Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stribe30 who wrote (130736)	1/24/2001 11:36:32 PM
From: Joe NYC	Respond to of 1573693

Scott, Coal is only an option if proper pollution scrubbers are installed on the smokestacks..( which I believe is a provision anyhow in the EPA guidelines. and the CLean Air Act) - without them you get into the acid rain problem again.. Coal is an imperfect option, since no matter what you do, a lot of sulfur is released (especially if coal with high sulfur content is burned). I am sure there are other pollutants in coal other than sulfur. I am not sure how much (percentage wise) the scrubbers help in reducing the emission of these gases. I realize this will cause an expense for those poor corporations who will only make a 6 figure profit rather then 7 figures.. and they will cry foul and how government is meddlesome and digging into their bottom line... wouldnt surprise me at all if they try to get your Environment-friendly president to ease the pollution guidelines. The cost of these regulations is generally passed on to the consumers, if everybody has to do it. If there are different way around it, like building an oil or natural gas power plants, some will do it. The price is that we end up wasting these fuels, which are IMO very valuable (oil, natural gas) for things that lower grade fuels (like coal or nuclear power) could be used, which is kind of a shame. Joe