Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#5351
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <b5b4685f.0312020909.625534a5@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<O0Lyb.274685$ao4.944751@attbi_s51>...
>> In article <b5b4685f.0312010918.6e702dc5@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
>>
>> > They are going to move production of CO2 to China? All those
>> > inefficient old coal-fired power plants are going to China?
>>
>> What is better? An old inefficient regulated to be as clean as feasiable
>> coal power plant in the USA feeding a factory with electricity or a
>> quick-and-dirty-old-tech-soviet-style coal plant in china feeding a
>> factory? Which is better for the environment?
>>
>> And why do we have old coal plants in the USA? Because any new plants
>> are opposed on environmental grounds. And new and better means of
>> generation are opposed on environmental grounds. So what we get
>> is the status quo. The status quo remains because change is not
>> possible.
> Yeah, the old rightwing fantasy factory rides again. Do you recall the
> Clean Air Act? Do you recall that the power companies piteously pled
> for and were granted an exemption for their old coal and oil fuelled
> plants, since the power companies promised that they were going to be
> all mothballed soon anyway and it would be purely wasteful to upgrade
> them for the short time they will be in operation? Well, it's thirty
> years later now, and here in CT, half the electricity is still being
> produced by those old 'soon to be mothballed' plants, known locally as
> the Filthy Five. This is not because the utility companies are just
> dying to build some expensive clean new plants and the
> environmentalists just won't let them.
30 years ago eh? 30 years ago everything was going to be replaced
by nuclear plants. Remember? No more smoke stacks. But no, nukes
couldn't be allowed. Now people are trying to make wind power work,
but environmentalists have stepped in again, this time they don't
like the way they *LOOK*, and are worried about birds flying into
the blades.
What exactly are these non-opposed power plants that the utility
companies can just go out and build? How do they generate power?
Since new plants of any kind are opposed, the old ones just continue
on.
Or is your goal to simply shut down the old plants without any
replacements so people end up just going without electricity?
> It's purely because it's much
> cheaper to run these monstrosities unmodified than it is to build new
> plants, despite the environmentalists screaming to trade them for
> clean new plants or else update them.
Back in the day they were to be replaced with nuclear facilities.
But that never happened. Now there are attempts to gain extra capacity
with wind power, but that too is opposed. WHAT KIND OF POWER PLANT COULD
THEY BUILD WITHOUT OBJECTIONS THAT WOULD STIFLE THE PROJECT AND DRIVE THE
COSTS SKY HIGH? Until you can answer that question, your point is invalid.
> The Reagan and Bush I
> administrations refused to enforce the part of the Clean Air Act that
> requires the companies to install upgraded pollution controls if they
> were doing significant expansions to the plants, in contrast to
> routine maintenance, allowing the Filthy Five to actually expand their
> filthy emissions. The Clinton administration finally starts to enforce
> this provision, and what happens? The Bush junta reverses the
> enforcement decision. And in response to this boondoggle, the
> utilities raise their rates 10%.
Still cleaner than plants in china.
> According to the utility companies' own reports, the Filthy Five
> generate over 66% of the sulfur dioxide and 11% of the nitrogen oxide
> produced annually in Connecticut from all sources, including cars. And
> in case you have the wrong impression about CT, the EPA rates the air
> as "seriously unhealthful" in 97% of CT for at least part of the year.
> This is quite literally life and death for people who breathe the air,
> as most of us do, versus fattening the bank accounts of those few
> lucky enough to be in a position to get an executive bonus for
> deciding to harm other people's health.
Sounds like you should have nukes built. Oh that's right they are opposed
on environmental grounds. Oh and then there is that wind farm out in that
part of the country that somebody wants to build... damn, all the rich
liberals don't want to look at the turbines, that one goes down the tubes
too. What's your magic alternative to generate electric power?
>> > And do
>> > what, export the electricity to the US, or sell the average Chinese
>> > more electricity? How's that going to work? After all, the EPA has
>> > been on the back of coal-fired powerplants and coal mining for decades
>> > as the two biggest sources of pollution in the US currently, and the
>> > regulations somehow haven't managed to move them to China yet, why are
>> > CO2 regulations going to cause them to move?
>> Your choice of arguement is patently stupid. You take something that
>> isn't feasiable to relocate because of the infastructure required.
>> However what is economically feasiable to relocate, factories that
>> make products that can be shipped back to the USA, are being relocated.
> But it's not the factories that make products that are burning coal,
> it's the power plants that you say aren't feasible to relocate. So how
> exactly is Kyoto going to move the CO2 production in your mental
> picture?
Power plant -> factory.
Each time you move a factory to china, china's power grid has to supply
it. They burn more coal to generate electricity for that factory. So
you've just moved the source of the CO2 from the USA to China. It's that
simple. And on top of it, no matter how dirty you think US coal fired
power plants are, they are damn near totally clean compared to those
in china.
>> If it became economically feasiable to relocate electric power
>> generation, it would get relocated to places with lower levels
>> of regulation.
> And since it isn't, it won't.
So by elimination you admit that your bringing it up was nothing more than a
diversionary debate tatic.
>> > Have you noticed how much manufacturing has moved to the thrid world
>> > from the US already? Exactly what energy intensive manufacturers are
>> > going to pack up and leave that have not already?
>> What companies will stay at all if more regulation is heaped on the US
>> further tipping the market scales in favor of china?
> The ones that involve burning coal and oil to produce electricity, for
> one.
How do you think power is generated in china? How do you think those
factories get their electricity? That's right coal.
>> > Are the car
>> > companies who are now starting to manufacture more in the US, despite
>> > more environmental and labor regulation than the third world, going to
>> > change their minds and close down again because of CO2 regulations?
>> Another invalid arguement. The foreign automakers building plants in
>> the USA are from Germany and Japan. Other nations with similiar labor
>> and environmental regulations. The USA competes on an near equal footing
>> with those nations with regards to factory locations. The nature of
>> the product demands it be built in a developed nation, and since the
>> USA is the largest market for that product, it makes economic sense
>> to locate the plant here. But, if china can ever be trusted to build
>> cars and the savings were greater than the shipping costs and taxes
>> well expect that production to move there too.
> And this all hinges on the right to produce energy in a
> fuel-inefficient fashion in the US? Gee.
Name one kind of power plant that can be built without opposition.
When new technology is strongly opposed, then the status quo remains.
You want to know why we still have coal plants, look at what happens
when a company tries to build something else.
With wind power becoming a reality, environmentalists are coming out
of the woodwork to oppose it. It was fine for them so long as it wasn't
technologically and economically feasiable to use as a counterpoint
against existing generation methods, but now that the problems are being
worked out and turbines are going up around the nation they've suddenly
found objections to it.
It leaves but one conclusion, the noble cause of protecting the
environment is not the goal. The goal is to further political and
social agendas using protection of the environment as the *MEANS*
to sell it. Nothing makes it more obvious that the opposition to
wind power and the way the kyoto treaty was crafted.
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<O0Lyb.274685$ao4.944751@attbi_s51>...
>> In article <b5b4685f.0312010918.6e702dc5@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
>>
>> > They are going to move production of CO2 to China? All those
>> > inefficient old coal-fired power plants are going to China?
>>
>> What is better? An old inefficient regulated to be as clean as feasiable
>> coal power plant in the USA feeding a factory with electricity or a
>> quick-and-dirty-old-tech-soviet-style coal plant in china feeding a
>> factory? Which is better for the environment?
>>
>> And why do we have old coal plants in the USA? Because any new plants
>> are opposed on environmental grounds. And new and better means of
>> generation are opposed on environmental grounds. So what we get
>> is the status quo. The status quo remains because change is not
>> possible.
