So let me see if I understand... You're willing to pay more for your electricity when the EPA says so, and you're willing to pay more for Carnahan's wind power electricity, and you're willing to pay more for solar panels on your roof. Sounds like you're anti-nuclear, instead of anti-price increases. And, you obviously have the concept of free-markets and gov't regulated industries confused. Let’s see, when the gov't in their infinite wisdom increased the minimum wage, did you have a problem with paying more for your Cheeseburgers? Because wages are a cost of doing business that was given to the consumer, just like the cost of building new baseload power plants should be, if generation was truly a free market like you desire. The law that you worship was voted on in 1976 - hardly right out of the mouths of the people. This law was actually an attempt by anti-nuclear activists to block the construction of the first Callaway plant - one that thankfully failed. Ultimately there is the possibility of reducing the overall cost to the consumer with a repeal of ant-CWIP legislation by reducing the cost of financing the enormous debt that will be required to build another Nuclear Plant. New baseload production will be required in the future, and "alternative" sources such as wind and solar will not be sufficient to keep the lights on.
Apparently you know nothing about how the regulated utility industry functions in Missouri. There are costs connected with providing electricity. No Public utility can recover these costs from the people who are benefiting from them (that's you and me...) without "approval" from the gov't. They are not permitted to charge what the market demands - I'm sure that they would love to be able to. The simple fact is that all power plants, especially nuclear ones, require a significant investment in time and money to construct. They must be completed prior to the time at which their output is required. If you really think that it is not a good idea to spread out the costs involved with keeping the lights on, then I hope you are not in charge of your budget. The tree-huggers in the EPA will certainly make it less cost-effective to burn coal within the next decade, and despite your foolish, head-in-the-sand opinion, something must be ready to replace coal when the time comes.
Hmmm... $2 a year now, or $20 a month when construction is complete. I know which way I want to go. You do use electricity, don't you? How do you think we are going to generate electricity when the EPA won't let the utilities burn coal anymore?
This story is completely inaccurate. A true "Assault Rifle" is a full-automatic rifle that is highly restricted to people in the US. I am sure that the gentleman in question fires a semi-automatic rifle that looks like an AK, but is actually a chinese made copy. You need to get your facts straight and stop trying to sensationalize the story beyond what it is - a drunk who did something stupid.
Last login: Monday, November 22, 2010
© 2014 News Tribune Publishing.