Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (102437)	5/15/2001 5:52:56 PM
From: yard_man	Respond to of 436258

Over 50% of US electrical energy comes from coal -- high sulfur coal is being phased out or scrubbed for the most part. The emissions that caused what happened in the Adirondack's have been cut dramatically. Some folks have no clue as to how cheap coal power is compared to other alternatives -- at best solar or wind could only replace a very small fraction of that, and then only at a much higher cost. Who knows maybe even a higher environmental cost --

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (102437)	5/15/2001 6:19:29 PM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

Tell us how to calculate the environmental costs and add them to the price -- the acid rain you mention -- the emissions responsible for that have been greatly reduced owing to two factors 1) a large switch to low-sulfur coal and 2) scrubbing This is why regulation is really needed -- I reject your so-called trajedy of the commons. Was damage done? Yes. Without being addressed? Definitely, not. We have the CAA. Emissions have been cut. The question is how should these things be handled -- you elect folks to congress -- president -- laws are enacted and enforced based on public participation in the process. That's how the CAA came about ... What is happening now? -- the EPA is bargaining with electric utilities which are not in compliance with the next phase on how to avoid punitive actions by putting in more controls ... I see a system that works. Is it completely centrally planned and not subject to public opinion? No. And it shoudn't be ... Some are content to spout how bad soemthing is but don't really understand the economics of the alternatives. As I said over 50% of our needs come from coal -- it remains cheap. No way you can supplant a significant portion of that baseload power with solar or wind -- they aren't baseload sources -- and even if you could, public sentiment would not support at 10x or 20x increase in the costs that would surely be required. You say you wouldn't be so audacious as to know what is best for the country as a whole, but you are second-guessing the public's choices ...