Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 210111213 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 126

Thread: EPA Set to reveal new Sulfer regulations

  1. #111
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:56 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,590

    Re: EPA Set to reveal new Sulfer regulations

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    This is only one of the projects I have in mind. Contrary to what the liberals and others have posted here, I'm not anti-environment. I'm anti-environmentalist and anti-EPA because I think they are going about things backwards and stupidly. Not to mention wrecking the hell of the economy doing it.

    I all for closing coal power plants, but until we have the generation capacity to replace them, it is stupid to put such a strain on the public by all these regulations. Bio-fuels, hey, all for them, if they don't wreck havoc on the food supply. Natural Gas vehicles, great, make it doable and practical. Solar power, not particularly against it in some cases, but face it, it will be a longtime, if ever before it can meet all our power needs. Same with windmills. Damn shame both are hell on good cropland in agricultural areas. Don't like fertilizer run off, give us an alternative that works and is doable. Don't like pesticides, great, find us another way to stop bugs from eating our food so that we get that food. Don't like animal waste run off, ok, then we could use the waste for fertilizer, but then some of it runs off anyways. So many of them like their hamburgers, ribs and chicken sandwiches, well, we have to grow the animals to make those. Think the air is bad in LA now, imagine what it would be like with all those families having horses instead of cars.

    If the environmentalist and their supporters would invest 1/10th of what they spend on lobbying and hire some good engineers, they could of already built working viable alternatives to what we use today. There would be no need for all these laws and regulation. Hell, if they did that, in a decade, they would be the 1% that everyone complains about. Trying to force technology through regulation is just plain stupid.
    1000% agree with this. They would rather spend billions in lobbyists than in RND doing the things they want to do. i guess they figure if they force the market in a direction it will go.
    what they don't realize they take everyone else down with it.

    I agree i am not anti-enviroment either. i think we should be working on different energy sources, but i also know we can't kill the current energy systems until the next one is in place.

    nuclear power is the next evolution in energy. while so called renewable energy is there it just doesn't compare in power generation. solar takes up huge amounts of land space that could be used for better purposes. wind creates it's own environmental hazards, hydro is only good in certain area's along with geothermal. all of these are location specific.

  2. #112
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: EPA Set to reveal new Sulfer regulations

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    1000% agree with this. They would rather spend billions in lobbyists than in RND doing the things they want to do. i guess they figure if they force the market in a direction it will go.
    what they don't realize they take everyone else down with it.

    I agree i am not anti-enviroment either. i think we should be working on different energy sources, but i also know we can't kill the current energy systems until the next one is in place.

    nuclear power is the next evolution in energy. while so called renewable energy is there it just doesn't compare in power generation. solar takes up huge amounts of land space that could be used for better purposes. wind creates it's own environmental hazards, hydro is only good in certain area's along with geothermal. all of these are location specific.
    Kind of makes you wonder how they are going to charge all those electric cars without a robust power grid.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  3. #113
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:56 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,590

    Re: EPA Set to reveal new Sulfer regulations

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    Kind of makes you wonder how they are going to charge all those electric cars without a robust power grid.
    I agree it also means that electric cars are not a green as people think. unless you are charging it from a non-fossell fuel plant then you are probably using more energy than you would have. same goes for plug in hybrids.

    i think hydrogen is the next step. pretty much everywhere and fully renewable. just getting the delivery system down.

  4. #114
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: EPA Set to reveal new Sulfer regulations

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    Yes, oh the horrors of an energy policy that does not require that we blow up entire mountains and destroy thousands of miles of rivers and streams.

    This is how we get coal. We turn places like this:



    Into this:

    Attachment 67163037

    Is that what you want?
    Propaganda.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  5. #115
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,400

    Re: EPA Set to reveal new Sulfer regulations

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Propaganda.
    How is that propaganda? It is a picture of mountains before mining and during mining. One of the main ways we get coal is through mountain top removal mining. That involves blowing the top third to top half off a mountain to get to the coal. Even if we could burn coal perfectly cleanly, the mining of it alone would still make it the most environmentally destructive fuel man has ever used. That's why I don't get the rabid opposition to natural gas fracking. Natural gas displaces coal as an energy source. Even if you took every horror story about fracking from the environmentalists at face value, its still exponentially cleaner than coal.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  6. #116
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: EPA Set to reveal new Sulfer regulations

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    How is that propaganda? It is a picture of mountains before mining and during mining. One of the main ways we get coal is through mountain top removal mining. That involves blowing the top third to top half off a mountain to get to the coal. Even if we could burn coal perfectly cleanly, the mining of it alone would still make it the most environmentally destructive fuel man has ever used. That's why I don't get the rabid opposition to natural gas fracking. Natural gas displaces coal as an energy source. Even if you took every horror story about fracking from the environmentalists at face value, its still exponentially cleaner than coal.
    Just for you, Paradise by John Prine - YouTube
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  7. #117
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    9,922

    Re: EPA Set to reveal new Sulfer regulations

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    ...and the price of everything that is delivered by truck goes up...
    This rule goes to gasoline, diesel is already done did.
    Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
    I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.
    Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.

  8. #118
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,400

    Re: EPA Set to reveal new Sulfer regulations

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    Yeah I know the song. Very true too. To get coal we change landscapes not just for a generation, but for hundreds of millions of years. A mountain doesn't just rise up over night.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  9. #119
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,744

    Re: EPA Set to reveal new Sulfer regulations

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    Wow, now there is a very informative statement with incredible amount of data backing it up.
    You used more words but didn't provide any more data.

    Your logic means that any and all medical research ever done is invalid.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  10. #120
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: EPA Set to reveal new Sulfer regulations

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    You used more words but didn't provide any more data.

    Your logic means that any and all medical research ever done is invalid.
    Not "invalid". And also, no, not all. Many times it is at the level of a Theorem, not a law. Nor do they in many cases even form a useful or very accurate theorem. What percentage of the population, of non-smokers, get lung cancer? Of those, how many actually get it from emissions? Why does such a very small part of the population experience lung cancer from emissions? Medical research should not be looking at restricting pollutants, they should be looking at why that percentage of the population is susceptible to cancer while the majority is not. If the majority get a disease, then the cause is external, if a minority, then the actual cause is internal and the external factor is at best a trigger, not the actual cause.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 210111213 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •