Slashdot Mirror

> Utility officials have already stated that even during peak hours they have the capacity to cope with even several years worth of increases ...

Several years worth of increases at what level?

All of these estimates are based on the current level of plug in vehicle growth, which has been approximately ZERO per year.

In 2006 7,667,066 passenger vehicles were produced in JUST the US.

Assuming the Volt and imitators are wildly popular and garners 1 million sales:

1 million vehicles
25KWH per 100 miles (chevy's press release in TFA)
12000 miles per year (epa estimates)
12000 / 100 * 25kwh = 3,000,000,000 KWh / year

Or 3000 Gigawatts per million vehicles per year.

Since the US DOE says we have about 1087 Gigawatt total production capacity this suggest we will be short by 2 thirds.

So just WHERE were your figures coming from?

1 gallon of Gas

Unfortunately, that in itself doesn't allow us to calculate us the C02/Mile equation, but it's a start.

Look at the testing yourself and see the potential loopholes. There's no reason to guess here. The information is available.

So far that's what I see:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9984384-54.html

Maybe it's 5kW to start and 2kW to run.

The compressor has a cooling performance of 3.4kW, according to: http://www.epa.gov/cppd/Presentations/Matsunaga%20electric%20inverter.pdf

But I can't figure out the power consumption from that document - there are no units in the relevant graphs. And that doesn't include the fans/blowers.

Your faith in the environmental efficacy of government over corporations may be a tad misplaced. If you look at the list of superfund sites you will find a fair number of military bases and contractors operating under the auspices of support contracts from the government.

I remember in the 1980's working on a military base and seeing that they still carried DDT on trucks to kill bugs. I didn't have a big problem with that, other than that it would have been felonious to use in any place in the country at the time.

(Of course, now we're finding that judicious use of DDT in Africa may save thousands of lives, but it took a while to apply science to the miasma of FUD.)

As for money savings, there's an availability question too. We in the mid-Atlantic region with a fair number of operating reactors haven't faced anywhere near the energy fiascoes that California with their arguably kneejerk "no new plants" policies have endured. As a result of availability, not only haven't we seen rolling brownouts like California has, our prices are lower as well.

a great way to spend the afternoon, huh?

The problem with these instructions is from officials being paranoid. Look at the instructions for a mercury thermometer break just below, it's a lot less paranoid for something like 10,000x the mercury.

http://www.epa.gov/hg/spills/

Why do you insist on posting your own fantasies as if they had anything to do with the truth?

Have you told Penn State College of Agricultures Diary and Animal Science you know more than they do yet?

The UMass link you provide says nothing about greenhouses gases. The closest it comes to the word "gas" is "gasketing". And though the other link does us "gas" and "carbon dioxide" it says nothing about whether greenhouse gases, which is not used.

You have provided no links to evidence to support your position but I have, including the Penn State link above which you obviously did not read or you're just acting like a troll. Just in case you're not trolling here are some more links:

• What is the Greenhouse Effect?
• Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change
• Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Everglades: The Role of Hydrologic Conditions

Now unless you provide links to support your position I can only conclude you are trolling. And the 2 links you did provide did not do so.

Falcon

"With that being said, it almost seems that cars aren't getting more fuel efficient. The original Insight got 51 mpg according to consumer reports, and the new one gets something only like 38mpg."

The method by which the EPA estimated MPG was changed for 2008 models.
Regulatory Announcement: EPA Proposes New Test Methods for Fuel Economy Window Stickers

I also agree with previous slashdot posters. Alcohol, Gasoline, and Diesel taxes should be increased to reflect the higher levels of road wear & tear heavier vehicles inflict upon our infrastructure. Likewise, heavier vehicles are more likely to cause more roadway fatalities and major injuries (higher insurance/medical/disability costs?).

In my state, heavier vehicles already have increased annual registration fees, but those numbers are in no way in proportion to the wear and tear or the higher risks involved in collisions.

In a world where global warming threatens our very existence, every effort must be directed towards encouraging the use of safe/lightweight/high efficiency vehicles. This proposed GPS tracking policy would run contrary to those goals, and could make the AGW problem even worse by delaying roll out of these desperately needed high efficiency vehicles.

