Biden want's to force people to buy electric water heaters now

[Geeko Sportivo]

You don't get to dictate energy markets ya dumb lizard.

Not even trying to in the least you BIRDBRAIN!

I just encourage the public to educate themselves and making the best decisions for their homes and families.

And I thought my comments had more to do with that!

 

[Flash]

He's not suggesting it, he want's to put it into law meaning homeowners to spend upwards of 1500 dollars to comply with him.

No. New homes would eventually use electric. Current homeowners would not have to replace their units.

I have an electric tankless water heater. Hot water almost immediately that does not run out.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

No. New homes would eventually use electric. Current homeowners would not have to replace their units.

I have an electric tankless water heater. Hot water almost immediately that does not run out.

If it's tankless is it even a water heater?

 

[Flash]

If it's tankless is it even a water heater?

I don't know. It heats my water immediately so it is not stored in a tank.

 

[QP!]

CATALYTIC CONVERTERS WILL MAKE CARS MORE EXPENSIVE!

EXHAUST SYSTEMS WILL MAKE CARS MORE EXPENSIVE!!

MAKING PAINT WITHOUT LEAD WILL MAKE PAINT MORE EXPENSIVE!!!

How dare Biden push for these fascist changes when government historically has had no such role??

This is fascism and we need to go back to the good ole days before any of these changes Biden forced.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

I don't know. It heats my water immediately so it is not stored in a tank.

Never even knew those existed.

Thanks for the info.

I take very long showers so I could use something like that.

 

[Flash]

Never even knew those existed.

Thanks for the info.

I take very long showers so I could use something like that.

It's great. I also take long showers and shave in the shower.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

CATALYTIC CONVERTERS WILL MAKE CARS MORE EXPENSIVE!

EXHAUST SYSTEMS WILL MAKE CARS MORE EXPENSIVE!!

MAKING PAINT WITHOUT LEAD WILL MAKE PAINT MORE EXPENSIVE!!!

How dare Biden push for these fascist changes when government historically has had no such role??

This is fascism and we need to go back to the good ole days before any of these changes Biden forced.

And all those things did make cars more expensive. Where the problem lies is when the government decides that manufacturers have to do some pollution control that is costly and makes virtually no difference in the amount of pollution reduced.

Here's an example from our water supply the EPA did back in the Clinton era:

The allowable level of arsenic in drinking water in the US was 50 ppb for decades. During the Clinton administration, equipment became available that could accurately measure smaller amounts of arsenic in water. The EPA passed a regulation reducing arsenic in drinking water to 10 ppb. That is they reduced it from nothing to a bit less of nothing. At 50 ppb it had no significant health effects. At 10 ppb nothing changed.
In places like Bangladesh where arsenic in drinking water is present in parts per million, a thousand times more than allowed in US drinking water, it's very much a health hazard.

The only reason the EPA could get the level in the US reduced was the new equipment could measure it. The result of this regulation was water companies had to buy tens of thousands of dollars in new equipment to make the measurements, then if they were above 10 ppb they had to add hundreds of thousands in filtration equipment to get below it.

That caused water bills in many parts of the country double, triple, or even quadruple overnight.

No discernable difference in health effects, but a huge cost to water users. The Biden administration, all-too-often is doing this sort of thing today.

 

[Into the Night]

Probably it's low, I'm not an expert on water heaters, just pulled some numbers quickly off a site for the post.

My point was that it is too expensive more many people to implement.

And a valid point it is.

 

[Into the Night]

Not even trying to in the least you BIRDBRAIN!

Denying your own post again, ya dumb lizard?

I just encourage the public to educate themselves and making the best decisions for their homes and families.

No. You are advocating fascism.

 

[Into the Night]

No. New homes would eventually use electric. Current homeowners would not have to replace their units.

That's fascism, Blink.

I have an electric tankless water heater. Hot water almost immediately that does not run out.

So? Obviously you don't care how hot your water is.

 

[Into the Night]

If it's tankless is it even a water heater?

It is. It doesn't have time to heat the water much. It comes out sorta 'hot', but it isn't all that hot.

 

[Into the Night]

I don't know. It heats my water immediately so it is not stored in a tank.

Too bad you never learned English. It is a water heater (a lousy one).

 

[Into the Night]

It's great. I also take long showers and shave in the shower.

If you don't mind sorta warm showers, I guess.

 

[serendipity]

And all those things did make cars more expensive. Where the problem lies is when the government decides that manufacturers have to do some pollution control that is costly and makes virtually no difference in the amount of pollution reduced.

Here's an example from our water supply the EPA did back in the Clinton era:

The allowable level of arsenic in drinking water in the US was 50 ppb for decades. During the Clinton administration, equipment became available that could accurately measure smaller amounts of arsenic in water. The EPA passed a regulation reducing arsenic in drinking water to 10 ppb. That is they reduced it from nothing to a bit less of nothing. At 50 ppb it had no significant health effects. At 10 ppb nothing changed.
In places like Bangladesh where arsenic in drinking water is present in parts per million, a thousand times more than allowed in US drinking water, it's very much a health hazard.

The only reason the EPA could get the level in the US reduced was the new equipment could measure it. The result of this regulation was water companies had to buy tens of thousands of dollars in new equipment to make the measurements, then if they were above 10 ppb they had to add hundreds of thousands in filtration equipment to get below it.

