Not in the long run it isn't. Cheaper to build dirty, but clean pays for itself long-term. Something that many large industrial operations discovered much to their surprise when forced to go clean. Inco is a notable case here.
-Adam On 1/28/08, Bob Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Adam, > Didn't say dirty isn't wasteful, just it's cheaper...less energy, heating, > etc. > Regards, Bob S. > > On Jan 28, 2008 8:49 PM, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 1/28/08, Bob Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Frank, > > > I'm a science/math kind of guy. > > > I believe in something called the 2nd law of thermodynamics and entropy. > > > It says clean will never easier/cheaper/faster/less costly, though it > > > may be better. > > > No brag, just fact. > > > Regards, Bob S. > > > > > > > Actually, dirty's quite wasteful. Recovering those expensive chemicals > > rather than emitting them can easily pay for itself over time. Initial > > costs are high, but when the chemicals are expensive, recovery and > > recycling is well worth it. Emitting is cheap and easy, but poor > > engineering. > > > > -Adam > > > > -- > > > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > [email protected] > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > > follow the directions. > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
