linfen, 'the most toxic place on earth' - six videos | ecology news at abelard.org
link to document abstracts latest changes & additions at abelard.org quotations at abelard.org, with source document where relevant      latest news headlines at abelard's news and comment zone link to short briefings documents interesting site links at abelard's news and comment zone about abelard and abelard.org
site map technology zone at abelard.org: how to survive and thrive on the web the France Zone at abelard.org economics and money zone at abelard.org - government swindles and how to transfer money on the net   click for abelard's child education zone Energy - beyond fossil fuels Architectural wonders and joys at abelard.org visit abelard's gallery

news and comment
ecology

topic archives:

ecology
article archives at abelard's news and comment zone
for previously archived article pages

recent ecology news items
amazing water in the oceans and antarctica
lovelock interview
the floods, 20th century version


Custom Search

back to abelard's front page

'Y


linfen, ‘the most toxic place on earth’ - six videos


Part one - 5:13 minutes

“Breathing the air is equivalent to three packs of cigarettes a day”, but it is still far better than London air sixty years ago, during the Great Smog. There are still buildings whose facades are being cleaned sixty years later. The River Thames was dead. 1858 saw the "Great Stink," when the stench [including] raw sewage got so bad [that] Parliament, which meets in a riverside building, had to be dissolved.” Croydon, a charcoal producing area, was so filthy in the 19th century that putting washing out to dry ended with it being more filthy than before it was washed.

Part two- 4:23 minutes, part three - 5:37 minutes,
part four - 5:08 minutes, part five - 4:15 minutes,
part six - x minutes

related material
fossil fuel disasters

Share:

What is this?

the web address for the article above is
http://www.abelard.org/news/ecology0807.php#toxic_linfen_280808





advertising
disclaimer


advertising
disclaimer


advertising
disclaimer




for the moonbat agw denialists - learn to argue a reasonable case

Recommended reading.

“The model evaluates the impacts on agriculture, forestry, energy, water, unmanaged ecosystems, coastal zones, heat and cold deaths and disease. The bottom line is that benefits from global warming right now outweigh the costs (the benefit is about 0.25% of global GDP). Global warming will continue to be a net benefit until about 2070, when the damages will begin to outweigh the benefits, reaching a total damage cost equivalent to about 3.5% of GDP by 2300. This is simply not the end of humanity. If anything, global warming is a net benefit now; and even in three centuries, it will not be a challenge to our civilisation. Further, the IPCC expects the average person on earth to be 1,700% richer by the end of this century.”

“If we are to find a workable and economically smart solution, we would do well to look at the best climate solution from the top economists from the Copenhagen Consensus. They found that, unlike even moderate CO2 cuts, which cost more than they do good, we should focus on investing in finding cheaper low-carbon energy. This requires us to invest massively in energy research and development (R&D). Right now, we don't - because the climate panic makes us focus exclusively on cutting CO2.

“R&D has been dropping worldwide since the early 1980s. If we increased this investment ten-fold, it would still be ten times cheaper than Kyoto, and probably hundreds to thousands of times cheaper than Tickell's proposal. The literature indicates that for every pound invested, we would do £11-worth of good. The reason: because when we all talk about cutting CO2, we might get some well-meaning westerners to put up a few inefficient solar panels on their roof-tops. While it costs a lot, it will do little and have no impact on Chinese and Indian emissions. But if we focus on investing in making cheaper solar panels, they will become competitive sooner, making everyone, including the Chinese and Indians, switch.”

related material
global warming
anthropogenic global warming

Share:

What is this?

the web address for the article above is
http://www.abelard.org/news/ecology0807.php#arguing_agw_150808

eat more kangaroos and save the planet

Image courtesy of Tourism AustraliaIt’s also humane, as kangaroos have amongst the smallest brains relative to size on all known planets.

“According to a new study by the University of New South Wales, farming kangaroos instead of sheep or cattle could lower national greenhouse gases in Australia by 3 percent a year.

“Methane from burps and farts of cows and sheep is an often overlooked contributor to global warming, but it accounts for 67% of Australia’s agricultural sector methane emissions. It also contributes 11% of Australia’s total emissions. In contrast, kangaroos barely produce any methane.”

