Cheney Energy Approach Contradisted by Energy Dept Study

0 views
Skip to first unread message

James Chamblee

unread,
May 3, 2001, 10:04:25 PM5/3/01
to
WASHINGTON -- Energy efficiency and renewable power, largely dismissed by
Vice President Cheney in a recent speech, can meet 60 percent of the
nation's needs for new electric power plants over the next 20 years,
according to NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council). NRDC based its
calculation on the conclusions of a November 2000 Department of Energy
report that the Bush administration has completely ignored.

In his April 30 speech, Cheney said the United States needs to build 1,300
electric power plants (averaging 300 megawatts) between now and 2020, which
would amount to "more than one new plant per week." At the same time, he
downplayed the potential for energy efficiency and renewable energy sources,
suggesting that conservation is just "a sign of personal virtue" and that
relying on renewable energy sources would threaten "our way of life."

However, the November Energy Department report, "Scenarios for a Clean
Energy Future," concluded that energy efficiency measures could avoid the
need for building approximately 610 of the new power plants Cheney calls
for, and that renewable power capacity (wind, geothermal, biomass and
others) could expand by the equivalent of about 180 new plants. The report
did anticipate building 570 new high-efficiency, natural-gas-fired plants,
but those would replace older, dirtier and less-efficient plants. The
report, which was written by experts at 11 Energy Department facilities, is
available at www.ornl.gov/ORNL/Energy_Eff/CEF.htm.

How did the vice president arrive at his 1,300 power plant prediction?
Cheney and other Bush administration officials base their forecast on
projections by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), an arm of the
Energy Department that has historically emphasized energy supply from
traditional sources and downplayed the potential of energy efficiency and
renewable energy. The EIA projects that demand for electricity will increase
by 320,000 megawatts over the next 20 years, and that the United States will
have to replace existing plants that generate another 70,000 megawatts.
Assuming an average power plant size of 300 megawatts, Bush administration
officials calculate we need 1,300 new power plants, fueled mostly by coal
and natural gas.

"The Bush-Cheney energy plan is the 'more pollution solution,' " said Daniel
Lashof, an NRDC senior scientist and coauthor of "A Responsible Energy
Policy for the 21st Century," a comprehensive energy plan published by NRDC
earlier this year (go to www.nrdc.org for the report). "It would mean higher
profits for the oil and coal companies that funded President Bush's
campaign; and higher energy prices, more smog and more carbon dioxide -- the
main cause of global warming -- for the rest of us."

The Energy Department's "Clean Energy Future" report "shows that the nation
has another choice -- one that emphasizes increasing the efficiency of our
homes, factories and office buildings, and the appliances, heating and
cooling equipment, and other machines inside them," said David Doniger,
NRDC's global warming policy director. A responsible energy policy would *
Limit the major pollutants from power plants, including carbon dioxide
(which George W. Bush endorsed as a candidate but has rejected as
president);

* Establish stronger efficiency standards for appliances and buildings
(President Bush is trying to weaken the efficiency standards for air
conditioners issued by the Clinton administration);

* Establish a fund to increase energy efficiency investments by utilities
and other energy service companies, supported by a charge on electricity
transmission;

* Establish a "renewable portfolio standard" requiring a certain percentage
of electricity to come from renewable sources;

* Create tax incentives to expand the market for high-efficiency
technologies and renewable generation; and

* Increase funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy research and
development. (President Bush has proposed dramatic reductions in these
programs in his current budget).

Contrary to Cheney's claim, this clean and efficient energy path would not
require Americans to make sacrifices, said Dr. Lashof. In fact, it would
significantly enhance their lives. Americans would save more than $30
billion per year on their electric bills. Power plant emissions that cause
smog and dangerous fine particles would decline by more than half of current
levels. And power plant emissions of carbon dioxide would be cut by one
third from today's levels.

Thomas A. Jones

unread,
May 3, 2001, 10:16:45 PM5/3/01
to
James,

This appraoch is part of the problem in California........

T Jones

"James Chamblee" <jim-ch...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:B7178669.4056%jim-ch...@mindspring.com...