This Article finds that the emissions reduction approach would be ineffective at solving the dangerous climate change effects of global warming because it would be technically risky, inflexible, extremely expensive, and politically unrealistic, and would probably delay more effective and vastly less expensive measures using solar radiation management.

So he clearly does think that Global Warming is real and dangerous. No, he also believes that it can be solved by the well proven science of geo-engineering!

One does have to look at the broader context in situations like this.

First point, since it has some humor value, is that Carlin's field is economics. He is expert in the same studies and techniques as those wonderful quants who gave the financial world those marvelous risk management tools called "derivatives". Economics was nick-named "the dismal science" for a couple of reasons, one being a reference to the quality of the extrapolations that economists have used in their predictions.

More serious points: this news is presented to the world through the Competitive Enterprise Institute. It has a $3 million+ annual budget, and is supported by donations from ExxonMobil, American Petroleum Institute, Dow Chemical, General Motors, Ford Motor Company, Phillip Morris, and others. It is characterized as a "libertarian" think tank ideologically opposed to any government regulation of business conduct. It has taken an active role in advocating for "free-market environmentalism" where corporations and not governments would determine the best way to manage the environment. It has been a continuing, constant critic of global warming concerns. (See Wikipedia article, also validation of primary source, also Google on "Competitive Enterprise Institute".)

WRT Alan Carlin himself: he has been in the US Civil Service for 38 years, so he is fully vested in one of the best retirement packages in the world, and he is at retirement age. His title is "Senior Operations Research Analyst" at the National Center for Environmental Economics of the EPA. He would be at the top of his pay scale at this point, and it is unlikely that continued Federal employment has anything to offer him that he would be interested in doing (a common theme through the papers he has published in the last few years shows a bias against the kinds of Federal protections that the Obama Administration is involved in setting up). It is not at all unlikely that he will soon start drawing his Federal pension and begin a second career in the private sector as a consultant with expertise on EPA matters, or as a staff person in a think tank not unlike CEI. (see synopsis of A. Carlin's career.)

WRT the emails that were sent to Carlin, that were then mysteriously leaked to the national media through CEI: Carlin attempted to inject his argument against a policy decision into the works after he would have known that the period for such commentary was closed. Further, he was acting out of his area of expertise, which is economics, by attempting a review of the recent literature of climate research papers. Further, and to me most telling, is that he admits that he has not formatted his work in accordance with EPA standards, nor is providing proper citations that would allow distinguishing between crap and peer reviewed papers. I see this clearly showing that he had an ulterior motive of monkeywrenching the process, since his past publications show that he knows very well how to write these kinds of papers. It looks very much like he knew his work would be rejected, planned on having it rejected, and planned on collecting the emails that he would receive afterward to use in the way that these emails have been used. (See the .pdf referred to in the article summary, and note that the 4 emails were cherry picked from a much longer body of correspondence.)

BTW, taken in context,the quote from Carlin's boss, "The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward...and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision," takes on a very different meaning. What Carlin is being told is that discussion has moved on from what the science is to what the legal and societal implications are, and how to frame a policy that addresses those c

Umm, injecting CO2 into oil wells to enhance recovery has been used for some time, limited primarily by supplies of CO2. Injection into empty gas wells is doable as well, and somewhat more exotic approaches(like bubbling the stuff through algae farms) aren't too far outside the realm of the currently possible.

As for CFLs, Recyclers aren't too hard to find. (More generally, mercury containing florescent lamps(mostly the conventional long-tube type) have been used in commercial and industrial applications for decades; because they are cheap and last a long time. Somehow, nobody worried at all about that, until they became associated with the evil environmental movement, at which point their mercury content became a talking point. Funny how that works...)

Just remember if you break a CFL to follow these important Steps EPA.
Glenn Beck has a wonderful joke about it on his show.

They listened to those complaints and instituted slightly better "real world" type testing methods, starting with the 2008 model years. However..they still don't do outside the dyno testing, which they should. At best, it is a compromise from the previous which was woefully skewed to make mileage look better.

It's been suggested before, in Albuquerque, (build a green roof). Their references? Here and Here. Albuquerque isn't that large of city (~half million people, can go from edge to edge in 20 minutes, with traffic... 12 without), so I'm not sure it would do too much on the grand scheme of things for the entire city to "go green" with their roofing.

Whoah, in one breath midwesterners are stupid luddites and in the next you advocate the core political views beneath the Hollywood smear campaigns. You and those dumb would agree that the day the government mandates this kind of market meddling is the day things went wrong. But then, is corn the first time the government has attempted this? What would be the price of coal, oil or highways without government micromanagement? Ever since my grandfather told me about running tractor engines on a blend of ethanol and more than 50% water (steam injection) I suspected that it should play a part in our fuel mix. Yes, steam injection was hard on engine, but think about ceramics and other technology we have now. If Detroit had put its mind to it. The same is true of the negative energy balance, the use of corn instead of cellulosic ethanol... To paraphrase Reagan, Ethanol isn't the problem, the government is.

Thankfully those of us dumb enough to believe in the possibilities of ethanol fuel were spared the MTBE fiasco our more environmentally enlightened oil industry friends in California and elsewhere had to go through. My part of the midwest has sold up to 10% ethanol since the 1980s if not earlier and I've run everything from late 60s V8 engines not even designed for unleaded (150k miles) to high compression Mazdas (>200,000 miles) on this mix. Maybe someone is trying to cover up a QA problem with American cars by using ethanol as a scapegoat.

from TFA:

Fourth, forget what biofuels have done to the price of foodstuffs worldwide over the past three years; the science seems to suggest that using ethanol increases global warming emissions over the use of straight gasoline

Really? According to whom? The EPA says that using ethanol in place of gasoline reduces GHG emissions by 21.8% when compared on an energy-equivalent basis.

Just to add to the fun:

There are federally mandated warranty periods on emissions systems that can actually exceed the warranty period of the vehicle. Some components are covered up to 80,000 miles.

See http://www.epa.gov/obd/warranties.htm

For the last decade at least, the UK and the rest of Europe has had diesel cars the size of an Accord / Aura / Fusion which could average 42mpg (50mpg Imp.) in mixed driving - at least it was never a problem for me - urban driving reduces the mileage of course.

Presuming that you're attempting to limit CO2 emissions your 42mpg diesel emits as much CO2 as a 36mpg gasoline powered car.

Diesel has 2778 grams of Carbon per gallon while gasoline has only 2421. (Source: The EPA.

There are a fair number of 36mpg cars on the road today.

Peter

--of course I have job sites on sewer pumping stations and waste-water treatment plants.

Not only does it smell bad where I work, but it can kill you if you're not careful. People dump all sorts of things down the drain that they shouldn't. I've heard stories of entire tanker loads of gasoline getting dumped, Ether, Perc, Jet fuel, and some mysterious stuff that glowed blue coming from what used to be called the National Bureau of Standards (now NIST).

During large thunderstorms, the sewer pipes often see huge flows that scour all the grease that people dump down the drain (DON'T DUMP GREASE DOWN THE DRAIN!) in to large globs the size of beach balls. These tend to block flow at the waste-water stations and cause sewer backup until someone can get down there and pitch-fork it apart.

And Mike Rowe thinks HE does dirty jobs...

It interesting to be called misinformed when the reply contains dubious info. Round does NOT biodegrade into harmless chemicals. Simply viewing the documentary the Future of Food or the World According to Monsanto would dispell that.

You can find these films here

http://www.hulu.com/watch/67878/the-future-of-food
and here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_OJcPKEYDE

Round Up is not allowed to state that its biodegradable in France and many European countries because it's not.

I heavily question who Jane Q Public works for because it's like straight out a corporate sales brochure.

The second part about it being some different soy - how is this exactly? And how does one know they aren't getting the GMO soy in the ink? You didn't really address the subject. 90 percent of soy grown is GMO and Monsanto is actively keeping other seeds out of the hands of farmers. So how do they choose not to grow it when they are forced into this by a lack of other options.

Also the GMO crops have never been fully studied and neither has round up because of corruption in the FDA and government. But everything that has been studied has shown why Monsanto wanted to avoid these studies, because none of it is good for human health.

