HawthorneVillager.com

Pollution over China
This false-color image shows concentrations of carbon monoxide at an altitude of roughly 18,000 feet (500 millibars) in the atmosphere off the coast of Asia and out over the Pacific Ocean. This image represents a composite of data collected over a 20-day period, from January 1-20, 2003, by the Measurements Of Pollution In The Troposphere (MOPITT) instrument aboard NASA’s Terra satellite. The colors represent the mixing ratios of carbon monoxide in the air, given in parts per billion by volume. In this scene, values range from as high as 220 ppbv (purple pixels) to as low as 40 ppbv (blue pixels). The white areas show where no data were collected, either due to persistent cloud cover or gaps between viewing swaths.

During the early part of the year, there is considerable outflow of pollution from China and southeast Asia. Carbon monoxide is a good tracer of this pollution since it is produced by incomplete combustion processes such as the burning of fossil fuels in urban and industrial areas, the use of biofuels in developing countries, and by biomass burning in the tropics. The Asian plume can be followed as it propagates out over the Pacific Ocean, and in some instances this plume reaches the west coast of the United States. Over China, industrial emissions are mainly responsible for the high levels of carbon monoxide observed in the image. During the time these data were collected by MOPITT, other satellite sensors observed heavy, widespread particulate pollution over this region. Over southeast Asia, the high carbon monoxide levels coincide with satellite observations of fires in Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam.

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org ... aInMon.jpg

No fear mongering here....we are impacted by the actions of countries all over the planet regardless of how far abroad they are. What is happening over there is enough of a concern to Canadian scientists that they are proposing air-testing stations to measure China's impact on North America's air quality.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news ... eb&k=78410

d advocatz
your ignorance is delightful

Are there any sort of petitions going around or webpages started where we can sign up to show our disapproval?

write your mpp....or better still write all of them

Post subject: MPP list made easy...cut and paste

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

dalton.McGuinty@premier.gov.on.ca, dmcguinty.mpp@liberal.ola.org, ted_arnott@ontla.ola.org, warthurs.mpp@liberal.ola.org, bbalkissoon.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org, toby_barrett@ontla.ola.org, rbartolucci.mpp@liberal.ola.org, cbentley.mpp@liberal.ola.org, lberardinetti.mpp@liberal.ola.org, gilles@gillesbisson.com, mbountrogianni.mpp@liberal.ola.org, jbradley.mpp@liberal.ola.org, lbroten.mpp@liberal.ola.org, mbrown.mpp@liberal.ola.org, jbrownell.mpp@liberal.ola.org, mbryant.mpp@liberal.ola.org, dcansfield.mpp@liberal.ola.org, dcaplan.mpp@liberal.ola.org, machambers.mpp@liberal.ola.org, ted_chudleigh@ontla.ola.org, mcolle.mpp@liberal.ola.org, kcraitor.mpp@liberal.ola.org, bcrozier.mpp@liberal.ola.org, bdelaney.mpp@liberal.ola.org, vdhillon.mpp@liberal.ola.org, cdicocco.mpp@liberal.ola.org, ldombrowsky.mpp@liberal.ola.org, bduguid.mpp@liberal.ola.org, dduncan.mpp@liberal.ola.org, garfield_dunlop@ontla.ola.org, christine.elliott@pc.ola.org, ferreira-qp@ndp.on.ca, kflynn.mpp@liberal.ola.org, pfonseca.mpp@liberal.ola.org, jgerretsen.mpp@liberal.ola.org, mgravelle.mpp@liberal.ola.org, hhampton-qp@ndp.on.ca, ernie_hardeman@ontla.ola.org, ahorwath-qp@ndp.on.ca, phoy.mpp@liberal.ola.org, tim_hudak@ontla.ola.org, ljeffrey.mpp@liberal.ola.org, frank_klees@ontla.ola.org, pkormos-qp@ndp.on.ca, kkular.mpp@liberal.ola.org, mkwinter.mpp@liberal.ola.org, jmlalonde.mpp@liberal.ola.org, jleal.mpp@liberal.ola.org, dlevac.mpp@liberal.ola.org, rmarchese@ndp.on.ca, jmarsales.mpp@liberal.ola.org, shelley_martel-mpp@ontla.ola.org, gerry_martiniuk@ontla.ola.org, dmatthews.mpp@liberal.ola.org, bmauro.mpp@liberal.ola.org, tmcmeekin.mpp@liberal.ola.org, pmcneely.mpp@liberal.ola.org, mmeilleur.mpp@liberal.ola.org, Norm_miller@ontla.ola.org, jmilloy.mpp@liberal.ola.org, cmitchell.mpp@liberal.ola.org, jmossop.mpp@liberal.ola.org, julia_munro@ontla.ola.org, bill_murdoch@ontla.ola.org, john_otoole@ontla.ola.org, dorazietti.mpp@liberal.ola.org, jerry_ouellette@ontla.ola.org, eparsons.mpp@liberal.ola.org, rpatten.mpp@liberal.ola.org, speters.mpp@liberal.ola.org, tpeterson.mpp@liberal.ola.org, gphillips.mpp@liberal.ola.org, mprue-qp@ndp.on.ca, spupatello.mpp@liberal.ola.org, sqaadri.mpp@liberal.ola.org, mracco.mpp@liberal.ola.org, kramal.mpp@liberal.ola.org, dramsay.mpp@liberal.ola.org, lrinaldi.mpp@liberal.ola.org, rwrunciman@brockville.com, truprecht.mpp@liberal.ola.org, lsandals.mpp@liberal.ola.org, Joyce.Savoline@pc.ola.org, laurie_scott@ontla.ola.org, msergio.mpp@liberal.ola.org, msmith.mpp@liberal.ola.org, gsmitherman.mpp@liberal.ola.org, gsorbara.mpp@liberal.ola.org, norm_sterling@ontla.ola.org, tabunsp-qp@ndp.on.ca, htakhar.mpp@liberal.ola.org, joe_tascona@ontla.ola.org, john.tory@pc.ola.org, mvanbommel.mpp@liberal.ola.org, jwatson.mpp@liberal.ola.org, jwilkinson.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org, jim_wilson@ontla.ola.org, elizabeth_witmer@ontla.ola.org, kwynne.mpp@liberal.ola.org, john_yakabuski@ontla.ola.org, dzimmer.mpp@liberal.ola.org

Thanks very much. Will do.

I'd really like to hear a reasonable viable alternative proposal...

_________________
14C - Lot 82 - Upland B
Roleplaying Game Software for your iPhone: RPGTouch

I tend to agree, but I have a bias, I know how those things work, and how safe/clean they really are.

_________________
14C - Lot 82 - Upland B
Roleplaying Game Software for your iPhone: RPGTouch

todays wall street journal...imagine that your clean energy, jmho


The Wall Street Journal reports that NRG Energy Inc., Exelon Corp. and Amarillo Power are also planning to build power plants in Texas raising the prospect that the state could have more nuclear reactors than any other within a decade.

The article notes that due to power deregulation in the state, the additional cost of any construction overruns would be borne by shareholders and the federal government, not power customers. This point is important given that nuclear reactors often cost far more than expected according to a study published last week by researchers from Georgetown University, Stanford University and UC Berkeley.

The study, published in the April 1 issue of the journal Environmental Science and Technology, warned that nuclear power may not be financially attractive even with generous government subsidies.

"For energy security and carbon emission concerns, nuclear power is very much back on the national and international agenda," said study co-author Dan Kammen, UC Berkeley professor of energy and resources and of public policy. "To evaluate nuclear power's future, it is critical that we understand what the costs and the risks of this technology have been. To this point, it has been very difficult to obtain an accurate set of costs from the U. S. fleet of nuclear power plants."

"In the long term, whether these plants are 4 cents or 8 cents per kilowatt hour, they are still a good deal, if you think carbon is an issue," Kammen said, referring to the carbon dioxide emissions from oil, coal and gas-fueled power plants that exacerbate global warming. "If the argument is that cost really needs to be important, then I'm not sure nuclear competes that well."

The Wall Street Journal says that TXU will have to overcome regulatory hurdles to get its new plants approved. The utility hopes to havea new reactor operational by 2015.

The thrust of that article is that Nuclear is green it just cost more. I don't see a problem with that...

_________________
14C - Lot 82 - Upland B
Roleplaying Game Software for your iPhone: RPGTouch

Such a touchy subject, d_advocate has some valid points, but so do the others. I must agree, it would be one big eyesore for the area. Has anyone researched how Oshawa has delt with the nuclear plant in their backyard? I'd be interested to know how they've been coping. Good points both sides.

Very true csb, it is a touchy subject and quite often seems to degenerate into name calling and personal attacks. Hopefuly this time it wont. I for one am not in favor of it being situated anywhere near us. Im going to be following williams lead and voicing through that Email list and hopefully it makes a difference.