MelvinFullerton

unread,
May 3, 2001, 11:59:20 PM5/3/01
to
Not hardly.The problem in California is
the corporation supplying natural gas to
California is ripping off the people of California,by shutting down one of its
natural gas transmission lines.

melvin3620

Earl Evleth

unread,
May 4, 2001, 9:32:03 AM5/4/01
to

Dans l'article <B7178669.4056%jim-ch...@mindspring.com>, James Chamblee
<jim-ch...@mindspring.com> a écrit :


> Energy efficiency

The lack of efficiency in American power use is evident when one exams the
relationship between per capita energy consumption and per capita GNP.
All western high GNP nations have per capita energy consumptions well below
the American rate, leading to the prediction that the US could reduce
its excess consumption by 30% without damaging its economy.

The problem with people like Cheney is that they don`t have any leadership
ability to move the nation towards greater efficiency. The excess
consumption of power is also exhibited in the per capita emissions of
CO2 which range from twice to three times that European rates, the same
being true for SO2 and NOx emissions.

The development of coal, which the US has a lot of, implies its burning and
release of increasing amounts of SO2 into the atmosphere. Acid rain in the
eastern US has remained high, the 1990 "clean air" act has not produced
significant decreases in SO2 emissions, and the situation with NOx emissions
is actually becoming worse. So Cheney proposes much more of the same!

This was predictable. Bush`s men of the past, they can not see the future
in terms other than the past.

Fortunately, Europeans see the situation more clearly, even Chirac, the
"right" wing President of France is going "ecolo". And the paper today
blames the recent increase gasoline prices on guess who? "the Americans".

Earl



C Rozelle

unread,
May 4, 2001, 10:42:35 AM5/4/01
to

Thanks Earl for saying what I have in the outbox.... you saved me the trouble.

Looks like with all our 'trading' ability we could get solar panels down to
$100. per a big panel, but the SOBs running everything aren't interested
in making citizens free.... just chaining them. Then we have the fact that
millions and millions of people will lose jobs at Reliant, TXU, and so on
a big chunk of revenue would evaporate. Job and revenue loss prevents
innovative persons.

I was probably one of the first people in Texas to have a private energy
experiment in my yard, and extra bedroom. The wealthy Corps want to
steal ideas from the less affluent but more brainy. BTW the experiment
froze the water solid, so was useless for cooling, after spending a
thousand or so on copper, and burning up a $500. compressor.
Science is expensive.

I had a idea for cheap wind generators, but the electrical componets cost
off the ceiling.

Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Rumpelstiltskin

unread,
May 4, 2001, 11:38:00 AM5/4/01
to
On Fri, 04 May 2001 14:32:03 +0100, "Earl Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr>
wrote:

>

>Dans l'article <B7178669.4056%jim-ch...@mindspring.com>, James Chamblee
><jim-ch...@mindspring.com> a écrit :
>
>
>> Energy efficiency
>
>The lack of efficiency in American power use is evident when one exams the
>relationship between per capita energy consumption and per capita GNP.
>All western high GNP nations have per capita energy consumptions well below
>the American rate, leading to the prediction that the US could reduce
>its excess consumption by 30% without damaging its economy.
>
>The problem with people like Cheney is that they don`t have any leadership
>ability to move the nation towards greater efficiency.


I don't think there's anything wrong with Cheney's leadership
abilities. It's his goals that are alien to you and I.


Earl Evleth

unread,
May 4, 2001, 12:45:10 PM5/4/01
to

--


----------
Dans l'article <fsa5ftc2sujkp9eg5...@4ax.com>, bogeyman
<boge...@rr.com> a écrit :


> This is America for Americans, it isn't France for One Worlders.

Talking about Europe, like Switzerland, Sweden, Germany but France
is not even on the list to reduce CO2 emissions, our nuclear energy
industry has avoided such emissions.

Americans are mainly reshaped Europeans, although the process
produced some of pointy headed types who know vote Republican.
Got it straight?

Earl

Thomas A. Jones

unread,
May 5, 2001, 12:37:01 AM5/5/01
to
Coal is America's energy savior......

Tom JOnes

"Earl Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:9cu7bd$23n5$1...@news5.isdnet.net...

