Iraq surpasses pre-war electric power levels

[Q Classic]

i had no idea i had defined liberal here, except as in continuing yavoon's postulate.

what's that definition?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


She was on the PBS's The Newshour with Tom Leher last week, opposite Wolfawitz.

.

you mean the newshour with Jim Leher. If PBS ran the Newshour with Tom Leher, I would certainly watch it every night.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
i had no idea i had defined liberal here, except as in continuing yavoon's postulate.

what's that definition?

yavoon said said "if a liberal had invaded iraq" and you seemed to accept his implication that iraq was invaded by a "conservative"- the US and the UK invaded Iraq. Did you mean to imply that Tony Blair was not a liberal by your definition, or that the UK wasnt involved?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


you mean the newshour with Jim Leher. If PBS ran the Newshour with Tom Leher, I would certainly watch it every night.

oops.

[chequita guevara]

Re: Re: Iraq surpasses pre-war electric power levels

Originally posted by SlowwHand
That was the plan.

When was that the plan?

[Q Classic]

yavoon said said "if a liberal had invaded iraq" and you seemed to accept his implication that iraq was invaded by a "conservative"- the US and the UK invaded Iraq. Did you mean to imply that Tony Blair was not a liberal by your definition, or that the UK wasnt involved?

ah, perhaps i should have thought of the connotations. i was merely continuing yavoon's train of thought, so i didn't particularly try to define "liberal" or "conservative" here.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


oops.

'Don't say that he's hypocritical,
Say rather that he's apolitical.

"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun.'

[chequita guevara]

Strangely apropo.

[Sandman]

I suppose its hard to figure out what the demand the total demand would be if theyve never actually fulfilled more than a fraction of it. Presumably that includes stuff that people dont bother turning on, cause the power has always been so intermittent.

So don't you think that it's also misleading to estimate total output when the power is constantly being turned off and on, and the transmission system is a mess?

I presume they were including that in the pre-war total, which just says total power produced, and doesnt specify the power grid only. Still, even if you exclude that, its a pretty good number.

It also reeks of contrivance. Why not wait until the Iraqi power output has risen to 4500MW, rather than tack on a probably unrelated energy supply in order to beat the previous 'record'? Probably because it takes years to build new power stations.

Yup, now it couldn't be possible that the impact of looting, sabotage and bombing was just a tad exagerated in some of our favorite news outlets, could it?

It couldn't be possible that the electricity output before the war was played down and the output after the war played up, could it?

(LOTM reminds himself not to say anything snarky about auntie Beeb, auntie Beeb is nice, only evil American right wingers suggest that auntie Beeb had an axe to grind)

This story is based on a press conference given by a Coalition spin doctor. I reckon he wants this little 'fact' to be on everyone's lips come election time, even though he has to cook the books in order to make it happen.

Presumably, since IIUC Baghdad relies on electricity imports from north and south - Kirkuk needs only natural gas pipelines from nearby field to be secure, while Baghdad requires that plus the power lines from Kirkuk, which run through the most hostile territory in Iraq.

I don't see how this is relevant to my point.

In any case, if the whole country is at 100% of prewar levels, and Baghdad is still significantly below prewar levels, then its mathematically necessary that the rest of the country as a whole be above prewar levels. (or is Iraq actually Lake Woebegone in reverse - a place where everything is below average?)

No. Inferior transmission systems will result in less power getting around (and the transmission system was badly hit by both bombs and looters). And the US military presence undoubtably consumes lots of power.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Strangely apropo.

First we got the bomb, and that was good,
'Cause we love peace and motherhood.
Then Russia got the bomb, but that's okay,
'Cause the balance of power's maintained that way.
Who's next?

France got the bomb, but don't you grieve,
'Cause they're on our side (I believe).
China got the bomb, but have no fears,
They can't wipe us out for at least five years.
Who's next?

Then Indonesia claimed that they
Were gonna get one any day.
South Africa wants two, that's right:
One for the black and one for the white.
Who's next?

Egypt's gonna get one too,
Just to use on you know who.
So Israel's getting tense.
Wants one in self defense.
"The Lord's our shepherd," says the psalm,
But just in case, we better get a bomb.
Who's next?

Luxembourg is next to go,
And (who knows?) maybe Monaco.
We'll try to stay serene and calm
When Alabama gets the bomb.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman


So don't you think that it's also misleading to estimate total output when the power is constantly being turned off and on, and the transmission system is a mess?

Is power constantly being turned off and on - i dont think so - rather its being shifted around to different cities - i would expect PRODUCTION to be steady. As for transmission, IIUC it has to be able to accomodate what theyre producing, or transformers blow. Thats why its so hard to bring power back after a storm, you dont want to overload a system.

