HiddenDragon Wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070501/ap_o...ted_cities
I do not believe that study. Birmingham's smog levels can't be as bad as DFW or other areas.
One thing I can say for sure. There is NO city in the US that compares to the pollution found in Asia or Mexico City. Wow... Mexico City is absolutely horrible!!!
I can believe it. This city has terrible pollution laws. You can see the bad air hovering over Downtown Birmingham.
There's a difference between smog and ozone pollution. I'm not surprised. One thing Birmingham has going against it is that it sits in a valley, so all the pollution collects and is concentrated in one area, where in a city that isn't in a valley would disperse the pollution over the course of the day.
Plus, it doesn't help that we have some of the worst stats on suburban sprawl and single-rider commuters in cars, and Alabama Power's wonderful steam plants (though to their credit they are cleaning them up)
mixduptransistor Wrote:There's a difference between smog and ozone pollution. I'm not surprised. One thing Birmingham has going against it is that it sits in a valley, so all the pollution collects and is concentrated in one area, where in a city that isn't in a valley would disperse the pollution over the course of the day.
Plus, it doesn't help that we have some of the worst stats on suburban sprawl and single-rider commuters in cars, and Alabama Power's wonderful steam plants (though to their credit they are cleaning them up)
+1
Birmingham gets tagged due to its lousy traffic (280). The same thing was going on in the 1980s when Parkway East was the city's parking lot.
Now Detroit, we get nailed because of those d*mned Canadian's directly on our souther border. Stupid, filthy, polluting Canucks ;-)
The article was somewhat confusing because it started out talking about smog (ozone). Birmingham is not even on the list of the cities with the most smog (ozone). Particle pollution (soot) is the list that Birmingham is listed on.
Los Angeles leads both
BTR Wrote:The article was somewhat confusing because it started out talking about smog (ozone). Birmingham is not even on the list of the cities with the most smog (ozone). Particle pollution (soot) is the list that Birmingham is listed on.
Los Angeles leads both
I worked for a while at McWane. The Jefferson County Health Department were bears when it came to enforcing the plants pollutant output (cupola exhaust, expulsion of waste water, etc). I read many articles that the traffic on 280, along with being very annoying, is one of the largest sources of automobile exhaust in the nation for its (Birmingham's) size. Also, they must be considering metropolitan areas rather than just cities.
MC Blazer Wrote:BTR Wrote:The article was somewhat confusing because it started out talking about smog (ozone). Birmingham is not even on the list of the cities with the most smog (ozone). Particle pollution (soot) is the list that Birmingham is listed on.
Los Angeles leads both
I worked for a while at McWane. The Jefferson County Health Department were bears when it came to enforcing the plants pollutant output (cupola exhaust, expulsion of waste water, etc). I read many articles that the traffic on 280, along with being very annoying, is one of the largest sources of automobile exhaust in the nation for its (Birmingham's) size. Also, they must be considering metropolitan areas rather than just cities.
I think that the valley explains some of it but does the EPA require testing of cars in Jefferson county yet (I ask because I do not know)? If the EPA doesn't require that, it obviously isn't as bad here as it is in other places. The pollutant that got us on this list was not automobile exhaust, it was particle pollutants.
The report that people should read is
http://www.citymayors.com/environment/po...ities.html
The article that was quoted in the first post is referencing this report from the American Lung Association.
mixduptransistor Wrote:There's a difference between smog and ozone pollution. I'm not surprised. One thing Birmingham has going against it is that it sits in a valley, so all the pollution collects and is concentrated in one area, where in a city that isn't in a valley would disperse the pollution over the course of the day.
Plus, it doesn't help that we have some of the worst stats on suburban sprawl and single-rider commuters in cars, and Alabama Power's wonderful steam plants (though to their credit they are cleaning them up)
It's a double-whammy. The fact that Birmingham is in a valley, plus the high levels of humidity that prevent particulates from diffusing. That's why pollution is visibly worse during the summer.
BTR Wrote:MC Blazer Wrote:BTR Wrote:The article was somewhat confusing because it started out talking about smog (ozone). Birmingham is not even on the list of the cities with the most smog (ozone). Particle pollution (soot) is the list that Birmingham is listed on.
Los Angeles leads both
I worked for a while at McWane. The Jefferson County Health Department were bears when it came to enforcing the plants pollutant output (cupola exhaust, expulsion of waste water, etc). I read many articles that the traffic on 280, along with being very annoying, is one of the largest sources of automobile exhaust in the nation for its (Birmingham's) size. Also, they must be considering metropolitan areas rather than just cities.
I think that the valley explains some of it but does the EPA require testing of cars in Jefferson county yet (I ask because I do not know)? If the EPA doesn't require that, it obviously isn't as bad here as it is in other places. The pollutant that got us on this list was not automobile exhaust, it was particle pollutants.
The report that people should read is http://www.citymayors.com/environment/po...ities.html
The article that was quoted in the first post is referencing this report from the American Lung Association.
My first few years in Detroit, the State of Michigan required emissions test on every car. However, after several years, enough cars were passing the test that the law was repealed. BTW, the test never cost more than about $5.00.
I've never heard of the EPA requiring this type of test.
Birmingham is not near as bad as it used to be. I remember driving to UAB in the early 1980's and topping the hill on I 65 just past Green Springs. There would be a dark stripe across the city scape and you could not even see the tops of the skyscrapers. You would think, "I have to breath that the rest of the day"
That was one advantage that the death of the steel industry had for Birmingham. Cleaner air.
Memphis Blazer Wrote:Birmingham is not near as bad as it used to be. I remember driving to UAB in the early 1980's and topping the hill on I 65 just past Green Springs. There would be a dark stripe across the city scape and you could not even see the tops of the skyscrapers. You would think, "I have to breath that the rest of the day"
That was one advantage that the death of the steel industry had for Birmingham. Cleaner air.
I remember those days.
I just wonder how much of that has moved south with Suburban Sprawl and the number of SUVs on 280.
We have bad particulate pollution because there are 3 Alabama Power steam plants burning coal nearly 24/7 in the area. Plants Miller and Gorgas north of Birmingham and Plant Gaston in Wilsonville.
To be honest, I'd rather have a nuclear power plant nearby than those 3 spewing all that smoke into the air.
This did not help our image either:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/05/...index.html
The title of the link is actually "Small Alabama city makes most polluted air list" , and it may be gone by the time you read this.
Also, I am sure that ABC Coke contributes a good bit to the cities polution. Allthough, the Drummond Brothers would have you believe otherwise.
Suede27 Wrote:This did not help our image either:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/05/...index.html
The title of the link is actually "Small Alabama city makes most polluted air list" , and it may be gone by the time you read this.
Also, I am sure that ABC Coke contributes a good bit to the cities polution. Allthough, the Drummond Brothers would have you believe otherwise.
Seriously, let's leave the old Alabama By-Product Company (ABC) folks out of these. My dad worked there for over 30 yrs and things went to hell after Gary Neal took over. The old ABC folks followed the rules, granted, the rules were lax, but they did follow the rules. I refer to the place in Tarrant on 79 as simply Drummond Coke. (No offense taken, you just accidently hit a very old and raw nerve)
mixduptransistor Wrote:We have bad particulate pollution because there are 3 Alabama Power steam plants burning coal nearly 24/7 in the area. Plants Miller and Gorgas north of Birmingham and Plant Gaston in Wilsonville.
To be honest, I'd rather have a nuclear power plant nearby than those 3 spewing all that smoke into the air.
Nuclear power would be wonderful!!! Especially with the new technologies available. Now if you can convince your buddies on the left who have prevented any new permits for nuclear plants for over 25 years...
Coal-powered = bad
Nuclear-powered = bad
Hydroelectric = bad (because of the environmental impact of dams)
Any viable alternatives? Pave over Oak Mountain with solar cells?
blazr Wrote:mixduptransistor Wrote:We have bad particulate pollution because there are 3 Alabama Power steam plants burning coal nearly 24/7 in the area. Plants Miller and Gorgas north of Birmingham and Plant Gaston in Wilsonville.
To be honest, I'd rather have a nuclear power plant nearby than those 3 spewing all that smoke into the air.
Nuclear power would be wonderful!!! Especially with the new technologies available. Now if you can convince your buddies on the left who have prevented any new permits for nuclear plants for over 25 years...
Coal-powered = bad
Nuclear-powered = bad
Hydroelectric = bad (because of the environmental impact of dams)
Any viable alternatives? Pave over Oak Mountain with solar cells?
Well, the TVA is about to start up a new reactor at their plant in north Alabama, and they are seeking a permit to re-start construction on a plant in TN that they never finished. There is a nuclear revival, and as a lefty tree hugger, I think nuclear is the safest, best way for us to work towards energy independence. Nuclear power is not unlimited, but the amount of uranium we have could power us for hundreds of years. It'd give us time to develop sustainable power solutions (solar, hydrogen). If we built up our electrical capacity with nuclear, we could power EVERYTHING by electricity, including our cars. Energy would be so plentiful that we could afford to waste it like we do today.
I agree. Nuclear is by far the safest and cleanest, realistic energy source that we have today. I have been a huge proponent for about 20 years.
I have often said that if Mexico wanted to influence their economy immediately, build about 50 nuclear power plants and sell the electricity to the US. It would be a goldmine.
Nobody would advocate shoddy nuclear but considering we haven't built a new plant in 30 years, we are way behind other parts of the world.
Here are the state averages for Alabama.
Nuclear 23.0%
Coal 56.7%
Oil 0.2%
Gas 10.3%
Hydro 7.1%
Renewable and Other 2.7%
As soon as Browns Ferry plant #1 goes back online, this will increase our nuclear production.
As far as the EPA mandating vehicle testing, they have done this. There are "incentives" for keeping your ozone levels below a certain level. If they are above that, you lose funding. When I lived in Texas, they implemented this type of testing in DFW. The cost was about $20 (it has been a while so who knows now). It is similar to how the alternative gas is required in certain markets.
blazr Wrote:mixduptransistor Wrote:We have bad particulate pollution because there are 3 Alabama Power steam plants burning coal nearly 24/7 in the area. Plants Miller and Gorgas north of Birmingham and Plant Gaston in Wilsonville.
To be honest, I'd rather have a nuclear power plant nearby than those 3 spewing all that smoke into the air.
Nuclear power would be wonderful!!! Especially with the new technologies available. Now if you can convince your buddies on the left who have prevented any new permits for nuclear plants for over 25 years...
Coal-powered = bad
Nuclear-powered = bad
Hydroelectric = bad (because of the environmental impact of dams)
Any viable alternatives? Pave over Oak Mountain with solar cells?
I'm one of those crazy lefties, and part of me believes that we'll need to build nuclear plants out of necessity (maybe they'll help 'fuel' some nifty new electric cars!)
I did have some pretty good knowledge (from a student's/layperson's standpoint) about nuclear energy, having competed in 'Bama Power's "Energy Bowl" several times in high school.
That was a good seven-to-eight years ago--if you know of links that talk about the new technologies involved in nuclear power, I'd love to catch up.
BlazerUnit Wrote:That was a good seven-to-eight years ago--if you know of links that talk about the new technologies involved in nuclear power, I'd love to catch up.
Ditto... I studied about nuclear nearly 20 years ago so if there are some quick read websites that anyone would suggest, I would be interested.
BTR Wrote:I agree. Nuclear is by far the safest and cleanest, realistic energy source that we have today. I have been a huge proponent for about 20 years.
I have often said that if Mexico wanted to influence their economy immediately, build about 50 nuclear power plants and sell the electricity to the US. It would be a goldmine.
Nobody would advocate shoddy nuclear but considering we haven't built a new plant in 30 years, we are way behind other parts of the world.
Here are the state averages for Alabama.
Nuclear 23.0%
Coal 56.7%
Oil 0.2%
Gas 10.3%
Hydro 7.1%
Renewable and Other 2.7%
As soon as Browns Ferry plant #1 goes back online, this will increase our nuclear production.
As far as the EPA mandating vehicle testing, they have done this. There are "incentives" for keeping your ozone levels below a certain level. If they are above that, you lose funding. When I lived in Texas, they implemented this type of testing in DFW. The cost was about $20 (it has been a while so who knows now). It is similar to how the alternative gas is required in certain markets.
Coal is still at 56%?!?! Wow. I am suprised, with as much Hydroelectric and Nuclear power there is in Alabama.
BTR Wrote:Ditto... I studied about nuclear nearly 20 years ago so if there are some quick read websites that anyone would suggest, I would be interested.
The Cato Institute has a lot of resources on nuclear power most are about four years old. They are mostly against it because of the requirement for subsidizes. While it might be cleaner it is not remotely economical. I think coal is a better option, especially if they can develop the ability for carbon capture.
http://www.cato.org/research/energy/nuclear-power.html
BTR Wrote:BlazerUnit Wrote:That was a good seven-to-eight years ago--if you know of links that talk about the new technologies involved in nuclear power, I'd love to catch up.
Ditto... I studied about nuclear nearly 20 years ago so if there are some quick read websites that anyone would suggest, I would be interested.
There was a very good article in Scientific American a couple of years ago but I can't find it online. The new technologies affect the way radioactive material is deployed, and our ability to now use a "closed" fuel cycle. Most new nuclear power plants around the world use the "pebble bed modular" reactor model. This stores the nuclear material in round, graphite-coated spheres instead of the older rods. These pebbles can be removed individually without shutting down the reactor, don't get nearly hot enough for a meltdown to occur, and allow the plant to take advantage of the space efficiency of a sphere (as opposed to rods). The closed fuel cycle is made possible by new technologies that can recover plutonium from spent uranium units (rods or pebbles) and insert it back into the fuel cycle. This obviously prolongs the usability of resources and reduces the radioactive waste that has to be stored in geologic repositories.
JxGx78 Wrote:BTR Wrote:Ditto... I studied about nuclear nearly 20 years ago so if there are some quick read websites that anyone would suggest, I would be interested.
The Cato Institute has a lot of resources on nuclear power most are about four years old. They are mostly against it because of the requirement for subsidizes. While it might be cleaner it is not remotely economical. I think coal is a better option, especially if they can develop the ability for carbon capture.
http://www.cato.org/research/energy/nuclear-power.html
Well, if/when they develop the ability for carbon capture, it will greatly increase the cost of coal power (for many reasons). Once this happens, nuclear power might not be so uneconomical. Once you get over the capital costs of a nuclear power plant, it becomes pretty economical.
blazr Wrote:BTR Wrote:BlazerUnit Wrote:That was a good seven-to-eight years ago--if you know of links that talk about the new technologies involved in nuclear power, I'd love to catch up.
Ditto... I studied about nuclear nearly 20 years ago so if there are some quick read websites that anyone would suggest, I would be interested.
There was a very good article in Scientific American a couple of years ago but I can't find it online. The new technologies affect the way radioactive material is deployed, and our ability to now use a "closed" fuel cycle. Most new nuclear power plants around the world use the "pebble bed modular" reactor model. This stores the nuclear material in round, graphite-coated spheres instead of the older rods. These pebbles can be removed individually without shutting down the reactor, don't get nearly hot enough for a meltdown to occur, and allow the plant to take advantage of the space efficiency of a sphere (as opposed to rods). The closed fuel cycle is made possible by new technologies that can recover plutonium from spent uranium units (rods or pebbles) and insert it back into the fuel cycle. This obviously prolongs the usability of resources and reduces the radioactive waste that has to be stored in geologic repositories.
Nuclear energy, and Crepes. The two main things we Americans can learn how to do from the French.
Esquire Wrote:JxGx78 Wrote:BTR Wrote:Ditto... I studied about nuclear nearly 20 years ago so if there are some quick read websites that anyone would suggest, I would be interested.
The Cato Institute has a lot of resources on nuclear power most are about four years old. They are mostly against it because of the requirement for subsidizes. While it might be cleaner it is not remotely economical. I think coal is a better option, especially if they can develop the ability for carbon capture.
http://www.cato.org/research/energy/nuclear-power.html
Well, if/when they develop the ability for carbon capture, it will greatly increase the cost of coal power (for many reasons). Once this happens, nuclear power might not be so uneconomical. Once you get over the capital costs of a nuclear power plant, it becomes pretty economical.
I don't care what type of fuel source is used. As long as the free market picks the winners. I would love nuclear to be economical, right now it isn't. If a firm whats to build without Government aid I'm all for it. I don't think the Government should pick winners and losers. That is how we got into this mess. The Government is not a good way to decided what technology should be adopted.
JxGx78 Wrote:Esquire Wrote:JxGx78 Wrote:BTR Wrote:Ditto... I studied about nuclear nearly 20 years ago so if there are some quick read websites that anyone would suggest, I would be interested.
The Cato Institute has a lot of resources on nuclear power most are about four years old. They are mostly against it because of the requirement for subsidizes. While it might be cleaner it is not remotely economical. I think coal is a better option, especially if they can develop the ability for carbon capture.
http://www.cato.org/research/energy/nuclear-power.html
Well, if/when they develop the ability for carbon capture, it will greatly increase the cost of coal power (for many reasons). Once this happens, nuclear power might not be so uneconomical. Once you get over the capital costs of a nuclear power plant, it becomes pretty economical.
I don't care what type of fuel source is used. As long as the free market picks the winners. I would love nuclear to be economical, right now it isn't. If a firm whats to build without Government aid I'm all for it. I don't think the Government should pick winners and losers. That is how we got into this mess. The Government is not a good way to decided what technology should be adopted.
Actually, when one of those technologies is actively destroying the planet and our health, maybe profitability or less government spending should take a backseat. Now, that's not to say that I think coal should be outlawed and we should have a state run nuclear power system, but if the government can give a nudge to a less harmful technology, then I'm all for it
mixduptransistor Wrote:JxGx78 Wrote:Esquire Wrote:JxGx78 Wrote:BTR Wrote:Ditto... I studied about nuclear nearly 20 years ago so if there are some quick read websites that anyone would suggest, I would be interested.
The Cato Institute has a lot of resources on nuclear power most are about four years old. They are mostly against it because of the requirement for subsidizes. While it might be cleaner it is not remotely economical. I think coal is a better option, especially if they can develop the ability for carbon capture.
http://www.cato.org/research/energy/nuclear-power.html
Well, if/when they develop the ability for carbon capture, it will greatly increase the cost of coal power (for many reasons). Once this happens, nuclear power might not be so uneconomical. Once you get over the capital costs of a nuclear power plant, it becomes pretty economical.
I don't care what type of fuel source is used. As long as the free market picks the winners. I would love nuclear to be economical, right now it isn't. If a firm whats to build without Government aid I'm all for it. I don't think the Government should pick winners and losers. That is how we got into this mess. The Government is not a good way to decided what technology should be adopted.
Actually, when one of those technologies is actively destroying the planet and our health, maybe profitability or less government spending should take a backseat. Now, that's not to say that I think coal should be outlawed and we should have a state run nuclear power system, but if the government can give a nudge to a less harmful technology, then I'm all for it
Cars do much more damage, and are heavily subsidies by the government. I don't pretend to have the answers, but I know what is the wrong way to go. With the government we get what the special interest want (look at the ethanol). If we get the government out of the mix mass transit might be able to prosper. I agree we are destroying the world, the question what is the best way to manager our resources. I believe private property is best. A government has no more resource available than its underlying society, let businessman and citizens decided how to invest not politicians and special interest groups.
BlazerPhil Wrote:blazr Wrote:BTR Wrote:BlazerUnit Wrote:That was a good seven-to-eight years ago--if you know of links that talk about the new technologies involved in nuclear power, I'd love to catch up.
Ditto... I studied about nuclear nearly 20 years ago so if there are some quick read websites that anyone would suggest, I would be interested.
There was a very good article in Scientific American a couple of years ago but I can't find it online. The new technologies affect the way radioactive material is deployed, and our ability to now use a "closed" fuel cycle. Most new nuclear power plants around the world use the "pebble bed modular" reactor model. This stores the nuclear material in round, graphite-coated spheres instead of the older rods. These pebbles can be removed individually without shutting down the reactor, don't get nearly hot enough for a meltdown to occur, and allow the plant to take advantage of the space efficiency of a sphere (as opposed to rods). The closed fuel cycle is made possible by new technologies that can recover plutonium from spent uranium units (rods or pebbles) and insert it back into the fuel cycle. This obviously prolongs the usability of resources and reduces the radioactive waste that has to be stored in geologic repositories.
Nuclear energy, and Crepes. The two main things we Americans can learn how to do from the French.
You'll eat your pancakes and you'll like them. Forget about the crepes!
Esquire Wrote:JxGx78 Wrote:BTR Wrote:Ditto... I studied about nuclear nearly 20 years ago so if there are some quick read websites that anyone would suggest, I would be interested.
The Cato Institute has a lot of resources on nuclear power most are about four years old. They are mostly against it because of the requirement for subsidizes. While it might be cleaner it is not remotely economical. I think coal is a better option, especially if they can develop the ability for carbon capture.
http://www.cato.org/research/energy/nuclear-power.html
Well, if/when they develop the ability for carbon capture, it will greatly increase the cost of coal power (for many reasons). Once this happens, nuclear power might not be so uneconomical. Once you get over the capital costs of a nuclear power plant, it becomes pretty economical.
The technology and ability to recapture carbon dioxide already exists. There is a co-op between an oil field in Canada and a coal-fired power plant. Carbon dioxide is captured at the plant, pressurized to a liquid, and sent back to the oil field via pipes. The oil field uses the pressurized liquid with water to break oil free from the substrate underground...where the carbon dioxide remains. But, obviously, the cost of building pipelines that can transport liquid carbon dioxide is the killer.
JxGx78 Wrote:mixduptransistor Wrote:JxGx78 Wrote:Esquire Wrote:JxGx78 Wrote:BTR Wrote:Ditto... I studied about nuclear nearly 20 years ago so if there are some quick read websites that anyone would suggest, I would be interested.
The Cato Institute has a lot of resources on nuclear power most are about four years old. They are mostly against it because of the requirement for subsidizes. While it might be cleaner it is not remotely economical. I think coal is a better option, especially if they can develop the ability for carbon capture.
http://www.cato.org/research/energy/nuclear-power.html
Well, if/when they develop the ability for carbon capture, it will greatly increase the cost of coal power (for many reasons). Once this happens, nuclear power might not be so uneconomical. Once you get over the capital costs of a nuclear power plant, it becomes pretty economical.
I don't care what type of fuel source is used. As long as the free market picks the winners. I would love nuclear to be economical, right now it isn't. If a firm whats to build without Government aid I'm all for it. I don't think the Government should pick winners and losers. That is how we got into this mess. The Government is not a good way to decided what technology should be adopted.
Actually, when one of those technologies is actively destroying the planet and our health, maybe profitability or less government spending should take a backseat. Now, that's not to say that I think coal should be outlawed and we should have a state run nuclear power system, but if the government can give a nudge to a less harmful technology, then I'm all for it
Cars do much more damage, and are heavily subsidies by the government. I don't pretend to have the answers, but I know what is the wrong way to go. With the government we get what the special interest want (look at the ethanol). If we get the government out of the mix mass transit might be able to prosper. I agree we are destroying the world, the question what is the best way to manager our resources. I believe private property is best. A government has no more resource available than its underlying society, let businessman and citizens decided how to invest not politicians and special interest groups.
Mass transit won't work because white people won't use it. Period. Not a popular or friendly statement, but we all know it to be true. It works in NY because NY is so dense that it has to, but in newer cities we just get suburban sprawl. Just because ethanol subsidies are total crap doesn't mean that nuclear subsidies are total crap. If the government can give nukes a little push, and that reduces our carbon output because we're burning less coal, I see that as a good thing. Nukes don't have an unintended consequence like driving up corn prices or anything like that.
mixduptransistor Wrote:JxGx78 Wrote:mixduptransistor Wrote:JxGx78 Wrote:Esquire Wrote:JxGx78 Wrote:BTR Wrote:Ditto... I studied about nuclear nearly 20 years ago so if there are some quick read websites that anyone would suggest, I would be interested.
The Cato Institute has a lot of resources on nuclear power most are about four years old. They are mostly against it because of the requirement for subsidizes. While it might be cleaner it is not remotely economical. I think coal is a better option, especially if they can develop the ability for carbon capture.
http://www.cato.org/research/energy/nuclear-power.html
Well, if/when they develop the ability for carbon capture, it will greatly increase the cost of coal power (for many reasons). Once this happens, nuclear power might not be so uneconomical. Once you get over the capital costs of a nuclear power plant, it becomes pretty economical.
I don't care what type of fuel source is used. As long as the free market picks the winners. I would love nuclear to be economical, right now it isn't. If a firm whats to build without Government aid I'm all for it. I don't think the Government should pick winners and losers. That is how we got into this mess. The Government is not a good way to decided what technology should be adopted.
Actually, when one of those technologies is actively destroying the planet and our health, maybe profitability or less government spending should take a backseat. Now, that's not to say that I think coal should be outlawed and we should have a state run nuclear power system, but if the government can give a nudge to a less harmful technology, then I'm all for it
Cars do much more damage, and are heavily subsidies by the government. I don't pretend to have the answers, but I know what is the wrong way to go. With the government we get what the special interest want (look at the ethanol). If we get the government out of the mix mass transit might be able to prosper. I agree we are destroying the world, the question what is the best way to manager our resources. I believe private property is best. A government has no more resource available than its underlying society, let businessman and citizens decided how to invest not politicians and special interest groups.
Mass transit won't work because white people won't use it. Period. Not a popular or friendly statement, but we all know it to be true. It works in NY because NY is so dense that it has to, but in newer cities we just get suburban sprawl. Just because ethanol subsidies are total crap doesn't mean that nuclear subsidies are total crap. If the government can give nukes a little push, and that reduces our carbon output because we're burning less coal, I see that as a good thing. Nukes don't have an unintended consequence like driving up corn prices or anything like that.
It won't work because people don't bear the complete cost of car ownership. If people had to pay for the roads they used, not just a tax to the government more people will be inclined to use mass transit. Your right white people don't like to use mass transit. But white people do listen to their wallets. Right now a large amount of the roads are paid through bond issues and other government debt issues. This passes the cost onto other future generations. Plus it works in New York because it is social acceptable, in the south it isn't right now.
White people in the South, where it's still associated with racism and other ills, not across the country. There were plenty of white people on the bus when I was in Pittsburgh last spring.
TMcCarty Wrote:White people in the South, where it's still associated with racism and other ills, not across the country. There were plenty of white people on the bus when I was in Pittsburgh last spring.
Well, we were discussing Birmingham's pollution. Cities like Pittsburgh probably don't have the problems we have with traffic, at least percentage wise.
mixduptransistor Wrote:TMcCarty Wrote:White people in the South, where it's still associated with racism and other ills, not across the country. There were plenty of white people on the bus when I was in Pittsburgh last spring.
Well, we were discussing Birmingham's pollution. Cities like Pittsburgh probably don't have the problems we have with traffic, at least percentage wise.
I was merely commenting on the mass transit issue that was brought up in the last couple of posts.
I see that brownish stripe every morning when I top the hill coming into Roebuck on I-59. I also notice that usually the only other people who are riding with more than one person in a vehicle besides my nephew and I are mexicans.
Mass transit in the form of a high speed rail line from Gadsden to Birmingham would help but the cities, counties and state won't build it because they rightly believe that nobody will ride it.
Though with $3.00 and maybe higher gas on the way. It might be aour only alternative.
I'm sure there are plenty of wealthy investors that would like a train station named after them.
Copperblazer Wrote:I see that brownish stripe every morning when I top the hill coming into Roebuck on I-59. I also notice that usually the only other people who are riding with more than one person in a vehicle besides my nephew and I are mexicans.
Mass transit in the form of a high speed rail line from Gadsden to Birmingham would help but the cities, counties and state won't build it because they rightly believe that nobody will ride it.
Though with $3.00 and maybe higher gas on the way. It might be aour only alternative.
I'm sure there are plenty of wealthy investors that would like a train station named after them.
The Desert XPress which is understudy is a privately funded high speed train between Victorville, CA and Las Vages, NV. It will run along the I-15 corridor. Private money is out their, but is still very limited. The privately fund Las Vages Monorail has had a lot of problems. Mostly do to construction issues. But it can be done with private money. But when the government is subsidizing other modes of transportation it make the economics hard to work out.
http://www.desertxpress.com
There isnt an easy solution to Birminghams Pollution problems. As someone pointed out earlier the topography and weather make Bham a bad spot for ozone. Bham is like a bowl and on hot summer days VOC's and NOx react to form ozone. No wind is there to push it out.
Birmingham also had one of the worst air pollution episodes in US history.
![[Image: ViewBLOB.aspx?BLOBId=41]](http://www.jcdh.org/misc/ViewBLOB.aspx?BLOBId=41)
. In November of 1971 there was episode that caused 8 deaths and many hospitalized.
Birmingham is presently attainment for ozone. Jefferson and Shelby are non attainment for PM-Fine. The Clean Air Interstate Act (CAIR) should take care of the attainment issues for them. CAIR is a mullti pollutant cap and trade program with decling caps for Power Plants. This along with the federal standards for new autos and diesel engines will help.
It's better than it used to be. I can remember driving to Birmingham from Atlanta circa 1970 or so. As you got about halfway here the sky began to turn brown. Literally.