In terms of NIMBY vs non-NIMBY arguments, I dont think it makes a difference what your reasons are for not wanting the power plant in the area. Im not embarassed to say that I dont want it in my back yard. I think we have a very scenic area we live in and I appreciate that very much. I dont want any more pollution, no matter how minute, or the giant stacks cuttering up our views of the escarpment. I agree with everyone who has said that we already live in close proximity to the 401 and that is a major source of pollution. Since thats an obvious fact why should we accept any more into our back yards? We cant change the highway but maybe we can fight against this since its not yet built and here. Im willing to try. If they can relocate the plant to a less inhabited area and affect few people then Im fine with that. I think d_advocate is right. We need the power, but that doesnt mean we have to accept the plant here if it can be put elsewhere. If we accept more pollution because we already have some by way of the highway, then what do we accept next? Im not willing to add a power plant to a highway and then add it to whatever else someone tries to stick in our backyard that might not be good for us.

And just so you know d_avocate, some of us complainers are not gas guzzling SUV drivers. I drive a 4 cyl, car, use low flo toilets, and energy saver bulbs in my fixtures. I recycles regularly and try and keep the furnace and AC off whenever possible. It may not be everything that can be done, but like you claim to be doing, Im also taking steps towards doing my part to conserve energy or at least minimize our usage. Youre entirely right, Im against the plant because its going to be built in Halton. Its our part of the world and Im willing to try and keep it as it is so we can all enjoy it. Hopefully the environmental asessment will show a negative impact and the plans to put the plant in Halton get scrapped.

NOT in your backyard.

I was worried for a bit about would this be visible from my back yard, so I busted out the old back of the envelope, and decided to see.

Now the first thing I had to check was is my backyard facing the right way, North? Check.

Next up, a relativly unobstructed view?
Check gas pipeline with no houses on the other side (Loooooove my lot, never should have built townhouses on it the poor folk like me could afford, suckers!)

So what do we have?
Height of stacks, 200ft = 60.69 Meters (Phallic symbols, of a sexual height, maybe I do want them in my backyard.)

Curvature of the Earth? (Had to google this one, the envelope wasn't forth coming. Roughly 8 inches / mile, or .327 m / km.

Assume perfectly smooth earth
compute
compute
compute


Okay 186.4 KM for them to be obstructed by the curvature of the Earth, uh oh, I'm in trouble.

Wait a sec what viewing angle will they subtend?

SohCahTOA!

compute
compute
compute

0.8544 degrees.

Now that's not very big, suddenly that horizon is looking more cluttered then I imagined. Lets just go with ideal here for a second, how far away could a 1 m tall shubbery be and still block my view of this here stack.

Back to old Tan again and

Compute
Compute
Compute

67 m

Okay but wait my eyes aren't on the ground.

It gets a little fudggy here, but I'm 2 meters, so said shubbery has to be 3m tall to do its job at 67 m.

Okay how wide is the pipeline? Tops 50 m (and I think its more like 20.)

And how tall are those tree's in the wood lot on the other side?

Bout 5-10m

Well sh*t, this thing isn't even in my back yard, nor the back yards of pretty much everyone south of Derry (Sorry North of Derry Folk, but I'm running out of envelope.)

My point here is that from an optical perspective, this object is far from visible from HV. If you happen to be up by wallmart, then yeah your going to see it, and the Lefarge plant, and the garishly painted theater.

My point is, cosmetically, these things are none existent for most of Milton, and any argument based on that is fallacious. Having lived with the 4 sisters for years, an arguably dirtier plant the dreaded plumes are also negligible, no more visible then a cloud of water vapour, which it will in fact largely be.

In another thread someone came out in argument that the emissions were deadly, but the study they quoted said that the natural gas furnace in your own home is worse.

Does it produce C02? Absolutely, less so then other power plants that use older technology, or coal. Its not perfect, and while I would rather a nuclear plant, but as plants go this place is pretty good.

My final question, and the one I think deserves an answer from all is this:

Is Halton/Milton, net power users, socially responsible for bearing the burden, environmentally, socially, and economically, of its own power needs, or can it continue to dump on surrounding municipalities?

_________________
14C - Lot 82 - Upland B
Roleplaying Game Software for your iPhone: RPGTouch

I hate to sound negative...but it is done... and for that matter it isn't even in Milton so the town council isnt going to be able to do anything.

The efforts that can be made now are to ensure that the plant is as clean as possible... but no one is stopping it now.

For that matter once it is built no one here will really notice... how many people here can tell me what is on the QEW as they enter Oakville? and did this contaminated site affect the land values in that town??

Marc