Bush Administration changes rules for older power plants and guess what?

[Tominator]

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
The solution to our electricity generation problem is nuclear power generators. But.........

I agree, to finish, but.... 95% of America is in "Rollover" state so they have been indoctrinated to think it's "Bad"

The radical environmentalists put us in that situation. If you remember the absolute fiasco caused by their puppets in the Democrat party when most of our plants were built, you'd know why we have no alternative energy available.

 

[LAUST]

.

 

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: Lucky
To the contrary, I think this is a good thing. Imagine wanting to reduce the emissions on your 1970 car by getting a better computer system or switching to fuel injection. Instead of being allowed to just do that they would force you to upgrade to the equivilant of 2002 ULEV spec at significantly higher cost. Thus, if you can't afford it you wouldn't do anything at all.

There also appeasr to be some concern about maintenence not being done either as a result of the former policy.

oh yeah cause oil and power companies are SO poor.

 

[Tominator]

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: Tominator

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
The solution to our electricity generation problem is nuclear power generators. But.........

I agree, to finish, but.... 95% of America is in "Rollover" state so they have been indoctrinated to think it's "Bad"

The radical environmentalists put us in that situation. If you remember the absolute fiasco caused by their puppets in the Democrat party when most of our plants were built, you'd know why we have no alternative energy available.

Gotta love when these guys think about themselves in that time, and whatever is convienient for them right then and there, screw what happens 20 years later. the PP in Denver sucks, you get way down in the south suburbs and the rolling power is terrible in the summer due to A/C, a company across the street moved cause it caused $3 million in damage to their data center, there was nothing they could do but move.

My dad golfs with the guy that runs the power grid in the St. Louis Missouri area. He says that during a hot summer the grid is strained to the limit. All it would take is an earthquake or major storm to collaspe the whole grid. Regulations and profit margins, all government regulated, prevent any excess capacity.

During the time most of our Nukler[] plants were built a startup would take place. Time after time the regulations were changed during construction. This added huge costs to construction and basically stopped further investment. This was the goal of the regulators!

Transportation of waste is so complicated, and becoming more so, that it will become nearly impossible to move the waste to a safe storage area. Again, this is the goal. Make it so expensive that it is not economically feasable.

The Democrats are pulling the same stunt with our healthcare system. But that's another thread.

 

[Pastore]

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: Beast1284
If the air pollution doesn't kill you, something else is going to. YAWN.

i would rather get hit by a bus than go thru years of dealing with cancer

You will get cancer from something else before you get it from air pollution. Just curious, but do you drink alcohol or smoke anything?

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Beast1284

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: Beast1284
If the air pollution doesn't kill you, something else is going to. YAWN.

i would rather get hit by a bus than go thru years of dealing with cancer

You will get cancer from something else before you get it from air pollution. Just curious, but do you drink alcohol or smoke anything?

the biggest danger is of heavy metals getting into the food chain, not air pollution

 

[LAUST]

.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: Lucky
To the contrary, I think this is a good thing. Imagine wanting to reduce the emissions on your 1970 car by getting a better computer system or switching to fuel injection. Instead of being allowed to just do that they would force you to upgrade to the equivilant of 2002 ULEV spec at significantly higher cost. Thus, if you can't afford it you wouldn't do anything at all.

There also appeasr to be some concern about maintenence not being done either as a result of the former policy.

oh yeah cause oil and power companies are SO poor.

No, it is called return on investment.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Tominator

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: Tominator

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
The solution to our electricity generation problem is nuclear power generators. But.........

I agree, to finish, but.... 95% of America is in "Rollover" state so they have been indoctrinated to think it's "Bad"

The radical environmentalists put us in that situation. If you remember the absolute fiasco caused by their puppets in the Democrat party when most of our plants were built, you'd know why we have no alternative energy available.

Gotta love when these guys think about themselves in that time, and whatever is convienient for them right then and there, screw what happens 20 years later. the PP in Denver sucks, you get way down in the south suburbs and the rolling power is terrible in the summer due to A/C, a company across the street moved cause it caused $3 million in damage to their data center, there was nothing they could do but move.

My dad golfs with the guy that runs the power grid in the St. Louis Missouri area. He says that during a hot summer the grid is strained to the limit. All it would take is an earthquake or major storm to collaspe the whole grid. Regulations and profit margins, all government regulated, prevent any excess capacity.

During the time most of our Nukler[] plants were built a startup would take place. Time after time the regulations were changed during construction. This added huge costs to construction and basically stopped further investment. This was the goal of the regulators!

Transportation of waste is so complicated, and becoming more so, that it will become nearly impossible to move the waste to a safe storage area. Again, this is the goal. Make it so expensive that it is not economically feasable.

The Democrats are pulling the same stunt with our healthcare system. But that's another thread.

We could also make breeder reactors to deal with the waste, but unfortunatly breeder reacters create weapons grade material..and that pisses people off as well.

 

[Thegonagle]

I did not read this entire thread.

From what I've gathered about the new rule, plants would be allowed to increase production, increasing total polution.

Our pres., like his father, does not give a flip about the environment, and that's just sad.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Garfang
I did not read this entire thread.

From what I've gathered about the new rule, plants would be allowed to increase production, increasing total polution.

Our pres., like his father, does not give a flip about the environment, and that's just sad.

Try reading the entire thread next time before posting something.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

Sometimes you have to step down to a liberals mind set to get your point across.

Harvey continues to spout his liberal brand of hate with very few reasons given.

When I call someone something, I have reasons. I'm not blind and DO NOT just sit back and insinuate like most liberals do. I can explain my views and have done so many times WITHOUT using the asinine tactics Harvey uses!

You sound like a little kid you know that?

 

[manly]

Originally posted by: EngineNr9
Sometimes you have to step down to a liberals mind set to get your point across.

Harvey continues to spout his liberal brand of hate with very few reasons given.

When I call someone something, I have reasons. I'm not blind and DO NOT just sit back and insinuate like most liberals do. I can explain my views and have done so many times WITHOUT using the asinine tactics Harvey uses!

You sound like a little kid you know that?

That's gotta be the most complimentary thing one could say about Tominator's mindless rants that get dumped into any political thread.

 

[Red Dawn]

The only thing that I gather from this thread us that both sides of the argument think the other side has their heads up their ass LMAO

 

[Tominator]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
The only thing that I gather from this thread us that both sides of the argument think the other side has their heads up their ass LMAO

Damn Red. things get boring and repetious without your kind input!

 

[DonaldC]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
........... what is relevant here is that Bush is giving his buddies a break.

So Bush is the first President to ever do this.

 

[markuskidd]

So Bush is the first President to ever do this.

Christ, I think you may be right!
This is going to make it soo much easier to for me to do whatever I want to from now on.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Garfang
I did not read this entire thread.

From what I've gathered about the new rule, plants would be allowed to increase production, increasing total polution.

Our pres., like his father, does not give a flip about the environment, and that's just sad.

It's amazing what ignorance can do for you, huh?

 

[Lucky]

Ahh, yes. So as long as they don't increase pollution, we're okay. But how are they calculating the increase or decrease? This is where the article stops, and the NRDC begins. I don't believe you looked at the link at the bottom of the page of that site, so I'll give it to you know. Link. I hope this has enough "fact" for you. Here you see why these new rules are a crock of sh!t. Here is a quote:

To determine whether pollution increases, a company must compare its pollution before the change, known as its pollution "baseline," with pollution levels after the change. The administration's plan would allow a facility to pick a fictional pollution baseline that is worse than its actual pollution levels, essentially allowing the facility to pollute more and pretend it is not. This ruse would allow the facility to avoid cleaning up substantial pollution increases

The link provides some interesting insight but unfortunately I dont trust the site to report the changes accurately. I'd love to see a non-partisan, non-biased article analyzing the changes and detailing them for people like us. It clear there is an agenda and I'd like to see a discussion by people who know what they are talking about without all the rhetoric on that site. I guess we are not going to agree here, or on any of the additional parts of your post I chose not to respond to because they relied on that link.

 

[dpm]

Originally posted by: Lucky

The link provides some interesting insight but unfortunately I dont trust the site to report the changes accurately. I'd love to see a non-partisan, non-biased article analyzing the changes and detailing them for people like us. It clear there is an agenda and I'd like to see a discussion by people who know what they are talking about without all the rhetoric on that site. I guess we are not going to agree here, or on any of the additional parts of your post I chose not to respond to because they relied on that link.

But who are you going to trust to be unbiased and impartial? The only answer is to do all the research yourself, but since few of us have the time for that, we are just going to have to stick to "You suck!", "No, YOU suck!" ad infinitum....

 

[outriding]

You will get cancer from something else before you get it from air pollution. Just curious, but do you drink alcohol or smoke anything?

no i dont smoke or drink and i exercise like 7-10 hours a week

 

[Ferocious]

I like how Bush waited till just after the elections before stickin it to the people yet again.

 

[Thegonagle]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Garfang
I did not read this entire thread.

From what I've gathered about the new rule, plants would be allowed to increase production, increasing total polution.

Our pres., like his father, does not give a flip about the environment, and that's just sad.

Try reading the entire thread next time before posting something.

I'll get back to you guys. I've been busy, but what I've heard so far does concern me greatly, so I felt compelled to post.

Next time I'm here, I will have read all the comments here, and then some.