Ron Kelley

unread,
May 5, 2001, 3:03:08 AM5/5/01
to
On Fri, 04 May 2001 14:32:03 +0100, "Earl Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote:

>The lack of efficiency in American power use is evident when one exams the
>relationship between per capita energy consumption and per capita GNP.
>All western high GNP nations have per capita energy consumptions well below
>the American rate, leading to the prediction that the US could reduce
>its excess consumption by 30% without damaging its economy.

For one who claims to have an academic background, the statement that the US
could reduce it's excess energy consumption by 30% and not damage the economy
boggles the mind. That is the most ludicrous claim I have heard on this board
lately, and there have been a few doozies.

>
>The problem with people like Cheney is that they don`t have any leadership
>ability to move the nation towards greater efficiency.

On the contrary, Cheney is demonstrating leadership ability when he tells us the
plain truth... the first thing to do is to correct our energy shortage to keep
the economy going on an even keel... then work on *realistic* conservation
methods. We cannot solve the current energy shortage by conservation methods
alone.

>The excess
>consumption of power is also exhibited in the per capita emissions of
>CO2 which range from twice to three times that European rates, the same
>being true for SO2 and NOx emissions.

Possibly that is due to the US being two to three times as productive, on a per
capita basis, that the European countries.

>
>The development of coal, which the US has a lot of, implies its burning and
>release of increasing amounts of SO2 into the atmosphere. Acid rain in the
>eastern US has remained high, the 1990 "clean air" act has not produced
>significant decreases in SO2 emissions, and the situation with NOx emissions
>is actually becoming worse. So Cheney proposes much more of the same!

The development of coal burning power plants (the bulk of the existing plants
have long been shut down or converted to natural gas in this country) is
predicated on the development of cleaner methods of burning coal.

>
>This was predictable. Bush`s men of the past, they can not see the future
>in terms other than the past.

No, Clinton and Gore were men of the past... always depending on polls of what
the people thought last week. Bush and Cheney are leaders, looking to solve
problems of the future by doing the right things now.

>
>Fortunately, Europeans see the situation more clearly, even Chirac, the
>"right" wing President of France is going "ecolo". And the paper today
>blames the recent increase gasoline prices on guess who? "the Americans".

Your paper is wrong. Please have them tell you how America causes gasoline
prices in France to go up and let us know what they say.

Ron Kelley

James Chamblee

unread,
May 5, 2001, 7:40:33 AM5/5/01
to
Try reading a little on the subject Kelley. You'll find that Earl's
statement is considered very reasonable by the vast majority of experts.

C Rozelle

unread,
May 5, 2001, 9:32:42 AM5/5/01
to
On Thu, 03 May 2001 22:04:25 -0400, James Chamblee <jim-ch...@mindspring.com>
wrote:

Several things make me curious. One wonders why no one in the Admn,
has spoke of the hydrogen cars. I understand that demand is outstripping
the supply for these cars, and that BMW sells on in the US now, with
Ford and Chrysler to follow next year or year after that.

This "emergency" make one wonder why America doesn't gear up to
produce, and what would happen if China bombed us? The US is no
longer producing anything as far as I can tell. So why do we always
lag behind in innovative ideas? Our leaders are so short sighted.....

Solar cells and electrical systems vould be mass produced very cheaply
in Mexico, or elsewhere, but our leaders go without saying that millions
of people would lose jobs if the US aggressively pursues solar powered
homes, hence as always we in the US are a day late and a dollar short.

IT seems the system wants everyone to depend on the relic.

Carol

Thomas A. Jones

unread,
May 5, 2001, 9:51:57 AM5/5/01
to
Ron,

Very good points you make.....

T Jones

"Ron Kelley" <remover...@thisearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5e87ftgc40r8h9a45...@4ax.com...


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Thomas A. Jones

unread,
May 6, 2001, 4:56:56 PM5/6/01
to
Tita,

We burn more coal for power generation in this country than ever, with less
pollution,and therefore enjoy all the benefits of reliable & relatively
inexpensive energy.

Tom Jones

"Rita" <rkin...@amexol.net> wrote in message
news:81r7ft00t5s82g5no...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 05 May 2001 05:49:06 GMT, Dick Brewster
> <nospam...@earthink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >It puts a higher amount of CO2 into the atmosphere
> >than even other fossil fuels per unit of energy,
> >but you won't believe in global warming until you
> >drown in your own sweat, so it doesn't matter,
> >does it.
> >
> >Dick
> >
> >
> >In article <3af3...@news.nauticom.net>,
> >t...@nauticom.net says...


