Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
as pointed out cutting the amount of mercury in coal from 10% to 1% gains us virtually nothing compared to the costs associated with the removal of the extra mercury.
The amount of emissions from US plants will be cut significantly. The 1% to 10% reduction is the deposition rate which is different than the emission rate. Mercury is not a localized issue, it's a global issue. Cutting US emissions is also negligible in the global context too because US coal plants account for less than 1 percent of the global pool.
Pittsburgh is a different situation because of the steel mills.
FYI the third photo from the left depicting modern plant is just clouds and water vapor from the stacks. Coal plants use what is called a wet scrubber for pollution control, this produces water vapor.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,453,787 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25
Hell we can't even trust the people who are running the EPA. Who knows what the hell they are dreaming up with their enviro buddies and secret emails. So much for transparency.
"A second Environmental Protection Agency official stands accused of using a personal email address to shield communications with environmental activists from public disclosure.
Court documents show that EPA Region 8 Administrator James Martin corresponded with the Environmental Defense Fund — where he previously worked as an attorney — through his private email account.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson recently came under fire for her use of email aliases, before she announced her resignation. "
while i recognize that the EPA has done some good things for this country, i do like drinking clean water and breathing clean air, there is a tipping point where the agency goes from being effective to being draconian. they have reached that tipping point.
No not really. The reason America isn't looking like China now is because of the EPA. If we took out the EPA, you could expect industrial polluters to resume operations here, again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
Pittsburgh is a different situation because of the steel mills.
FYI the third photo from the left depicting modern plant is just clouds and water vapor from the stacks. Coal plants use what is called a wet scrubber for pollution control, this produces water vapor.
Right. When visiting Pittsburgh as a child, I recall 1/4" of red residue upon all parked cars. Great for lungs.
Oh, yeah, clean coal.
Very few people in the US use coal for heat or cooking in a residential setting and those that do use anthracite which produces no soot. When you pile a couple million people into a small area with a large portion of them are using soft coal in residential stoves that have absolutely no pollution control and then pile onto that industries with little to no pollution control the result is what you're going to see in China.
The PM or particulate matter allowed to be emitted into the atmosphere is already regulated by the EPA and has been for years. This cost money and is an acceptable expenditure of funds but there is point of diminishing returns and we are way beyond that already.
In Alaska we mine bituminous coal at the Wishbone Hill Mine in Sutton, and sub-bituminous coal at Usibelli Coal Mine in Healy. The Usibelli Coal Mine averages just over two million tons of coal per year, and has been in business since 1943. Even though the Usibelli Coal Mine is only 10 miles north of Denali National Park, very few outside of Alaska know it even exists.
while i recognize that the EPA has done some good things for this country, i do like drinking clean water and breathing clean air, there is a tipping point where the agency goes from being effective to being draconian. they have reached that tipping point.
please be specific. Which specific policies are draconian? The EPA makes judgments based upon cost/benefit analysis.
Moreover, draconian is in the eyes of the beholder. The automakers in the 1970s said EPA regulations were draconian. As a result, the air is 96% cleaner than it was before their regulations. Gasoline doesn't contain lead any longer, so children have less risk of learning disabilities.
Let's face it, business will always complain when government forces them to do what they should have good enough sense to do on their own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Few people complain about the EPA when it addresses things like is happening in China. The problem is we do not have that problem, granted in part because of EPA actions. The complaints come in now that they no longer have the big things to address and think they still have to do something new all the time.
When it comes down to telling people what kind of lightbulb they can use, they have done jumped the shark.
You are perpetuating a fallacy. You are referring to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, whose final bill passed the Senate 86-8 on December 13, 2007 and the House 314-100 on December 18th, then signed by President Bush. As this article states:
Quote:
The new law was enacted to simply phase out inefficient lightbulbs in, as Congress stated, "a technology-neutral way." The new law doesn't ban incandescent lightbulbs, nor does it demand the use of CFLs or any other kind of bulb. It simply sets forth energy efficiency targets that go into effect in two phases: first in 2012, and again in 2020.
By the end of this year, household bulbs—be they incandescents, CFLs, LEDs, or halogens—must use 30 percent less electricity than traditional incandescent bulbs. (The law was originally supposed to go into effect at the beginning of 2012, but Congress delayed it.) And while incandescents are not explicitly banned, the older, non-energy-efficient style is going to have an awfully hard time reaching that target.
Hell we can't even trust the people who are running the EPA. Who knows what the hell they are dreaming up with their enviro buddies and secret emails. So much for transparency.
"A second Environmental Protection Agency official stands accused of using a personal email address to shield communications with environmental activists from public disclosure.
Court documents show that EPA Region 8 Administrator James Martin corresponded with the Environmental Defense Fund — where he previously worked as an attorney — through his private email account.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson recently came under fire for her use of email aliases, before she announced her resignation. "
So? Was the official stealing money? No. Was the official negotiating a better job? No.
The official was communicating with a non-profit environmental group about environmental policy. Oh how sinister! Dick Cheney was allowed to meet secretly with oil executives over oil policy but environmental officials can't communicate with environmental groups? Seems like a double standard.
The EPA was not the solution to the problem.
The source of the problem was the limited liability of the polluters (or "poisoners")... aka "artificial persons" aka "corporations."
Limited liability allow groups of people to profit while not being held liable for the harm they do.
There is no profit if the corporation is hit with fines. If there is no profit, those responsible are fired.
So? Was the official stealing money? No. Was the official negotiating a better job? No.
The official was communicating with a non-profit environmental group about environmental policy. Oh how sinister! Dick Cheney was allowed to meet secretly with oil executives over oil policy but environmental officials can't communicate with environmental groups? Seems like a double standard.
Doesn't it now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