> Yeah, the old rightwing fantasy factory rides again. Do you recall the
> Clean Air Act? Do you recall that the power companies piteously pled
> for and were granted an exemption for their old coal and oil fuelled
> plants, since the power companies promised that they were going to be
> all mothballed soon anyway and it would be purely wasteful to upgrade
> them for the short time they will be in operation? Well, it's thirty
> years later now, and here in CT, half the electricity is still being
> produced by those old 'soon to be mothballed' plants, known locally as
> the Filthy Five. This is not because the utility companies are just
> dying to build some expensive clean new plants and the
> environmentalists just won't let them.
30 years ago eh? 30 years ago everything was going to be replaced
by nuclear plants. Remember? No more smoke stacks. But no, nukes
couldn't be allowed. Now people are trying to make wind power work,
but environmentalists have stepped in again, this time they don't
like the way they *LOOK*, and are worried about birds flying into
the blades.
What exactly are these non-opposed power plants that the utility
companies can just go out and build? How do they generate power?
Since new plants of any kind are opposed, the old ones just continue
on.
Or is your goal to simply shut down the old plants without any
replacements so people end up just going without electricity?
> It's purely because it's much
> cheaper to run these monstrosities unmodified than it is to build new
> plants, despite the environmentalists screaming to trade them for
> clean new plants or else update them.
Back in the day they were to be replaced with nuclear facilities.
But that never happened. Now there are attempts to gain extra capacity
with wind power, but that too is opposed. WHAT KIND OF POWER PLANT COULD
THEY BUILD WITHOUT OBJECTIONS THAT WOULD STIFLE THE PROJECT AND DRIVE THE
COSTS SKY HIGH? Until you can answer that question, your point is invalid.
> The Reagan and Bush I
> administrations refused to enforce the part of the Clean Air Act that
> requires the companies to install upgraded pollution controls if they
> were doing significant expansions to the plants, in contrast to
> routine maintenance, allowing the Filthy Five to actually expand their
> filthy emissions. The Clinton administration finally starts to enforce
> this provision, and what happens? The Bush junta reverses the
> enforcement decision. And in response to this boondoggle, the
> utilities raise their rates 10%.
Still cleaner than plants in china.
> According to the utility companies' own reports, the Filthy Five
> generate over 66% of the sulfur dioxide and 11% of the nitrogen oxide
> produced annually in Connecticut from all sources, including cars. And
> in case you have the wrong impression about CT, the EPA rates the air
> as "seriously unhealthful" in 97% of CT for at least part of the year.
> This is quite literally life and death for people who breathe the air,
> as most of us do, versus fattening the bank accounts of those few
> lucky enough to be in a position to get an executive bonus for
> deciding to harm other people's health.
Sounds like you should have nukes built. Oh that's right they are opposed
on environmental grounds. Oh and then there is that wind farm out in that
part of the country that somebody wants to build... damn, all the rich
liberals don't want to look at the turbines, that one goes down the tubes
too. What's your magic alternative to generate electric power?
>> > And do
>> > what, export the electricity to the US, or sell the average Chinese
>> > more electricity? How's that going to work? After all, the EPA has
>> > been on the back of coal-fired powerplants and coal mining for decades
>> > as the two biggest sources of pollution in the US currently, and the
>> > regulations somehow haven't managed to move them to China yet, why are
>> > CO2 regulations going to cause them to move?
>> Your choice of arguement is patently stupid. You take something that
>> isn't feasiable to relocate because of the infastructure required.
>> However what is economically feasiable to relocate, factories that
>> make products that can be shipped back to the USA, are being relocated.
> But it's not the factories that make products that are burning coal,
> it's the power plants that you say aren't feasible to relocate. So how
> exactly is Kyoto going to move the CO2 production in your mental
> picture?
Power plant -> factory.
Each time you move a factory to china, china's power grid has to supply
it. They burn more coal to generate electricity for that factory. So
you've just moved the source of the CO2 from the USA to China. It's that
simple. And on top of it, no matter how dirty you think US coal fired
power plants are, they are damn near totally clean compared to those
in china.
>> If it became economically feasiable to relocate electric power
>> generation, it would get relocated to places with lower levels
>> of regulation.
> And since it isn't, it won't.
So by elimination you admit that your bringing it up was nothing more than a
diversionary debate tatic.
>> > Have you noticed how much manufacturing has moved to the thrid world
>> > from the US already? Exactly what energy intensive manufacturers are
>> > going to pack up and leave that have not already?
>> What companies will stay at all if more regulation is heaped on the US
>> further tipping the market scales in favor of china?
> The ones that involve burning coal and oil to produce electricity, for
> one.
How do you think power is generated in china? How do you think those
factories get their electricity? That's right coal.
>> > Are the car
>> > companies who are now starting to manufacture more in the US, despite
>> > more environmental and labor regulation than the third world, going to
>> > change their minds and close down again because of CO2 regulations?
>> Another invalid arguement. The foreign automakers building plants in
>> the USA are from Germany and Japan. Other nations with similiar labor
>> and environmental regulations. The USA competes on an near equal footing
>> with those nations with regards to factory locations. The nature of
>> the product demands it be built in a developed nation, and since the
>> USA is the largest market for that product, it makes economic sense
>> to locate the plant here. But, if china can ever be trusted to build
>> cars and the savings were greater than the shipping costs and taxes
>> well expect that production to move there too.
> And this all hinges on the right to produce energy in a
> fuel-inefficient fashion in the US? Gee.
Name one kind of power plant that can be built without opposition.
When new technology is strongly opposed, then the status quo remains.
You want to know why we still have coal plants, look at what happens
when a company tries to build something else.
With wind power becoming a reality, environmentalists are coming out
of the woodwork to oppose it. It was fine for them so long as it wasn't
technologically and economically feasiable to use as a counterpoint
against existing generation methods, but now that the problems are being
worked out and turbines are going up around the nation they've suddenly
found objections to it.
It leaves but one conclusion, the noble cause of protecting the
environment is not the goal. The goal is to further political and
social agendas using protection of the environment as the *MEANS*
to sell it. Nothing makes it more obvious that the opposition to
wind power and the way the kyoto treaty was crafted.
#5352
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <b5b4685f.0312020909.625534a5@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<O0Lyb.274685$ao4.944751@attbi_s51>...
>> In article <b5b4685f.0312010918.6e702dc5@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
>>
>> > They are going to move production of CO2 to China? All those
>> > inefficient old coal-fired power plants are going to China?
>>
>> What is better? An old inefficient regulated to be as clean as feasiable
>> coal power plant in the USA feeding a factory with electricity or a
>> quick-and-dirty-old-tech-soviet-style coal plant in china feeding a
>> factory? Which is better for the environment?
>>
>> And why do we have old coal plants in the USA? Because any new plants
>> are opposed on environmental grounds. And new and better means of
>> generation are opposed on environmental grounds. So what we get
>> is the status quo. The status quo remains because change is not
>> possible.
> Yeah, the old rightwing fantasy factory rides again. Do you recall the
> Clean Air Act? Do you recall that the power companies piteously pled
> for and were granted an exemption for their old coal and oil fuelled
> plants, since the power companies promised that they were going to be
> all mothballed soon anyway and it would be purely wasteful to upgrade
> them for the short time they will be in operation? Well, it's thirty
> years later now, and here in CT, half the electricity is still being
> produced by those old 'soon to be mothballed' plants, known locally as
> the Filthy Five. This is not because the utility companies are just
> dying to build some expensive clean new plants and the
> environmentalists just won't let them.
30 years ago eh? 30 years ago everything was going to be replaced
by nuclear plants. Remember? No more smoke stacks. But no, nukes
couldn't be allowed. Now people are trying to make wind power work,
but environmentalists have stepped in again, this time they don't
like the way they *LOOK*, and are worried about birds flying into
the blades.
What exactly are these non-opposed power plants that the utility
companies can just go out and build? How do they generate power?
