----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Crystall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 8:36 PM Subject: Re: Why so little renewable energy 30 years after the sweater speach?
> On 2 Sep 2007 at 19:48, Robert Seeberger wrote: > >> I suspect that minimizing pollution from energy generation is a >> more >> immediately achievable goal. Industrial and manufacturing sources >> entail a much greater dedication in that it means much greater >> changes >> to our lifestyles. > > No, not really. The first means, bluntly, nuclear power plants. 5-6 > years minimum to build those. > > A good degree of industrial polloution is controllable by regulation > of acceptable levels and helping companies set up sustainable > processes - for example, recovering valuable but toxic metals used > in > catalysts like silver is often cost-neutral, but could come with a > tax break which makes it revenue-producing and thus attractive to > shareholders. > > There's also a huge case for rubbish sorting plants rather than > expecting everyone to sort their waste to a great degree. It simply > doesn't happen as-expected. For example, trial pay-as-you-throw > systems have ended up with reduced recycling rates and increased > poloution, as a LOT more people then use small "garden > incinerators*" > to ash organics, paper, cardboard etc... not to mention increased > dumping and tipping of waste, and so on. > > (*burning this sort of waste is only a good idea, environmentally, > when you do it at a rubbish sorting plant, for power) > Those are all very good ideas, but having worked in chemical plants and manufacturing facilities I can say with some degree of certainty that you underestimate our ability to curb pollution. I know you are probably thinking about running a hose from a smokestack directly into a recycling center where crap gets turned into greenbacks, and that probably sounds workable from a cubicle in some office building. (I've worked in both environments) But when you are out there on a pipe rack being burnt by an invisible flame spurting out of a valve packing or a leaking flange, or find yourself running from an imminent explosion caused by a leaky gasket, or arrive at work to find that 2 co-workers died because they breathed the wrong air for 7 seconds....well you realize that pollutants come from all over the plant and not just from the stacks or burn off towers. When they use the term "pressure vessel" it implies a good number of things about the ability to keep things that are on the inside .....*inside* over the long term and the implications do not lend themselves to the kind of reliability one expects in the comfort (and need I say safety) of ones home or office. Let me say this as clearly as I can. Brand spanking new chemical plants leak chemicals and the older it gets the more chemicals it leaks. They all leak and those leaks are pollution. I've worked in nice plants and I've worked in complete shitholes. They leak. And that piece of Tupperware or your nice polyester/cotton shirt or your laundry detergent are products of processes that leak. You may be aware that you are not allowed to smoke in a chemical plant. It is because the plant leaks and a fire would cause it to leak faster......and hotter. When you walk through a unit, you see lots of steel pipe, but you don't smell steel pipe, you smell the chemicals the steel pipe is leaking. And that old friend is why I refuse to work in chemical plants anymore. I plan to live just a little longer than if I did. Just living within 20 miles of them is troublesome enough. xponent Today's Rant Was Brought To You By Monsanto Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