Share:

What is this?

the web address for the article above is
http://www.abelard.org/news/ecology0807.php#kangaroo_meat_130808

climate models, warming and rainfall
Supporting Online Material for Atmospheric Warming and the Amplification of Precipitation Extremes

“Climate models suggest that extreme precipitation events will become more common in an anthropogenically warmed climate. However, observational limitations have hindered a direct evaluation of model projected changes in extreme precipitation. Here, we use satellite observations and model simulations to examine the response of tropical precipitation events to naturally driven changes in surface temperature and atmospheric moisture content. These observations reveal a distinct link between rainfall extremes and temperature, with heavy rain events increasing during warm periods and decreasing during cold periods. Furthermore, the observed amplification of rainfall extremes is found to be larger than predicted by models, implying that projections of future changes in rainfall extremes due to anthropogenic global warming may be underestimated.”

related material
gathering data to test global warming
global warming
anthropogenic global warming

Share:

What is this?

the web address for the article above is
http://www.abelard.org/news/ecology0807.php#climate_models_100808

filthy coal is a cheaper power source, and far nastier

“CCS is untested for good reason. The technology will add about US$1 billion to the capital cost of a power plant, not including efficiency losses which will demand a quarter more coal burn just to maintain output, and extra water for steam to make up the lost power.”

“In the United States utilities are building 28 coal-fired plants and another 66 are in early planning, as gas price hikes motivate new interest.

“In Europe, Germany is building 16 new plants to come on line by 2012, despite a European Union emissions trading scheme which penalises greenhouse gases. In Italy, Enel is converting to coal from oil-fueled power plants and Britain has endorsed new coal.

“In developing nations, growth is rampant. Poor grid access coupled with frequent blackouts, rapid economic growth and plentiful fuel are driving a frenzy to build new power plants which take just 21 months to build in China.

“Over the past three years, China has added each year new coal plants equivalent to Britain's entire electricity-generating capacity. India has approved eight "ultra mega" plants which will add nearly half again to its present generating capacity.”

related material
fossil fuel disasters
energy economics and fossil fuels—how long do we have?

Share:

What is this?

the web address for the article above is
http://www.abelard.org/news/ecology0807.php#filthy_coal_060808

another terrifying nuclear incident - build more killer coal plants says the filthy fossil fuel industry

“To buttress the point, McCain regularly cites the example of France, which gets about 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear sources. He also highlights the U.S. Navy, in which he served as a fighter pilot and which he boasts has safely operated nuclear power plants in its aircraft and submarines without an accident in 60 years.”

[Atomic aeroplanes, this must be the fossil media - ed.]

“Yet recent events have undercut that message, as well.

“Last week, the Navy announced that one of its nuclear-powered submarines, the USS Houston, had leaked minimally radioactive water earlier this year. An investigation showed water may have been slowly leaking from the valve since March as the Los Angeles-class submarine traveled around the Pacific.

“The total amount of radioactivity released into the environment at each stop was less than one-half a microcurie, equivalent to the radioactivity of a 50-pound bag of fertilizer, but it threatened to damage relations with Japan, where the presence of U.S. nuclear vessels has long been controversial.”

[Oh no, it may damage relationships with Japan - ed.]

Lest the item should be unattributed, this is more Associated Press erudition.

Share:

the web address for the article above is
http://www.abelard.org/news/ecology0807.php#minimal_nuclear_050808

spanish socialist government wants to reduce speed limit to 50mph

Yet again a socialist government attacks the symptoms, not the causes.

But everyone must be ‘equal’. A SUV may go at 50 mph, even if it is burning twice the fuel of a mini.

Cut street lighting in half, even though new solar-LED lamps will drive consumption towards zero; and so on.

“The speed limit will be cut on dual carriageways outside major cities by 20%, bringing it in line with Barcelona, which has already set a top speed of 80 km/h (50 mph).

“Every time we lift our feet off the accelerator, we are improving GDP and employment," Sebastián said. "The era of cheap energy has passed." “

“ With the introduction of a broad swathe of measures between now and 2014, Spain's socialist government hopes to reduce Spain's oil imports by 10% per year, cutting consumption by 44m barrels and saving €4.14bn
(£3.25bn).

“During the country's sweltering summers, air conditioning systems in public buildings will be set no lower than 26C (79F). In winter, Spaniards will be allowed to turn the heating no higher than 21C (70F), with hospitals being the only exception.

“Street lighting is to be reduced by up to 50% and the metro system in many cities will stay open later at weekends to encourage people to leave the cars at home. The government is also to introduce a pilot project for the manufacture of 1m electric or hybrid cars.”

And so on.

end note

  1. Note that both the USA and France are well on the way to replacing all public lighting, from traffic lights to street lighting, with LED lamps.

the web address for the article above is
http://www.abelard.org/news/ecology0807.php#spain_speed_limit_030808

japanese green offices

Fukuoka's town hall offices in the city's last open space. Image: metaefficient.com
Fukuoka’s town hall offices in the city’s last open space. Image:
metaefficient.com

“[...] one side looks like a conventional office building with glass walls, but on the other side there is a huge terraced roof that merges with a park. The garden terraces, which reach up to about 60 meters above the ground, contain some 35,000 plants representing 76 species.”

“The building was constructed on the last remaining green space in the city center, so the architects, Emilio Ambasz & Associates, created a design to preserve the green space as much as possible, while still fitting in a large office building. In addition, a green roof reduces the energy consumption of a building, because it keeps the temperature inside more constant and comfortable. Green roofs also capture rainwater runoff, and support the life of insects and birds.”

The building and is surrounds also provides a green lung in this concrete desert.

related material
architectural wonders and joys at abelard.org

the web address for the article above is
http://www.abelard.org/news/ecology0807.php#fukuoka_green_roof_270708

on weeds, invasive species and air carbon levels

Longish; recommended reading.

“The survivors are an astonishingly plastic group of plants. James Bunce, a plant physiologist with an office down the hall from Ziska’s, has been studying the effect on dandelions (that nemesis of the suburban greenskeeper) of atmospheres artificially enriched with CO2. He found in a series of trials that populations of the familiar weed evolve, changing physically to take advantage of this sort of resource enhancement, within the space of one growing season.

“ "When you change a resource in the environment," Ziska said recently, sitting in his compact office, "you are going to, in effect, favor the weed over the crop. There is always going to be a weed poised genetically to benefit from almost any change."

“Ziska, together with Bunce, has been testing the effects of changing CO2 concentrations on a range of crop and weed species. Wending his way through a basement full of pumps, filters and boxlike aluminum growth chambers, Ziska showed himself to be a connoisseur of atmospheres. Peering at the instrument panel outside one growth chamber, he noted a CO2 concentration of 310 p.p.m. "That’s a 1957 atmosphere, the year of my birth," he said. What he and his colleagues have found, he said, is that weeds benefit far more than crop plants from the changes in CO2 and that the implications of this for agriculture and public health are grave.”

“ The scientists grew the plant at four concentrations of CO2: at 270 p.p.m. (the ambient level at the beginning of the 19th century, before the Industrial Revolution), at 320 p.p.m. (a 1960s level), 370 p.p.m. (a 1990s level) and 420 p.p.m. (the approximate level predicted for 2020 in all the climate-change panel’s estimates). What they found was that an increase of CO2 equivalent to that occurring from 1800 until today raised the total mass of material (the biomass) each cheatgrass plant produced by almost 70 percent. In addition, the composition of the cheatgrass changed as the CO2 level increased, the tissues becoming more carbon-rich so that the plant leaves and stems are less susceptible to decay. In a natural setting, this would mean that the dead material would persist longer, adding yet more fuel for wildfire.”

the web address for the article above is
http://www.abelard.org/news/ecology0807.php#weeds_carbon_220708

solving the population problem


Infinite population growth

Lecture/s by Albert Bartlett.

And Albert Bartlett has recorded another lecture on energy production. This one is an 80-minute, eight part lecture, part one is below.

It is really written for those who need bashing over the head with a sledge-hammer.


Part one of Arithemetic, population, and energy

Part six of the eight-part lecture is the most interesting! In fact, the last three parts are all more interesting than the first five.


On peak oil

related material
population
energy economics

the web address for the article above is
http://www.abelard.org/news/ecology0807.php#population_problem_210708

on camera batteries

Rechargeable and single use AA (LR6) batteries. Image: popphoto.com“We all use them; from camera flashes to television remotes, AA batteries find their way into every home. But just like other energy sources, batteries can be very costly as well. With a wide range of prices from store to store, a bit of comparison shopping may be necessary to find a good deal. Need a 4-pack of alkaline batteries at a tourist trap? Forget about it -- that'll be 10 dollars please.”

After several tests, a rechargeable and a single use battery were chosen.

Rechargeable:

“Energizer's 15 Minute charger and battery set is our top pick in AA batteries. It offers enviable performance, is reasonably priced, and can charge completely in 15 minutes. 15 minutes isn't too much to ask, making this set a great choice for virtually any photographer.

