited.

But to try to resolve this small part of your ignorance and stupidity
let me inform you that winter power consumption has two daily and nearly identical peaks, 9AM and 8PM. Yet the rates at the two times dramatically different.
It's not demand driving that difference, it's supply.

Congrats on splitting that hair. It doesn't help your overall point, but
you can enjoy a short-lived 'gotcha.' The actual point:

https://news.energysage.com/sdge-tou-rates/

"There are specific times during the day when electricity is more
expensive to generate – these are known as “on-peak” hours. When you use electricity from the grid during peak hours, SDG&E charges you more for
it. Alternatively, you will experience lower electricity rates if you
consume energy during the specified “off-peak” hours."

That's not quite your demand/supply margin. Of course, that doesn't bear
close examination either. Supply will equal demand unless demand exceeds capacity, capacity being the potential and supply the actual level of production.

the time SDGE wants you to not charge. Is your position that you
don't think markets should ease peak demand through pricing?

Remember when they put in the so-called smart meters and some people
warned that they could use them for charging hourly rates on power.
Remember the utilitity claiming they would never do that....and then
they did? In any case.....they don't have the capacity to charge cars
from 4-9. What makes you think they'll be able to charge millions of
them after TVs turn off?

No, and also don't care.

So you don't care if Biden's big plan to electrify the personal transportation industry
is a gigantic failure after spending billions and wrecking millions of low-income
peoples lives.

Didn't mention that. I don't care what you remember some people may have
said about smart meters.

You're a real POS.

As long as I have your attention, from the cite above:

"Utilities don’t use TOU rates to make more money off of their
customers. Rather, TOU rates are designed to more accurately reflect the
actual variation of electricity prices throughout the day. When you pay
a flat per-kWh rate regardless of the time of day, you likely don’t
realize that your electricity costs more to generate and deliver when
demand is high. TOU rates incorporate these differences to encourage you
to shift your electricity use away from peak hours, as using electricity
during peak hours drives up electricity prices for all utility customers."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 4:58:17 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/21/23 4:26 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 5:50:36 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/20/23 9:19 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 7:44:08 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/19/23 9:26 PM, ScottW wrote:

Here's one of SDGE's EV plans. 4:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.

81.6¢

Let that sink in for a minute.

You're quoting the peak demand cost,

Wrong, 4-9 is not peak demand but it is the time of lowest margin
between demand and supply. In any case, I clearly showed the time.

SDGE labels that time as "On-Peak" so I don't see what distinction
you're trying to make.

You don't see because you're an ignorant uninformed moron.

I do see "On-Peak" on the chart you presumably cited.

Which could mean peak as in peak price.

But to try to resolve this small part of your ignorance and stupidity
let me inform you that winter power consumption has two daily and nearly identical peaks, 9AM and 8PM. Yet the rates at the two times dramatically different.
It's not demand driving that difference, it's supply.

Congrats on splitting that hair.

It's not a hair. They could have kept the nat gas and nuke capacity in place to maintain supply in evening and used the renewables during the day.
But they really didn't give a shit about consumers. If these shits had their ultimate
wet dream we'd all be living in a box with recycle methane tubes shoved up our asses.

It doesn't help your overall point, but
you can enjoy a short-lived 'gotcha.' The actual point:

https://news.energysage.com/sdge-tou-rates/

"There are specific times during the day when electricity is more
expensive to generate – these are known as “on-peak” hours.

When they say "more expensive" you should be asking more expensive than
what?

When you use
electricity from the grid during peak hours, SDG&E charges you more for
it. Alternatively, you will experience lower electricity rates if you consume energy during the specified “off-peak” hours."

Now you're just regurgitating BS from the same lying a-holes who swore
they'd never have time of use pricing.

That's not quite your demand/supply margin. Of course, that doesn't bear close examination either. Supply will equal demand unless demand exceeds capacity, capacity being the potential and supply the actual level of production.

the time SDGE wants you to not charge. Is your position that you
don't think markets should ease peak demand through pricing?

Remember when they put in the so-called smart meters and some people
warned that they could use them for charging hourly rates on power.
Remember the utilitity claiming they would never do that....and then
they did? In any case.....they don't have the capacity to charge cars >>> from 4-9. What makes you think they'll be able to charge millions of
them after TVs turn off?

No, and also don't care.

So you don't care if Biden's big plan to electrify the personal transportation industry
is a gigantic failure after spending billions and wrecking millions of low-income
peoples lives.

Didn't mention that. I don't care what you remember some people may have said about smart meters.

You're a real POS.

As long as I have your attention, from the cite above:

"Utilities don’t use TOU rates to make more money off of their
customers. Rather, TOU rates are designed to more accurately reflect the actual variation of electricity prices throughout the day.

Once upon a time the rates didn't vary throughout the day.

Is anyone selling you renewables with the added joy of variable rate pricing?

When you pay

a flat per-kWh rate regardless of the time of day, you likely don’t realize that your electricity costs more to generate and deliver when
demand is high.

Another f'ing lie. Anyone with half a brain know that max efficiency is
at max utilization of capacity. Idle capacity is wasted money.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/21/23 10:44 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 4:58:17 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/21/23 4:26 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 5:50:36 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/20/23 9:19 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 7:44:08 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/19/23 9:26 PM, ScottW wrote:

Here's one of SDGE's EV plans. 4:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.

81.6¢

Let that sink in for a minute.

You're quoting the peak demand cost,

Wrong, 4-9 is not peak demand but it is the time of lowest margin
between demand and supply. In any case, I clearly showed the time.

SDGE labels that time as "On-Peak" so I don't see what distinction
you're trying to make.

You don't see because you're an ignorant uninformed moron.

I do see "On-Peak" on the chart you presumably cited.

Which could mean peak as in peak price.

It certainly is their peak price to the consumer.

But to try to resolve this small part of your ignorance and stupidity
let me inform you that winter power consumption has two daily and nearly >>> identical peaks, 9AM and 8PM. Yet the rates at the two times dramatically different.
It's not demand driving that difference, it's supply.

Congrats on splitting that hair.

It's not a hair. They could have kept the nat gas and nuke capacity in place
to maintain supply in evening and used the renewables during the day.

The nuke was breaking down and renewables are cheaper than natural gas.

But they really didn't give a shit about consumers. If these shits had their ultimate
wet dream we'd all be living in a box with recycle methane tubes shoved up our asses.

Sounds like your masochistic fantasy.

It doesn't help your overall point, but
you can enjoy a short-lived 'gotcha.' The actual point:

https://news.energysage.com/sdge-tou-rates/

"There are specific times during the day when electricity is more
expensive to generate – these are known as “on-peak” hours.

When they say "more expensive" you should be asking more expensive than
what?

Than other times. Clear from context. Perhaps it reflects the cost of
bringing peak natural gas online.

When you use
electricity from the grid during peak hours, SDG&E charges you more for
it. Alternatively, you will experience lower electricity rates if you
consume energy during the specified “off-peak” hours."

Now you're just regurgitating BS from the same lying a-holes who swore
they'd never have time of use pricing.

It's not my fault if they changed their minds at some point. However,
it's literally true they charge less for midnight power than for rush
hour power.

And it's a cite. Sure, that's not as good as remembering something may
have said in the past about smart meters but it's repeatable.

As long as I have your attention, from the cite above:

"Utilities don’t use TOU rates to make more money off of their
customers. Rather, TOU rates are designed to more accurately reflect the
actual variation of electricity prices throughout the day.

Once upon a time the rates didn't vary throughout the day.

That was a hidden subsidy for increased peak demand.

Is anyone selling you renewables with the added joy of variable rate pricing?

No, we have a municipal utility. For variable pricing, we enjoy
private/public toll roads.

When you pay a flat per-kWh rate regardless of the time of day, you likely don’t
realize that your electricity costs more to generate and deliver when
demand is high.

Another f'ing lie. Anyone with half a brain know that max efficiency is
at max utilization of capacity. Idle capacity is wasted money.

Not if you exceed generating capacity and buy power on the spot market.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 5:26:53 PM UTC-4, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 5:50:36 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/20/23 9:19 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 7:44:08 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/19/23 9:26 PM, ScottW wrote:

Here's one of SDGE's EV plans. 4:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.

81.6¢

Let that sink in for a minute.

You're quoting the peak demand cost,

Wrong, 4-9 is not peak demand but it is the time of lowest margin between demand and supply. In any case, I clearly showed the time.

SDGE labels that time as "On-Peak" so I don't see what distinction
you're trying to make.

You don't see because you're an ignorant uninformed moron.
But to try to resolve this small part of your ignorance and stupidity
let me inform you that winter power consumption has two daily and nearly identical peaks, 9AM and 8PM. Yet the rates at the two times dramatically different.
It's not demand driving that difference, it's supply.

the time SDGE wants you to not charge. Is your position that you
don't think markets should ease peak demand through pricing?

Remember when they put in the so-called smart meters and some people warned that they could use them for charging hourly rates on power. Remember the utilitity claiming they would never do that....and then they did? In any case.....they don't have the capacity to charge cars from 4-9. What makes you think they'll be able to charge millions of them after TVs turn off?

No, and also don't care.

So you don't care if Biden's big plan to electrify the personal transportation industry
is a gigantic failure after spending billions and wrecking millions of low-income
peoples lives.

You're a real POS.

P stands for pile, not piece.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 7:50:50 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/21/23 10:44 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 4:58:17 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/21/23 4:26 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 5:50:36 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/20/23 9:19 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 7:44:08 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/19/23 9:26 PM, ScottW wrote:

Here's one of SDGE's EV plans. 4:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.

81.6¢

Let that sink in for a minute.

You're quoting the peak demand cost,

Wrong, 4-9 is not peak demand but it is the time of lowest margin >>>>> between demand and supply. In any case, I clearly showed the time. >>>> SDGE labels that time as "On-Peak" so I don't see what distinction

you're trying to make.

You don't see because you're an ignorant uninformed moron.

I do see "On-Peak" on the chart you presumably cited.

Which could mean peak as in peak price.

It certainly is their peak price to the consumer.

But to try to resolve this small part of your ignorance and stupidity >>> let me inform you that winter power consumption has two daily and nearly >>> identical peaks, 9AM and 8PM. Yet the rates at the two times dramatically different.
It's not demand driving that difference, it's supply.

Congrats on splitting that hair.

It's not a hair. They could have kept the nat gas and nuke capacity in place
to maintain supply in evening and used the renewables during the day.

The nuke was breaking down

They spent a billion dollars to renovate it and they f'd it up and wasted the money.
But that's money lost. If it was worth a billion then it's worth a billion now...
but the morons filled it with concrete so no one sane can ever do the right thing.

and renewables are cheaper than natural gas.

If that were true...why are my rates going through the roof?

It's just a fat f'ing lie of cherry pickers who don't include the full cost package.

Rates are the only measure of cost and with renewables our rates have ballooned.
And it's just beginning as I pointed out SDGE has another increase request in front of the PUC'ers now.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/22/23 7:16 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 7:50:50 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/21/23 10:44 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 4:58:17 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/21/23 4:26 PM, ScottW wrote:

They could have kept the nat gas and nuke capacity in place
to maintain supply in evening and used the renewables during the day.

The nuke was breaking down

They spent a billion dollars to renovate it and they f'd it up and wasted the money.
But that's money lost. If it was worth a billion then it's worth a billion now...
but the morons filled it with concrete so no one sane can ever do the right thing.

A broken nuke isn't worth a billion.

and renewables are cheaper than natural gas.

If that were true...why are my rates going through the roof?

Capital expenditures. Natural gas price spikes. Spot market energy
purchases. Also transmission service.

It's just a fat f'ing lie of cherry pickers who don't include the full cost package.

Rates are the only measure of cost and with renewables our rates have ballooned.
And it's just beginning as I pointed out SDGE has another increase request in front of the PUC'ers now.

To be fair, renewables mean power is cheaper to produce, not necessarily
to buy.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 7:34:46 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/22/23 7:16 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 7:50:50 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/21/23 10:44 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 4:58:17 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/21/23 4:26 PM, ScottW wrote:

They could have kept the nat gas and nuke capacity in place
to maintain supply in evening and used the renewables during the day.

The nuke was breaking down

They spent a billion dollars to renovate it and they f'd it up and wasted the money.
But that's money lost. If it was worth a billion then it's worth a billion now...
but the morons filled it with concrete so no one sane can ever do the right thing.

A broken nuke isn't worth a billion.

According to the state of Ca.....it was. Your opinion has no merit.

and renewables are cheaper than natural gas.

If that were true...why are my rates going through the roof?

Capital expenditures.

Which are a big part of the cost for renewables.
But you keep carving them out as if they don't count.
It's nuts.

Natural gas price spikes. Spot market energy

purchases. Also transmission service.

It's just a fat f'ing lie of cherry pickers who don't include the full cost package.

Rates are the only measure of cost and with renewables our rates have ballooned.
And it's just beginning as I pointed out SDGE has another increase request in front of the PUC'ers now.

To be fair, renewables mean power is cheaper to produce, not necessarily
to buy.

Oh boy...I feel so much better now.....
Dumbest rationalization I've ever heard.

ScottW


--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/23/23 11:06 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 7:34:46 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/22/23 7:16 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 7:50:50 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/21/23 10:44 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 4:58:17 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/21/23 4:26 PM, ScottW wrote:

They could have kept the nat gas and nuke capacity in place
to maintain supply in evening and used the renewables during the day. >>>> The nuke was breaking down

They spent a billion dollars to renovate it and they f'd it up and wasted the money.
But that's money lost. If it was worth a billion then it's worth a billion now...
but the morons filled it with concrete so no one sane can ever do the right thing.

A broken nuke isn't worth a billion.

According to the state of Ca.....it was. Your opinion has no merit.

Right back atcha. Spending a billion to fix something doesn't make it
worth a billion.

and renewables are cheaper than natural gas.

If that were true...why are my rates going through the roof?

Capital expenditures.

Which are a big part of the cost for renewables.

Indeed. Good to see you admit capital is part of your bill.

But you keep carving them out as if they don't count.
It's nuts.

No, they count under capital and transmission. However, a new renewable
plant is cheaper than a new natural gas plant.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90402331/its-now-cheaper-to-build-new-renewables-than-it-is-to-build-natural-gas-plants

Cheaper than running an existing natural gas plant:

https://rmi.org/insight/clean-energy-portfolios-pipelines-and-plants

Natural gas price spikes. Spot market energy purchases. Also transmission service.

It's just a fat f'ing lie of cherry pickers who don't include the full cost package.

Don't forget fees.

Rates are the only measure of cost and with renewables our rates have ballooned.
And it's just beginning as I pointed out SDGE has another increase request in front of the PUC'ers now.

To be fair, renewables mean power is cheaper to produce, not necessarily
to buy.

Oh boy...I feel so much better now.....
Dumbest rationalization I've ever heard.

It's a fact, not a rationalization. You'd pay more for natural gas power
than for renewable currently online.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 11:24:24 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/23/23 11:06 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 7:34:46 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/22/23 7:16 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 7:50:50 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/21/23 10:44 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 4:58:17 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>> On 3/21/23 4:26 PM, ScottW wrote:

They could have kept the nat gas and nuke capacity in place
to maintain supply in evening and used the renewables during the day. >>>> The nuke was breaking down

They spent a billion dollars to renovate it and they f'd it up and wasted the money.
But that's money lost. If it was worth a billion then it's worth a billion now...
but the morons filled it with concrete so no one sane can ever do the right thing.

A broken nuke isn't worth a billion.

According to the state of Ca.....it was. Your opinion has no merit.

Right back atcha. Spending a billion to fix something doesn't make it
worth a billion.

and renewables are cheaper than natural gas.

If that were true...why are my rates going through the roof?

Capital expenditures.

Which are a big part of the cost for renewables.

Indeed. Good to see you admit capital is part of your bill.

But you keep carving them out as if they don't count.
It's nuts.

No, they count under capital and transmission. However, a new renewable plant is cheaper than a new natural gas plant.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90402331/its-now-cheaper-to-build-new-renewables-than-it-is-to-build-natural-gas-plants

Says Fastcompany (who the f' are they) according to Rocky Mountain Institute who is
"working to accelerate the clean energy transition and improve lives."

Take your propaganda and shove it.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/25/23 9:45 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 11:24:24 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/23/23 11:06 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 7:34:46 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/22/23 7:16 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 7:50:50 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/21/23 10:44 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 4:58:17 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

However, a new renewable plant is cheaper than a new natural gas plant.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90402331/its-now-cheaper-to-build-new-renewables-than-it-is-to-build-natural-gas-plants

Says Fastcompany (who the f' are they) according to Rocky Mountain Institute who is
"working to accelerate the clean energy transition and improve lives."

Take your propaganda and shove it.

That's just an ad hominem attack. Show their facts are wrong.

https://rmi.org/insight/clean-energy-portfolios-pipelines-and-plants

Of course, I won't give them an email to download their report either.

Here's another one but about coal:

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/10/23/its-cheaper-to-build-new-solar-than-it-is-to-operate-coal-plants/

"The really telling figures come from the comparisons between the cost
of construction of new renewable energy facilities vs. operating
existing fossil and nuclear resources. The only type of new renewable generation asset to have a higher per-MWh LCOE than operating existing
coal is unsubsidized onshore wind, which isn’t even telling the whole
story. The range of LCOE for unsubsidized onshore wind is higher at its
peak than the maximum LCOE for operating existing coal, but the lowest
end of the ranges favor wind, which comes in at a lowest-possible LCOE
of $26/MWh, as compared to $34/MWh for coal.?

They (Lazard) don't forget natural gas:

"As for solar, new, unsubsidized utility-scale projects come in at a
LCOE range of $38 to $29/MWh, beating out coal, though coming in
slighlty higher than the LCOE of operating nuclear or combined cycle gas plants, which range from $32 to 25/MWh and $32 to $23/MWh, respectively.
Once subsidies are factored in, utility-scale solar becomes much more competitive, at $32 to $24/MWh."

That's 2020 and subsidies are increasing.

https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen-2021/

The 2021 report includes hydrogen:

"Hydrogen is a versatile energy carrier with the potential to
decarbonize a broad array of sectors, although hydrogen is currently
more expensive than the fuels it would substitute.

Applications most readily suited to hydrogen conversion are those that
need minimal transport, conversion or storage—these use cases will
likely transition towards hydrogen most quickly.

Key drivers of hydrogen’s levelized cost are the cost of electricity,
capital expenditures for production equipment and utilization of the electrolyzer."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 11:12:14 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/25/23 9:45 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 11:24:24 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/23/23 11:06 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 7:34:46 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/22/23 7:16 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 7:50:50 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>> On 3/21/23 10:44 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 4:58:17 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

However, a new renewable plant is cheaper than a new natural gas plant.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90402331/its-now-cheaper-to-build-new-renewables-than-it-is-to-build-natural-gas-plants

Says Fastcompany (who the f' are they) according to Rocky Mountain Institute who is
"working to accelerate the clean energy transition and improve lives."

Take your propaganda and shove it.

That's just an ad hominem attack. Show their facts are wrong.

Facts? They made up some charts with zero source info and you gobble it up as facts.

And more telling.....their comparison is CEPs (Clean energy portfolio's).
What is that? They don't say. Does it include hydro and nuclear?
And the final nail

Their projection is this....
As utilization of pipelines falls, the average cost of delivered gas will increase by 30%–140% from expected levels, imposing significant costs on customers and investors.

If "utilities and other investors have announced plans for over $70 billion in new gas-fired power plant construction through 2025"
what is going to make gas pipeline utilization fall?

It's a BS crap piece of misinformation and propaganda by a source which admits that's their reason for existing.

No wonder you need to be protected from misinformation on the web....you're gullible.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/26/23 7:21 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 11:12:14 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/25/23 9:45 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 11:24:24 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/23/23 11:06 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 7:34:46 AM UTC-7, mINE109
wrote:

On 3/22/23 7:16 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 7:50:50 AM UTC-7, mINE109
wrote:

On 3/21/23 10:44 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 4:58:17 PM UTC-7,
mINE109 wrote:

However, a new renewable plant is cheaper than a new natural
gas plant.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90402331/its-now-cheaper-to-build-new-renewables-than-it-is-to-build-natural-gas-plants

Says Fastcompany (who the f' are they) according to Rocky Mountain Institute who is
"working to accelerate the clean energy transition and improve
lives."

Take your propaganda and shove it.

That's just an ad hominem attack. Show their facts are wrong.

Facts? They made up some charts with zero source info and you gobble
it up as facts.

And more telling.....their comparison is CEPs (Clean energy
portfolio's). What is that? They don't say. Does it include hydro
and nuclear?

They *do* say: "RMI research has consistently shown that “clean energy portfolios” (CEPs)—comprising wind, solar, battery storage, energy efficiency, and demand flexibility—are now cost-competitive with new
natural gas power plants, while providing the same grid reliability
services."

And the final nail

Their projection is this.... As utilization of pipelines falls, the
average cost of delivered gas will increase by 30%–140% from expected levels, imposing significant costs on customers and investors.

If "utilities and other investors have announced plans for over $70
billion in new gas-fired power plant construction through 2025" what
is going to make gas pipeline utilization fall?

Cheaper alternatives leading to abandoned gas power plants.

https://www.nrdc.org/bio/gillian-giannetti/reconsidering-economics-gas-pipelines

If, notwithstanding the cost, these plants are built, by 2035, 71
percent of them likely will become stranded, meaning that these plants
would be uneconomic to run and could be retired and replaced with
cheaper and cleaner alternatives... And approximately 80 percent of
proposed gas plants would be more expensive to operate than clean energy
by 2045...

As such, a rapid decline in the market for gas-fired generation would
have a significant ripple effect on the pipeline industry. The research concludes that these shifts in power generation could lead to a 20 to 60 percent drop in the capacity of gas transported via pipeline, leading to significant stranded pipeline asset risks.

This would lead to two unappealing options. Either companies would
abandon pipelines well before the end of their useful lives, all the
while having permanently taken and altered thousands of people’s private property; or, to salvage their gas investments, they may delay investing
in clean energy to keep running dirtier and costlier plants, pushing us
farther away from meeting necessary climate targets.

End quote.

Granted, that is a 2019 perspective and there's a tricky to picture
sequence of possible future events. You are arguing on the side of
"running dirtier and costlier plants."

You might recognize this scenario in your skyrocketing utility bill:

"It is not in the public interest to approve a 40+ year asset to operate
for ten years. Moreover, economically speculative pipelines,
particularly those owned by utilities, pose a significant consumer risk,
as utility-owned pipelines often can roll in the cost of construction
and operation into their electricity rates, meaning that ordinary
electricity customers will be paying to build and operate unneeded gas infrastructure."

It's a BS crap piece of misinformation and propaganda by a source
which admits that's their reason for existing.

True, it's hard to catch up to decades of petro-corporation propaganda.
That fuel-producing algae seemed like such a good idea.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

No wonder you need to be protected from misinformation on the
web....you're gullible.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/23/most-new-wind-solar-projects-cheaper-than-coal-report?CMP=twt_a-environment_b-gdneco

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 7:49:56 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/26/23 7:21 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 11:12:14 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/25/23 9:45 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 11:24:24 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/23/23 11:06 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 7:34:46 AM UTC-7, mINE109
wrote:

On 3/22/23 7:16 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 7:50:50 AM UTC-7, mINE109
wrote:

On 3/21/23 10:44 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 4:58:17 PM UTC-7,
mINE109 wrote:

However, a new renewable plant is cheaper than a new natural
gas plant.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90402331/its-now-cheaper-to-build-new-renewables-than-it-is-to-build-natural-gas-plants

Says Fastcompany (who the f' are they) according to Rocky Mountain Institute who is
"working to accelerate the clean energy transition and improve
lives."

Take your propaganda and shove it.

That's just an ad hominem attack. Show their facts are wrong.

Facts? They made up some charts with zero source info and you gobble
it up as facts.

And more telling.....their comparison is CEPs (Clean energy
portfolio's). What is that? They don't say. Does it include hydro
and nuclear?

They *do* say: "RMI research has consistently shown that “clean energy portfolios” (CEPs)—comprising wind, solar, battery storage, energy efficiency, and demand flexibility—are now cost-competitive with new natural gas power plants, while providing the same grid reliability services."

You've got an admittedly bias organization and I've got my
utility bill.
I know which to believe.

I see you can't even comment on the EU open debate where the wishful left
is spewing crap like you do while the actual expert points out the renewables are not going to produce enough energy to supply a stable grid.
They need another source that can either run 24/7 or enough excess power
to support hydrogen as storage....which renewables will not able to do.
They already started the backpedal on eliminating combustion engines by '35.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/27/23 5:54 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 7:49:56 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/26/23 7:21 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 11:12:14 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/25/23 9:45 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 11:24:24 AM UTC-7, mINE109
wrote:

On 3/23/23 11:06 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 7:34:46 AM UTC-7, mINE109
wrote:

On 3/22/23 7:16 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 7:50:50 AM UTC-7,
mINE109 wrote:

On 3/21/23 10:44 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 4:58:17 PM UTC-7,
mINE109 wrote:

However, a new renewable plant is cheaper than a new
natural gas plant.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90402331/its-now-cheaper-to-build-new-renewables-than-it-is-to-build-natural-gas-plants

< Fastcompany >

"working to accelerate the clean energy transition and
improve lives."

Take your propaganda and shove it.

That's just an ad hominem attack. Show their facts are wrong.

Facts? They made up some charts with zero source info and you
gobble it up as facts.

And more telling.....their comparison is CEPs (Clean energy
portfolio's). What is that? They don't say. Does it include
hydro and nuclear?

They *do* say: "RMI research has consistently shown that “clean
energy portfolios” (CEPs)—comprising wind, solar, battery storage,
energy efficiency, and demand flexibility—are now cost-competitive
with new natural gas power plants, while providing the same grid
reliability services."

You've got an admittedly bias organization and I've got my utility
bill. I know which to believe.

You seem to think utilities and oil companies don't have a bias.
I guess all my discussion of bias and objectivity in a journalistic
context have gone over your head.

To be fair, as 'biased and objectively correct' is a much more frequent occurrence in my usual sources than in yours, maybe you haven't seen it
often enough to understand the concept.

I see you can't even comment on the EU open debate where the wishful
left is spewing crap like you do while the actual expert points out
the renewables are not going to produce enough energy to supply a
stable grid.

Coomment: I am in favor of both a stable grid and increased renewables. Meanwhile the US is cashing in on selling liquid natural gas to Europe
and raising your utility bills as a result.

They need another source that can either run 24/7 or enough excess
power to support hydrogen as storage....which renewables will not
able to do. They already started the backpedal on eliminating
combustion engines by '35.

That's the kind of thing that happens when radical changes in supply
occur. If anything, it shows a diverse energy system including
renewables is good for security, the economy and the climate.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 6:04:13 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/27/23 5:54 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 7:49:56 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/26/23 7:21 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 11:12:14 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/25/23 9:45 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 11:24:24 AM UTC-7, mINE109
wrote:

On 3/23/23 11:06 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 7:34:46 AM UTC-7, mINE109
wrote:

On 3/22/23 7:16 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 7:50:50 AM UTC-7,
mINE109 wrote:

On 3/21/23 10:44 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 4:58:17 PM UTC-7,
mINE109 wrote:

However, a new renewable plant is cheaper than a new
natural gas plant.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90402331/its-now-cheaper-to-build-new-renewables-than-it-is-to-build-natural-gas-plants

< Fastcompany >

"working to accelerate the clean energy transition and
improve lives."

