sci.energy

On Mar 1, 2:59=A0am, "ewewew" wrote:
> its too late a whole generation of people are being poisoned as we speak
> like nothing else in the US history except when there were no pollution
> controls. I feel it and I suffer exactly to the exact degree this is allow=
ed
> to pollute and where there is no pollution I dodn't suffer. The difference=
,
> the poison has taken its toll, there is no going back just like smoking. I=
ts
> too late and its still poisoning this country in =A0a dysfunctional funk f=
or
> jobs for medicine. The problem is after oil no one can afford health care

The much bigger problem is that after nuclear power, the
ONLY people who have a job are a much a governemnt morons.
Hence the Robots for the nuclear idiots.




>
> "Bill Ghrist" wrote in message
>
> news:$@trnddc04...
>
>
>
> >/cgi-bin/?ACCT=3D109&STORY=3D/www/stor=
...
>
> > NRDC: 32 Coal-Fired Power Plants in 13 States Now Up in the Air After
> > Major Court Ruling on Mercury
>
> > =A0 =A0 MI, WY, IL, NV, OH, PA, TX, IA, KY, LA, GA, NM and NC Are States=
With
> > Largest Number of At-Risk Dirty Power Plants; At Stake: Health of Hundre=
ds
> > of Thousands of . Children.
>
> > =A0 =A0 WASHINGTON, Feb. 28 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The prospects for=
32
> > coal-fired power plants in 13 states have been shaken up in the wake of =
a
> > February 8, 2008 federal appeals court ruling that requires each new
> > coal-fired power plant in the . to adopt stringent toxic air pollutio=
n
> > control measures meeting the most rigorous standards under the Clean Air=

> > Act, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRD).
>
> > =A0 =A0 The states identified with the most coal-fired power plants now =
up in
> > the air are: Michigan (four), Wyoming (four), Illinois (three), Nevada
> > (three), Ohio (three), Pennsylvania (three), Texas (three), Iowa (two),
> > Kentucky (two), Louisiana (two), Georgia (one), New Mexico (one) and Nor=
th
> > Carolina (one).
>
> > =A0 =A0 The ruling will impact various aspects of three dozen or more
> > coal-fired power plants, including some now already under construction.
>
> > =A0 =A0 Major coal-fired power plants impacted by the ruling include: LS=
Power
> > White Pine (1500 MW - permit pending in Nevada); Sierra Ely (1500 MW -
> > permit pending in Nevada); Toquop (850 MW - permit pending in Nevada)
> > Desert Rock (Sithe Global's 1500 MW in New Mexico); Longleaf ( LS Power'=
s
> > 1200 MW Plant in Georgia); Cliffside (Duke Energy's 800 MW Plant in Nort=
h
> > Carolina); Alliant Marshalltown (600 MW - permit pending in Iowa); LS
> > Power
> > Waterloo (750 MW - permit pending in Iowa); AMP (1000 MW - permit
> > challenged in Ohio); LS Power/Dynegy (750 MW in Michigan). For a complet=
e
> > list of all 32 plants, go to.
>
> > =A0 =A0 Natural Resources Defense Council Clean Air Director/Senior Atto=
rney
> > John Walke said: "The February 8th court ruling will have far-reaching
> > consequences for coal-fired power plant construction, permitting and
> > pollution controls. This important new legal tool will increase the
> > pollution control obligations for new coal-fired power plants, raise the=

> > already considerable expense of these projects, and add to the weight of=

> > arguments that the public deploys to oppose conventional coal-fired
> > plants."
>
> > =A0 =A0 Dr. Jennifer Sass, senior scientist, NRDC Public Health Program,=
said:
> > "We need to remind that this is not just some fight in a court room. It
> > also goes to the heart of a major public health crisis. Failing to clean=

> > up
> > mercury pollution sentences our children to a life of lost opportunities=
.
> > Mt. Sinai researchers have used data from the . Centers for Disease
> > Control and Prevention and studies that link elevated mercury levels wit=
h
> > IQ loss to estimate that 300,000-600,000 children each year are born wit=
h
> > mercury in their blood at levels associated with a loss of IQ. The Mt.
> > Sinai study limited its calculations to the costs associated with loss o=
f
> > intelligence only. There also are data from Europe suggesting that mercu=
ry
> > poisoning is associated with increases in deaths from heart disease, whi=
ch
> > is the top killer in the United States."
>
> > =A0 =A0 In New Jersey v. . EPA, No. 05-1162, the . Court of Appeal=
s for
> > the . Circuit vacated (overturned) two EPA mercury rules covering coa=
l-
> > and oil-fired power plants. Under the court ruling, power plants will ne=
ed
> > to install pollution control equipment to control not just mercury
> > emissions but arsenic, lead, chromium and all other air toxics emitted
> > from
> > coal-burning. This legal tool will require a new and additional evaluati=
on
> > of pollution limits and control technologies covering all air toxics
> > emitted by power plants, and will increase the pollution control
> > obligations for new coal-fired power plants.
>
> > =A0 =A0 In 2005, EPA issued two highly controversial regulations coverin=
g just
> > mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants: (1) a rule that removed
> > such power plants from the list of industries requiring the Clean Air
> > Act's
> > rigorous "Maximum Achievable Control Technology" (MACT) standards for ea=
ch
> > electric generation unit in the country to sharply reduce its toxic air
> > pollution; and (2) a regulation that substituted a mercury pollution
> > trading regime, which greatly weakened required mercury cuts from power
> > plants, dispensed with the need to reduce mercury from each electric
> > generation unit in the country, and walked away from regulating all othe=
r
> > forms of toxic air pollution from power plants. EPA's mercury pollution
> > trading rule also stretched out full compliance with the trading scheme
> > until the mid-2020's, rather than requiring full compliance with more
> > protective MACT standards by no later than 2008.
>
> > =A0 =A0 Before EPA illegally removed power plants from the regulatory li=
st
> > requiring adoption of MACT standards, each new coal-fired power plants
> > proposed for construction starting in 2001 was required to be controlled=

> > to
> > levels no less stringent than MACT, established by permitting authoritie=
s
> > in the plant's preconstruction permit. Several states issued
> > preconstruction permits for new coal-fired power plants between 2001 and=

> > 2005 containing mercury emissions limitations that were far more stringe=
nt
> > than the weak mercury limits that EPA's 2005 mercury rule applied to new=

> > coal-fired power plants: EPA's trading rule allowed anywhere from 4 to 2=
0
> > times more mercury from new coal-fired power plants than these state
> > permit
> > mercury limits. The court's ruling makes clear that power plants remain =
on
> > the regulatory list requiring adoption of stringent MACT standards and
> > pollution controls for all new coal-fired power plants.- Hide quoted tex=
t -
>
> - Show quoted text -