- Joined
- 30 Dec 07
- Moves
- 9905
Originally posted by flexmoreYikes! That doesn't have my approval!
Thank you for your advice,
You are correct: CO2 is only small in effect for a size - but it's size is huge- and so it's effect is huge. We can do much that we do not do ... hazelwwod is very bad and should stop.
Of course I would like you to please dicscuss:
Japanese data: Unpublished desk research of Japan's most polluting power stations, July 2005 ...[text shortened]... kipedia.org/wiki/List_of_least_carbon_efficient_power_stations
Thank you for your respect!
Originally posted by caissad4the two columns are Smog and Particles, U.S city rankings.
How well things can be spun. Semantics raised to an artform. Objectivity is obviously not the aim.
The most polluted city in the US is Houston.
houston is 5th in smog and not in the list (of 26) for particles.
http://www.citymayors.com/environment/polluted_uscities.html
The most polluted US cities in 2007 Rank Smog:
Most polluted cities Rank Particles:
Most polluted cities
1 Los Angeles (CA) 1 Los Angeles (CA)
2 Bakersfiled (CA) 2 Pittsburgh (PA)
3 Visalia-Porterville (CA) 3 Bakersfield (CA)
4 Fresno (CA) 4 Birmingham (AL)
5 Houston (TX) 5 Detroit (MI)
6 Merced (CA) 6 Cleveland (OH)
7 Dallas (TX) 7 Visalia (CA)
8 Sacramento (CA) 8 Cincinnati (OH)
9 Baton Rouge (LA) 9 Indianapolis (IN)
10 New York (NY) 10 ST Louis (MO)
11 Washington (DC), Baltimore (MD) 11 Chicago (IL)
12 Philadelphia (PA) 12 Lancaster (PA)
13 Modesto (CA) 13 Atlanta (GA)
14 Hanford (CA) 14 York (PA)
15 Phoenix (AZ) 15 Fresno (CA)
16 Charlotte (NC) 16 Weirton (WV)
17 Las Vegas (NV) 17 Hanford (CA)
18 Milwaukee (WI) 18 New York (NY)
19 St Louis (MO) 19 Canton (OH)
20 El Centro (CA) 20 Washington (DC) Baltimore (MD)
21 Kansas City (KS) 21 Charleston (WV)
22 Beaumont (TX) 22 Louisville (KY)
23 Chicago (IL) 23 Huntington (WV)
24 Grand Rapids (MI) 24 Philadelphia (PA)
25 Atlanta (GA) 25 Hagerstown (MD)
26 Cleveland (OH) 26 Rome (GA)
Source: The American Lung Association
1 edit
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterSo in response to global warming and emmissions targets, scientists and engineers develop buffer technologies to reduce risk, which are affordable and effective or certainly are heading that way in the very near future.
Here's one for all you Luddites who think the sky is falling: According to a new study, steady advances in technology are decoupling fossil-fuel energy and air pollution. The researchers also found that air pollution continues to reach new record lows even as Americans burn increasing amounts of coal, oil, and natural gas to power their homes, ve ...[text shortened]... e Refuge, don't they?
http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2008-01-PP01-airpollution-schwartz.pdf
You see this as a victory against us "luddites" even though it is exactly the kind of technology which you lament your tax money going towards?
You are the dictionary definition of hypocrite.
Originally posted by zeeblebotI'll see your copy and paste, and raise you...
the two columns are Smog and Particles, U.S city rankings.
houston is 5th in smog and not in the list (of 26) for particles.
http://www.citymayors.com/environment/polluted_uscities.html
The most polluted US cities in 2007 Rank Smog:
Most polluted cities Rank Particles:
Most polluted cities
1 Los Angeles (CA) 1 Los Angeles (CA)
2 Bakersfiled ...[text shortened]... (GA) 25 Hagerstown (MD)
26 Cleveland (OH) 26 Rome (GA)
Source: The American Lung Association
"Not all toxics monitored
Texas currently uses guidelines, in many cases more lenient than other states, to regulate emissions of toxic air pollution from industrial plants. The state does not include toxic releases coming from cars, ships and other sources when it evaluates whether pollution from a factory smokestack will pose a health risk.
Both are flaws the study says need to be fixed.
"The current permitting program treats each individual plant as the only source in a given area. That is not the way to do business," said Jonathan Ward, director of the Division of Environmental Toxicology at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston.
Industrial facilities in Harris County emit more benzene and 1,3-butadiene, two potent carcinogens, than anywhere else in the United States. There is increasing evidence, beginning with a January 2005 Houston Chronicle investigation, that people residing by the region's chemical plants and refineries are being exposed to concentrations of pollutants here that would be illegal in other states."
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4220275.html
1 edit
Originally posted by agrysonIt is even more pathetic than you know: have a look at the link .. this is a pollution study where carbon dioxide is quietly ignored!
So in response to global warming and emmissions targets, scientists and engineers develop buffer technologies to reduce risk, which are affordable and effective or certainly are heading that way in the very near future.
You see this as a victory against us "luddites" even though it is exactly the kind of technology which you lament your tax money going towards?
You are the dictionary definition of hypocrite.
They assume carbon dioxide is not a pollutant!
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirRegistrant:
I can't open PDF's, but I'm sure you've dragged up a neutral and reliable source of information....[/b]
Texas Public Policy Foundation
P.O.Box 40519
San Antonio, TX 78229
US
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Public_Policy_Foundation
"The Texas Public Policy Foundation was initially founded and funded in 1989 by James R. Leininger"
"Dr. James R. Leininger, "San Antonio physician and hospital-bed magnate" is a "conservative and devoutly religious Republican businessman." Leininger is one of the biggest funders of far-right causes in Texas. During the decade 1987-1997, Leininger "spent more than $1.4 million of his personal fortune to affect how Texans vote and another $3.2 million to change how Texans think on political issues"
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_R._Leininger
D
Originally posted by flexmoreI did, but there is some truth in the claim that CO2 emmissions can be scrubbed with greater efficiency today than in the past (though nowhere near enough to support the lofty claims that DSR was making). I was more pointing out the fact that DSR was being hopelessly hypocritical in lambasting the expense of counter emmissions research in some threads while lofting the results of those expenses up as some kind of victory against climate science.
It is even more pathetic than you know: have a look at the link .. this is a pollution study where carbon dioxide is quietly ignored!
They assume carbon dioxide is not a pollutant!
Incidentally, there's nothing quiet about the ignorance, it's quite blatant!
Originally posted by agrysonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage
I did, but there is some truth in the claim that CO2 emmissions can be scrubbed with greater efficiency today than in the past (though nowhere near enough to support the lofty claims that DSR was making). I was more pointing out the fact that DSR was being hopelessly hypocritical in lambasting the expense of counter emmissions research in some threads while ...[text shortened]... climate science.
Incidentally, there's nothing quiet about the ignorance, it's quite blatant!
"Capturing and compressing CO2 requires much energy and would increase the fuel needs of a plant with CCS (Carbon capture and storage) by about 11-40%[1]. These and other system costs are estimated to increase the cost of energy from a new power plant with CCS by 21-91%[1]. These estimates apply to purpose-built plants near a storage location: applying the technology to preexisting plants or plants far from a storage location will be more expensive."
Originally posted by flexmoreI don't claim carbon capture is a viable alternative, but more efficient systems get more power per gram of CO2. These measures are however far from good enough to abandon alternative sources as DSR suggests.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage
"Capturing and compressing CO2 requires much energy and would increase the fuel needs of a plant with CCS (Carbon capture and storage) by about 11-40%[1]. These and other system costs are estimated to increase the cost of energy from a new power plant with CCS by 21-91%[1]. These estimates apply to ...[text shortened]... echnology to preexisting plants or plants far from a storage location will be more expensive."