Happy New Year
In Western Europe, in the preindustrial Middle Ages, man’s life expectancy was 30 years. In the nineteenth century, Europe’s population grew by 300 percent—which is the best proof of the fact that for the first time in human history, industry gave the great masses of people a chance to survive.
If it were true that a heavy concentration of industry is destructive to human life, one would find life expectancy declining in the more advanced countries. But it has been rising steadily. Here are the figures on life expectancy in the United States (from the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company):
- 1900: 47.3 years
- 1920: 53 years
- 1940: 60 years
- 1968: 70.2 years (the latest figures compiled)
Anyone over 30 years of age today, give a silent “Thank you” to the nearest, grimiest, sootiest smokestacks you can find" - Ayn Rand, Return of the Primitive
If it were true that a heavy concentration of industry is destructive to human life, one would find life expectancy declining in the more advanced countries. But it has been rising steadily. Here are the figures on life expectancy in the United States (from the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company):
- 1900: 47.3 years
- 1920: 53 years
- 1940: 60 years
- 1968: 70.2 years (the latest figures compiled)
Anyone over 30 years of age today, give a silent “Thank you” to the nearest, grimiest, sootiest smokestacks you can find" - Ayn Rand, Return of the Primitive
KYFHO
happy new year, zen
Happy New Year, Pirate!
It's really hard with this peg leg you know.
resoluction won
shoot. we're supposed to really just enjoy this place....maybe new landscaping and some fresh pillows in punched up colors
Okay maybe not so much...maybe the wine is talking or maybe its the very loud cannon sounds down my street that have me jumpy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTQfGd3G6...
Happy New Year :)
Overall, the reason things have gotten better is because pollution, as you know, is a waste by-product which is a potential source of revenue. If we are talking smokestacks-that black soot is unburned or partially burned fuel. therefore, the operators have every incentive to reduce that soot and increase the amount of energy they're extracting. to give you an idea of how useless the EPA is, when they first regulated coal-fired smokestacks, they mandated everyone put in expensive scrubbers. but the net result or standard the EPA was shooting for could have been met by switching to "hard" coal. BUT a very powerful senator, Sen Byrd from WV, demanded this solution, otherwise coal mines would have been put out of business. Increasing (not stunting through regs and laws) your level of technology is how to best reduce pollution. Capitalism inherently results in less pollution over time. I have posted in here before studies showing that the most advanced most capitalistic countries have the least pollution and vice versa.
I've worked with technology that can effectively refine and introduce 4000 mesh versus 200 mesh size coal into power generation boiler systems. (.003 Inch vs .0003 inch) Geometrically increasing exposure of volatiles. The operations engineers love this. Initial tests show the reduction of sulphates and nitrates by more than 60% over presently "scrubbed" systems. Effective reduction of the boiler by 50% and reduction of fuel consumption by 4%...conservatively (Cost of coal per ton $34 at 900 ton per hour ....Becker, MN). Present mechanical grinding systems replaced by HVLP air systems. Maintenance on grinding surfaces is laborious and costly (direct expenses on machines and down time and the need for extra machinery to cover the throughput of machines in overhaul). Conservative estimates of overhauling the replacement machinery is once in 12 years. This is based on a history of the equipment being used in classifying hematite and magnetite sands over a 10 year period. (Classifier rings and injection nozzles replaced every 6 months in the aforementioned.) Cost of "rings" and injector tubes $1200 and one Man-day of labor per machine.
Now....the flip-side.
I've had two occasions to share with the "late" Bill Bottum (Bottum & Townsend), a powerplant engineering and manufacturing firm. Powerplant profit margins are Federally regulated to, at that time, 7% of annual gross. Per Bill "It will not be in the best interests of the stockholders to implement". I asked if this is what happened to the Aveco-Everett MHD project of the late 60's. Sadly...yes. You can look this up for your reference. In a nutshell....a proposed 50 KWH generator only produced 25 KWH from a 3500 degree plasma stream. The mechanations of "THEY" failed to disclose that the potential of capturing all the useable "heat" in the system through an extended series of superheat tubes may have yielded 75 to 100 KWH electric output. I expressed "pushing" the issue in trying to find someone to use this new technology, or, in trying to affect some type of legislative process or exemption. Very easily Mr. Bottum explained, at best, I'd be ignored....worst ....disappeared.
It wouldn't be sexy for a politicians to say, "Nothing we do is really going to move the needle that much, but we still need be here to address new problems and try to have a positive influence on them."
Regarding the pollution problem, we should be able to calculate the price of pollution by comparing rent prices in areas that are similar except in levels of pollution. Then we could multiply that cost by the number of people affected and charge it to polluters. Polluters would make a business decision about moving to a remote area vs. cleaning their process vs producing a non-polluting product. Geographical location wouldn't be an option for CO2 or CFC pollutants, but they could still weigh the cost and produce loads of pollutants if their process will make something of extreme value to customers. Someone might even invent some huge vats of CO2-consuming chemicals or something and collect monies for doing it, allowing other producers to emit more CO2. Any system like this will have to be enforced by the gov't, which means it will be crappy. Engineers and business leaders of the world will have to act independently.
A favorite one of mine is the big push against plastic bags. Studies show that the forced move from plastic to cloth creates more pollution in the total cycle of product life. and throw in food poisoning. or electric cars. opportunity costs matter and often they work against the stated goal in the first place.
----
"I've lost track of my cup," Alex said.
"In the old days," Sherrine whispered in Alex's ear, "there would have been plastic or styrofoam cups."
"Nonbiodegradable plastic or styrofoam cups," said Degler, appearing out of nowhere.
"Bullshit," said Sherrine. "Plastics are recyclable. Shred it and melt it and make more. The fact that no one bothered gave plastic a bad rep."
"Well, not quite," Degler said, fingering his beard and grinning. "There are EPA rules that forbid the recycling of certain plastics. The styrofoam used by fast-food chains was chemically recyclable; but the EPA forbade it because"-—he gave an exaggerated shudder-—"because it had once touched food."
-----
-----
"Yeah, and they replaced the stuff with coated paper, that was also nonbiodegradable and nonrecyclable. So the rules had zero impact on the environment and the landfills . . . And why are you laughing, Tom?"
"What if it was on purpose?"
"What do you mean? "
-----(cut for length)
Dealer glanced left and right, and leaned forward. Everyone else instinctively leaned toward him. "I meant, what if it was on purpose? There was a company in California that bought chemical wastes from other companies; processed the waste and broke it down; and sold the end products as feed stock. Closed loop recycling. The state EPA shut them down."
"Why?" asked Alex.
Degler eyed him, and again glanced conspiratorially around the room. "Because the EPA rules required that chemical wastes be put in fifty-five-gallon drams and stored."
"Why, that is pomyéshanniy," Gordon said. "If we did so on Freedom, would soon die. Cannot afford to waste waste. Is too valuable."
If the Downer Greens were serious about recycling and waste reduction, Alex mused, they should be clamoring to communicate with the stations. Who-—on Earth or off-—knew more about the subject than the Floaters. It isn't just our quality of life, it's our lives.
"Exactly," said Degler. "So why do so many environmental regulations wind up, harming the environment? I say, what if it's on purpose?"
"Can't be," said someone in the crowd. "What purpose?"
"Yeah, who would gain?"
"The Babbage Society? "
"No, the Greens. The Greens would gain job security," said someone else.
"Job security how? They're pledged to clean things up."
"No they aren't," said Tom Degler with a grin. "They're pledged to advocate rules whose apparent purpose is to make someone else clean things up."
"That's right. There's a difference. The rules only require actions, not results."
"I have a question," said an elderly fan. "Why did the Greens become so popular back in the '90s, which was after the worst pollution had been already cleaned up? None of you kids remembers the old days, when coal smoke blanketed every city and the Cuyahoga River caught fire."
-----
http://www.baenebooks.com/chapters/06717...
Fallen Angels
In honor of the occassion, I give you:
How Laziness Sharpens a Pencil
(or the driving force behind most innovation):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rz_rromgj...