"Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote in message
news:<zI3Cb.9164$aF2.988038@news20.bellglobal.com>...

If you are referring to these 'externalised' costs, then please join the
chorus demanding that they be considered. Right now we have Dumbya
trying to
re-externalise the cost of coal emissions, against the interests of the
country and the lessons of the past.

As always there is rather more to this than first meets the eye.

EPA's and Clear Air Act methods of pollution control are to mandate
the technology that must be used. This includes, for example, the use
of sulfur scrubbers.

Now, one can in fact reduce sulfur emissions in another manner : by
burning low sulfur coal.

The insistence on the use of scrubbers in every coal burning plant,
even if they do or wish to use low sulfur coal, is in fact a disguised
subsidy to the producers of high sulfur coal.

Changing the regulations
to allow coal plants to make their own decision, whether to use low
sulfur, or high sulfur and install a scrubber, is in fact just removal
of a corporate subsidy : something which most who post here would
celebrate, not attack.

As always there is rather more to this than first meets the eye.

EPA's and Clear Air Act methods of pollution control are to mandate
the technology that must be used. This includes, for example, the use
of sulfur scrubbers.
Now, one can in fact reduce sulfur emissions in another manner : by
burning low sulfur coal.
The insistence on the use of scrubbers in every coal burning plant,
even if they do or wish to use low sulfur coal, is in fact a disguised
subsidy to the producers of high sulfur coal. Changing the regulations
to allow coal plants to make their own decision, whether to use low
sulfur, or high sulfur and install a scrubber, is in fact just removal
of a corporate subsidy : something which most who post here would
celebrate, not attack.

"Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote in message
news:jpbCb.5572$8Y4.236867@read2.cgocable.net...
The truth about coal.

High sulfur.
High particulates
High residual ash.

Poorest source of hydrocarbon based energy.

There... The truth is told.

Typical greenhouse groupie response fails to mention the main reason not
to
use coal:

You gotta love that concept - externalized costs = not borne by the
polluters - borne by the sorry slob who lives next door, or down the
street.

Clue: They are dependent on it because the government doesn't give them
any
alternatives.

The reason that California is suing is that under the new guidelines, the
power companies would be allowed to belch even more filth into the
atmosphere. If that happened, they would have to change what they
currently
don't have to change.

"Ian St. John"

SNIP.....

As always there is rather more to this than first meets the eye.

EPA's and Clear Air Act methods of pollution control are to mandate
the technology that must be used. This includes, for example, the use
of sulfur scrubbers.



Now, one can in fact reduce sulfur emissions in another manner : by
burning low sulfur coal.



The insistence on the use of scrubbers in every coal burning plant,
even if they do or wish to use low sulfur coal, is in fact a disguised
subsidy to the producers of high sulfur coal. Changing the regulations
to allow coal plants to make their own decision, whether to use low
sulfur, or high sulfur and install a scrubber, is in fact just removal
of a corporate subsidy : something which most who post here would
celebrate, not attack.

"Tim Worstall" <tcw@2xtreme.net> wrote in message
news:825e2890.0312121019.886b00e@posting.google.com...
"Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote in message
news:<zI3Cb.9164$aF2.988038@news20.bellglobal.com>...
snip

If you are referring to these 'externalised' costs, then please join
the
chorus demanding that they be considered. Right now we have Dumbya
trying to
re-externalise the cost of coal emissions, against the interests of
the
country and the lessons of the past.

As always there is rather more to this than first meets the eye.

Or you are going to make something up.


EPA's and Clear Air Act methods of pollution control are to mandate
the technology that must be used. This includes, for example, the use
of sulfur scrubbers.

It does not mandate sulfur scrubbing. There is a 'cap and trade'
regulation
that sells emission permits and a schedule of reductions to reduce the
number of permits. The means of scrubbing the exhaust gasses are not set
by
the EPA.
http://www.climateark.org/articles/2001/4th/emtrmark.htm

Now, one can in fact reduce sulfur emissions in another manner : by
burning low sulfur coal.

That works within the cap and trade. If the cost of the permits goes down,
they can use more high sulfur coal. If they find better technologeis that
reduce SOx emissions, that also reduces the need to buy permits.

The insistence on the use of scrubbers in every coal burning plant,
even if they do or wish to use low sulfur coal, is in fact a disguised
subsidy to the producers of high sulfur coal.

I suspect that you are referrign to the installation of scrubber
equipment,
rather than it's operation. Installing scrubber technology has a capital
cost, true, but it is necessary at some point. The plan is to keep
reducing
emissions over time while giving industry time to react.


Changing the regulations
to allow coal plants to make their own decision, whether to use low
sulfur, or high sulfur and install a scrubber, is in fact just removal
of a corporate subsidy : something which most who post here would
celebrate, not attack.

Removing regulation so that they can burn high sulfur coal without
emissions
controls is just a return to the acid rain and deadly smog of the past.
Only
a fucking idiot like you or the Pres. would even suggest it.

"Tim Worstall" <tcw@2xtreme.net> wrote in message
news:825e2890.0312121019.886b00e@posting.google.com...

Snip ...

As always there is rather more to this than first meets the eye.

EPA's and Clear Air Act methods of pollution control are to mandate
the technology that must be used. This includes, for example, the use
of sulfur scrubbers.
Now, one can in fact reduce sulfur emissions in another manner : by
burning low sulfur coal.
The insistence on the use of scrubbers in every coal burning plant,
even if they do or wish to use low sulfur coal, is in fact a disguised
subsidy to the producers of high sulfur coal. Changing the regulations
to allow coal plants to make their own decision, whether to use low
sulfur, or high sulfur and install a scrubber, is in fact just removal
of a corporate subsidy : something which most who post here would
celebrate, not attack.

Sulphur dioxide emissions are very much a secondary problem to
the problem of carbon dioxide emissions.
However, since you
are incapable of seeing any idea other than from that of a bookkeeping
standpoint, I will have difficulty explaining the difference. However, I
will
atempt it . Sulphur dioxide reflects sunlight away making the world
cooler.
Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, prevents longwave radiation escaping
from the atmosphere and so makes the world warmer. Since the increase
in carbon dioxide greatly exceeds the increase in sulphur dioxide, then
the major problem is that of global warming. Do you understand that?

Cheers, Alastair.

"Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote in message
news:jpbCb.5572$8Y4.236867@read2.cgocable.net...
The truth about coal.

High sulfur.
High particulates
High residual ash.

Poorest source of hydrocarbon based energy.

There... The truth is told.

"George" <george@george.net> wrote in message
news:RmcCb.4084$L04.437@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
Typical greenhouse groupie response fails to mention the main reason not
to
use coal:

There are other reasons of course. A variety of them in fact. The most
apparent are a result of production expediency and efficiency rather than
an
essential aspect of it's "production."

"George" <george@george.net> wrote in message
news:%1dCb.4540$L04.3824@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
You gotta love that concept - externalized costs = not borne by the
polluters - borne by the sorry slob who lives next door, or down the
street.

Clue: They are dependent on it because the government doesn't give them
any
alternatives.

Government doesn't provide any alternatives because the right wing of the
Government is in the pocket of the carbon industry. And the carbon
industry
is in the business of selling carbon as a fuel rather than providing
energy
solutions.

As a result, the carbon industry much like the tobacco industry that went
before it, employs propaganda and campaigns of disinformation and denial
to
counter the conclusions reached by the worlds scientists.

Global warming is only one of many examples.

"George" <george@george.net> wrote in message
news:IBcCb.5134$T14.1070@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
The reason that California is suing is that under the new guidelines,
the
power companies would be allowed to belch even more filth into the
atmosphere. If that happened, they would have to change what they
currently
don't have to change.

But belching filth is the NeoCon/Republican way.

Unless, like me, you live downwind of two coal-fire power plants. The
acid
rain is eating at the bedford stone on my house. Then it becomes the
primary problem.

"Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote in message
news:2nuCb.3336$mV5.3230@read1.cgocable.net...
There are other reasons of course. A variety of them in fact. The most
apparent are a result of production expediency and efficiency rather
than
an essential aspect of it's "production."

Do you have a point, or are you just glad to see me?

Rape and pillage of the land, and reckless disregard for the health and
safety of miners are other examples.

"George" <george@george.net> wrote in message
news:yawCb.2662$z24.53@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
Unless, like me, you live downwind of two coal-fire power plants. The
acid
rain is eating at the bedford stone on my house. Then it becomes the
primary problem.

Acid rain? According to St. Reagan that is caused by trees.