Single use:

“If you need even more power or don't use your camera on a daily basis, Energizer's lithium batteries are our second place pick. These batteries offer the lowest cost per shot of any we've tested, weigh 33-percent less than alkaline batteries, and last significantly longer than any single-use battery we've seen.”

Ecology note:

“Whether recycling your used batteries or sending them to the landfills, it's always a good idea to place a piece of tape over the battery terminals as a safety precaution.”

I think they’re comparing the chargeables on a once-through basis, which seems a bit strange to me.

the web address for the article above is
http://www.abelard.org/news/ecology0807.php#camera_batteries_080708

100 km to the litre, limited edition volkswagon - cost about 25,000 euros

1-litre VW car. Image: vwvortexcom
1-litre VW car. Image: vwvortexcom

“The key objectives in the development were to minimise all driving resistances through lightweight construction and outstanding aerodynamics, and to develop new tyres and running gear components, taking ergonomics, current safety standards and familiar control functions into account. However, the target, a fuel consumption level of one litre per 100 kilometres, meant abandoning conventional vehicle concepts. With a width of just 1.25 metres, the 1-litre car is extraordinarily narrow, the driver and passenger sit in tandem, the transversely installed engine is centrally located in front of the rear axle, the plastic bodywork has the highly aerodynamic shape of a teardrop. In close cooperation with numerous suppliers, existing components were examined, assessed and modified, and brand new concepts were advanced. This was the case in particular for the wheels/tyres, the starter-alternator, the bodywork and the lighting.”

“The passive safety level corresponds to that of a GT sports car registered for racing. With the aid of computer simulations (CAE = Computer Aided Engineering), all kinds of crash types were investigated and the vehicle designed accordingly. So-called crash tubes, with integrated pressure sensors for airbag control in the front end of the car, absorb the entire deformation energy, leaving the footwell unaffected. The aluminium fuel tank - with a filler opening designed for automated robotised filling - is located in the collision-protected area behind the passenger.

“Furthermore, active safety is provided by the latest-generation four-channel ABS and the electronic stability program ESP.”

“Safe braking is assured by four alloy disc brakes and alloy brake calipers, combined with the latest generation anti-lock brake system. An electronic parking brake on the rear axle ensures safe parking of the vehicle.”

  • Engine: One-cylinder diesel engine with just 0.3 litre displacement
    “[The] engine is a single-cylinder diesel with an automated, direct sequential gearbox. Crankcase and cylinder head of the 0.3-liter engine in monoblock design aluminium. Basically, it is a single-SDI [diesel injection] not a derivative of a known engine, but a very technologically sophisticated new development.”
    [Google-translated from VW website, 2008]
  • Gearbox: automated direct shift gearbox
    Starter-alternator, start-stop system and freewheel function help save fue
  • Running gear: Double-wishbone front axle weighs no more than eight kilograms
    De-Dion principle rear axle; each wheel weighs only 1.8 kilograms
  • Electrics: Top-quality electronics with low energy consumption
    Headlights with Bi-Xenon and daylight beam
    Rear light clusters and turn signals in LED technology
  • Interior: Monitors in the cockpit and external cameras instead of mirrors

the web address for the article above is
http://www.abelard.org/news/ecology0807.php#1_litre_vw_050708

on driving 10,000 miles a year

Driving 10,000 miles, which gives you the greater fuel advantage?

Buying a 50 mpg [miles per gallon] vehicle to replace a 34 mpg vehicle, or replacing a 12mpg SUV with a 14mpg Ferrari?

By driving the 14 mpg Ferrari instead of the 12 mpg SUV, you save 119 gallons per year.

The calculations:
12 miles per gallon is 833 gallons;
14 miles per gallon, it’s 714 gallons.

Driving a 50mpg car, instead of the 34mpg car, you save 94.1 gallons per year.

Hey, that’s still about $400 if this is the USA, or around £500 in the UK (which is, say, $1,000 at present).

And you wonder why there are more efficient vehicles in Europe!

Of course, you’d save 633 gallons a year if you swapped your 12 mpg SUV for the 50 mpg car. That is, $2,400, or £3,000.

[I have ignored whether this is US gallons or UK gallons, because it doesn’t matter the way the question is asked J.]

the web address for the article above is
http://www.abelard.org/news/ecology0807.php#driving10k_050708

You are here: ecology news from July 2008 < News < Home

Marker at abelard.org


latest abstracts briefings information   hearing damage memory France zone

email abelard email abelard at abelard.org

© abelard, 2008, 05 july
all rights reserved

variable words
prints as increasing A4 pages (on my printer and set-up)