TheSamba.com :: View topic

Sun Nov 24, 2024 12:43 pm

zerotofifty wrote: How thick are the layers being printed for these new batteries? What materials make up these thin films? Is post printing processing required (diffusion, baking, etc...?
What are the critical dimensions for the lithography?

It depends on what metallic ingredients of course...but these are rather thick-film prints. Let me define that.

Metal vapor deposition = maybe a few hundred angstroms

Gravure deposition = maybe 2-5 microns

Flexo deposition = maybe 4-8 microns

Screen deposition can make upwards to 300-400 microns....IF the rheology of the paste/ink allows it in a single pass.

Most of these thin film batteries ...and I am quoting off of two clients I can see in my mind (both of which had different metal combinations and chemistry) one required its thickest layer to be ~80 microns after drying/curing. The other had a thickest layer after dry of about double that...~160 microns.

The gist is though...that if what you are putting down is say....30% solvent and binder, and you need to put down 100 microns dry....then you have to put down 130 microns wet. Then you also have to account for texture and dross or dusting (meaning the peaks of the texture needs to be broken off and dusted away.

So reality may require 150 microns. The wettability or stiction of some of these pastes...when the shear pressure of printing is applied...can quickly shift to something similar to concrete. There are a lot of issues.

If your mind is wandering to...why can't we do this with 3D printing or inkjet? :wink: ...because its not accurate enough yet and inkjet puts down dots or bursts. Its not a continuous film.

While it looks great to your naked eye....the electrons can see the holes between the dots where there is no material or thinner material.

Add to that, more than a few of these metallic particles in these pastes are electrolytically active. They will eat all but the best ceramic or inconel inkjet parts.

The current digital methods...even if they worked... are also slow. Rotary screen, or cylinder press with stainless stencil or slot die on roll to roll can deliver several thousand impressions per minute or hour depending on which method or at what scale as each impression may also produce several parts at a time.

Quote: This article shows one of the big problems with the push for zero carbon electric...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/solar-powe...&ei=62

excerpt...

" the Newsom administration estimated California needs another 70 gigawatts of industrial solar farms by 2045 to get to a carbon-free electrical grid. That would require solar to be built across another 300 to 450 square miles, an area that would cover nearly half of Rhode Island.

Some of those projects have cleared thousands of acres of pristine land in the Mojave Desert, where it has angered local residents worried about declining property values and environmentalists concerned about the loss of wildlife habitat."

YES!

I have ranted about this in this thread....and even did the math about 50 pages back. At the current best efficiency of solar right now......even what that article is Waaaaaaay short.

1. at best current efficiency....70 GW = 233,333,334 utuility scale solar panels at a gross 320 watts each and a best net of 300 watts each. Commercial solar panels are 78" x 39" each. Add 1" on each side and a little on each end and each is 80" x 40" . Each panel is 22.222 square feet. Remember that.

2. What they are failing to capture is that when one is using solar for the source....you need approximatley 2.5X to 3.0X the amount of production watts for solar than what you need for a fossil fuel power plant to account of lower sun time days in winter and cloudy days....plus the fact that there is no night time generation so you need to make enough to cover the evening hours as well.

3. And you need someplace to store that extra power to allow for night time.

4. So really.....if they are saying they want 70GW...they likely need 180GW. That is 600,000,000 solar panels....and all of the inverters...and there needs to be space between every 2-3 rows enough for a lift truck with a boom to get to all panels to do maintenance.

The panels alone will be 13,332,000,000 (thats 13.332 BILLION square feet). Add ~30% to that for maintenace spacing = 17,331,600,000 square feet

This is right at 621 square miles. Thats only at a factor of 2.5X. My numbers a year ago show closer to 700 square miles to get what those dumbasses in California want from solar.......and STILL.....they have no place to store electric power.

Maybe they can put it in plastic bags.

Ray

Sun Nov 24, 2024 2:33 pm

621 square miles, o.1% of CA land mass

Sun Nov 24, 2024 4:30 pm

Abscate wrote: 621 square miles, o.1% of CA land mass

The percentage of California desert valley habitat that is to be destroyed by these solar industrial sites is considerably higher than 0.1%. These solar industrial sites decimate the ecosystem.

Sun Nov 24, 2024 4:47 pm

raygreenwood wrote: zerotofifty wrote: How thick are the layers being printed for these new batteries? What materials make up these thin films? Is post printing processing required (diffusion, baking, etc...?
What are the critical dimensions for the lithography?

It depends on what metallic ingredients of course...but these are rather thick-film prints. Let me define that.

Metal vapor deposition = maybe a few hundred angstroms

Gravure deposition = maybe 2-5 microns

Flexo deposition = maybe 4-8 microns

Screen deposition can make upwards to 300-400 microns....IF the rheology of the paste/ink allows it in a single pass.

Most of these thin film batteries ...and I am quoting off of two clients I can see in my mind (both of which had different metal combinations and chemistry) one required its thickest layer to be ~80 microns after drying/curing. The other had a thickest layer after dry of about double that...~160 microns.

The gist is though...that if what you are putting down is say....30% solvent and binder, and you need to put down 100 microns dry....then you have to put down 130 microns wet. Then you also have to account for texture and dross or dusting (meaning the peaks of the texture needs to be broken off and dusted away.

So reality may require 150 microns. The wettability or stiction of some of these pastes...when the shear pressure of printing is applied...can quickly shift to something similar to concrete. There are a lot of issues.

If your mind is wandering to...why can't we do this with 3D printing or inkjet? :wink: ...because its not accurate enough yet and inkjet puts down dots or bursts. Its not a continuous film.

While it looks great to your naked eye....the electrons can see the holes between the dots where there is no material or thinner material.

Add to that, more than a few of these metallic particles in these pastes are electrolytically active. They will eat all but the best ceramic or inconel inkjet parts.

The current digital methods...even if they worked... are also slow. Rotary screen, or cylinder press with stainless stencil or slot die on roll to roll can deliver several thousand impressions per minute or hour depending on which method or at what scale as each impression may also produce several parts at a time.

Quote: This article shows one of the big problems with the push for zero carbon electric...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/solar-powe...&ei=62

excerpt...

" the Newsom administration estimated California needs another 70 gigawatts of industrial solar farms by 2045 to get to a carbon-free electrical grid. That would require solar to be built across another 300 to 450 square miles, an area that would cover nearly half of Rhode Island.

Some of those projects have cleared thousands of acres of pristine land in the Mojave Desert, where it has angered local residents worried about declining property values and environmentalists concerned about the loss of wildlife habitat."

YES!

I have ranted about this in this thread....and even did the math about 50 pages back. At the current best efficiency of solar right now......even what that article is Waaaaaaay short.

1. at best current efficiency....70 GW = 233,333,334 utuility scale solar panels at a gross 320 watts each and a best net of 300 watts each. Commercial solar panels are 78" x 39" each. Add 1" on each side and a little on each end and each is 80" x 40" . Each panel is 22.222 square feet. Remember that.

2. What they are failing to capture is that when one is using solar for the source....you need approximatley 2.5X to 3.0X the amount of production watts for solar than what you need for a fossil fuel power plant to account of lower sun time days in winter and cloudy days....plus the fact that there is no night time generation so you need to make enough to cover the evening hours as well.

3. And you need someplace to store that extra power to allow for night time.

4. So really.....if they are saying they want 70GW...they likely need 180GW. That is 600,000,000 solar panels....and all of the inverters...and there needs to be space between every 2-3 rows enough for a lift truck with a boom to get to all panels to do maintenance.

The panels alone will be 13,332,000,000 (thats 13.332 BILLION square feet). Add ~30% to that for maintenace spacing = 17,331,600,000 square feet

This is right at 621 square miles. Thats only at a factor of 2.5X. My numbers a year ago show closer to 700 square miles to get what those dumbasses in California want from solar.......and STILL.....they have no place to store electric power.

Maybe they can put it in plastic bags.

Ray

Thanks...

So screen printing is used for these battery films then?

What materials are printed?

What screen material is used, and what is the mesh size?

What is the substrate material?

I have done metal vapor deposition (evaporation) of 1 um (10,000 Ang routinely using Al or Al/Cu 4% and similar thickness with sputter. with thinner films of Cr, W, Ti/W Au, etc.. with both sputter or evap.

And CVD or PECVD of oxide or nitrides as thin as 150 Ang up around 5000 Ang per process. For film under 100 Ang usually use ALD.

I am curious about screen printing on polymer substrates, as I want to come up with a process for inexpensive mass produced sensors. Currently we are using standard silicon semiconductor process, but these sensor require through holes in the sub micron range thru a silicon membrane, which means expensive wafer backside grinding followed by Deep Reactive Ion Etch, which is a slow process, and required backside lithography and has uniformity issues, and requires an etch stop layer.

I am thinking a screen print process on a plastic film substrate may work, we need two to three conductive layers, with oxide or nitride insulators between, and the sub micron holes etched thru the stack, (with an ALD coating in the holes)

I am thus very interested in how this screen printed battery process is done. Is there any etching or hole making process involved? If so how? Our CD are fairly large at this point.

thanks

Sun Nov 24, 2024 6:51 pm

zerotofifty said:

Thanks...

I will answer what I can here. I do not want to get too far off topic for this thread ...and, I have hundreds of NDA's I have to be careful of.
You should probably contact me. I will send you my contact info in a PM. I am a process consultant for primarily screen print, flexo, slot-die...a range if platforms across the entire industrial, printed electronic and medical device industry.

Answering the questions you are asking and setting R&D and perfecting processes are exactly what I do.

Quote: So screen printing is used for these battery films then?

Across the spectrum, a wide variety of print platforms are used depending on which "part" of the assemby we are speaking of but for the most part for layer to layer deposition, screen printing is used because is has the widest range of flexability for producing deposition thickness ranging from about 3um to in some cases well over 500um and even a few I have seen (if the material being printed is correct) upwards to 1000um.

It is also the most cost effective. BUT....it drives engineers crazy because it has a HUGE range of variables and you cannot discount those that seem to be statistically insignificant.

Quote: What materials are printed?

Wiiiiiiide range. WE can print virtually anything including acids and caustics and biologicals....but every screen and press setting recipe is different. Some materials...may be too variable to screen print reliably. At some point depending what the on-press DOE's tell me....I am the first one to tell a client when they need to move to a different print platform.

But without violating anything I can tell you the general materials from my last solid state battery client. Not the recipes and not all the material mind you...but it can give an idea of what goes into one of these batteries in a non-lithium application

Dielectric (UV cure three layers through these parts)
Silver (Ag) conductive polymer (heat cure)
Carbon paste (very thick film)
Dielectric
Seperator and shaping layer
Carbon/Graphene paste (anode)
Seperator
Manganese iron paste (more than one layer)
Zinc polymer layer
Electrolyte (two different ones printed in different layers)
Spacer/seperator gel (stays wet and we print on that wet surface...its a bitch)

All in all ...north of 15 total layers printed roll to roll and final inline lamination, individuation by die-cut and attachment of wires by pick-and-place robot and final sealing and soldering in a pulse forge.

Quote: What screen material is used, and what is the mesh size?

It varies wildly. On a regular basis for high density deposition we see mesh counts from about 150 TPI down to 40 tpi. In other areas, 280-420 tpi and even some upwards to 540 threads per inch.

Stainless mesh of a vast range of wire diameters are used (its not JUST the thread count its the wire diameter, treatment and shape along with open area and theoretical mesh volume.

In fact, stainless mesh among the engineering projects is to quickly used. It has specific geometry. If that geometry is not required...do not use that type of mesh.
Polymer meshes like polyester or some of the exotics like polyarylate...are VASTLY superior because they generate higher tension, have higher strength and more snap. The tension and snap generate shear forces and create lower off-contact which means lower distortion and interface pressure.

Its also about EOM (emulsion over mesh thickness), Rz (surface profile of the inage stencil) and partical size and edge quality. As I mentioned, the variable levels are huge.

Quote: What is the substrate material?

Anything you want....literally. However, materials I readily print are are virtually every type of polymer. Most are PET or derivatives, Kapton/Polyimide, steel, aluminum, glass, silicon, various elastomers.....even low surface tension materials like nylon and polypropylene. Every board type in existence, non-wovens, cloth etc.

Quote: I have done metal vapor deposition (evaporation) of 1 um (10,000 Ang routinely using Al or Al/Cu 4% and similar thickness with sputter. with thinner films of Cr, W, Ti/W Au, etc.. with both sputter or evap.

And CVD or PECVD of oxide or nitrides as thin as 150 Ang up around 5000 Ang per process. For film under 100 Ang usually use ALD.

I have some of that experience. The solar company I worked for, we used CVD, APCVD, sputtering and screen printing. We were using what was termed the "trench method". We used various forms of vapor dep to basically "metalize or plate upward"....then we printed mask layers with screen to etch a pattern in the metal, them plate over with a different metal or two and then print a different mask and etch down through the sandwich. We ran about 13 layers of metalize/print/etch/strip. Our layer to layer registration tolerance with screen printing was ~5um.

Quote: I am curious about screen printing on polymer substrates, as I want to come up with a process for inexpensive mass produced sensors. Currently we are using standard silicon semiconductor process, but these sensor require through holes in the sub micron range thru a silicon membrane, which means expensive wafer backside grinding followed by Deep Reactive Ion Etch, which is a slow process, and required backside lithography and has uniformity issues, and requires an etch stop layer.

There are tons of sensors being done by screen print and flexo. It will depend on the resolution and level of detail you require. Mostly on polymer substrates. There are quite a few very fine pitch surface mount applicatiosn being done.

Right now, the current "state of the art" limitation form line pitch with screen print is down around 50um. A very few are doing 25-30um. Most of this is front side solar. Thats rarified air. There are special fine wire stainless meshes made just for that level of work. Most of that is silver conductive pastes of about ~80 solids....which mean they are largely Newtonian in nature (very little shear thinning) and even some being dilatant (shear thickening).

I am thinking a screen print process on a plastic film substrate may work, we need two to three conductive layers, with oxide or nitride insulators between, and the sub micron holes etched thru the stack, (with an ALD coating in the holes)

I am thus very interested in how this screen printed battery process is done. Is there any etching or hole making process involved? If so how? Our CD are fairly large at this point.

thanks

Ray

Mon Nov 25, 2024 10:43 am

Too much or too little solar in California?

This mismatch is what happens when government tries to be smarter than the free market.

From the L.A. Times (you may have to be a subscriber, so I'll cut/paste a few tidbits below):
https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2024-11-...s-to-waste

Quote: Solar power glut boosts California electric bills. Other states reap the benefits

- In the last 12 months, California has curtailed production of enough solar energy to power 518,000 homes for a year.
- Californians, whose electric rates are roughly twice the national average, are essentially paying for power capacity they are unable to use.
- The solar glut raises questions about the state’s plan to generate all its electricity from carbon-free sources by 2045.

California is making so much solar energy that large commercial operators are increasingly forced to stop production, raising questions about the state’s costly plan to shift entirely to carbon-free sources of electricity.

In the last 12 months, California’s solar farms have curtailed production of more than 3 million megawatt hours of solar energy, either on the orders of the state’s grid operator or because prices had plummeted because of the glut, according to an analysis of data by The Times.

That’s enough to power 518,000 California homes for a year, based on average electricity usage.

The amount of curtailed solar power has more than doubled from 1.5 million megawatt hours in 2021, state records show, and is up eight times from levels in 2017.

The waste would have been even larger if California had not paid utilities in other states to take the excess solar energy, documents from the state’s grid operator show. That means green energy paid for by California electricity customers is sent away, lowering bills for residents of other states.

California’s electric rates are roughly twice the nation’s average, with only Hawaii having higher rates. Rates at Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric increased by 51% over the last three years.

Mon Nov 25, 2024 12:18 pm

KTPhil wrote: Too much or too little solar in California?

This mismatch is what happens when government tries to be smarter than the free market.

From the L.A. Times (you may have to be a subscriber, so I'll cut/paste a few tidbits below):
https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2024-11-...s-to-waste

Quote: Solar power glut boosts California electric bills. Other states reap the benefits

- In the last 12 months, California has curtailed production of enough solar energy to power 518,000 homes for a year.
- Californians, whose electric rates are roughly twice the national average, are essentially paying for power capacity they are unable to use.
- The solar glut raises questions about the state’s plan to generate all its electricity from carbon-free sources by 2045.

California is making so much solar energy that large commercial operators are increasingly forced to stop production, raising questions about the state’s costly plan to shift entirely to carbon-free sources of electricity.

In the last 12 months, California’s solar farms have curtailed production of more than 3 million megawatt hours of solar energy, either on the orders of the state’s grid operator or because prices had plummeted because of the glut, according to an analysis of data by The Times.

That’s enough to power 518,000 California homes for a year, based on average electricity usage.

The amount of curtailed solar power has more than doubled from 1.5 million megawatt hours in 2021, state records show, and is up eight times from levels in 2017.

The waste would have been even larger if California had not paid utilities in other states to take the excess solar energy, documents from the state’s grid operator show. That means green energy paid for by California electricity customers is sent away, lowering bills for residents of other states.

California’s electric rates are roughly twice the nation’s average, with only Hawaii having higher rates. Rates at Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric increased by 51% over the last three years.

With all the sunny days in California deserts, youd think we'd have some of the cheapest energy prices thanks to solar. But it is all a scam.

Imagine how cheap solar will be in Wyoming in the winter.

Fun fact, on average each year there are 3 to 4 weeks on near constant overcast in many of the California desert regions. Usually around January or Febuary. We can simply shut the state down when that happens. (or build a giant battery pack to run the state for four weeks straight!!) That shant cost too much.

Mon Nov 25, 2024 12:21 pm

KTPhil wrote: Rates at Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric increased by 51% over the last three years.

but there's no inflation :roll:

CA could fuck up cooking a can of soup. I mean, seriously....

Mon Nov 25, 2024 12:34 pm

Rate increases to cover fire damage from inadequate line maintenance, and leaks from underground gas storage are now being paid by ratepayers, and not stock holders. That's wrong!

Mon Nov 25, 2024 2:27 pm

KTPhil wrote: Rate increases to cover fire damage from inadequate line maintenance, and leaks from underground gas storage are now being paid by ratepayers, and not stock holders. That's wrong!

The stock holder is not liable to pay for anything other than the price of the stock. That is how all company stocks work.

Now maybe if the state had not in effect taken control of PGand E, making poor decisions, the company would be in better health, rates would be lower.

Our rates have included charges for rebate programs for insulation, water heaters, CFL bulbs, heatpumps, solar panels on homes, etc... The state regulates the rates, and we pay more so that some rate payers pay less with discount programs, Then we have forced use of more expensive energy sources by PGand E, prohibitions of cutting trees near power lines which can lead to fires, and since rates and expenses are dictated by the states unelected utility commission, rather than engineers and business people, critical maintenance is oft deferred. Oh and lets not forget carbon taxes, carbon credits. Then we have the high cost of business with high taxes, high wages.

Now if I was emperor, and desired the increase of electric car use, i would find ways to first make sure electric production was inexpensive abundant, and reliable. Then maybe the free market will switch to electric cars with no need for government mandates This state has done the opposite, and we all are hurt by that.

Mon Nov 25, 2024 2:30 pm

zerotofifty wrote: KTPhil wrote: Rate increases to cover fire damage from inadequate line maintenance, and leaks from underground gas storage are now being paid by ratepayers, and not stock holders. That's wrong!

The stock holder is not liable to pay for anything other than the price of the stock. That is how all company stocks work.

Now maybe if the state had not in effect taken control of PGand E, making poor decisions, the company would be in better health, rates would be lower.

Our rates have included charges for rebate programs for insulation, water heaters, CFL bulbs, heatpumps, solar panels on homes, etc... The state regulates the rates, and we pay more so that some rate payers pay less with discount programs, Then we have forced use of more expensive energy sources by PGand E, prohibitions of cutting trees near power lines which can lead to fires, and since rates and expenses are dictated by the states unelected utility commission, rather than engineers and business people, critical maintenance is oft deferred. Oh and lets not forget carbon taxes, carbon credits. Then we have the high cost of business with high taxes, high wages.

