Ozone concerns in China & India

John R. Hall

I saw this blurb today and thought it was interesting, i.e. the byproduct of progress:

India, China's AC prompts ozone worries

MUMBAI, Feb. 23 (UPI) -- The growing popularity of air conditioning in India and southern China has some scientists worried about the impact on the ozone layer.

The International Herald Tribune reported that the rising standard of living in the world's two most populous countries means air conditioners are within many peoples' means.

The problem for atmospheric scientists is that the refrigerant in the machines -- HCFC- 22 -- is harmful to the ozone layer and has been identified as the fastest-growing ozone-depleting gas that can be controlled, the newspaper reported.

Meanwhile in the hot city of Mumbai, Geeta Vittal told the International Herald Tribune that when her husband suggested eight years ago they get an air conditioner, she objected because it seemed extravagant. He got one, anyway, and now she's hooked on staying cool.

"All my friends have air conditioners now," she told the newspaper. "Ten years ago, no one did."

hr

It's also the dirty coal power

to run all those AC units that is a concern.

On the bright side I believe China leads the world in solar installations?

hot rod

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Ted_9

side note

From what I've seen in other countries. the duct less split installers just purge the air out if the refrigeration lines using refrigerant. They don't use a vacuum pump.

Massachusetts

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Ken_40

I am amazed at our posturing an

self riteousness, now that we all have something, they would also like to have.

We dumped enough R-12 from our car A/C for 40 years to make what hey may do now miniscule by comparison.

If we were truly technology leaders, we'd stop the bio-fuel stupidity, the windmill insanity and totally cost ineffective methods all the anti-nukes spout.

Nuclear is THE answer. Figurng out how to dal with the waste is the only real issue.

Millions will likely starve from lack of corn, the price of which is at all time highs, because of the meer rumor that it will be used as an alternate fuel. Rivers will be poluted even more by the fertilizers required to get yields of crops even close to breaking even, while we as taxpayers underwrite the programs with our taxes, which makes no sense whatsoever. When a project is underwritten by Uncle Sam, Where do you think that money comes from?

Let's put some money into cleaning up what we have lots of: Coal. Gasification is easy, and relatively inexpensive. Given the lost BTU content of bio-fuels, fuel mileage drops like a rock. Ever check your gas mileage with summer gas vs. winter gas? The alcohol blends promote more fuel being required, engine ping becomes an issue and we think we're saving the planet?

From what? When examined without government subsidies, and the distorted logic of the so-called environmentalists, never mind the grossly problematic issues with alternates, diesel, NG and coal cannot and should not be dismissed as being inferior or "dirty." Once we see the naked costs of the "clean" fuels - and see their darker side (cost, waste, grow cycle pollution, inferior BTU content, and political "benefits" - we need to review nuclear, find far easier solutions than any other power source on the horizon and stop diverting attention to worthless and expensive alternates.

Soap box is now open:

hr

It's the waste and movement of

that IS the unresolved issue.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sun/2007/feb/07/566666616.html

Being of the mechanical bent, I could be convinced a safe power plant could be accepted, built, and maintained. I think the public could be sold on that part.

But it will never sell until the waste issue is resolved.

Fund and develop more alternate energy, encourage efficient use of what energy we have and clean up the coal burners, for now. It can and must be done. On a worldwide basis of course.

Easy to say...

hot rod

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

jp_2

the bio-fuel stupidity, the windmill insanity and

gee ken, please explain this one!!!!!!

i think you forgot the PV panel idiots!!!!

added:

I do agree its a wrong idea to waste our soil on growing food to burn, we'll have plenty of alcohol but no bread.

recycling oil products and using wind IS a good idea though.

Maine Doug_52

I trust that

would include the licensed professional that released every bit of gas in my ductless split to fix a leak. He decided to cut off the nice formed and flared 90 on the return and make his own. Leaked. He decided to just crack the line and let go all the refrigerant despite me telling him to not do that since it could be sucked back into the evap by the compressor and I even showed him this in the manual.
Net- I shorted him 2/3rds of the cost and said I would report him with photos if he had an issue with the payment.

Oh, he was a born and raised locally, as in the US.

Maine Doug_52

The waste issue

is more a political and CAVE thing. (Citizens Against Virtually Everything)
The bulk of the current radioactive waste and contaminated sites are from arms research and development and arms production, not domestic power production.

Waste is relative. The last EPA estimated I read has U.S. annual toxic waste production at 6.0 billion tons, or 50,000 pounds (25 tons) per year for every man, woman and child, non-nuclear.

Of the 6.0 billion tons of toxic waste produced each year, only 300 million tons (5% of the total) is managed according to rules established by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)--the nation's official law for managing hazardous wastes from cradle to grave. Thus 95% of toxic waste is still handled outside the restrictions of the nation's toxic waste laws.

Where does hazardous waste go?
The vast majority of hazardous waste has gone--and still goes--into the ground somewhere via pits, ponds, lagoons, and landfills, where gravity pulls the waste down into the ground, or it has gone into deep injection wells, where the waste is pumped under pressure down into the ground.

It is estimated that there are between 400,000 and 500,000 chemically contaminated sites including, military sites, mine wastes, leaking underground storage tanks, pesticide-contaminated sites, non-military federal properties, radioactive release sites, underground injection wells, municipal gas facilities, and wood-preserving plants.

There is no agency in charge of finding contaminated sites.

Loring Air Force Base
Pinette's Salvage Yard
Brunswick Naval Air Station
McKin Co.
Callahan Mine
O'Connor Co.
Winthrop Landfill
Union Chemical Co., Inc.
Eastland Woolen Mill
West Site/Hows Corners
Eastern Surplus
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard
Saco Municipal Landfill
Saco Tannery Waste Pits

These are some of the Maine (pop only 1.3 million) sites on the EPA National Priorities List. No nuke stuff, just plain old nasty stuff in the backyards. Notice the government facilities, that party responsible for regulating and monitoring all these non-nuke contaminated places. If you look at the list for the rest of the country, you will see that many of the backyard nasties are often government and defense sites, including those used for weapons research and production.

All the spectatular transportation disasters by rail, sea and truck (some very recent)have been oil and chemicals with the exception of a few nuke subs.

So I don't see that waste from domestic nuclear power production is the big problem in the area of waste disposal. It is certainly under far greater scrutiny and control than the MTBE in the well water.

JimH

Nice rant, Ken!

How can we not stand in awe of a man with such a fine
collection of axes to grind?

While some may dismiss you as a crank, I will steadfastly
defend you as the keeper of the true flame, the spirit
which made our United States the greatest nation ever in
the history or the future of the world.

We salute you as you raise your flagpole to the sky!

-JimH

hr

The Simon Cowell of the wall



To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

jackchips_2

Why is it

when the best argument to be made is to attack someone else?

Jack

Ken_40

Continuing on your theme...

What we now are bocoming aware of, that was done in the name of "the industrial revolution" some 100 years ago - AND CREATED THE BEST CIVILIZATION health-wise, food production-wise, and quality of life in real terms: Is now being villified as backward, evil, inherently bad for the environment and all the CAVE rants that vent from our tree hugging unscientific and shor sighted ctivists, fail to observe the following:

WE LIVE TO BE IN OUR LATE 70's NOW!

Before all this "sudden awareness" began and the beneifits of roads, medicine and travel were infants, we lived to be 50.

Quite simply put, "Before we allegedly poisoned the planet we were all dead by "middle age." Now that the poisons are being re-examined, we live to old age.

The things we now condemn as "harmful" are the very technologies that give us the technological ability to be made aware of their very existence!

Were it not for the technological growth we now deem as harmful, we would still be farmers and dead by the ripe old age of 50.

Ken_40

Wind power?

I live in a windmill-prone state now. The studies reveal something like this:

They are expensive to buy and maintain. The government provides credits to the technology that offsets the huge costs to install and maintain them. The government "credits" are financed by you and me. There is no such thing as "the government" as some wispy entity with its own wallet. The wallet is mine and yours. Once you take the "credits" away, windpower is a net loser.

It screws up the environment by messing with wildlife, bird flyways and just one more object for line-of-sight devices to fail to be able to reach the destination intended.

They are an eyesore. They are akin to high voltage transmission lines ascetically.

On calm days they are a dead loss for evey hour they fail to deliver. Their output is completely dependent on the forces of nature. When the grid needs them most, the wind might not blow.

The payback period in an ideal application is 30 years. The life expectancy is typically UNDER 30 years. This, WITH huge tax credits you and I must underwrite.

If global warming is a fact, this will help the windfarms since winds tend to be a tad more likely in that trend. Stripping trees also helps them some. Neither of which is desireable, but tragically symbiotic nonetheless.

Like B-15, windpower, bio-mass and cow power, once you take the government subsidy out of the equation, the methods are at best curiosities, not having any semblance of reaching realistic outputs at prices anyone would justify.

Other than those few issues? I love windmills (:-o)

NOT

Maine Doug_52

Ken

What we now are bocoming aware of, that was done in the name of "the industrial revolution" some 100 years ago - AND CREATED THE BEST CIVILIZATION health-wise, food production-wise, and quality of life in real terms: Is now being villified as backward, evil, inherently bad for the environment and all the CAVE rants that vent from our tree hugging unscientific and shor sighted ctivists, fail to observe the following:

WE LIVE TO BE IN OUR LATE 70's NOW!

Before all this "sudden awareness" began and the beneifits of roads, medicine and travel were infants, we lived to be 50.

Quite simply put, "Before we allegedly poisoned the planet we were all dead by "middle age." Now that the poisons are being re-examined, we live to old age.

The things we now condemn as "harmful" are the very technologies that give us the technological ability to be made aware of their very existence!

Were it not for the technological growth we now deem as harmful, we would still be farmers and dead by the ripe old age of 50.

jp_2

eye sores

well ken, an eye sore is a matter of opinion.

some people think miller beer is the best, i don't, so who is right?

we put a man on the moon, we can't avert a bird hitting a windmill?

so, what screws up the enviroment more:
1.) windmill

2.)coal fired powerplant

3.)gas fired powerplant

4.)nuclear power plant?

I'll put up my windmill and I'll let you know how many birds get their heads chopped off!

as far as disrupting the wildlife, lets talk about the power boaters and jet skiers?

RonWHC

The sad part is

much of what he said is credible. Maybe if he couched his opinions in scientific terms few understand, he would be hailed, & not vilified. Or maybe, he should give us a synopsis before his post. Synopsis now. Full post in May?

Ken_40

You have a point.

My idea of something beautiful is mine alone: a rolling mountain top, with natural rock formations, lush trees or grasses, perhaps a combination of all three. Neither did I ever contemplate what the financial benefit, (or loss) was present just to see that natural beauty - since there is neither.

Conversely, I never considered how beautiful that same mountain scene could be, "enhanced" by a 200-foot tall white steel post the diameter of my pickup truck jutting out from the pastoral greenery and having a 175 foot diameter propellor gyrating through the air above that, and how much could "add" to the pastoral scene either. Neither did I ever contemplate the money I would have to pay to build the thing, only to find out it takes more money from my pcket over the next 20 years than it puts back!

You are absolutely right. It is so beautiful, I think we should put one in YOUR back yard(;-o)

Tony_23

Ken

I don't always agree with your opinions or your style from the keyboard. However, you are spot-on with regards to this.

I should send you a bumper sticker I bought a few of from Sgt. Grit. It has the EGA of the Marine Corps and says in bold letters "Stop Global Whining"

Ken_40

I'd love to have

two of those.

Knowing my friends, I can use a bunch.

Got an address?

Thanks

brucewo1b

Or a Hat or Mug Ken

http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingstuff/227959

Duncan_2

Lemmee borrow that soapbox a minute...

"…when her husband suggested eight years ago they get an air conditioner, she objected because it seemed extravagant. He got one, anyway, and now she's hooked on staying cool. All my friends have air conditioners now," she told the newspaper. "Ten years ago, no one did."

Sounds like something my folks might have said in the sixties.

Ken, what are you listening to besides Rush Limbaugh up there in the hills of New Hampshire? (Or is it Vermont, I forget) I'm starting to think the absolute quiet in the absence of police sirens and the gentle burbling of the pristine Passaic River may be affecting your reasoning. I know for me, it's kind of hard to talk with my tongue in cheek.

If THE answer existed, we’d be doing it. It’s true alcohol has about half the calories of gas, but that’s an easy fix, just make bigger gas tanks.

Corn isn’t really where it’s at, economically. (Can you spell ConAgra?... sure!). I’ve been hearing figures like a 1 to 3 energy in to energy out for corn, but better numbers for sugar cane like 1 to 7. Hell, Cuba might look sweet after Castro dies. Brazil runs on the “worthless, expensive alternative” ethanol. Ethanol production from other sources using bio-technology (weeds or wood requiring no fertilizers) holds some promise. It’s definitely NOT insanity, unless it raises the price of whiskey.

NUKES??? Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that where the French and other politically evolved Euros get most of their electricity??? That alone makes that approach suspect to me. However, I suppose it could be argued it’s so simple to design a nuke, even those who brought us the Peugeot can do it. But even though their supposedly sexy women have spindly legs and an over-rated sense of fashion, the Frenchies do know how to whip up a decent plate of grub.

Let’s face it, every form of energy seem to come with costs other than the selling price. Dirty coal has health costs. Nukes have waste problems. Oil means dependence on unstable foreign sources. Bio has less energy density, requires real estate and still pollutes, maybe in some unforeseen ways. All of these sources are “subsidized” by us in some way, either in hidden health costs or war or political wrangling. (Figure the cost of military “insurance” added to the price of oil).

We sit on some of the largest coal reserves in the world. Gotta say I agree with you on that one. Let’s spend some money on gasification and other research. Now, before it gets really ugly.

We have uranium and it’s scary, but for the most part works well. Unfortunately, there’s the long life waste problem AND the possibility of accidents with catastrophic consequences, hopefully not as crazy as Chernobyl because we design with containment structures. But it seems the design boys need to add in a little common sense with their calculus… I used to live across the Hudson River from Indian Point nuclear plant, and saw a transformer go up in a flash of blue light and sparks during the first New York City blackout. Then there was Three Mile Island. I think having a nuke on a large river thirty miles upstream from New York City, or a nuke on Three Mile Island doesn’t make a lot of sense. If we go nuclear, would you be willing to stash the waste in the geologically stable granite of New Hampshire? I mean, Nevada has already had its share of nuclear waste straight from the bomb, and I don’t think they’re buying it unless it’s rammed down their throats.

Short term solution will probably be a costly combination of lower-energy-rich sources. Realistically, when gas gets expensive enough, it’s ethanol for cars in the near future.

Probably clean burning coal technology for power plants in the long run, maybe fuel conversion from coal and low-grade oils, biofuels, solar, and wind. But they all cost more for a smaller return, and require time and research for developing infrastructure and making economic sense. Solar and wind alone would seem to have astronomically expensive startup costs. Right here, right now, we run on oil. Easing into other sources slowly has got to be the way to go, we don’t want to kill our economy… That’s why I think the approach of committing to a small percent of renewables for our energy is decent. Ultimately, it's all about renewables. Four billion a week could buy a lot of research, but a mega-buck lives-and-treasure long shot, a high stakes gamble for controlling half the world’s oil is certainly the big jackpot, and that's what the neocons are putting our money on. Also underwritten by Uncle Sam. No matter what we do it’s gonna be somewhat painful. Actually, I think you and I mostly agree except for ethanol. Watch and wait…

Chris_82

Dear Ken,...

Perhaps you could post some of these studies? Because some of your data is a little off...

Wind power is a viable source as other green technologies for the future. Your argument about tax incentives is way off and the biggest obstacle to wind power in MA at the moment is the power elite in Cape Cod and their idea that their view of their exclusive beach front property is going to be spoiled. Never mind the fact that the average water depth in that area is 4 feet. They are/ won't be planed for shipping lanes, unless the QE2 once again tries to grow wheels. There are no great fishing areas in 4 feet of water either, they will not be a hazard to navigation, the only fishing in the proposed area are "conk" fishermen who export this considered trash fish to Asia! There is no great bird flyway in this area either! And considering the area is covered in fog and haze over 90% of the time it's a lousy view anyways. Cashman Construction is risking millions in a long term financing deals as well as Evergreen Tech., The government is noticeably absent in this debate and considering most tradesmen and others cannot afford to live in the affected area you’re a little full of some wind on this one with your line of sight argument...So please forward some studies other than those from the national enquirer. And as far as trees...more homless tree owls get barbequed for homes than in wind areas.

Tony Conner_2

I'd Actually Bet That...

... Ken's data is right on.

I haven't posted in some time, but I just CAN'T let this go unchallenged.

You say "Wind power is as viable a source as other green technologies...". Sad as that may be, that is a dead accurate statement. I haven't seen one of these technologies, other than large scale hydroelectric, that has been anything more than a pipedream, or an out-and-out scam to cull money from taxpayers.

The only reason electric utilites have anything at all to do with windpower is that they're routinely mandated to have a certain percentage of their new power generation deemed "renewable energy". So they construct (or fund the construction) of "windfarms". They know full well that these are just for show, but it lets them get on with some real generation capacity, like coal or nukes. And (big surprise) they pretty much fudge the numbers for the output (as in wildly optimistic) of the windmill generators, so they can minimize their losses in these white elephants.

If Cashman Construction and Everygreen are "risking millions" on these schemes, that indicates one of two things: 1/ their management is certifiably insane, or 2/ they're risking somebody else's money. My bet is #2, and the "somebody else's" are probably the taxpayers/ratepayers of the jurisdictions involved. That group likely includes you.

All I can say to sum up, is DO THE MATH, because you're being sold a bill of goods. Windmills are ferociously expensive for the little bit of power they put out. You only even get that little drib of power when the wind is blowing a gale. And, they're ugly eyesores to boot.