Just to teach everyone I know

That a carbon tax will be scaryIts not right

Al Gore’s tax just isn’tVery Bright”

Biodiesel from animal products. I think there is some work being done on “turkey guts” to diesel. How about other animal garbage including ‘downed’ animals? Can that be processed to fuels? I don’t know the answer – just tossing it out for discussion.

Part of the reason I like the idea of this comes from some permitting issues I have seen with feeding operations. There is always the question of carcass disposal. Usually they are buried on-site; that leads to water pollution concerns. It seems that if they can be processed this addresses TWO problems – disposal and fuel.

The other revenue stream is ‘tipping fees’ – what they charge the trash dumper. If the WTE facility has to compete with a subsidized landfill (such as Brooks was) then it becomes economically non-viable.

Above I mentioned the idea of ‘internalizing’ costs. By this I mean things like the current clean-up at Brooks. The City is responsible for liability; ALL of that cost should have been incorporated in tipping fees. It was not; the cleanup reserve fund is not sufficient to cover 30-year post-closure costs.

All of these things come together – thus the term ‘integrated’. Separation of toxic metals and other recycleables does two things – provide revenues and keep the crud out of the WTE plant. In effect it is ‘beneficiating’ the fuel in a manner similar to what is done by removing ‘non-coal rock’ from coal. This, in turn, makes the WTE plant run more efficiently.

Because the fuel is difficult to deal with a WTE plant is more costly than a coal plant. However, factoring in fuel costs (rising for coal, NEGATIVE for trash) and the economic picture changes.

If a carbon tax were enacted it might make sense to exempt WTE since decomposition of degradable trash also generates CO2/methane.

Are incinerators working successfully elsewhere in the country?

Seems like Wichita with the ex-Boeing engineers and metal constructors could design and build a good incinerator.

Well, his RESEARCH may be funded by the gov’t, but his pay-check is funded by big oil.

Of course.

Here’s a snip from Harper’s and a follow up article:

For the most part the industry has relied on a small band of skeptics–Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, among others–who have proven extraordinarily adept at draining the issue of all sense of crisis.

Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled “Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,” was underwritten by OPEC.

His research may be funded entirely by the government, but Lindzen himself — his kids’ college tuition, his mortgage payments — have at least in part been funded by Big Oil and Big Coal, including OPEC for crying out loud!

But wait, it gets worse. The positions advocated by Richard Lindzen, the paid-by-OPEC opinion writer commenting in Newsweek — he’s also written op-eds for a number of other publications including the Wall Street Journal — appear to be the diametric opposite of those held by Richard Lindzen, the serious meteorologist, when he’s writing peer-reviewed scientific texts.

*******

The reich-wing . . . they lie so much, it makes you feel stupid that you even half-way believe them from time to time.

http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/50494

http://www.wunderground.com/education/education.asp

You might notice above I mentione Milankovitch cycles. They are a very interesting part of paleoclimatology; studying them has given us a great deal of insight into how climate works and changes.

I think Ben aka Dr. Huie is an Environmental Scientist and is a Kansas Certified Geologist. I’m sure he’ll correct me if my failed attempt at his Curriculum Vitae is in error. :D

Please explain why you believe that past natural climate changes PREVENTS human-caused climate changes.

Do you believe it’s 100% coincidence that Earth is significantly warming NOW, shortly after humans have added significant amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere?

Or at least make them think you will.

Keep your friends close – your enemies closer.

A smart move by the oil companies.

Now to get my Sierra Club friends mad at me – again. INCINERATION – for much of the combustable fraction. WITH ENERGY RECOVERY. A styrofoam cup or plastic pop bottle looks a lot like oil. Paper looks a lot like wood.

Something I point out to my environmentalist friends is that decomposition of this stuff in a landfill leads to a 50-50 molar mix of CO2 and methane. Methane is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2. AND – this use displaces fossil fuels. Incineration is more environmentally sound than landfill. The key – DO IT RIGHT.

plnmkr – have you ever taken a climatology course in grad school? The scientists who study such things seem to come to a rather different scientific conclusion than you do. Perhaps you might benefit from studying the technical literature in the field. I’m not referring to your high school class but a bit further up.

* Fluorescent light tubes that are generated by a household can be disposed in unlimited quantities in a municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill.

* Fluorescent light tubes that do not contain mercury can be disposed in unlimited quantities in a MSW landfill.

* Fluorescent light tubes that contain mercury, but have been determined not to be hazardous waste, can be disposed at a MSW landfill in unlimited quantities.

* Fluorescent light tubes containing mercury that are determined to be a hazardous waste, by testing or knowledge of the manufacturing process, and are generated by a business that is a Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator, may be disposed in quantities up to 43 pounds per day at a MSW landfill. This is approximately 75 four-foot tubes. (See Title 132 – Integrated Solid Waste Management Regulations for definitions)

* Fluorescent light tubes that are generated by businesses that are Small or Large Quantity Generators are not allowed to dispose any quantity of tubes determined to be hazardous at a MSW landfill.

