Originally posted by: jahawkin
You have an awefull narrow view of what an expert is when it comes to weather and it effects.
Chemistry,biology, physics, and other life sciences obviously are completely clueless and should completely removed from any climate change studies.
9 states sue over new rules
more details on New Source review
He favors a "market-based" approach to pollution control and has said he wants to establish rigorous new limits on how much industrial pollution - sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury - can be released.
Utilities would choose on their own how to meet those standards. They would use a "cap and trade" system in which companies would be rewarded for reducing pollution or could pay for the right to pollute more.
Bush officials note that since 1980, a limited version of this system has cut emissions that contribute to acid rain by 35 percent.
Jeffrey Holmstead, a Bush appointee who serves as assistant administrator at the EPA, warned a congressional panel last month that forcing older plants to meet new source review standards "could undermine the benefits of the cap-and-trade approach."
I stand behind my contention that Bush is attempting a bait and switch. Ultimately, the worst offenders (coal-fired plants burning WVA's finest) will continue to pollute well into the next decade. Did you notice how the Bushies are implying reductions in acid rain are the function of a "limited version of their system"? Anybody with a clue would know its a blatant misrepresentation of reality.
more details on New Source review
He favors a "market-based" approach to pollution control and has said he wants to establish rigorous new limits on how much industrial pollution - sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury - can be released.
Utilities would choose on their own how to meet those standards. They would use a "cap and trade" system in which companies would be rewarded for reducing pollution or could pay for the right to pollute more.
Bush officials note that since 1980, a limited version of this system has cut emissions that contribute to acid rain by 35 percent.
Jeffrey Holmstead, a Bush appointee who serves as assistant administrator at the EPA, warned a congressional panel last month that forcing older plants to meet new source review standards "could undermine the benefits of the cap-and-trade approach."
I stand behind my contention that Bush is attempting a bait and switch. Ultimately, the worst offenders (coal-fired plants burning WVA's finest) will continue to pollute well into the next decade. Did you notice how the Bushies are implying reductions in acid rain are the function of a "limited version of their system"? Anybody with a clue would know its a blatant misrepresentation of reality.
Well there are manditory caps and penalties. How do you explain that? Do you think the previous clean air act was not successfull?
That's how you work the system if you are a pol. Bush raised some taxes and fees in TX while lowering other taxes. But if you ask him about his record in TX . . . he only cut taxes. The mandatory caps will be based on what the industry agrees to do beforehand. In TX environmental policy was essentially written by industry. It's more difficult to hide such duplicity at the federal level but Bush is still following the game plan of getting a general idea from industry about what targets they can meet and then proposing legislation that gives the impression he's mandating cleaner air.
Of course the Clean Air Act was effective. It was not perfect . . . ie grandfathering plants. My comment is intended to highlight the Bush misinformation when it comes to claiming their current proposal is an advancement which is based on previous successes within the Clean Air Act itself.
Cite your sources, otherwise I do beleive you are full of BS. You were dead wrong on Texas taxes last night, and I have no doubt you are dead wrong on Texas enviromental policy.
BS is a term best used for a clear misrepresentation of best evidence . . . do you really think George W. Bush is embarking on an ambitious plan to make the environment cleaner?
As for my taxes argument . . .
didn't you provide this link
In five years as governor, Governor Bush called twice for tax cuts in Texas, in 1997 and 1999. Both times the Texas Legislature wisely gave him less than what he asked for. In 1997 he proposed a $3 billion cut, taking money from the state's surplus, cutting property taxes and increasing sales taxes. The Legislature gave him just $1 billion dollars worth of property tax cuts that year. In 1999, with Texas experiencing the largest budget surplus in its history, he came back another $2.6 billion in property, sales, and business tax cuts, which he tied to a major education initiative (sound familiar?). The Legislature agreed to $1.85 billion of those cuts.
Leaks from the EPA maybe they need better scrubbers
EPA dude gives his parting shot
Two of the country's largest utilities had just agreed to cut pollution from their old, coal-fired power plants by two-thirds, or more than half a million tons a year. As director of the EPA's Office of Regulatory Enforcement since 1997, I helped to bring lawsuits against some of the nation's largest electric utilities. The government charged these companies with violating the Clean Air Act by expanding their coal-fired electric plants without controlling emissions such as nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide--noxious gases that cause smog, asthma, lung cancer, and premature death. The post-election settlement with Cinergy and Dominion was a landmark, pressuring other companies to follow suit and clean up their act as well.
White House staff and the Energy Department, working closely with lobbyists for the same companies we had sued, directed EPA to expand loopholes that allow 40- or 50-year-old power plants to continue pumping out 12 million tons of sulfur dioxide a year, without implementing modern pollution controls. What's more, in March, EPA Administrator Christine Whitman shocked everyone by publicly suggesting that companies hold off on settlements pending the outcome of litigation. Not surprisingly, Cinergy and Dominion backed out of their agreements and refused to sign consent decrees. (Recently, the administration rolled out a series of "reforms" making it so easy for these big plants to avoid pollution controls that they might as well have been written by defendants' lawyers.)
The administration's most obvious assaults on the environment have drawn fire. The press and environmental groups attacked recent EPA rule changes that allow coal-mining companies to dump waste in valleys and streams,
(in reference to the Clinton regime)
For example, we were able to move quickly to eliminate penalties for companies that voluntarily discovered, reported, and corrected all but the most serious violations, which allowed us to concentrate our resources on major investigations. We also reached a novel settlement with 27 oil refiners, making up about one-third of the industry, which freed them up to experiment with new, money-saving technologies while meeting strict emission limits. It was the best of both worlds. Not only did refineries save money, we also reduced their pollution level.
So during the Clinton administration, the enforcement staff began cracking down, insisting, for example, that big hog farms monitor air emissions at sites where we had complaints. Yet when Bush officials took over, my office was asked to stop enforcing air pollution laws against waste lagoons and barns at factory farms, in favor of "voluntary studies," promoted by program bureaucrats.
As for my taxes argument . . .
didn't you provide this link
In five years as governor, Governor Bush called twice for tax cuts in Texas, in 1997 and 1999. Both times the Texas Legislature wisely gave him less than what he asked for. In 1997 he proposed a $3 billion cut, taking money from the state's surplus, cutting property taxes and increasing sales taxes. The Legislature gave him just $1 billion dollars worth of property tax cuts that year. In 1999, with Texas experiencing the largest budget surplus in its history, he came back another $2.6 billion in property, sales, and business tax cuts, which he tied to a major education initiative (sound familiar?). The Legislature agreed to $1.85 billion of those cuts.
Leaks from the EPA maybe they need better scrubbers
EPA dude gives his parting shot
Two of the country's largest utilities had just agreed to cut pollution from their old, coal-fired power plants by two-thirds, or more than half a million tons a year. As director of the EPA's Office of Regulatory Enforcement since 1997, I helped to bring lawsuits against some of the nation's largest electric utilities. The government charged these companies with violating the Clean Air Act by expanding their coal-fired electric plants without controlling emissions such as nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide--noxious gases that cause smog, asthma, lung cancer, and premature death. The post-election settlement with Cinergy and Dominion was a landmark, pressuring other companies to follow suit and clean up their act as well.
White House staff and the Energy Department, working closely with lobbyists for the same companies we had sued, directed EPA to expand loopholes that allow 40- or 50-year-old power plants to continue pumping out 12 million tons of sulfur dioxide a year, without implementing modern pollution controls. What's more, in March, EPA Administrator Christine Whitman shocked everyone by publicly suggesting that companies hold off on settlements pending the outcome of litigation. Not surprisingly, Cinergy and Dominion backed out of their agreements and refused to sign consent decrees. (Recently, the administration rolled out a series of "reforms" making it so easy for these big plants to avoid pollution controls that they might as well have been written by defendants' lawyers.)
The administration's most obvious assaults on the environment have drawn fire. The press and environmental groups attacked recent EPA rule changes that allow coal-mining companies to dump waste in valleys and streams,
(in reference to the Clinton regime)
For example, we were able to move quickly to eliminate penalties for companies that voluntarily discovered, reported, and corrected all but the most serious violations, which allowed us to concentrate our resources on major investigations. We also reached a novel settlement with 27 oil refiners, making up about one-third of the industry, which freed them up to experiment with new, money-saving technologies while meeting strict emission limits. It was the best of both worlds. Not only did refineries save money, we also reduced their pollution level.
So during the Clinton administration, the enforcement staff began cracking down, insisting, for example, that big hog farms monitor air emissions at sites where we had complaints. Yet when Bush officials took over, my office was asked to stop enforcing air pollution laws against waste lagoons and barns at factory farms, in favor of "voluntary studies," promoted by program bureaucrats.
Well that's just insane. Imagine setting caps at feasible levels by consulting with the industry on levels they're able to meet. We should be excluding the industry from any discussions and just setting caps at whatever the environuts thinks the industry should meet, not what its able to meet.
The last article was written with obvious bias. I stopped reading after he wrote that bush overturned the arsenic executive order. It was not overturned after study.
Originally posted by: tcsenter
Well that's just insane. Imagine setting caps at feasible levels by consulting with the industry on levels they're able to meet. We should be excluding the industry from any discussions and just setting caps at whatever the environuts thinks the industry should meet, not what its able to meet.
Well said.
Yeah the article has an obvious bias . . . just like Cato, AEI, Heritage, EPA website . . . but the facts remain the same. Bush's proposal is that less regulation is always better. I doubt Bush would read the Time Machine but if he could go back in time (as President) do you think the Clean Water or Clean Air Acts would exist?
Why the hyperbole? Feasible is often a function of commitment . . . sometimes commitment to the bottomline is aligned with the best interest of the environment . . . often commitment to the bottomline is not. People that drive spikes into trees, destroy research labs, and pelt SUVs with rocks have issues. But I certainly hold them in higher regards that companies that dump swine waste, industrial wasting, or mine tailings into waterways. The best solutions will come from bringing all parties to the table as equals. Cheney's Energy Task Force was commited to making more energy and investigated what was feasible . . . do you think he invited the Sierra Club, National Wildlife Federation, or an administrator from EPA to discuss what was feasible and sustainable?
So what you are basically saying is that 70% reduction in pollution on top of the 30% reduction from the clean air act is not enough?
Nope, just as I suspect that energy companies would not be invited to discuss the impact of tourism on the fauna and flora of our National Parks.
e.g. the Sierra Club and the National Wildlife Federation have zero expertise in power plants
I really meant that I would like to see not only unreasonable emissions caps but price controls imposed upon the power generating industry. I often wish for proponents of unworkable positions to get their way out of some devilish desire to see their policies result in disaster so their very names and causes become anathema to politicians for the next 20 years.
Like the luxury tax on boats several years back which bankrupted a few dozen US boat manufacturers and their dealers, most of them never to recover even after the tax was repealed. That was a real winner and we won't see another politician speak of such a scheme for another generation or two.
Oh damn dude . . . you set goals based on what SHOULD be done not what industry wants to do. Although causation has not been established there's been an explosion in asthma and allergy mediated disease. Several studies have established air quality in the exacerbation of disease BBC. Less air pollution is always better but even your 70% is specious b/c it's a goal for future administrations . . . not this one.
By loosening current regs . . . companies will get the most out of dirt-bag facilities and likely shut them down during a period in which they would have been put out of service anyway. How do I know this? Many power producers are somewhat decent companies. Plants built in the last two decades are much cleaner than their older sibs. Many 40-50 year old plants are no longer viable for refitting so they will be retired during the next two decades. Simply shutting down those facilities will dramatically improve net emissions b/c this cohort is responsible for much of the emissions from power production.
Let me start over if that was too fast.
The Bush admin says, "hey how long do you need to keep the dirty plants running?"
Industry: Well most of the plants grandfathered out of the Clean Air Act will be money losers within the next two decades.
Bush: What about the middle group . . . plants that are covered by NSR/Clean Air Act but are not state of the art?
Industry: Well they are technically compliant but we cannot expand capacity without incurring the expense of making them cleaner.
Bush: ?
Industry: How about you slip us some cash . . . I mean tax credits . . . and loosen the NSR. We will retrofit facilities with the cheapest available technology which can sneak us under the Clean Air Act. Despite the net increase in emissions the retirement of grandfathered facilities will make it look like we are cleaning up our act.
Bush: Wait a minute . . . how can I claim to clean the air if emissions are actually higher?
Industry: Well you start by cutting the EPA budget particularly in surveillance, compliance, and prosecution. Then set goals based on the out years. Even if we miss every target it won't matter b/c you will be out of office.
Bush: Damn you guys are some shady bastards.
Industry: Why do you think Cheney wants to keep this stuff on the DL?!
By loosening current regs . . . companies will get the most out of dirt-bag facilities and likely shut them down during a period in which they would have been put out of service anyway. How do I know this? Many power producers are somewhat decent companies. Plants built in the last two decades are much cleaner than their older sibs. Many 40-50 year old plants are no longer viable for refitting so they will be retired during the next two decades. Simply shutting down those facilities will dramatically improve net emissions b/c this cohort is responsible for much of the emissions from power production.
Let me start over if that was too fast.
The Bush admin says, "hey how long do you need to keep the dirty plants running?"
Industry: Well most of the plants grandfathered out of the Clean Air Act will be money losers within the next two decades.
Bush: What about the middle group . . . plants that are covered by NSR/Clean Air Act but are not state of the art?
Industry: Well they are technically compliant but we cannot expand capacity without incurring the expense of making them cleaner.
Bush: ?
Industry: How about you slip us some cash . . . I mean tax credits . . . and loosen the NSR. We will retrofit facilities with the cheapest available technology which can sneak us under the Clean Air Act. Despite the net increase in emissions the retirement of grandfathered facilities will make it look like we are cleaning up our act.
Bush: Wait a minute . . . how can I claim to clean the air if emissions are actually higher?
Industry: Well you start by cutting the EPA budget particularly in surveillance, compliance, and prosecution. Then set goals based on the out years. Even if we miss every target it won't matter b/c you will be out of office.
Bush: Damn you guys are some shady bastards.
Industry: Why do you think Cheney wants to keep this stuff on the DL?!
Let me guess . . . you starve the government of revenue and run up huge deficits in order to control spending?
I am actually against price controls but reasonable emissions MUST be biased towards sustainable environment not power production . . . if not some areas of the US would look like Balkan states, Eastern European retreads, or Houston. The government should end ALL subsidies to coal, oil, and natural gas and let the market make choices . . . with supervision to prevent naughtiness like Enron, Dynergy, Williams, Duke Electric, PG&E, etc. Spread around tax credits liberally for individuals willing to foot the bill for more efficient energy consumption (credit everything from passive solar, conductive flooring, insulation, appliances, active solar, wind, biomass). Commercial entities for geothermal, wind, solar, hydroelectric, nuclear, biomass) should either eat the risk and savor their rewards or STFU.
Luxury boat makers went out of business b/c people didn't have the money to pay for the boats NOT an inability to pay the tax on the boat. I vaguely remember the boat luxury tax but it's not like people were getting whacked for 20%. If you really could not afford the extra $5mil for yacht luxotax in 1990 . . . you probably could not afford the yacht.
Whatever. You hate for the this admin is too strong to admit when this administration is doing something good. You keep mentioning looser regs, but the caps would actually get tighter. IF older coal plants are retired within the next 10 years and replaced with cleaner coal plants with top of the line scrubbers installed, the regs have done their jobs.
I guess we could just turn off all those big ugly coal plants tommorow and have 100% reduction in polution from those old plants, but I guess there would be alot fewer lights on as well. Change does not happen over night and it will take a few years to replace/retrofit the current crop of power plants.
Tighter caps on power plant polution.
Tough off road deisel regs
Another couple billion for clean coal tech(this will probably get liquified coal plants going)
Funding for new nuke programs.
A couple billion in hydrogen fuel cell research.
You can complain that you dont think he is doing enough fast enough, but you cant complain that he is rolling back regulations.
Yup this guy is all for big business and does not care about the environment.
Dude you do not listen. I do not hate Bush but his policy on the environment sux. I have little doubt that his policies will mean more power will be available from fossil fuel sources and our society needs more power to progress. But if you want America to be around for your grandchildren then we MUST use energy more efficiently, conserve resources, and avoid excess pollution. You claim Bush is doing something so he should get kudos. Fine. President Bush gets my kudos for doing something. A couple of billion for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles is great except it's really an exercise in what we hope will be feasible as opposed to vehicles widely available from Japan (hybrids) which are demonstrably feasible. Marginal year over year changes in CAFE would have dramatic effects in our auto crazy country . . . can you hear the crickets in the Bush admin?
Why shouldn't the coal industry/producers foot the bill for new technology and see what the market will bare as they pass on costs? Isn't that how America works? You propose/present a commodity (cleaner energy) and see how much people are willing to pay for it.
The regs for industry diesels have been stymied for years by various industries and their Congressional lackies. As soon as Bush pushes actual legislation or executes changes he will get credit for doing something Clinton/Gore pass the buck on.
Tighter caps on NEW power plants are mislabeled as Bush accomplishments. All new plants must comply with the Clean Air Act. The NSR allows companies to spread pollution across their facilities so they will get credit for reduced emissions (even if those emission reductions are solely a function of planned facility closings). Bush and his stooges are claiming his tax cuts throttled the stock market . . . if the stock market takes a dive next month I'm sure Osama will be at fault.
