• Join Us |
  • |
  • Sign in with:

Turn off the Internet !

by Maarten Goldstein, Jan 17, 2001 11:27am PST
Related Topics – Nerdy News

Salon has an article looking at the current power crisis in California, where some people in the power industry are now saying the Internet is the cause of it all. This is of course the easy way out; you screwed something up? Blame the net. The Salon piece takes a look at power consumption of computers, the lobbying of big Silicon Valey players such as Intel to get more power plants built, and how the Internet might actually save power. Thanks r0ck0.

A close look at the numbers, say some researchers, suggests that the opposite is true -- that the Net may actually be helping to drive down overall energy demand. Joseph Romm, a former assistant secretary at the U.S. Department of Energy, notes that from 1992 to 1996 total energy demand grew at about 2.4 percent a year in the U.S., during a period when the gross domestic product was growing at a rate of 3.2 percent a year. But from 1996 to 2000, when the Net boom was really taking off, the gross domestic product grew at an average of 4 percent a year while energy demand grew at a rate of only 1 percent. In other words, the growth in energy demand was far below the growth in the overall economy; as the economy grew hotter and hotter the rate of increase in the demand for energy actually slowed.
Seems everything nowadays is attributed to the Internet, good and bad.


Read all the News


Comments

« Previous 1 2 Next »
57 Threads* | 130 Comments
  • #128
    Refresh Thread
    By: LEX LETHAL x
    Reply
    I live in Cali, and let me tell you that this power crisis is a daily threat. 90 minute black-out rotation? You think that's funny? PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric) is broke, and claiming that they are facing their own electric bill at the end of this month.

    Personally, i think this problem started years ago, when hydro-electric generators (like the one proposed for the Auburn Dam way back when) is indicative of resource neglect. Whomever heads the power management board for the state of California and is responsible for not preparing for this disaster should be publically fired and forced to relocate to another state.

    You just don't wake up and find out that your state can't afford to provide electricity to it's citizens - you sit on that information as long as you can, because building powerplants costs money (like Rancho Seco, a nuclear power facility in North Cali) makes people nervous.

    It's the liberals. They protested to protected the environment, now they are burning those EPA banners to stay warm.

    And it's going to get worse before it gets better. If you still think it's funny, we're pulling power from your grids, power that you need this winter. Who's laughing now?

    Thanks!

    -Lex
    Jan 17, 2001 8:53pm PST
  • #126
    Refresh Thread
    By: MoNsTeR x
    Reply
    Who OWNS the major media outlets is irrelevant. Ruper Murdoch doesn't WRITE Fox's evening news, he just PAYS for it. If you watch the big 4 TV networks, and read the top 25 national newspapers, you will see that they are shamelessly:
    - anti-gun
    - anti-free-market (ie: pro-red-tape regulation)
    - anti-drug (because the Feds literally PAY them to be)

    They have other tendencies, but those are the ones that stick out the most.

    In a big-city newspaper, you will (99%) NEVER see:
    - an article suggesting women get concealed weapons permits to protect themselves
    - an article postulating that maybe the city's transportation/ energy/ education/ etc. problem could be solved by privatizing it
    - an article suggesting we end the War on Drugs (or even acknowledging that it's 100% unconstitutional)

    Instead, you will see:
    - articles suggesting we (and especially women) work for stricter gun control
    - articles suggesting we solve the <whatever> problem with MORE government involvement, and even outright siezure of energy and transportation industries
    - articles reminding everyone how evil drugs are and aren't the police just the best heroes for busting all these people for A. making, B. selling, and C. using stuff that harms absolutely NO ONE else

    There are certainly examples of Conservative media bias, and even us Libertarians have trouble seeing all sides of the issue sometimes. But you won't find examples of those ANYWHERE in mainstream media. And no, Rush Limbaugh's nutball hour doesn't count ;)

    MoNsTeR
    Jan 17, 2001 7:04pm PST
  • #121
    Refresh Thread
    By: MoNsTeR x
    Reply
    OK. Here's the reason for California's energy crisis in a nutshell. Their population, and hence their demand for energy, has been continually growing. Their supply of energy has remained constant.

    When, at the going market price, more people want to buy something than the sellers have to sell them, we have what's called a shortage. Because some people are /willing/ to pay more than the market is currently asking, they vote with their wallets, and the price goes up.
    That pushes profits up. Rising industry profits does two things. First, it provides an impetus for existing firms to expand production. Second, it provides an incentive for entrepeneurs to enter that industry. In California's energy market, all of these things have happened, except the last two. New plants have not been built by existing energy firms, nor are businessmen getting into the energy market. So the question we should ask is, why hasn't the market adjusted? The answer is simple, really. THE GOVERNMENT CONTROLS THE ENERGY MARKET. Vast amounts of government red tape make it extremely difficult for energy firms to expand, and for new firms to open. Imagine your struggles with the local DMV multiplied by 1000000 times and you'll get an idea of how hard it is for California's energy market to grow.

    Here in Colorado, and indeed, in most of the western US, we're having trouble with another energy commodity, natural gas. Right now in CO we're paying more for N.Gas than anyone has ever paid, anywhere, EVER. The reason is nearly identical. Our population has doubled in the last ten years, but we still have exactly one N.Gas company. The deeper causes for the price jumps are more complicated than "it's the government's fault" (for once), and have to do with lots of complex economic mumbo-jumbo that I really dig but you don't, so I won't bore you with it. The only reason I even mention our N.Gas problem is because it's interesting to note that analysts and media types at least UNDERSTAND why we have a crisis. Big demand + small supply + high production costs = high prices. Simple, right?

    Then how come they can't understand that about California's troubles? The reason is that in 1996, some of the laws governing San Diego's energy market were changed, and people (read: idiots) called this "deregulation". Remember what happened to long-distance rates when /that/ industry was deregulated? They're still falling! Remember what happened to airline fares when /that/ industry was deregulated? Same deal. So when everyone ran around calling these minor tweaks "deregulation", people rightly expected good results. But /calling/ it deregulation didn't mean that it /was/. In many ways, the new rules made things worse.
    (my source: http://www.reason.com/0011/ci.html, last blurb)

    So what, you say? Nearly every report I've heard on the whole CA mess blames deregulation, directly or indirectly, for the current crisis. And I'd bet money that if CO had "deregulated" N.Gas like CA "deregulated" electricity, our reporters would be blaming it too. But why, when the real answer is clear to a first-year economics student, are all these seemingly-intelligent people blaming deregulation? Simple, they're opposed to free markets. They believe that things get better when the government messes with them. And the explanation for why you won't see any reporting on the subject that is not in this same vein is three simple words:

    LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS

    MoNsTeR
    Jan 17, 2001 5:53pm PST

    Thread Truncated. Click to see all 2 replies.