Since new plants of any kind are opposed, the old ones just continue
on.
Or is your goal to simply shut down the old plants without any
replacements so people end up just going without electricity?
> It's purely because it's much
> cheaper to run these monstrosities unmodified than it is to build new
> plants, despite the environmentalists screaming to trade them for
> clean new plants or else update them.
Back in the day they were to be replaced with nuclear facilities.
But that never happened. Now there are attempts to gain extra capacity
with wind power, but that too is opposed. WHAT KIND OF POWER PLANT COULD
THEY BUILD WITHOUT OBJECTIONS THAT WOULD STIFLE THE PROJECT AND DRIVE THE
COSTS SKY HIGH? Until you can answer that question, your point is invalid.
> The Reagan and Bush I
> administrations refused to enforce the part of the Clean Air Act that
> requires the companies to install upgraded pollution controls if they
> were doing significant expansions to the plants, in contrast to
> routine maintenance, allowing the Filthy Five to actually expand their
> filthy emissions. The Clinton administration finally starts to enforce
> this provision, and what happens? The Bush junta reverses the
> enforcement decision. And in response to this boondoggle, the
> utilities raise their rates 10%.
Still cleaner than plants in china.
> According to the utility companies' own reports, the Filthy Five
> generate over 66% of the sulfur dioxide and 11% of the nitrogen oxide
> produced annually in Connecticut from all sources, including cars. And
> in case you have the wrong impression about CT, the EPA rates the air
> as "seriously unhealthful" in 97% of CT for at least part of the year.
> This is quite literally life and death for people who breathe the air,
> as most of us do, versus fattening the bank accounts of those few
> lucky enough to be in a position to get an executive bonus for
> deciding to harm other people's health.
Sounds like you should have nukes built. Oh that's right they are opposed
on environmental grounds. Oh and then there is that wind farm out in that
part of the country that somebody wants to build... damn, all the rich
liberals don't want to look at the turbines, that one goes down the tubes
too. What's your magic alternative to generate electric power?
>> > And do
>> > what, export the electricity to the US, or sell the average Chinese
>> > more electricity? How's that going to work? After all, the EPA has
>> > been on the back of coal-fired powerplants and coal mining for decades
>> > as the two biggest sources of pollution in the US currently, and the
>> > regulations somehow haven't managed to move them to China yet, why are
>> > CO2 regulations going to cause them to move?
>> Your choice of arguement is patently stupid. You take something that
>> isn't feasiable to relocate because of the infastructure required.
>> However what is economically feasiable to relocate, factories that
>> make products that can be shipped back to the USA, are being relocated.
> But it's not the factories that make products that are burning coal,
> it's the power plants that you say aren't feasible to relocate. So how
> exactly is Kyoto going to move the CO2 production in your mental
> picture?
Power plant -> factory.
Each time you move a factory to china, china's power grid has to supply
it. They burn more coal to generate electricity for that factory. So
you've just moved the source of the CO2 from the USA to China. It's that
simple. And on top of it, no matter how dirty you think US coal fired
power plants are, they are damn near totally clean compared to those
in china.
>> If it became economically feasiable to relocate electric power
>> generation, it would get relocated to places with lower levels
>> of regulation.
> And since it isn't, it won't.
So by elimination you admit that your bringing it up was nothing more than a
diversionary debate tatic.
>> > Have you noticed how much manufacturing has moved to the thrid world
>> > from the US already? Exactly what energy intensive manufacturers are
>> > going to pack up and leave that have not already?
>> What companies will stay at all if more regulation is heaped on the US
>> further tipping the market scales in favor of china?
> The ones that involve burning coal and oil to produce electricity, for
> one.
How do you think power is generated in china? How do you think those
factories get their electricity? That's right coal.
>> > Are the car
>> > companies who are now starting to manufacture more in the US, despite
>> > more environmental and labor regulation than the third world, going to
>> > change their minds and close down again because of CO2 regulations?
>> Another invalid arguement. The foreign automakers building plants in
>> the USA are from Germany and Japan. Other nations with similiar labor
>> and environmental regulations. The USA competes on an near equal footing
>> with those nations with regards to factory locations. The nature of
>> the product demands it be built in a developed nation, and since the
>> USA is the largest market for that product, it makes economic sense
>> to locate the plant here. But, if china can ever be trusted to build
>> cars and the savings were greater than the shipping costs and taxes
>> well expect that production to move there too.
> And this all hinges on the right to produce energy in a
> fuel-inefficient fashion in the US? Gee.
Name one kind of power plant that can be built without opposition.
When new technology is strongly opposed, then the status quo remains.
You want to know why we still have coal plants, look at what happens
when a company tries to build something else.
With wind power becoming a reality, environmentalists are coming out
of the woodwork to oppose it. It was fine for them so long as it wasn't
technologically and economically feasiable to use as a counterpoint
against existing generation methods, but now that the problems are being
worked out and turbines are going up around the nation they've suddenly
found objections to it.
It leaves but one conclusion, the noble cause of protecting the
environment is not the goal. The goal is to further political and
social agendas using protection of the environment as the *MEANS*
to sell it. Nothing makes it more obvious that the opposition to
wind power and the way the kyoto treaty was crafted.
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<O0Lyb.274685$ao4.944751@attbi_s51>...
>> In article <b5b4685f.0312010918.6e702dc5@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
>>
>> > They are going to move production of CO2 to China? All those
>> > inefficient old coal-fired power plants are going to China?
>>
>> What is better? An old inefficient regulated to be as clean as feasiable
>> coal power plant in the USA feeding a factory with electricity or a
>> quick-and-dirty-old-tech-soviet-style coal plant in china feeding a
>> factory? Which is better for the environment?
>>
>> And why do we have old coal plants in the USA? Because any new plants
>> are opposed on environmental grounds. And new and better means of
>> generation are opposed on environmental grounds. So what we get
>> is the status quo. The status quo remains because change is not
>> possible.
> Yeah, the old rightwing fantasy factory rides again. Do you recall the
> Clean Air Act? Do you recall that the power companies piteously pled
> for and were granted an exemption for their old coal and oil fuelled
> plants, since the power companies promised that they were going to be
> all mothballed soon anyway and it would be purely wasteful to upgrade
> them for the short time they will be in operation? Well, it's thirty
> years later now, and here in CT, half the electricity is still being
> produced by those old 'soon to be mothballed' plants, known locally as
> the Filthy Five. This is not because the utility companies are just
> dying to build some expensive clean new plants and the
> environmentalists just won't let them.
30 years ago eh? 30 years ago everything was going to be replaced
by nuclear plants. Remember? No more smoke stacks. But no, nukes
couldn't be allowed. Now people are trying to make wind power work,
but environmentalists have stepped in again, this time they don't
like the way they *LOOK*, and are worried about birds flying into
the blades.
What exactly are these non-opposed power plants that the utility
companies can just go out and build? How do they generate power?
Since new plants of any kind are opposed, the old ones just continue
on.
Or is your goal to simply shut down the old plants without any
replacements so people end up just going without electricity?
> It's purely because it's much
> cheaper to run these monstrosities unmodified than it is to build new
> plants, despite the environmentalists screaming to trade them for
> clean new plants or else update them.
Back in the day they were to be replaced with nuclear facilities.
But that never happened. Now there are attempts to gain extra capacity
with wind power, but that too is opposed. WHAT KIND OF POWER PLANT COULD
THEY BUILD WITHOUT OBJECTIONS THAT WOULD STIFLE THE PROJECT AND DRIVE THE
COSTS SKY HIGH? Until you can answer that question, your point is invalid.
> The Reagan and Bush I
> administrations refused to enforce the part of the Clean Air Act that
> requires the companies to install upgraded pollution controls if they
> were doing significant expansions to the plants, in contrast to
> routine maintenance, allowing the Filthy Five to actually expand their
> filthy emissions. The Clinton administration finally starts to enforce
> this provision, and what happens? The Bush junta reverses the
> enforcement decision. And in response to this boondoggle, the
> utilities raise their rates 10%.
Still cleaner than plants in china.
> According to the utility companies' own reports, the Filthy Five
> generate over 66% of the sulfur dioxide and 11% of the nitrogen oxide
> produced annually in Connecticut from all sources, including cars. And
> in case you have the wrong impression about CT, the EPA rates the air
> as "seriously unhealthful" in 97% of CT for at least part of the year.
> This is quite literally life and death for people who breathe the air,
> as most of us do, versus fattening the bank accounts of those few
> lucky enough to be in a position to get an executive bonus for
> deciding to harm other people's health.
Sounds like you should have nukes built. Oh that's right they are opposed
on environmental grounds. Oh and then there is that wind farm out in that
part of the country that somebody wants to build... damn, all the rich
liberals don't want to look at the turbines, that one goes down the tubes
too. What's your magic alternative to generate electric power?
>> > And do
>> > what, export the electricity to the US, or sell the average Chinese
>> > more electricity? How's that going to work? After all, the EPA has
>> > been on the back of coal-fired powerplants and coal mining for decades
>> > as the two biggest sources of pollution in the US currently, and the
>> > regulations somehow haven't managed to move them to China yet, why are
>> > CO2 regulations going to cause them to move?
>> Your choice of arguement is patently stupid. You take something that
>> isn't feasiable to relocate because of the infastructure required.
>> However what is economically feasiable to relocate, factories that
>> make products that can be shipped back to the USA, are being relocated.
> But it's not the factories that make products that are burning coal,
> it's the power plants that you say aren't feasible to relocate. So how
> exactly is Kyoto going to move the CO2 production in your mental
> picture?
Power plant -> factory.
Each time you move a factory to china, china's power grid has to supply
it. They burn more coal to generate electricity for that factory. So
you've just moved the source of the CO2 from the USA to China. It's that
simple. And on top of it, no matter how dirty you think US coal fired
power plants are, they are damn near totally clean compared to those
in china.
>> If it became economically feasiable to relocate electric power
>> generation, it would get relocated to places with lower levels
>> of regulation.
> And since it isn't, it won't.
So by elimination you admit that your bringing it up was nothing more than a
diversionary debate tatic.
>> > Have you noticed how much manufacturing has moved to the thrid world
>> > from the US already? Exactly what energy intensive manufacturers are
>> > going to pack up and leave that have not already?
>> What companies will stay at all if more regulation is heaped on the US
>> further tipping the market scales in favor of china?
> The ones that involve burning coal and oil to produce electricity, for
> one.
How do you think power is generated in china? How do you think those
factories get their electricity? That's right coal.
>> > Are the car
>> > companies who are now starting to manufacture more in the US, despite
>> > more environmental and labor regulation than the third world, going to
>> > change their minds and close down again because of CO2 regulations?
>> Another invalid arguement. The foreign automakers building plants in
>> the USA are from Germany and Japan. Other nations with similiar labor
>> and environmental regulations. The USA competes on an near equal footing
>> with those nations with regards to factory locations. The nature of
>> the product demands it be built in a developed nation, and since the
>> USA is the largest market for that product, it makes economic sense
>> to locate the plant here. But, if china can ever be trusted to build
>> cars and the savings were greater than the shipping costs and taxes
>> well expect that production to move there too.
> And this all hinges on the right to produce energy in a
> fuel-inefficient fashion in the US? Gee.
Name one kind of power plant that can be built without opposition.
When new technology is strongly opposed, then the status quo remains.
You want to know why we still have coal plants, look at what happens
when a company tries to build something else.
With wind power becoming a reality, environmentalists are coming out
of the woodwork to oppose it. It was fine for them so long as it wasn't
technologically and economically feasiable to use as a counterpoint
against existing generation methods, but now that the problems are being
worked out and turbines are going up around the nation they've suddenly
found objections to it.
It leaves but one conclusion, the noble cause of protecting the
environment is not the goal. The goal is to further political and
social agendas using protection of the environment as the *MEANS*
to sell it. Nothing makes it more obvious that the opposition to
wind power and the way the kyoto treaty was crafted.
#5353
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <b5b4685f.0312020909.625534a5@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<O0Lyb.274685$ao4.944751@attbi_s51>...
>> In article <b5b4685f.0312010918.6e702dc5@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
>>
>> > They are going to move production of CO2 to China? All those
>> > inefficient old coal-fired power plants are going to China?
>>
>> What is better? An old inefficient regulated to be as clean as feasiable
>> coal power plant in the USA feeding a factory with electricity or a
>> quick-and-dirty-old-tech-soviet-style coal plant in china feeding a
>> factory? Which is better for the environment?
>>
>> And why do we have old coal plants in the USA? Because any new plants
>> are opposed on environmental grounds. And new and better means of
>> generation are opposed on environmental grounds. So what we get
>> is the status quo. The status quo remains because change is not
>> possible.
> Yeah, the old rightwing fantasy factory rides again. Do you recall the
> Clean Air Act? Do you recall that the power companies piteously pled
> for and were granted an exemption for their old coal and oil fuelled
> plants, since the power companies promised that they were going to be
> all mothballed soon anyway and it would be purely wasteful to upgrade
> them for the short time they will be in operation? Well, it's thirty
> years later now, and here in CT, half the electricity is still being
> produced by those old 'soon to be mothballed' plants, known locally as
> the Filthy Five. This is not because the utility companies are just
> dying to build some expensive clean new plants and the
> environmentalists just won't let them.
30 years ago eh? 30 years ago everything was going to be replaced
by nuclear plants. Remember? No more smoke stacks. But no, nukes
couldn't be allowed. Now people are trying to make wind power work,
but environmentalists have stepped in again, this time they don't
like the way they *LOOK*, and are worried about birds flying into
the blades.
What exactly are these non-opposed power plants that the utility
companies can just go out and build? How do they generate power?
Since new plants of any kind are opposed, the old ones just continue
on.
Or is your goal to simply shut down the old plants without any
replacements so people end up just going without electricity?
> It's purely because it's much
> cheaper to run these monstrosities unmodified than it is to build new
> plants, despite the environmentalists screaming to trade them for
> clean new plants or else update them.
Back in the day they were to be replaced with nuclear facilities.
But that never happened. Now there are attempts to gain extra capacity
with wind power, but that too is opposed. WHAT KIND OF POWER PLANT COULD
THEY BUILD WITHOUT OBJECTIONS THAT WOULD STIFLE THE PROJECT AND DRIVE THE
COSTS SKY HIGH? Until you can answer that question, your point is invalid.
> The Reagan and Bush I
> administrations refused to enforce the part of the Clean Air Act that
> requires the companies to install upgraded pollution controls if they
> were doing significant expansions to the plants, in contrast to
> routine maintenance, allowing the Filthy Five to actually expand their
> filthy emissions. The Clinton administration finally starts to enforce
> this provision, and what happens? The Bush junta reverses the
> enforcement decision. And in response to this boondoggle, the
> utilities raise their rates 10%.
Still cleaner than plants in china.
> According to the utility companies' own reports, the Filthy Five
> generate over 66% of the sulfur dioxide and 11% of the nitrogen oxide
> produced annually in Connecticut from all sources, including cars. And
> in case you have the wrong impression about CT, the EPA rates the air
> as "seriously unhealthful" in 97% of CT for at least part of the year.
> This is quite literally life and death for people who breathe the air,
> as most of us do, versus fattening the bank accounts of those few
> lucky enough to be in a position to get an executive bonus for
> deciding to harm other people's health.
Sounds like you should have nukes built. Oh that's right they are opposed
on environmental grounds. Oh and then there is that wind farm out in that
part of the country that somebody wants to build... damn, all the rich
liberals don't want to look at the turbines, that one goes down the tubes
too. What's your magic alternative to generate electric power?
>> > And do
>> > what, export the electricity to the US, or sell the average Chinese
>> > more electricity? How's that going to work? After all, the EPA has
>> > been on the back of coal-fired powerplants and coal mining for decades
>> > as the two biggest sources of pollution in the US currently, and the
>> > regulations somehow haven't managed to move them to China yet, why are
>> > CO2 regulations going to cause them to move?
>> Your choice of arguement is patently stupid. You take something that
>> isn't feasiable to relocate because of the infastructure required.
>> However what is economically feasiable to relocate, factories that
>> make products that can be shipped back to the USA, are being relocated.
> But it's not the factories that make products that are burning coal,
> it's the power plants that you say aren't feasible to relocate. So how
> exactly is Kyoto going to move the CO2 production in your mental
> picture?
Power plant -> factory.
Each time you move a factory to china, china's power grid has to supply
it. They burn more coal to generate electricity for that factory. So
you've just moved the source of the CO2 from the USA to China. It's that
simple. And on top of it, no matter how dirty you think US coal fired
power plants are, they are damn near totally clean compared to those
in china.
>> If it became economically feasiable to relocate electric power
>> generation, it would get relocated to places with lower levels
>> of regulation.
> And since it isn't, it won't.
So by elimination you admit that your bringing it up was nothing more than a
diversionary debate tatic.
>> > Have you noticed how much manufacturing has moved to the thrid world
>> > from the US already? Exactly what energy intensive manufacturers are
>> > going to pack up and leave that have not already?
>> What companies will stay at all if more regulation is heaped on the US
>> further tipping the market scales in favor of china?
> The ones that involve burning coal and oil to produce electricity, for
> one.
How do you think power is generated in china? How do you think those
factories get their electricity? That's right coal.
>> > Are the car
>> > companies who are now starting to manufacture more in the US, despite
>> > more environmental and labor regulation than the third world, going to
>> > change their minds and close down again because of CO2 regulations?
>> Another invalid arguement. The foreign automakers building plants in
>> the USA are from Germany and Japan. Other nations with similiar labor
>> and environmental regulations. The USA competes on an near equal footing
>> with those nations with regards to factory locations. The nature of
>> the product demands it be built in a developed nation, and since the
>> USA is the largest market for that product, it makes economic sense
>> to locate the plant here. But, if china can ever be trusted to build
>> cars and the savings were greater than the shipping costs and taxes
>> well expect that production to move there too.
> And this all hinges on the right to produce energy in a
> fuel-inefficient fashion in the US? Gee.
Name one kind of power plant that can be built without opposition.
When new technology is strongly opposed, then the status quo remains.
You want to know why we still have coal plants, look at what happens
when a company tries to build something else.
With wind power becoming a reality, environmentalists are coming out
of the woodwork to oppose it. It was fine for them so long as it wasn't
technologically and economically feasiable to use as a counterpoint
against existing generation methods, but now that the problems are being
worked out and turbines are going up around the nation they've suddenly
found objections to it.
It leaves but one conclusion, the noble cause of protecting the
environment is not the goal. The goal is to further political and
social agendas using protection of the environment as the *MEANS*
to sell it. Nothing makes it more obvious that the opposition to
wind power and the way the kyoto treaty was crafted.
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<O0Lyb.274685$ao4.944751@attbi_s51>...
>> In article <b5b4685f.0312010918.6e702dc5@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
>>
>> > They are going to move production of CO2 to China? All those
>> > inefficient old coal-fired power plants are going to China?
>>
>> What is better? An old inefficient regulated to be as clean as feasiable
>> coal power plant in the USA feeding a factory with electricity or a
>> quick-and-dirty-old-tech-soviet-style coal plant in china feeding a
>> factory? Which is better for the environment?
>>
>> And why do we have old coal plants in the USA? Because any new plants
>> are opposed on environmental grounds. And new and better means of
>> generation are opposed on environmental grounds. So what we get
>> is the status quo. The status quo remains because change is not
>> possible.
> Yeah, the old rightwing fantasy factory rides again. Do you recall the
> Clean Air Act? Do you recall that the power companies piteously pled
> for and were granted an exemption for their old coal and oil fuelled
> plants, since the power companies promised that they were going to be
> all mothballed soon anyway and it would be purely wasteful to upgrade
> them for the short time they will be in operation? Well, it's thirty
> years later now, and here in CT, half the electricity is still being
> produced by those old 'soon to be mothballed' plants, known locally as
> the Filthy Five. This is not because the utility companies are just
> dying to build some expensive clean new plants and the
> environmentalists just won't let them.
30 years ago eh? 30 years ago everything was going to be replaced
by nuclear plants. Remember? No more smoke stacks. But no, nukes
couldn't be allowed. Now people are trying to make wind power work,
but environmentalists have stepped in again, this time they don't
like the way they *LOOK*, and are worried about birds flying into
the blades.
What exactly are these non-opposed power plants that the utility
companies can just go out and build? How do they generate power?
Since new plants of any kind are opposed, the old ones just continue
on.
Or is your goal to simply shut down the old plants without any
replacements so people end up just going without electricity?
> It's purely because it's much
> cheaper to run these monstrosities unmodified than it is to build new
> plants, despite the environmentalists screaming to trade them for
> clean new plants or else update them.
Back in the day they were to be replaced with nuclear facilities.
But that never happened. Now there are attempts to gain extra capacity
with wind power, but that too is opposed. WHAT KIND OF POWER PLANT COULD
THEY BUILD WITHOUT OBJECTIONS THAT WOULD STIFLE THE PROJECT AND DRIVE THE
COSTS SKY HIGH? Until you can answer that question, your point is invalid.
> The Reagan and Bush I
> administrations refused to enforce the part of the Clean Air Act that
> requires the companies to install upgraded pollution controls if they
> were doing significant expansions to the plants, in contrast to
> routine maintenance, allowing the Filthy Five to actually expand their
> filthy emissions. The Clinton administration finally starts to enforce
> this provision, and what happens? The Bush junta reverses the
> enforcement decision. And in response to this boondoggle, the
> utilities raise their rates 10%.
Still cleaner than plants in china.
> According to the utility companies' own reports, the Filthy Five
> generate over 66% of the sulfur dioxide and 11% of the nitrogen oxide
> produced annually in Connecticut from all sources, including cars. And
> in case you have the wrong impression about CT, the EPA rates the air
> as "seriously unhealthful" in 97% of CT for at least part of the year.
> This is quite literally life and death for people who breathe the air,
> as most of us do, versus fattening the bank accounts of those few
> lucky enough to be in a position to get an executive bonus for
> deciding to harm other people's health.
Sounds like you should have nukes built. Oh that's right they are opposed
on environmental grounds. Oh and then there is that wind farm out in that
part of the country that somebody wants to build... damn, all the rich
liberals don't want to look at the turbines, that one goes down the tubes
too. What's your magic alternative to generate electric power?
>> > And do
>> > what, export the electricity to the US, or sell the average Chinese
>> > more electricity? How's that going to work? After all, the EPA has
>> > been on the back of coal-fired powerplants and coal mining for decades
>> > as the two biggest sources of pollution in the US currently, and the
>> > regulations somehow haven't managed to move them to China yet, why are
>> > CO2 regulations going to cause them to move?
>> Your choice of arguement is patently stupid. You take something that
>> isn't feasiable to relocate because of the infastructure required.
>> However what is economically feasiable to relocate, factories that
>> make products that can be shipped back to the USA, are being relocated.
> But it's not the factories that make products that are burning coal,
> it's the power plants that you say aren't feasible to relocate. So how
> exactly is Kyoto going to move the CO2 production in your mental
> picture?
Power plant -> factory.
Each time you move a factory to china, china's power grid has to supply
it. They burn more coal to generate electricity for that factory. So
you've just moved the source of the CO2 from the USA to China. It's that
simple. And on top of it, no matter how dirty you think US coal fired
power plants are, they are damn near totally clean compared to those
in china.
>> If it became economically feasiable to relocate electric power
>> generation, it would get relocated to places with lower levels
>> of regulation.
> And since it isn't, it won't.
So by elimination you admit that your bringing it up was nothing more than a
diversionary debate tatic.
>> > Have you noticed how much manufacturing has moved to the thrid world
>> > from the US already? Exactly what energy intensive manufacturers are
>> > going to pack up and leave that have not already?
>> What companies will stay at all if more regulation is heaped on the US
>> further tipping the market scales in favor of china?
> The ones that involve burning coal and oil to produce electricity, for
> one.
How do you think power is generated in china? How do you think those
factories get their electricity? That's right coal.
>> > Are the car
>> > companies who are now starting to manufacture more in the US, despite
>> > more environmental and labor regulation than the third world, going to
>> > change their minds and close down again because of CO2 regulations?
>> Another invalid arguement. The foreign automakers building plants in
>> the USA are from Germany and Japan. Other nations with similiar labor
>> and environmental regulations. The USA competes on an near equal footing
>> with those nations with regards to factory locations. The nature of
>> the product demands it be built in a developed nation, and since the
>> USA is the largest market for that product, it makes economic sense
>> to locate the plant here. But, if china can ever be trusted to build
>> cars and the savings were greater than the shipping costs and taxes
>> well expect that production to move there too.
> And this all hinges on the right to produce energy in a
> fuel-inefficient fashion in the US? Gee.
Name one kind of power plant that can be built without opposition.
When new technology is strongly opposed, then the status quo remains.
You want to know why we still have coal plants, look at what happens
when a company tries to build something else.
With wind power becoming a reality, environmentalists are coming out
of the woodwork to oppose it. It was fine for them so long as it wasn't
technologically and economically feasiable to use as a counterpoint
against existing generation methods, but now that the problems are being
worked out and turbines are going up around the nation they've suddenly
found objections to it.
It leaves but one conclusion, the noble cause of protecting the
environment is not the goal. The goal is to further political and
social agendas using protection of the environment as the *MEANS*
to sell it. Nothing makes it more obvious that the opposition to
wind power and the way the kyoto treaty was crafted.
#5354
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <fkipsvcle93n151latbhre77tt01pmjcia@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:38:54 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>
>>Another invalid arguement. The foreign automakers building plants in
>>the USA are from Germany and Japan. Other nations with similiar labor
>>and environmental regulations. The USA competes on an near equal footing
>>with those nations with regards to factory locations. The nature of
>>the product demands it be built in a developed nation, and since the
>>USA is the largest market for that product, it makes economic sense
>>to locate the plant here. But, if china can ever be trusted to build
>>cars and the savings were greater than the shipping costs and taxes
>>well expect that production to move there too.
>
> Something that's really interesting is that one of the reasons those
> car makers are moving production here is because it's cheaper to hire
> US workers than it is to hire the workers in their own countries.
Yes that too. But all things considered, the developed western countries
are more or less equal when it comes to labor and environmental protections.
6 of one, half a dozen of the other when everything and all industries
are considered IMO. I worked for a US company that has a plant in
Germany, it made sense at the time to locate one there. The US might
have an advantage for a factory that makes widgets while Germany has the
advantage for the one that makes gizmos.
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:38:54 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>
>>Another invalid arguement. The foreign automakers building plants in
>>the USA are from Germany and Japan. Other nations with similiar labor
>>and environmental regulations. The USA competes on an near equal footing
>>with those nations with regards to factory locations. The nature of
>>the product demands it be built in a developed nation, and since the
>>USA is the largest market for that product, it makes economic sense
>>to locate the plant here. But, if china can ever be trusted to build
>>cars and the savings were greater than the shipping costs and taxes
>>well expect that production to move there too.
>
> Something that's really interesting is that one of the reasons those
> car makers are moving production here is because it's cheaper to hire
> US workers than it is to hire the workers in their own countries.
Yes that too. But all things considered, the developed western countries
are more or less equal when it comes to labor and environmental protections.
6 of one, half a dozen of the other when everything and all industries
are considered IMO. I worked for a US company that has a plant in
Germany, it made sense at the time to locate one there. The US might
have an advantage for a factory that makes widgets while Germany has the
advantage for the one that makes gizmos.
#5355
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <fkipsvcle93n151latbhre77tt01pmjcia@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:38:54 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>
>>Another invalid arguement. The foreign automakers building plants in
>>the USA are from Germany and Japan. Other nations with similiar labor
>>and environmental regulations. The USA competes on an near equal footing
>>with those nations with regards to factory locations. The nature of
>>the product demands it be built in a developed nation, and since the
>>USA is the largest market for that product, it makes economic sense
>>to locate the plant here. But, if china can ever be trusted to build
>>cars and the savings were greater than the shipping costs and taxes
>>well expect that production to move there too.
>
> Something that's really interesting is that one of the reasons those
> car makers are moving production here is because it's cheaper to hire
> US workers than it is to hire the workers in their own countries.
Yes that too. But all things considered, the developed western countries
are more or less equal when it comes to labor and environmental protections.
6 of one, half a dozen of the other when everything and all industries
are considered IMO. I worked for a US company that has a plant in
Germany, it made sense at the time to locate one there. The US might
have an advantage for a factory that makes widgets while Germany has the
advantage for the one that makes gizmos.
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:38:54 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>
>>Another invalid arguement. The foreign automakers building plants in
>>the USA are from Germany and Japan. Other nations with similiar labor
>>and environmental regulations. The USA competes on an near equal footing
>>with those nations with regards to factory locations. The nature of
>>the product demands it be built in a developed nation, and since the
>>USA is the largest market for that product, it makes economic sense
>>to locate the plant here. But, if china can ever be trusted to build
>>cars and the savings were greater than the shipping costs and taxes
>>well expect that production to move there too.
>
> Something that's really interesting is that one of the reasons those
> car makers are moving production here is because it's cheaper to hire
> US workers than it is to hire the workers in their own countries.
Yes that too. But all things considered, the developed western countries
are more or less equal when it comes to labor and environmental protections.
6 of one, half a dozen of the other when everything and all industries
are considered IMO. I worked for a US company that has a plant in
Germany, it made sense at the time to locate one there. The US might
have an advantage for a factory that makes widgets while Germany has the
advantage for the one that makes gizmos.
#5356
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <fkipsvcle93n151latbhre77tt01pmjcia@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:38:54 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>
>>Another invalid arguement. The foreign automakers building plants in
>>the USA are from Germany and Japan. Other nations with similiar labor
>>and environmental regulations. The USA competes on an near equal footing
>>with those nations with regards to factory locations. The nature of
>>the product demands it be built in a developed nation, and since the
>>USA is the largest market for that product, it makes economic sense
>>to locate the plant here. But, if china can ever be trusted to build
>>cars and the savings were greater than the shipping costs and taxes
>>well expect that production to move there too.
>
> Something that's really interesting is that one of the reasons those
> car makers are moving production here is because it's cheaper to hire
> US workers than it is to hire the workers in their own countries.
Yes that too. But all things considered, the developed western countries
are more or less equal when it comes to labor and environmental protections.
6 of one, half a dozen of the other when everything and all industries
are considered IMO. I worked for a US company that has a plant in
Germany, it made sense at the time to locate one there. The US might
have an advantage for a factory that makes widgets while Germany has the
advantage for the one that makes gizmos.
