Apparently Alaska is the solution to the oil crisis.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Because it was politically unpopular. The prisoner's dilemma again.

nuts - there are enough Billvon types out there that it didn't have to be an overwhelming rejection just a simple rejection on close split vote. Many politicians could have gained to vote for it unless it was just a terrible treaty in the first place.

You guys keep missing this part and just assume that if someone disapproves of the way Kyoto was structured that they must be anti-air or something; so I'll state this directly - a world wide agreement to protect the environment is a great idea and I hope it happens - Kyoto didn't fit that description, it had too much world politics in it that ruined the good intentions of those wanting to really try.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

>I read something recently about research into filters that would
>extract many of the harmful contaminent and carcinogens from coal.

That's good; it would keep metals like mercury, arsenic, uranium, thorium etc out of the air. The bad news is that now you have millions of tons of ash containing mercury, arsenic, uranium, and thorium to put somewhere. And we're talking millions of tons - in 2001 we produced 120 millions tons of ash, and it's both toxic and somewhat radioactive. And that's without those better filtration systems you mention above. Where do you put 120+ million tons of toxic radioactive waste? Right now it just goes in unlined pits, but that's not a good idea.

There are many programs out there trying to use coal combustion products in cement, primarily as a way to get rid of it (it replaces sand and limestone) but that leaves you with slightly radioactive and toxic structures. Probably OK for overpasses, but not schools or dams. And you have to handle it very differently than normal concrete in terms of controlling dust.

So you still have the same problem in the long run (although the stuff is easier to deal with as a solid.)

Why is concrete containing fly-ash from coal any more of a problem than, say, granite , shale, or phosphate rocks which are naturally radioactive and part of the environment.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Why is concrete containing fly-ash from coal any more of a problem than, say, granite , shale, or phosphate rocks which are naturally radioactive and part of the environment.

The same reason environmentalists will fly across the country at 30,000 ft in a single flight and get a radiation dose greater than a nuclear sub operator does in 6 months. Then go in a filthy oil leaking barge and protest the subs in port.

That reason is - to get women with hairy armpits

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,118]

>nuts - there are enough Billvon types out there . . .

Most people don't know CO2 from CO. Heck, most people don't even know the difference between pollution and CO2. Our history has shown that people won't take action until the problem is both apparent and very serious (Donora, LA in the 70's.)

>You guys keep missing this part and just assume that if someone
> disapproves of the way Kyoto was structured that they must be anti-air or
> something; so I'll state this directly - a world wide agreement to protect
> the environment is a great idea and I hope it happens - Kyoto didn't fit
>that description, it had too much world politics in it that ruined the good
>intentions of those wanting to really try.

Then their response should have been "we won't sign this but we will sign this alternative." They simply do not want to do anything because they don't have to, and their constituents don't much care.

The problem with any Kyoto-like system that's at all fair is that it will 'penalize' the heaviest producer of CO2 the most. That's us. Thus we won't sign it. Of course, once China becomes the #1 CO2 emitter, we'll be all over anything that penalizes the heaviest producer. At which point _they_ won't sign it. It will take a visionary country/leader to lead the way, bite the bullet and say "yes, we'll do it first, as long as you agree to follow in 5 years" (or whatever.) Maybe we will be that country someday; I hope so. Right now a good fraction of the rest of the world is trying their best while the US ignores the problem.

[billvon 3,118]

>Why is concrete containing fly-ash from coal any more of a problem
>than, say, granite , shale, or phosphate rocks which are naturally
> radioactive and part of the environment.

Because it's very concentrated. Same reason you're OK in a basement with some radon in it but not in the core of a nuclear reactor. Coal burning essentially takes rock (coal, shale, whatever) and turns all the carbon into carbon dioxide, releasing energy in the process and leaving all the heavy metals. Some of the heavy metals go out the stack; the rest end up in the ash. A lump of coal loses about 95% of its mass when it's burned. To put it another way, the radioactive components of that coal are concentrated by a factor of 20 by burning.

Now, even those aren't instantly deadly. They're only about 20 times higher than background radiation, and that's no problem for short duration or even moderate duration exposure. It's not even a problem for a highway overpass or a retaining wall next to a highway. But it is a very big problem if you build an elementary school, housing division or maternity ward out of that material.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

>Why is concrete containing fly-ash from coal any more of a problem
>than, say, granite , shale, or phosphate rocks which are naturally
> radioactive and part of the environment.

Because it's very concentrated. Same reason you're OK in a basement with some radon in it but not in the core of a nuclear reactor. Coal burning essentially takes rock (coal, shale, whatever) and turns all the carbon into carbon dioxide, releasing energy in the process and leaving all the heavy metals. Some of the heavy metals go out the stack; the rest end up in the ash. A lump of coal loses about 95% of its mass when it's burned. To put it another way, the radioactive components of that coal are concentrated by a factor of 20 by burning.

Now, even those aren't instantly deadly. They're only about 20 times higher than background radiation, and that's no problem for short duration or even moderate duration exposure. It's not even a problem for a highway overpass or a retaining wall next to a highway. But it is a very big problem if you build an elementary school, housing division or maternity ward out of that material.

Surely you can use only 5% fly-ash in the concrete, and be back at natural radiation levels?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,118]

>Surely you can use only 5% fly-ash in the concrete, and be back at natural radiation levels?

That's right. (Or to be more accurate, you can use 5% fly and bottom ash in the concrete and be only slightly over background levels, since you didn't extract the toxins from the original concrete.) The problem is that leaves about 110 million tons a year of fly ash to dispose of. I assume you don't want it in your backyard; most people don't. We can leave it out in big open-air piles and have it leach into the water. We can figure out a way to store billions of tons (that's billions of tons, as in trillions of pounds) of coal ash somewhere where it won't affect anything.

It may well be doable. But doing it well will not be cheap, and doing it haphazardly will result in health risks. The reason coal is so cheap is no one is considering how much it costs to dispose of the ash. Adding these external costs into the price of coal power would make alternatives (like solar, gravity, geothermal etc) more competitive. Ignoring external costs effectively gives coal a massive subsidy that makes most other forms of power unable to compete.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Good article on the subject.

http://www.uic.com.au/nip83.htm

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Then their response should have been "we won't sign this but we will sign this alternative."

That is exactly what I wrote in another thread

Quote

They simply do not want to do anything because they don't have to, and their constituents don't much care.

I think you have a low opinion of the general populace if you believe that.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Why are SUVs and minivans exempted?

Because rich soccer moms gotta have them for the run to the conerstore.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[rhys 0]

wow.

old G.W. wants to tap in your own black gold now eh. gee i wonder which companies will get the contract?

oil is dirty stuff. there are other technologies out there. u.s. vehicles are way too greedy. i pay nz$1.30 for a litre of 96 octane petrol. you you the maths.we drive japanese cars my car can do 800kms on 50litres (i dont know imperial system dosn't make sense)

86 ocatne fuel? no wonder you need piece of shit v8's to get to work. jump behind the wheel of a japanese D.O.H.C.turbo(power&economy) with 96 octane fuel in it and you will see the money you have been wasting on shitty low octane fuel and big fuck off seppo mobiles. not to mention the emissions/barrels of oil/space.

i suppose there are heaps o fat people in america so they would look pretty silly driving D.O.H.C.turbo gotta cater for all those consumers right?

we(n.z) have heaps of oil under our ground too but we don't want to tap into it. we(earnest rutherford of canterbury university) in fact invented nuclear power though splitting the atom in about 1915 this would solve the energy problems(they had in 1916) it was dicovered it was dangerous and produced radioactive waste. so we(n.z.) made n.z. a nuclear free country.

most people who care know, burning fossil fuels is bad/dirty and not nessecary. the oil companies crush any sign of compitition and these companies run(own) the united states of america.= capitalism

get with it guys, G.W. is out for more cash, he wont be able to spend in his lifetime! greedy c**t.

don't let him do it.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[airtwardo 7]

i suppose there are heaps o fat people in america so they would look pretty silly driving D.O.H.C.turbo gotta cater for all those consumers right?

Quote

YUP!

No room in a tin foil sewing machine to
throw all the non-biodegradeable styrofoam
boxes from our 90 fat gram Bacon Cheese Burgers!

Quote

we(earnest rutherford of canterbury university) in fact invented nuclear power though splitting the atom

Quote

WE.....?

You're an English Scientist??


Atom Spliting is to 'creating' nuclear power..

AS

'Ogg' the cave man killing a dinasour is to
creating gasoline.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

wow.

old G.W. wants to tap in your own black gold now eh. gee i wonder which companies will get the contract?

oil is dirty stuff. there are other technologies out there. u.s. vehicles are way too greedy. i pay nz$1.30 for a litre of 96 octane petrol. you you the maths.we drive japanese cars my car can do 800kms on 50litres (i dont know imperial system dosn't make sense)

86 ocatne fuel? no wonder you need piece of shit v8's to get to work. jump behind the wheel of a japanese D.O.H.C.turbo(power&economy) with 96 octane fuel in it and you will see the money you have been wasting on shitty low octane fuel and big fuck off seppo mobiles. not to mention the emissions/barrels of oil/space.

i suppose there are heaps o fat people in america so they would look pretty silly driving D.O.H.C.turbo gotta cater for all those consumers right?

we(n.z) have heaps of oil under our ground too but we don't want to tap into it. we(earnest rutherford of canterbury university) in fact invented nuclear power though splitting the atom in about 1915 this would solve the energy problems(they had in 1916) it was dicovered it was dangerous and produced radioactive waste. so we(n.z.) made n.z. a nuclear free country.

most people who care know, burning fossil fuels is bad/dirty and not nessecary. the oil companies crush any sign of compitition and these companies run(own) the united states of america.= capitalism

get with it guys, G.W. is out for more cash, he wont be able to spend in his lifetime! greedy c**t.

don't let him do it.

Atom (nucleus) was first split artificially by Cockcroft and Walton of Cambridge University (UK) in 1932. The received the 1951 Nobel Prize in Physics for it:
nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1951/index.html

The Rutherford atom splitting myth is described here:
www.rutherford.org.nz/msmyth.htm

Rutherford actually transmuted nitrogen into oxygen, a great achievement, but not a "split".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kimblair13 0]

ANWR is NOT the answer. China is the biggest reason for this oil crisis. Let's blow up China. They're taking our oil! Bastards.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"we(n.z) have heaps of oil under our ground too but we don't want to tap into it. "
Umm, Maui field running pretty well, Offshore Taranaki (Mangatoa) is pretty busy, are you sure its because you guys don't want to be producing?

Kallend, Billvon, the perfect repository for all that ash, NORM, LSA, etc, is the huge hole left behind by the shale extraction.......pretty obvious really.

I've said it before, you can drill the North Slope, its relatively easy to do in an environmentally sound manner, its just not cheap. When the price is right, it will be exploited, the only real issue will be the profit margin.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"China is the biggest reason for this oil crisis."

Nice tongue in cheek reply, Kim, and definitely ironic.

China needs to wean itself from coal dependency, thats not going to happen for at least a couple of decades, if at all. They just ordered an awful lot of coal fired power stations....

If China's current demand for energy is not satiated, we will see them becoming the biggest polluters in the world, way beyond the damage done by the present holders of that title.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson