"clot" wrote in news:V8zIi.70598$1G1.64550@newsfe2- win.ntli.net:
Some landfills ARE collecting the gas,not venting it. Some have private companies bid on doing the task,I believe.
the problem is,though we gain methane from the rotting refuse,what of the OTHER stuff buried with the decaying organics? That is what leaches into the surrounding soil and water.(despite the clay and plastic underlayments and dams)
A. Even if it were true (which, in its entirety certainly, it isn't), they didn't get their way, did they? That's the legislative method at work. Neither "side" necessarily ever gets the entire piece of pie they would like.
B. Factual evidence? Your initial allegation has melted away into personal attack and/or such generalities as to be meaningless on request for specifics. And, of course, it's not good to blindly accept that another group is totally correct and not subject to critical thinking, either.
Kurt Ullman wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@032-478-847.area.spcsdns.net:
it was "carbomite" Solo was cast in. (no,I'm not a StarWars groupie-geek.)
Jim Yanik wrote: ...
...
At some point when it becomes economically feasible we'll begin mining them for the materials...
--
Before we continue, let's clarify what you do not believe. I'll narrow it down to two things for now:
1) Industries including utilities can and do purchase legislation. True or false (your belief). 2) Some utilities have arranged to not install sufficient pollution controls on coal fired plants because they claim it's not economically feasible. True or false (your belief).
Environmental groups and other special interest groups can and do purchase legislation. True or false (your belief).
Of course, it isn't always economically feasible (and, again as stated before) sometimes it isn't even technically feasible. No "belief" about it, it's fact.
--
More likely politically unfeasible for the governors to stand by and watch their utility commissions increase rates to where the utilities could find it feasible. Same outcome.
True. When's the last time you heard of a fishery being injured by environmental legislation?
Correct. But, there's a big difference between a plant being too old, and a company not wanting to spend the money because it's looking out for shareholders. The latter reason is of no interest to people downwind, who are suffering the effects of the pollution.
And, it's not a simple matter of just pollution. For example, it has been demonstrated that significant tourism revenue is lost when fish in a particular place are no longer edible. Do I need to explain this further?
Do you think states like NY have spent so much time in court fighting coal utilities from Ohio, just to practice courtroom skills?
Ever heard of tuna?
Well, that's debatable as well. Some of those people may well be shareholders as well. And, "looking out for the shareholders" as you put it, is part of their fiduciary responsibility to those shareholders.
No, but have they yet demonstrated the "bought official" you claimed initially?
As newer generation comes on line, emissions will continue to be lowered. It isn't going to happen over night but it is gradually happening. Of course, if you could get the greenies to get behind nuclear generation and it hadn't been prevented for the last 40 years from replacing many of these old and inefficient plants, some of the major emissions sources in all likelihood would have been gone 20 or more years ago.
--
Let's try this, since you have such a fairy tale view of government:
Pollution credits: A company prefers to change nothing about their facilities. For a cost that's less than making the needed changes, they buy the right to do nothing.
What do you think would make a politician agree to vote for a law which allows this? Be the lobbyist for a utility in Ohio, whose plant is "emitting more smog-causing nitrogen oxides than all of the dozen or so coal-burning plants in New York state, Federal emissions records show."
What do you say to the politicians you need to vote your way?
Worldwide mercury pollution could go down (or increase could be slowed), from CFLs reducing need for coal fired plants. A CFL on average has about
3 milligrams of mercury. If a 15-watter saves 45 watts over 4,000 hours, that's 180 KWH. With average efficiency from chemical energy in fuel to your socket being around 35% (with biggest loss in converting heat energy to mechanical energy, 50% is extremely good), figure out how much coal has chemical energy of 514 KWH, 1,850 megajoules.The Wiki article says the energy density of coal is roughly 24 megajoules per kilogram. This means a 15 watt CFL, if it lasts 4,000 hours and is used where the electricity comes from coal and replaces a 60 watt incandescent, saves burning of about 77 kilograms of coal.
At that rate, if USA's electricity is more than 25% from coal, CFLs replacing incandescents according to the above example actually reduce mercury pollution. The Wiki article on electricity generation says that figure is 49.7% in the US.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Interesting, but it doesn't address groundwater.
I like the light of most spirals up to 23 watts, and few of them hum - none in my experience so far when they have "Energy Star" approval. OK, many do hum fainly enough to hear faintly from 1 foot away, and then only in some fixtures.
I get little interference, usually none. Ones with electronic ballasts are subject to FCC approval. (Dollar store junkers usually lack indication of this.)
- Don ( snipped-for-privacy@rcn.com)
That is already an option in some areas and mandatory in a few others. Check out
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Check out the Snopes article on Al Gore supposedly claiming to invent the Internet. This is a Republican exaggeration that sounds to me worse than the exaggeration that Gore actually committed.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Except when CF bulbs break, the mercury is deposited right in my house.
Maybe y'all could start another topic if you wanna chase this tangent.
As much as I have had problems with LOA, they look good to me compared to the "dolar store brands".
The other 2 of the "Big 3" are Philips and Osram-Sylvania. Other notable ones include Commercial Electric, Feit Electric, and N:Vision (currently or recently among the most-promoted brands in the 2 major home center chains).
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
mike wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
how often do you break bulbs,incandescent or FL? I can't recall the last time I broke a bulb.
I see major differences in:
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: ...
...
On the other hand, the company that sold the credits had them to sell. And, eventually, they expire and there aren't an unlimited number of them.
Overall, it again boils down to a compromising action that was able to be enacted that provides both sides a little of what they wanted. Ugly maybe, but that's essentially the way all legislation gets enacted.
--
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.