Mark Browne wrote:

So now you're in the electricity business eh? You know their overhead
costs?

And you? You *do* know this stuff?

I know how most businesses operate. This one is not much different.

I'll let you in on a little secret; since the electric uutilies are so
heavily regulated by government, they are not allowed to raise their
rates without "permission". The result is that they often run with such
a small profit margin, that they do not have the extra capital to spend
on upgrades.

Such are the problems of being a monopoly.

It is impractical for a utility to be anything but. At least from a
distribution standpoint.



So you want them to spend money on infrastructure, in order to pollute
less? The SOMEONE is going to have to pay for it. Three guesses who
that someone will ultimately be?

Well duh! This does not add or subtract from the basic argument.

And that basic argument has always been that the left wants:

Clean air, minimal pollution, and right now. While they also want
unskilled working poor to be paid a wage that is disproportionate to
their skill level, and the government to provide all sorts of social
services.

Now, all of these things cost money. Money that does not grow on trees.
How do we have cleaner electric plants, yet maintain current rates? If
increased rates are ok, then how high can we go, before we put a
"hurting" on the poor? While digging deeper into our pockets to pay for
these increases, how much less buying power will it take before the
economy goes into a tailspin? How can we afford to pay the poor a "fair"
wage, when our economy is in the tank?


Doubled electric bills? Where did THAT idea come from?

The exact figure is speculative. But if you don't acknowlege that the
rate will grow disproportionately to the level of inflation, you're
living in a vacuum. There's no such thing as a free lunch. You want
modern technology, you're going to pay for it.

If we had power for half the price and you could not drink the water is that
a bargain?

Probably not. But the truth is that we've made major steps toward
pollution reduction in the last 20 years. We are not going in the wrong
direction, in most cases.


Is it just OK if we can't eat the fish we catch? Or does it not matter to
you because *you* don't eat fish? Has it dawned on you that most life in the
Midwest depends on this water. So, using the free market solution, how much
is keeping mercury out of the food and water worth?

So are you essentially asking whether the people would choose to live a
life where they can have common modern necesities, as well as some
luxuries and deal with some level of pollution, or to live a life of
poverty, where the cost of living has risen sharply due to increased
pollution regulations? I can't answer that for anyone other than me.



"..the environmental faction of the left opposes the creation of
additional
nuclear (nookular) plants, due to the
waste disposal issues."

First, a minor point: The environmental "faction" as you call it
contains
quite a few NRA members who'd prefer not to see their hunting grounds
turned
into wastelands. Are NRA members part of the "left", in your simple
picture?

Irrelevant. It is the left who promotes these "causes".

And how is it the right does not care if what they eat is not good for you?
Do they have some special power to resist the ill effects of toxic waste?

Ever hear of the phrase "Cents wise and dollar foolish"? Conservatives
recognize the need to limit pollution. However, they are more practical
in that if the cost to go from a 75% reduction in pollutants to a 90%
reduction, rise exponentially, that the 75% figure is more workable and
viable, all other factors considered.


My best guess is that the only reason the conservative side does not care
about the issue is because the tools of the left happen to be the best
(government control) for tackling the problem, and the right can't swallow
their pride long enough to do the right thing themselves.

Government interference is never the "best" method to do control
business. All that does is encourage people to "cheat". The "best"
solution is technology. Unfortunately, technology costs money to
develop, and takes time to perfect.

All that government is good at is taking money from those who make it,
and giving it to those who don't, whether that's in business or personal
budgets.



So, when generating toxic waste that will be dangerous longer than all of
recorded history to date, how much debate should there be on the issue?

Should we at least one workable solution before proceeding forward?

Probably. Meanwhile don't complain about the smoke from coal plants.


But then you
say that you would not want to live within 100 miles of the stuff. Since
NOBODY has figured out how to securely handle nuclear waste, please
explain
the dichotomy of your statements.

There are places where we could send the waste, such as into space.

Launch explosion - bad idea.

Another potential accident standing in the way of progress?

There are other technologies which could be applied as well.

They are?

I read somewhere once about a sort of "recycling" for spent uranium,
where it could be reused. More research was pending (Laking funds, most
likely).

The other
issue is the Chernobyl factor. People don't want that to happen here.

