Smog Kills - REDUCE FOSSIL FUEL USE


Karlin
#1
Our political leaders have not looked at how much Kyoto will save us in health care spending and lives saved.
These 800 deaths in Toronto alone should spark some compassionate political moves to reduce smog.

For all the major cities in North America , each having 1000 deaths each year from smog, the total is TEN TIMES the number killed in the WTC debacle that is the basis for invading sovereign nations, killing an estimated 200,000 Iraqi innocents, and costing America's economy so dearly. Thats just to point out that things are not what they seem, there is motivations behind rejecting Kyoto and the WTC and Iraq that are the same, that as a race we are killing ourselves so a few Elites can have more oil wealth. Thats whats behind it, I believe, and many share this view.

At this time of oil shortage and high gasoline prices, we still can't find a politician that will address the obvious problem and solution
- REDUCE OUR USE OF FOSSIL FUELS.

Reducing our use of fossil fuels would obviously help Canadians financially and for our health. Yet, not one Kyoto statement has ever said that, instead, they talk of efficiencies [which is a good thing, btw] and other ways to CONTINUE using fossil fuels.

Conspiracy? Ya, who would doubt it when we see what a high price we are paying to continue the Oil Supported Economy of the Elites.
So, best of all, reducing fossil fuels useage would take the power right out of the hands of the barbarians now running the show.

links: Smog kills: http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/nati...mog050606.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/environment/smog.html
 
AirIntake
#2
We would require fuel cell operated 4x4 work trucks in order to really reduce fossil fuel use in Canada. I work in the oil&gas industry and we burn litres and litres of gas ever day just getting to the sites that we need to. There are thousands of trucks like this and in more industries than just oil&gas. Small commuter cars and walking etc only help part of the problem.
 
bluealberta
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by AirIntake

We would require fuel cell operated 4x4 work trucks in order to really reduce fossil fuel use in Canada. I work in the oil&gas industry and we burn litres and litres of gas ever day just getting to the sites that we need to. There are thousands of trucks like this and in more industries than just oil&gas. Small commuter cars and walking etc only help part of the problem.

Two things.

First, this is a large, cold country with isolated pockets of population. The reality is that it takes a lot of fuel to heat and live in this country.

Second, it is not only the gas and oil industry that has a vested interest in using fossil fuel. Don't underestimate the amount of lobby efforts that are made by the auto industry whose interests are best served at this point by fossil fuel use.

There have been rumors for years that there are alternate energy and fuel sources available, but have been "hidden" due to all the policital lobbies on both sides of the border in Canada and the US. The pressure has to be put on these lobbies to get new energy sources.

And please, do not confuse Kyoto with pollution. They are different things altogether. Reducing CO2 will not eliminate pollution, so keep Kyoto out of the pollution discussions.
 
Reverend Blair
#4
Quote:

First, this is a large, cold country with isolated pockets of population. The reality is that it takes a lot of fuel to heat and live in this country.

Better building techniques and simple things like turning the off when you leave a room and wearing a sweater help massively with that. In the case of building techniques and products, there is also an economic spin-off.

Quote:

Second, it is not only the gas and oil industry that has a vested interest in using fossil fuel. Don't underestimate the amount of lobby efforts that are made by the auto industry whose interests are best served at this point by fossil fuel use.

Nobody has said the auto industry deserves a free ride. They are, however slowly, moving towards the use of alternative fuels though. Contrast that with the oil and gas industry that routinely uses relatively clean natural gas to produce dirty oil.

Quote:

And please, do not confuse Kyoto with pollution. They are different things altogether. Reducing CO2 will not eliminate pollution, so keep Kyoto out of the pollution discussions.

Kyoto is a city in Japan, nobody is confusing it with pollution. The CO2 is not pollution argument is, at its very heart, a lie. First of all CO2 is pollution...it's a greenhouse gas that causes global warming. Second of all, the sources of CO2 emissions are the same sources that release other pollutants, so by reducing one by conservation, you reduce the other as well.
 
AirIntake
#5
CO2 isn't exactly pollution Rev. CO2 is required by all plants that utilise photosynthesis. Excessive CO2 could be considered pollution, but not the substance itself.
 
Reverend Blair
#6
The CO2 that we release by burning fossil fuels is pollution. Maybe I should have been more clear, but since nobody is recommending that we all stop breathing I didn't think it was necessary.
 
DasFX
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Karlin

Our political leaders have not looked at how much Kyoto will save us in health care spending and lives saved.
These 800 deaths in Toronto alone should spark some compassionate political moves to reduce smog.

It would if the deaths happened at the same time also the pollution isn't killing them, it is leading to other ailment that kills them. Besides 800 deaths in Toronto is not very much compared to other killers like fast food, smoking, etc.

I see your point and agree with what you are saying, but no action will come from these findings. Unfortunately, it will take a many more deaths or a large group at once to have some action taken.

Just like in Iraq, a couple solders every week is no big deal, have an entire unit or infantry killed in one day and that would spark some action.
 
AirIntake
#8
Walking, biking etc aren't exactly a solution in cold cold Canada. We need better vehicles that pollute less, but that are still capable, ie. more than just small hybrids. Until car companies offer me a fuel cell, 4 electric motor AWD sedan and 4x4 truck with some decent power I'm not biting. A Honda Insight, Toyota Prius or similar is the farthest thing from useful for me.
 
Reverend Blair
#9
There is no single solution, AirIntake. Walking and biking are a partial solution, so are hybrids and alternative fuel vehicles, so is mass transit.

In your case, since you seem to require a 4 wheel drive truck, eco-diesel is a viable solution. It's made from vegetable matter, usually canola, so the product itself is greenhouse neutral. Since some pollution, including greenhouse gases, are released during the production of eco-diesel it is not the final answer, but it is something we could have in place within a couple of years.

It burns fine in conventional diesel motors and some tests even show it extending engine life and reducing maintenance since it burns cleaner.

Good luck buying it though. The oil industry owns most of the gas stations and tey aren't interested in distributing it. Without government legislation there is distribution system for it.
 
AirIntake
#10
Eco-diesel cost more energy to produce than regular diesel does. This means that we burn more fuel (mostly fossil fuels) to produce it than we do to produce normal diesel. The same goes for ethanol, it is actually worse for the environment because of all of the extra energy required to make it. Unless the eco-diesel production facilities operate from solar energy or similar, the impact on the environment is actually worse. It just sounds better to environmentalists.
 
Reverend Blair
#11
Quote:

Unless the eco-diesel production facilities operate from solar energy or similar, the impact on the environment is actually worse. It just sounds better to environmentalists.

Another fallacy. Production facilities can be placed in areas where electricity is produced by windpower, hydro, solar etc. The energy used in production is also not the same as the energy released when the end product is used.

Also, since you brought ethanol into it, some Canadians invented an enzyme that allows the efficient fermentation of straw and corn stalks...the waste products from food crops. Since the waste can be used it saves the energy and pollution usually associated with getting rid of that waste. The left over sludge can be used as fertilizer and/or livestock feed, further reducing waste of both product and energy.
 
AirIntake
#12
You will probably find that there's just not enough wind, hydo, and solar power facilities to produce the volumes of bio-diesel required. Ultimately, fossil fuels will be used to produce it. The energy used in production might as well be the same. It pollutes the same way, just in a different location.

And for the ethanol, where does the energy come from to produce the enzyme? And to run the fermentation facilities? Sorry, these quick fixes are just too good to be true. We need to completely rethink where we get all of our energy from, not just the gas for our cars.
 
Reverend Blair
#13
The facilities can be developed though, AirIntake. Consider this...a plant that produces its own power through wind power. Why not? The product grows on prairies, we need economic diversification, and we have plenty of wind. A self-powered plant would save money anyway.

Manitoba sells power into the US market from hydro. We have more than we can use. Quebec and BC do the same. All three provinces can build more hydro facilities.

This also comes into play with hydrogen production.

The enzyme itself is self-replicating, as I understand it. It is basically a yeast.

You seem to be looking for a magic bullet...a single source that will replace all fossil fuels without a ripple. There isn't one and saying that nothing can be done because of the lack of that magic bullet becomes nothing but an excuse to do nothing.
 
AirIntake
#14
It's not very practical to use wind power for generating large amounts of energy. One requires far too many turbines (at 1.5MW per turbine) to equal a gas generator (500MW+) not to mention the huge maintenence costs associated with having thousands of turbines spread out over the land. This many turbines would also have a huge environmental impact, as they would take up quite a lot of space. Wind power is hardly reliable either, so back up generation would be required anyway.
 
Karlin
#15
One aspect about the Hydrogen idea is this:
- we now have millions of small engines in vehicles burning gasoline , and these small engines are inefficient at using up the available energy in the fuel but mostly this inefficency means we are polluting more that we have to.

If we see Hydrogen as "storage" and not as a fuel per se, then it would be much more efficient to burn the oil used to make gasoline, or even the gasoline itself, in large , very efficent engines that convert it to hydrogen, and then burn that in the small engines...[one or two steps omitted , but you get the picture]

Even if the efficiency of the hydrogen burning small engine in the vehicle is no better than with gasoline in using the available energy, it is at least clean.
The pollution is much more treatable , recoverable, in the larger centralised process, thats partly what contributes to the efficiency there.

Also, if we used the natural gas to make hydrogen , esp the natural gas that will go to making crude oil out of the TAR SANDS, [an incredably huge amount of nat gas], if we used that gas to make hydrogen, we would be much further ahead in using our fossil fuels. The idea is to get as much use from them as possible, instead of just burning them willy nilly and then finding ourselves with none left in the future.

The reason they make crude from tar sands-natural gas is that crude is getting such a high price. No matter than there are much more efficient ways to make our energy resources last longer, they want to deal in crude oil because thats the way the ecoomics work out best for them. If they burned the nat gas instead, they would get about three times as much mileage from it. But no, they want to refine the crude into gasoline because refining is so profitable now. And our own governmental regulations made that they way it is, with rebates on royalties etc.

This is all another reason to REDUCE FOSSIL FUEL USE - they refuse to do it right, so shut them out because we are all suffering from high prices and pollution. Government is best when it does the things that help all citizens... but instead we have given power to industry-friendly minions of the Elites who are only interested inserving themselves and their masters
 
Reverend Blair
#16
Well put, Karlin.

All fuels and methods of energy "production" are really just storage systems though. Our energy...oil, wind, hydro, whatever...comes from the sun and no place else. Oil is also just a storage system.

Another point about using large facilities to burn fossil fuels is that emissions can then be captured and buried. We already have the technology for zero-emissions (into the atmosphere) oil burning energy plants, we just don't use it.

Burning oil is really stupid in the long-term. We make everything from oil, so burning it to provide energy for transportation, heating, etc. is actually a waste of a hugely valuable resource.
 
AirIntake
#17
Let's not forget nuclear power, which is still one of the best ways to produce electricity.
 
bluealberta
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by AirIntake

Let's not forget nuclear power, which is still one of the best ways to produce electricity.

I would like to see the nuclear option explored as well. Detractors always point to three mile island as a bad example, but what they forget is that the safety mechanisms worked exactly as they were supposed to. That was also a fairly long time ago, so technology has certainly improved from then. Nuclear has unlimited potential, in my opinion.
 
AirIntake
#19
Nuclear has the lowest energy in vs energy out of any current power source. Minimizing Ein vs. Eout is actually what is best for the environment.
 
Reverend Blair
#20
Except that you have to do something with the nuclear waste. It is not the danger of a meltdown that causes most to be opposed to it, it is the production of waste that we have no idea how to deal with.

Experiments on fusion technology, which produces no waste, are ongoing, as is the development of technologies that can deal with the waste from fission technology in a real and effective way. No solutions have yet been found though.
 
passpatoo
#21
In regards to nuclear, there is still the consequences of an accident. I understand your point that safety measures have gotten better since three mile island, but no plant is 100% safe. The consequences of a nuclear accident are just too great. Especially when there are plently of other options out there as the Rev. and Karlin have described.
 
AirIntake
#22
There are thousands of nuclear warheads around the world as we speak. We are already relying on safeguards to keep them all from blowing up. Nothing is 100% safe, we learn to deal with that. A modern nuclear plant is hardly an explosion waiting to happen.
 
mrmom2
#23
Yep there real safe
 
AirIntake
#24
Nothing is perfectly safe. This report gives no context to the severity of the release, or to the frequency that releases like this happen. One must weigh the benefits vs the risks.
 
missile
#25
With an oil refinery,an atomic power plant already here in my area,the LNG plant means we have more than enough ways to die quickly..if an accident occurs.This is not a great place to raise a family!
 
Karlin
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by DasFX

It would if the deaths happened at the same time also the pollution isn't killing them, it is leading to other ailment that kills them. Besides 800 deaths in Toronto is not very much compared to other killers like fast food, smoking, etc.

I see your point and agree with what you are saying, but no action will come from these findings. Unfortunately, it will take a many more deaths or a large group at once to have some action taken.
.

I hear ya, but there is a direct link to smog and illness and death.
Heart disease, Cancer, Asthma and lung diseases, and deaths from asthma and heart disease can be IMMEDIATE.
Here is some factoids from the link below:
# An increase in smog sparks a small but measurable increase in deaths, scientists report today in a study showing the strongest link yet between smog and damage to health.
# A study of 95 U.S. urban areas found that a small increase in the average smog level over seven days can lead to a 0.5% rise in deaths, many from heart and lung disease, on the seventh day.
# The researchers' analysis ruled out the possibility that the deaths were caused by heat, different kinds of pollution or other causes.
# Public health officials have long known that breathing smog damages human airways, worsens asthma and leads to a higher risk of lung diseases such as pneumonia.

http://www.newstarget.com/002508.html

So it IS small in the immediate sense,your point is made, but over time its a HUGE cost in caring for chronic illnesses. This fact is what is behind smog-fighting legistlation and these new warnings.

Here is an idea I am working on:
- that skin cancer, melanoma, comes from air pollution, smog. It is made much worse if you don't let the sun shine on your polluted skin to nutralise the toxins, restricting sun's healing powers is commonly done by using sunscreen.
Sunscreen itself might be a cause of cancer, but more likely its the pollution. Its not the sun. Despite using suncreen, skin cancer rates have soared in the past 15 years, which makes me wonder if its the sunscreen itself. Remember, They create the problems, and then offer the solutions!!
[that what I believe , not a medical opinion, and its an opinion not shared by many I talk with!!]

One other point is about OZONE:
It is misunderstood when we hear it classified as pollution. Its the opposite actually - smog nutralises pollution. Sunshine on polluted air, shining on the toxins in this air, will CREATE OZONE. Its like a miracle,the natural kind that we give too little praise for. The ozone will then nutralise the toxins.
The more polluted the air, the more ozone.... when the ozone levels are high enough that they start to irritate people's lungs, it is now working on nutralising the toxins we have breathed into our lungs. This is like putting HYDROGEN PEROXIDE on your skin, its irritating but not "harmfull", its not destroying tissues per se. [the same ozygen-'oxidation' process occurs in both ozone and H2O2].
At that point, asthma attacksw can be triggered. Thats maybe where the "danger of ozone" came up. More realistically, we should look at it like "if the ozone is that high, the air must be wayyyy too bad, lets go away".

Thanks for reading my blatherings,
Karlin
 
passpatoo
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by AirIntake

Nothing is perfectly safe. This report gives no context to the severity of the release, or to the frequency that releases like this happen. One must weigh the benefits vs the risks.

But again, why take that route when other options already exist without the risk. Wind, solar, and biomass are already available and in use. Geothermal is being developed, riverflow, wave and tidal are all being developed or are ready to be used. I'm sure that there are more out there.

Also, a nuclear facility needs to be constantly fed. That means mines, some sort of refinery plant, trucking to the generator, then away from it again to some place to get rid of the spent rods. All of which add to pollutants in the air.

If we also put into place practical ways to motivate people/businesses to decrease thier electrical consumption then we just don't need to even consider the nuclear option.
 
no1important
#28
I see Ontario delays closure of dirtiest coal plant.
 
mrmom2
#29
I don't know if you can blame the goverment on that one No1 People's power consumption has risen sharply with the advent of computers and electronics.What are theysupposed to do shut peoples lights off
 
no1important
#30
Yup, and maybe then they will get the message that we are wasting to much energy.
 

Similar Threads

0
Beijing Smog Attack
by unclepercy | Jul 2nd, 2008
5
Ozone Smog Levels Falling
by Toro | May 10th, 2006
15
Fossil Fuels : The demise
by Frappuccino Dibs | Aug 26th, 2005
10
Clearing smog has led to 'global brightening'
by Frappuccino Dibs | May 11th, 2005
12
Gas Guzzlers and Fossil Fools
by Karlin | Feb 28th, 2005