Tom Nelson writes:
Water vapor as “pollution”?: Sierra Club’s claims are based on opacity, which measures the thickness of emissions from a smoke stack by how much light passes through it.
Readers will surely recall some of our stories about photoshopping smokestack emissions to make them look worse, and specifically choosing images with low sun angles to make steam look like smoke (a video follows).
I wonder if they really have that sort of low information comprehension about emissions.
Sierra Club plans to sue Minnesota Power over pollutants at coal plants
“The Sierra Club’s claims are based on opacity, which measures the thickness of emissions from a smoke stack by how much light passes through it, the AP says. Minnesota Power disputes the contentions in the Sierra Club’s intent-to-sue notice. Officials with the utility tell the AP opacity can be caused by factors other than pollutants, citing water vapor as an example.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So if most of what we see coming out of those smoke stacks is water vapor, can’t it be captured and distilled rather than being released into the air? It would be nice if the steam was recycled, so to speak, so that the greenies couldn’t distort it for their agenda.
There might me a commercial delay, but were we ever not “living on a thin line” :
The Sierra Club – another criminal enterprise, funded by morons (I know several) – but hopefully not us taxpayers.
“profitup10 says:
March 26, 2014 at 1:56 pm”
It’s why boilers etc are pressure tested with water and not gas.
NRG22 says:
March 26, 2014 at 6:08 pm
It already is – as rain.:)
The Sierra Club = another Judas goat for humanity.
Modern coal plants don’t produce soot, unless they’re burning oil during startup. Properly-operating coal-burners produce a very light-grey, almost whitish ash. If the precipitators are in good shape, even that is hard to see without a dark background. Cold days produce alot of water vapor, tho.
Being not a very intelligent sceptic as I am being continually described by the AGW fraternity, I obviously only have a very limited brain activity, so could the more highly educated and more enlightened AGW believers please explain to me the terrible threat that I pose with all the other illiterate scepics to our planet with carbon dioxide (or is it carbon?)
We are led to believe that this terrible toxic gas (or is it the carbon element that thes AGW’s are always quoting) has now reached a level of 450 parts per million in our atmosphere but what I would like to ask from the AGW’s is what percentage of this poison is actually contributed by us humans and all our criminal activies?
Of this confirmed percentage which no doubt these AGW experts can explain how they differentiate between human and natural carbon dioxide, what then is the breakdown of the contribution from the use of fossil fuels, human and other life form emmissions( don’t worry about methane for the moment) and any other artificially produced CO2?
I would appreciate some fairly simple statistics from the responders owing to my obviously limited understanding of this matter, so I would appreciate no links to other sites that just tend to bombard you with meaningless jargon and AGW propaganda, and just a very simple answer with what ever evidence you have to support your replies.
“Minnesota Power disputes the contentions in the Sierra Club’s intent-to-sue notice. Officials with the utility tell the AP opacity can be caused by factors other than pollutants, citing water vapor as an example.””
Sierra Club is in effect suing Minnesotans for keeping warm in winter – the same Minnesotans who just experienced an unusually harsh winter with record-breaking cold and snow, and are now facing planting delays. “Damp soil leftover from winter, melting snow and lagging temperatures mean a lot of places are going to have a slow planting period across the Midwest, northern Plains and the Great Lakes,” AccuWeather said.
Sen Inhofe has done the math and discovered that the coal plants slated for shutdowns by the EPA would cause blackouts.
“If this recent cold weather occurs again while these plants are shutdown there simply won’t be enough electricity to keep people warm,” Inhofe said on the Senate floor. “It could result in massive blackouts. … It will be as if we’re living in the 1600s and everyone will be cold.” He has introduced sb1988 to allow states to keep their power on.
Sierra Club is a heartless, predatory environmental activist NGO awash in government money, working to shut down power for people at a time of low solar activity and agricultural challenges in the north.
:”The Sierra Club would be surprised to learn” anything whatsoever. It would be such a shock.