Gut Rumbles
 

October 09, 2003

The children

I got this delusional view of the world from a child today. At least I HOPE it was from a child. It may have been from a typical Californian.

My science teacher said to find information on the webv about engergy. Why do you want to make eclectric from coal. Coal is bad way to do it. Acid rain is very harmful to the environment. Acid rain damages everything over a period of time because it makes the living things in the environment die. Acid rain affects the life in the water as well as the life on land. It is almost worse in water than on land because the fish that are in the water need the water to breathe. When the water gets polluted, then the fish get sick and end up dying. Please write back to say why you think it is a good idea.Thank you Jason.

Jason, I hope with all my heart that someday you'll stop listening to the shit being pounded into your brain and learn to think for yourself. I don't have a lot of hope for you, because your all-wise and all-knowing teachers haven't taught you to write, punctuate or spell, but they've made you a farking EXPERT on the evils of coal burning power plants. Somebody needs to SLAP your mama and daddy for allowing that crime to occur. That that's what Public brainwashing School is all about today, isn't it?.

Jason, I have a homework assignment for you. Search the web. Go to "Google" and plug in BACT. If that doesn't give you a lot of sources, try BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY. Then get back with me on acid rain and the evils of coal-burning power plants.

Jason, there is no excuse for being ignorant. You CHOOSE that path if you are easily led. You are listening to people who cut figures out of construction paper and made a college degree out of it. I've worked in a chemical plant for 24 years. Jason, who do YOU think really knows what's going on?

Jason, I don't know how old you are, but I would like to talk to you some more. Write me at my email address on this page. Ask me any question you want and I'll answer the ones I can. If I can't answer, I'll point you to a place where you can find the answers. If you don't write me, I'll write YOU.

We'll talk about coal and boilers and generators and scrubbers. After that, you'll be thrown out of school for DARING to challenge your dumbass teacher with facts about coal and boilers and generators and scrubbers. Well, face it, Jason.

If your teacher WANTED you to know facts, he/she wouldn't be pumping your head full of bullshit at such an early age.

Comments

Lighten up Rob. If you're trying to influence young minds you're going about it the wrong way. The kid's got a point. The EPA provides a curriculum for schools. This bit is right out of the book my daughter uses in the 7th grade.
"""Acid rain" is a broad term used to describe several ways that acids fall out of the atmosphere. A more precise term is acid deposition, which has two parts: wet and dry.
Wet deposition refers to acidic rain, fog, and snow. As this acidic water flows over and through the ground, it affects a variety of plants and animals. The strength of the effects depend on many factors, including how acidic the water is, the chemistry and buffering capacity of the soils involved, and the types of fish, trees, and other living things that rely on the water.
Dry deposition refers to acidic gases and particles. About half of the acidity in the atmosphere falls back to earth through dry deposition. The wind blows these acidic particles and gases onto buildings, cars, homes, and trees. Dry deposited gases and particles can also be washed from trees and other surfaces by rainstorms. When that happens, the runoff water adds those acids to the acid rain, making the combination more acidic than the falling rain alone.
Prevailing winds blow the compounds that cause both wet and dry acid deposition across state and national borders, and sometimes over hundreds of miles.""

We both know the primary source of acid rain is from burning of fossile fuels--especially coal.

The problem with BACT is that it still is not widely used--there's no economic incentive--and even minimizing harmful emission leaves enough to pollute the environment. People in the west are spoiled by cheap energy. If they had to pay for the consequences of the pollution they cause in the east it wouldn't be so cheap and they would turn to other methods. The forests, lakes, water, wildlife, soil ruined by acid rain would add up to quite a sum. Surely you can see that.

Posted by: David on October 10, 2003 10:30 AM

nothing delusional about what that kid said A-man. He's quite right about acid rain. Why don't you do a Google search and learn something you obviously know nothing about.

Oh, btw, nice way to talk to a kid. no wonder you are alone.

Posted by: Ace on October 10, 2003 10:37 AM

Acid rain affects lakes, streams, rivers, bays, ponds and other bodies of water by increasing their acidity until fish and other aquatic creatures can no longer live. Aquatic plants grow best between pH 7.0 and 9.2 (Bourodemos). As acidity increases (pH numbers become lower), submerged aquatic plants decrease and deprive waterfowl of their basic food source. At pH 6, freshwater shrimp cannot survive. At pH 5.5, bottom-dwelling bacterial decomposers begin to die and leave undecomposed leaf litter and other organic debris to collect on the bottom. This deprives plankton--tiny creatures that form the base of the aquatic food chain--of food, so that they too disappear. Below a pH of about 4.5, all fish die.
As undecomposed organic leaf-litter increases, owing to the loss of bottom-dwelling bacteria, toxic metals such as aluminum, mercury and lead within the litter are released. Other metal flows into the water from the soils in the surrounding watershed.
These toxic metals are bad for human health; high lead levels may harm people who drink such water and people who ingest mercury in tainted fish suffer serious health problem

Posted by: Rizzo on October 10, 2003 10:48 AM

It seems to me that it would be a LOT MORE HARMFUL TO HUMAN BEINGS not to have electric power. Oh wait--that was already proven by what happened in France!!

The above comments seem to be from people who understand science a lot better than me--but--isn't part of applying science and technolgy supposed to involve risk-benefit analysis?

Personally, I don't want to live like some primitive tribesman with no lights, running water or sewage treatment plants run by electricity from coal burning plants. Now that sounds more like an eco-disaster scenario to me.

Posted by: Sue Bob on October 10, 2003 12:30 PM

I work in a chemical plant that makes acid. I am an analyzer specialist that maintains and designs analyzers in our plant. I maintain the emisions monitors along with process optimizing equipment. David you are wrong about the BACT equipment. Any company that wants to compete in the market now days has to become more efficient. They are looking at any way to save a buck. They might not be using BACT but something close. We are using Aspen. People need an education in environment . Did anyone know what rotting plants give off. They give of CO and methane. Lets bury all plants so that we reduce CO emisions then. Of course we would have to quite beathing too because plants exchange our exhaled CO for Oxygen. Lets move on to acid. The indians used tanic acid for taning leather. Tanic acid is made by putting leaves in water. Try leaveing leaves in a jar of water for a while then check the pH. There we go burying trees again. Try checking the pH of a lemon or your cola. Damn some more acid. Dog shit was used to tan leather in the early 1900s. I would think that any shit would do the same. Lets bury all animals now. People that dont want any new power plants, chemical plants, or refineries need to reconsider. Newer plants are more efficient and have less emissions, providing more product with less fuel. It seems that there are a lot of dumb people out there. Thier idea of a cleaner enviroment is not such a bad idea but the way they are going about it is wrong. We need new more efficient facilities. I laughed my ass off at California when they were going though thier power problems. They are so tied up with making it so hard for a plant to be built there that none were built. I think they got what they deserved. When it came right down to it they didnt want to pay for it. The tree huggers sure want cleaner envirorment but when the price of a gallon of gas goes up they are the first to hollar same with the price of electricity. I bet they use disposalble diapers. Guess what they made of. They made of acrillic acid. Or if they use old time diapers guess what the water is treated with. Polymers made from acid. How about the paint on thier house and cars. More acid. The plastic on thier cars that make them lighter and more efficient is made from acrilyc acid. The motor oil has polymers that make it stable under more conditions. I bet they aint riding a horse to town. If they keep pushing with more enviromently laws to the point that companies start building plants out of our country where there are little or no laws then they are in a self destruct spin and well take us with them. Dont get me wrong I want clean air and water but they seem to take it too far. We need newer plants. It should be easier to get permits to build a facilty. We need more power plants so that electricity is cheaper. A new power plant is more eficiient than older plants meaning it will pollute less.

Posted by: Dan on October 10, 2003 12:59 PM

I watched something on the Discovery Channel about one of those super rigs being deployed up in the Nova Scotia area. It is an amazing beast.

The technology used today to locate oil pockets is pretty fascinating. Thing that troubled me is that the pocket they are attempting to extract could heat NYC for 1 year.

That didn't seem like a whole heck of a lot. What are your thoughts on this?

What will be the next step in energy? Energy efficient use of fossile fuel or a new source of energy? And will anyone ever figure out how to utilize the 75% (correct me if I'm wrong) of energy wasted in a fuel burning engine?

Posted by: donawana on October 10, 2003 04:33 PM

Dan you forgot about brain tanning. The indians used the brains of an animal to tan the hide (the lipids in the brain matter did the job or some damn thing). they believed that every animal had just enough of the right crap in its grey matter to tan its own hide. So bury everyone's heads as well. Except for these liberal eco-tards who don't have enough brains to tan their own foreskins.

Posted by: Graumagus on October 11, 2003 12:16 AM

...your all-wise and all-knowing teachers haven't taught you to write, punctuate or spell, but they've made you a farking EXPERT on the evils of coal burning power plants.
That's great !
I wondered how old he was, as I read the letter. You read my mind !