New pollution control rules coming..... - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Pooka · #1 06-25-2013, 12:08 PM

In order to tamp down the general level of ignorance that normally is the result of anything Obama says, I would like to offer the following....

The new plan is supposed to call for greater restrictions on power plants emissions. These restrictions will go into effect years from now and states are free to modify them if they wish. A big push, backed up by $8,000,000,000 in research money, will be made to find a way to burn coal cleaner than is possible today. I know a few folks with coal holdings, as in they own the actual mines, that are looking forward to this, but they will also be the first to tell you that low cost of natural gas is what's killing them and not the current pollution standards.

Refineries will not be subject to rules much harsher than they are today and this is because refineries normally produce pollution through leaks in the pipes. This is a normal item to maintain, but once you fix one another one will pop up so it is a never ending job. But refineries really don't have any one real exhaust port, like a power plant, so reducing pollution from a refinery is a totally different tech challenge.

But having said that... Many refineries have their own power house, so those would fall under the new guidelines that any power plant would.

By the way... If you have any expertise in burner tech or chemical capture the EPA would love to take a look at your grant application. About 40 years ago a method was developed to capture chemicals found in the smoke from burning plastics to create fertilizer, so if you recycle lead batteries and don't use this tech then you are letting money just go to the atmosphere.

There will also be proposals for wind power. Oklahoma is looking forward to this since about 50% of the state is prairie. Oklahoma state vocational schools are already teaching classes in how to maintain these items and the government here is hoping it will allow Oklahoma to once again become a leading energy provider to the US.

It should be interesting.

P.C. · #2 06-25-2013, 12:21 PM

(cough, cough!) How are we going to compete with China if our businesses have to comply with expensive regulations that they do not?!? (hack!! cough!!)

JamesDean · #3 06-25-2013, 12:37 PM

Nuclear power!

Actually..Wind power..since we make things that get sold to people who make things for windmills.. More windmills = more sales!

P.C. · #4 06-25-2013, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesDean

Nuclear power!

Actually..Wind power..since we make things that get sold to people who make things for windmills.. More windmills = more sales!

I've heard that the Japanese have issued glowing reports about the efficiency and safety of their reactors...

JamesDean · #5 06-25-2013, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P.C.

I've heard that the Japanese have issued glowing reports about the efficiency and safety of their reactors...

If I'm not mistaken that same reactor is here in Ohio somewhere.

What we need to do is couple wind and nuclear power together!

It so simple, drop a nuke.. which will make wind...which will be picked up by the windmills and BAM! Power.

P.C. · #6 06-25-2013, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesDean

If I'm not mistaken that same reactor is here in Ohio somewhere.

It performed so well in Fukushima that they took it apart and brought it over here!

JamesDean · #7 06-25-2013, 12:49 PM

It was a GE design from the late 60s I think..I'd like to think we've come a LONG LONG way in reactor design since then

Pooka · #8 06-25-2013, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesDean

If I'm not mistaken that same reactor is here in Ohio somewhere.

What we need to do is couple wind and nuclear power together!

It so simple, drop a nuke.. which will make wind...which will be picked up by the windmills and BAM! Power.

Well, from a physics standpoint, that would work!

JamesDean · #9 06-25-2013, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pooka

Well, from a physics standpoint, that would work!

AND it would help reduce our nuclear stockpile! Other nations would be most pleased!

pj67coll · #10 06-25-2013, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesDean

It was a GE design from the late 60s I think..I'd like to think we've come a LONG LONG way in reactor design since then

There was nothing wrong with the design. The problem the morons placed it on a Tsunami prone sea shore. Any energy plan that doesnt include a large nuclear component is garbage.

- Peter.

Pooka · #11 06-25-2013, 12:59 PM

Furthermore...

The costs to finding coal is cheap. You set up a works, dig a big hole, drop in some equipment and start digging. And you pay people to dig 24 hours a day, so while finding is cheap producing is quite expensive.

On the other hand, finding NG cost a ton of money but after it is found one operator can maintain twenty wells which just sit there and collect the NG as it pours out of the ground.

So the cost of NG can always be cheaper than coal, and this is why two planned coal fired plants were recently canned. They are being reworked as NG plants due to the lower costs of fuel.

The most common form of energy was once whale oil. Then it was coal and now it is and likely will be NG. Regardless of what you might have been told the real danger to the coal industry is not the EPA, it is the free market and the low price of NG.

MS Fowler · #12 06-25-2013, 01:25 PM

Next great source of energy will be when they find a cheap way to harness all the hot air expelled by all politicians.

engatwork · #13 06-25-2013, 02:06 PM

I kinda miss the whale oil.

jplinville · #14 06-25-2013, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by engatwork

I kinda miss the whale oil.

Same here...nothing deep fries baby seals better.

Angel · #15 06-25-2013, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesDean

It was a GE design from the late 60s I think..I'd like to think we've come a LONG LONG way in reactor design since then

I know that we have come a long way since then, but if the Rx was built in the 1960's, and is owned by a commercial utility, then it probably hasnt been replaced with a newer model, and is still using 1970's design considerations...

...which are sufficent for the task, and still pass inpections etc...

I'm not hating on nuclear plants, but my point is that compared to *everything else* in this country (save the coal plants) our nuclear plants are still kinda old.
or even more to the point - we need to build more new ones

-John