So here are some more links so you can really be informed.

this first straight from the epa with prolonged exposure to these herbicides leading to kidney damage and reproductive effects.
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwh/c-soc/glyphosa.html

http://www.naturescountrystore.com/roundup/index.html

http://www.for-wild.org/download/roundupmyth/roundupmyth.html

I'm not sure about printing because I've never used it for that, but I've seen soy based paint and concrete stain used with magnificent results. Traditional stains and paints leach nasty chemicals for years after application so going to a soy or clay based product will greatly reduce the airborne toxins (aka VOCs) in your living environment.

Of course, use CFLs. The same CFLs that contain large amounts of mercury. The same CFLs that cost an environmental cleanup crew $2000 to clean up if you break one and follow proper procedure.

Bullshit. I'm getting tired of this anti-CFL FUD.

CFLs contain tiny amounts of mercury -- in the best bulbs, about 1-1.5 mg, a fraction of the amount in the standard fluorescent lights we've all had in our offices and homes for decades. If your electricity comes from coal (as it does for most of the US), more mercury is kept out of the air by the electricity savings versus an incandescent bulb than is released if the CFL is trashed.

And of course they can and should be recycled. So during a normal lifecycle, no mercury is released from a CFL.

The $2000 figure for the cost of clean-up for a broken CFL is an urban legend based upon a comedy of errors between one ignorant consumer, one inept state bureaucrat, and one greedy contractor. Proper procedure if one is broken is basically to open a window, air out the room, and clean the glass up really well. If you want to go all-out, a mercury spill clean-up kit runs about $35.

You've got at least a dozen things in your house more dangerous than the mercury from a broken CFL.

Of course, use CFLs. The same CFLs that contain large amounts of mercury. The same CFLs that cost an environmental cleanup crew $2000 to clean up if you break one and follow proper procedure.

Bullshit. I'm getting tired of this anti-CFL FUD.

CFLs contain tiny amounts of mercury -- in the best bulbs, about 1-1.5 mg, a fraction of the amount in the standard fluorescent lights we've all had in our offices and homes for decades. If your electricity comes from coal (as it does for most of the US), more mercury is kept out of the air by the electricity savings versus an incandescent bulb than is released if the CFL is trashed.

And of course they can and should be recycled. So during a normal lifecycle, no mercury is released from a CFL.

The $2000 figure for the cost of clean-up for a broken CFL is an urban legend based upon a comedy of errors between one ignorant consumer, one inept state bureaucrat, and one greedy contractor. Proper procedure if one is broken is basically to open a window, air out the room, and clean the glass up really well. If you want to go all-out, a mercury spill clean-up kit runs about $35.

You've got at least a dozen things in your house more dangerous than the mercury from a broken CFL.

Eliminate odors electronically and help repair that pesky hole in the ozone while you're at it

And trigger problems for anyone who has Asthma, COPD, or other respiratory aliments. Ozone is actually a pretty nasty irritant http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/ozonegen.html. Its one of the reasons Sharper Image had several class action lawsuits about the ionic breeze, and one of the things they tried to repress Consumer Reports from releasing data on.

Knowing cabs it would either be broken or increase the ozone above 0.50 ppm.

Oh, really? Not according to the US government. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html Paper doesn't even show up, and all of the "industrial" processes (as opposed to home heating, electricity generation, and transportation) make up less than 7% of US emissions, so paper-making is barely a roundoff error. I'm not arguing that the paper companies aren't taking advantage of a loophole, but to suggest that this is having any meaningful impact on emissions one way or the other is ludicrous.

I'll call your bullshit and raise you a citation please:

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf
http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanair/factsheets/power.asp
http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/mercury/sources.asp
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3/fact_sheets/fs_util.pdf

Wow, it certainly seems that a lot of people think that coal power plants are the prime emitters of mercury. Care to show some citations that say otherwise?

No? Then please keep your BS to yourself.

Actually, yes, I would be, considering that the toxins found in various computer parts are not readily airborne, whereas the mercury in a CFL is.

How is not wanting to inhale mercury from a broken CFL "spreading fear and lies"? I may have been modded Flamebait, but that doesn't make me wrong.

If it matters, the EPA recommends leaving the room "for 15 minutes or more" after opening a window if you break a CFL - and doing so again the next several times you vacuum, if you broke it on carpet.

How long should I leave the room if it doesn't have windows? Would a few hours suffice? Do my earlier comments suddenly make sense?

Is the EPA a luddite organization spreading fear and lies?

(By the way, I'm a regular on slashdot, I'm a computer programmer by hobby and profession, and I enjoy tinkering with electronics in general. I'm hardly a luddite. If you're going to insult me, at least use your terms correctly.)

The fact is, automobiles account for (at most) 2 percent of CO2 emissions.

Huh? All the data I've seen places the "transportation sector" near the top of the list. Here's a quote: "The transportation sector is the second largest source of CO2 emissions in the U.S. Almost all of the energy consumed in the transportation sector is petroleum based, including gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. Automobiles and light-duty trucks account for almost two-thirds of emissions from the transportation sector and emissions have steadily grown since 1990."

That said, I do agree that nuclear power is our best course of action.

http://www.epa.gov/tips/

http://www.siia.net/piracy/report.asp?gclid=COCrrZOs3JkCFRwDagodUxSNVg

and so on. In the modern, free west, you can anonymously report anyone for anything. At some point, just having to say how great the king is might actually be a better deal than getting nickle and dimed over every federal regulation.

In a car? The safety issues with the high pressures required aside , how reliable would this be over the cars lifetime and what would the maintenance costs be? Also I don't see how you can provide 150hp for any useful length of time from a pressure vessel that needs to fit into a sports car chassis. Call me cynical but I'll wait for v2.0 before I part with any cash for something like this.

The EPA has done quite a bit of research on this topic. Here are a few articles:
Hydraulic Hybrid for UPS (PDF warning)
Hydraulic Hybrid a Proven Approach (PDF warning)
Slide Show Presentation (PDF warning)

In summary, they are no more dangerous than a scuba tank.

In a car? The safety issues with the high pressures required aside , how reliable would this be over the cars lifetime and what would the maintenance costs be? Also I don't see how you can provide 150hp for any useful length of time from a pressure vessel that needs to fit into a sports car chassis. Call me cynical but I'll wait for v2.0 before I part with any cash for something like this.

The EPA has done quite a bit of research on this topic. Here are a few articles:
Hydraulic Hybrid for UPS (PDF warning)
Hydraulic Hybrid a Proven Approach (PDF warning)
Slide Show Presentation (PDF warning)

In summary, they are no more dangerous than a scuba tank.

In a car? The safety issues with the high pressures required aside , how reliable would this be over the cars lifetime and what would the maintenance costs be? Also I don't see how you can provide 150hp for any useful length of time from a pressure vessel that needs to fit into a sports car chassis. Call me cynical but I'll wait for v2.0 before I part with any cash for something like this.

The EPA has done quite a bit of research on this topic. Here are a few articles:
Hydraulic Hybrid for UPS (PDF warning)
Hydraulic Hybrid a Proven Approach (PDF warning)
Slide Show Presentation (PDF warning)

In summary, they are no more dangerous than a scuba tank.

This government web page puts the number at 80%.

http://www.epa.gov/reg4gmpo/edresources/water_5.html

Other sources seem to put it in a range of 70-72%. I suspect that this is one of those things that really depends on how you count. Either way, it's a bad question.

W

If you live in a region where electricity comes from coal power, much more mercury will be put in the air from burning coal to power an incandescent bulb, than is contained in a CFL (which can be safely recycled). Granted a CFL won't work too well as refrigerator light....

Mercury is found in many rocks including coal. When coal is burned, mercury is released into the environment. Coal-burning power plants are the largest human-caused source of mercury emissions to the air in the United States, accounting for over 40 percent of all domestic human-caused mercury emissions.

from US EPA

...to electric hybrids, the Hydraulic hybrid

Are deserts expanding from global warming ?

In the link (2) cited below, the article mentions "the world is becoming warmer and drier, and this means there is less water to support plants and animals". This is not necessarily true. In fact, long range forecasting models predict that along with global warming comes a wetter world. Although the moisture may not be spread equally across the globe, while some deserts might expand, so too would some rain forests. Furthermore, according the US Environmental Protection Agency, little research has been done on how global warming might affect deserts. The EPA even points out that while one model shows an increase in deserts by 185%, another shows a decrease by 56% (4).With such uncertainty I believe it is too difficult to determine how much if any of desertification is due to global warming.

(1) http://www.ieca.org/Resources/Article/ArticleChinaAdvancingDeserts.asp

(2)http://www.oxfam.org.uk/coolplanet/ontheline/explore/nature/deserts/prtconserve_desertification.htm

(3) http://www.mrdowling.com/607-deserts.html

(4) http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/content/ImpactsDeserts.html

Oh, and by the way, London had the worst snow in 50 years at the start of February. Your point was ???

For every example you can Google, I can Google a counterexample !

Okay, in advocating that there's enough NG to replace coal and nuclear you post a link that says "but LNG will not be a panacea for North American natural gas shortfall" ?

Second link - aren't we trying to gain energy independence from the middle east? Besides - Natural Gas Imported To US For Electricity Generation May Be Environmentally Worse Than Coal "The 1990s saw a surge in construction of natural gas power plants, fueled by cheap natural gas, low investment requirements and the idea that natural gas was less carbon-intensive than coal. Since these plants were constructed, natural gas prices have skyrocketed as the North American natural gas supply has become more limited. These gas plants are now operating at a very low capacity, fueling the energy industry's interest in increasing gas supply by using LNG."

By the way, that also increases costs for people trying to heat their homes with 97% efficient NG systems.

Your third link doesn't address production, it addresses liquification, storage, and transportation.

In 2003, natural gas reserves in the United States were estimated to be 1,338 trillion cubic feet, and U.S. gas production was 18.6 trillion cubic feet.

Per the DOE, in 2007 we used 6.8 trillion cubic feet for electricity. NG and nuclear are about equal at 20%, and coal is over double at slightly over 40% of electrical generation. We'd need 27 trillion cubic feet per year to replace the coal & nuclear plants. Overall production in 2007 was only 24 trillion.

Where are we going to get the supply to feed the various uses of NG for residential, commercial, and industrial use?

Before Clean-up: Air Out the Room

• Have people and pets leave the room, and don't let anyone walk through the breakage area on their way out.
• Open a window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more.
• Shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system, if you have one.

Clean-Up Steps for Hard Surfaces

• Carefully scoop up glass pieces and powder using stiff paper or cardboard and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.
• Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder.
• Wipe the area clean with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place towels in the glass jar or plastic bag.
• Do not use a vacuum or broom to clean up the broken bulb on hard surfaces.

Clean-up Steps for Carpeting or Rug

• Carefully pick up glass fragments and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.
• Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder.
• If vacuuming is needed after all visible materials are removed, vacuum the area where the bulb was broken.
• Remove the vacuum bag (or empty and wipe the canister), and put the bag or vacuum debris in a sealed plastic bag.

Clean-up Steps for Clothing, Bedding and Other Soft Materials

• If clothing or bedding materials come in direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powder from inside the bulb that may stick to the fabric, the clothing or bedding should be thrown away. Do not wash such clothing or bedding because mercury fragments in the clothing may contaminate the machine and/or pollute sewage.
• You can, however, wash clothing or other materials that have been exposed to the mercury vapor from a broken CFL, such as the clothing you are wearing when you cleaned up the broken CFL, as long as that clothing has not come into direct contact with the materials from the broken bulb.
• If shoes come into direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powder from the bulb, wipe them off with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place the towels or wipes in a glass jar or plastic bag for disposal.

Disposal of Clean-up Materials

• Immediately place all clean-up materials outdoors in a trash container or protected area for the next normal trash pickup.
• Wash your hands after disposing of the jars or plastic bags containing clean-up materials.
• Check with your local or state government about disposal requirements in your specific area. Some states do not allow such trash disposal. Instead, they require that broken and unbroken mercury-containing bulbs

The government needs to make sure that they post actual data in a portable format like XML. The EPA publishes emissions data http://camddataandmaps.epa.gov/gdm/ in portable XML formats for scientist and the public to use the data as they need. For example, http://www.govtrack.us/ uses publicly published data to deliver a complete service. Having the data available as a feed or a series of published data files instead of some static website enables everyone else to see the details and deliver meaningful content.

isn't lead poisoning what lead to the roman empire's downfall? http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/perspect/lead.htm

(the vast majority of CO2 comes from electricity generation)

Vast majority? Are you on Crack? ~2500 tergrams from electricity generation compared to ~2000 for transportation is not a 'vast majority'.

Source - EPA. You'll see on that same page that Petroleum accounts for almost half of the US's C02 emissions; far, far more than coal.

Everyone is so busy trying to prove how green they are that almost no one is actually, well, making the world green.

And they're unlike you how? You're just making stuff up.

untrue. There are no requirements to retrofit small engines that predate the small engine emissions requirements.

EPA, which hasn't taken full effect yet:
http://www.epa.gov/OMS/equip-ld.htm

California has a longer history of regulation:
http://www.egr.msu.edu/erl/emiss/emiss.htm
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/offroad/sm_en_fs.pdf

clearly there is much room for improvement. i for one want lower emissions from an aesthetic point of view as I occasionally use such equipment and hate breathing the exhaust.

It has been said that the Global temperature rising by 1-2 degrees? Average temperatures vary by more than that every year. Also 50 years ago without Digital thermometers the measurements could have been off by 1-2 degrees.

Don't confuse evidence with effect because then you misconstrue science. As a measure of global warming scientists have used qualitative measurements like average temperature as a gauge or baseline. In science you need qualitative arguments. You can't say "the earth is getting warmer" without basing it on something qualitative. The raise in temperature is also not absolute but relative. For example, the average temperature from year to year are being compared to another not to the absolute temperature. What the data shows isn't just that the earth is getting warmer (that has happened before), but that the rate of climate change is much faster than in any previous period in the last several million years.

It is also a proven fact that temperatures are warmer within cities than outside of cities. They may try to take that into account when figuring out Global temperatures, but a Corn field from 50 years ago will be warmer now that it is paved and full of buildings. Remove the data from larger cities and your global warming becomes more of a regional warming. While other regions are getting cooler.

This has nothing to do with the temperature of the earth in general. No one is using a thermometer in cities and averaging them out. What they using are polar snowfall thickness, air pocket analysis, vegetation studies, etc.

And how exactly is it that the ice caps are going to completely melt with a 1-2 degree change in temperature? If the temperature moves from -89 to -87 nothing is going to melt.

Again, temperature is relative and being used for comparison. Temperatures are not absolute. In this vein, a change of few degrees by comparison changed the Sahara a few hundred thousand years ago from a tropical forest into the desert.

If all the glaciers are melting where is the rise in sea levels?

You haven't been paying close attention to NOAA. Or the warnings issued by the EPA. That's just within this government. Italy is concerned about Venice sinking into the sea that they are building sea barriers. They realize however Venice faces both rising sea levels and Venice was built on soft clay.

Weather patterns are cyclical it will get warmer and it will get cooler. I would prefer warmer vs cooler.

As a human you can change the temperature of your indoor surroundings or clothing. Many things in nature are triggered by temperature. Deciduous trees shed leaves and grow them back based on temperature. Some animals mate based on temperature (crocodile gender is determined by the egg nest's temperature). The world is bigger than your personal comfort level.

That's not true. To produce, import, or sell any new chemical species (or promote a "significant new use" of an existing chemical) in the USA, you have to generate toxicity data. The Toxic Substances Control Act gives the EPA the responsibility of overseeing this regulation. Though the TSCA has several weaknesses, you can't just produce an MSDS with toxicity n/a - unless you have friends in the EPA.

Benzene, Toluene, basically most of the stuff that's in gasoline, and MMT ... these are all more likely sources than vaccinations. People just get regular exposure to these chemicals, it's part of our car culture ...

Just look at that MMT molecule - it looks fucking badass! Hehe, wow - look at this, an easy Google search and the EPA hands this right to me:

"One recent California study reported that a modest increase in the incidence of autism was associated with the highest 25% of manganese air concentrations (65)." Source
(MMT has a manganese atom in the middle of it)

Oh yeah - It's probably also worth blaming whatever chemical clouds are making it over the Pacific.

Vaccines?? Come on ... let's look at the obvious sources of carcinogens and mutagens. I just think it's far more likely to be the fuel for industrial progress ... no matter how bad it is, we'll still end up using it in large amounts daily, and spreading the chemical love all around the world.

Stuff like this just adds more backing to my argument.

But yeah, vaccine soup does kind of worry me, just doesn't seem that likely to me. I honestly hope you're right, and it's the vaccines, because that's something we can get some control over ... where as this gasoline issue; we pretty much need a working, feasible nuclear fusion reactor now to solve that problem. (which could introduce a whole other set of issues...)

I found the following page on the EPA useful. It shows average and maximum fuel reduction based on temperature, head wind, hills/mountains, road conditions, traffic congestion, speed, acceleration rate, etc.

At 40%, you're talking about 400W when in direct sunlight. With eight hours of sunlight per day the average house needs less than four square metres. Now, of course, you aren't going to be using the most power at the times when these are generating, but it can definitely put a significant dent in your electricity bills.

Your math reads, to me: 400W * 4 * 8 hours * 365 days = 4,672kWh/yr

Unfortunately, both the 8 hours per day and the average usage per year are incorrect.

Average electricity use in 2001 was 11,965kWh/yr [ US EPA ]. Average solar power insolation in the US is around 4.8kWh/day [ Solar Insolation for U.S. Major Cities ] (caveat: I took the average of the listed cities averages, so it'll be skewed towards more populous regions in the US)

Therefore, 11965/(365*4.8*400 = 17m^2 of this material, just to generate enough energy over the course of the year to net zero over the power company's input. If you want to be grid free, you need to size for the worst case (winter), which is 3.75kWh/day, or 22m^2. That does sound like a lot, but then again, 22m^2, is only about 5m by 5m (15ft x 15ft). Even a single story 1000 square foot home has at least twice that on each side of its roof.

I'll note, though, that this average probably includes air conditioning and electric heat, which are huge energy sinks. But then again, if they're what people want, then they'll need to be able to support them in their system.

Even as recently as 2002 you could buy a 44mpg highway Civic. No, not a hybrid - it was the "HX" model with lean-burn engine.

The EPA recently changed the way they measure fuel efficiency (MPG). With the new standard: "the city mpg estimates for the manufacturers of most vehicles will drop by about 12 percent on average, and by as much as 30 percent for some vehicles. The highway mpg estimates will drop on average by about 8 percent, and by as much as 25 percent for some vehicles", according to the EPA web site. This follows an early revision (also downward) in the 1980s.

In addition, Hybrids have the most benefit on stop-and-go city miles, but less impact on highway miles. Hybrids typically have other features that help, such as continuously variable transmissions and smaller and efficient engines.

This isn't some sort of conspiracy. Car manufactures are making the cars people want to buy. For those looking for fuel efficiency, something like the Prius really does reflect state-of-the-art fuel efficiency.

Unfortunately the Diesel fuel sold in the US has a much higher sulphur content than Diesel sold in Euorope.... Hopefully US mandates a change to the cleaner and better Diesel variety...

Welcome to LAST YEAR!

We're already in the transition period.

"Under the ULSD regulations, a minimum of 80 percent of the diesel fuel produced for highway vehicles must be ULSD with a maximum sulfur content of 15 parts per million (ppm), while the remaining 20 percent may be low sulfur diesel fuel (LSD) with a maximum sulfur content of 500 ppm. However, beginning June 1, 2010, all highway diesel fuel must be ULSD. Pumps used to dispense diesel fuel into motor vehicles must be labeled as to the type of diesel fuel being dispensed. The 80 percent ULSD production requirement is intended to ensure that ULSD is available for use in model year 2007 and newer diesel vehicles, which require use of ULSD."

http://epa.gov/oecaerth/civil/caa/ultralow-sulfurdieselfuel.html