On 11/27/02 12:51 AM, "Doug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is 15% a realistic number or is 1.5% closer to the mark? How long will > upgrading the polluting plant allow it to continue to spew carcinogens > and acidic byproducts into our air and what is the cost to the state and > federal governments, not to mention the citizenry, for not upgrading > these destructive plants? The Bush administration is excellent at > making short term, stopgap measures look good for the economy, but I'm > more interested in preserving the quality of life for my grandchildren > than preserving the fortune of wealthy Americans.
When you are looking at a power plant that is in the neighborhood of 30 years old, a fifteen percent increase in efficiency is not really unheard of. Computer modeling has come a long way since the 70's. Spewing carcinogens? Do you write script for the Democratic Party? (I really think the Democrats should come up with a flash animation of Bush tossing a old lady in a wheelchair down a smokestack for this one.) Are these the same coal plants that have despite a tripling of coal usage managed to cut the total emission of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide? I know you haven't mentioned it yet (why would you? :)) but the Clean Air targets which would reduce emissions by fifty percent were not touched by by the new rules. In my example the "destructive" power plant (which by the way had a 650 million dollar upgrade to meet new nitrogen oxide standards) was trying to be more efficient producing energy. I thought that was the goal. Greens (and I don't know that you are one) always push for increases of CAF� standards for cars and light trucks. Why does this logic not work for utilities? Why do they have to tear down existing power plants to comply with rules that are written for new power plants? Does the government have the right to sue people into buying new cars when their old cars no longer meets smog standards? The old standards worked fine. They are a great idea. I am fully in support of newer cleaner technology. I believe that in the long term it is the best for people, the environment, and power companies. The Clinton EPA after changing the "new source review" rules found that eighty percent of the nation's utilities were outside of the new regulations. So instead of questioning what's wrong here, they decided the best way to proceed is by lawsuit. But then again the Clinton administration was excellent at making short term, stopgap measures that looked good for the environment, but in the long term actually decreased the quality of life (by increased energy costs). :) Did you know that one of the most popular investments for average Americans are the utility companies? I would like to keep them profitable, thereby creating the fortunes of average Americans. I do wish the Greens in this country would actually build a power plant just so we can see how its done. But then again, how would they pay for all their lawyers? Beggars can't be choosers, Matthew Bos (I don't know if I can respond in the next couple of days, I'll be out of town. So have a happy Thanksgiving, and I'll look forward to responding to you this weekend.) _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