That caused water bills in many parts of the country double, triple, or even quadruple overnight.

No discernable difference in health effects, but a huge cost to water users. The Biden administration, all-too-often is doing this sort of thing today.

Same bullshit with PFAs, states like California are holding companies to ransom over them. Try buying a non stick Teflon pan after next year.

 

[serendipity]

And all those things did make cars more expensive. Where the problem lies is when the government decides that manufacturers have to do some pollution control that is costly and makes virtually no difference in the amount of pollution reduced.

Here's an example from our water supply the EPA did back in the Clinton era:

The allowable level of arsenic in drinking water in the US was 50 ppb for decades. During the Clinton administration, equipment became available that could accurately measure smaller amounts of arsenic in water. The EPA passed a regulation reducing arsenic in drinking water to 10 ppb. That is they reduced it from nothing to a bit less of nothing. At 50 ppb it had no significant health effects. At 10 ppb nothing changed.
In places like Bangladesh where arsenic in drinking water is present in parts per million, a thousand times more than allowed in US drinking water, it's very much a health hazard.

The only reason the EPA could get the level in the US reduced was the new equipment could measure it. The result of this regulation was water companies had to buy tens of thousands of dollars in new equipment to make the measurements, then if they were above 10 ppb they had to add hundreds of thousands in filtration equipment to get below it.

That caused water bills in many parts of the country double, triple, or even quadruple overnight.

No discernable difference in health effects, but a huge cost to water users. The Biden administration, all-too-often is doing this sort of thing today.

Same bullshit with PFAs, states like California are holding companies to ransom over them. Try buying a non-stick Teflon pan after next year.

 

[serendipity]

CATALYTIC CONVERTERS WILL MAKE CARS MORE EXPENSIVE!

EXHAUST SYSTEMS WILL MAKE CARS MORE EXPENSIVE!!

MAKING PAINT WITHOUT LEAD WILL MAKE PAINT MORE EXPENSIVE!!!

How dare Biden push for these fascist changes when government historically has had no such role??

This is fascism and we need to go back to the good ole days before any of these changes Biden forced.

You're such an arsehole!

 

[Into the Night]

CATALYTIC CONVERTERS WILL MAKE CARS MORE EXPENSIVE!

They did.

EXHAUST SYSTEMS WILL MAKE CARS MORE EXPENSIVE!!

Cars have always had exhaust systems, and yes, they do add to the price of the car.

MAKING PAINT WITHOUT LEAD WILL MAKE PAINT MORE EXPENSIVE!!!

It did too. It also made paint unable to properly stick to objects or to last...particularly automotive paints.

How dare Biden push for these fascist changes when government historically has had no such role??

Biden didn't. It is fascism, however...pushed by the Democrats, who don't know anything about paints or chemistry.

This is fascism and we need to go back to the good ole days before any of these changes Biden forced.

Biden didn't force it. DEMOCRATS did.
Yes...it is fascism, and these oppressive laws should be repealed.

Then we can use paints that actually work, and build cars that are actually cheaper that can achieve greater power.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

My bad then.

Point still remains, it's too expensive for most people.

All those people living without hot water because they can't afford a new water heater....




No requirement to replace water heaters immediately which you also said. You seem to not know what you are talking about.

 

[QP!]

And all those things did make cars more expensive. Where the problem lies is when the government decides that manufacturers have to do some pollution control that is costly and makes virtually no difference in the amount of pollution reduced.

Here's an example from our water supply the EPA did back in the Clinton era:

The allowable level of arsenic in drinking water in the US was 50 ppb for decades. During the Clinton administration, equipment became available that could accurately measure smaller amounts of arsenic in water. The EPA passed a regulation reducing arsenic in drinking water to 10 ppb. That is they reduced it from nothing to a bit less of nothing. At 50 ppb it had no significant health effects. At 10 ppb nothing changed.
In places like Bangladesh where arsenic in drinking water is present in parts per million, a thousand times more than allowed in US drinking water, it's very much a health hazard.

The only reason the EPA could get the level in the US reduced was the new equipment could measure it. The result of this regulation was water companies had to buy tens of thousands of dollars in new equipment to make the measurements, then if they were above 10 ppb they had to add hundreds of thousands in filtration equipment to get below it.

That caused water bills in many parts of the country double, triple, or even quadruple overnight.

No discernable difference in health effects, but a huge cost to water users. The Biden administration, all-too-often is doing this sort of thing today.

YOu have to stick to one argument and one only.


Is it OK or not for government to regulate in these areas as they ALWAYS have?

You cannot only have a view that it is OK if it proves LATER to have had benefit as that demands politicians know the future. It is called the Fallacy of Results Based Thinking. That an action will deemed proper to take, or not, when i see the result.


Governments are not perfect but if you take the position they can only regulate Lead, Arsenic, Pollutants, if in the FUTURE it proves it had a discernable effect on health, then they can never begin. They can never do any of it.

This seems to track with your prior line of thinking that no new technology should be pursued if the demand and benefits and operation of it are not already proven. What you mocked as wish casting.

You seem to operate entirely from within the Results based Thinking fallacy. That you are going to judge EVERYTHING from hindsight and if something does not work, then you will say it was then wrong to have done in the first place. And that type of thinking is wrong and flawed at a very fundamental level.