Recent Topics
Road trip to Palo Duro Canyon?
by Benzadmiral
04/24/14 12:42 PM
Pork Brine!
by 123Saab
04/24/14 09:57 AM
Water in Gas
by outoforder
04/24/14 09:12 AM
Valve job pics
by Stelth
04/24/14 09:01 AM
2000 Yamaha V-Star Mobil Delvac 15w40 @ 3000 miles
by outoforder
04/24/14 08:58 AM
Adding SSD to a 6-year-old desktop?
by Quattro Pete
04/24/14 08:37 AM
Laptop hard drive
by Oldmoparguy1
04/24/14 08:11 AM
carquest 5w30 full synthetic
by waltywalt
04/24/14 08:03 AM
Summer Car - start up
by 2stroker
04/24/14 07:59 AM
Small engine, PCMO or HDEO?
by supercity
04/24/14 06:50 AM
please explain twin hammer vs twin clutch impacts
by Donald
04/24/14 06:49 AM
What oil filter for remote mount ATF application?
by scoob8000
04/24/14 06:38 AM
Newest Members
2stroker, BMWR1200GS, Npeters1205, shrekulo, Helpme
49680 Registered Users
Who's Online
95 registered (99Saturn, 440Magnum, 901Memphis, 2stroker, 05foresterXT, 87sammy, 8 invisible), 2054 Guests and 197 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
49680 Members
64 Forums
212359 Topics
3329102 Posts

Max Online: 2651 @ 04/21/14 04:38 PM
Donate to BITOG

Page 10 of 16 < 1 2 ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... 15 16 >
Topic Options
#2670384 - 07/01/12 11:20 AM Re: New EPA coal regs = $180 billion [Re: Tempest]
SteveSRT8 Offline


Registered: 10/10/08
Posts: 13676
Loc: Sunny Florida
Gosh, since October of 2011 and only one member gets this?

Putting more people on unemployment and food stamps isn't helping things much. Thanks EPA!
_________________________
"In a democracy, dissent is an act of faith."
J. William Fulbright
Best ET-12.79 @ 111 mph
4340 pounds, Street tires
Just like we go to Publix

Top
#2670643 - 07/01/12 04:36 PM Re: New EPA coal regs = $180 billion [Re: LTVibe]
Shannow Offline


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 25365
Loc: a prison island
Originally Posted By: LTVibe
It's not that 'beancounters' are refusing to retire old plants. The problem is the companies have not been given sufficient time for upgrades:

Two East Texas coal power plants to be idled

Quote:
The company said it will spend about $280 million through 2012 on emissions control equipment, but won't complete the projects in time to meet the deadline.


Also from exactly the same link...indicating that management want to blame the EPA for some other agenda that they might have...
Quote:
She said "it is unfortunate that company leadership rushed to a decision that needlessly puts their workers' jobs at risk," even though the EPA just recently "offered to share additional information that shows the potential for a no-shutdown, no-layoff solution for statewide compliance.'


Companies with large installations can negotiate staged implementation to emission controls reductions...but if you've got an ancient workplace culture full of demarkation, asbestos clean-up legacies etc., it make so much more sense to have somebody "force" you to shut it down.


Originally Posted By: LTVibe
My car analogy assumed vehicles from the '80s and '90s, not the '60s.


Why did you make THAT assumption ?

On what basis ?

The two plants that you are drawing attention to are same manufacturing era as the Pinto, and designed probably 10 years before that.

Top
#2670648 - 07/01/12 04:40 PM Re: New EPA coal regs = $180 billion [Re: SteveSRT8]
Shannow Offline


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 25365
Loc: a prison island
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Gosh, since October of 2011 and only one member gets this?


No, tempest's world view is that
EPA = BAD
GOVT = BAD
Businesses doing whatever they want for "efficiency" (note that's economic efficiency, not efficient use of resources) = GOOD.

However, I'm not sure how the emission of pollutants onto other people's PROPERTY gets a free kick here.

Top
#2670705 - 07/01/12 05:48 PM Re: New EPA coal regs = $180 billion [Re: Tempest]
MolaKule Offline


Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 13653
Loc: Midwest
Quote:
The problem is the companies have not been given sufficient time for upgrades:



Another problem is the EPA overstepping it's bounds by wihdrawing permits already issued. Only the Army COE can withdraw mining permits.

One case is here: http://wvgazette.com/News/201203230106

Do a search on
Quote:
EPA withdrawing permits.


