| Author | Message | ||
     Blake |
Best use of CFL is in a hand held "trouble" light. You can't use those things with an incandescent without getting burned. Oldog, I put a 50W CFL in each of the attic and garage light sockets, equivalent to 200W incandescent. A single 50W CFL bulb lights the entire garage and attic nicely. They are probably around 7 years old now. | ||
| Oldog |
Thanks Blake I will have to Try it when I get home. | ||
| Doerman |
Outrageous | ||
| Whatever |
People think there are no laws for light bulbs becasue they have no clue what they are talking about. http://www.epa.gov/wastes/hazard/wastetypes/univer sal/ Universal Waste (which mercury containing equipment and light bulbs are both considered) is regulated. The problem is there is no money for ENFORCEMENT. Of course this will only get worse with budget cuts. | ||
| Kilroy |
Wow Take that Springsteen, et al | ||
| Whatever |
As far as the coal issue... I just picked up a book when in West Virginia about the coal industry... it is really interesting because something like 42% of the world's coal reserves are in the United States. Hence the lobbying power that coal companies have in DC. There will never be any effective regulation of coal emissions as far as Mercury or Carbon Dioxide in the Untied States, because of corporate control of our government. Canada has cut their Mercury emissions by 70% in the last 10 years or so and did not reduce the burning of coal. What they did is that they actually used TECHNOLOGY and SCIENCE to do this. Two words politicians and arm chair environmental policy critics know abso-fu*k-ing-lotley NOTHING about. It is really tiresome to explain to laymen how this stuff works when they see everything through the filter of "GOVERNMENT=BAD". If you are so opposed to clean air and clean water, move to China. I hear that GE is hiring over there shortly. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
It is really tiresome to explain to laymen how this stuff works I feel the same way about economics, a word arm chair tax and spend progressives know abso-fu*k-ing-lutely NOTHING about. | ||
| Whatever |
Awesome. Then we are even. I don't really give a crap what happens to the environment after I am gone, I don't have kids. I am really surprised that any parent is not concerned about it though. | ||
| Whatever |
Thanks for the spelling correction... I knew it didn't look right.  | ||
| Oldog |
There will never be any effective regulation of coal emissions as far as Mercury or Carbon Dioxide in the Untied States, why the utility or manufactuer can pass the costs on directly, there has been an ongoing fight here in the area, where Titan Cement wanted to put in a concrete plant and make cement here, there is a big hallablu going on about it, that has slowed it up. Why if the emissions can be cleaned up is it an issue, more jobs = more "revenue"} trucks & traffic? | ||
| Whatever |
Jim. The existing air pollution can't be cleaned up at this point because the technology that exists is not feasible. That is the really nasty thing about air pollution. We can't filter the entire atmosphere. It is not like ground water contamination, where unless it (DNAPL- dense non-aqueous phase liquids) sinks into a fractured bedrock it is generally feasible to clean up. I am also NOT saying the coal industry in America shouldn't be regulated... it should. Wide spread Mercury in surface water (think the Great Lakes) and in fish tissue (think of every single fish you have eaten in your entire life)... is nearly impossible to clean up also. Period. You can't drain the Great Lakes and all it's fish and just replace it all with clean water and fish. What I am saying is that as long as corporations in the United States own politicians, and I am afraid this is the way it always will be, no effective strategy will ever be implemented to prevent toxic emissions in the air... on the grounds that the polluters will ALWAYS say it is too expensive. Period. Industrial polluters have been saying for the last 50 years... blah blah blah... it is too expensive to clean up. That is why Superfund was enacted because the regulatory agencies have to have a mechanism to collect the money for cleanup. That is also why States have the authority to enforce court ordered clean ups. However, no such thing exists for air pollution because it is nearly impossible to source it, that is scientifically and legalally defensibly prove exactly where it comes from. It is also very difficult to prove that increased cancer rates or other ill health effects are due to air pollution, because there are so many other factors involved (water, food, environmental exposures such as those from housing or indoor air quality). Unfortunately, in the case of air pollution (toxic metals) from coal fired power plants in China, India, South America, wherever the pollution is emitted... we all get the effect. Air permits in the US are by far and away the most complicated permits to understand. It really is too bad that the majority of the world does not and probably never will implement any such policies before cancer rates skyrocket. (Message edited by Whatever on August 26, 2011) | ||
| Cowboy |
So lets punish our people and go broke while the rest of the world dumps there trash on us. Is that a good idea? What will we do when China desides to forclose? | ||
