Today: Iraq

[ShadowHM]

The thing about conservation promotion is that it's easy to convince people that conservation is a good thing, but it's very hard to convince people and businesses to make any specific sacrifices in order to conserve energy.

Making people pay realistic fees for it would go a long way toward 'encouraging' conservation.

Replacement cost fee schedules would be a start. Getting government legislation out of the fee structures would be an Good Thing™ too.

New York State gets most of its electricity from Hydro Quebec, which, in turn gets most of its electricity from two huge hydroelectric projects - one in Newfoundland, which got screwed over for the payments scheduled over the 40 (?) year contract. The balance comes from a project that flooded an area larger than many U.S. states.

There are no more places to get electricity that don't cost hugely in terms that the public are starting to understand. (Maybe, sorta) There are a handful of 'wild' rivers on the continent, and there is a desire to protect them. The pollution costs of coal are high, and the cost of compliance with a reasonable level of 'scrubbing' is also very high. Setting the cost of current fees for electrical power at 'replacement' costs would make sure that Johhny and Jane Q. Public get the message.

However.....

In my own province of Ontario, the government now (again) regulates electricity costs to make sure that we, the people, don't have to pay too much for it. This is contrary to an election promise, but what government is able to withstand the 'oh gawd - it hurts' message being screamed at them by all manner of voting constituents?

I know for a fact that several very promising wind generation projects just went on hold when the regulation re-appeared. (I am not trying to claim that wind generation is the answer to the problem, I just want to make it clear that we buy our electricity for much less than 'replacement cost' in any form.)