On CSPAN one evevning recently there was a congressional hearing on this very issue.

In this hearing, it was brought to the forefront, by one of the Liberal representatives from one of the Northeastern states, that the Congress had wanted the power producers to sign up for government handouts to upgrade plants. Many producers turned it down on the principle of further goverment intrusion and regulations, I.E., by accepting these handouts, they would have to do the bidding at the whim of government beauracrats. Well, that ticked off both the EPA and the Liberals, so they are now gunning for the coal producers and coal plant operators.

For one, I appluad those those operators for NOT taking these government bribes.


Folks, the only way to clean up this mess is to vote for those who would reign-in these out-of-control agencies and uphold the Constitution, both in the Executive and Congressional branches.
_________________________
Friend: Here, try some trail mix.
ME: Oh great. I always wanted M&Ms with obstacles.

Top
#2670841 - 07/01/12 08:35 PM Re: New EPA coal regs = $180 billion [Re: SteveSRT8]
JHZR2 Offline



Registered: 12/14/02
Posts: 32578
Loc: New Jersey
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Gosh, since October of 2011 and only one member gets this?

Putting more people on unemployment and food stamps isn't helping things much. Thanks EPA!


So are you claiming that the grid, which is stiff, is going to have 36GW or whatever less generating capacity online?

So the whole grid will go down, right?

I highly doubt it. Because those "good" businesses are then going to have lots of angry consumers on their hands.

But as shannow said (and IMO similar to the medical indstry), many-times depreciated gear is being kept online in the name of "efficiency", because there is no care or concern.

Again, people will take a dump in their drinking water if it is cheap and convenient. You can claim it is sentencing people to lost jobs and whatever else, but last I checked, unemployment is already at 20%, and as much as you want to blame the EPA, they arent the reason.

Id be all for staged implementation... But if the "strategists" didnt see the whole pollution thing coming like a freight train from the early 1990s until today (20 years forewarning?) then they must be complete idiots. In fact, I think the acid rain thing was prevalent LONG before the 90s.

More like the reality is that these "good" businesses werent trying to avoid government regulation and whatever, but rather were trusting in their ability to lobby it the other way. Forward thinking? Strategy? Nope, none of that.

Wonder how many jobs would have been created implementing the new controls in a phased approach, versus the few high-priced ones for lobbyists to kill the whole thing?


Top
#2671116 - 07/02/12 06:31 AM Re: New EPA coal regs = $180 billion [Re: Shannow]
LTVibe Offline


Registered: 05/25/05
Posts: 1137
Loc: Florida
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: LTVibe
My car analogy assumed vehicles from the '80s and '90s, not the '60s.


Why did you make THAT assumption ?

On what basis ?

The two plants that you are drawing attention to are same manufacturing era as the Pinto, and designed probably 10 years before that.


My analogy was not necessarily about the age of plants and vehicles, but rather the compliance of plants and vehicles of any age to the most recent EPA regulations.

If the EPA were to force the removal from service all vehicles that did not meet the most recent standards, that would probably mean most all vehicles manufactured in the '80s and '90s, and every vehicle made prior to 1980.
_________________________
2005 Pontiac Vibe

Top
#2671127 - 07/02/12 07:13 AM Re: New EPA coal regs = $180 billion [Re: Tempest]
Shannow Offline


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 25365
Loc: a prison island
LOL, what was your "argumentalogy" then ???

Back to YOUR point...how many Pintos, Novas' and classic '50s chevs do you drive past every day ?

They have all outlived their economic lives, and the owners aren't relying on, and don't get tax deductions and sunk depreciation to keep them operating.

Why shouldn't the owners of 1960s power stations have to upgrade their systems to something remotely resembling modern ?

They aren't being shut down, just like the Pintos aren't being forced off the road...your own link demonstrates that the owners chose to shut them down, in the face of assistance, while the free market owners of the pintos have moved on to more recent and more efficient (and safe) plant...

Top
#2671315 - 07/02/12 10:49 AM Re: New EPA coal regs = $180 billion [Re: LTVibe]
HerrStig Offline


Registered: 08/24/11
Posts: 2929
Loc: Boston, MA
Originally Posted By: LTVibe
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: LTVibe
My car analogy assumed vehicles from the '80s and '90s, not the '60s.


Why did you make THAT assumption ?

On what basis ?

The two plants that you are drawing attention to are same manufacturing era as the Pinto, and designed probably 10 years before that.


Late 90's vehicles sold here are OBD II, has the standard changed since??

My analogy was not necessarily about the age of plants and vehicles, but rather the compliance of plants and vehicles of any age to the most recent EPA regulations.

If the EPA were to force the removal from service all vehicles that did not meet the most recent standards, that would probably mean most all vehicles manufactured in the '80s and '90s, and every vehicle made prior to 1980.



Top
#2671452 - 07/02/12 12:08 PM Re: New EPA coal regs = $180 billion [Re: Shannow]
LTVibe Offline


Registered: 05/25/05
Posts: 1137
Loc: Florida
Originally Posted By: Shannow
LOL, what was your "argumentalogy" then ???

Back to YOUR point...how many Pintos, Novas' and classic '50s chevs do you drive past every day ?

They have all outlived their economic lives, and the owners aren't relying on, and don't get tax deductions and sunk depreciation to keep them operating.

Why shouldn't the owners of 1960s power stations have to upgrade their systems to something remotely resembling modern ?

They aren't being shut down, just like the Pintos aren't being forced off the road...your own link demonstrates that the owners chose to shut them down, in the face of assistance, while the free market owners of the pintos have moved on to more recent and more efficient (and safe) plant...


The issue is about compliance, not age.

Not all newer vehicles meet the latest emission standards, and possibly not all newer coal plants meet the latest standards either. It does not matter to the EPA whether a non-compliant plant was built in 1950 or 1990. They have to become compliant, or removed from service.


Edited by LTVibe (07/02/12 12:09 PM)
_________________________
2005 Pontiac Vibe

Top
#2671545 - 07/02/12 01:37 PM Re: New EPA coal regs = $180 billion [Re: Shannow]
LTVibe Offline


Registered: 05/25/05
Posts: 1137
Loc: Florida
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Why shouldn't the owners of 1960s power stations have to upgrade their systems to something remotely resembling modern ?

They aren't being shut down, just like the Pintos aren't being forced off the road...your own link demonstrates that the owners chose to shut them down, in the face of assistance, while the free market owners of the pintos have moved on to more recent and more efficient (and safe) plant...


In my state, the three companies I'm aware of (Progress Energy, Florida Power & Light, Orlando Utilities Commission) have not had any problems upgrading or replacing older facilities. Most of these upgrades occurred before the tighter regulations, probably due to the fact that these companies are in good financial condition (not surprising, considering the rates they charge customers are among the highest in the USA).

I'm not in favor of running old, 'dirty' plants forever. And I don't know exactly why other companies have not been as successful as the ones in my state. But I do believe the EPA has been overzealous in enforcing rules, and enacting expensive regulations that some believe don't make significant reductions in emissions.
_________________________
2005 Pontiac Vibe

Top
#2671671 - 07/02/12 03:48 PM Re: New EPA coal regs = $180 billion [Re: Shannow]
Tempest Online   content


Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 10380
Loc: Las Vegas NV
Originally Posted By: Shannow
LOL, what was your "argumentalogy" then ???

Back to YOUR point...how many Pintos, Novas' and classic '50s chevs do you drive past every day ?

They have all outlived their economic lives, and the owners aren't relying on, and don't get tax deductions and sunk depreciation to keep them operating.

Why shouldn't the owners of 1960s power stations have to upgrade their systems to something remotely resembling modern ?

They aren't being shut down, just like the Pintos aren't being forced off the road...your own link demonstrates that the owners chose to shut them down, in the face of assistance, while the free market owners of the pintos have moved on to more recent and more efficient (and safe) plant...



LOL is right. Both yours and my governments heavily subsidize the construction of new cars. They want new cars. Now, how many governmental obstructions does a new power plant incur? There is NO free market in regards to power generation in anyway shape or form.

They keep the old plants because that's all they can have! Our government is on record as wanting to bankrupt coal power plants.
_________________________
“Never underestimate the difficulty of changing false beliefs by facts.” --- Henry Rosovsky

Top
#2671692 - 07/02/12 04:08 PM Re: New EPA coal regs = $180 billion [Re: JHZR2]
Tempest Online   content


Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 10380
Loc: Las Vegas NV
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Last I checked, acid rain and mercury in the air does indeed mean a lower standard of living.

Would I pay 20% more to not have this? Yes. Perhaps because I made something for myself and CAN afford it. Not my problem if others cant, right? Im willing to vote with my wallet, free market, right?

Youre free to get an extra injection of H2SO4 and Hg into your veins if you like it... Or go live in Shanghai and see how you like it.

Easy to cite analogy and make big claims from behind a computer.

People will take a dump in their drinking water if they have a chance to do what is easy and cheap. I assume that includes you?

Then I take it that you would be happy to shut down all coal power plants, today...globally?
Can you afford that?

And again, there is NO free market with regards to power generation anywhere in the country. The lines are owned by the government, where and what kind of plant can be constructed is heavily regulated, prices that can be charged, emissions....

Every single aspect of the industry is regulated to the hilt, and that is the problem.

As is clearly obvious, there is great risk in bulding these things due to mass uncertainty in what the government will do to you in the future. Just because one builds a "clean" power plant (by current arbitrary definition) today, offers no guarantee that future arbitrary definitions will be the same. Very risky when building something that is supposed to last 25+ years.

Car manufactures only have to build products that conform to current regs, not regs 25 years from now. Meanwhile, the government grants 20 year guaranteed pricing to less efficient "alternative" energy sources that it arbitrarily decides is "better".

This is a major reason why power generation is in such a sad state.



What is the cost to others of these emissions? Without being able to quantify how "destructive" or "deleterious" any particular level of emission is, then determining whether or not these plants should be shut down is impossible.
What do you consider to be "clean air"?
_________________________
“Never underestimate the difficulty of changing false beliefs by facts.” --- Henry Rosovsky

Top
#2671698 - 07/02/12 04:11 PM Re: New EPA coal regs = $180 billion [Re: Tempest]
Tempest Online   content


Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 10380
Loc: Las Vegas NV
What is the trade off in the drastically reduced living standard of higher power prices, vs. the current emissions of current power plants?
_________________________
“Never underestimate the difficulty of changing false beliefs by facts.” --- Henry Rosovsky

Top
#2671749 - 07/02/12 05:01 PM Re: New EPA coal regs = $180 billion [Re: JHZR2]
SteveSRT8 Offline


Registered: 10/10/08
Posts: 13676
Loc: Sunny Florida
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Gosh, since October of 2011 and only one member gets this?

Putting more people on unemployment and food stamps isn't helping things much. Thanks EPA!


So are you claiming that the grid, which is stiff, is going to have 36GW or whatever less generating capacity online?

So the whole grid will go down, right?

I highly doubt it. Because those "good" businesses are then going to have lots of angry consumers on their hands.

But as shannow said (and IMO similar to the medical indstry), many-times depreciated gear is being kept online in the name of "efficiency", because there is no care or concern.

Again, people will take a dump in their drinking water if it is cheap and convenient. You can claim it is sentencing people to lost jobs and whatever else, but last I checked, unemployment is already at 20%, and as much as you want to blame the EPA, they arent the reason.

Id be all for staged implementation... But if the "strategists" didnt see the whole pollution thing coming like a freight train from the early 1990s until today (20 years forewarning?) then they must be complete idiots. In fact, I think the acid rain thing was prevalent LONG before the 90s.

More like the reality is that these "good" businesses werent trying to avoid government regulation and whatever, but rather were trusting in their ability to lobby it the other way. Forward thinking? Strategy? Nope, none of that.

Wonder how many jobs would have been created implementing the new controls in a phased approach, versus the few high-priced ones for lobbyists to kill the whole thing?


I just think that in the middle of the worst recession in decades it is utter idiocy to force anyone to close down. As stated above this 'regime' is on record as wanting to FORCE old tech out of business.

I'll grant you that their mgmt is deficient, and of course they lobby. That's another topic!

The tech exists to make coal clean. They are probably wanting a handout like everyone else gets! Why shouldn't they expect one?
_________________________
"In a democracy, dissent is an act of faith."
J. William Fulbright
Best ET-12.79 @ 111 mph
4340 pounds, Street tires
Just like we go to Publix

Top
#2672463 - 07/03/12 11:13 AM Re: New EPA coal regs = $180 billion [Re: Tempest]
jaj Offline


Registered: 08/21/03
Posts: 880
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
The math is simple, really. If your goal is to operate a power plant legally, it's cheaper to buy negative publicity and pay lobbyists than it is to pay engineers and tradesmen.

Top
Page 10 of 16 < 1 2 ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... 15 16 >