....but....but....its dirt cheap to be homeless and addicted there right? What could be wrong in a system like that?

:roll:

Ray

Mon Nov 25, 2024 4:33 pm

zerotofifty wrote: KTPhil wrote: Rate increases to cover fire damage from inadequate line maintenance, and leaks from underground gas storage are now being paid by ratepayers, and not stock holders. That's wrong!

The stock holder is not liable to pay for anything other than the price of the stock. That is how all company stocks work.

Yes, I know stockholders do not pay directly.

But if Edison as a company paid the price of damage that occurred due to its poor maintenance (like brush clearance around above-ground lines), and SoCal Gas did the same for the poor maintenance (and corporate denials) about the Aliso Canyon Underground Storage Facility, then their profit would drop and lower their stock prices.

This is what I meant by "stockholders pay."

Instead, we are saddled with high rates and cancellation of homeowners insurance.

And the companies get off scot-free.

This is not a party issue. It's a lobbyist issue.

Mon Nov 25, 2024 9:18 pm

KTPhil wrote: zerotofifty wrote: KTPhil wrote: Rate increases to cover fire damage from inadequate line maintenance, and leaks from underground gas storage are now being paid by ratepayers, and not stock holders. That's wrong!

The stock holder is not liable to pay for anything other than the price of the stock. That is how all company stocks work.

Yes, I know stockholders do not pay directly.

But if Edison as a company paid the price of damage that occurred due to its poor maintenance (like brush clearance around above-ground lines), and SoCal Gas did the same for the poor maintenance (and corporate denials) about the Aliso Canyon Underground Storage Facility, then their profit would drop and lower their stock prices.

This is what I meant by "stockholders pay."

Instead, we are saddled with high rates and cancellation of homeowners insurance.

And the companies get off scot-free.

This is not a party issue. It's a lobbyist issue.

ok, so the power company you want to have zero profit for stock holders? if so you loose stock holders, then the company wont be able to raise money in the stock market any more, so then, they will need to raise rates for expenses.

Now how does a company get off scott free if it spends money it has earned to cover expenses? unlike the government it cant print money,

What does increased power rates verses decreased stock price have to do with home owner insurance?

Tue Nov 26, 2024 12:11 pm

zerotofifty wrote: KTPhil wrote: zerotofifty wrote: KTPhil wrote: Rate increases to cover fire damage from inadequate line maintenance, and leaks from underground gas storage are now being paid by ratepayers, and not stock holders. That's wrong!

The stock holder is not liable to pay for anything other than the price of the stock. That is how all company stocks work.

Yes, I know stockholders do not pay directly.

But if Edison as a company paid the price of damage that occurred due to its poor maintenance (like brush clearance around above-ground lines), and SoCal Gas did the same for the poor maintenance (and corporate denials) about the Aliso Canyon Underground Storage Facility, then their profit would drop and lower their stock prices.

This is what I meant by "stockholders pay."

Instead, we are saddled with high rates and cancellation of homeowners insurance.

And the companies get off scot-free.

This is not a party issue. It's a lobbyist issue.

ok, so the power company you want to have zero profit for stock holders? if so you loose stock holders, then the company wont be able to raise money in the stock market any more, so then, they will need to raise rates for expenses.

Now how does a company get off scott free if it spends money it has earned to cover expenses? unlike the government it cant print money,

What does increased power rates verses decreased stock price have to do with home owner insurance?

Edison has made higher profits lately, with rates jumping over 50% in the last three years. 4.9 billion dollars profit last year, up almost 19% year over year.

Yet they neglected power line right of way brush and tree clearance, resulting in record-setting fires that have killed many and destroyed thousands of homes (Thomas, Woolsey, Mountain fires of late in my area, and of course Paradise up north).

Insurance companies responded to the unprecedented claims by raising rates and cancelling. State Farm and others (AmGUARD, Falls Lake, The Hartford, Tokio Marine Insurance Co, and American National) have drastically raised rates, cut coverage, or simply left California.

So homeowners and rate-payers have footed the bill for their mismanagement, not the company. Is there any other industry where such negligence goes unmitigated by the company? Their payouts have been in the tens of millions, while damages are in the billions. That looks like "scot free" to me.

These utilities are the largest contributors to state election campaigns. Coincidence?

Tue Nov 26, 2024 9:34 pm

KTPhil wrote: zerotofifty wrote: KTPhil wrote: zerotofifty wrote: KTPhil wrote: Rate increases to cover fire damage from inadequate line maintenance, and leaks from underground gas storage are now being paid by ratepayers, and not stock holders. That's wrong!

The stock holder is not liable to pay for anything other than the price of the stock. That is how all company stocks work.

Yes, I know stockholders do not pay directly.

But if Edison as a company paid the price of damage that occurred due to its poor maintenance (like brush clearance around above-ground lines), and SoCal Gas did the same for the poor maintenance (and corporate denials) about the Aliso Canyon Underground Storage Facility, then their profit would drop and lower their stock prices.

This is what I meant by "stockholders pay."

Instead, we are saddled with high rates and cancellation of homeowners insurance.

And the companies get off scot-free.

This is not a party issue. It's a lobbyist issue.

ok, so the power company you want to have zero profit for stock holders? if so you loose stock holders, then the company wont be able to raise money in the stock market any more, so then, they will need to raise rates for expenses.

Now how does a company get off scott free if it spends money it has earned to cover expenses? unlike the government it cant print money,

What does increased power rates verses decreased stock price have to do with home owner insurance?

Edison has made higher profits lately, with rates jumping over 50% in the last three years. 4.9 billion dollars profit last year, up almost 19% year over year.

Yet they neglected power line right of way brush and tree clearance, resulting in record-setting fires that have killed many and destroyed thousands of homes (Thomas, Woolsey, Mountain fires of late in my area, and of course Paradise up north).

Insurance companies responded to the unprecedented claims by raising rates and cancelling. State Farm and others (AmGUARD, Falls Lake, The Hartford, Tokio Marine Insurance Co, and American National) have drastically raised rates, cut coverage, or simply left California.

So homeowners and rate-payers have footed the bill for their mismanagement, not the company. Is there any other industry where such negligence goes unmitigated by the company? Their payouts have been in the tens of millions, while damages are in the billions. That looks like "scot free" to me.

These utilities are the largest contributors to state election campaigns. Coincidence?

The Public Utilities Commission appointed by the rulers are in control of what the utilities do or dont do. The stock holders are victims as are the rate payers, as are the utility employees. The rot is in Sacramento.

Tue Dec 03, 2024 2:48 pm

Fuck California

Tue Dec 03, 2024 3:01 pm

zerotofifty wrote: The Public Utilities Commission appointed by the rulers are in control of what the utilities do or dont do. The stock holders are victims as are the rate payers, as are the utility employees. The rot is in Sacramento.
Post-deregulation (thanks, one of the two parties...) the post-1996 PUC has little power any more.

That didn't stop the CA legislature (and we know which party runs THAT) from messing it up even further:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000%E2%80%932001_California_electricity_crisis

Tue Dec 03, 2024 3:09 pm

skills@eurocarsplus wrote: Fuck California

This scare comes up every couple of years, but most agree it will never happen.
https://www.fenderbender.com/running-a-shop/operat...a-highways

There are a couple of legislators who post this up to grandstand for certain supporting groups, knowing full well it won't happen.

However, the CARB needs a reset...
https://abc7news.com/post/californias-air-resource.../15528843/

Wed Dec 04, 2024 12:32 pm

skills@eurocarsplus wrote: Fuck California

Let's get the collectors and collections from Jay Leno, Arturo Keller, Magnus Walker, The Nethercutt, Peterson Museum and all the others relocated to our neck of the woods. We have a huge and welcoming car culture here.
And while California is at it they should shut down Pebble Beach Concours too.
If the legislation were to go through they won't be able to drive the cars onto the fairways.

Wed Dec 04, 2024 1:09 pm

Ever wonder why these speech videos are always shot as close-ups? Because if they pulled back, we would see there are no other people in the seats. These are done after hours, out of session, or during recesses. That way they have videos of them apparently championing a cause, and yet nothing will actually come of it, being just a charade for later online campaigning. This is done nationally as well. Such a scam!