Right, Robert W Farkas. When something similar happened in Tennessee residents were told it would be cleaned up in 4 weeks. 4 years later, they still aren't finished. But by all means keep your head in the sand (or in the coal ash).

Bren - 4 years, great. I ask, What was final the environmental impact? The environmentalists are finding very little to complain about.

Joseph Briere, Where in anything did I write we do "not need the EPA"? I did not. So you are either very confused or intentional trying to twist my words. Neither reflects well on an individual.
Very typical of liberals who "feel" about things rather than think about reality., does that apply to you?
It is just like those commercials they make showing white "smoke" billowing out of stacks. They want the viewer to relate it to pollution when in reality that is water vapor from the scrubbers, harmless. Or how about the commercial with the diesel smoking black fumes? Get a Clean Diesil now... Ever wonder why diesels were exempt from testing? No? Maybe you haven thought that deep into anything. That smoke is basically harmless and has minimal effect on the environment.
Regulations are fine when they are realistic and well thought out. Feel good agendas do not serve man, they hinder progress.
Words and scientific evidence have meaning, warm huggy feelings do not.

You're right! We don't need no stinkin' EPA. What was that Republican President Nixon thinking when he founded that useless organization? Ponder Robert's 9.42am post carefully. It's just fluffy white steam coming out of the smokestacks and the jet engines. And it's the liberals who "feel" things instead of providing endless sourcing from reputable news sources and peer journals. They're the ones who are uninformed, and shame on them! "Feel good agendas do not serve man, they hinder progress." Progress is always more the most important thing when you are a millionaire like Robert W. Farkus.

His solution is as absurd as his criticism. Lets take form the rich and put it towards green energy. I would like him to point out ONE source of green energy that could replace the energy created by coal. Just one current source.

Also, his complete lack of investigation fails to point out that nearly 50% of coal ash is used in concrete and asphalt. This reduces the cost of those products and has a chain reaction of cost reduction for a lot of other products.

Lastly, a careful reading of his Duke study shows that all of the fire and brimstone is only a guess at what could happen given the environment reacts as they have predicted. However, looking at the Kingston massive coal ash spill as an example. The down river effects are nill and the total impact has been underwhelming to all environmentalist.

You're so silly! I like you.

You have used only assumptions in your statement and have included no facts. Obviously I don't want coal ash dumped into the like; but I challenge the authors premis that our water is now undrinkable, that the sky is falling and that it is the fault of the GOP.

Also, if my memory serves me correctly in 1993 (as I have stated as my first EPA quote) the president was Bill Clinton and both the House and Senate were controlled by Dems. Must all liberal arguements end with the blaming of Bush.

@Schmidt0675....Are you denying that Bush hobbled the EPA? If you think he didn't why don't you ask Meg Whitman.

Lyle - As I re-read my own post, I notice that I never denied any action (good or bad) of the EPA while Bush was in office. Rather I appear to point out that one of the EPA's acknowledgements of coal ash not being toxic occured during the Clinton Administration. Hence, if you wish question the misguided deeds of the W's administration, you must also question the deeds of the Clinton Administration.

Hey Schmidt0675 a.k.a. Einstein, here's a link about coal ash: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste.

I didn't see anything in the article suggesting that the author is promoting the idea that "our water is now undrinkable..." ad nauseum. So who's freestylin; now, Einstein?

@Schmidt0675 -

In case you haven't learned this already, it's not Lyle's style to admit the short-comings of Democrats - only Republicans.

Bren - I am far from being an Einstein, but thanks for the compliment. Rather, I am able to construct an opinion based on facts and not some emotional rant that is not backed by facts.

First, did you actually read the entire article you posted. On page 2 the author acknowledges "that's still less than the radiation encountered in normal yearly exposure to X-rays." or "In most areas, the ash contains less uranium than some common rocks." This comes from a USGS study. So what ever you attempted to prove, you kinda helped my case. That this is not a sky is falling concern.

Second, Jason does try to make the point that our water will be contaminated when he says, "I have two small children and sure as hell do not want them drinking water that might have dangerous levels of mercury or arsenic in it. "

Lastly, the article you posted was comparing coal ash to water shielded or dry storage cast nuclear waste. Another item we as a society allow to exist. I saw nothing in that article changes my mind. I only see you and Jason making a mountain out of a mole hill. The accident at the lake front is not good; however, it is also not the Exxon Valdez hitting the lake shore in Oak Creek.

WE Energies paid $180,000 to lobbyists to manipulate regulations. I'm taking that deep breath. How is it being responded to? With a flimsy barrier in Lake Michigan. What can we learn here? That WE Energies is gouging us and using that money to pay lobbyists. Who needs to be involved to ensure water and air safety? The EPA, except that they have been underfunded and circumvented by corporate special interests. Can this lead to changes in future storing/holding of waste? No, except to make sure it's not kept near rich people's summer cottages. Yes we have a crisis, but with no corporate interest in taking care of the 99%, no arms will be locking today.

Odd how much did the banks and other lending firms donate to Obama before and after his stimulus? How about Solyndra? The lobbyists give to the party in power or the party who can help them, neither GOP or DEM is immune. So your argument about what WE paid is pointless.

What should we be doing? Should we drain the lake like a tub, bust out the SCJohnson Scrubbing Bubbles and clean that section of lake shore? They will get it cleaned and we will look back, learn and be wiser without ever making Milwaukee the first nuclear city.

I wonder what your rates would be if the Dems had not imposed outrageous restrictions on energy production. Oh, but wait we are saving the planet. If we are actually saving the planet, then expect to pay for it.

@Schmidt0675...You are right about one thing, you get what you pay for. Your claims that they will clean it up it probably correct. However, there remains a potential risk that needs to be dealt with. Coal fired power plants are not the only solution and you know this. It is not regulation that has forced power generation to be so expensive but past bad behavior. Because power generators didn't do the right thing before, they can't be trusted. As far as I am concerned electric generation should be nationalized as well as transmission networks. We have over a century of coal used for power generation and it's not clean. The average citizen doesn't really understand the seriousness of the threat.

@Robert W Farkas...If we hadn't been diddling around for the last 40 years we would have alternative solutions by now. I've spent many years in Europe and they're a lot further along than we are. We all know that it is going to be not one solution but many solutions. Rather than centralizing power generation we should be decentralizing and choosing power generation that makes the most sense for a given area. Most people don't care as long as the light switch comes on and they have fuel for their car. Increased awareness equals increased responsibility.

@Lyle Ruble... What country, in the EU, has their electricity generation components balanced in a way you find reasonable? What are those components? I belive France is about 80% nuclear and their power supply is very reliable and one of the lowest cost in the EU too.

@Jay Sykes...The nations I have in mind are the Scandinavian nations. France has safely used nuclear power.

@Lyle -

Personally, I envy France's nuclear power program - wish we had a system like that over here!

@JRH... Based on reliability and cost per/Kwh, if the agreed upon objective is to lower our reliance on 'dirty coal' for electricity generation, we should transition to nuclear for our base-load electricity needs. In the summer, base-load(night) is about 1/3 of peak(day) demand. Nuclear 'currently' supplies about 1/5 of our electricity needs.

@Tonto...As far you are concerned, drill baby drill and suck it dry.