1) Even the dirtiest plants are still very clean.
2) Are you willing to give up your electricity so that others won't have to go without this winter? Since you are so in favor of those plants being shut?

John Q., you can't eat the fish because of mercury that DIDN"T come from American power plants.

Most of the mercury currently in the environment comes from the runoff of 3rd world mining operations.

But even ignoring that, each of China's enormous # of power plants puts as much mercury into the air as almost the entire American system put together.

But would you to prefer cripple the american economy and have poor people freeze in the dark to offset a tiny portion of this?

Two answers, Bill.

First, there's not enough time. It takes (assuming no environmentalist group lawsuits) about 3 years just to get all the proper permits to build a new power plant. These regulations will shut down plants in 3 years. So there will most definitely be a lapse.

Second, the Obama administration looks at Europe as their model, where a larger percentage of power is wind based. There are two problems with this. First, we can't build enough windmills and the high voltage transmission lines fast enough to replace the lost power, and two, the resulting increase in cost will be about 2.5x. Now, maybe you can absorb a doubling or tripling of your electric bill, but I can't. Many seniors on fixed incomes can't.

This isn't just about dirty power plants. Power plants, on average, are cleaner than ever. And utility companies are continuing to make improvements. This is all about pushing the production of alternative, unproven high cost energy at the cost of a proven product.

Hey Rillion, we already have had rolling blackouts this year in California and Texas, amongst other places. Where were you?

Do you think that the situation will get better or worse if we take plants offline, especially with a growing population making it even worse?

And do you think higher home heating bills will have a greater effect on the rich or the poor?

Oh sorry, I was using facts and logic again.
When I do that the liberal readers just get confused.

Again, I will wait to see if these blackouts you are predicting due to lack of electricity come to pass. As for my "health fetishes", um, how does saying that businesses have no right to dump their waste products on the public equal having a health fetish? No where in my post did I mention "health" yet you try to paint me as having 'health fetishes'. It is sad that rather then address the argument I made, you instead make a petty personal attack.

We will await the breathless media reports next summer on the "poor and minorities being hardest hit" by the rolling blackouts on the power grid.

And, of course, the utter unfairness of rate increases as demand for scarce power outstrips the reduced supply.

The diminishing returns on the minor reduction in emissions from these plants shutting down are far less valuable than the jobs maintained by:
- keeping the plants running
- keeping the cost of electricity low

How much damage to health due to unemployment is figured into the EPA's cost/benefit analyses?
None - because they don't do them.

The loss of the electricity from these plants will reduce the living standards of far more people to a far greater degree than the slight change in emissions.

I'm slightly confused, though perhaps I shouldn't be; is it shameless because she's pretending to be hard on toxic chemicals while in reality giving emitters extra time to clean up, or is it shameless because these rules are causing power plants to shut down with the excuse that it's "for the children"?

"I'm slightly confused" ... thats ok, you are a liberal and that is to be expected when facts are involved ...