On Apr 16, 12:19*pm, Duesenberg wrote:
On 4/16/2012 10:11 AM, Peter wrote:





On 4/15/2012 11:33 AM, Way Back Jack wrote:
in terms of energy savings, privacy, fire risk, and, most importantly,
health ramifications. Thank You.

No matter how hard the utilities try to convince the consumer that it is
for their advantage, the bottom line is that the power companies
wouldn't be doing it if it did not result in higher profits for them. At
this time in our history, when social and economic issues require many
families to work more hours/week out of the home, their discretionary
timing for the use of power is much lower than it was 20+ years ago. If
no one is home, no one is going to run the high wattage stuff
unattended. You need to cook, wash, etc. when you have the available
time. Also, lots of folks are willing to spend hundreds of $$/month on
cable/wireless services and/or convenience food and may not be worried
about the inconvenience they might have to endure to save $20-50/mo on
their electric bill. I'm very skeptical that anyone other than the
executives and primary shareholders of the utilities will obtain
tangible benefits after the changeover.

Do you beleive that consumers for the last 30 or 40 years have been
paying a fair price for energy costs? *I tend to think it's been too low
for too long.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why would you think it's too low? The utilities and suppliers are
making a profit and staying in business. That is what is determining
the cost to the consumer.

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 07:42:49 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:




You can get around 6-7% dividend return on quite a few companies, many
even 4 or 5 stars on S&P. Go down to 5% or so and picks up even more
and that is with just a simple screen. 0.7% is hardly realistic either
outside of a money market.

I've been getting that in the (conservative) bond funds I have in my 401K. The
money in the bank has been doing about .5%, though.

Which is largely why only my emergency money is in the bank. The stuff I
can not lose.

Exactly. Until recently that was about $40K.

BTW: that 5% is dividend only in my illustration. By the time you
add in the increase in price, the total return is much better.

If there is an increase in price. That's why my 401K is in bonds, and has
been since '04. The market is just too volatile and will be until Obummer
gets the heave-ho.

In article ,
" wrote:

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 07:42:49 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:


If there is an increase in price. That's why my 401K is in bonds, and has
been since '04. The market is just too volatile and will be until Obummer
gets the heave-ho.

Since WWII, there has never been a 20 year period that had less than 7%
average real return on the S&P. Including the one ending in 2011.
Volatile now is small potatoes over long period of time and 401(k) for
most of us are long period of time since life expectancy suggests we'll
have around 25 years post retirement.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On 4/16/2012 12:27 PM, wrote:
On Apr 16, 12:19 pm, wrote:
On 4/16/2012 10:11 AM, Peter wrote:





On 4/15/2012 11:33 AM, Way Back Jack wrote:
in terms of energy savings, privacy, fire risk, and, most importantly,
health ramifications. Thank You.

No matter how hard the utilities try to convince the consumer that it is
for their advantage, the bottom line is that the power companies
wouldn't be doing it if it did not result in higher profits for them. At
this time in our history, when social and economic issues require many
families to work more hours/week out of the home, their discretionary
timing for the use of power is much lower than it was 20+ years ago. If
no one is home, no one is going to run the high wattage stuff
unattended. You need to cook, wash, etc. when you have the available
time. Also, lots of folks are willing to spend hundreds of $$/month on
cable/wireless services and/or convenience food and may not be worried
about the inconvenience they might have to endure to save $20-50/mo on
their electric bill. I'm very skeptical that anyone other than the
executives and primary shareholders of the utilities will obtain
tangible benefits after the changeover.

Do you beleive that consumers for the last 30 or 40 years have been
paying a fair price for energy costs? I tend to think it's been too low
for too long.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why would you think it's too low? The utilities and suppliers are
making a profit and staying in business. That is what is determining
the cost to the consumer.

Ontario has about 40 Billion in debt from energy legacy costs,
particularity from building nuclear power plants, and that's not gonna
pay for itself.

I don't think energy costs are low now, I think they were years ago.

However I was thinking more in line with the wide availability of large
SUVS, luxury V8 automobiles with 400 HP, and households that buy a flat
panel tv every 3 years, disposing of the old one.

Was also thinking of pollution and water cleanup costs, air quality,
people's health etc.

There is a price for cheap energy that can't be measured on a monthly bill.

Duesenberg wrote:

Do you beleive that consumers for the last 30 or 40 years have been
paying a fair price for energy costs?

The issue is the manner in which they're measuring and billing you, and
whether that method is needed and is cost effective (and for whom is it
needed and cost-effective).

Look.

If you had a choice between 2 credit cards:

Card A costs you $25 a year, and it has a conventional magnetic strip.

Card B costs you $200 a year, and it has a strip and chip. The chip
allows for new and different ways to carry out transactions that card A
doesn't. It costs more for Card B because of the additional cost of the
chip, upgrades to the data network and new readers at point-of-sale FOR
WHICH OWNERS OF CARD B AND ONLY THEY WILL END UP PAYING FOR.

Now, in this case individuals can decide which card they want to own.
The free market at work. I'm betting that many people would balk at
Card B and it's economics.

But in the case of TOU electricity measurement and billing, there is no
choice. Option B is being forced down our throats with no regard to the
economics.

Again, I state that there was nothing wrong with the "old" way of paying
for electricity - which is that the residential customer base pays, in
aggregate, for all the electricity they use that the utility must buy
and distribute for them.

And further, that a 2 (or more) tier rate structure can be imposed based
on the quantity of KWH that an individual customer uses per month -
without the utility needing to know the TOU of that electricity.

On 4/16/2012 9:56 AM, Home Guy wrote:
dpb wrote:

Industry experts and consumer advocates have said exactly the same
thing.

Cite(s)?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124050416142448555.html

Note that federal stimulus grants are mentioned (as helping to bankrole
these smartmeter deployments). Note also there is mention of a smart
gas-meter (what a crock that is!). The content of the above link is
reproduced below for your reading pleasure.
....

We're not raising rates at all and are not using any federal stimulus
money. We expect to see a payback in 3 years simply on meter-readings
and billing errors.

In a longer term, if there were the fully integrated system, it could
indeed essentially self-manage for minimum expansive needs by a
combination of load-leveling and judicious load-shedding.

I expect unit costs to come down significantly; that article was dated
'09; our unit costs aren't as high as the lower of the range of numbers
given there at this time.

Other utilities have different constraints of course.

Overall, I think it's inevitable whatever your personal opinion.

I'd suggest you read up on CSAPR and some of the other related pushes
against conventional generation and you'll be wishing for something as
innocuous as "smart meters" to complain about.

--

On 4/16/2012 12:58 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In ,
z wrote:

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 07:42:49 -0400, Kurt wrote:


If there is an increase in price. That's why my 401K is in bonds, and has
been since '04. The market is just too volatile and will be until Obummer
gets the heave-ho.

Since WWII, there has never been a 20 year period that had less than 7%
average real return on the S&P. Including the one ending in 2011.
Volatile now is small potatoes over long period of time and 401(k) for
most of us are long period of time since life expectancy suggests we'll
have around 25 years post retirement.


Volatility creates buying opportunities too. Things are oversold,
prices fall too far too fast because of the panic.

If you'd stayed the course in 2008, you were rewarded in 2009, 2010,
2011, and 2012, so far.

It was like that in 2001 too.

On 4/16/2012 8:11 AM, Peter wrote:
On 4/15/2012 11:33 AM, Way Back Jack wrote:
in terms of energy savings, privacy, fire risk, and, most importantly,
health ramifications. Thank You.

No matter how hard the utilities try to convince the consumer that it is
for their advantage, the bottom line is that the power companies
wouldn't be doing it if it did not result in higher profits for them.

Reasons that come to mind:
- uses the existing capacity more fully - less likely to need new power
plants.
- state regulatory agencies and legislatures are likely to be VERY
interested in the above.

It is not like this is a new concern. For instance many companies have
had a "demand" reading (peak use over maybe 15 minutes) on their
electric meter for a long time. High "demand" results in a large utility
bill 'penalty'. It is worth a lot of money for companies to avoid peaks
by short time load shedding or even running backup generators for short
periods. Or for residential, a second meter that has a lower rate for
loads that can be turned off by the utility during the day.

Utilities have also been pushed real hard here to reduce energy
consumption by promoting more efficient energy use by customers - like
for instance CFLs. This is not in the short term interest of the utility.

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:27:46 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Apr 16, 12:19Â*pm, Duesenberg wrote:
On 4/16/2012 10:11 AM, Peter wrote:





On 4/15/2012 11:33 AM, Way Back Jack wrote:
in terms of energy savings, privacy, fire risk, and, most importantly,
health ramifications. Thank You.

No matter how hard the utilities try to convince the consumer that it is
for their advantage, the bottom line is that the power companies
wouldn't be doing it if it did not result in higher profits for them. At
this time in our history, when social and economic issues require many
families to work more hours/week out of the home, their discretionary
timing for the use of power is much lower than it was 20+ years ago. If
no one is home, no one is going to run the high wattage stuff
unattended. You need to cook, wash, etc. when you have the available
time. Also, lots of folks are willing to spend hundreds of $$/month on
cable/wireless services and/or convenience food and may not be worried
about the inconvenience they might have to endure to save $20-50/mo on
their electric bill. I'm very skeptical that anyone other than the
executives and primary shareholders of the utilities will obtain
tangible benefits after the changeover.

Do you beleive that consumers for the last 30 or 40 years have been
paying a fair price for energy costs? Â*I tend to think it's been too low
for too long.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why would you think it's too low? The utilities and suppliers are
making a profit and staying in business. That is what is determining
the cost to the consumer.
Ontario hydro didn't make any money and ended up in the hole - to a
large extent due to overpaying executives and other stupidity - but
yes, in Ontario we have been paying too little for too long, so now we
need to pay too much to make up for it - as OPG and Hydro One.

Kurt Ullman wrote:

Which is largely why only my emergency money is in the bank. The
stuff I can not lose.

Bank? BANK?

That means you can access it only about 50 hours out of the 168 hours in a
week, or less than 1/3rd of the time. You probably can't drain more than
$500 from your account via an ATM machine.

In my view, one should keep their emergency cash in the mattress. Or in the
pocket of an old suit. If the latter, pin a note on the clothing: "Do not
give to Goodwill."

Home Guy wrote:

Such knowledge, however, doesn't come cheap. Meters are expensive,
often costing $250 to $500 each when all the bells and whistles are
included, such as the expense of installing new utility billing
systems. And utilities typically pass these costs directly on to
consumers. CenterPoint Energy Inc. in Houston, for instance, recently
began charging its customers an extra $3.24 a month for smart meters,
sparking howls of protest since the charges will continue for a
decade and eventually approach $1 billion.


It's worse than that. I just checked. The add-ons - smart meter, taxes,
physical plant upgrade, escrow for New Year's Party, and so forth - vary
between $20.66 and $31.56 for the past few months. Say an average of
$25/month going to CenterPoint for miscellaneous items.

That's why I'm gonna disconnect the service to one-half of my duplex and
convert its circuit breaker box to a sub-panel! I've got all the stuff (zip
cord and the like); I'm just waiting for it to quit raining.

I did the same thing for the natural gas connection about a year ago and
saved $17/month.

I mean, heck, $25/month is 300 bucks a year! As Patrick Monyihan said: "...
pretty soon we're talking about real money."

On 4/16/2012 4:34 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:

Which is largely why only my emergency money is in the bank. The
stuff I can not lose.

Bank? BANK?

That means you can access it only about 50 hours out of the 168 hours in a
week, or less than 1/3rd of the time. You probably can't drain more than
$500 from your account via an ATM machine.


Credit card. Many people have $5000 to $25 000 available on credit card
then just pay back the money out of the bank to pay it off when it's
convenient later in week or whatnot.

You can't use a credit card at all places but still it allows for
emergency flexibility.

wrote:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 17:26:30 -0400, Duesenberg wrote:

On 4/16/2012 4:34 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
Which is largely why only my emergency money is in the bank. The
stuff I can not lose.
Bank? BANK?

That means you can access it only about 50 hours out of the 168 hours in a
week, or less than 1/3rd of the time. You probably can't drain more than
$500 from your account via an ATM machine.

Credit card. Many people have $5000 to $25 000 available on credit card
then just pay back the money out of the bank to pay it off when it's
convenient later in week or whatnot.

You can't use a credit card at all places but still it allows for
emergency flexibility.

These days, credit cards don't work if the data line is down. In any
serious emergency, that is likely. Same with any kind of plastic or
even the ATMs.
These days they are becoming reluctant to cash a check a lot of places
if they can't scan it back to your bank.
A lot of times, the actual check is superfluous. You get debited as
soon as they scan MICR off the check. Some merchants will hand it
right back to you.

Junk silver if you are worried about the end of the world.

Having your emergency money in a bank is like having your fire extinguisher
in a storage unit, across town. Which storage unit is only accessable during
business hours.

Dumb.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

Which is largely why only my emergency money is in the bank. The
stuff I can not lose.

Bank? BANK?

That means you can access it only about 50 hours out of the 168 hours in
a
week, or less than 1/3rd of the time. You probably can't drain more than
$500 from your account via an ATM machine.

When the world ends, I've got Mormon food storage. You have junk silver. I'm
going home and fix some dinner. What are you going to do? Go out and try to
convince hungry people to give up their last can of beans in exchange for a
piece of metal with a face embossed on it? Good luck.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Mr. Austerity" "PrintMo.Money " wrote in message news:4f8c99bd$0$6275

That means you can access it only about 50 hours out of the 168 hours in
a
week, or less than 1/3rd of the time. You probably can't drain more than
$500 from your account via an ATM machine.


Junk silver if you are worried about the end of the world.

Stormin Mormon wrote:
When the world ends, I've got Mormon food storage. You have junk silver. I'm
going home and fix some dinner. What are you going to do? Go out and try to
convince hungry people to give up their last can of beans in exchange for a
piece of metal with a face embossed on it? Good luck.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Mr. Austerity" "PrintMo.Money " wrote in message news:4f8c99bd$0$6275

That means you can access it only about 50 hours out of the 168 hours in
a
week, or less than 1/3rd of the time. You probably can't drain more than
$500 from your account via an ATM machine.


Junk silver if you are worried about the end of the world.




That's the idea, 90% silver in coins to be used as real silver, gold
for more expensive items. Also guns, ammo and whiskey.
A lot of Americans could live a good 3 months on their stored fat.

So, everyone is hungry. I've got food, and you've
got shiny pieces of metal with faces on them. You
gonna be hungry to the end, fellah. When the stores
are empty, my food might be bartered, or even given
away (particularly to children, who are innocent of
their parents problems). But, not sold. Thy money
perish with thee.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Mr. Austerity" "PrintMo.Money " wrote in message
...

That's the idea, 90% silver in coins to be used as real
silver, gold for more expensive items. Also guns, ammo
and whiskey.
A lot of Americans could live a good 3 months on
their stored fat.

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 12:58:05 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 07:42:49 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:


If there is an increase in price. That's why my 401K is in bonds, and has
been since '04. The market is just too volatile and will be until Obummer
gets the heave-ho.

Since WWII, there has never been a 20 year period that had less than 7%
average real return on the S&P. Including the one ending in 2011.
Volatile now is small potatoes over long period of time and 401(k) for
most of us are long period of time since life expectancy suggests we'll
have around 25 years post retirement.

Since I'll be 60 this year...

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:34:47 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

Which is largely why only my emergency money is in the bank. The
stuff I can not lose.

Bank? BANK?

That means you can access it only about 50 hours out of the 168 hours in a
week, or less than 1/3rd of the time. You probably can't drain more than
$500 from your account via an ATM machine.

One word; plastics.

In my view, one should keep their emergency cash in the mattress. Or in the
pocket of an old suit. If the latter, pin a note on the clothing: "Do not
give to Goodwill."

I have a few grand in cash, too. Never know when a nice pistol will show up
cheap. ;-)

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 13:05:33 -0400, Duesenberg wrote:

On 4/16/2012 12:27 PM, wrote:
On Apr 16, 12:19 pm, wrote:
On 4/16/2012 10:11 AM, Peter wrote:





On 4/15/2012 11:33 AM, Way Back Jack wrote:
in terms of energy savings, privacy, fire risk, and, most importantly,
health ramifications. Thank You.

No matter how hard the utilities try to convince the consumer that it is
for their advantage, the bottom line is that the power companies
wouldn't be doing it if it did not result in higher profits for them. At
this time in our history, when social and economic issues require many
families to work more hours/week out of the home, their discretionary
timing for the use of power is much lower than it was 20+ years ago. If
no one is home, no one is going to run the high wattage stuff
unattended. You need to cook, wash, etc. when you have the available
time. Also, lots of folks are willing to spend hundreds of $$/month on
cable/wireless services and/or convenience food and may not be worried
about the inconvenience they might have to endure to save $20-50/mo on
their electric bill. I'm very skeptical that anyone other than the
executives and primary shareholders of the utilities will obtain
tangible benefits after the changeover.

Do you beleive that consumers for the last 30 or 40 years have been
paying a fair price for energy costs? I tend to think it's been too low
for too long.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why would you think it's too low? The utilities and suppliers are
making a profit and staying in business. That is what is determining
the cost to the consumer.

Ontario has about 40 Billion in debt from energy legacy costs,
particularity from building nuclear power plants, and that's not gonna
pay for itself.

I don't think energy costs are low now, I think they were years ago.

However I was thinking more in line with the wide availability of large
SUVS, luxury V8 automobiles with 400 HP, and households that buy a flat
panel tv every 3 years, disposing of the old one.

Was also thinking of pollution and water cleanup costs, air quality,
people's health etc.

There is a price for cheap energy that can't be measured on a monthly bill.

Ontario is not the center of the universe.

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 18:25:35 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Having your emergency money in a bank is like having your fire extinguisher
in a storage unit, across town. Which storage unit is only accessable during
business hours.

Dumb.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

Which is largely why only my emergency money is in the bank. The
stuff I can not lose.

Bank? BANK?

That means you can access it only about 50 hours out of the 168 hours in
a
week, or less than 1/3rd of the time. You probably can't drain more than
$500 from your account via an ATM machine.





Depends on what you consider "emergency" money. Need to quickly
replace a failed appliance? There is a reserve in the bank to cover
that easily. Need actual hard cash? I keep a minimal amount in the
house and never had need to have a pile of it. I can get $800 from
the ATM pretty much 24 hours a day. If I see an impending storm and
want cash, I get it beforehand.

Never had a car break down where a credit card did not work.

On Apr 16, 5:25*pm, "
wrote:
On Apr 16, 11:11*am, Home Guy wrote:

One thing I agree makes no sense to me is the idea
that these smart meters are going to communicate with
appliances, thermostats, etc. *I can see billing at different
rates during different time periods to encourage consumers
to shift what demand then can. *And I can see substantial
savings from not having employees driving cars around to
go read meters each month, which helps pay for the
deployment. *As I pointed out before, my water company
did that a decade ago to save on meter reading.

But, I'm have a hard time figuring out why the electric
meter needs to talk to the thermostat or the AC. *As
a consumer, knowing that the rates are cheaper at
night, etc, I can just set the thermostat myself. *About
all you could really do would be some slight manipulation
anyway. *Like if you wanted the AC to go down to 72,
you might set the thermosat to do it after 6pm, if the
rate went down at that point. *But it would seem I need
to make that decision, not the meter.

I guess it could communicate with maybe the electric
water heater, to make sure that goes on mostly at
night. *The pilot program idea, like CT is doing sounds
like the right approach. *That way they can find out
how much energy shift is possible, how much it saves
or doesn't save consumers, etc. *The idea of a
display inside that shows how much energy is being
used and a colored light for the rate changes, etc
is interesting. *If people actually had something like
that visually to look at it would be interesting to see
if it did impact energy usage.

Smart meters are only the begining. This is where it ends up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_grid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_grid

On Apr 16, 5:58*pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

" wrote:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 07:42:49 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:

If there is an increase in price. *That's why my 401K is in bonds, and has
been since '04. *The market is just too volatile and will be until Obummer
gets the heave-ho.

Since WWII, there has never been a 20 year period that had less than 7%
average real return on the S&P. Including the one ending in 2011.
Volatile now is small potatoes over *long period of time and 401(k) for
most of us are long period of time since life expectancy suggests we'll
have around 25 years post retirement.


Won't happen. Retirement will be postponed.
Happening here already.

On Apr 16, 6:05*pm, Duesenberg wrote:
On 4/16/2012 12:27 PM, wrote:





On Apr 16, 12:19 pm, *wrote:
On 4/16/2012 10:11 AM, Peter wrote:

On 4/15/2012 11:33 AM, Way Back Jack wrote:
in terms of energy savings, privacy, fire risk, and, most importantly,
health ramifications. Thank You.

No matter how hard the utilities try to convince the consumer that it is
for their advantage, the bottom line is that the power companies
wouldn't be doing it if it did not result in higher profits for them. At
this time in our history, when social and economic issues require many
families to work more hours/week out of the home, their discretionary
timing for the use of power is much lower than it was 20+ years ago. If
no one is home, no one is going to run the high wattage stuff
unattended. You need to cook, wash, etc. when you have the available
time. Also, lots of folks are willing to spend hundreds of $$/month on
cable/wireless services and/or convenience food and may not be worried
about the inconvenience they might have to endure to save $20-50/mo on
their electric bill. I'm very skeptical that anyone other than the
executives and primary shareholders of the utilities will obtain
tangible benefits after the changeover.

Do you beleive that consumers for the last 30 or 40 years have been
paying a fair price for energy costs? *I tend to think it's been too low
for too long.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why would you think it's too low? * The utilities and suppliers are
making a profit and staying in business. *That is what is determining
the cost to the consumer.

Ontario has about 40 Billion in debt from energy legacy costs,
particularity from building nuclear power plants, and that's not gonna
pay for itself.

I don't think energy costs are low now, I think they were years ago.

However I was thinking more in line with the wide availability of large
SUVS, luxury V8 automobiles with 400 HP, and households that buy a flat
panel tv every 3 years, disposing of the old one.

Was also thinking of pollution and water cleanup costs, air quality,
people's health etc.

There is a price for cheap energy that can't be measured on a monthly bill.-

Yes, you are exactly right.

On Apr 16, 6:20*pm, Home Guy wrote:
Duesenberg wrote:
Do you beleive that consumers for the last 30 or 40 years have been
paying a fair price for energy costs?

The issue is the manner in which they're measuring and billing you, and
whether that method is needed and is cost effective (and for whom is it
needed and cost-effective).

Look.

If you had a choice between 2 credit cards:

Card A costs you $25 a year, and it has a conventional magnetic strip.

Card B costs you $200 a year, and it has a strip and chip. *The chip
allows for new and different ways to carry out transactions that card A
doesn't. *It costs more for Card B because of the additional cost of the
chip, upgrades to the data network and new readers at point-of-sale FOR
WHICH OWNERS OF CARD B AND ONLY THEY WILL END UP PAYING FOR.

Now, in this case individuals can decide which card they want to own.
The free market at work. *I'm betting that many people would balk at
Card B and it's economics.

But in the case of TOU electricity measurement and billing, there is no
choice. *Option B is being forced down our throats with no regard to the
economics.

Again, I state that there was nothing wrong with the "old" way of paying
for electricity - which is that the residential customer base pays, in
aggregate, for all the electricity they use that the utility must buy
and distribute for them.

And further, that a 2 (or more) tier rate structure can be imposed based
on the quantity of KWH that an individual customer uses per month -
without the utility needing to know the TOU of that electricity.

That is just a form of short termism. That's what got the banks in
the ****.

On Apr 16, 11:27*pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
When the world ends, I've got Mormon food storage. You have junk silver. I'm
going home and fix some dinner. What are you going to do? Go out and try to
convince hungry people to give up their last can of beans in exchange for a
piece of metal with a face embossed on it? Good luck.


When the world ends, mormons are going to hell:-)
Now everyone knows you are a mormon the will know about your food
store.
In America, they will shoot you and take it all.

On Apr 17, 4:14*am, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 18:25:35 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"





wrote:
Having your emergency money in a bank is like having your fire extinguisher
in a storage unit, across town. Which storage unit is only accessable during
business hours.

Dumb.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

Which is largely why only my emergency money is in the bank. The
stuff I can not lose.

Bank? BANK?

That means you can access it only about 50 hours out of the 168 hours in
a
week, or less than 1/3rd of the time. You probably can't drain more than
$500 from your account via an ATM machine.

Depends on what you consider "emergency" money. *Need to quickly
replace a failed appliance? *There is a reserve in the bank to cover
that easily. Need actual hard cash? *I keep a minimal amount in the
house and never had need to have a pile of it. *I can get $800 from
the ATM pretty much 24 hours a day. *If I see an impending storm and
want cash, I get it beforehand.



That's what most people do.

On 4/17/2012 12:47 AM, harry wrote:
On Apr 16, 11:27 pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
When the world ends, I've got Mormon food storage. You have junk silver. I'm
going home and fix some dinner. What are you going to do? Go out and try to
convince hungry people to give up their last can of beans in exchange for a
piece of metal with a face embossed on it? Good luck.

When the world ends, mormons are going to hell:-)
Now everyone knows you are a mormon the will know about your food
store.
In America, they will shoot you and take it all.

Only Mormons are going to heaven.

http://www.myspace.com/video/lord-of...answer/2373188

Stormin Mormon wrote:
So, everyone is hungry. I've got food, and you've
got shiny pieces of metal with faces on them. You
gonna be hungry to the end, fellah. When the stores
are empty, my food might be bartered, or even given
away (particularly to children, who are innocent of
their parents problems). But, not sold. Thy money
perish with thee.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Mr. Austerity" "PrintMo.Money " wrote in message
...

That's the idea, 90% silver in coins to be used as real
silver, gold for more expensive items. Also guns, ammo
and whiskey.
A lot of Americans could live a good 3 months on
their stored fat.




End of civilization stuff. Interesting to think about. Things would
probably go somewhat like this.
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/leningrad.htm

That's a thought provoking article. Sadly, it also comes with one of the
most obnoxious slide in ads I've ever seen. The print version is much better
for me.
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/pfleningrad.htm
I'm guessing the folks in Leningrad at that time would have preferred a
truck full of chicken soup, opposed to a truck load of silver coins.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Mr. Austerity" "PrintMo.Money " wrote in message news:4f8d4f60$0$2235

End of civilization stuff. Interesting to think about. Things would
probably go somewhat like this.
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/leningrad.htm

On Apr 16, 1:20*pm, Home Guy wrote:
Duesenberg wrote:
Do you beleive that consumers for the last 30 or 40 years have been
paying a fair price for energy costs?

The issue is the manner in which they're measuring and billing you, and
whether that method is needed and is cost effective (and for whom is it
needed and cost-effective).

Look.

If you had a choice between 2 credit cards:

Card A costs you $25 a year, and it has a conventional magnetic strip.

Card B costs you $200 a year, and it has a strip and chip. *The chip
allows for new and different ways to carry out transactions that card A
doesn't. *It costs more for Card B because of the additional cost of the
chip, upgrades to the data network and new readers at point-of-sale FOR
WHICH OWNERS OF CARD B AND ONLY THEY WILL END UP PAYING FOR.

Now, in this case individuals can decide which card they want to own.
The free market at work. *I'm betting that many people would balk at
Card B and it's economics.

But in the case of TOU electricity measurement and billing, there is no
choice. *Option B is being forced down our throats with no regard to the
economics.

Prove that there was no regard to the economics. Utilities,
ie water, gas and electric have been switching to meters that
do not require someone driving around in a vehicle and
walking up to each house 12 times a year. Those employees,
supervisors, health insurance, vehicles, gas, etc have a cost.
Those costs are drastically reduced with a meter that
no longer requires someone to come out and read it.

I'd like to see a reference that shows real numbers of what
it cost and what it saves from a real utility.



Again, I state that there was nothing wrong with the "old" way of paying
for electricity - which is that the residential customer base pays, in
aggregate, for all the electricity they use that the utility must buy
and distribute for them.

Nothing wrong except it:

Doesn't encourage people to shift some loads to time periods
when the cost of electricity to the utility is less. The net effect
of that is that everyone pays more.

Doesn't encourage people to shift some loads so that the utility
doesn't have to build another plant to meet peak demand. The
net effect of that is that everyone pays more.

Doesn't allow the utility to shed load if necessary to keep the
system from overloading on high peak demand days. That
would require loads like AC, water heater, etc also be smart
to respond to the smart meter.


And there are such loads that can be shifted:

pool pumps, well pumps for irrigation, basement de-humidifier,
timing of heat/ac recovery when setback, dishwasher,
washer/dryer, hot tubs, etc.

How much all that adds up to and how much impact
the smart meters would actually have is debatable.
That's why I said a pilot program like CT is doing sounds
like the right approach. Or there must be data already
from utilities that have rolled out smart meters. When
you have some actual numbers, as opposed to pure
speculation and assumption, let us know.

As proof that these can make sense is the fact that
other utilities are also switching to meters that don't
require someone to go to the house to read them.
As I pointed out previously, my water company
switched to a meter that can be read by their vehicle
just driving down the street without stopping.
They did that over a decade ago. Obviously they
saw a cost reduction in just the number of homes
that the employee/vehicle can do in a day that
justified the new system.

And with regard to load shedding, my electric
utility installed a radio controlled device on my AC
20 years ago. If they need to reduce load during
high peak days, they can temporarily turn off my
AC with a radio signal. I think they paid me
around $20 a year back then, it was a voluntary
program. Since then they switched
to paying $3 every time they activate it, which has
only been 2 or 3 times a year. But obviously they
think this is worth it and the install cost of this
gizmo must be similar to the smart meter.




And further, that a 2 (or more) tier rate structure can be imposed based
on the quantity of KWH that an individual customer uses per month -
without the utility needing to know the TOU of that electricity.

Yes, they can and some are. But personally, I'd much rather
have the meter that bills me for what I actually use and how it
interacts with their system instead of some socialist share
the pain scheme.

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 18:25:35 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Having your emergency money in a bank is like having your fire extinguisher
in a storage unit, across town. Which storage unit is only accessable during
business hours.

Dumb.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

Which is largely why only my emergency money is in the bank. The
stuff I can not lose.

Bank? BANK?

That means you can access it only about 50 hours out of the 168 hours in
a
week, or less than 1/3rd of the time. You probably can't drain more than
$500 from your account via an ATM machine.




Credit card.

Duesenberg wrote:
On 4/16/2012 4:34 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:

Which is largely why only my emergency money is in the bank. The
stuff I can not lose.

Bank? BANK?

That means you can access it only about 50 hours out of the 168
hours in a week, or less than 1/3rd of the time. You probably can't
drain more than $500 from your account via an ATM machine.


Credit card. Many people have $5000 to $25 000 available on credit
card then just pay back the money out of the bank to pay it off when
it's convenient later in week or whatnot.

You can't use a credit card at all places but still it allows for
emergency flexibility.

You're right, and a credit card will cover 99.9% of contingencies.

It won't cover "Your money or your life" scenarios (middle of the night
plumbing problem, wrecker charge to remove car stuck in your bedroom leaking
gasoline, etc.).

Duesenberg wrote:

However I was thinking more in line with the wide availability of
large SUVS, luxury V8 automobiles with 400 HP, and households that
buy a flat panel tv every 3 years, disposing of the old one.

Was also thinking of pollution and water cleanup costs, air quality,
people's health etc.

There is a price for cheap energy that can't be measured on a monthly
bill.

Interestingly, those countries that have an abundance of large SUVs, V8
automobiles, 3-year replacements on their flat-panel tvs, and eat a lot of
TV dinners, are immeasurably "cleaner," with healthier people, than those
countries that have no large SUVs, V8 automobiles, or flat-panel TVs.

After some disasters, like hurricanes. The power is out, so the credit card
doesn't do much. In moments like that,

1) Best is to have what you need at home, purchased long before the
disaster
2) If you need something, and it's available, cash is the way to pay.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Metspitzer" wrote in message
...

Credit card.