But back on track:

Of course oil companies are going to try and cash in on the green movement. They are in business to make money, as ALL businesses are. That does not, IMHO, cover their ass concerning the record profits they are making off the drivers of this country. They should have been doing a lot more and done it sooner.

With over 83% of the people in this country believing global warming is real and a problem, and the other 13% believing if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, guess who will do something about it? Kinda like the last election, huh repub?

Regardless of what proof is offered, what new technologies are brought out to cut greenhouse gases, or how many reputable scientists come out with global warming predictions, there will be those who will disbelieve. I think they’re called republicans. I like the odds.

Probably the best ways to keep CFL’s out of landfills is educate consumers, and make safe disposal more convenient.Perhaps stores could take the burn-out bulbs, like some stores do for ni-cad batteries. Save the original packing to protect the bulb, or use a small box, maybe with padding.

Most of the mercury vapor is absorbed into the glass, phosphor, etc. by the time the bulb burns-out.Newer versions of the old (like 4 foot long) bulbs use a smaller, measured dose of mercury. Some of those run out of mercury vapor instead of the phosphor failing, and will glow pink.

http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/WPIE/FluoresLamps/

If you read the whole Virginia and California regs, here’s the gist: Normally mercury-containing lamps are to be subject to recycling. If this is not possible, e.g. broken bulbs mixed with contaminents, they are treated as hazardous waste. Ben could give much better info on this, but I believe this means that waste that can’t be recycled is put into special corrosion-resistant containers, and stored above or below ground to prevent leaching of toxic substances into soil and groundwater, or it may be perhaps be subject to special incineration methods with toxic-vapor-substance capture.

Where is Ben when you need him? ‘)

Here’s what the regs are in Virginia (this popped up at the top when I googled, I’ll look for more ;)

http://www.deq.state.va.us/waste/fllights.html

Fluorescent lights / mercury-containing lamps (universal waste)Virginia previously incorporated language in Part XVI of the hazardous waste management regulations that included mercury-containing lamps as a state-declared universal waste. Amendment 15 of the hazardous waste regulations, Section 9 VAC 20-60-273, incorporates the federal universal waste rule language by reference. Virginia included mercury containing lamps as a state-declared universal waste prior to the adoption of federal standards. General management requirements for these universal wastes (both small quantity handlers and large quantity handlers) are in accordance with the federal requirements as adopted by reference in 9 VAC 20-60-273, with certain additional provisions included from the previous Virginia regulations.

Please note that the “universal waste rule” does not authorize disposal of fluorescent lamps or other mercury-containing lamps in landfills.

There has been some confusion and misinformation on this point. Management of mercury containing lamps under Virginia’s special provisions is based on a “recycling presumption”, i.e., in order to qualify for the reduced management requirements the lamps must be collected or managed for recycling/reclamation within the general guidelines of the federal universal waste requirements.

Lamps that are to be “disposed of” rather than legitimately recycled/reclaimed are subject to full regulation as hazardous wastes if they exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic. Generators who do not manage their mercury-containing lights under the universal waste conditional exclusion may refer to the previous Virginia guidance paper on fluorescent light management for disposal information.

On oil companies “going green” the majors have European markets that signed the Kyoto Treaty. The U.S. hasn’t reached the “tipping point”, but they’re betting it will within the next decade. As others have pointed out, they’ll make money in any case.

However, they also realize that conventionally-extracted oil reserves are going to decline. In addition, some fields, such as Saudi Arabia, although huge, have “sour” (high sulfur) oil, that neither the U.S. nor Europe want–for example, new-generation diesel engines , like Mercedes-Benz Bluetec ultra-low emissions engines, can’t use it. “Sweetening” this oil is expensive.

As new deepwater fields, sand and shale oil have far higher extraction costs than conventional terrestrial wells , their development is only feasible with high charges imposed on buyers.

With dropping-cost wind-generation systems, due to new turbine designs and economy of manufacturing scale, and new-generation higher-efficiency solar generators, there will be cross-over points in which these become close to cost-comparable to oil, and since they’re clean, they will be preferred.

However this needs to be checked out — my memory might not be correct on this.

Never, ever use a vacuum to clean up a broken bulb. It will spread the mercury vapors all over.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Wpsa9wiDeWcJ:www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf+clean+up+for+a+fluorescent+bulb+at+home&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

But what can be done to keep the mercury-containing florescent bulbs from going into the nation’s landfills? This has the potential of poisoning our nation’s water supply in a few years.

Its a real quandry that needs publicity. JWink