"Proctologically Violated©®" wrote:

Awl --

Looked at my gas bill(s) (natural gas, from ConEd, or, more affectionately,
Conned), and my knees buckled -- not just from the cost, but from the effing
irony of it all.... if I have perceived correckly....

Here's the deal:

I am regularly pounded with pitches from "other energy suppliers", and
figgered, Oh Goody, they must be keeping Conned at least somewhat in check.
NOT.

What appears to be happening is that now the bill is divided into two
portions: The charge for the gas itself, and now, a charge for DELIVERING
the effing gas!!

Which is almost as much as the gas itself!!!! No foolin....

That is called 'Infrastructure' It costs real money to build and maintain.

I'm just realizing this now, cuz Le Wife takes care of the bills, and I
haven't seen a gas bill in about 10 years.

So it seems to me, Conned said, OK, Competition??
Fine.
NOW, we'll just tack on charges for using our own proprietary
*infrastructure*.

Ass, Grass, or cash, nobody rides for free.


IOW, Yeah, you can buy your gas from another energy mutha****a, but NOW you
gotta STILL pay us to allow them to use our pipes'n'****....

And pay you will!!!!!

Do I have it right? Is this what happened?
""Competition"" was enabled, and the effing price consequently
*doubled*????? goodgawd.....

Well as the enviro types ban coal fired plants in favor of NG you are going to experience
the results of supply and demand.

I called Conned, asked for a VP to call me back. I said to the very nice
lady,
Look, I know Conned paid a bunch of Pols to allow this to happen. I
just want to know the names of these Pols....

Majority members of Congress.

Wes

On Feb 20, 4:23*pm, Wes wrote:
"Proctologically Violated©®" wrote:

And pay you will!!!!!



Is the Carbon Tax on there yet??

Jim Wilkins wrote:

On Feb 20, 4:23*pm, Wes wrote:
"Proctologically Violated©®" wrote:

And pay you will!!!!!



Is the Carbon Tax on there yet??

Hold on to your wallet. It is coming or millions of Obama fans are going to be very
upset.

Wes

On Feb 20, 3:23*pm, Wes wrote:
"Proctologically Violated©®" wrote:
Awl --

Looked at my gas bill(s) (natural gas, from ConEd, or, more affectionately,
Conned), and my knees buckled -- not just from the cost, but from the effing
irony of it all.... *if I have perceived correckly....

Here's the deal:

I am regularly pounded with pitches from "other energy suppliers", and
figgered, Oh Goody, they must be keeping Conned at least somewhat in check.
NOT.

What appears to be happening is that now the bill is divided into two
portions: *The charge for the gas itself, and now, a charge for DELIVERING
the effing gas!!

Which is almost as much as the gas itself!!!! * No foolin....

That is called 'Infrastructure' *It costs real money to build and maintain.



I'm just realizing this now, cuz Le Wife takes care of the bills, and I
haven't seen a gas bill in about 10 years.

So it seems to me, *Conned said, OK, Competition??
Fine.
NOW, we'll just tack on charges for using our own proprietary
*infrastructure*.

Ass, Grass, or cash, nobody rides for free.



IOW, Yeah, you can buy your gas from another energy mutha****a, but NOW you
gotta STILL pay us to allow them to use our pipes'n'****....

And pay you will!!!!!

Do I have it right? *Is this what happened?
""Competition"" was enabled, and the effing price consequently
*doubled*????? * *goodgawd.....

Well as the enviro types ban coal fired plants in favor of NG you are going to experience
the results of supply and demand. *



I called Conned, asked for a VP to call me back. *I said to the very nice
lady,
* * Look, I know Conned paid a bunch of Pols to allow this to happen. *I
just want to know the names of these Pols....

Majority members of Congress.

Wes- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

LOL...and you thought electing an oil man for President wouldn't cost
you anything.

Stupid, stupid Neocons.

TMT

"Wes" wrote in message
...
Jim Wilkins wrote:

On Feb 20, 4:23 pm, Wes wrote:
"Proctologically Violated©®" wrote:

And pay you will!!!!!



Is the Carbon Tax on there yet??

Hold on to your wallet. It is coming or millions of Obama fans are going
to be very
upset.

Wes

I doubt it's coming, but can you explain why you think it's a bad idea?

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Proctologically Violated©®" wrote:

Awl --

Looked at my gas bill(s) (natural gas, from ConEd, or, more
affectionately,
Conned), and my knees buckled -- not just from the cost, but from the
effing
irony of it all.... if I have perceived correckly....

Here's the deal:

I am regularly pounded with pitches from "other energy suppliers", and
figgered, Oh Goody, they must be keeping Conned at least somewhat in
check.
NOT.

What appears to be happening is that now the bill is divided into two
portions: The charge for the gas itself, and now, a charge for DELIVERING
the effing gas!!

Which is almost as much as the gas itself!!!! No foolin....

That is called 'Infrastructure' It costs real money to build and
maintain.

I'm just realizing this now, cuz Le Wife takes care of the bills, and I
haven't seen a gas bill in about 10 years.

So it seems to me, Conned said, OK, Competition??
Fine.
NOW, we'll just tack on charges for using our own proprietary
*infrastructure*.

Ass, Grass, or cash, nobody rides for free.


IOW, Yeah, you can buy your gas from another energy mutha****a, but NOW
you
gotta STILL pay us to allow them to use our pipes'n'****....

And pay you will!!!!!

Do I have it right? Is this what happened?
""Competition"" was enabled, and the effing price consequently
*doubled*????? goodgawd.....

Well as the enviro types ban coal fired plants in favor of NG you are
going to experience
the results of supply and demand.

I called Conned, asked for a VP to call me back. I said to the very nice
lady,
Look, I know Conned paid a bunch of Pols to allow this to happen. I
just want to know the names of these Pols....

Majority members of Congress.

Stupid me....

Actually, there may not be the logical conundrum I posited.

It would appear that it isn't just "competition drives prices up", which IS
pretty illogical, but rather, "competition under deregulation" causing
higher prices than a "monopoly under regulation".

I guess we've learned, repeatedly, which is worse.

Con Ed did in fact call me back, had an inneresting conversation.
Of course they didn't outright concede anything, but they didn't dispute
much, either.

They did concede that deregulation certainly was not in the consumer's best
interest, and that their "energy competitors" were, by and large, scam
artists. Which you would figger ConEd might say, but I have independent
evidence for this being true.

--

Mr. PV'd

Mae West (yer fav Congressman) to the Gangster (yer fav Lobbyist):
Hey, Big Boy, is that a wad (of cash) in yer pocket, or are you just
glad to see me??




Wes

"ATP*" wrote:


I doubt it's coming, but can you explain why you think it's a bad idea?

Because I don't believe in AGW.

Wes

On Feb 20, 8:34*pm, "ATP*" wrote:

I doubt it's coming, but can you explain why you think it's a bad idea?

I'm carbon and carbon-tax neutral. If you think it's a good idea you
could contribute your fair share voluntarily now,

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
On Feb 20, 8:34 pm, "ATP*" wrote:

I doubt it's coming, but can you explain why you think it's a bad idea?

I'm carbon and carbon-tax neutral. If you think it's a good idea you
could contribute your fair share voluntarily now,

I think some of the "offsets" are just BS or stuff that would have happened
anyway, so I'm not too excited about a universal carbon tax. I think we
should institute a fuel tax on oil to bring it up to a level that will
encourage conservation and lessen dependence on foreign oil (but not in the
middle of this recession). We should also reform the road taxes to make
diesel more attractive than gasoline. I'd like to get something with a clean
diesel like the VW TDI, but it doesn't make economic sense when diesel is
$2.60 and gasoline is $2.00.

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 02:28:18 -0500, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

"ATP*" wrote:


I doubt it's coming, but can you explain why you think it's a bad idea?

Because I don't believe in AGW.

....and it's a scam perpetrated by slimy people such our ex VP, Algore.
Algore has openly stated that it's OK to lie to get your agenda
passed.

