"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:


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?

Care to back up the "double" figure?

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".


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?

And you? You *do* know this stuff?

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.

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.

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?

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?

If it weren't so pathetic, it would be funny. Everyone complains
about
the cost of energy yet the environmental faction of the left:

Opposes the creation of additional nuclear (nookular) plants, due
to
the
waste disposal issues.

Would YOU like to live within 100 miles of a nuclear waste dump
built
near
an earthquake fault?

Of course not.

Let's round you up and keep you focused:

"..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?
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.

Or more cynically: Lets play chicken - let the left burn their political
capitol doing the right thing while we raid the piggy bank.

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.

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?

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.

There are other technologies which could be applied as well.

They are?

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

You do?

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.

But other than the nuclear
waste, nuke plants are clean and efficient, and help remove the need to
depend on fossil fuel.

Except for that one nagging little problem ...

Opposes the expansion of coal burning plants due to pollution
issues.

So, you think the "pollution issues" are acceptable as they are? How
about
if they increase by 25%, and either kill the fish in your favorite
waters,
or make those fish inedible? Do you consider that just incidental to
our
way
of life?

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?

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

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

Opposes the drilling for oil on our own shores to reduce the
dependancy
on foreign oil, due to perceived environmental impacts.

I guess you've forgotten the Exxon Valdez incident, and the fact
that
they
bitched and moaned about taking responsibility for it. Or, the fact
that
GE
still won't own up to its part in poisoning the Hudson River, and
claims
they shouldn't have to help pay for it. These are NOT exceptions,
Dave.

Accidents happen. That's reality. The threat of an accident should not
keep us from technological progress. Otherwise, we should go back to
living in log cabins, growing our own food, and reading by lamps fuels
with animal fat.

Exxon Valdez: Right. Accidents happen. But, that doesn't change the fact
that companies should take responsibility for the RESULTS of accidents
with
or on their property.

It should also not be an excuse to not take advantage of our own
resources, to lessen our dependancy on foreign oil.

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.

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.

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.
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.

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.


Meanwhile, we are facing an energy crisis. The latest blackout,
and
the
crisis in California a few yeasr back, should serve as a warning
and a
wake up call. Do we want energy or not? What will we be willing to
give
up to get it?

I'm not willing to give up clean air & water to appease the
shareholders
of
utilities in Ohio.

But what about affordable electricity for the poor folks in NYC?

Don't even try that trick with me, Dave.

Trick? What trick. You have been a champion of the poor and their
"right" to live a decent lifestyle in America. You have weighed in on
how unfair it is for them to receive such low wages for menial
unskilled jobs. So now the issue comes back to you. Are your pollution
controls so important that they trump the "right" of the poor to have
affordable electricity?

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?



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.....

Strawman.

You can do better.

Mark Browne


Dave