You do?

Am I not a person? Of course I don't want that either. I'm just
addressing the fear factor.


The U.S. standards are light years ahead of the soviets (Communism will
do that), and it is doubtful that it could happen here to the same
degree (Three Mile Island not withstanding).

Thanks; I was just going to mention that.

TMI was nowhere near the catstrophy that Chernobyl was.

No Doug, you can't weasel out of it that easily. Everyone expects that
things will cost more as inflation increases the overhead and cost of
manufacture. But there is a point where the rate jumps up
disproportionately (like the recent rise in gasoline) to the going
inflation rate. If I'm paying $65 a month for electric one year, and the
next it jumps to $120, that's not a normal increase. By that's what you
can expect if the utility companies are forced to "modernize". Money
doen't grow on trees, it has to come from somewhere. Even a government
subsity, would come out of your tax money. So you're paying more one way
or the other. Since there are people who live from paycheck to paycheck,
how do you explain that to them?

Dave, now that is a bit of a reach; now YOU care about the poor?

Mark, I care about all people who are willing to help themselves. But
reality is that it will cost more money for electric to bring these
plants into line. Who will it hurt the most?



In any case, part of the cost of production is the cost of pollution
reduction.
End of story.

Then I don't want to hear you cry about the horribly high cost of
electric, and about how much further the poor are being pulled under the
poverty line as a result. You can't have your cake and eat it too.


But they have nothing to do with the generation of power. The "G.E.
Story" is another subject entirely.

In any case, our domestic sources are mostly inadequate for domestic needs.
Adding six months of production is a sort term solution at best.
whether it 10 years or 100, we are going to run out of oil. The best plan it
to start working towards rational solutions now.

I wholehardedly agree! We have a finite reserve of fossil fuel. So we'd
better get cracking at a technological solution. Solar power? Fusion?
Matter-Antimatter? (Hey it worked for Scotty!) Hydrogen? Geothermal?

The point is that we need to apply serious resources (people and money)
to this issue.



Is now making noise about the large lakes (Which are also great
boating
places) created for hydro-electic plants, due to changes to the
natural
habitat. There are some who want to drain lakes like Mead and
Powell.

Do you feel this type of opposition is the rule? In other words, for
every
100 hydro facilities, how many are being picked on?

Most aluminum is already produced by electrical extraction driven by hydro
dams. We are already producing about as much hydro power as is practical.

Anywhere there is a large river, it becomes practical to make hydo
power. It also creates wonderful boating lakes!


Even this clean power source does have its problems, the chief among them
being siltification and resulting self destruction and the disruption of
natural flood plain restoration of prime farm land. These are not
insignificant problems.

Accumulation of silt can be dredged away, and is a part of normal
maintenance in some plants. The other issues are a matter of
speculation, and logisical planning. Nothing insurmountable.


It all starts with one. If that one falls, a precidence is created,
and
it becomes easier for the rest to follow.

That's "precedent", George. A precedent is created.

Typical. When one cannot refute the issue, they pick on grammar or
spelling errors.

I assume that you read well enough to work through the spelling error to
understand the point raised? Personally, I would like to see an effort to
address the point issued.

Tell that to Doug. He's the one critical of spelling, and strangely
silent on the point.


That's the problem when you try to burn the candle from both ends Doug.
Sometimes you get burned in the middle.


So, Dave, since you raised the question; Are pollution controls so important
that they trump the "right" of the poor to have affordable electricity?
When my dad was a kid, the day after a new snowfall the snow turned black
because of the coal burning pollution. Would this be OK for a 30% rate cut?

Ask a poor person, who might not be able to stay warm this winter.

Yea, I know, in typical leftist fashion, someone in congress will come
up with a way for government to subsidize the poor's electric bills,
thereby placing the burden on the rest of us.....



Smokescreen Doug. We're talking about two different things and you know
it. If your electric rate goes up 2 or 3 dollars a month, you dig a
little deeper and don't sweat it all that much. Ask someone living in
California if their sudden rate increases, of a couple of years ago,
were in line with "cost of materials" and inflation. I wonder how many
poor people had their electric cut off, because they couldn't afford
it.....

Strawman.

Every good plan starts with a strawman. It does not invalidate the
point..

Dave