Doug Kanter wrote:



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.

There is no left wing plot. But it does seem funny, that the people who
generally fail at business, and cry foul against those who succeed, are
now attempting to write the regulations for businesses to follow.


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?

My best guess would have to be some sort of bond. Maybe a FIPS? If
that's the case, then you have to understand that many companies have
already accounted for income growth from bonds into their operating
income. What should be set aside for improvements, is often used for
operating capital.


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

I have not read the specifics. There's only so much time in any given
day.


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

Is is certainly NOT irrelevant. Your generalization is absurd.

So you're saying that environmental causes are not championed mostly by
the left? Who's being absurd now?


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.

And I do the same to organizations who attempt to block radical enviro
wacko ideas that stand to limit usage of waterways, and other
recreational areas based, on pie-in-the-sky science. Like bans on 2
strokes, the draining of man-made lakes, manatee madness, snowmobile
bans, etc.

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.

I see nothing wrong with RESPONSIBLE approaches to environmental
awareness and reduction of pollution. I have a problem with radical
approaches, which call for drastic lifestyle changes, in order to
comply. Many of these costs will not be able to be withstood by the
people with the least ability to pay for them.

And therein lies the conundrum for the left. Do we embrace radical
lifestyle changes in the name of the environment, and forsake our
obligation to the poor?


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????

You'd better sell your car then. Every time you drive it, you have the
potential to be involved in a fatal accident. NASA had better close its
doors too since we'll likely never 100% prevent another shuttle
accident. We'd better stop shipping oil by tanker, since they can hit a
stray iceberg, or founder in a storm. God forbid we take a few risks.

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.

You really have a flair for the dramatic in order to convolute a point.

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.

No, but it's equally important, and does address some of the mindset of
people who oppose nuke plants.

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.

Typical leftist. Make this an issue about me. It's not near your house
either, so the point is irrelevant.


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.

Try looking into nuclear waste reclaimation. I read something on the
subject a while back.


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".

How about "ho-hum"? The Honda hybrid gets about 12 MPG more than my
conventional 3 cylinder Geo Metro. Not exactly something to write home
about. Not surprising, these hybrids are somewhat wimpy in performance,
and are built light to facilitate better fuel efficiency. And try
pulling a 6000 LB boat with one of those hybrid cars, and then come back
and tell me about it.

You come up with a technology that allows 50+ MPG, develops 300 HP AND
can pull 6000 Lbs, and then I'll sit up and say "wow!".


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.

Reaping what rewards? I see maybe one or two Hondas on the road during a
given 6 month period. Usually they're being driven way under the speed
limit, in the right lane, and I get a quick glimpse as I wiz by. I don't
know if they're unable to hold 65 MPH, or if the owners are just a bit
kooky. On the other hand, practically every other car I see is either a
Ford Explorer, or a Dodge mini-van.


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.

Yep, they just have to "buy the stuff". With what money?


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.

Your view is way too cynical. Why would a utility who is a monopoly by
nature, have to be overly concerned with shareholder value? It's not
like they have to trim expenses and move jobs offshore to compete with a
foreign company.


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.

But nothing to do with electric generation.


It's not limited to utilities - it's common to many industries.

But we're talking about electric plants. Stay focussed.


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?

I don't think so.


This is the same thing. It doesn't deserve any further discussion.

Of course not, because it threatens to topple your house of cards.
Deny it all you want, it's a very real threat. You, as a boater, should
be up on the efforts of loonie-tunes who are out to ruin your fun.

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.

Try this newsgroup. And the Sierra Club is as close to a national evil
plot as anything else.

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.

I don't read the same leftist biased tripe that you do. I read sensible
reports.


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.

It was also the result of mismanagement, and of allowing their
generation facilites to be sold (Thereby removing their responsibility
to pay for upgrades), which left them at the mercy of outside electric
suppliers. Those outside suppliers were free to gouge them on price, as
they had a real demand, and there was no competition for the supply.

The point is, why did Cal-Ed sell off their generating plants in the
first place, thus allowing the situation to develop?


Read, Dave. The California mess has nothing to do with the pollution
problems caused by coal-burning plants in the Midwest.

No, but it's a very real example of what happens when the cost of
electric goes up. And it WILL go up if plants are forced to comply with
stricter pollution standards.

Dave