> >>Coal is America's energy savior......
> >>
> >>Tom JOnes
>
>

> Oh well, some people are so invested in pooh poohing
> the enviromentalists they would happily choke and cough
> away with coal fired energy sources. They would have
> been in heaven if they had lived in the factory towns
> that spewed this stuff earlier in this century.

Thomas A. Jones

unread,
May 6, 2001, 8:37:01 PM5/6/01
to
Dick,

That may be, but we do not have any other alternatives presently that can
substitute for our need for coal. Reliance on any other fuel (other than
nuclear) will cripple our economy and have many more IMMEDIATE devastating
affects than the long term potential affects of CO2. If our economy would be
crippled for lack of abundant electricity & energy, more death and
destruction will result from the lack of energy, than from CO2.

When the lights go out & no gas for cars, see how many people protest for
lower CO2 levels. I dare say they will want to hang any politicians that got
them into the mess.

Tom Jones

"Dick Brewster" wrote > Coal still puts more CO2 in the atmosphere than
other
> fossil fuels, Whether you believe that matters is
> another matter.
>
> Dick
> --
>


Ron Kelley

unread,
May 7, 2001, 12:21:40 AM5/7/01
to
On Sat, 05 May 2001 07:40:33 -0400, James Chamblee <jim-ch...@mindspring.com>
wrote:

>> From: Ron Kelley <remover...@thisearthlink.net>


>
>> For one who claims to have an academic background, the statement that the US
>> could reduce it's excess energy consumption by 30% and not damage the economy
>> boggles the mind. That is the most ludicrous claim I have heard on this board
>> lately, and there have been a few doozies.


>Jim Chamblee wrote:
>
>Try reading a little on the subject Kelley. You'll find that Earl's
>statement is considered very reasonable by the vast majority of experts.
>

Just because you and Earl say something totally ludicrous, doesn't make it
so.... including your comment "... the vast majority of experts." We've heard
that comment bandied about in this newsgroup with absolutely no corroboration
from any credible source other than the poster's RDS.

Ron Kelley

Earl Evleth

unread,
May 7, 2001, 7:21:53 AM5/7/01
to
Thomas A. Jones <t...@nauticom.net> wrote:
: Tita,

: We burn more coal for power generation in this country than ever, with less
: pollution,and therefore enjoy all the benefits of reliable & relatively
: inexpensive energy.

The fact it that more energy is generated then needed for the
GNP level the country enjoys. This sur-generation is in the order
of 30-50% and well known to people knowledgeable of the energy
area. There is a lot of inefficiency in energy use in the USA
and in fact an article in the International Herald Tribune this
very morning dealt with this fact.


Besides the negative fall out from CO2 generation the SO2 released
by burning of the abundant western coal in power plants is the major
cause of acid rain in the east of the Mississipi area. Control of
SO2 emissions was mandated in the clean air act of 1990 but in fact
the progress is very slow such the acid rain has not been diminished.
Superimposed on this is the nitrogen oxide emissions both industrially
and by vehicular traffic.

I will post on this elsewhere in this newsgroup. I have posted on
the acid rain problem several times here and it is a problem
largely also swept under the wrong. Basically more fossil fuel
power plants will mean more CO2, SO2 and NOx emmissions. Global
warming in not involved with SO2 and NOx emissions, the latter
constitute another pollution problem.

Earl


Doris Carter Ford

unread,
May 7, 2001, 9:21:32 AM5/7/01
to
Dick Brewster <nospam...@earthink.net> wrote:
: In article <3af5b9ea$1_3@newsfeeds>, t...@nauticom.net
: says...
:>Tita,

:>
:>We burn more coal for power generation in this country than ever, with less
:>pollution,and therefore enjoy all the benefits of reliable & relatively
:>inexpensive energy.
:>
:>Tom Jones
:>

: Coal still puts more CO2 in the atmosphere than other

: fossil fuels, Whether you believe that matters is
: another matter.

: Dick
: --

Where there are smokestack emmission standards that problem can be
addressed with success. Over twenty years ago my ex-husband was
responsible for the polution standards ...air, water etc.. for a coal
fired electric generating plant.

