"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Every public company's shareholders face risk, even in a relatively
bulletproof industry like mine (grocery). Utility shareholders have
known
for at least 20 years that this day was coming. Tough ****.

A non-answer. We're not talking about decreased shareholder value
here.
We're talking about bankruptcy. Are you, as a consumer, willing to
have
your electric bill double, or more, so that the electric companies can
be brought into EPA standards, and increase their capacity?

Where did you get your theory about bankruptcy, Dave? There are few, if
any
bankruptcy rumors floating around for Midwest utilitity companies.

The biggest one coming from the same company that's been at the focal
point of the "blackout".

Plenty of utilities have faced bankruptcy over the past 30 years, Dave. Most
have been totally unrelated to the left wing plot to destroy them. Most also
came back stronger, with better management and better accounting methods.
All businesses adjust, or they cease to exist, and that's how it should be.
================================================== ====================


The equipment necessary to produce cleaner power is more expensive than
NOT
buying it, but not so dear that it breaks companies.


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

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.

Here's how corporations, in general, raise money for capital projects, Dave:
CLEVELAND ELEC ILLUM CO 8.375% of 12/01/11
Do you know what it is?
================================================== ====================


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?


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.

Dave, have you read the specifics of what's being called the "20% clause"
for utilities which want to refurbish existing power plants?
================================================== =====================



"..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".

Is is certainly NOT irrelevant. Your generalization is absurd. There's a
huge contingent of citizens who are flag wavers just like you. But secretly,
they contribute money to groups which protect their ability to hunt, fish
and camp on clean, undisturbed land. About 5 years ago, Time magazine ran an
article about this issue. They showed survey results which indicated that
membership in various organizations came as a total surprise to the people
who ran those organizations. For instance, many respondents who said they
were NRA members also contributed heavily to Greenpeace and the Nature
Conservancy. Go figure, eh? Or not, depending on your ability to do so.
================================================== ====================


Now, to the important point: Your phrase, above, suggests that you look
down
on people who'd like to see nuclear waste handled correctly.

Your comprehensive abilities are as flawed as ever.


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.

"SAO LUIS, Brazil, Aug. 25 - Brazil's space program will have difficulty
replacing the scientists and technicians killed in the explosion that
destroyed a rocket at its launch base, the project coordinator said Monday.
Friday's accident killed 21 people, including top scientists and engineers,
days before the unmanned rocket was due to blast off from the jungle launch
site on a mission to place two satellites into orbit."

Fortunately, this never happens here in America. Right???? Let me get this
straight: If a rocket full of nuclear waste explodes, it would harm nobody
because the intentions of its designers were noble ones. But, if a suitcase
full of nuclear waste explodes in a major city, it's a dirty bomb, because
the intentions of its designers were evil. I think I understand the
difference.
================================================== ===================

There are other technologies which could be applied as well. The other
issue is the Chernobyl factor. People don't want that to happen here.

Reactor safety is not the same issue as proper handling of waste. It doesn't
seem to be a problem for you because at the moment, we're sticking the stuff
in some mountain in Nevada, far from YOUR house.

As far as "other technologies", many sane people think we should actually
POSSESS those technologies before we plan on using them. At the moment,
though, they do not exist.
================================================== ===================



Personally, I could care less about fish. But to your point, how much
pollution are you willing to accept? How much are you willing to pay
to
see it happen?

I'm willing to pay more. I already pay more than my parents did in 1970,
and
our kids will pay more than we do. Who says that the rates of 30 years
ago
were realistic for the future?

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?

Let's try this: Toyota and Honda saw the writing on the wall and they've
developed models which get gas mileage ranging from "Amazing" to "Holy
**** - that's outrageous". They are now reaping the rewards for spending on
research and development. This is how it should be, right? Do something
good - get paid for it.

The utilities have a better deal: The technology already exists for cleaning
smokestack emissions. It can be installed on existing plants or designed
into new facilities. The utilities don't have to worry about R&D - they just
need to buy the stuff. Then, they can make more electricity and get paid for
it.

There's only one reason they complain about the extra cost: There's a board
of directors which is more concerned with shareholder value. Unfortunately,
this is a short-term view.
================================================== ===================


General Electric/Hudson: That was NOT an accident. Read, Dave. It
happened
quite a few years ago, but it's in the news at least monthly, even now,
because the company continues to stall on cleanup efforts.

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

No, it's not another story. It's a very important example of a
high-visibility company which refuses to take responsibility for the damage
it's done. It's not limited to utilities - it's common to many industries.
The problem is more insidious with SMALLER companies because they tend to
escape national news coverage.
================================================== ===================



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?

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.

Was it you who, in another thread, whined about how conservation districts
were going to be the downfall of America? This is the same thing. It doesn't
deserve any further discussion. You either heard about this on a hysterical
radio talk show, or read a blurb in the newspaper while in the bathroom, and
you think it's an evil plot all across the nation. Yawn......
================================================== ===================



Every company gets beat up sometimes. The well managed
ones recover just fine, especially when they have a virtual
monopoly.

Sure they'll recover, it'll just cost you more to power your computers
and other appliances.


Please provide a list of companies which have NOT had to adjust their
selling prices in the past 100 years, due to changes in costs of raw
materials, employee benefits, legal environment, taxes, etc.


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.....

I keep asking if you read, and you continually prove that you don't.
Investigators now know that the rate increases in California were not
connected to any kind of physical reality which demanded price hikes. In the
past week, the DOE spokespersons have used the word "gouging" repeatedly.
Read, Dave. The California mess has nothing to do with the pollution
problems caused by coal-burning plants in the Midwest. Zero. Zip. Crush the
thought and don't mention it again.

The End