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:38:54 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>
>>Another invalid arguement. The foreign automakers building plants in
>>the USA are from Germany and Japan. Other nations with similiar labor
>>and environmental regulations. The USA competes on an near equal footing
>>with those nations with regards to factory locations. The nature of
>>the product demands it be built in a developed nation, and since the
>>USA is the largest market for that product, it makes economic sense
>>to locate the plant here. But, if china can ever be trusted to build
>>cars and the savings were greater than the shipping costs and taxes
>>well expect that production to move there too.
>
> Something that's really interesting is that one of the reasons those
> car makers are moving production here is because it's cheaper to hire
> US workers than it is to hire the workers in their own countries.
Yes that too. But all things considered, the developed western countries
are more or less equal when it comes to labor and environmental protections.
6 of one, half a dozen of the other when everything and all industries
are considered IMO. I worked for a US company that has a plant in
Germany, it made sense at the time to locate one there. The US might
have an advantage for a factory that makes widgets while Germany has the
advantage for the one that makes gizmos.
#5357
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
z wrote:
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<O0Lyb.274685$ao4.944751@attbi_s51>...
> > In article <b5b4685f.0312010918.6e702dc5@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> >
> > > They are going to move production of CO2 to China? All those
> > > inefficient old coal-fired power plants are going to China?
> >
> > What is better? An old inefficient regulated to be as clean as feasiable
> > coal power plant in the USA feeding a factory with electricity or a
> > quick-and-dirty-old-tech-soviet-style coal plant in china feeding a
> > factory? Which is better for the environment?
> >
> > And why do we have old coal plants in the USA? Because any new plants
> > are opposed on environmental grounds. And new and better means of
> > generation are opposed on environmental grounds. So what we get
> > is the status quo. The status quo remains because change is not
> > possible.
>
> Yeah, the old rightwing fantasy factory rides again. Do you recall the
> Clean Air Act? Do you recall that the power companies piteously pled
> for and were granted an exemption for their old coal and oil fuelled
> plants, since the power companies promised that they were going to be
> all mothballed soon anyway and it would be purely wasteful to upgrade
> them for the short time they will be in operation? Well, it's thirty
> years later now, and here in CT, half the electricity is still being
> produced by those old 'soon to be mothballed' plants, known locally as
> the Filthy Five. This is not because the utility companies are just
> dying to build some expensive clean new plants and the
> environmentalists just won't let them. It's purely because it's much
> cheaper to run these monstrosities unmodified than it is to build new
> plants, despite the environmentalists screaming to trade them for
> clean new plants or else update them. The Reagan and Bush I
> administrations refused to enforce the part of the Clean Air Act that
> requires the companies to install upgraded pollution controls if they
> were doing significant expansions to the plants, in contrast to
> routine maintenance, allowing the Filthy Five to actually expand their
> filthy emissions. The Clinton administration finally starts to enforce
> this provision, and what happens? The Bush junta reverses the
> enforcement decision. And in response to this boondoggle, the
> utilities raise their rates 10%.
That's not true at all. First of all, the Bush I administration SIGNED the Clean Air Act
amendments in 1990 into law, which strenghthened, not weakened the Clean Air Act. Secondly, the
act was and is being enforced. The act was designed to require NEW PLANTS (new sources) to have
much more stringent controls with updated technology. Older plants would be initially exempted
because of common sense economics. However pollution from these older palnts would then be capped
and traded, so plants pay for their negative externalities (pollution) and production is shifted to
the most efficient (by this I mean less polluting) plants because they are cheaper to operate due
to the cost of pollution credits. In this way all plants use the most advanced pollution controls
available to them. Eventually the older plants are shut down or upgraded (when they WOULD be
subject to New Source controls) because they are too expensive to operate or they get too old to
operate anyway.
The problem is that the Clinton administration started treating routine maintenance on plants as
"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law. Treating it this way
subjected the plants specifically exempted from the statue to the requirements of new plants. This
had the perverse incentive of indicating to plant owners that routine maintenance is a BAD IDEA to
do, because the Government will come after you for doing it. Better to defer maintenance and not
keep plants in the most effiicent manner they can be reasonably operated in. But the effect of
this is that when routine maintenance and minor upgrades become to expensive because of overzealous
regulation, the effect is that nothing is done and instead the most polluting plants are left in
operation as is, with no improvements all. The WSJ has reported extensively on this, and
specifically about how the Clinton EPA chief was upset that plants were TOO CLEAN because they
needed something to rail against to publicity. This was all recorded in memos.
The Bush plan restores the EPA's mandated New Source Review. But it's easier for people to make
silly attacks on Bush, because they cannot comprehend the actual laws, the reason why they were
written, the actual effects that they have, the effect of enforcing non-laws, or what is going on
in general.
------
"In one famous case, DTE Energy Corp., parent of Detroit Edison Co., tried to replace older, less
efficient propeller blades in several steam turbines at its biggest coal-fired plant. The new
blades were 15% more efficient than the old, meaning they could generate 15% more power using the
same amount of energy--more power, less pollution. But the Clinton EPA threatened to invoke New
Source Review anyway, so the plan was scrapped.
Not that Detroit Edison and others are avoiding heavy pollution-fighting expenses. At the very same
plant, Detroit Edison is spending $650 million to meet new nitrogen oxide standards--an expense
that won't generate a single new kilowatt of electricity.
Bureaucrats, of course, interpret such a rational response to perverse rules as a sign of corporate
greed. So when the Clinton administration found that at least 80% of the nation's utilities were
violating its New Source Review guidelines, it didn't bother to ask whether something might be
wrong with its policies. It simply filed an avalanche of lawsuits demanding huge fines.
Yet EPA data clearly show that emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide, the two main
industrial pollutants, have declined substantially despite a tripling of coal usage. Future Clean
Air targets will reduce emissions a further 50%." -WSJ 11/26/02
#5358
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
z wrote:
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<O0Lyb.274685$ao4.944751@attbi_s51>...
> > In article <b5b4685f.0312010918.6e702dc5@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> >
> > > They are going to move production of CO2 to China? All those
> > > inefficient old coal-fired power plants are going to China?
> >
> > What is better? An old inefficient regulated to be as clean as feasiable
> > coal power plant in the USA feeding a factory with electricity or a
> > quick-and-dirty-old-tech-soviet-style coal plant in china feeding a
> > factory? Which is better for the environment?
> >
> > And why do we have old coal plants in the USA? Because any new plants
> > are opposed on environmental grounds. And new and better means of
> > generation are opposed on environmental grounds. So what we get
> > is the status quo. The status quo remains because change is not
> > possible.
>
> Yeah, the old rightwing fantasy factory rides again. Do you recall the
> Clean Air Act? Do you recall that the power companies piteously pled
> for and were granted an exemption for their old coal and oil fuelled
> plants, since the power companies promised that they were going to be
> all mothballed soon anyway and it would be purely wasteful to upgrade
> them for the short time they will be in operation? Well, it's thirty
> years later now, and here in CT, half the electricity is still being
> produced by those old 'soon to be mothballed' plants, known locally as
> the Filthy Five. This is not because the utility companies are just
> dying to build some expensive clean new plants and the
> environmentalists just won't let them. It's purely because it's much
> cheaper to run these monstrosities unmodified than it is to build new
> plants, despite the environmentalists screaming to trade them for
> clean new plants or else update them. The Reagan and Bush I
> administrations refused to enforce the part of the Clean Air Act that
> requires the companies to install upgraded pollution controls if they
> were doing significant expansions to the plants, in contrast to
> routine maintenance, allowing the Filthy Five to actually expand their
> filthy emissions. The Clinton administration finally starts to enforce
> this provision, and what happens? The Bush junta reverses the
> enforcement decision. And in response to this boondoggle, the
> utilities raise their rates 10%.
That's not true at all. First of all, the Bush I administration SIGNED the Clean Air Act
amendments in 1990 into law, which strenghthened, not weakened the Clean Air Act. Secondly, the
act was and is being enforced. The act was designed to require NEW PLANTS (new sources) to have
much more stringent controls with updated technology. Older plants would be initially exempted
because of common sense economics. However pollution from these older palnts would then be capped
and traded, so plants pay for their negative externalities (pollution) and production is shifted to
the most efficient (by this I mean less polluting) plants because they are cheaper to operate due
to the cost of pollution credits. In this way all plants use the most advanced pollution controls
available to them. Eventually the older plants are shut down or upgraded (when they WOULD be
subject to New Source controls) because they are too expensive to operate or they get too old to
operate anyway.
The problem is that the Clinton administration started treating routine maintenance on plants as
"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law. Treating it this way
subjected the plants specifically exempted from the statue to the requirements of new plants. This
had the perverse incentive of indicating to plant owners that routine maintenance is a BAD IDEA to
do, because the Government will come after you for doing it. Better to defer maintenance and not
keep plants in the most effiicent manner they can be reasonably operated in. But the effect of
this is that when routine maintenance and minor upgrades become to expensive because of overzealous
regulation, the effect is that nothing is done and instead the most polluting plants are left in
operation as is, with no improvements all. The WSJ has reported extensively on this, and
specifically about how the Clinton EPA chief was upset that plants were TOO CLEAN because they
needed something to rail against to publicity. This was all recorded in memos.
The Bush plan restores the EPA's mandated New Source Review. But it's easier for people to make
silly attacks on Bush, because they cannot comprehend the actual laws, the reason why they were
written, the actual effects that they have, the effect of enforcing non-laws, or what is going on
in general.
------
"In one famous case, DTE Energy Corp., parent of Detroit Edison Co., tried to replace older, less
efficient propeller blades in several steam turbines at its biggest coal-fired plant. The new
blades were 15% more efficient than the old, meaning they could generate 15% more power using the
same amount of energy--more power, less pollution. But the Clinton EPA threatened to invoke New
Source Review anyway, so the plan was scrapped.
Not that Detroit Edison and others are avoiding heavy pollution-fighting expenses. At the very same
plant, Detroit Edison is spending $650 million to meet new nitrogen oxide standards--an expense
that won't generate a single new kilowatt of electricity.
Bureaucrats, of course, interpret such a rational response to perverse rules as a sign of corporate
greed. So when the Clinton administration found that at least 80% of the nation's utilities were
violating its New Source Review guidelines, it didn't bother to ask whether something might be
wrong with its policies. It simply filed an avalanche of lawsuits demanding huge fines.
Yet EPA data clearly show that emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide, the two main
industrial pollutants, have declined substantially despite a tripling of coal usage. Future Clean
Air targets will reduce emissions a further 50%." -WSJ 11/26/02
#5359
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
z wrote:
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<O0Lyb.274685$ao4.944751@attbi_s51>...
> > In article <b5b4685f.0312010918.6e702dc5@posting.google.com >, z wrote:
> >
> > > They are going to move production of CO2 to China? All those
> > > inefficient old coal-fired power plants are going to China?
> >
> > What is better? An old inefficient regulated to be as clean as feasiable
> > coal power plant in the USA feeding a factory with electricity or a
> > quick-and-dirty-old-tech-soviet-style coal plant in china feeding a
> > factory? Which is better for the environment?
> >
> > And why do we have old coal plants in the USA? Because any new plants
> > are opposed on environmental grounds. And new and better means of
> > generation are opposed on environmental grounds. So what we get
> > is the status quo. The status quo remains because change is not
> > possible.
>
> Yeah, the old rightwing fantasy factory rides again. Do you recall the
> Clean Air Act? Do you recall that the power companies piteously pled
> for and were granted an exemption for their old coal and oil fuelled
> plants, since the power companies promised that they were going to be
> all mothballed soon anyway and it would be purely wasteful to upgrade
> them for the short time they will be in operation? Well, it's thirty
> years later now, and here in CT, half the electricity is still being
> produced by those old 'soon to be mothballed' plants, known locally as
> the Filthy Five. This is not because the utility companies are just
> dying to build some expensive clean new plants and the
> environmentalists just won't let them. It's purely because it's much
> cheaper to run these monstrosities unmodified than it is to build new
> plants, despite the environmentalists screaming to trade them for
> clean new plants or else update them. The Reagan and Bush I
> administrations refused to enforce the part of the Clean Air Act that
> requires the companies to install upgraded pollution controls if they
> were doing significant expansions to the plants, in contrast to
> routine maintenance, allowing the Filthy Five to actually expand their
> filthy emissions. The Clinton administration finally starts to enforce
> this provision, and what happens? The Bush junta reverses the
> enforcement decision. And in response to this boondoggle, the
> utilities raise their rates 10%.
That's not true at all. First of all, the Bush I administration SIGNED the Clean Air Act
amendments in 1990 into law, which strenghthened, not weakened the Clean Air Act. Secondly, the
act was and is being enforced. The act was designed to require NEW PLANTS (new sources) to have
much more stringent controls with updated technology. Older plants would be initially exempted
because of common sense economics. However pollution from these older palnts would then be capped
and traded, so plants pay for their negative externalities (pollution) and production is shifted to
the most efficient (by this I mean less polluting) plants because they are cheaper to operate due
to the cost of pollution credits. In this way all plants use the most advanced pollution controls
available to them. Eventually the older plants are shut down or upgraded (when they WOULD be
subject to New Source controls) because they are too expensive to operate or they get too old to
operate anyway.
The problem is that the Clinton administration started treating routine maintenance on plants as
"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law. Treating it this way
subjected the plants specifically exempted from the statue to the requirements of new plants. This
had the perverse incentive of indicating to plant owners that routine maintenance is a BAD IDEA to
do, because the Government will come after you for doing it. Better to defer maintenance and not
keep plants in the most effiicent manner they can be reasonably operated in. But the effect of
this is that when routine maintenance and minor upgrades become to expensive because of overzealous
regulation, the effect is that nothing is done and instead the most polluting plants are left in
operation as is, with no improvements all. The WSJ has reported extensively on this, and
specifically about how the Clinton EPA chief was upset that plants were TOO CLEAN because they
needed something to rail against to publicity. This was all recorded in memos.
The Bush plan restores the EPA's mandated New Source Review. But it's easier for people to make
silly attacks on Bush, because they cannot comprehend the actual laws, the reason why they were
written, the actual effects that they have, the effect of enforcing non-laws, or what is going on
in general.
------
"In one famous case, DTE Energy Corp., parent of Detroit Edison Co., tried to replace older, less
efficient propeller blades in several steam turbines at its biggest coal-fired plant. The new
blades were 15% more efficient than the old, meaning they could generate 15% more power using the
same amount of energy--more power, less pollution. But the Clinton EPA threatened to invoke New
Source Review anyway, so the plan was scrapped.
Not that Detroit Edison and others are avoiding heavy pollution-fighting expenses. At the very same
plant, Detroit Edison is spending $650 million to meet new nitrogen oxide standards--an expense
that won't generate a single new kilowatt of electricity.
Bureaucrats, of course, interpret such a rational response to perverse rules as a sign of corporate
greed. So when the Clinton administration found that at least 80% of the nation's utilities were
violating its New Source Review guidelines, it didn't bother to ask whether something might be
wrong with its policies. It simply filed an avalanche of lawsuits demanding huge fines.
Yet EPA data clearly show that emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide, the two main
industrial pollutants, have declined substantially despite a tripling of coal usage. Future Clean
Air targets will reduce emissions a further 50%." -WSJ 11/26/02
#5360
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on health
> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for insurance
> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on health
> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for insurance
> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.