Government Dogs
Seeing the controversy unfold surrounding the decision of the Department of Lands and Natural Resources to go into the veterinary business makes me wonder what other government agencies might wish to foray into private industry. Maybe the Water Division over at CUC would like to start a scuba dive business for Japanese tourists. We have a Public Health Department that could open a chain of retail health food stores and they could sell prescription pharmaceuticals, too. Maybe our Department of Finance should open up a bank or two. Why shouldn't all the real estate be sold by the Department of Public Lands?
Public Works has all that construction equipment standing around, think how nice it would be if they just went into the private development and construction business. No overhead, don't need to make a profit to stay in business; the very people you compete against have to pay the salary of the government employees and overhead for the Department that competes against them. What could be more fair? The Department of Energy could own all the gas stations and sell all the auto fuel. Commerce could own all the other stores.
The suggestions I made in the above two paragraphs are absurd. So what is the difference between what I suggest and the current practice of DLNR opening up a Vet clinic? Nothing. No difference at all.
May it be suggested that since the compassionate and dedicated Dr. Dela Cruz feels strongly about providing free, or low-cost veterinary services, that he do so on his own dime and his own time and not at taxpayers expense in direct competition with private tax paying clinics. All are then well served.
* * *
No more dinosaur juice?
I am intrigued by the sound research, seemingly objective reporting and well written briefings we have been getting from Dr. Tom Arkle of Tinian about nuclear power. We owe him a debt of gratitude for searching out this data and presenting it to us as an alternative to our present energy crisis.
I for one hope that the info is correct and that these new modular nuclear generators perform as advertised; meaning cleanly, safely and economically. Being the perennial curmudgeon, however, prompts me to ask the following questions: Where in the world could we go to see an example of one of these modular systems actually in operation? How long has it been working there? What are the actual audited operating expenses and resultant KWh fees charged to end use customers? Has a module ever been run out and changed for a new one? What was the actual cost? If the company we buy from goes out of business 15 years from now, what do we do for spare parts or a module change or a warrantee call? Can it be assumed that another supplier would or could perform in their absence? What happens if they build it and the darned thing just does not work as they claimed it would? And finally, will Mr. Arkle mind if they build it next door to his house? It has to be built next to someone.
These questions don't mean it can't be done or that it shouldn't be done. It just means we need to ask about worst-case scenarios while doing our due diligence. I would love to see a modular nuclear power source, a tidal energy converter, a wind farm and last century's diesel powered generators all competing head to head for our electric business. And I would like to be drinking almost unlimited quantities of pure water from a desalinization plant like I did as a child back in the Florida Keys. Competition means lower prices. Advanced technology could mean easier, more comfortable living with time to enjoy our beautiful island.
* * *
Coal and sticks for Christmas
There is one more power generation alternative that deserves our attention. A coal-fired system is low tech and easy to maintain-easy, fast and cheap to build, and produces inexpensive electricity. There are plentiful and cheap supplies of coal fairly close to us in Papua New Guinea and huge, cheap supplies in China. We could buy a cargo ship and deliver our own supply as well as help our island neighbors build coal-fired plants. By delivering coal to them too, we would reduce our own cost even further by selling some to them. Since we live on a small island with constantly blowing trade winds we need not worry about air pollution. Perhaps the single greatest advantage to coal power after it's cheap cost is that it can be built quickly and could be up and running before the other alternatives were even out of their planning stage. We should look very seriously at this alternative.
My own idea is to bring in about 50,000 Indonesian laborers working for 60 cents a day. Issue 100,000 sticks and have them rub said sticks together to generate the heat to burn tangan tangan and scarlet ivy gourd fueling 75,000 rotating hamster cages to produce our power via electro-mechanical induction. Indo-tangan-ham Induction could be the savior of developing nations around the world.or not. Just in case it does not work quite as well as planned, I'm wondering what the market for hamster jerky is?
One thing is certain: Just about any alternative is better than the antiquated and worn-out diesel powered plant we now have. Our CUC production facility employees work valiantly trying to keep those junkyard engines running, but you can only patch up a smoker for so long before it just dies altogether. Why not let anyone interested in building a power source do so? Competition will winnow out the inefficient ones.
* * *
Quote of the week: It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong. -Richard Feynman, physicist, Nobel laureate (1918-1988)
(Bruce A. Bateman writes Sour Grapes when the moon is full and the mood strikes. Stay tuned for each exciting episode. “Yes, he is opinionated.” bbateman@pticom.com, www.SaipanBlog.com.)
Home | Weather | Advertising | Classifieds | Subscription | Contact
Us | About Us | Archives
©2006 Saipan Tribune. All Rights Reserved
