Steve - I can't come close to debating the process involved in refining fuels but I can honestly say that the Clean Air Act (and a less hobbled EPA - they are hobbled a lot by the current administration) are GOOD things.
If there was no clean air act, we'd be choking on cheaper gas. This country was responsible for so much toxic output into the air, into streams and rivers, into soil, and into the ground water. If there was no EPA, would big business and small business police themselves in the best interests of out quality of life? Do you really think that government has screwed us with the EPA and Clean Air? Or the PCBs in the rivers, the glycol in the streams, the toxins in the air? If anything, the government has screwed us on the RELAXING by this administration of these rules. I wish I had a link but I was reading recently that in Maine they recently started using the same formulation of gas for cars that Mass, RI, Cali, and others use because it burns just a bit cleaner. They then extrapolated the amount of rudeced toxins in the air and credited that reduction against some plants in Maine so those plants could burn just that bit more dirty. So the CONSUMER is essentially paying for the processor to not pay and we haven't actually achieved any improved cleanliness. So in my opinion, EPA and the latest revisions of Clean Air don't go FAR ENOUGH.
Maybe I didn't read your post right, but where are they putting unneccesary burdens and what alternative methods would work better and what reasons (including cost) are stopping this??
Nuclear Fuel
