Clear Skies Act vs Existing Environmental Legislation - A Step Backwards?

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
In all likelihood, EPA estimates of emissions are probably based on the fact that in 2002 over half the US fossil fuel power plants were built before 1972. Many of these high polluters will go off-line in the next two decades . . . which will drastically reduce emissions even if the administration does absolutely nothing.

EPA estimates - probably? Do you have information as to how the EPA forms their estimates?

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Fencer I am glad to see you are basing your entire arguement off that one osurce. I was the one you were having the discussion with, I brought this act to your attention. Did you ever bother to verify your source's numbers before you started this thread?'

can you find anything else to back it up not from some enviornmental activist group?

Alistar7, I like the way that you manage to be insulting to me whilst asking your questions. Nice touch. I'm sorry you didn't see my other posts. You would have seen I've referenced official sources (the "Clear Skies" main points, the clean power act, and the "activist" source), and yes, I have checked the numbers and agree with them - so I hardly think I'm basing my arguement off the claims of one source. There's plenty of numbers to check out in this thread to see for yourself.

Yes, you did bring this act to my attention - but I having exaimined it it seemed like a step backwards to me. Do I owe you something for pointing the act out to me? Given I thought no government would be silly enough to put out new legislation to "clear the skies" that was worse in terms of emission levels than existing legislation - I thought I'd start a new thread and ask around to see if I had a correct handle on this.

I don't see how I need to back up the numbers in the legislation (see posts above for my links) when after the sums are done the result is clear that "Clear Skies" will undoubtably raise the emission levels over existing legislation, if both were fully implimented. (The numbers agree with that quoted by "the environmental activist" group - so I stand by them).

It appears to be about money and nothing more.

Cheers for that,

Andy

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
So to me it seems the choices are:

Impliment "Clear Skies", which raises emission levels compared to existing legislation - but allows for wider complience because it's cheaper (existing legislation too harsh?) Also please remember that existing legislation doesn't become mandatory until 2008-9. "Clear Skies" is enacted before then, but results in much higher pollution levels for all the time after 2008-9.

or

Enforce the numbers in the existing legislation (ie make companies pay for change).

Are we saying that it's ok to excuse companies the numbers in the existing legislation because complience is a financial price they're not willing to pay?

Does anyone have any cost estimates for complience with existing legislation - as well as how well compaines as a whole meet existing legislation?

I still think that Bush seems to be cutting companies a financial break. I would like to think it's because the current emission targets are financially unreachable. I would bet it's more like companies don't want to pay and that "conflict of interest" is at work in the White House. Anyone know what kind of donations for the Republican party/Presidential race came from industries/companies who are likely to make a saving from the "Clear Skies" act?

Call me cynical but it seems the most likely reason,

Cheers for the info,

Andy

Just a quickie! - How does it matter about how some polluters are being dealt with when it's the overall emissions that we should be worried about? (in relation to comments about coal plants).

YOu need to realize that clean air act is flawed in that it cannot force companies to upgrade. It also forces maximum polutition controls be when a plant is upgraded. This has kept plants from upgrading. Clear skys forces pollution controls that are affordable and doable and that are a result of clear air research. I had a college project that was for control system for one of these scrubber technologies(mid 90s), so this tech is still new.

I would rather all companies install technology that cleaned 75% of the pollution from smokes stakes rather than 5% of the companies remove 100% of the pollution from the air. It is time for you to be realistic and less idealistic.

 

[Fencer128]

You need to realize that clean air act is flawed in that it cannot force companies to upgrade. It also forces maximum polutition controls be when a plant is upgraded. This has kept plants from upgrading. Clear skys forces pollution controls that are affordable and doable and that are a result of clear air research. I had a college project that was for control system for one of these scrubber technologies(mid 90s), so this tech is still new.

I would rather all companies install technology that cleaned 75% of the pollution from smokes stakes rather than 5% of the companies remove 100% of the pollution from the air. It is time for you to be realistic and less idealistic.

OK, I see your point about the difference between mandatory and not. But can't new legislation just make upgrading mandatory? That way the existing emission requirements can be kept?

I'm not sure I'm reading you right - but are you saying that existing legislation - if enforced as mandatory - would be unaffordable and thus a cheaper (and obviously less strict on emissions) alternative is required?

Why is wanting to make "upgrading mandatory" idealistic?

Cheers,

Andy

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

You need to realize that clean air act is flawed in that it cannot force companies to upgrade. It also forces maximum polutition controls be when a plant is upgraded. This has kept plants from upgrading. Clear skys forces pollution controls that are affordable and doable and that are a result of clear air research. I had a college project that was for control system for one of these scrubber technologies(mid 90s), so this tech is still new.

I would rather all companies install technology that cleaned 75% of the pollution from smokes stakes rather than 5% of the companies remove 100% of the pollution from the air. It is time for you to be realistic and less idealistic.

OK, I see your point about the difference between mandatory and not. But can't new legislation just make upgrading mandatory? That way the existing emission requirements can be kept?

I'm not sure I'm reading you right - but are you saying that existing legislation - if enforced as mandatory - would be unaffordable and thus a cheaper (and obviously less strict on emissions) alternative is required?

Why is wanting to make "upgrading mandatory" idealistic?

Cheers,

Andy

It's idealistic because companies don't "fix" stuff that isn't "broke" In the end it's the consumers who pay for the upgrades and everyone like to bitch about their electric bill but doesn't realize what is actually producing the power

Should these companies have done it voluntarily? sure but they answer to consumers, stockholders, and $$$$ (as long as they are following current regulations )

CkG

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

You need to realize that clean air act is flawed in that it cannot force companies to upgrade. It also forces maximum polutition controls be when a plant is upgraded. This has kept plants from upgrading. Clear skys forces pollution controls that are affordable and doable and that are a result of clear air research. I had a college project that was for control system for one of these scrubber technologies(mid 90s), so this tech is still new.

I would rather all companies install technology that cleaned 75% of the pollution from smokes stakes rather than 5% of the companies remove 100% of the pollution from the air. It is time for you to be realistic and less idealistic.

OK, I see your point about the difference between mandatory and not. But can't new legislation just make upgrading mandatory? That way the existing emission requirements can be kept?

I'm not sure I'm reading you right - but are you saying that existing legislation - if enforced as mandatory - would be unaffordable and thus a cheaper (and obviously less strict on emissions) alternative is required?

Why is wanting to make "upgrading mandatory" idealistic?

Cheers,

Andy

Laws could be passed that would force all companies to upgrade to maximum scrubbing technology, but that apparently is not cheap enough to practical. However, it appears that scrubbing technology that can remove 75% of the pollution is affordable. As with everything else, I assume getting the last few percent becomes more and more expensive. It would be interesting to the cost number of 75% removal vs 95% pollution removal.

 

[Fencer128]

Laws could be passed that would force all companies to upgrade to maximum scrubbing technology, but that apparently is not cheap enough to practical. However, it appears that scrubbing technology that can remove 75% of the pollution is affordable. As with everything else, I assume getting the last few percent becomes more and more expensive. It would be interesting to the cost number of 75% removal vs 95% pollution removal.

Hi. Thanks for the info. I was not aware that all companies had to upgrade to maximum scrubbing technology in order for the existing legislation's emission standards to be met.

You mentionc osts. I think it would be interesting to see a cost analysis performed on the contrast between existing legislation being met (ie some/all companies purchasing highly efficient filter tech) compared to all companies purchasing some filter tech. I wonder what the difference is and how this compares to the amount that can be "afforded" by companies?

If anyone has any reliable/sensible figures I'd like t o have a look.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[UltraQuiet]

Edited because someone I respect asked me to.