--
Women and cats will do as they please,

and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea.

--Robert A. Heinlein

On Feb 21, 8:53*am, "ATP*" wrote:

I think some of the "offsets" are just BS or stuff that would have happened
anyway, so I'm not too excited about a universal carbon tax. I think we
should institute a fuel tax on oil to bring it up to a level that will
encourage conservation and lessen dependence on foreign oil (but not in the
middle of this recession). We should also reform the road taxes to make
diesel more attractive than gasoline. I'd like to get something with a clean
diesel like the VW TDI, but it doesn't make economic sense when diesel is
$2.60 and gasoline is $2.00.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicer.../chapter3.html

"Sweet" crude contains less sulfur, market forces apply.

Jim Wilkins

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 06:25:30 -0800 (PST), Jim Wilkins
wrote:

On Feb 21, 8:53*am, "ATP*" wrote:

I think some of the "offsets" are just BS or stuff that would have happened
anyway, so I'm not too excited about a universal carbon tax. I think we
should institute a fuel tax on oil to bring it up to a level that will
encourage conservation and lessen dependence on foreign oil (but not in the
middle of this recession). We should also reform the road taxes to make
diesel more attractive than gasoline. I'd like to get something with a clean
diesel like the VW TDI, but it doesn't make economic sense when diesel is
$2.60 and gasoline is $2.00.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicer.../chapter3.html

"Sweet" crude contains less sulfur, market forces apply.

Jim Wilkins

There is a certain amount of mis-information in that reference. Sulfur
removal is a known science and has been in use for quite a few years.
It does add to the cost of refining as it adds at least one stage to
the process but it certainly is doable.

As for the costs I am not sure as I do not know the pricing breakdown
in America but my guess is that the refinery cost is not the largest
item in the cost per gallon .
Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

"ATP*" wrote in message
...

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
On Feb 20, 8:34 pm, "ATP*" wrote:

I doubt it's coming, but can you explain why you think it's a bad idea?

I'm carbon and carbon-tax neutral. If you think it's a good idea you
could contribute your fair share voluntarily now,

I think some of the "offsets" are just BS or stuff that would have
happened anyway, so I'm not too excited about a universal carbon tax. I
think we should institute a fuel tax on oil to bring it up to a level that
will encourage conservation and lessen dependence on foreign oil (but not
in the middle of this recession). We should also reform the road taxes to
make diesel more attractive than gasoline. I'd like to get something with
a clean diesel like the VW TDI, but it doesn't make economic sense when
diesel is $2.60 and gasoline is $2.00.


I could never really understand how something lower in the fractionating
column could cost more.

It's like brown rice costs more than white rice, but it's less processed.

Go figger.

At one time, iirc, diesel used to be cheaper than gas, at least for a while.

--

Mr. PV'd

Mae West (yer fav Congressman) to the Gangster (yer fav Lobbyist):
Hey, Big Boy, is that a wad (of cash) in yer pocket, or are you just
glad to see me??

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 06:21:44 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 02:28:18 -0500, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

"ATP*" wrote:


I doubt it's coming, but can you explain why you think it's a bad idea?

Because I don't believe in AGW.

...and it's a scam perpetrated by slimy people such our ex VP, Algore.
Algore has openly stated that it's OK to lie to get your agenda
passed.


If people don't believe in AGWK(Tm) then at least they can believe in WIGIG
(When it's gone it's gone) and do their best not to waste their descendants'
legacy.

The only positive side of selling the nationalized UK power generation
infrastructure to the Krauts and Frogs is that the Frogs aren't too hung up on
nuclear power. OTOH, when it was a nice state owned monopoly, we weren't too
hung up about it either. Pity about the last 20 years though...


Mark Rand
RTFM

"Proctologically Violated©®" wrote:

I could never really understand how something lower in the fractionating
column could cost more.

It's like brown rice costs more than white rice, but it's less processed.

Go figger.

At one time, iirc, diesel used to be cheaper than gas, at least for a while.


We seem stuck on using gasoline for passenger vehicles, Europe likes diesel, would it
suprise you to know we trade each other fuels?

Wes

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:48:06 +0000, the infamous Mark Rand
scrawled the following:

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 06:21:44 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 02:28:18 -0500, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

"ATP*" wrote:


I doubt it's coming, but can you explain why you think it's a bad idea?

Because I don't believe in AGW.

...and it's a scam perpetrated by slimy people such our ex VP, Algore.
Algore has openly stated that it's OK to lie to get your agenda
passed.


If people don't believe in AGWK(Tm) then at least they can believe in WIGIG
(When it's gone it's gone) and do their best not to waste their descendants'
legacy.

Absolutely!


The only positive side of selling the nationalized UK power generation
infrastructure to the Krauts and Frogs is that the Frogs aren't too hung up on
nuclear power. OTOH, when it was a nice state owned monopoly, we weren't too
hung up about it either. Pity about the last 20 years though...

What happened in your past two decades, Mark?

We're finally starting to build more nuke plants now, and a French
contract for a fuel rod recycling plant is due to start in WV in 2010.
I'm all -for- both. Yucca Mountain is supposed to have a waste rod
reprocessing plant by 2012, and we're building some with the French in
the NC and FL in 2010.

It's about time!

--
Women and cats will do as they please,

and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea.

--Robert A. Heinlein

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 13:25:05 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:48:06 +0000, the infamous Mark Rand
scrawled the following:



The only positive side of selling the nationalized UK power generation
infrastructure to the Krauts and Frogs is that the Frogs aren't too hung up on
nuclear power. OTOH, when it was a nice state owned monopoly, we weren't too
hung up about it either. Pity about the last 20 years though...

What happened in your past two decades, Mark?


No new nuclear plants planned since the privatization and rape of the CEGB.
Sizewell B was commissioned, but that was already in progress at the time.
Numerically, more than half of the 19 plants built in the UK will have been
shut down by next year and by the time the next batch come on line (2017 at
the earliest if the NIMBYs don't get in the way) we'll only have four plants
running. The privatized utilities went for cheap, quick-build gas and combined
cycle plants. These, of course, offer a quick return to a business that's
interested in the next quarter's results rather than the next decade. They
also have used a significant proportion of the total natural gas available
from the North sea, so that we're now dependant on Russian gas.


Bah Humbug :-(

Mark Rand
RTFM

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 14:31:12 +0000, the infamous Mark Rand
scrawled the following:

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 13:25:05 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:48:06 +0000, the infamous Mark Rand
scrawled the following:



The only positive side of selling the nationalized UK power generation
infrastructure to the Krauts and Frogs is that the Frogs aren't too hung up on
nuclear power. OTOH, when it was a nice state owned monopoly, we weren't too
hung up about it either. Pity about the last 20 years though...

What happened in your past two decades, Mark?


No new nuclear plants planned since the privatization and rape of the CEGB.
Sizewell B was commissioned, but that was already in progress at the time.
Numerically, more than half of the 19 plants built in the UK will have been
shut down by next year and by the time the next batch come on line (2017 at
the earliest if the NIMBYs don't get in the way) we'll only have four plants
running. The privatized utilities went for cheap, quick-build gas and combined
cycle plants. These, of course, offer a quick return to a business that's
interested in the next quarter's results rather than the next decade. They
also have used a significant proportion of the total natural gas available
from the North sea, so that we're now dependant on Russian gas.

We have the idiotic NIMBYs, too. Hopefully, the scare of AGWk will
push the fidiots over the edge, away from dirty coal, and back into
the nuke program...globally.

When I lived in California in 2000, there was a natural gas shortage.
_Very_ shortly after that was over, the CA gov't, in its supreme and
unlimited wisdom, decided to build _dozens_ of brand new power
generation stations. Ayup, every one of these new beauties was
natural gas-fired, too. thud


Bah Humbug :-(

Indeed!

--
Everything I did in my life that was worthwhile I caught hell for.
-- Earl Warren