| Oldog |
Im not understanding, I am under the impression that a great deal of the exhaust gas from coal can be cleaned up, the TURD world burns it with the exhaust unfiltered in any way we know that. why cant we filter the atmosphere ( some day ) (Message edited by oldog on August 26, 2011) | ||
| Whatever |
Oldog. The technology is there. But the polluters do not want to pay for it. It always comes down to money and profits. Always... it is almost never about just doing the right thing to do. (Message edited by Whatever on August 26, 2011) | ||
| Reepicheep |
I thought Honda Civics were already doing this (no joke). Their emissions were good, and their catalytic converter so efficient, that they actually put out cleaner air than they took in (for sufficiently bad air, like Los Angles). They just aren't doing it efficiently. Clearly, we need an Erik Buell Racing Adventure bike, with a good catalytic converter, and be paid to ride around the planet all the time. Please... It's for the children!  | ||
| Cowboy |
How many Buells have a catalytic converter? | ||
| Aesquire |
Why a catalytic converter? That's for badly designed engines, and causes problems we don't need to deal with. ( if you don't know, cats are to convert oxides of nitrogen, produced in high compression engines that don't burn as clean as they should. Your Buell, unless you've defeated the pollution controls, emits very little Nox's. The bad thing with cats is when they get poisoned by contaminated fuel ( lead, etc. ) they produce sulfur dioxide. A poisonous gas that causes acid rain. Nox's produce photo-related smog. Bad juju in places like LA that have weather inversions in a valley.) An Erik Buell Racing adventure bike would get me saving my money. I'm too fat & old for a repliracer. Whatever has a good point, It's all about profit and costs. What few people know is the tailings ( clinkers/collected fly ash/etc. ) outside a coal plant are far more radioactive than around a nuclear plant. Coal is very costly to the environment, and the miners. It takes smart regulation and enforcement to make it even marginally safe & clean. You want clean energy? Nuclear with full recycling. ( made law & never funded ) Coal in MHD/boiler/co-generation plants with state of the art scrubbing. ( part of the MHD cycle ) Leave the natural gas for home heating & fertilizer. Orbital solar. ( and build new nuclear on a Thorium cycle, while we burn the Plutonium up for power instead of weapons....The only reason we use a Uranium cycle system is to make Plutonium for nukes. ) We need twice the current capacity if you want electric cars. At least. | ||
| Blake |
Char, I thought I just read about new regulations that will reduce mercury emissions of coal-fired power plants by 90%. It may be posted in a hyperlink above. | ||
| Mtjm2 |
And you wonder why this country dosnt produce any thing but trash ! You need dirty energy to produce CLEAN energy ! You worrey about the air ! what about the ground water , and what throwin all the crap from this stuff in the ground does . Where are we gunna put the CFLs when they burn out ? | ||
| Whatever |
Um, Blake, you may be correct. I am a little out of the loop with not working in the field at the moment. Water? Environmental programs for water began with the Clean Water Act (revision) in 1972. The first one was passed in 1948. Again, a law is no good if you cannot enforce it. Hence, no real ground water and surface water clean up began in earnest until the 1970's. Groundwater discharges are not legal in most states. I say most states because Underground Injection Wells (deep aquifer wells used to get rid of contaminants by 'injecting' them into the deep water table) are outlawed in most areas. A few have been grandfathered in and set to expire, and I know they still use them some in arid places in the US. Surface water discharges are regulated by a very large and complex program. The NPDES program. This is nothing new for industries to deal with. The government is only interested in preventing degradation of surface water bodies. The bulk of the NPDES program (and State programs that fall under this umbrella) are focused on antidegradation. That means that as a BASELINE all waters should be fishable and swimmable. That is why there are fish consumption advisories. The goal is not to restrict use... it is to improve the quality of life for the general public. Nothing less and nothing more. The problems that are coming into play with air pollutants, however, will only be resolved if the entire globe signs on to controls on air emissions. Unfortunately, countries that were considered the 'third world' like China, that are now industrializing generally are very poor on human rights issues. There will be consequences globally for this, unfortunately. And I am not saying that all companies that have factories in China are horrible polluters. Many companies, like the one I recently interviewed at, are ISO 14000 certified, no matter where their factories are. Some do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. Some. We have made tremendous progress in soil and groundwater cleanup in this country the last 30 years. Hell, it took a while, but now the US Department of Defense, which was the largest polluter in the world, has pretty much turned around. Nukes are the only environmental threat that really scares me... if I can't see, taste, touch, hear or smell it... I do not want it any where near me. Radioactive coal ash? Not sure, but, dioxins, PCBs and metals in coal ash, oh you bet. | ||
| Whatever |
Also, any new regulation that is under consideration at least at a Federal level has to be subject to a cost benefit analysis. In fact, I was discussing this just Wednesday at the interview I had at the State of North Carolina. Any new environmental law has to be for the good of the general population and not just to benefit a few 'hand picked' populations. That is why there is ALWAYS a public review and comment period as well. If you personally are opposed to it, you have the right as a citizen of this country to write to the regulatory agency and to be heard. In fact, the agency is also required by law to PUBLISH a written response. Often these are done by economists and not scientists. If there were not big corporations that want to make a buck the easy way instead of doing the right thing for the right reasons, there would be no need for these regulations. Unfortunately that is not the case. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Charlotte, Do you agree that economic consideration should play a part in environmental regulations? | ||
| Strokizator |
Lucy, you got some 'splainin to do. You can't drain the Great Lakes and all it's fish and just replace it all with clean water and fish. Are you suggesting that eventually Niagara Falls will stop and all the lakes above it will be dry? Seems to me like it's been constantly draining and refilling since the last ice age. All the fish have a life-span of some sort. That is the really nasty thing about air pollution. We can't filter the entire atmosphere. Isn't that what rain does? If you are so opposed to clean air and clean water, move to China. No one is opposed to clean air & water but I'm not naive enough to believe that you can have 6 billion people on this earth and turn it into the Garden of Eden, which had only two if I remember correctly. It's a lot more complex that I've let on but I've been hearing that we need to live like cavemen or we're all going to die for decades now. I hope you're not too tired of answering this stuff to give it one more go. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Charlotte, Does this seem reasonable? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240531119047 87404576530520471223268.html | ||
| Kenm123t |
The reason the coal plants have mercury problems is you cant fix an old one you have to build a new one. Try to get a permit for that! AEP is shutting down power plants rather than replacing them seems Coal plants costs cant be payed for by the customer only the stock holders. Cant recover your costs for a plant and a profit NO Plants get built! Dig down in the details and its not abour regulation its about Shutting down our power grid. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
The PPACA did create the New HealthCare Commissioned Cadre for 3500 Armed 'Health' advisers respondant to only the President. It also created 2600 new openings at the IRS for Health Care - administration, collection, enforcement, reimbursements, and judgements But these sound more like storm troopers than creative, inventive, contributions to the economy. Welcome to the USSA Comrade Citizen, your new 'paradise' awaits. | ||
| Whatever |
Mercury is a bio-accumulative contaminant. What that means is the air deposits it in the water through dry depostion and rain too. The water containing mercury in the Great Lakes is replaced by water in the watershed that already has Mercury in it from air depostion as well. The problem with Mercury is it causes birth defects. It is teratogenic. Yeah, I had to look that one up when I first heard it. Of course the guitar thing is retarded... as are some other rules. I doubt any 14 yo is gonna eat his motorcycle. Asian carp are taking over the fisheries in the midwest. I don't give a crap if someone killed a Mohogany tree a century ago. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Charlotte, Thanks for the replies. I would like to hear though whether you feel economic consideration should play a part of environmental regulations. | ||
| Boltrider |
Tell that to the guy who put two of them under the 1190 RS to pass emissions testing. I think his name is on your motorcycle. | ||
| Darth_villar |
“We put a couple of catalytic converters in the muffler. It has a secondary muffler because it has a pretty high output engine, and we wanted to make sure it was well legal. And it’s actually 2 decibels under the limit and well controlled. But to do that we needed more muffler than we could fit under the bike. There just wasn’t enough room. And it also makes us world-legal because you have to have a high, rear-pointing exhaust outlet for Japan to pass the sound test. So it will be legal there.” The 1190RS is just too advanced for our archaic testing :P I love LEDs for the near future of lighting. I keep an eye on Vision X, they keep producing higher and higher output LEDs. Shockproof, waterproof, lasts thousands and thousands of hours. AND, they don't mess with the tubes on my guitar amp. Though I may not have to worry about that when all the guitars are taken away... |
