$3 gas is here!

On 7 Sep 2005 23:57:47 -0700, " snipped-for-privacy@aol.com"


You implied that. Those regulations and permits are reacquired for a reason, and it is not make plants unprofitable, but to make them safe and secure. Nobody wants an unprofitable plant, because the consumers and taxpayers ultimately end up paying for it.

That is your contention, regardless of how wrong it is.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Alan Jones wrote:

Horsepucky.
The vast majority of these types of regulations are either political (for NIMBY reasons, or PERCEIVED environmental problems, such as saving the snail darter), bureaucratic (no civil servant will give up power or a chance to expand their 'kingdom'), or economic (one more thing to tax that people won't complain about, because they don't understand that they will pay the taxes in higher energy rates).
BTW, my wife was a Hazardous Waste engineer for many years, and we have a good friend in the atomic energy business (he was responsible for overseeing the Chernobyl cleanup for quite some time because of his experience), so we've had many conversations about these subjects.
My proof about some of this -- during the heyday of 'Superfund', college students were being pushed into becoming Hazardous Waste engineers because it was an 'up and coming field'. Then the Superfund ended, and guess what??? All of those engineers ended up out of a job, because all they had really been doing was 'investigating' all of the dirty sites.
And the laws are so convoluted that they help no one. I don't know what state your in, but here in California a law was passed (called Proposition 65) that essentially said that you must inform people if there are any hazardous chemicals around. What was the result? Only one. If you owned a company that makes little stickers/signs that say "our facility contains chemicals known to the state of California to be carcinogenic", you made out like a bandit. For the average person, you're LESS informed than before, because a day-care center that contains household cleaners is as likely to have that sign up as an asbestos treatment facility -- so since the signs are everywhere, they are COMPLETELY IGNORED.
Another great example -- a contaminated groundwater area could have been cleaned by importing a treatment facility, pumping up the water, extracting the hazardous chemicals, then dumping the treated water back in the same spot. The dumped water would have been treated so that it was cleaner than drinking water standards (but that was the limit of the technology). However, the law said that it had to be CLEANER than drinking water if the water was dumped, thus they couldn't treat it -- and here we are over a decade later and that site (to the best of my knowledge) remains untreated.
So, please don't play the game that all of these laws and regulations are there to make us 'safe'. Some level of regulation is necessary, no argument. But the level that we currently do is absolutely insane. Look at it this way -- if we could outsource energy requirements to India or China, we would have done so by now, because politicians simply don't 'get it' that electrical energy needs to be produced close to the point of use.
David Erbas-White
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Erbas-White wrote:

Our wells are history having been polluted by MTBE (those lobbyists should be shot) by the local gas station. AND a chemical leak by the local car wash. It closed the nursery next to it and we now have that bland public water. Our area was cleaned up, obviusly not completely as residual particles will be in the ground for another hundred years or so, and the waste shipped to New Jersey. Specifically a little town in south Jersey. Problem solved. ;-) Send the chemical waste back to the person's who created it, it's very simple. Those who create the problem inherit the problem.
Chuck
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Chuck Rudy wrote:

Actually, the politicians who made the laws requiring the use of MTBE should be shot.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Followed immediately by the rest of them...
--
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Looks like some guy named Delay is tops on the list
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/16/news/saudi.php
....although in some places they said enough and have banned it
http://www.valleywater.org/Water/Water_Quality/Protecting_your_water/MTBE.shtm
.....and in 1998 the Chevron Oil company said MTBE is "But so far as we know as the best available science tells us it is not a public health hazard, and it is far from being a nightmare" Fastforward 8 years and it's a Whoops for Chevron.
http://www.chevron.com/news/archive/chevron_speech/1999/1999-09-30.asp
Chuck
The MTBE folks want protection from lawsuits by the feds because, for an example, the public water system work in our village cost Texaco, then was inherited by Shell, a cool $1.2M. So since congress has protected the scumbags (saudis) it's your taxdollars which pay for much of the cleanup. The oil companies pay when it's cheaper than all the lawsuits from a leak of a 'company' station, which this was here. So now I get the water bill every three months for some bland tasting neutral liquid. It sure doesn't taste like well water before the leak.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sounds like you live in my area of the Pennsylvania woods. We also have MTBE contamination, from a similar source. When this was disclosed, the water company sent out a mailer refuting that it wasn't dangerous - because there were no Federal standards to define a dangerous dose. "As soon as a standard is established, we will immediately work towards compliance with it."
Funny NJ story: During and just after WWII the Army had a radium processing plant in the NJ town I later lived in (70's). When they no longer needed it, it was torn down, and the property reverted to the township - who promptly put an elementary school on it.
Flash forward 25 years. For SOME reason, the site is investigated and found to be noticeably contaminated - after my younger sisters had gone there. The school was torn down, the site was cleaned up - last I saw it was a big empty square of asphalt with a chain link fence around it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 11:23:54 -0700, David Erbas-White

<snip>
Well now you are getting more specific, rather than Ray who generalizes about all regulations. Certainly most of the "snail darter" and related wildlife protection laws are crap. At some point you just have to apply "eminent domain" and force the critters to find another place to live. Although, they should still do careful site selection, and environmental impact statements. And yes you want electricity production near people and electrical consumers, but don't expect to build nuke plants near active fault lines where people seem to want to live...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Alan Jones wrote:

I said: "Like nuke plants, one purpose for all the regulations and permit hassles is specifically to make it UNprofitable."
My generalization was about the hassles, not necessarily all regulations and permits. However, I can see that I should have made my point more clearly to avoid such confusion.
i
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Alan Jones wrote:

Yeah right.... just like the ATF demanding explosives storage and permits for exempt non-explosives.

That's not "my contention", it's what many of the environut activists have stated.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bush waged war to RAISE the price of oil, and thus increase the profits for all of his oil buddies. Katrina was just an unexpected windfall for them.
--
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, that removes the last thin doubts. You're definitely an idiot.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

Well, that removes the last thin doubts. You're definitely a troll that doesn't fly rockets.
I'd call you a full on asshole but I'll wait until/if we ever meet in person.
Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It wasn't a given?
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nope. I don't conclude that anyone's an idiot until they do or say something that demonstrates so conclusively, as Mr. Kaplow just did.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's very open minded.
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry Irvine wrote:

Despite all of this over-hyped, mis-informed B.S. about Iraq, "war for oil", Haliburton (which is not even an "oil company"), etc....is not Venezuela the one nation, more than any others, who is currently screwing everyone else with their oil pricing? (You remember Venezuela? Their Marxist president was just *fairly* elected, with like 107% of the vote, even...Jimmy Carter assures us of that!)
And back to Iraq...even at a potential peak capacity, don't they account for only like 4% of the world's production? (And far less for the U.S., as most of ours comes from our own domestic production, and of the remainder, only a minority comes from the "Middle East")
--

Greg Heilers
Registered Linux user #328317 - SlackWare 10.1 (2.6.10)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 03:49:08 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"

Katrina will definitely hurt profits of those oil companies with principle operations in Katrina's path. Other oil companies will see higher profits, due to greater sales at higher prices, without increased costs.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob Kaplow wrote:

I thought it was for Cheney's benefit regarding all the gov contracts his company(s) received to rebuild Iraq?
Regardless, this is not a war on terror as claimed but a war for liberation of Iraq citizens(as should have been properly claimed but was not for some odd reason) from Saddam Insane....or is it Inane :)
Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You mean we're not fighting terrorists today in Iraq? We're fighting Saddam Hussein? I thought Saddam was in jail awaiting trial.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.