50% of troops won't re-up

[RussSchultz]

Don't confuse transmission with generation.

Anyways, I'm presuming they (the CPA) measures their output in a consistant manner so that they can actually track it. If they say they exceed pre-war levels, and back it up with data...

All the numbers are there in excel spreadsheets, so it adds up one way or another.

 

[Clashman]

Generation:
Peak Power 4292Mw, 91,101Mw hours, 7-day Avg. 4171Mw

They certainly aren't transmitting more than they're generating.
I'm backing my assertions up with numbers. Where are yours?

 

[Clashman]

By The Way, Russ, I never said that the electricity levels didn't surpass pre-war levels. I did, however, state that this was only a temporary measure designed as a publicity stunt. This is born out by the actual numbers.

 

[RussSchultz]

Lets look at exactly what you said, shall we?

Iraqi power and water generating ability only briefly was brought up to pre-war levels as a headline grabber last October. And I'd be willing to bet that a fair amount of what has been regenerated is going directly to U.S. military bases.

As of today, Iraq's electric levels are at about 80% of the pre-war level.

Number 1: "Iraqi power and water generating ability only briefly was brought up to pre-war levels as a headline grabber last October. "

Well, no. Just yesterday the power generating ability was above pre-war levels. And the day before that, and the current 7 day peak average. It did dip (between October and now-ish) below pre-war output peak(approximately 4100MW) as some plants generators off line "unscheduled" due to various reasons (sabatoge, breakdown, etc.).

Number 2: "As of today, Iraq's electric levels are at about 80% of the pre-war level. "
No, you just had your facts wrong, quoting an article written in July '03.

Number 3: "And I'd be willing to bet that a fair amount of what has been regenerated is going directly to U.S. military bases. "
Yet no proof, just baseless accusations.

And you were trying to add up load so that it equalled generation and calling shennanigans because they didn't add up. They're not supposed to add up (there's transmission losses in the equation).

Finally: "I did, however, state that this was only a temporary measure designed as a publicity stunt. This is born out by the actual numbers."
The numbers did not bear out your assertation (that it was a temporary measure that wasn't maintained for long), nor could it show that it was "designed as a publicity stunt". How could it?

 

[Clashman]

No, it's not a publicity stunt, energy production just happened to drop off dramatically imediateley afterwards.

It also appears that 4400 Mw is the pre-conflict level, according to the CPA, so even by your most generous proclamations we're still falling between 5-10 percent short.

http://www.cpa-iraq.org/essential_services/electricity.html

The Ministry of Electricity works to provide reliable, stable and predictable power to the people and enterprises of Iraq. To satisfy Iraq?s total demand for electricity, Iraq will need an estimated 7,000 MW, some 2,600 MW more than the pre-conflict level. Post-war looting and sabotage have brought down nearly 1,000 towers. Many substations were destroyed. Decades of operation without regular maintenance and fuel shortages, however, have also severely hampered dependable production.

 

[Clashman]

And no Russ, I wasn't confusing transmission with generation. I was looking at the numbers for Duhok and Kadsya for February 25th, 2004, and noticed that the Average load listed for both is higher than the Peak load. I'll admit I am neither mathematician nor electrical engineer, but last I checked Averages don't exceed Peak, under any circumstance.