Take your propaganda and shove it.

That's just an ad hominem attack. Show their facts are wrong.

Facts? They made up some charts with zero source info and you
gobble it up as facts.

And more telling.....their comparison is CEPs (Clean energy
portfolio's). What is that? They don't say. Does it include
hydro and nuclear?

They *do* say: "RMI research has consistently shown that “clean
energy portfolios” (CEPs)—comprising wind, solar, battery storage,
energy efficiency, and demand flexibility—are now cost-competitive
with new natural gas power plants, while providing the same grid
reliability services."

You've got an admittedly bias organization and I've got my utility
bill. I know which to believe.

You seem to think utilities and oil companies don't have a bias.
I guess all my discussion of bias and objectivity in a journalistic
context have gone over your head.

To be fair, as 'biased and objectively correct' is a much more frequent occurrence in my usual sources than in yours,

LoL.....your opinion supports your opinion.

maybe you haven't seen it
often enough to understand the concept.

I see you can't even comment on the EU open debate where the wishful
left is spewing crap like you do while the actual expert points out
the renewables are not going to produce enough energy to supply a
stable grid.

Coomment: I am in favor of both a stable grid and increased renewables. Meanwhile the US is cashing in on selling liquid natural gas to Europe

We'd have plenty enough for both if Biden wasn't against new wells and pipelines.

and raising your utility bills as a result.

BS. First, I don't even have nat gas service.
2nd, PUC approved electricity rates are not driven by nat gas spot markets.

They need another source that can either run 24/7 or enough excess
power to support hydrogen as storage....which renewables will not
able to do. They already started the backpedal on eliminating
combustion engines by '35.

That's the kind of thing that happens when radical changes in supply
occur. If anything, it shows a diverse energy system including
renewables is good for security, the economy and the climate.

Until you can't afford it.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/28/23 1:20 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 6:04:13 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/27/23 5:54 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 7:49:56 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

Coomment: I am in favor of both a stable grid and increased renewables.
Meanwhile the US is cashing in on selling liquid natural gas to Europe

We'd have plenty enough for both if Biden wasn't against new wells and pipelines.

You think that capacity would have happened instantly? It would be years
away even if he were as for it as you would like.

and raising your utility bills as a result.

BS. First, I don't even have nat gas service.

https://www.sdge.com/pipeline

"Between 40% to 70% of the natural gas delivered to San Diego is used
to produce electricity. We rely on natural gas to keep our lives moving
and our lights on, and the pipeline project is an investment into a
having a reliable energy supply."

2nd, PUC approved electricity rates are not driven by nat gas spot markets.

Do utilities not petition for higher rates when costs go up?

https://www.sdge.com/rates/why-did-my-energy-bill-recently-go

"SDG&E implements new natural gas and electric rates at the start of
every year, effective Jan. 1, 2023, that reflect the costs of providing
clean, safe and reliable service that our customers expect.

All three key components that make up rates were updated:

1. The cost of buying natural gas or electricity in the open market on
behalf of our customers. As a reminder, SDG&E does not mark up the
commodity cost..."

Sure, if the "open market" is different from the "spot market."

They need another source that can either run 24/7 or enough excess
power to support hydrogen as storage....which renewables will not
able to do. They already started the backpedal on eliminating
combustion engines by '35.

That's the kind of thing that happens when radical changes in supply
occur. If anything, it shows a diverse energy system including
renewables is good for security, the economy and the climate.

Until you can't afford it.

If you only have one source you can't do without it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 12:28:49 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/28/23 1:20 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 6:04:13 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/27/23 5:54 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 7:49:56 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

Coomment: I am in favor of both a stable grid and increased renewables. >> Meanwhile the US is cashing in on selling liquid natural gas to Europe

We'd have plenty enough for both if Biden wasn't against new wells and pipelines.

You think that capacity would have happened instantly? It would be years away even if he were as for it as you would like.

BS....adding capacity to existing pipeline routes is not the same as a whole new pipeline
where the route will be litigated by leftwing suicidal nutjobs for years.

and raising your utility bills as a result.

BS. First, I don't even have nat gas service.

https://www.sdge.com/pipeline

"Between 40% to 70% of the natural gas delivered to San Diego is used
to produce electricity. We rely on natural gas to keep our lives moving
and our lights on, and the pipeline project is an investment into a
having a reliable energy supply."

2nd, PUC approved electricity rates are not driven by nat gas spot markets.

Do utilities not petition for higher rates when costs go up?

They do...and they should be denied when the basis is not systemic.
Last winter our gas prices skyrocketed while the rest of the country
saw declines.

Gotta love this justification...
Rates going up to cover for the subsidy and energy welfare programs mandated by the state.

And here's a real kick in the ass..."
The West Coast states of California, Oregon and Washington have all opposed additional pipeline capacity, arguing that they are concerned about the climate.

Natural gas storage inventories in the Pacific were 30 percent below their previous five-year average (as of December 16).

Is that going to happen again? I don't think so.

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-fuels/gas-and-oil/california-sees-skyrocketing-natural-gas-prices-this-winter/

And there's this shot in the foot.

A major leak occurred at Aliso Canyon in 2015, causing Southern California Gas to temporarily relocate thousands of households. In the aftermath, the utilities commission capped how much gas could be stored at the facility.

Another issue is the impact of regulations from the California Geologic Energy Management Division, which went into effect in 2018. The regulations caused, on average, a 40 percent decline in the utility’s well capacity. Those rules, which were much
stricter than previous gas storage standards, were enacted after the Aliso Canyon leak. The rules require testing of gas facilities, and some of the tests can take a well out of service for as long as a year.

The idiots in Sacramento and dems in general are perfectly happy crushing middle income households.
Meanwhile Joe's budget proposes fat wage increases to every Fed bureaucrat in DC immunizing them from the effects of his failed economy.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/28/23 8:07 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 12:28:49 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/28/23 1:20 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 6:04:13 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/27/23 5:54 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 7:49:56 PM UTC-7, mINE109
wrote:

Coomment: I am in favor of both a stable grid and increased
renewables. Meanwhile the US is cashing in on selling liquid
natural gas to Europe

We'd have plenty enough for both if Biden wasn't against new
wells and pipelines.

You think that capacity would have happened instantly? It would be
years away even if he were as for it as you would like.

BS....adding capacity to existing pipeline routes is not the same as
a whole new pipeline where the route will be litigated by leftwing
suicidal nutjobs for years.

Since you said "new... pipelines," you'll have explain why "new capacity
to existing pipeline routes" is your claim. And new wells are on the way
in the Gulf and Alaska.

and raising your utility bills as a result.

BS. First, I don't even have nat gas service.

https://www.sdge.com/pipeline

"Between 40% to 70% of the natural gas delivered to San Diego is
used to produce electricity. We rely on natural gas to keep our
lives moving and our lights on, and the pipeline project is an
investment into a having a reliable energy supply."

2nd, PUC approved electricity rates are not driven by nat gas
spot markets.

Do utilities not petition for higher rates when costs go up?

They do...and they should be denied when the basis is not systemic.
Last winter our gas prices skyrocketed while the rest of the country
saw declines.

SDGE typically absorbs increased costs without passing them on to consumers?

Gotta love this justification... Rates going up to cover for the
subsidy and energy welfare programs mandated by the state.

And here's a real kick in the ass..." The West Coast states of
California, Oregon and Washington have all opposed additional
pipeline capacity, arguing that they are concerned about the
climate.

You'd pay for that construction, too.

Natural gas storage inventories in the Pacific were 30 percent below
their previous five-year average (as of December 16).

Is that going to happen again? I don't think so.

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-fuels/gas-and-oil/california-sees-skyrocketing-natural-gas-prices-this-winter/

How is this helping your argument that renewables aren't cheaper than
natural gas power?

And there's this shot in the foot.

A major leak occurred at Aliso Canyon in 2015, causing Southern
California Gas to temporarily relocate thousands of households. In
the aftermath, the utilities commission capped how much gas could be
stored at the facility.

Sure, unsafe storage sounds like a good idea.

Another issue is the impact of regulations from the California
Geologic Energy Management Division, which went into effect in 2018.
The regulations caused, on average, a 40 percent decline in the
utility’s well capacity. Those rules, which were much stricter than previous gas storage standards, were enacted after the Aliso Canyon
leak. The rules require testing of gas facilities, and some of the
tests can take a well out of service for as long as a year.

That natural gas is looking cheaper and cheaper.

The idiots in Sacramento and dems in general are perfectly happy
crushing middle income households. Meanwhile Joe's budget proposes
fat wage increases to every Fed bureaucrat in DC immunizing them from
the effects of his failed economy.

I didn't realize there was a direct connection between civil service
wages and SoCal natural gas prices.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 8:21:28 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/28/23 8:07 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 12:28:49 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/28/23 1:20 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 6:04:13 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/27/23 5:54 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 7:49:56 PM UTC-7, mINE109
wrote:

Coomment: I am in favor of both a stable grid and increased
renewables. Meanwhile the US is cashing in on selling liquid
natural gas to Europe

We'd have plenty enough for both if Biden wasn't against new
wells and pipelines.

You think that capacity would have happened instantly? It would be
years away even if he were as for it as you would like.

BS....adding capacity to existing pipeline routes is not the same as
a whole new pipeline where the route will be litigated by leftwing suicidal nutjobs for years.

Since you said "new... pipelines," you'll have explain why "new capacity
to existing pipeline routes" is your claim.

You need an explanation of why a whole new route to get from Texas to So. Cal. is not needed to increase capacity?
How about this.....do they build new freeways going to the same place when lanes
can be added to existing freeways?

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/29/23 1:28 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 8:21:28 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/28/23 8:07 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 12:28:49 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/28/23 1:20 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 6:04:13 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/27/23 5:54 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 7:49:56 PM UTC-7, mINE109
wrote:

Coomment: I am in favor of both a stable grid and increased
renewables. Meanwhile the US is cashing in on selling liquid
natural gas to Europe

We'd have plenty enough for both if Biden wasn't against new
wells and pipelines.

You think that capacity would have happened instantly? It would be
years away even if he were as for it as you would like.

BS....adding capacity to existing pipeline routes is not the same as
a whole new pipeline where the route will be litigated by leftwing
suicidal nutjobs for years.

Since you said "new... pipelines," you'll have explain why "new capacity
to existing pipeline routes" is your claim.

You need an explanation of why a whole new route to get from Texas to So. Cal.
is not needed to increase capacity?

No, I need you to explain why when I responded to your wish for "new
wells and pipelines" you changed the claim to "adding new capacity to
existing pipeline routes."

How about this.....do they build new freeways going to the same place when lanes
can be added to existing freeways?

Did you call for new freeways then change to a call for adding lanes
when someone said a new freeway would take a long time to build?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 12:10:23 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/29/23 1:28 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 8:21:28 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/28/23 8:07 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 12:28:49 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/28/23 1:20 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 6:04:13 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>> On 3/27/23 5:54 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 7:49:56 PM UTC-7, mINE109
wrote:

Coomment: I am in favor of both a stable grid and increased
renewables. Meanwhile the US is cashing in on selling liquid
natural gas to Europe

We'd have plenty enough for both if Biden wasn't against new
wells and pipelines.

You think that capacity would have happened instantly? It would be
years away even if he were as for it as you would like.

BS....adding capacity to existing pipeline routes is not the same as
a whole new pipeline where the route will be litigated by leftwing
suicidal nutjobs for years.

Since you said "new... pipelines," you'll have explain why "new capacity >> to existing pipeline routes" is your claim.

You need an explanation of why a whole new route to get from Texas to So. Cal.
is not needed to increase capacity?

No, I need you to explain why when I responded to your wish for "new
wells and pipelines" you changed the claim to "adding new capacity to existing pipeline routes."

I clarified in response to your ignorance of needing years to do anything.

But as usual....Stephan prefers his usual blather on who said what when over anything
of real importance.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/29/23 8:01 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 12:10:23 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/29/23 1:28 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 8:21:28 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/28/23 8:07 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 12:28:49 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/28/23 1:20 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 6:04:13 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/27/23 5:54 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 7:49:56 PM UTC-7, mINE109
wrote:

Coomment: I am in favor of both a stable grid and increased
renewables. Meanwhile the US is cashing in on selling liquid
natural gas to Europe

We'd have plenty enough for both if Biden wasn't against new
wells and pipelines.

You think that capacity would have happened instantly? It would be >>>>>> years away even if he were as for it as you would like.

BS....adding capacity to existing pipeline routes is not the same as >>>>> a whole new pipeline where the route will be litigated by leftwing
suicidal nutjobs for years.

Since you said "new... pipelines," you'll have explain why "new capacity >>>> to existing pipeline routes" is your claim.

You need an explanation of why a whole new route to get from Texas to So. Cal.
is not needed to increase capacity?

No, I need you to explain why when I responded to your wish for "new
wells and pipelines" you changed the claim to "adding new capacity to
existing pipeline routes."

I clarified in response to your ignorance of needing years to do anything.

Clarified = changed

But as usual....Stephan prefers his usual blather on who said what when over anything
of real importance.

Yes, who said what is important, especially when you change your claim
to create a strawman.

You think Biden has a magic wand to instantly solve energy price
problems by increasing pipeline capacity and allowing new drilling. I
have doubts about each of those elements.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/26/23 9:49 PM, mINE109 wrote:

It's a BS crap piece of misinformation and propaganda by a source
which admits that's their reason for existing.

True, it's hard to catch up to decades of petro-corporation propaganda.
That fuel-producing algae seemed like such a good idea.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/prosecutors-say-massive-hacking-operation-infiltrated-exxon-climate-foes/ar-AA19eekd

https://www.wsj.com/articles/massive-hacking-for-hire-operation-infiltrated-exxons-climate-opponents-prosecutors-say-8ccfdba?mod=djemalertNEWS

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 7:56:27 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/29/23 8:01 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 12:10:23 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/29/23 1:28 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 8:21:28 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/28/23 8:07 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 12:28:49 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>> On 3/28/23 1:20 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 6:04:13 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/27/23 5:54 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 7:49:56 PM UTC-7, mINE109
wrote:

Coomment: I am in favor of both a stable grid and increased >>>>>>>> renewables. Meanwhile the US is cashing in on selling liquid >>>>>>>> natural gas to Europe

We'd have plenty enough for both if Biden wasn't against new
wells and pipelines.

You think that capacity would have happened instantly? It would be >>>>>> years away even if he were as for it as you would like.

BS....adding capacity to existing pipeline routes is not the same as >>>>> a whole new pipeline where the route will be litigated by leftwing >>>>> suicidal nutjobs for years.

Since you said "new... pipelines," you'll have explain why "new capacity
to existing pipeline routes" is your claim.

You need an explanation of why a whole new route to get from Texas to So. Cal.
is not needed to increase capacity?

No, I need you to explain why when I responded to your wish for "new
wells and pipelines" you changed the claim to "adding new capacity to
existing pipeline routes."

I clarified in response to your ignorance of needing years to do anything.

Clarified = changed

But as usual....Stephan prefers his usual blather on who said what when over anything
of real importance.

Yes, who said what is important,

Not when it's you doing the saying. It's as inconsequential as it can get.

especially when you change your claim
to create a strawman.

Civilization is ending...humanity on a path to starvation....and Stephen's last words will be...
the warning was a strawman.

You think Biden has a magic wand to instantly solve energy price
problems by increasing pipeline capacity and allowing new drilling.

No, but the energy market price has a large "futures" component to it
and his policies have clearly driven up prices and increased the impact of world events.

California is the canary in coalmine when it comes to energy policy and pricing.
If you don't think homeless lining our streets is not in part due to the spiraling cost
of energy which creeps into the spiraling cost of everything, then you're a truly a heartless fool.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/30/23 1:01 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 7:56:27 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/29/23 8:01 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 12:10:23 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/29/23 1:28 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 8:21:28 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/28/23 8:07 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 12:28:49 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/28/23 1:20 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 6:04:13 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/23 5:54 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 7:49:56 PM UTC-7, mINE109 >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:

Coomment: I am in favor of both a stable grid and increased >>>>>>>>>> renewables. Meanwhile the US is cashing in on selling liquid >>>>>>>>>> natural gas to Europe

We'd have plenty enough for both if Biden wasn't against new >>>>>>>>> wells and pipelines.

You think that capacity would have happened instantly? It would be >>>>>>>> years away even if he were as for it as you would like.

BS....adding capacity to existing pipeline routes is not the same as >>>>>>> a whole new pipeline where the route will be litigated by leftwing >>>>>>> suicidal nutjobs for years.

Since you said "new... pipelines," you'll have explain why "new capacity >>>>>> to existing pipeline routes" is your claim.

You need an explanation of why a whole new route to get from Texas to So. Cal.
is not needed to increase capacity?

No, I need you to explain why when I responded to your wish for "new
wells and pipelines" you changed the claim to "adding new capacity to
existing pipeline routes."

I clarified in response to your ignorance of needing years to do anything. >> Clarified = changed
But as usual....Stephan prefers his usual blather on who said what when over anything
of real importance.

Yes, who said what is important,

Not when it's you doing the saying. It's as inconsequential as it can get.

Sure, maybe, but I was talking about what you said. You'll agree that's important.

especially when you change your claim to create a strawman.

Civilization is ending...humanity on a path to starvation....and Stephen's last words will be...
the warning was a strawman.

Cool that you strawmanned strawman. So you read the recent report?

https://www.civilbeat.org/2023/03/us-renewable-power-surged-ahead-of-coal-for-the-first-time-last-year/

You think Biden has a magic wand to instantly solve energy price
problems by increasing pipeline capacity and allowing new drilling.

No, but the energy market price has a large "futures" component to it
and his policies have clearly driven up prices and increased the impact of world events.

Nothing to do with the Russians and the Saudis? Anyhow:

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/pdf/steo_text.pdf

Looks like prices are trending downward from 2022. Thanks, Joe!

"Our forecast indicates that wholesale electricity prices fall in 2023.
The decline in price reflects the forecast drop in natural gas prices
from 2022 to 2023. Natural gas is the most-used fuel for power
generation in the United States. In addition, increasing electricity
generation from renewable sources contributes to lower power prices."

California is the canary in coalmine when it comes to energy policy and pricing.
If you don't think homeless lining our streets is not in part due to the spiraling cost
of energy which creeps into the spiraling cost of everything, then you're a truly a heartless fool.

It's not the spiraling cost of housing? Seems like you have all kinds of
stuff I should worry about while you don't have a care.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 11:34:37 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/30/23 1:01 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 7:56:27 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/29/23 8:01 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 12:10:23 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/29/23 1:28 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 8:21:28 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>> On 3/28/23 8:07 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 12:28:49 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/28/23 1:20 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 6:04:13 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/23 5:54 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 7:49:56 PM UTC-7, mINE109 >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:

Coomment: I am in favor of both a stable grid and increased >>>>>>>>>> renewables. Meanwhile the US is cashing in on selling liquid >>>>>>>>>> natural gas to Europe

We'd have plenty enough for both if Biden wasn't against new >>>>>>>>> wells and pipelines.

You think that capacity would have happened instantly? It would be >>>>>>>> years away even if he were as for it as you would like.

BS....adding capacity to existing pipeline routes is not the same as >>>>>>> a whole new pipeline where the route will be litigated by leftwing >>>>>>> suicidal nutjobs for years.

Since you said "new... pipelines," you'll have explain why "new capacity
to existing pipeline routes" is your claim.

You need an explanation of why a whole new route to get from Texas to So. Cal.
is not needed to increase capacity?

No, I need you to explain why when I responded to your wish for "new >>>> wells and pipelines" you changed the claim to "adding new capacity to >>>> existing pipeline routes."

I clarified in response to your ignorance of needing years to do anything.

Clarified = changed

But as usual....Stephan prefers his usual blather on who said what when over anything
of real importance.

Yes, who said what is important,

Not when it's you doing the saying. It's as inconsequential as it can get.

Sure, maybe, but I was talking about what you said. You'll agree that's important.

No....it's not. Because I said it to you.

Meanwhile....try to understand that energy prices impact the cost of everything.
It's not just the direct impact on your utility bill....which is obvious.
It's a major role in the ongoing price increases of everything you need to live.

The rising cost of housing hurts....but they might be able to squeak by that if they didn't have food, and utilities, and fuel and taxes and clothes
all going up too.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/31/23 10:28 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 11:34:37 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/30/23 1:01 PM, ScottW wrote:

But as usual....Stephan prefers his usual blather on who said what when over anything
of real importance.

Yes, who said what is important,

Not when it's you doing the saying. It's as inconsequential as it can get. >> Sure, maybe, but I was talking about what you said. You'll agree that's

important.

No....it's not. Because I said it to you.

More word games.

Meanwhile....try to understand that energy prices impact the cost of everything.
It's not just the direct impact on your utility bill....which is obvious. It's a major role in the ongoing price increases of everything you need to live.

So when energy prices are expected to go down, that's bad?

The rising cost of housing hurts....but they might be able to squeak by that if they didn't have food, and utilities, and fuel and taxes and clothes
all going up too.

No, it's housing. Homelessness was a problem well before this recent
spate of inflation.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 10:59:38 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/31/23 10:28 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 11:34:37 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/30/23 1:01 PM, ScottW wrote:

But as usual....Stephan prefers his usual blather on who said what when over anything
of real importance.

Yes, who said what is important,

Not when it's you doing the saying. It's as inconsequential as it can get.

Sure, maybe, but I was talking about what you said. You'll agree that's >> important.

No....it's not. Because I said it to you.

More word games.

Meanwhile....try to understand that energy prices impact the cost of everything.
It's not just the direct impact on your utility bill....which is obvious. It's a major role in the ongoing price increases of everything you need to live.

So when energy prices are expected to go down, that's bad?

The rising cost of housing hurts....but they might be able to squeak by that
if they didn't have food, and utilities, and fuel and taxes and clothes all going up too.

No, it's housing. Homelessness was a problem well before this recent
spate of inflation.

Homelessness was a problem that is rapidly growing worse under Biden.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Shmoodly-doodly-doo...

Homelessness was a problem that is rapidly growing worse under Biden.

What's the term for making up fake "facts" and then running away and
hiding when a Real person calls you on it? I feel that "lying" doesn't
quite capture this behavior because that term doesn't automatically
connote the implicit chutzpah.

Let's find out how deep this pathology runs. Shmoo scottw, I denounce
your filthy, shameless lying and demand you either admit your sliminess
or (finally) cough up a citation or two to support your blithering idiocy.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/31/23 6:19 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 10:59:38 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/31/23 10:28 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 11:34:37 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

No, it's housing. Homelessness was a problem well before this recent
spate of inflation.

Homelessness was a problem that is rapidly growing worse under Biden.

Rapidly? HUD: "Homelessness slightly increased nationwide.
Between 2020 and 2022, the overall number of people experiencing
homelessness increased by less than one percent (1,996 people)."

Given population growth, that's pretty steady. Sure, it's tough if
they're all in your neighborhood but it's also a testament to successful pandemic protections.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 8:56:04 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/31/23 6:19 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 10:59:38 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/31/23 10:28 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 11:34:37 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

No, it's housing. Homelessness was a problem well before this recent
spate of inflation.

Homelessness was a problem that is rapidly growing worse under Biden.

Rapidly? HUD: "Homelessness slightly increased nationwide.
Between 2020 and 2022, the overall number of people experiencing homelessness increased by less than one percent (1,996 people)."

Given population growth, that's pretty steady. Sure, it's tough if
they're all in your neighborhood but it's also a testament to successful pandemic protections.

It seems to have shrunk here in Baltimore. They all relocated to Austin, Portland and Seattle.
Better weather, more freebies, and less hassling.
Location, location, location!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 5:56:04 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/31/23 6:19 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 10:59:38 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/31/23 10:28 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 11:34:37 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

No, it's housing. Homelessness was a problem well before this recent
spate of inflation.

Homelessness was a problem that is rapidly growing worse under Biden.

Rapidly? HUD: "Homelessness slightly increased nationwide.
Between 2020 and 2022, the overall number of people experiencing homelessness increased by less than one percent (1,996 people)."

Given population growth, that's pretty steady. Sure, it's tough if
they're all in your neighborhood but it's also a testament to successful pandemic protections.

Those numbers are BS and you know it. They had covid eviction moratoriums
in place across the country keeping numbers artificially low and even with that Ca.
rose 6%.
HUD even admits that in their report.
"The rate of overall homelessness due in large part to a robust federal response that prevented evictions through Emergency Rental Assistance"
Well that's over now.

LA county finally ended that BS just 3 days ago.

https://laist.com/news/housing-homelessness/eviction-protections-los-angeles-county-city-moratorium-covid-pandemic-housing-homelessness-tenant-renters-landlord

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/2/23 8:36 AM, Art Sackman wrote:

On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 8:56:04 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/31/23 6:19 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 10:59:38 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/31/23 10:28 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 11:34:37 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

No, it's housing. Homelessness was a problem well before this recent
spate of inflation.

Homelessness was a problem that is rapidly growing worse under Biden.

Rapidly? HUD: "Homelessness slightly increased nationwide.
Between 2020 and 2022, the overall number of people experiencing
homelessness increased by less than one percent (1,996 people)."

Given population growth, that's pretty steady. Sure, it's tough if
they're all in your neighborhood but it's also a testament to successful
pandemic protections.

It seems to have shrunk here in Baltimore. They all relocated to Austin, Portland and Seattle.
Better weather, more freebies, and less hassling.
Location, location, location!

Yes. San Diego and LA are also slammed. I've had the displeasure of
homeless camping on my workplace doorstep and can see why it inspires
such disdain.

You could do worse than poorhouses, depending on implementation.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/2/23 11:12 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 5:56:04 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/31/23 6:19 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 10:59:38 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/31/23 10:28 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 11:34:37 AM UTC-7, mINE109
wrote:

No, it's housing. Homelessness was a problem well before this
recent spate of inflation.

Homelessness was a problem that is rapidly growing worse under
Biden.

Rapidly? HUD: "Homelessness slightly increased nationwide. Between
2020 and 2022, the overall number of people experiencing
homelessness increased by less than one percent (1,996 people)."

Given population growth, that's pretty steady. Sure, it's tough if
they're all in your neighborhood but it's also a testament to
successful pandemic protections.

Those numbers are BS and you know it.

No, I don't know that.

They had covid eviction moratoriums in place across the country
keeping numbers artificially low and even with that Ca. rose 6%.

So those programs worked to reduce homelessness?

HUDeven admits that in their report. "The rate of overall homelessness
due in large part to a robust federal response that prevented
evictions through Emergency Rental Assistance" Well that's over now.

They admitted the protections worked as intended? I guess you showed me.

LA county finally ended that BS just 3 days ago.

There's that word again.

https://laist.com/news/housing-homelessness/eviction-protections-los-angeles-county-city-moratorium-covid-pandemic-housing-homelessness-tenant-renters-landlord

So your argument is there should have been stronger protections in
specific regions because of local differences in rates of homelessness?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 1:40:43 PM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

I've had the displeasure of

homeless camping on my workplace doorstep and can see why it inspires
such disdain.

OMG. They're hanging out by the steps to your parents' basement.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 10:51:04 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/2/23 11:12 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 5:56:04 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/31/23 6:19 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 10:59:38 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/31/23 10:28 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 11:34:37 AM UTC-7, mINE109
wrote:

No, it's housing. Homelessness was a problem well before this
recent spate of inflation.

Homelessness was a problem that is rapidly growing worse under
Biden.

Rapidly? HUD: "Homelessness slightly increased nationwide. Between
2020 and 2022, the overall number of people experiencing
homelessness increased by less than one percent (1,996 people)."

Given population growth, that's pretty steady. Sure, it's tough if
they're all in your neighborhood but it's also a testament to
successful pandemic protections.

Those numbers are BS and you know it.

No, I don't know that.

They had covid eviction moratoriums in place across the country
keeping numbers artificially low and even with that Ca. rose 6%.

So those programs worked to reduce homelessness?

Temporarily. But they probably aggravated it even worse in the long run.
Lots of people who were given temporary exemption from paying rent
presumed they wouldn't have to pay up eventually. Now they're facing a fat
back rent bill and don't have.
In addition, with rental rates skyrocketing landlords are less inclined to cut 'em a
break and want new tenants with new leases at current market.

HUDeven admits that in their report. "The rate of overall homelessness
due in large part to a robust federal response that prevented
evictions through Emergency Rental Assistance" Well that's over now.

They admitted the protections worked as intended? I guess you showed me.

You are so very shortsighted.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/2/23 8:39 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 10:51:04 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/2/23 11:12 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 5:56:04 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/31/23 6:19 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 10:59:38 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/31/23 10:28 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 11:34:37 AM UTC-7, mINE109
wrote:

No, it's housing. Homelessness was a problem well before this
recent spate of inflation.

Homelessness was a problem that is rapidly growing worse under
Biden.

Rapidly? HUD: "Homelessness slightly increased nationwide. Between
2020 and 2022, the overall number of people experiencing
homelessness increased by less than one percent (1,996 people)."

Given population growth, that's pretty steady. Sure, it's tough if
they're all in your neighborhood but it's also a testament to
successful pandemic protections.

Those numbers are BS and you know it.

No, I don't know that.

They had covid eviction moratoriums in place across the country
keeping numbers artificially low and even with that Ca. rose 6%.

So those programs worked to reduce homelessness?

Temporarily. But they probably aggravated it even worse in the long run.

Tell yourself that. It hasn't happened yet.

Lots of people who were given temporary exemption from paying rent
presumed they wouldn't have to pay up eventually. Now they're facing a fat back rent bill and don't have.

That's an unlikely assumption on your part.

In addition, with rental rates skyrocketing landlords are less inclined to cut 'em a
break and want new tenants with new leases at current market.

Hence my view the problem is insufficient affordable housing.

HUDeven admits that in their report. "The rate of overall homelessness
due in large part to a robust federal response that prevented
evictions through Emergency Rental Assistance" Well that's over now.

They admitted the protections worked as intended? I guess you showed me.

You are so very shortsighted.

Your claim failed, but you're hoping for more homelessness in the future.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 7:14:02 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/2/23 8:39 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 10:51:04 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/2/23 11:12 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 5:56:04 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/31/23 6:19 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 10:59:38 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>> On 3/31/23 10:28 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 11:34:37 AM UTC-7, mINE109
wrote:

No, it's housing. Homelessness was a problem well before this
recent spate of inflation.

Homelessness was a problem that is rapidly growing worse under
Biden.

Rapidly? HUD: "Homelessness slightly increased nationwide. Between
2020 and 2022, the overall number of people experiencing
homelessness increased by less than one percent (1,996 people)."

Given population growth, that's pretty steady. Sure, it's tough if
they're all in your neighborhood but it's also a testament to
successful pandemic protections.

Those numbers are BS and you know it.

No, I don't know that.

They had covid eviction moratoriums in place across the country
keeping numbers artificially low and even with that Ca. rose 6%.

So those programs worked to reduce homelessness?

Temporarily. But they probably aggravated it even worse in the long run.

Tell yourself that. It hasn't happened yet.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/07/renters-are-most-behind-on-payments-in-these-states.html

and while Ca. doesn't make the list in % or renters their gross number is huge with a large
population of renters.

Snip the BS of a warning being "hoping for". What a juvenile argument.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

You are so very shortsighted.

Your claim failed, but you're hoping for more homelessness in the future.

Only in your neck of the woods.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/3/23 6:00 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 7:14:02 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/2/23 8:39 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 10:51:04 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/2/23 11:12 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 5:56:04 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 3/31/23 6:19 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 10:59:38 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/31/23 10:28 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 11:34:37 AM UTC-7, mINE109
wrote:

No, it's housing. Homelessness was a problem well before this
recent spate of inflation.

Homelessness was a problem that is rapidly growing worse under
Biden.

Rapidly? HUD: "Homelessness slightly increased nationwide. Between >>>>>> 2020 and 2022, the overall number of people experiencing
homelessness increased by less than one percent (1,996 people)."

Given population growth, that's pretty steady. Sure, it's tough if >>>>>> they're all in your neighborhood but it's also a testament to
successful pandemic protections.

Those numbers are BS and you know it.

No, I don't know that.

They had covid eviction moratoriums in place across the country
keeping numbers artificially low and even with that Ca. rose 6%.

So those programs worked to reduce homelessness?

Temporarily. But they probably aggravated it even worse in the long run.

Tell yourself that. It hasn't happened yet.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/07/renters-are-most-behind-on-payments-in-these-states.html

and while Ca. doesn't make the list in % or renters their gross number is huge with a large
population of renters.

No dispute there, but the topic is the existing rate of homelessness and whether it recently increased, not rental payments in arrears.

Snip the BS of a warning being "hoping for". What a juvenile argument.

You're arguing about what's happening now by speculating what could
happen in the future. I didn't get a sense you were concerned but that's
just my opinion based on the frequency with which you post negative
stuff in order to blame Democrats.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/3/23 11:26 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

You are so very shortsighted.

Your claim failed, but you're hoping for more homelessness in the future.

Only in your neck of the woods.

He was wrong so he tried to change the subject.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 7:27:11 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/3/23 6:00 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 7:14:02 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/2/23 8:39 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 10:51:04 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/2/23 11:12 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 5:56:04 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>> On 3/31/23 6:19 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 10:59:38 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/31/23 10:28 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 11:34:37 AM UTC-7, mINE109 >>>>>>>>> wrote:

No, it's housing. Homelessness was a problem well before this >>>>>>>> recent spate of inflation.

Homelessness was a problem that is rapidly growing worse under >>>>>>> Biden.

Rapidly? HUD: "Homelessness slightly increased nationwide. Between >>>>>> 2020 and 2022, the overall number of people experiencing
homelessness increased by less than one percent (1,996 people)." >>>>>>
Given population growth, that's pretty steady. Sure, it's tough if >>>>>> they're all in your neighborhood but it's also a testament to
successful pandemic protections.

Those numbers are BS and you know it.

No, I don't know that.

They had covid eviction moratoriums in place across the country
keeping numbers artificially low and even with that Ca. rose 6%.

So those programs worked to reduce homelessness?

Temporarily. But they probably aggravated it even worse in the long run. >> Tell yourself that. It hasn't happened yet.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/07/renters-are-most-behind-on-payments-in-these-states.html

and while Ca. doesn't make the list in % or renters their gross number is huge with a large
population of renters.

No dispute there, but the topic is the existing rate of homelessness and whether it recently increased, not rental payments in arrears.

1) It did recently increase.
2) It did so in spite of unprecedented federal program to prevent it
3) And that program has led to a massive increase of past due tenants.

And somehow you think it's more important that I be tagged with a subject change because you cannot connect any of these dots on a line to disaster
rather than admitting the homeless disaster is about to get a whole lot worse.

Here's a hint....I don't need free rental space in your head.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

You're arguing about what's happening now by speculating what could
happen in the future. I didn't get a sense you were concerned but that's
just my opinion based on the frequency with which you post negative
stuff in order to blame Democrats.

I'm going to backup Scott.
He's a little lazy and it's much, much easier to find articles
with negative stuff blaming Democrats than it is finding positive stuff
applauding Democrats.

Since you are such a hard worker, I'll let you spend
all the time and effort to scour the internet to support your bias.

Trolling can be so much fun!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Here's a hint....I don't need free rental space in your head.

ScottW

Why rent ? You can own your own Austin Steve bobblehead

https://www.ebay.com/itm/144040881324?var=0&mkevt=1&mkcid=1&mkrid=711-53200-19255-0&campid=5338590836&toolid=10044&customid=1b4c3e427a631f90afa25a6e81661a3a

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/4/23 10:37 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 7:27:11 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

the topic is the existing rate of homelessness and whether it
recently increased, not rental payments in arrears.

1) It did recently increase.

By less than 2,000 people nationwide from 2020 to 2022 according to HUD.

2) It did so in spite of unprecedented federal program to prevent it

It was a pandemic program, yes, so those potential evictions wouldn't
have happened without COVID. A wash.

3) And that program has led to a massive increase of past due
tenants.

Is that the real cause? Not unemployment or disability? Or increasing
housing costs?

And somehow you think it's more important that I be tagged with a
subject change because you cannot connect any of these dots on a
line to disaster

Yes, you've got it. You made a claim, it was debunked so you changed the subject.

rather than admitting the homeless disaster is about to get a whole
lot worse.

Good thing a lot of those programs have already expired due to lack of
funding, especially in red states. Texas stopped taking applications in
2021.

Here's a hint....I don't need free rental space in your head.

Not to worry. I have a lot more fun debunking your sour trolls than you
show making them.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/4/23 11:36 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

You're arguing about what's happening now by speculating what
could happen in the future. I didn't get a sense you were concerned
but that's just my opinion based on the frequency with which you
post negative stuff in order to blame Democrats.

I'm going to backup Scott. He's a little lazy and it's much, much
easier to find articles with negative stuff blaming Democrats than it
is finding positive stuff applauding Democrats.

Since you are such a hard worker, I'll let you spend all the time and
effort to scour the internet to support your bias.

Trolling can be so much fun!

Considering the apoplexy you guys often exhibit, I wonder if that's true.

Yes, it's way easier to copy-paste the pjmedia/redstate/etc outrage of
the day than it is to consider the facts and context but you learn less
and diminish yourself if you don't care about the strength of your argument.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 7:44:51 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/4/23 10:37 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 7:27:11 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

the topic is the existing rate of homelessness and whether it
recently increased, not rental payments in arrears.

1) It did recently increase.

By less than 2,000 people nationwide from 2020 to 2022 according to HUD.

2) It did so in spite of unprecedented federal program to prevent it

It was a pandemic program, yes, so those potential evictions wouldn't
have happened without COVID. A wash.

3) And that program has led to a massive increase of past due
tenants.

Is that the real cause? Not unemployment or disability? Or increasing housing costs?

And somehow you think it's more important that I be tagged with a
subject change because you cannot connect any of these dots on a
line to disaster

Yes, you've got it. You made a claim, it was debunked so you changed the subject.

rather than admitting the homeless disaster is about to get a whole
lot worse.

Good thing a lot of those programs have already expired due to lack of funding, especially in red states. Texas stopped taking applications in 2021.

Here's a hint....I don't need free rental space in your head.

Not to worry. I have a lot more fun debunking your sour trolls than you
show making them.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-05/as-texas-evictions-rise-state-bill-seeks-to-ban-local-tenant-protections

https://www.necn.com/news/local/stats-show-rising-evictions-in-mass-before-pandemic-protection-ends/2956896/

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/6/23 10:43 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 7:44:51 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

I have a lot more fun debunking your sour trolls than you
show making them.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-05/as-texas-evictions-rise-state-bill-seeks-to-ban-local-tenant-protections

See how much fun it is to provide credible evidence to support your
views? Since we agree there is a need for rent relief, this is unwelcome
news and I hope this bill doesn't pass a Texas lege focused too much IMO
on culture war issues. It won't enable you to blame homelessness on
Biden if Republicans outlaw eviction bans.

https://www.necn.com/news/local/stats-show-rising-evictions-in-mass-before-pandemic-protection-ends/2956896/

"Eviction filings were far below average during much of the pandemic, fluctuating along with the implementation of state and local laws
limiting whether proceedings could be filed, Princeton University's
Eviction Lab. Filings returned to roughly average historic levels in
Boston in October, then exceeded them the following three months."

Total homelessness would thus be accumulative so the increase could
still be an overall steady rate if viewed over a longer time.

To recap: HUD reports a steady number of homeless as of 2022; and,
ending rent relief is likely to cause more homelessness in the future.

That Eviction Lab looks like a good resource. Here's a recent blog post supporting zoning changes to encourage more affordable housing:

https://evictionlab.org/zoning-restrictiveness-index/

"The U.S. needs more housing—lots of it. We have millions of fewer
housing units than we need, particularly affordable housing units. This shortfall has devastating impacts, especially for low-income renters
facing ever-greater challenges securing safe, affordable housing. Yet
despite the glaring need, building to meet this demand is often
infeasible—if not outright illegal—because of local land use and zoning laws."

Looks like San Francisco's housing problems are exacerbated by
exclusionary zoning, which is generally accepted, but it's interesting
to have a metric to describe it. Houston's reputation for anything goes
zoning is confirmed as it is much less exclusionary.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 9:57:59 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/6/23 10:43 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 7:44:51 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

I have a lot more fun debunking your sour trolls than you
show making them.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-05/as-texas-evictions-rise-state-bill-seeks-to-ban-local-tenant-protections

See how much fun it is to provide credible evidence to support your
views? Since we agree there is a need for rent relief,

Wrong. "Rent relief" only leads to a lack of rental housing.

Ca. needs to overhaul their permitting and zoning process which adds 30% to the cost of new construction.
The ADU program is actually a good start to that.

Maybe gov't could assist in implementing new low cost construction techniques like printed housing.

But rent relief is a bandaid over a festering infection that will cost you a limb.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/6/23 12:41 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 9:57:59 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/6/23 10:43 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 7:44:51 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

I have a lot more fun debunking your sour trolls than you
show making them.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-05/as-texas-evictions-rise-state-bill-seeks-to-ban-local-tenant-protections

See how much fun it is to provide credible evidence to support your
views? Since we agree there is a need for rent relief,

Wrong. "Rent relief" only leads to a lack of rental housing.

In the context of preventing homelessness, it is a needed tool. Perhaps
your idea of rent relief doesn't include payments to the landlords which
is usually an option.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-rental-housing-crisis-is-a-supply-problem-that-needs-supply-solutions/

"Housing insecurity in the United States long predates the COVID-19
pandemic. Current challenges most recently appeared in the wake of the
Great Recession, which lasted from 2007 to 2009, as demand for housing increased while the supply of new housing units plummeted. People were
squeezed out of the housing market, adding upward pressure on demand for
rental properties. Those with deeper pockets—higher incomes and more wealth—can afford higher rents if they do not buy, leaving lower-income renters to fight over an insufficient pool of available rental housing...

The housing affordability crisis is the result of deliberate policy
choices and chronic underfunding that have persisted for decades but
have worsened since the Great Recession."

Ca. needs to overhaul their permitting and zoning process which adds 30% to the cost of new construction.
The ADU program is actually a good start to that.

Maybe gov't could assist in implementing new low cost construction techniques like printed housing.

But rent relief is a bandaid over a festering infection that will cost you a limb.

Colorful, but overstates the significance of rent relief in creating the problem, which is a structural one due to lack of construction. I do
agree that it is a "band aid" but sometimes a bandaid is good for a
short-term solution and preferable to empty units and people on the street.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 11:11:56 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/6/23 12:41 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 9:57:59 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/6/23 10:43 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 7:44:51 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

I have a lot more fun debunking your sour trolls than you
show making them.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-05/as-texas-evictions-rise-state-bill-seeks-to-ban-local-tenant-protections

See how much fun it is to provide credible evidence to support your
views? Since we agree there is a need for rent relief,

Wrong. "Rent relief" only leads to a lack of rental housing.

In the context of preventing homelessness, it is a needed tool. Perhaps
your idea of rent relief doesn't include payments to the landlords which
is usually an option.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-rental-housing-crisis-is-a-supply-problem-that-needs-supply-solutions/

"Housing insecurity in the United States long predates the COVID-19 pandemic. Current challenges most recently appeared in the wake of the
Great Recession, which lasted from 2007 to 2009, as demand for housing increased while the supply of new housing units plummeted. People were squeezed out of the housing market, adding upward pressure on demand for rental properties. Those with deeper pockets—higher incomes and more wealth—can afford higher rents if they do not buy, leaving lower-income renters to fight over an insufficient pool of available rental housing...

The housing affordability crisis is the result of deliberate policy
choices and chronic underfunding that have persisted for decades but
have worsened since the Great Recession."

Ca. needs to overhaul their permitting and zoning process which adds 30% to the cost of new construction.
The ADU program is actually a good start to that.

Maybe gov't could assist in implementing new low cost construction techniques like printed housing.

But rent relief is a bandaid over a festering infection that will cost you a limb.

Colorful, but overstates the significance of rent relief in creating the problem, which is a structural one due to lack of construction.

Rent control or rent relief do not lead to increased rental construction.
It will only lead to waiting lists like Sweden.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/6/23 1:15 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 11:11:56 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/6/23 12:41 PM, ScottW wrote:

But rent relief is a bandaid...

Colorful, but overstates the significance of rent relief in creating the
problem, which is a structural one due to lack of construction.

Rent control or rent relief do not lead to increased rental construction.
It will only lead to waiting lists like Sweden.

Yes, that's generally accepted, leaving Sweden aside as it doesn't have
the increasing costs found here and does have a very different approach
to government involvement in housing.

And "only" leaves aside its purpose: keeping people in homes.

A mention of eviction moratoria and emergency rent relief:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2021/05/14/well-designed-rent-relief-programs-can-lay-the-groundwork-for-healthier-post-pandemic-housing-markets/

"Too many cities and counties use zoning to prohibit the development of multifamily rental housing on the majority of their land, leading to
chronic undersupply and artificially high rent levels. Even as the
pandemic has highlighted renters’ financial insecurity, city and state governments are dragging their heels on necessary reforms. Elected
leaders need to recognize that protecting affluent homeowners’ “neighborhood character” comes at the direct expense of renters, who
face restricted choices and higher housing costs."

When rent relief ends, there needs to be places to go.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)