On 04/17/12 08:59 am, Metspitzer wrote:

Having your emergency money in a bank is like having your fire extinguisher
in a storage unit, across town. Which storage unit is only accessable during
business hours.

Dumb.

Which is largely why only my emergency money is in the bank. The
stuff I can not lose.

Bank? BANK?

That means you can access it only about 50 hours out of the 168 hours in
a
week, or less than 1/3rd of the time. You probably can't drain more than
$500 from your account via an ATM machine.

Credit card.

Which cannot be used when there is a widespread power outage: the
card-readers won't work.

Perce

In an uber wide spread, catastrophic problem. Some people will wonder if the
system will ever recover. So, people may be unwilling to accept plastic. On
the chance that Visa and MC will not come back to life.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in message
news:jmjsnd$8mp$2@dont-


Credit card.

Which cannot be used when there is a widespread power outage: the
card-readers won't work.

Perce

On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 08:00:03 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

Duesenberg wrote:
On 4/16/2012 4:34 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:

Which is largely why only my emergency money is in the bank. The
stuff I can not lose.

Bank? BANK?

That means you can access it only about 50 hours out of the 168
hours in a week, or less than 1/3rd of the time. You probably can't
drain more than $500 from your account via an ATM machine.


Credit card. Many people have $5000 to $25 000 available on credit
card then just pay back the money out of the bank to pay it off when
it's convenient later in week or whatnot.

You can't use a credit card at all places but still it allows for
emergency flexibility.

You're right, and a credit card will cover 99.9% of contingencies.

It won't cover "Your money or your life" scenarios (middle of the night
plumbing problem, wrecker charge to remove car stuck in your bedroom leaking
gasoline, etc.).

Or bribes.

On 4/15/2012 8:33 AM, Way Back Jack wrote:
in terms of energy savings, privacy, fire risk, and, most importantly,
health ramifications. Thank You.
First, let me say my electronic assembly service company built several
thousand printed circuit boards a few years ago that were used in a
smart meter demonstration in Tacoma, WA. I can assure everyone there is
no capability in any so-called smart meter to remotely shut off your
electricity. In Oregon, that would in fact be illegal. To disconnect a
customer's power, a service person must first determine there is no
medical reason for service to be uninterrupted at that location. then
they can pull the meter.

Second, I own an old farm house, started in 1924, that I had converted
to heat pump with electric furnace back up. This entailed replacing the
pole transformer and all to wiring to and including the first breaker box.

The old mechanical meter had been mounted decades ago and had to have
the stainless locking ring ripped off to remove the meter. A new
smart-meter was installed as part of the new wiring.

Due to not understanding the new programmable thermostat, the renter
experienced enormous power bills. The power company insisted the meter
was reading correctly and read the meter remotely from Salt Lake City
during tests with the tenant. They even sent a service person to remove
and physically test the meter.

Finally I was at my wits end and got the electrician to meet me at the
house. He used his clamp-on meter to check his wiring and all was ok. We
discovered the problem was the thermostat would kick in the backup
heating anytime there was a 2 degree difference in temperature. The
thermostat was set to 65 at night and 72 during the day. When set to
constant 72, no backup ever came on. Problem solved!

While discussing the problem with the electrician, he told me a secret:

The old mechanical meter only read the power usage from one leg of the
240 volt line. Power usage at 120 volts on the other leg got by free. In
addition, he said electricians would sometimes swap the metered legs so
the excess usage of 120 volt appliances would not be read by the meter.
This is why some people are able to use the 120 volt space heaters in
certain rooms of their house with no increase in electrical usage/bill.

The new smart meter actually measures the power usage in both legs and
determines the actual total power being used. This is why some customers
see a big increase in their electric bill when the old mechanical meter
is replaced with a smart-meter.

The meter reader uses a hand held transceiver to interrogate the smart
meter. That is the only time the meter will ever transmit on it's
VHF/UHF frequency.

When the meter is remotely read, as mine was, a very low frequency is
used, somewhere in the 300-400 KHz area. The power levels and
frequencies are so low they could never cause medical problems. If they
did, your standard broadcast stations would not be useable.

I hope this story helps you understand a little more about electric
meters. It will probably stir up more criticism, as well.

Paul in Central Oregon

On 4/17/2012 4:09 PM, Paul Drahn wrote:
While discussing the problem with the electrician, he told me a secret:

The old mechanical meter only read the power usage from one leg of the
240 volt line. Power usage at 120 volts on the other leg got by free. In
addition, he said electricians would sometimes swap the metered legs so
the excess usage of 120 volt appliances would not be read by the meter.
This is why some people are able to use the 120 volt space heaters in
certain rooms of their house with no increase in electrical usage/bill.


Pssssssst! Hey Paul! I got a bridge I'll sell ya. Interested?