He took his chem eng and bio-chem eng cum laude from U of Wisc..

The EPA has the answer, has had for a long time now.

Doris F.

Donna Evleth

unread,
May 7, 2001, 2:32:42 PM5/7/01
to

Dans l'article <81r7ft00t5s82g5no...@4ax.com>, Rita
<rkin...@amexol.net> a écrit :


>
>
> Oh well, some people are so invested in pooh poohing
> the enviromentalists they would happily choke and cough
> away with coal fired energy sources. They would have
> been in heaven if they had lived in the factory towns
> that spewed this stuff earlier in this century.

I seem to remember a town called Donora, Pennsylvania. Correct me if I am
wrong, but I think it was coal burning that caused a terrible pollution that
killed a number of people. Most of the good folks have forgotten what a
terrible unbreathable fog coal burning could cause.

Donna Evleth

Thomas A. Jones

unread,
May 7, 2001, 1:51:19 PM5/7/01
to
Donna,

The conditions that existed then with the steel mills, coke ovens, power
plants & homes that all burned coal, no longer exist. There was no pollution
control technology then. I'm sure your not inferring that the utilization of
coal, in power plants, would cause the same thing in today.

Tom Jones


"Donna Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:9d6m2t$ioj$1...@news4.isdnet.net...

Charles Galbach

unread,
May 7, 2001, 2:53:27 PM5/7/01
to
"Thomas A. Jones" <t...@nauticom.net> wrote in message
news:3af6deca$1_4@newsfeeds...

Couple things here - in the case of Donora, it was an inversion (a weather
phenomenon) that caused the unusual buildup of pollutants from the mills
(which did burn coal in steel making) as well as other sources (autos, coke
plants, home coal furnaces, etc.) that killed those folks. It is the very
same thing that causes the smog buildups in LA and Mexico City, even though
the mix of pollutant sources is different. If you get a place with
appreciable air pollution that is also in a "bowl" (Mexico City) or
otherwise in a location that inhibits air movement to stir, transport and
disburse the pollution (LA), and you get an inversion that traps the
pollution from above, you get death by breath. In all these cases, it has
been the especially vulnerable who've died - those with acute emphysema or
other acute lung capacity problems. And, over the years, a great many more
have died in LA and Mexico city from air pollution than died in Donora. In
those two places, the population is much greater than Donora and the
pollution is much more persistent day to day and year to year; thus the
actual and potential victims there are and have been greater in number -
even though coal played little or no role.

As far as the source of the air pollutants, burning of coal in and of itself
is not necessarily the problem. It was the past lack of pollution controls
for the burning of the coal that created much of the pollution. Our local
electric utility recently had another new coal fired plant gain approval and
it will shortly undergo construction. Anticipated pollution emission is well
within legal limits. One thing I'm somewhat concerned about is the lack of
measurement of radioactivity from coal fired plants. That is typically
significant for coal and not significant for American made or designed
nuclear reactors. In England, every day, many tons of coal ash are dumped
into the sea, with not a peep from the environmentalists. Coal ash is
virtually always laced with lots of radioactive components. Were the British
to dump even one percent of the same quantity of radioactive elements from a
nuclear reactor source, all hell would break loose. Our ability to
understand and prioritize the dangers to humanity and even the general
environment itself remain suspect. But we insist on considering
environmentalism as based in science. If it were, we'd be more concerned
about the real dangers to the environment, whether the sources of those
dangers were politically correct or not.

Chuck


Thomas A. Jones

unread,
May 7, 2001, 3:45:52 PM5/7/01
to
Earl,

Make your choice, do we want to have abundant energy to fuel an expanding
economy or do you want to lower our standard of living & restrict the growth
of the economy through cutbacks & restrictions?

As in previous posts, I submit to you that more people will be caused
hardship & perish because of lack of jobs & energy than will ever die from
CO2. When the day comes when you cannot turn on your lights, TV's, heat/air
condition your home or drive your car, I doubt very much that the people
will be worrying about CO2, NOX or SO2....instead they will be looking to
hang their politicians...

Tom Jones

"Earl Evleth" <e...@liliput.lct.jussieu.fr> wrote in message
news:9d60gh$pti$1...@vishnu.jussieu.fr...

Charles Galbach

unread,
May 7, 2001, 5:08:00 PM5/7/01
to
"Dick Brewster" <nospam...@earthink.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.156092a16...@news.earthlink.net...
> In article <tfdrlei...@corp.supernews.com>,
> galb...@pgh.net says...
> > ....

> >As far as the source of the air pollutants, burning of coal in and of
itself
> >is not necessarily the problem. It was the past lack of pollution
controls
> >for the burning of the coal that created much of the pollution. Our local
> >electric utility recently had another new coal fired plant gain approval
and
> >it will shortly undergo construction.
> > ....
> >Chuck
> >
>
> The irony here is all the past whining by the coal
> company executives and power company executives about
> how screwed up the environmentalists were for pushing
> for emissions standards for coal fired power plants and
> other industrial coal burners.
>
>
> Dick
>
>
> --
>

You can revel in that seeming irony all you want, but there is no doubt that
impingement of a source of energy by any means increases it's cost and
decreases it's competitiveness. Anyone making their livelihood from an
energy source that is restricted is going to complain. Same is true for any
product. If you manufacture happy face signs and there is a tide of opinion,
justifiable or not, followed by restrictive legislation against your signs,
you're going to whine and complain. If someone gets a bug up their rear and
decides that using solar energy is somehow unnatural because it "steals"
sunshine from shining on the earth or the plants and must therefore be
managed (and especially that it must be taxed) - and then they acquire a
compliant legislative following, use of solar energy will become
non-competitive. To me, that is not where the irony lies - that's just human
nature. All the negative publicity and legislation against nuclear power has
made it horrendously more expensive than it ever promised to be.

To me, the irony lies in the fact that we penalize industries for political
purposes rather than scientific purposes. While nuclear electrical
generation (designed by Americans) has a better safety record (including
radioactive emissions) than coal fired electrical generation, we accept new
coal fired facilities, at least in some areas of the country, and nuclear
almost nowhere. Some rail against dams because of their perceived negative
effect on some life forms while ignoring the enormous contributions and
benefit to various other life forms from a Lake Meade or a Lake Powell. We
fret about the possibilities of endangering some obscure species of fish in
the vicinity of a nuclear power plant while ignoring the influx of other
species that like the warmed waters.

Environmental impact studies should evaluate the impact on humans and "all"
other species of flora and fauna, but especially humans. If the benefits
outweigh the negatives and something like the snail darter has to go in the
process - kiss the bugger goodbye. Nature has established rules for survival
of the fittest. We seem hell-bent on making ourselves weak and not
survivable. Pretty stupid if you ask me. If humans did not exist, something
would kill off all the snail darters at some point. No species has ever
survived continuously, without dramatic change or ultimate demise, since
it's inception on earth. Why we cannot accept that and not get overly
constipated about rare species is beyond me. Mutations will no doubt
eventually produce some sort of similar or dissimilar species to take it's
place. I'm not advocating purposely killing off endangered species and
absolutely not the wholesale exercise of it. But some will no doubt
occasionally go. We should regret that and then move on - as a thinking and
intelligent species.

Some day, through our (human) fault or (other) natural causes, the earth
"will" become uninhabitable. If nothing else, the death of the sun will kill
the earth. Maybe by then man will have figured out how to migrate to other
solar systems. I seriously doubt, however, that we will even attempt to take
with us all the species that exist right now on earth along with all new
species that evolve between now and then. Why then, in our mental midgetdom,
do we not permit spaceship earth to do what it has always done - change -
and change without tears, gnashing of teeth and exorbitant taxation. Really
weird - us people.

Chuck


Charles Galbach

unread,
May 7, 2001, 6:39:58 PM5/7/01
to

"Dick Brewster" <nospam...@earthink.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1560b9004...@news.earthlink.net...
> I expected a Pavlovian response and was not disapointed.
>
> Dick
>

Hmmm? Your's or mine? Pavolv's predictions for conditioned responses did not
go much beyond the relatively simplistic. Which therefore seems more
Pavlovian, four paragraphs with at least some attention (right or wrong) to
various aspects of an issue, or one dismissive sentence? I'm at least happy
that you are so readily satisfied or amused. I wasn't in the mood for
additional discourse anyway.

Thank you for your conditioned response,

Chuck


Glenn Pooler

unread,
May 7, 2001, 7:05:27 PM5/7/01
to

Is this a record in brevity for you Charlie? You know, as we all
know, the number of paragraph is meaningless as a measure of
information transmitted and in fact, the closer to the minimum
number of words needed, the more likely the information will be
received completely and accurately.

Glenn....@att.net
Rochester Minnesota USA

Doris Carter Ford

unread,
May 7, 2001, 7:37:46 PM5/7/01
to
Donna Evleth <dev...@noos.fr> wr
I have cropped your post as my server doesn't like your server.

To hell with the servers, we are doing just fine.

Donna

The problem in Donora would probably been from open-hearth furnaces.

My understanding was that in the Pittsburgh area ****before**** the
second world war there had been laws passed to control smog....which was
originally smoke and fog. RRs has to shut down firing the coal burning
engines within the city, and I believe the open hearth furnaces were
supposed to be eliminated. I have an image of the fires from the funaces
dorring the sides of the hills in the dark of the night.

Pittsburgh window sills were daily dusted with smakey grit. When you
walked along the street the dirt in the corners was coal-dust. Anything
white in the way of clothing was lucky to make it thru the day.

I do not remember the incident to which you refer but would assume it
was a 1930's or earlier event. Some tragedy had to take place to have the
affect on policy. Just as the Johnstown flood probably was the driving
force behind the building of the myriad floor walls along the river
system.

Coal fired generating plants can work, do work. Actually their
polution problems are solvable whereas the desposal of the by-products
from nuclear production raise quite a longterm problem beyond any dollar
expense.

Doris F.

Polar

unread,
May 7, 2001, 7:44:03 PM5/7/01
to
On Fri, 04 May 2001 15:38:00 GMT, Rumpelstiltskin
<PleaseDonot...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 04 May 2001 14:32:03 +0100, "Earl Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Dans l'article <B7178669.4056%jim-ch...@mindspring.com>, James Chamblee
>><jim-ch...@mindspring.com> a écrit :
>>

[...]


>
> I don't think there's anything wrong with Cheney's leadership
>abilities. It's his goals that are alien to you and I.

I can't reply by email, Rumpie, babe, so have to let the Grammar
Police Action hang out in public.

"...alien to you and ME..."

--

Polar

Charles Galbach

unread,
May 7, 2001, 8:31:20 PM5/7/01
to
"Glenn Pooler" <glenn....@att.net> wrote in message
news:n5aeft07qgtbrinmo...@4ax.com...

Yup


Rumpelstiltskin

unread,
May 8, 2001, 3:53:21 AM5/8/01
to
On Mon, 07 May 2001 16:44:03 -0700, Polar <sme...@mindspring.com>
wrote:


>I can't reply by email, Rumpie, babe, so have to let the Grammar
>Police Action hang out in public.
>
>"...alien to you and ME..."


Indeed you're right. I saw it myself after I posted.


Earl Evleth

unread,
May 8, 2001, 10:49:53 AM5/8/01
to

--


----------
Dans l'article <3af6f9a6$1_2@newsfeeds>, "Thomas A. Jones"
<t...@nauticom.net> a écrit :


> Make your choice, do we want to have abundant energy to fuel an expanding
> economy or do you want to lower our standard of living & restrict the growth
> of the economy through cutbacks & restrictions?

First, you are strawmaning it. The US has a lot of room left in energy
efficiency improvement. This was known since the period of the first
energy crisis in the 1970s. The US is "off-scale" when you look at
its per capita GNP and per capita energy use.

So you paint it as either or, either "march forward" in the fashion "we have
"or march backwards"

The US has dropped behind in nuclear energy use because of public fears and
hysteria. The US has always been behind in energy efficiency due to too
cheap energy sources, it felt it could waste with impunity.

The Cheney target was to reduce oil imports from 56% of the current needs
to 50%. Big deal, the nation is still dependent on imported oil and
will be progressively in the future. The current level of importations was
predicted decades ago, national oil production peaked in the 1960s. And
still we are dragging our fee with an occasional tantrum now and then.

Earl


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages