Thread: White House Abruptly Orders EPA To Loosen Clean Air Rules In Polluter Giveaway

LeglizHemp - 4/13/2018 at 04:32 AM a9659

2112 - 4/13/2018 at 06:42 AM

Who needs clean air anyway? Back when American was great, people died of asthma and the rivers were on fire. If we ever want to make America great again, we need to make sure you can see the air you're breathing so you can be sure it's there. America will never be great again if we continue to have clean air and drinking water that doesn't make you sick.

BrerRabbit - 4/13/2018 at 05:04 PM

Hell yeah! Amen to that. While we're rolling back the clock, let's bring back slavery - enslave everyone of course, so nobody gets their feelings hurt. Level the killing field.

blueskyJohnson - 4/13/2018 at 06:22 PM

Hell yeah! Amen to that. While we're rolling back the clock, let's bring back slavery - enslave everyone of course, so nobody gets their feelings hurt. Level the killing field.

Bring back slavery? Brother, it never left. It just includes all of us now. If you don't believe me, you haven't been paying attention. They are doing more now than ever to surveil and control us and to sway our opinions. Name one thing the government doesn't try to put their greasy hands on and regulate.

BrerRabbit - 4/13/2018 at 07:58 PM

Umm . . . deep sea volcanic hydrothermal vent biomats?

nebish - 4/17/2018 at 03:57 AM

China, France and the UK have announced plans to cease gas/diesel autos in the coming decades. Major auto companies have announced plans to significantly introduce new electric vehicle models and reduce gas/diesel offerings in the coming years.

Power companies continues to transition from coal electric production to natural gas. Not as clean as some would like, but burning coal vs burning natural gas seems to be to be an improvement still.

Many nuclear reactors have been closed in recent years and many more are scheduled to be shut down in the very near future. The newest reactor that went online did so in 2016, before Trump and Pruit could swing their sledgehammer around at the environment. Power company in SC just abandoned their reactor plans. Two approved reactors are yet to be built in Georgia. Nuclear reactors have been shutting down at a much faster rate than new ones have been coming online.

I have a question though with all this electric demand coming from more EVs and with the hatred of fossil fuel and nuclear power generation, can renewable green energy really be counted on to generate what fossil fuels and nuclear does now? Fossil fuels did the heavy lifting in 2017 with 63% and nuclear chipped in at 20% of total KWh production. Green renewables were just 17%. If we transition to electric cars as fast as some are thinking and ban fracking and ban nuclear (not realistic, but wishful thinking by some environmentalists), that's a hell of a electric power generation void without capacity or capability ready to step in and replace all that dirty energy.

2112 - 4/17/2018 at 05:49 AM

The change to renewable energy will be gradual, but it will eventually need to happen anyway, as fossil fuels are a finite resource. The first thing the US needs to do is to require solar pannels on all new home construction. I find it shocking that this hasn't happened yet. If you can power your house and your car from the sun, we'll that's a win-win for everyone.

nebish - 4/17/2018 at 02:15 PM

Now that you mention it, seems like that is something California would be taking lead on, mandating solar panels on homes.

Around here adding $10-20k on a home build would be a hard sell. People are looking to save a couple hundred dollars here or there on floor coverings and windows, let alone investing that kind of money on a home that they might not be looking to stay in long term.

For the record, I have no problem withe renewable and green energy sources. I also think the enormous growth the US has seen in oil and gas production is pretty exciting. If people want to invest in outfitting their homes for renewable energy production, that is great. If people want to benefit from cheap natural gas energy production, that too is great. Things could be alot worse.

The 2017 electric generation figures came from here:

I found this to look back at the 2007 figures for a 10 year comparison:

2007 fossil fuels (just coal and nat gas) 70%, nuclear 19%, hydro 6%, other (which includes things like wood, wind, solar, oil, and others) 5% for an approximate combined renewable of 11%.
2017 fossil fuels (coal, nat gas & oil) 63%, nuclear 20%, renewable (which includes hyrdo, wood, wind, solar and others) 17%

Oil is no longer included in the renewable for 2017 numbers, but it makes just .5% of the fossil fuel number. So the fossil fuel/nuclear category has only dropped 6% while renewables have gained 6%.

It is slow. I know you want policy to push it there faster, expansion in technology and access for fossil fuel sources makes that difficult on the overall cost equation. I don't think we should be subsidizing any form of energy production.

But I suppose you could draw a comparison to something that is really important to me and something that is really important to you. Like making imports more expensive and incentivizing more production here - compared to making fossil fuel/nuclear energy more expensive to incentivize more green and renewable energies more likely to be adopted and faster.

If we subsidize neither (domestic production or renewable energy) and raised costs on both alternatives (imported goods and fossil fuel/nuclear energy) we could yield what we are both after.

You argue that rising prices of imported products hurts companies and jobs here, but in my mind that might be necessary to achieve some larger goal. I could argue that rising costs of fossil fuel/nuclear energy production here hurts companies and jobs here, but in your mind might be necessary to achieve some larger goal.

Maybe now you see my point and I can see yours, if I have characterized it correctly.

This thread come from : Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band

Url of this website: