Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Draft of Air Rule is Said to Exempt Many Old Plants

This is topic Draft of Air Rule is Said to Exempt Many Old Plants in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002402

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 08-22-2003, 01:19 PM:

A VICTORY FOR INDUSTRY

E.P.A. Would Allow Upgrades Without Requiring Devices to Control Emissions

August 22, 2003
Draft of Air Rule Is Said to Exempt Many Old Plants
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE

WASHINGTON, Aug. 21 — After more than two years of internal deliberation and intense pressure from industry, the Bush administration has settled on a regulation that would allow thousands of older power plants, oil refineries and industrial units to make extensive upgrades without having to install new anti-pollution devices, according to those involved in the deliberations.

The new rule, a draft of which was made available to The New York Times by the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, would constitute a sweeping and cost-saving victory for industries, exempting thousands of indus trial plants and refineries from part of the Clean Air Act. The acting administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency could sign the new rule as soon as next week, administration officials have told utility representatives.

The exemption would let industrial plants continue to emit hundreds of thousands of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere and could save the companies millions, if not billions, of dollars in pollution equipment costs, even if they increase the amounts of pollutants they emit.

The action could also spare Gov. Michael O. Leavitt of Utah, if he is confirmed as the new E.P.A. administrator, from having to make a decision on a highly contentious issue.
[Report continues on link below:]
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/22/national/22AIR.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=

See Also:
Blackout Is Just Latest Woe For a Troubled Ohio Utility
by James Dao with Eric Lipton:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/22/national/22ENER.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-22-2003, 01:28 PM:

Cough...Cough...Cough. [Frown]

Rochester is downwind of Midwest power plants. My swimming pool needs constant additions of sodium carbonate (soda ash) to keep the pH from dropping due to acid rain. Lots of lakes in the NY Adirondack mountains are devoid of fish due to acid rain from the midwest power plants.

Posted by Clint Koch (Member # 1179) on 08-22-2003, 04:33 PM:

[thumbsdown]

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-22-2003, 10:18 PM:

Whereas the EPA is runamuck...it is nice to see that good cheap power is going to be allowed to be produced. It is a victory for the US, not a defeat for the environment.

What we need is more industry-friendly legislation to allow us to manufacture again...you cant be wealthy if you don't create it.

Steve

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-22-2003, 10:37 PM:

quote:
What we need is more industry-friendly legislation to allow us to manufacture again...you cant be wealthy if you don't create it.

I agree! As long as they build those power plants without pollution controls directly upwind of you, and not me. [Wink]

I happen to appreciate the EPA, OSHA, and other government agencies that have helped workers and the environment.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-22-2003, 11:45 PM:

Another way of looking at it is that the EPA and, to some degree, OSHA has decimated the economy by making it too expensive to operate a business here. Clearly a balanced needs to be struck and, in my opinion we are out of balance...the EPA, a self-justifying agency, like most governement agencies, has us out of balance.

So either relax the EPA or tax those goods and services that we import such that their ability to be cheaper due to favorable rules is negated. The way things are now it would be like running a race in the Olympics where only the US has hurdles on their lane...most others else gets a clean obstruction free lane.

Steve

Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 08-23-2003, 12:27 AM:

I agree with Steve Guttag. In my opinion the EPA has done more to destroy business (and jobs).

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 08-23-2003, 01:33 AM:

I, too, agree with Steve.

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 08-23-2003, 10:03 AM:

With the rest of the industrialized world payong $5 to $6 per gallon, don't we already have bargain transportation in the U.S.?

Is it worth the cost of even cheaper gas to have

Ever increasing illnesses and deaths due to asthma, emphysema and other diseases?

Destruction of our forests caused by acid rain?

Decimation of species in our waterways?

Besides, do you really believe the "cheaper gas" argument has any validity? That "savings" would go to the consumer, and not to the corporate market manipulaters?

And where are the "savings" to pay the increased medical and funeral expenses of those affected by the ash, acid and heavy
metals polution? [Those not fortunate enough to live upwind from the polluting smokestacks.]

[ 08-23-2003, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: Gerard S. Cohen ]

Posted by Steven Privett (Member # 718) on 08-24-2003, 12:00 AM:

AND NOW FOR TODAY'S COOL SITE... How does the environment rate?

Type in your Zip Code and find out your neighborhood's environmental
health. The site also helps you change the conditions. There is
information if you want to fax the companies responsible for the
pollution or e-mail governmental officials.

TO VISIT THIS SITE, GO HERE:

www.scorecard.org/

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-24-2003, 04:18 PM:

quote:

Is it worth the cost of even cheaper gas to have
Ever increasing illnesses and deaths due to asthma, emphysema and other diseases?

Arguement doesn't hold...life-expectancy has been continually rising...in fact due to our ability to extend human life beyond its natural design, we see the greater suffering of old age as parts simply wear out. In fact, if you were to clean the planet and eliminate power plants, you'd be amazed at how people would start passing away due to heat-stroke, (no AC without a lot of EPA no-nos), no radio not a lot of things...one has to draw the line...are we better off, as a whole, with the technology we have developed versus without it...the Enviro-wackos seem to think it is possible both ways...it isn't. This is not to say one shouldn't protect the environment but it does mean you can't have a zero-tolerance towards it as if it can't self-heal.

quote:
Destruction of our forests caused by acid rain?

Arguement doesn't hold...there are plenty of forests, like the rest of our changing planet...they come and they go...drive around the USA...see how many forests there actually are...being near a metropolitan area may cloud ones views as to just how many rual and forested places there are.

quote:
Decimation of species in our waterways?

Arguement doesn't hold...species have continually come and gone the world has always worked by the survial of the fittest...physical and/or mental. One of the cleanest methods of power generation is via dams...however it does have an impact on the water ways and those that use them. There is no "free" in the world when you do one thing, it, in some way, will affect all others.

quote:
Besides, do you really believe the "cheaper gas" argument has any validity?

Self answered...we have the cheapest gas per population that doesn't seem to fit the supply and demand model. So any arquement to the contrary flies in the face of facts

quote:
And where are the "savings" to pay the increased medical and funeral expenses of those affected by the ash, acid and heavy
metals polution?

The savings for ones medical expenses, what ever they be, should come from the individual who has been afforded the lowest cost of living and the highest living standards through an ever expanding and plentiful work place. The individual should be saving a portion of their money for such things, just like retirement. If people wouldn't worry about suing everything in site for their own short comings such items as medical expenses wouldn't be so high...it isn't the doctors, it is the trial lawyers in the Tort category that just make everything someone elses fault.

quote:
AND NOW FOR TODAY'S COOL SITE

A.K.A Left-wing propoganda that is part of the problem not the solution.

Steve

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 08-24-2003, 05:26 PM:

I wouldn't be surprised if FirstEnergy pushed hard for this. After all, the blackout was traced to a FirstEnergy plant in Ohio.

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 08-24-2003, 06:16 PM:

I see the children brought to my wife's pediatric office
struggling to breathe in asthmatic attacks in ever-increasing
numbers. To do nothing because diseases come and go is a denial
not only of the hippocratic oath but of any measure of humanity,
it seems to me.

And I see the gas-guzzling, inefficient, polluting trucks rapidly replacing cars because they provide more profit for the makers and sellers. They call them by fancy names or initialese,
but being built on truck chassis they are permitted exemption from the pollution curbs of Cleaner Air regulation.

Lead contamination and its harmful effects on children's growth, brains and nervous systems declined sharply when government responded by outlawing lead-based paints and lead gasoline additives. But lead and other heavy-metals toxicity
is rising sharply again because of increased smokestack pollution from power plants and incinerators, from airborn and water precipitation, as with mercury in many varieties of fish.

The Adirondack Mountains forests, set aside for the nation by Theodore Roosevelt, are experiencing severe damage from acid rain caused by sulphurous gasses emitted from smokestacks in the Mid-West, emitted in grossly increased amounts as deregulation permits burning inferior coal and delays the installation of
pollution trapping filter systems which could diminish acid and heavy metal toxicity. The conifers are dying from the mountaintops down, and those merely weakened succomb to insect infestation. This is happening throughout the Northeast, following the path of the polluted prevailing winds.

We don't have "plenty of Forests"--there are only two in New York State. And I don't know that forests "come and go"--those destroyed by our mismanagement and greed are gone, period. Any view of the historical maps reveals a constant and accellerated shrinkage of forested land in the U.S.

This is not "nature's way" but man-made disaster.

We take action against killer snails in the Great Lakes, killer bees in Texas and other imported pests, but the mercury
in our seafood is man-made, owing to improper disposal of industrial wastes and sewage in our rivers and streams. Should we not take action to clean up our wastes? (Even my cats bury their waste--homo sapiens can do more.)

Action taken against polluters along the Hudson River has brought back the shad runs of yesteryear--not seen for two generations--and the cleaner water has revived species of flora and some are planning a revival of beaches with swimming permitted in the forseeable future. Had New Yorkers done nothing, our harbor would be a stinking sewer instead. Yet the Long Island Sound is experiencing the near death of lobster fishing and the farming of oysters and clams, owing to in-fighting between states, political groups and developers.

The states that joined in class action lawsuits against cigarette manufacturers for deceptive advertising of a toxic product did so because the burden on the taxpayers of hospital care for emphysema victims threatened to bankrupt the states.
That the suits were successful is a tribute to citizen awareness and our judicial system. Proper governmental regulation and oversite, under the Clean Air provisions could benefit taxpayers and states similarly.

I found the Scorecard report on Queens County informative and to the extent of my knowledge, accurate. It seems to have been carefully researched. I don't see how the adjective "left-wing" applies, though the use of factual data to effect change may rightly be termed "propaganda," properly used.

[ 08-24-2003, 11:24 PM: Message edited by: Gerard S. Cohen ]

Posted by Sam Hunter (Member # 1119) on 08-24-2003, 10:58 PM:

I have read all the above and can only offer my viewpoint which is:
Yes, OSHA and the EPA have gone way overboard on a lot of things and it does cost industry to have to keep up with the mandated upgrades and stuff.
On the other hand I do think that with the worlds population and the corresponding amount of vehicles and power plants, factories etc that we do need to do whatever it takes to minimize our polluted output. But from what I understand the rest of the world has no interest in clean air and the like and are looking at us like we are evil for being who we are.
If we have to clean our act up so does the rest of the world.
Anyway, to sum my feelings up I will say, yes our industries need to clean up their emissions but I also think the Fed's need to help out as well. After all big government should help out if it sees a problem.
This is coming from an individual whose state ranks as one of the dirtiest in the land. [thumbsdown]

P.S. I am not a tree hugger. [Big Grin]

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 08-25-2003, 02:35 AM:

quote:
Is it worth the cost of even cheaper gas to have
Ever increasing illnesses and deaths due to asthma, emphysema and other diseases?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arguement doesn't hold...life-expectancy has been continually rising...

That's irrelevant - he was speaking of the correlation of increased respiratory illness to air pollution, which is correlated & positive. You can't just switch to another statistic which seems related.

quote:
Destruction of our forests caused by acid rain?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arguement doesn't hold...there are plenty of forests, like the rest of our changing planet

I can't believe this is the usually cast-iron Steve Guttage thought process. He said that there is deforestation as a result of acid rain, the fact that there are still forests is not a contradiction.

quote:

Decimation of species in our waterways?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arguement doesn't hold...species have continually come and gone the world has always worked by the survial of the fittest...physical and/or mental. One of the cleanest methods of power generation is via dams...however it does have an impact on the water ways and those that use them. There is no "free" in the world when you do one thing, it, in some way, will affect all others.

So there is no morality?
And there is no liability?

You go over to someone's house, you break their leg with a baseball bat, you tell them "People break their legs all the time, legs are easier to break than baseball bats, & people have broken other people's legs throughout all of man's history. There is nothing right or wrong with what I have done, I am not liable, that's the way of the world, etc."

I've got to say, Houston TX has become the world's foulest hole. I used to be sort of disinterested in other areas' environment, but that's changed since Houston became an airline hub. The air is brown, like the floor in a bathroom where the toilet has backed up. It's off-the-scale worse than urban areas like Chicago, New York, etc. Flying in to Houston, I saw a huge brown dead water body, & asked if that was the holding pond for a creosote plant. I was told ... 'umm, that's Lake Houston'.

You fly in, & it really looks like a cesspool. Brown, & nasty. Sometimes the worst air quality in the US, & the highest respiratory illness in the country. I wondered, "Why do these people want to live like this?", and the answer of course is most don't. But the ones who try to keep emissions down are just labelled environmental nuts. Excuse me, but the environmental nuts are the ones who want to foul their own nests & live in sh*t. And then the "labelers" tell the people living there who are trying to keep it from being turned to crap "if you don't like it, leave!" How do THOSE nazis think they own it? The other people who live there have just as much right to like their town, NOT to want it turned to crap, & NOT to leave.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-25-2003, 10:00 AM:

William:

What are the primary manufacturing industries in Houston? Mostly refineries and petrochemical? What type of power plants? Is pollution getting better or worse?

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 08-25-2003, 05:52 PM:

The nations large forests are a major source of hydrocarbon emissions and other so called greenhouse gases. The area where I live has been cited several times by the EPA for having pollutant levels that exceeded allowable limits as a result of gases emitted by the trees in the Shenandoah National Forest. These gases drift east and cause problems here. If the Richmond area is to penalized for this, we need to cut down this forest and build some factories whose emissions we can regulate in order to alleviate this condition. Not a satisfactory solution, but if the morons at the EPA can't grant exception to the periods when it happens it just may be as reasonable as they are.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-25-2003, 09:28 PM:

quote:
I see the children brought to my wife's pediatric office
struggling to breathe in asthmatic attacks in ever-increasing
numbers. To do nothing because diseases come and go is a denial
not only of the hippocratic oath but of any measure of humanity,
it seems to me.

Since there are ever increasing numbers of people, it stands to reason there are ever increasing numbers of ill people, of all times of illnesses and afflictions. As to the humanity part, I can certainly understand your concerns but I also feel that, as a whole we are better off, health and otherwise with industry pushing on the environment. I maintin that you would see far more health issues (as have been in the past) without the beneficial affects of industry and power production.

quote:
And I see the gas-guzzling, inefficient, polluting trucks rapidly replacing cars because they provide more profit for the makers and sellers.

I can only infer that you speak of the SUVs...personally I don't like them but the auto manufacturers make them, not to force their way on things...in fact they would gleefully produce aluminum-death-boxes if people would pay for them. Don't they still have to deal with CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) that kinda forces them to produce more efficient cars or pay stiff penalties if the entire auto production is too high (all vehicles produced, combined).

The SUV is nothing more than the family station wagon grown up. The facts are, aside from turn over (driver controlled) they are safer vehicles...depending on how you want to write the statistics, SUV saves lives. If you choose to purchase a little defenseless car, it isn't the SUV owner's fault...the better solution is to avoid the accident in the first place though. Again, I'm not an SUV fan...I don't own one (I bought a Subaru Wagon instead...made in Indiana)...then again, I own a Corvette and a 1965 Dodge and my wife is a Saturn lover. The Corvette actually does about as good as any of them on gas...about 24MPG on average...the Dodge...between 12 and 27 (very moody...highway or city guess which is which [Wink]

)

Remember back in the '70s when Chrysler missed the boat (as well as the other two US car makers...but especially Chrysler)...when they continued to produce the big boats and everyone wanted the cute little fuel efficient cars from Japan? Well Honda and the rest are also making SUVs...even the luxuray cars are in on the act. Manufacturers only make what people want...at the moment, it is the SUV....I'd bet about 1% actully do the off roading stuff...I got my AWD for the SNOW...pure and simple (and boy did it come in handy last winter!)

quote:
Lead contamination and its harmful effects on children's growth, brains and nervous systems declined sharply when government responded by outlawing lead-based paints and lead gasoline additives.

There is certainly some truth there...lead consumption is certainly a brain killer. It may be hard to believe but early food containers were made of lead...sailers used it and some never came back! However...there is also no denying that lead-based paints are far superior either. I wouldn't have outlawed them so much as restricted their use. Lead-based paints don't, just sitting there, hurt anyone but in a home situation...younguns will put ANYTHING in their mouths...especially nice and sweet tasting lead. However, in an industrial situation or for a particular purpose, I would have allowed it...it would also depend on the ability or lack there of for kids to come in contact with it...including from flaking.

As to cars...anyone remember lead in gas? It went away due to the catastrophic converter and the catalyst inside (platinum, I believe, at first)...it wasn't for reduction of lead in the air...one would be hard pressed to show any significant harm from that that they CO didn't do first. However, efficientcy of the automobile went down as result and consumption went up. It is amazing how one gets accustomed to the smell of a post catalytic converter car...when they first came out...the rotten-egg smell was very distinctive and quite offensive...it still is but more accepted...if you have an older "classic" car the "gassy" smell can be quite strong if you aren't used to it!

quote:
We don't have "plenty of Forests"--there are only two in New York State. And I don't know that forests "come and go"--those destroyed by our mismanagement and greed are gone, period. Any view of the historical maps reveals a constant and accellerated shrinkage of forested land in the U.S.
This is not "nature's way" but man-made disaster.

It is called development, it isn't bad and not a disaster. Leave an area alone and watch the growth come back...sure it takes time but nothing about nature stays the same...prior to human intervention...forests used to burn down and not be stopped (no one to do it, nor the technology). Who is to say what the right amount of forests are? I see absolutely nothing wrong with using the planet in such a manner. Again if you want to see forests...take a tour of the USA...they are out there.

quote:
Should we not take action to clean up our wastes?

Sure but all factors must be considered. The cost, the real harm, long-term affects, the short-term affects...are we better off? In an ideal world there would be no polution and all the needs of everyone would be satisfied...that simply doesn't exisit...once anyone uses part of the world, they, in effect, deny others that use...some things are more perceivable than others.

quote:
The states that joined in class action lawsuits against cigarette manufacturers for deceptive advertising of a toxic product did so because the burden on the taxpayers of hospital care for emphysema victims threatened to bankrupt the states.

If you actually believe that you are more gullible than a child. That was a simple suit about money. Getting money out of Tobacco to make up for shortfalls in the various state economies not to mention the Tobacco's ability to pay off the states to keep the suits down....it had nothing to due with anyone's health...that was merely the smoke screen that was used. What percentage of the settlements were used for tobacco related care or information? I don't believe any state can claim more than 20%! The rest went straight into the general funds of the states for roads and other such stuff.

As for deceptive advertising...please...you are putting a flaming stick in your mouth, drawing in smoke and then breathing it out...it turns anything around it yellow and permiates everything. If you or anyone didn't know it was bad for you then tough, be responsible for your actions and don't burden anyone else with them. Amazingly enough, no one in my family smokes (zero for 6) and it was everywhere in society with all the alluring ads and promises of coolness. I have yet to find anyone that smoked that actually thought there would be zero negative side effects from it. Sure some enjoy it and some I know still do enjoy it...the only reason to smoke, in my opinion. I don't feel it is governments or society's responsibility for the care of an individual that chose to smoke. It isn't big-tobacco's fault either, it is a legal substance heavily regulated and taxed...their product is not defective there is no blaim for them. The latest in liberal stupidity is the obsene tax now levied on tobacco in many states in the name of funding the school systems better...what is the message there? Smoke up, help our schools! Or, lets say you are successful in running smokers into poverty and they are forced to give up their stupid habit? Where did the money for the schools go? Either way you have a big problem. Think about making it illegal? Check out prohibition...it never has worked in this country and it never will...you will put tobacco in with the other drugs that are killing many innocent bystanders everyday.

quote:
I don't see how the adjective "left-wing" applies, though the use of factual data to effect change may rightly be termed "propaganda," properly used.

I don't find the data factual and not representative for my area...and the whole "global warming" crap is squarely in the Left-Wing "the sky is falling" camp.

quote:
That's irrelevant - he was speaking of the correlation of increased respiratory illness to air pollution, which is correlated & positive. You can't just switch to another statistic which seems related.

It is relavent...there are many reasons as to why, if it is indeed factual and not merely a personal observation. There is an increasing population that would all but demand an increase in illness, all kinds, there are also people coming in now for problems that wouldn't or couldn't (financially) in the past...those are but a couple of examples. The facts are, we are not killing ourselves off with out use of the planet...we are having employment issues and a continously fluctuating economy that has been supported by stilts without a solid manufacturing base.

quote:
I can't believe this is the usually cast-iron Steve Guttage thought process. He said that there is deforestation as a result of acid rain, the fact that there are still forests is not a contradiction.

Still cast-iron...I have no problem with using the planet and don't see the issue by reduction of forest land at this time.

quote:
So there is no morality?
And there is no liability?

Morality is in the eye of the beholder...hence you and I are disagreeing on this and neither feels they are wrong.

As to species and our (human) affect on them...there is nothing we do that won't affect them...as to simply killing them...well you may be a vegitarian (if you are) but most are not and as such we are eating another species...some comfort themselves with the "well they are raised for slaughter" but it really is the same thing...same goes for fish and fishing...would you want a hook going through your mouth?

Want to eat veggie...great but we can't develop farm land without displacing something else.

But the realities of feeding and providing for our race does and will have an impact on the rest...I don't find that immoral

You will probably want to keep your power...we have coal, and nuclear as the primary sources...each having their environmental issues. If the land so allows, you can use water but you will again affect fish. Solar, just doesn't have the energy to give with present technology though it might be a good suppliment...however they do all use some form of battery that is an inefficient storage unit (power in versus out) and they all tend to be in the "heavy metal" department so even clean power has problems. Wind? Can' depend on it but again a potential source of supplimental power with the electrical storage issue.

So we are back to ... we, the US need energy, both chemical and electrical. Anything we do will have a negative impact on the enviroment from either pollution and/or the mere consumption of the resource. 100% efficient engines (in the thermodynamic sense) do not exist.

So what to do with the pollution (in its many forms)? You can't elliminate it without closing up shop and closing down the country. You can certainly try to minimize it and minimize it's long-term and short-term impacts. However, if you errect a law that puts hurdles in front of US businesses, then you damn sure better put up hurdles for all other countries (financial, if they don't protect the environment as well as we do) so there is no economic reason to move industry out of the country due to EPA conformity. Of course, this is my philosophy for all international business relations...if we have hurdles (taxes, regulations, minimum wages...whatever) then the same must be required from our international sources. A company should not be penalized for being in the US as they are now...and glory be...jobs are leaving the country...even jobs in the service sector.

Hey, saving the environment and the whales and everything else sounds all warm and fuzzy but to not acknowledge the negative social impact on the economy, nation's strength, citizen morale. I accept some about of pollution as the result of a good economy, I've seen no viable pollution free solutions. The EPA as with most government agencies, suck money from the economy (as a result of their actions), that has to come from somwhere.

Cheap fuel is a stimulus to an economy, expensive fuel drains an economy. (to bring this back to the subject line)...

There everyone now knows that I'm a conservative-liberal (never moderate)...I'm at polar extremes. You may not agree with what I have to say or think but I guess that is another one of the great things about the USA (historically, at least) free-thinking, regardless of what others may feel.

Steve

PS...like with some other heated threads...I've kinda said my thing on this one...unless something new is brought up, I problably won't post on it anymore.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 08-25-2003, 09:52 PM:

Bill you are incorrect forrest do not emmit greenhouse gases
Green foliage will convert CO2 to O2 oxygen
CO2 and CO are greenhouse gasses

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 08-25-2003, 10:00 PM:

Bill, Gordon is absolutely correct. I don't know what your information source was, but it appears to be incorrect.

Problem is, too many loggers are cutting down or thinning the rain forests. Since trees breath in carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen, you figure.....

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 08-26-2003, 02:51 AM:

quote:
What are the primary manufacturing industries in Houston? Mostly refineries and petrochemical? What type of power plants?

John, I don't know much more about Houston than just flying in & out & driving around some. All I know is it's brown, foul & stinky. It's gotten much worse. Air is a fluid, Houston's air is thick & brown, Houston is filled with a nasty, thick brown fluid. These people are living in their own waste.

I'm still just flabbergasted by Steve Guttag, who is usually analytical of system designs & outcomes, just saying that increased pollution is just the result of development. It's just "development", like it's fate. I couldn't be more astounded if he walked into a booth for a shift & threw a penny on the floor.

Things can be done in different ways, & outcomes aren't neccessarily nasty. If you've ever spoken to a manager about a picture that's shaky, scratched, & mono & heard the answer "that's how movie projectors do", you know the frustration. Public health issues are not just individual quality of life issues, they are economic performance issues.

Cities are more productive, & there has been more industrial & economic progress since the 19th century, but cities are NOT more polluted than the nasty factory towns of the 19th century. It's causal, & although individual owners have wanted to get special exemption, cities are strict about maintaining standards of identified public health points. Productivity & economic standards depend on maintencance of them.

Identification of the health problems put an end to the pumping of sewage & waste into the street over the objections of those who found it cheaper to do so or thought there was just nothing wrong with it. Visible airborne emissions have been HUGELY curtailed because it was easy to identify forensically in lung tissues.

There is NO difference between the public health effects of visible pollutants & unseen ones.

I am baffled as to how intelligent people, who know that there are chemical agents & systemic processes that they cannot see but who know of their effects through studies, just give up & take their hands off the wheel saying it's best to trust to fate.

Steve seized on morality as subjective, I'm even more cynical & I say it's inessential. But Steve doesn't say why he doesn't recognize liability - Monsanto had to cough up MILLIONS in Alabama for causing cancer in individuals, but that won't fix the economic damage of making people who lived in the area too ill to work thus making the area a place which no other large employer will be attracted to because of a damaged worker population. That's not "progress", that's damage, & Monsanto was liable.

There's an almost sociopathic viewpoint of some folks' organization of "the individual" to "society" in the inability to percieve "society" as all the other individuals. You hear this a lot on talk radio, the label is used by individuals with damaging designs to depersonalize the individuals who will be affected. One individual or group (business, church, or gang) does not have any right to do whatever they want if it's an assault on another individual. That's not just some moral viewpoint, or basis of social organization & law, it's the basis of public health.

I'm typing this in the hometown of William Gorgas. You cannot imagine how much people kicked & screamed when they were told they had to get rid of their rainwater cisterns, saying local government had no right to interfere with what they did on their own property.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 08-26-2003, 08:34 AM:

I was incorrect on the "green house gases" but the forests DO produce hydrocarbon emissions which cause the blue haze seen from above the Shenandoah forests.

Posted by Sam Hunter (Member # 1119) on 08-26-2003, 01:10 PM:

Bill,
The plants themselves do not produce the Hydrocarbons, only the leaves and limbs that fall off and decompose is what is causing that. Lets not forget about cows, according to some folks out there cows contribute a great deal to the greenhouse gas buidup.
They are good tasting, milk producing little methane generators.
Ok, get back to work.

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 08-26-2003, 05:18 PM:

Hi Bill Enos,

I believe the blue haze you see among the Shenandoahs, which I have witnessed along the Blue Ridge Drive and while camping in the Old Smokies, is water vapor that accumulates in picturesque fashion when the temperature drops to the dew point. That's what makes the grass wet overnight, and produces frost on it when
cold weather arrives. I have noted it also while bicycling through the Lakes District of England. It's not caused by the Loch Ness Monster, nor fish blowing bubbles, nor cows belching.
It's merely a cloud on land, which moistens the foliage and promotes growth. Perfectly harmless--unless made toxic by man-made pollutants.

As explained by others, all green vegetation "eats" carbon dioxide, which under the influence of chlorophyl permits cell life to grow, making cellulose, of which wood is composed, to the everlasting benefit of mankind through its lumber and paper industries. In return they exhale oxygen, necessary for the existance of all plant and animal life. An ongoing project in New York City is measuring the volume and weight of the CO2 ingested and O2 exhaled by EACH tree in the city, [the trees have all been mapped] and affixing a $ and cents value to each per annum. This, plus the value of the cooling shade measured in degrees and BTUs, should provide data for city planners and legislators.

The decomposition of forest materials through the rotting of leaves and branches, and burning through forest fires produces CO2 which feeds growth in a natural cycle of growth , decay, and growth.

The one harmful aspect of vegetation growth on humans may be the production of pollen which irritates those with allergies.
The worst reaction is to ragweed, which is not natural to forests, since it does not flourish in deep shade of the forest floor, but thrives where the forests have been cleared, and in all untended city lots. Researches cutting cores from the layers of muck in NYC waterways study the imbedded pollen, and produce data on when the forests were cleared, from the arrival of the Dutch settlers with Henry Hudson in 1607, through the expansion of the city with the arrival of English government in 1654. [Microscopic pollen study is rapidly advancing; much study has been done on the Shroud of Turin to attempt to know its
geographical history; pollen grains have been found in the linen from Biblical lands and Spain.]

Hydrocarbons are produced when fossil fuels (petroleum, coal and peat) are burned inefficiently (incompletely) producing compounds of sulphur and chlorine, which when mixed with the moisture in the air create sulphuric and hydrochloric acid--the so called "acid rain", which is destructive to life in sufficient
quantities. Although SOME plants thrive better in SLIGHTLY acid soil (azaleas, dogwood, ferns, holly, magnolias rhododendrum, etc.) that slight acidity is naturally produced by decomposition on the forest floor, or by gardeners using products like Miracid
in weak dilutions. Otherwise, acid rain kills forests, which cannot regrow unless the pollution is decreased.

How can operators of power plants and factories reduce emissions of pollutants such as soot, hydrocarbons and heavy metals from their smokestacks? Many are already using cleaner-burning grades of fuels, scrubbers (water sprays), filters and electrolytic filtration, and catalytic processes. Though expensive to retrofit, these methods, by reclaiming valuable heavy metals, can often recoup their costs over time. And the use of wind power, solar cells, hydroelectric and atomic power,
provide alternatives to the burning of fossil fuels.

But if Congress votes to relax the standards and timetable of the Clean Air Act...

Gerard

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 08-26-2003, 10:03 PM:

When I went to shipboard firefighting school in Treasure Island, the simulated shipboard spaces such as engine rooms, berthing spaces, etc. were concrete and steel buildings. The would pump Diesel fuel into them and set them on fire. We would have to go in there and put the fires out.

The black smoke was so thick you could not see your hand in front of your face. But if you were outside the building, nobody would know anything was on fire.

The (for lack of terminology) "afterburner" of the ventilation systems were so efficient theyburned up the smoke. I think they were natural gas fired, but I cannot be sure. It was a very complex system - but the end results of the black smoke was nothing but heat. That system was installed because of California's emission rules.

We know the technology is there...but what it costs to have it is obviously quite expensive. As you know, the private sector would pass those costs along to the customers in the form higher utility bills.

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 08-27-2003, 02:09 AM:

quote:
green vegetation "eats" carbon dioxide, which under the influence of chlorophyl permits cell life to grow

The Calvin Cycle is the process by which plants use carbon dioxide to produce carbohydrate for their own consumption. Basically, it's a junkyard operation of busting up CO2 into parts & reassembling with parts from H20.

Dadgummit, where's a decent diagram on this dumb internet?
look down at the bottom

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 08-27-2003, 11:32 AM:

Paul,
Thanks for adding the "afterburner" method of polution control.
I forgot about it in my list.

William,
Thanks for elevating the explanation to a level appropriate for the understandig of our Film-tech readers. Those diagrams
and formulas are a big help to explain a complicated process.
Another difficult to explain process is that of catalytic conversion. Even after attempting to understand How it works,
I'm always left not knowing Why it works.

Gerard

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 08-27-2003, 12:55 PM:

quote:

Cheap fuel is a stimulus to an economy, expensive fuel drains an economy. (to bring this back to the subject line)...

True, but you have some of the cheapest fuel in the world at the moment.

If prices were to rise say 10 or even 20% to pay for improved pollution controls you would still be paying less than most people are.

As far as petrol and DERV (road vehicle Diesel) is concerned you could have a 100% increase, and still be paying less than European prices. I think the difference is less with gas oil (red Diesel) and heavier fuel oils.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 08-28-2003, 02:56 AM:

Stephan, I am not sure what to think. Maybe expensive fuel is commonplace in many countries, but I wonder how those prices would kill us in the USA since this country is driven by oil. Please remember I am not addressing the cost of fuel, but the availability of it.

I can't help but think that when I was returning from North Dakota in June, I had problems finding a gasoline station open to refuel in Eastern Montana. There are many states where you cannot find a gasoline station in remote areas, sometimes as far as 272 miles apart at night like I have experienced from time to time in several states. In heavily populated areas, finding a gasoline station is no problem whatsoever either in the daytime or the night time. At that time, I was not concerned. I thought I would stop in Glendive, Montana. However, when I got there, the gas stations were closed. OOPS!

I remember 30 years ago that if I didn't get gasoline in Bismarck, North Dakota while headed west, I would run out of gasoline before I would reach the next city that had a gasoline station open at night. The city was then Miles City, Montana. That was almost a 272.26 mile stretch.

Today, getting gasoline in North Dakota at night is no real major problem while traveling on I-94. But you still have to be aware of the distance. If for some reason you "misjudge" your fuel consumption, it will still be a very hairy situation.

Running out of gasoline at 0300 in the morning in the middle of nowhere is not a very pleasent experience. Been there.

What I am getting at is this: Remote areas! There are plenty of towns that don't have a gasoline station and that necessitates driving up to 20 miles or more to get gasoline. You certainly are not going to drive 20 miles if your car gets 15 miles per gallon - and all you have in your gas tank is one gallon of gas.

That damned "Breadbox" of mine only gets 14, and my F-250 gets 11. I had a fuel pump failure in my Chevrolet "Breadbox" due to fuel pump overheating because I drove that thing too many miles with low fuel on board. As the mechanic explained to me, the fuel pumps depend on cooling from the gasoline surrounding it in the tank. The mechanic said I should NEVER allow the the tank to become less than 1/4 full.

It costed me almost 400 bucks to have a new pump installed on that trip to North Dakota. I am not blasting GM on this. It can happen in a Ford or Chrysler just as easy.

What I am saying is we have a "distance" problem in some western states that you may not have in your country. That just kills those who drive cross-country...especially at night. We really have to judge our fuel consumption over the distance we have to travel..or the driver will be on the "short end of the stick."

Where the price factor comes in - we have to cover more miles to do the same as what you do. The price we have to pay could (in the long run) be equivilant to what you might be paying to do the same. And, of course, more EPA regulations will only increase that cost.

The technology of eliminating the use of fossel fuel is in place. But it is not being aggressively pursued like it should be. The result is more pollution.

Maybe the air rule relaxation is just a ploy because someone doesn't want the non-fossel fuel technology to develope any further that what it already has.

Just a wild paranoid thought.

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 08-28-2003, 12:27 PM:

But Paul,

WHY drive ANYWHERE--let alone long distances--in vehicles that get only 11 and 14 miles per gallon??

Gerard

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 08-28-2003, 01:08 PM:

Gerard, now you know why I parked my "Breadbox" and I am going to get rid of that thing as soon as possible. As far as the F-250 is concerned, I only drive it now when I have to haul a load of shit to the dump or scrapyard. If I put 50 miles a month on that thing, I am lucky. Sure, it is a Diesel....but at least Diesel fuel is much cheaper than gasoline - for now. [Wink]

Maybe I can convert that thing to burn McDonald's french fry oil. There are some people doing that. So if you smell a big french fry on the freeway, it might be me. [Big Grin]

North Dakota is hot on corncobs. Josh was telling me his mom tried a tank of that stuff and the engine didn't like it at first until it got used to it. Then it ran just fine.

Some people tell me it damages the engines. Maybe the older ones if it does. The valves in some of those older engines were not metallurgically designed to handle it where the newer engine valves are.

As you know, a Diesel engine will burn practically anything as long as it is clean fuel and a liquid. However, I have heard someone recommended a mixture of Diesel fuel and gasoline under circumstances. The mixture ratio was very high favoring diesel fuel. (maybe something like 1 gallon of gasoline with 20 gallons of Diesel) but I cannot be certain on that. If you have a Voltswagon Diesel, insult the owner's manual and I think it says something about that.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-28-2003, 01:29 PM:

General Motors is developing fuel cell technology to power automobiles in Honeoye Falls, NY, just south of Rochester:

GM Fuel Cell Research

Honda has a hybrid offering 51 miles per gallon:

Honda Hybrid

And Honda's fuel cell vehicle:

Honda Fuel Cell

And here is Toyota's hybrid Prius at 52mpg:

Toyota Hybrid

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 08-28-2003, 01:46 PM:

John, didn't they do that with the city busses in Los Angeles 10 years ago? They were powered (as I understand) by LOX and Hydrogen. I also understand someone considered them "unsafe" in an accident and the practice was discontinued.

The hybrid autos....gasoline/electric.....that technology has been around for at least 65 or more years. But then it was Diesel Electric.

There was also an electric car that was manufactured somewhere around 1904, I think. 99 years ago....

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-28-2003, 03:58 PM:

The Bush administration seems to be supporting Fuel Cell technology over gasoline/electric hybrid. Trouble is, it takes energy to make the pure hydrogen and oxygen required, so I have a hard time seeing how it truly will result in less pollution and more energy independence. It certainly will require a massive new fuel production/delivery infrastructure.

As you can see, fuel-efficient hybrid technology is already in use, and allows over 50 miles per gallon using existing fuel supplies. My next car will be a hybrid. [Cool]

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 08-28-2003, 08:01 PM:

Hydrogen is produced industrially as a gas or a liquid by several methods. These include:

Steam reforming, a reaction of natural gas (methane) or other light hydrocarbons (ethane or propane) with steam in the presence of a catalyst.

Electrolysis of water, a process which transforms water into its elemental parts through the use of an electric current.

Ammonia dissociation, the breaking up of ammonia into its simpler components, namely hydrogen and nitrogen.

Partial oxidation, a reaction of hydrocarbons (such as natural gas, naphtha, petroleum coke or coal) with oxygen to produce hydrogen and carbon monoxide.

In addition, hydrogen is obtained as a by-product of some refining and chemical production processes.

Liquid oxygen is also made by using a special air compressor to get the pressure up to 3,000 psi. Oxygen separates from nitrogen and can easily separated since one is heavier that the other. That's how we made LOX on board ship for the aviators.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-28-2003, 09:39 PM:

Paul --- all those methods require considerable energy, or have undesirable byproducts, and would require massive new infrastructure to produce and distribute in quantity. Will they really be a better choice than just using gasoline more efficiently?

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 08-28-2003, 11:57 PM:

Maybe for the hydrogen. But the oxygen, the only energy required was to drive a 25 HP electric motor. (I think that was what it was in our LOX plant.) We made huge quantities of LOX. More than anyone ever needed. We had to vent the stuff over the side. During the Viet Nam thing, the USS Oriskany (my ship - an 888 foot 27,000 ton rust bucket) we were the "Lox Cart of the 7th Fleet. The LOX plants at Clark AFB, Cubi point, and the rest of the Navy aircraft carriers in our task force were broken. The quality of our LOX was breathing quality for the US Navy pilots and US Air Force pilots. [Smile]

As far as the rest is concerned, you are probably correct. I think in several years, some of the bugs would be worked out. It would be expensive at first, but over the years the prices will come down. Just like a VCR 20 years ago was well over $1,000 - and today you can get them for about 100 bucks. [Smile]

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 08-29-2003, 10:37 AM:

PetroCanada has been producing a blended gas with ethanol for many years

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-29-2003, 12:06 PM:

I can think of better uses for Ethanol. [beer]

And so can Bob Maar! [Big Grin]

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 08-30-2003, 12:26 AM:

Sunoco also cuts their fuel with up to 10% ethanol. [Mad]

It used to be nice being able to run their fuel in your plane.

BTW, the LA fuel cell buses were Ballard buses.

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 09-01-2003, 02:58 AM:

Ethanol blends have been available at the pumps in various places in the US for a while. They started popping up I think *before* the late-70s gas crisis, more a part of the general energy conservation/alternative engergy sources thing that sort of mainstreamed about '75 or '76. That was also when the first stickers reading "NO ALCOHOL in our gasoline" seen on the sides of many pumps began to appear. "Gasohol" was said to do all sorts of bad things.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 09-01-2003, 03:18 AM:

quote:
"Gasohol" was said to do all sorts of bad things.

Ethanol, will eat through many types of polymers. That's fine in most automobiles since very few actually contain non-metallic components in their fuel systems. It doesn't go over to well in other applications such as lawn equipment or aircraft that often contain polymer based fuel system components.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 09-01-2003, 03:30 AM:

William, I have been burning that 10% gasoline/ethanol crap for years. Never had a bit of trouble with it.

Besides that, the "Moonshiners" were using alcohol as engine fuel during the days of Alcohol Prohibition in the 1920 - 1933 era.

An interesting note I discovered today. The Crown Vic Police cars have (or had) an option for a 4.6L V8 Natural Gas engine. Some of the standard features were:
1. Fast fuel fill. (3 to 4 minutes)
2. 4 fuel tanks.
3. Heavy-duty Natural Gas vehicle cooling.
4. 2.73:1 axle ratio
5. Single exhaust system
6. Steel driveshaft
7. Deep-well trunk (14 cubic feet)
8. Remote decklid release
9. Electronic AM/FM radio.
10. Electronic digital clock with dimming feature.

Oh, Gee, Golly Gosh! I just gotta get me one of these. A 14 cubic foot trunk and a digital clock! Wow! [Big Grin]

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 09-01-2003, 06:30 AM:

Morgan +8 automobiles were available since the late 70s equipped with a V8 that ran on profane gas. At that time, fueling locations were far between in the US. I suppose you could make up some kind of adapter & keep it under the seat so you could just drive up to the local hardware store & buy all of their Bernz-O-Matic cylinders & dump them into the Moggie.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-01-2003, 07:59 AM:

Paul--I'm surprised that they didn't list "steering wheel," "brakes," and "can be driven in both forward _and_ reverse!" among those features. [Smile]

As for fuel cells--I've heard the same thing that John has--that the energy required to separate hydrogen from other materials (often from natural gas!) is nontrivial and creates pollution problems of its own. Thus, while cars powered by fuel cells don't create pollution themselves, their use does result in pollution and consumption of (probably) oil/gas/coal/etc.

Do hybrid cars use lead-acid batteries? If so, then those would create some significant disposal issues....

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 09-01-2003, 12:29 PM:

Scott, I guess the steering wheels were standard equipment now. Years ago, we used a Vise Grip pliers clomped on to the steering post. Maybe today they might revert that back as optional equipment. With all the drivers driving with cell phones jammed in their ears, drivers sorting out their CD's, people hanging their hands out the window to dry their fingernail polish, shaving, combing their hair, or watching TV or their GPS system, who the hell needs a steering wheel? [evil]

Forward and reverse? Well, maybe the cars should be equipped with a Johnson Bar. It would be easier to bash their way into and out of a tight parking spot. They do it anyway. [Big Grin]

Anyway,whatever happened to the FAD of converting cars to burn propane? There are alot of cars and stationary engines that do...

But one thing I did notice is that propane prices have risen substantially through the years. I guess it is no longer coast effective.

There is alot of energy waste at the refineries. Next time you drive by one, note the "flares." Sometimes they shoot a flame 20 or more feet long. What a waste. The have no place to store it. When liquid gets into the flare line, it'll light up the whole country side. I remember many nights at the old Circus Drive-in where we were "washed off the screen" because the refinery had to vent it off.

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 09-01-2003, 05:49 PM:

equipped with a V8 that ran on profane gas.

This vehicle must be rated "R"

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 09-02-2003, 01:58 AM:

Don't say I never gave you nothing!