It also reeks of contrivance. Why not wait until the Iraqi power output has risen to 4500MW, rather than tack on a probably unrelated energy supply in order to beat the previous 'record'? Probably because it takes years to build new power stations.

As long as its apples and apples, makes sense to me.

It couldn't be possible that the electricity output before the war was played down and the output after the war played up, could it?

Possible, yup. I await a source. Given that I saw lots of stuff (but not in the media outlets that were trying to prove quagmire) in the weeks after the war indicating that in much of the country power did NOT go down like in Baghdad, im inclined to think its true.

This story is based on a press conference given by a Coalition spin doctor. I reckon he wants this little 'fact' to be on everyone's lips come election time, even though he has to cook the books in order to make it happen.

If he wants it on everyones lips
come election time, why would he put it out 13 months BEFORE the US presidential election. Surely youre not seriously suggesting the CPA is trying to influence the gubernatorial recall, are you. If you think the voters in California are going to decide between Schwarzeneger and Davis based on electricity in Iraq, you've got alot to learn about american politics. (and note, this story has not yet been picked up by Fox - if this was an admin plant to influence the election it would have been headlined by them) No, more like a routine Iraq reconstruction story.

No. Inferior transmission systems will result in less power getting around (and the transmission system was badly hit by both bombs and looters). And the US military presence undoubtably consumes lots of power.

See above on transmission. Not sure what the US military is consuming. OTOH the iraqi military, secret police, fedayeen, saddam palaces, etc surely consumed some power as well.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

One more time: Bush said we cant ALLOW Iraq to BECOME an imminent threat.

let's not get into this argument again. especially when there were so many other imminent threats that most other people wondered why we should attack an almost imminent threat.

not totally fair. I imagine bush would attack a lot of these. the result isnt a mirror of his views because they've been passed through the lens of the politically practicable.

I think bush would invade a ton of imminent threats. but iraq happened to be good for a couple of reasons.

1)we had a cease fire w/ them they were breaking everyday.

2)they had oil so we could rebuild easier

3)they were relatively more secular thanother ppl in the middle east.

4)we had a UN resolution we could go on.

among other things for varrying ppl. iraq fit the bill of places bush would like to invade that he could have pulled off.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
i had no idea i had defined liberal here, except as in continuing yavoon's postulate.

what's that definition?

just for sanity's sake I meant liberal=democrat. conservative =republican. blah blah. this isnt exactly the place to whine about idealogies.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by yavoon


just for sanity's sake I meant liberal=democrat. conservative =republican. blah blah. this isnt exactly the place to whine about idealogies.

yup - i assumed the implication you had was that if Clinton or Gore was in charge, instead of Bush, we would be acting differently. And that q cubed was saying if clinton or Gore were in charge, we wouldnt have gone in at all.

Given that Blair is very close ideologically to Clinton and Gore, Im not sure i buy either assertion.

[Sandman]

Is power constantly being turned off and on - i dont think so - rather its being shifted around to different cities - i would expect PRODUCTION to be steady. As for transmission, IIUC it has to be able to accomodate what theyre producing, or transformers blow. Thats why its so hard to bring power back after a storm, you dont want to overload a system.

I would not expect production to be steady. Seasonal water changes make the hydroelectric system unstable, and the power stations can break down at any moment due to neglect and damage. Not mention the need to get sufficient fuel for the oil-fired power stations. A poor transmission system will result in increased resistance, wasting more electricity.

As long as its apples and apples, makes sense to me.

Would you also include military vehicles and journalist's cameras in the figure then? Including power stations that are part of the oil infrastructure is misleading at best.

Possible, yup. I await a source. Given that I saw lots of stuff (but not in the media outlets that were trying to prove quagmire) in the weeks after the war indicating that in much of the country power did NOT go down like in Baghdad, im inclined to think its true.

Source

"The acts of sabotage have shown just how fragile the system is. When saboteurs brought down several power lines and transmission towers, the nation's output dropped to 700 megawatts per day, when demand stands at around 6000 MW per day."

If he wants it on everyones lips come election time, why would he put it out 13 months BEFORE the US presidential election.

To make sure it's on everyone's lips. In time, this story will become a handy factoid. Another reason to release this story now is in case the situation in Iraq deteriorates, or a major power plant dies, or the CPA embark on a series inevitably botched privatisations.

See above on transmission. Not sure what the US military is consuming. OTOH the iraqi military, secret police, fedayeen, saddam palaces, etc surely consumed some power as well.

The US military is considerably higher tech than those organisations, and almost certainly uses more electricity. And they are still using Saddam's palaces.