Now, why would GE want to make an agreement like that with Calpine? Seems Calpine is doing MUCH, MUCH better these days. I have repeatedly tried to let Freepers know not only about Calpine, but Mirant as well. Mirant has a very good chance of the common coming out with value after the long bankruptcy.
To: MeneMeneTekelUpharsin
Calpine probably needed the financial backing of GE for the up coming loans and to get any construction contractors to even consider a contract with them.
2 posted on
08/02/2005 1:34:20 PM PDT by
Grampa Dave
(The civilized world must win WW IV/the Final Crusade and destroy Jihadism!)
To: snopercod; lafroste; TopQuark; BOBTHENAILER
Can't blame me for not trying to inform over a LONG period of time. The charts show it all:
![](http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/6m/m/mirkq.pk)
Mirant -- 6 month chart. Told all of you about this one a LONG time ago.
![](http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/3m/c/cpn)
Also gave information on this one a LONG time ago.
3 posted on
08/02/2005 1:36:08 PM PDT by
MeneMeneTekelUpharsin
(Freedom is the freedom to discipline yourself so others don't have to do it for you.)
To: MeneMeneTekelUpharsin
Another stupid nat gas power plant. Gas blows by $8/MM BTUs and this thing is going to do 800 megawatts ?
5 posted on
08/02/2005 1:39:21 PM PDT by
Eric in the Ozarks
(Scratch a Liberal. Uncover a Fascist)
To: MeneMeneTekelUpharsin
What I'm wondering about is the economic sense of creating a natural gas fired plant, even if it is amazingly efficient and low in emissions.
Natural gas has been going up in cost dramaticly every year, and then add in the seasonal increases. This is going to generate some very expensive electricity.
I'm sort of reminded of Enron building that NG fired power plant in India, where India was forced to buy the NG from Enron, since while India is rich in coal, they've got no real NG resources. I'm not claiming this is a deal like Enron, it's just that it doesn't seem to make a whole lot of economic sense.
Mark
6 posted on
08/02/2005 1:39:22 PM PDT by
MarkL
(It was a shocking cock-up. The mice were furious!)
To: MeneMeneTekelUpharsin
I am in the natural gas business and while burning it for electricity puts money in my pocket there is little that is stupider from the perspective of energy policy. We should be making electricity out of coal or nukes. Burning natural gas to make electricity is a waste.
There are only two fuels that can be easily delivered and consumed cleanly in homes: natural gas and electricity. Gas is increasingly scarce and to burn it to make electricity makes little sense. Lots of gas fired generators have been built lately because the enviro whackos like the nice clean fuel and it has driven the price from around $2 per mmbtu (million British Thermal Units) about 3 years ago to over $7 now.
Coal is a stink nasty mess when it is burned in homes for heat but it can be burned quite cleanly in a modern power generating facility equipped with scrubbers and other technology. And then nice clean electricity can be transmitted to homes and all the saved natural gas is also available for homes. We have lots of coal.
12 posted on
08/02/2005 1:49:06 PM PDT by
jackbenimble
(Import the third world, become the third world)
To: MeneMeneTekelUpharsin
ge probably backed calpine a long time ago and would like to keep it afloat.
anyway, I remember when it was around 37. there was another one besides mirant...can't recall the name...
21 posted on
08/02/2005 2:01:20 PM PDT by
the invisib1e hand
(In Honor of Terri Schiavo. *check my FReeppage for the link* Let it load and have the sound on.)
To: MeneMeneTekelUpharsin
It should be nuclear. All new power plants should be nuclear. It could still be GE, but Calpine might be out of luck.
26 posted on
08/02/2005 2:10:19 PM PDT by
RightWhale
(Withdraw from the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty and open the Land Office)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson