Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

What Kind of Post is This?



October 21, 2009 – Comments (7)

Is this an Investing post warning you to watch out for the EPA? 

Is this a Gov't is too big post? To big to bother enforcing rules? Is Gov't too big if it cannot enforce its rules?

Is this a healthcare costs post? Not a health insurance costs post?

Here goes, with thanks to The NY Times for the data and Chart Porn for posting it.

Coal powered plants:

Hatfields Ferry, Masontown PA, 49 water pollution violations (not air pollution).

Ipalco Indianapolis IN, 49 violations

Georgia Power, Roopville GA, 50

Oppd, Omaha NE, 51

Archer daniels, Lincoln NE, 51

Duke, West Terre Haute, IN, 59

Nipsco, Michigan City, IN, 60

Danskammer, Newburgh, NY, 77

Horsehead, Monaca PA, 104

Nppd Sheldon, Hallam NE, 106

Eme, Homer City, PA, 109

Riverwood, Macon GA, 124

Mt Tom station, Holyoke MA, 186

Savannah, Savannah GA, 212

Reliant Enenrgy in New Florence PA, 392 violations

Total fines, $0

7 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On October 21, 2009 at 9:23 PM, USNHR (29.79) wrote:

I wonder what the age of those particular power plants are?

Report this comment
#2) On October 21, 2009 at 10:17 PM, Chromantix (90.16) wrote:

I submit that the $1,000,000,000,000.00 in government spending could have been better spent on nuclear power for a significant portion of the country and served the taxpayers better than what we got.

Throw in the cost of the Iraq and Afghan wars as well and we might have been able to power half the freaking nation.

Not a Democrat/Republican thing, but a common-sense thing.

Report this comment
#3) On October 21, 2009 at 10:54 PM, thefatalist (< 20) wrote:

Maybe somebody smarter than me (that would include pretty much everyone) could explain why we aren't entirely on nuclear power?  Aren't we all pretty smart these days about making these things safe?  Can't we shoot the bad stuff out into deep space?  And why does everyone get so wound up about the bad stuff getting sent into space?  "Oh, we can't litter space," they say.  Why?  It's better than littering on Earth.

Report this comment
#4) On October 22, 2009 at 12:00 AM, caterpillar10 wrote:

our alien masters will never tolerate deep space nuke pollution:) 

someone actually questioned my suggestion (oh how dare they:) the other day that quality manufactures of water purification and pollution abatement equipment would be an area to research for good long term equity holdings.  

Report this comment
#5) On October 22, 2009 at 12:43 AM, JakilaTheHun (99.92) wrote:

This actually helps contribute to distortions in the market, as well.  I've been arguing this for awhile --- the costs of this sort of contamination and pollution just get passed onto general taxpayers.  Hence, our tax burden increases by allowing this.  Moreover, it makes coal *look* much cheaper than it is in actuality.

Everyone above seems to be high on nuclear power.  Nuclear has its benefits and detriments just like everything else. It's not a miracle solution.  Increasing nuclear production may or may not be a good solution.  I don't think I'd have a problem with some increase in nuclear, but marketing it as a cure all is dangerous. 

Increasing natural gas usage seems like the most practical alternative to me in the short-term.  Long-term, more development of geothermal power in the West would do wonders.  The Eastern US --- not so simple, however.  In the next century, a combination of nuclear, natural gas, wind, and solar might end up being the direction we go East of the Rockies.

Report this comment
#6) On October 22, 2009 at 12:44 AM, JakilaTheHun (99.92) wrote:

Btw, where's the link to this data, devoish?

Report this comment
#7) On October 22, 2009 at 6:10 AM, devoish (71.86) wrote:

Here you go Jakila,

BTW I agree with your answer, Build 2-3 nuclear plants as the experiments that they still are, Solar could supply 100% of our power with less land used than coal. Nat gas is a good cleaner conversion option for younger coal plants and is probably a good way to get value from the infrastructure. Older coal plants may not be worth it and possibly should be scrapped.

Right now Nuclear's only value is mainatining the technology. I would be in favor of some small Nukes to keep the tech moving. 


Good question and I do not know the answer.


Maybe somebody smarter than me (that would include pretty much everyone) could explain why we aren't entirely on nuclear power?

America is like a little child that needs to grow up. A post that points out our inability to not pollute with coal plants should explain why a 200 year old Nation is not up to the task of not polluting with neclear waste which will be a risk for centurys.

It is kind of like getting a nuclear puppy for a child who cannot remember to water a houseplant.


1 tril is probably not enough. Nuclear is the most expensive power source by far, including being more expensive solar.

Beware the nuke lobby. They give cost estimates based upn older technology that does not include the newer cleaner technology they promise they can deliver.

No nuclear power plant has ever been built under budget or on time.

I have to wait ten years for my nuclear investment to make power

I can have power from my renewable investment in less than a year.

The cost of decommissioning a nuclear plant are underestimated, and an un-funded liability that the taxpayer will pick up.

They use loads of "fast becoming scarce" water for cooling.

They are a military liability.

I could go on, but its early and I just had coffee.



The NY Times for the data and Chart Porn for posting it.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners