Where did all that acid rain go?
Discussion
Ballistic Banana said:
seems Poland has had some
I think it still exists, it's just that due to us not now using coal in the way we were, it can't be attributed to us (UK) any longer.
Maybe they just think we're deaf!
I think global warming is percieved to be a greater threat.
It's not a case of "same biscuit different day". It's a case of "bigger biscuit different day"..... Except they're not biscuits!
Edited to add;
I guess next decade's problem of the minute will be mooring rights on Oxford street, and the extended ferry tours from the Telecom tower to Greenwich!
>> Edited by dilbert on Monday 24th October 22:56
nonegreen said:
As usual there was a tiny element of truth in the propaganda oops I mean really really well researched scientifically infallable study. It was correct but out by a factor of 2000000000000000000000000000000000 orders of magnitude. kin lentilist halfwits
Thats pretty close for them they must be improving
Industry did clean up its act over this issue. It was technically simple to do, just expensive, so industry made the necessary investment when public opinion made it necessary for them to do so.
Many of my projects during the mid 80's as a young project manager were focussed on this issue. Industry cleaned up, no more acid rain.
Many of my projects during the mid 80's as a young project manager were focussed on this issue. Industry cleaned up, no more acid rain.
the fact of the matter is a large percentage of acid rain came from coal fired (and fossil fuel) power stations. They have either been shut down or have had their emmissions filtered to much lower amounts by more modern means.
I visited a rubbish burning power station (SELCHP) and their filtering methods were extensive. cyclones (ala Dyson hoovers, thats where he got the idea from) large bags filled with calcium carbonate type stuff etc. all in line and takes the large majority of nasty stuff away leaving a product we all know as Gypsum.
Another power station burns poultry poo. their end product other than cheap electricity is propagating tomatoes from the cooling of the steam in greenhouses and fertiliser which is regarded as the best in the business.
We also have offshore wind turbines and suchlike.
The profit from electricity from coal is less than renewables so there is a move toward it. Other than MAD TONy wanting bigger nuclear accidents... erm power stations.
:-)
I visited a rubbish burning power station (SELCHP) and their filtering methods were extensive. cyclones (ala Dyson hoovers, thats where he got the idea from) large bags filled with calcium carbonate type stuff etc. all in line and takes the large majority of nasty stuff away leaving a product we all know as Gypsum.
Another power station burns poultry poo. their end product other than cheap electricity is propagating tomatoes from the cooling of the steam in greenhouses and fertiliser which is regarded as the best in the business.
We also have offshore wind turbines and suchlike.
The profit from electricity from coal is less than renewables so there is a move toward it. Other than MAD TONy wanting bigger nuclear accidents... erm power stations.
:-)
tvrbob said:
Industry did clean up its act over this issue. It was technically simple to do, just expensive, so industry made the necessary investment when public opinion made it necessary for them to do so.
Many of my projects during the mid 80's as a young project manager were focussed on this issue. Industry cleaned up, no more acid rain.
So does this mean a "well done" to the environmentalists for going on about it so much?
minicity said:
tvrbob said:
Industry did clean up its act over this issue. It was technically simple to do, just expensive, so industry made the necessary investment when public opinion made it necessary for them to do so.
Many of my projects during the mid 80's as a young project manager were focussed on this issue. Industry cleaned up, no more acid rain.
So does this mean a "well done" to the environmentalists for going on about it so much?
No! Read this: State of Fear. While the industry has done much to clean up it's act, the environmentalists (not all of them) are to a degree misinformed. The environmentalists will bang on about whatever the flavour of the day is!
>> Edited by neil_cardiff on Tuesday 25th October 09:58
>> Edited by neil_cardiff on Tuesday 25th October 09:58
cross-eyed-twit said:
We also have offshore wind turbines and suchlike.
The profit from electricity from coal is less than renewables so there is a move toward it. Other than MAD TONy wanting bigger nuclear accidents... erm power stations.
:-)
The reason why there is a profit on renewables for the power generators is the government directive to power suppliers to buy more power from 'renewable' sources.
It still costs far more to generate electricity from renewable sources.
As we increase the proportion of the electricity from such sources (still only a small proportion) electricity bills will need to rise by hundreds of millions of pounds to compensate.
The only commercially viable way to generate electricity on anything like the scale required is to build a new generation of nuclear power stations.
nice to see that not everyone believes everything they hear too. seandudding said:
I snd the recommendation of reading STATE OF FEAR. Good read, and all the facts are quoted in it.
By "all" the facts, you mean all the facts necessary to back up Crichton's thesis, made in fiction form so he could make a buck or two out of it.
I'm not saying he hasn't got a point, but he's no different from all the lentilists he mocks in the book, just the other end of the spectrum.
nonegreen said:
As usual there was a tiny element of truth in the propaganda oops I mean really really well researched scientifically infallable study. It was correct but out by a factor of 2000000000000000000000000000000000 orders of magnitude.
Not to suggest that there is only a tiny element of truth in your propoganda but considering there are only 4x10^78 atoms in the universe it would be difficult for anything to be 1x10^2000000000000000000000000000000000 out.
nervous said:
actually, he gives credence to both arguments. his referencing lists many authors that have alternate theories. cant argue ones case without the existence of the contrary standpoint, can one?
>> Edited by nervous on Tuesday 25th October 10:31
Exactly, he actually mentions in the aftery bit at the end, his beliefs, and how they are only his. He asks the reader to effectivley make of the facts presented of what they will - and ultimatly the book sets out to make the reader THINK - not be drip fed the latest fad about the evironment - indeed it has got me 'arguing' in so far as I am challenging what people insist on pushing upon me - Wind Farms - bird guillotines anyone
Oh and anyone think there was a real waste of a Ferrar in the book
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff