So, you mean, unburned hydrocarbons come from old cars...like from the 60s...when the aforementioned test of a Stirling engine were performed?
I believe I included the caveat that I was referring to non-greenhouse gases (though tuning the pollution control for NOx on an external combustion would be a helluva lot easier than it is on internal combustion engines)
Difficult is not an excuse. Lots of things are difficult...like building yurt, for example. Doesn't mean they're not worth doing./sorry, been a long day.
Umm, what about the Stirling engine that died for no good reason back in the 60s. As I recall, said external combustion engine attained diesel-esque efficiencies and, thanks to the constant burn rate, pollution controls could be narrowly tailored to a specific engine allowing for non-greenhouse gas pollution nearing nil. Seems I recall a test of one of these bad boys performed in California where the exhaust coming out of the pipe had lower hydrocarbon levels than the air going in. Now, it may not be the most suitable engine for an automobile (though, arguably, it'd be great in a hybrid-electric vehicle), it'd beat the pants off this new technology and diesel as well.
Ok, back to my yurt...
So, this d-bag makes it sound as though the EPA will be declaring your house a Super Fund site if you break a few CFLs. Completely and totally untrue, of course, since the Fund is primarily concerned with large, industrial and waste sites. Additionally, the Fund hasn't had any new tax revenue in years (thanks, Congress!) so it's completely funded currently by the fines it's able to levy and enforce. If you were to encounter any legal issues at all regarding a few broken CFLs would come from your state's EPA counterpart (the Maine DEP, for example). Highly unlikely, unless you're a CFL warehouse that burns to the ground. The average home owner has little to fear on that front.
One thing that should be considered, however, is that the EPA's jurisdiction ends where your shopping trip begins when it comes to pollutants and hazardous material. Though they have the jurisdiction over producers and manufacturers who create household products with hazardous substances, their jurisdiction does not extend past the manufacturer. So, they can monitor a CFL manufacturer and take enforcement against them if they handle their mercury inappropriately (read: send it to the landfill), they have no jurisdiction over the 1000s of household user who tosses their CFLs in the trash to send it to the dump. Of course, if the dump becomes extremely contaminated, it'll eventually get added to the Super Fund list and will become jurisdictional again...but only the big commercial and industrial users of the dump who can be tracked down will be held liable for clean up costs.
If you consider the fact that between.5% and 1% of all household garbage contains regulated hazardous substances and only a very few municipalities have the resources to offer readily accessible hazardous material disposal services, this 'gap' in jurisdiction is sort of scary. Perhaps it's more scary that so many of the household products we use contain such hazardous substances and people simply aren't aware of it.
http://www.computersacrossborders.org/
This non-profit was started by the son of on of my law professors here in Boston. Their mission is to supply computers to communities in developing nations in exchange for a commitment to using renewable energy resources to power them. An organization I'm a member of, the Environmental Law Society, has just started to contact local firms and other corporations to solicit donations of used computers or funding to assist CAB.
It would make sense...if this release hadn't destroyed the calendar compatibility and wreaked havoc with many updating XP users. TB needs a great deal more work...and much much much better QA and release plans before it'll be able to compete with Outlook. And this is coming from a guy who's been running TB for a year now.
Fair enough. Perhaps I let my politic shade my analogy there...but I still stick by my statement. I can understand the colossal technical challenge that 'controlling' a hurricane may pose. It doesn't mean that it's one that should be undertaken with any seriousness, though.
I guess I'm just leary of 'futurists' that see all the solutions to todays problems in the techno-mechanics to tomorrow. They never seem to want to stop and take a look at yesterdays technology to see if it isn't the source of todays woes. I'm not talking about the Society for Creative Anachronism here but it certainly seems that occasionally a 'roll-back' is appropriate.
But why not tackle problems that we know we can solve? Why not just build levies that can stand up to level 5 hurricanes and institute building codes that force buildings to at least be hurricane resistant if not proof. Make those codes retroactive (though I'd wager that if you looked at most of the buildings that are 100+ and properly maintained along the gulf coast, you'd find that they were already 'up to code' because the builders realized, without CNN and the weather channel, that hurricanes rip through there regularly). It's not like we need to invent new technologies to do this sort of thing...and it makes a great deal more sense to do that than to start messing with major natural systems just so Trent Lott can have his poorly and cheaply constructed McMansion protected from a hurricane.
Slashdot Mirror
So, you mean, unburned hydrocarbons come from old cars...like from the 60s...when the aforementioned test of a Stirling engine were performed? I believe I included the caveat that I was referring to non-greenhouse gases (though tuning the pollution control for NOx on an external combustion would be a helluva lot easier than it is on internal combustion engines) Difficult is not an excuse. Lots of things are difficult...like building yurt, for example. Doesn't mean they're not worth doing. /sorry, been a long day.
Umm, what about the Stirling engine that died for no good reason back in the 60s. As I recall, said external combustion engine attained diesel-esque efficiencies and, thanks to the constant burn rate, pollution controls could be narrowly tailored to a specific engine allowing for non-greenhouse gas pollution nearing nil. Seems I recall a test of one of these bad boys performed in California where the exhaust coming out of the pipe had lower hydrocarbon levels than the air going in. Now, it may not be the most suitable engine for an automobile (though, arguably, it'd be great in a hybrid-electric vehicle), it'd beat the pants off this new technology and diesel as well. Ok, back to my yurt...
So, this d-bag makes it sound as though the EPA will be declaring your house a Super Fund site if you break a few CFLs. Completely and totally untrue, of course, since the Fund is primarily concerned with large, industrial and waste sites. Additionally, the Fund hasn't had any new tax revenue in years (thanks, Congress!) so it's completely funded currently by the fines it's able to levy and enforce. If you were to encounter any legal issues at all regarding a few broken CFLs would come from your state's EPA counterpart (the Maine DEP, for example). Highly unlikely, unless you're a CFL warehouse that burns to the ground. The average home owner has little to fear on that front. One thing that should be considered, however, is that the EPA's jurisdiction ends where your shopping trip begins when it comes to pollutants and hazardous material. Though they have the jurisdiction over producers and manufacturers who create household products with hazardous substances, their jurisdiction does not extend past the manufacturer. So, they can monitor a CFL manufacturer and take enforcement against them if they handle their mercury inappropriately (read: send it to the landfill), they have no jurisdiction over the 1000s of household user who tosses their CFLs in the trash to send it to the dump. Of course, if the dump becomes extremely contaminated, it'll eventually get added to the Super Fund list and will become jurisdictional again...but only the big commercial and industrial users of the dump who can be tracked down will be held liable for clean up costs. If you consider the fact that between .5% and 1% of all household garbage contains regulated hazardous substances and only a very few municipalities have the resources to offer readily accessible hazardous material disposal services, this 'gap' in jurisdiction is sort of scary. Perhaps it's more scary that so many of the household products we use contain such hazardous substances and people simply aren't aware of it.
I, for one, welcome our habeas corpus denying overlords...
http://www.computersacrossborders.org/ This non-profit was started by the son of on of my law professors here in Boston. Their mission is to supply computers to communities in developing nations in exchange for a commitment to using renewable energy resources to power them. An organization I'm a member of, the Environmental Law Society, has just started to contact local firms and other corporations to solicit donations of used computers or funding to assist CAB.
It would make sense...if this release hadn't destroyed the calendar compatibility and wreaked havoc with many updating XP users. TB needs a great deal more work...and much much much better QA and release plans before it'll be able to compete with Outlook. And this is coming from a guy who's been running TB for a year now.
Until you're paying 'royalties' every time you hum your favorite band's newest catchy tune...
Fair enough. Perhaps I let my politic shade my analogy there...but I still stick by my statement. I can understand the colossal technical challenge that 'controlling' a hurricane may pose. It doesn't mean that it's one that should be undertaken with any seriousness, though. I guess I'm just leary of 'futurists' that see all the solutions to todays problems in the techno-mechanics to tomorrow. They never seem to want to stop and take a look at yesterdays technology to see if it isn't the source of todays woes. I'm not talking about the Society for Creative Anachronism here but it certainly seems that occasionally a 'roll-back' is appropriate.
But why not tackle problems that we know we can solve? Why not just build levies that can stand up to level 5 hurricanes and institute building codes that force buildings to at least be hurricane resistant if not proof. Make those codes retroactive (though I'd wager that if you looked at most of the buildings that are 100+ and properly maintained along the gulf coast, you'd find that they were already 'up to code' because the builders realized, without CNN and the weather channel, that hurricanes rip through there regularly). It's not like we need to invent new technologies to do this sort of thing...and it makes a great deal more sense to do that than to start messing with major natural systems just so Trent Lott can have his poorly and cheaply constructed McMansion protected from a hurricane.
Probably 'Nova'.