All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...

Here's your "somehow", professor:

Heybub said this: "In other words, if we've already made the decision that the Mercury released into the environment from coal-powered plants is acceptable to power our incandescent bulbs, the amount of Mercury in CFLs is more than offset by the reduced power generation."

I pointed out that the word "we", in his paragraph, was null and void, since "we" decided nothing. Acceptable emissions levels were decided behind closed doors by Cheney and a group of attendees whose identity he refused to reveal. That's where YOU jumped in and made a tinfoil hat comment, which suggests that Cheney did NOT consider the list of attendees to be a secret.

I taught you that indeed, the list WAS a secret and that the GAO had to hit him over the head for information.

If a government official meets with some shady character to find out where American hostages are being held, THAT is a good reason for secrets. But, it is NOT appropriate to hide the identities of corporate slobs who are manipulating regulations intended to protect the health of this country.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom
Loading thread data ...

Why?

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

No, Kanter, it suggested that you're a loon for thinking that Cheney decided emissions levels behind closed doors.

And now "Moving Target" Kanter has switched the subject *again*. Amazing -- from power plant mercury emissions to "American hostages being held" in just three posts.

You need to put another layer of foil in your beanie.

Reply to
Doug Miller

Now you're trying to dance and doing a lousy job of it.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

Start here:

"Mercury emissions from power plants are considered the largest anthropogenic source of mercury released to the atmosphere; about 48 tons are emitted annually in the U.S.A. as a result of fossil fuel combustion, mostly from coal-fired power plants."

formatting link
And do the math.

Or

"Over five years, a coal power plant will emit 10 milligrams of mercury to power an incandescent bulb, and only 2.4 milligrams to operate a CFL."

formatting link

Reply to
HeyBub

That's really pretty funny, coming from you, Kanter -- the guy who constantly changes the subject every time he's confronted. Forget to take your Ritalin this morning?

Reply to
Doug Miller

You're done here, I guess. You are unable to address the subject at hand, even after it's been rehashed and clearly laid out for you.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

On Jun 14, 7:51 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Because, nothing you say makes sense. You're even arguing with Joseph now, who tried to support your position. And despite your unsupported attempts to claim Cheney somehow allowed power companies to spew mercury, below are the actual facts. Like every plan to deal with pollution in the real world, there is going to be disagreement. And nothing will ever satisfy the kook environmentalist extremists, who are against everything. A classic example is wind power. That's all the environmentalists have been bitching about for years. We should rely on solar and wind. Well, guess what? Here in NJ there is a plan to start building offshore windmills to generate electricity. Guess whose blocking that? Why, the environmentalists, of course. Same thing off Cape Cod.

The cap and trade program may not be perfect. But it's more than we had in the past and will REDUCE mercury emissions. BTW, if you don't like cap and trade, what do you think about all the environmentalists, like Al Gore that think trading carbon offsets is peachy keen, and cleanses their hands as they ride in private jets and live in multiple

10,000 sq ft houses? That kook concept has no cap and it's one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated.

Oh, and BTW, it's kind of stupid to cite Harry Reid in your arguments. Last time I checked, he runs the Senate and his party controls both houses of Congress. So, if they don't like the mercury limits, they are free to pass legislation any time.

formatting link
March 15, 2005, EPA issued the first-ever federal rule to permanently cap and reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. This rule makes the United States the first country in the world to regulate mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.

The Clean Air Mercury Rule will build on EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to significantly reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants -- the largest remaining sources of mercury emissions in the country. When fully implemented, these rules will reduce utility emissions of mercury from 48 tons a year to 15 tons, a reduction of nearly 70 percent. CAIR and the Clean Air Mercury Rule are important components of the Bush Administration's plan to improve air quality. The Administration remains committed to working with Congress to help advance the President's Clear Skies legislation in order to achieve greater certainty and nationwide emission reductions, but believes the U.S. needs regulations in place now. EPA believes it makes sense to address mercury, SO2 and NOx emissions simultaneously through CAIR and the Clean Air Mercury Rule. These rules will protect public health and the environment without interfering with the steady flow of affordable energy for American consumers and business. The Clean Air Mercury Rule establishes "standards of performance" limiting mercury emissions from new and existing coal-fired power plants and creates a market-based cap-and-trade program that will reduce nationwide utility emissions of mercury in two distinct phases. The first phase cap is 38 tons and emissions will be reduced by taking advantage of "co-benefit" reductions - that is, mercury reductions achieved by reducing sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions under CAIR. In the second phase, due in 2018, coal-fired power plants will be subject to a second cap, which will reduce emissions to 15 tons upon full implementation. New coal-fired power plants ("new" means construction starting on or after Jan. 30, 2004) will have to meet stringent new source performance standards in addition to being subject to the caps. Mercury is a toxic, persistent pollutant that accumulates in the food chain. Mercury in the air is a global problem. While fossil fuel-fired power plants are the largest remaining source of human-generated mercury emissions in the United States, they contribute only a small amount (about 1 percent) of total annual mercury emissions worldwide. EPA's modeling shows that CAIR will significantly reduce the majority of the coal-fired power plant mercury emissions that deposit in the United States, and those reductions will occur in areas where mercury deposition is currently the highest. The Clean Air Mercury Rule is expected to make additional reductions in emissions that are transported regionally and deposited domestically, and it will reduce emissions that contribute to atmospheric mercury worldwide. Mercury Emissions

Reply to
trader4

On Jun 13, 3:52 pm, "Proctologically Violated=A9=AE" >

I think soy protein is fit for animals to eat.

Cindy Hamilton

Reply to
Cindy Hamilton

You've apparently forgotten that the "subject at hand" was mercury, which you're clearly unable to address without going off on tangents about Dick Cheney, secret meetings, American hostages, and whatever else may occur to you in the next five seconds.

Reply to
Doug Miller

Note to Kanter: this happened while the evil Dick Cheney was VP.

Note to Kanter: that's the same Bush Administration that the evil Dick Cheney is part of.

Reply to
Doug Miller

There are two levels of hypocrasy here. One is the buying and selling of carbon production quotas (bad word here, but best I can come up with). Basically that is where some plant somewhere can under the regs produce x amount of carbon but only uses x-y amount. They can then sell the rest of their quota on the open market. Sometimes it is bought by those who produce v+z carbon and need to get the okay to produce more. It can also be bought by those like Al who want everybody else to cut back but themselves (sorta like buying dispensations from the Church a while back). The third (true environmentalists to my mind) buy them and retire them so nobody can use them and amount of carbon goes down. The REAL fraud is in the non-marketable offsets. In this case (and my understanding is it Al's biggest "contribution") they pay someone to plant a tree to use as a carbon sink to "offset" so much carbon. This is just a scam of the highest magnitude.

>
Reply to
Kurt Ullman

It's a scam because in the case of the carbon offsets, there are no caps or monitoring of anything worldwide. In China, you could build a new dirty power plant, then get dopes to pay you millions to clean it up. The case of a true cap and trade free market program, with monitoring, like the mercury program, is very different. That is a very good system and any decent and fair economist will tell you it achieves an efficient solution. It's not perfect and there are some legitimate problems with it, but it does reduce overall emissions to the target level.

Reply to
trader4

So what? Cheney and his group evidently made no decision about Mercury. The decision on Mercury vis-a-vis the environment was made in 1995 (amendment to the 1990 Clean Air Act).

"On March 15, 2005, EPA issued the Clean Air Mercury Rule to permanently cap and reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants for the first time ever. This rule, combined with EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), will significantly reduce emissions from the nation's largest remaining source of human-caused mercury emissions."

formatting link
Evidently, it was the Clinton administration (1995) that set previously high Mercury standards and the Bush administration (2005) that lowered them.

Sorry.

Reply to
HeyBub

It's all Mr. Edison's fault !

Reply to
FM

No they don't, they recommend you open a window.

formatting link

Reply to
yugami

NewScientist magazine recently ran an article on how long the minerals in the Earth will last. It had this sentence in it

"He estimates that Zinc cold be used up by 2037, Both indium and Hafnium - which is increasingly important in computer chips - could be gone by 2017, and Terbium - used to make the green phosphors in fluorescent lights could run out before 2012."

So the way I read this is that with the current demand for Terbium, we stop making fluorescent lights in 5 years. With the increased demand from CFLs, its some time sooner. Is that right? In 5 years we'll be sitting in the dark and in 10 years we wont even be able to watch TV while sitting in the dark.

I think I'm gonna make some large investments in the recycling industry.

dickm

Reply to
dicko

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.