New nuke facilities should follow the model of every other capitalist enterprise. We do not guarantee success. Any company capable of building a facility is welcome to try but if people do not want to foot the bill for the expense of building plants or the permanent storage of wastes (most DOE/industry estimates ignore these costs when they claim nuke energy is cheap) then the companies should eat their losses. The government should not be in the business of guaranteeing success for an industry.
As for your sign off that I am complaining about Bush rolling back regulations . . . if a company settles with the EPA for violations of the Clean Air Act and then changes their mind after a change in administration . . . what do you think that means? If the EPA changes NSR and reduces surveillance while setting goals 15 years in the future . . . what do you think that means?
Why shouldn't the coal industry/producers foot the bill for new technology and see what the market will bare as they pass on costs? Isn't that how America works? You propose/present a commodity (cleaner energy) and see how much people are willing to pay for it.
The regs for industry diesels have been stymied for years by various industries and their Congressional lackies. As soon as Bush pushes actual legislation or executes changes he will get credit for doing something Clinton/Gore pass the buck on.
Tighter caps on NEW power plants are mislabeled as Bush accomplishments. All new plants must comply with the Clean Air Act. The NSR allows companies to spread pollution across their facilities so they will get credit for reduced emissions (even if those emission reductions are solely a function of planned facility closings). Bush and his stooges are claiming his tax cuts throttled the stock market . . . if the stock market takes a dive next month I'm sure Osama will be at fault.
New nuke facilities should follow the model of every other capitalist enterprise. We do not guarantee success. Any company capable of building a facility is welcome to try but if people do not want to foot the bill for the expense of building plants or the permanent storage of wastes (most DOE/industry estimates ignore these costs when they claim nuke energy is cheap) then the companies should eat their losses. The government should not be in the business of guaranteeing success for an industry.
As for your sign off that I am complaining about Bush rolling back regulations . . . if a company settles with the EPA for violations of the Clean Air Act and then changes their mind after a change in administration . . . what do you think that means? If the EPA changes NSR and reduces surveillance while setting goals 15 years in the future . . . what do you think that means?
No they were getting whacked for an extra 10% on boats costing $100,000 or more. And you're right, people had the money to pay the tax, they REFUSED to pay it (which meant buying used boats, buying boats from foreign sources, or not buying them at all). As it turns out, wealthy people don't have to buy boats, and they especially don't have to buy boats from US manufacturers or dealers:
"Coming on top of depressed sales in 1991, the excise tax triggered a record 70% drop in sales from 1988 levels for larger boats costing over $100,000. But the sale of smaller boats also bottomed out as consumer confusion about the tax kept nearly everybody out of the new boat market. As business dried up for suppliers and retailers too, the crisis rippled across the entire industry causing widespread layoffs and plant closings.
In 1993, small boat manufacturers began to see an upturn with improvement in the economy, but big boat manufacturers did not experience notable gains until the luxury tax was eliminated late last year. David Slikkers, president of S2 Yachts in Holland, Mich., observed a substantial increase in big boat orders over the 60 to 90 days following repeal. S2's payroll, which topped nearly 800 in 1989 and fell to 270 by 1993, is now back up to 490. He estimates net sales of S2 boats, priced from $100,000 to $500,000, will be up 40 percent over last year." - BOAT MAKERS REHIRE WORKERS IN WAKE OF TAX REPEAL
"As it turned out, the demand for these luxury goods was reasonably elastic. Sales of pleasure boats fell by nearly 90 percent in south Florida in early 1991, as prospective buyers bought boats in the Bahamas to avoid paying the tax. Sales of high-priced cars like Mercedes and Lexus also fell substantially. The situation of sellers of luxury goods was made even worse by the recession in 1991, which reduced the income of many prospective buyers, thus shifting the demand curve for luxuries back to the left as well." - Illusory Gains From Taxing Luxuries?
"Congress estimated that in 1991 these luxury taxes would rake in $31 million. But the actual sum was just $16.6 million. Why? Because, to the surprise of no one except tax-raising politicians the luxury taxes caused people to buy less jewelry and fewer expensive cars, planes, and, especially, yachts.
The tax destroyed jobs - an estimated 25,000 of them in the boat-building industry, much of which is in New England - in Sen. Mitchell's Maine and Sen. Kennedy's Massachusetts. Job losses cost the government more than $24 million in unemployment benefits and lost income tax revenue. So the luxury tax actually cost the government money.
New England's boat-building industry was still so devastated by 1999 that another Kennedy - Ted's son Patrick, a Rhode island congressman - actually proposed a federal subsidy to help rich people buy yachts. He called it, "exactly the opposite of a luxury tax."" - No Luxury in the End
"The theory behind the luxury tax sounded simple enough. Congress believed anyone willing to spend $100,000 or more on a new boat surely would be willing to pay an additional 10 percent to the federal government. But that didn't happen. Rather than pay the tax, many people in the market to buy a boat either didn't buy one, or bought one overseas. As a result, the luxury tax didn't bring in much money at all, and the customers' reluctance to buy put the boat-building business, particularly here in Rhode Island, out of business. We first visited Rhode Island in June of 1992. The luxury tax had been in effect for 18 months. Tens of thousands of jobs had been lost across the country, thousands in Rhode Island alone." - Rising Tide
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Dude you do not listen. I do not hate Bush but his policy on the environment sux. I have little doubt that his policies will mean more power will be available from fossil fuel sources and our society needs more power to progress. But if you want America to be around for your grandchildren then we MUST use energy more efficiently, conserve resources, and avoid excess pollution. You claim Bush is doing something so he should get kudos. Fine. President Bush gets my kudos for doing something. A couple of billion for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles is great except it's really an exercise in what we hope will be feasible as opposed to vehicles widely available from Japan (hybrids) which are demonstrably feasible. Marginal year over year changes in CAFE would have dramatic effects in our auto crazy country . . . can you hear the crickets in the Bush admin?
Bush did increase cafe standards. Hybrid look promising, but gas is still to cheap for them to be econmically practical. As their price falls, this very well could change. One also has to consider if the couple hundred gallons of gas saved over the life of a vehicle is worth the battery replacement and recycling cost of that battery. This is one question the hybrid car makers really have no good answer for.
Why shouldn't the coal industry/producers foot the bill for new technology and see what the market will bare as they pass on costs? Isn't that how America works? You propose/present a commodity (cleaner energy) and see how much people are willing to pay for it.
Actually the coal industry has footed a good chunk of the bill. All the research that came out of your loved clean air act was financed 50% by the goverment and 50% by industry. The result was affordable coal scrubbers that could be retrofitted onto current facilties. Clear Skies has more money for this type of research and will like yeild coal liquification which will burn as clean as natural gas. This will also be a joint finance between goverment and industry.
The regs for industry diesels have been stymied for years by various industries and their Congressional lackies. As soon as Bush pushes actual legislation or executes changes he will get credit for doing something Clinton/Gore pass the buck on.
I am pretty sure this has already passed[/b]
Tighter caps on NEW power plants are mislabeled as Bush accomplishments. All new plants must comply with the Clean Air Act. The NSR allows companies to spread pollution across their facilities so they will get credit for reduced emissions (even if those emission reductions are solely a function of planned facility closings). Bush and his stooges are claiming his tax cuts throttled the stock market . . . if the stock market takes a dive next month I'm sure Osama will be at fault.
The new regs are even tighter, but you dont bother admitting that. What is feasable and cost effective is much better than what was feasable and cost effective when the clean air act was passed. You simply will not admit that this is the case.
New nuke facilities should follow the model of every other capitalist enterprise. We do not guarantee success. Any company capable of building a facility is welcome to try but if people do not want to foot the bill for the expense of building plants or the permanent storage of wastes (most DOE/industry estimates ignore these costs when they claim nuke energy is cheap) then the companies should eat their losses. The government should not be in the business of guaranteeing success for an industry.
These are actually loan guarantees to get the nuke industry started again. Goverment has done a pretty job of not supporting nuke power over the past 20 or so years. I dont mind the goverment giving a few loan guarantees to get this industry going again. I agree industry also need help with the waste storage costs. The goverment also needs to allow for breeder reactors for reprocessing of waste.
As for your sign off that I am complaining about Bush rolling back regulations . . . if a company settles with the EPA for violations of the Clean Air Act and then changes their mind after a change in administration . . . what do you think that means? If the EPA changes NSR and reduces surveillance while setting goals 15 years in the future . . . what do you think that means?
I think you are the one not listening.
from an eaget construction magazine
I will glady comdemn Bush on this being a farce if there no planned upgrades on coal plants within a year of this passing. But for the time being, the plan looks quite promissing.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter