At 11:48 PM 12/1/2002 -0500, you wrote:
On 11/27/02 6:29 AM, Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your posts are too few and far between Matthew, but quality makes up for
quantity a hundred-fold.
You, my friend, have earned yourself a beer if we ever get the chance to
meet. And if you are in
Matthew and Julie Bos wrote:
snip
Does the government have
the right to sue people into buying new cars when
their old cars no longer meets smog standards?
When I lived in Texas, the government had the right to
*not* issue you a car registration if your vehicle's
emissions failed their
Matthew and Julie Bos wrote:
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.
The bottom line being that 15% is too much to expect in
On 11/30/02 3:41 PM, Doug [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm, do you have to be a Democrat to be susceptible to mercury or
dioxins? Ohio plants alone released more than 1,600 lbs of mercury in
1998 and the state has issued warnings about eating fish caught in their
waters. Dioxins are released in
Matthew and Julie Bos wrote:
U.S. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham says the Bush administration's
newly announced National Energy Policy calls for this type of technological
ingenuity to meet many of the nation's energy and environmental goals.
The Anti-Christ strikes again! But this one
Existing rules require U.S. utilities and refineries to invest in
state-of-the-art pollution controls if a plant undergoes a major
expansion or modification. The issue is pivotal for aging coal-fired
utilities in the Midwest that could face hundreds of millions of dollars
in new
On 11/25/02 12:41 PM, The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] quoted the
following article:
Existing rules require U.S. utilities and refineries to invest in
state-of-the-art pollution controls if a plant undergoes a major
expansion or modification. The issue is pivotal for aging coal-fired
utilities in
Matthew and Julie Bos wrote:
So instead of being 15 percent more efficient, plants
are only being maintained and not improved. Maybe you would like to
explain how in this case the Clinton era policy actually helps the
environment?
Is 15% a realistic number or is 1.5% closer to the mark?
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
