Bishop Hill Environmentalists trashing the environment
Mar 20, 2012 Greens The "Environmentalists Trash the Environment" theme is one I return to occasionally here at BH, and there's a splendid example in the latest edition of Der Spiegel. It concerns CFL lightbulbs, which are something of a personal bugbear simply because of their uselessness. But here's a new angle on the hypocrisy of CFLs.
Because of the mercury, throwing broken energy-saving light bulbs into the ordinary trash is of course prohibited. A waste disposal company from Nuremberg in southern Germany has invented a machine that carefully cuts apart each light bulb and sucks out the fluorescent material and mercury. The mixture is then packed into airtight bags and filled into blue, 300-kilogram barrels. The barrels are loaded onto a truck and taken to a former salt mine in the Harz Mountains of central Germany. Thus, the energy-saving light bulb ends up in an underground waste depot, where it will remain forever as contaminated waste.
It's not just lightbulbs though. Read the whole thing.
(H/T Alan, by email)
Reader Comments (55)
I had an article published recently in our local rag in response to an article by a member of the Green Party. http://www.thisisnorthdevon.co.uk/WEEKLY-ESSAY-green-lobby-killed-lightbulb/story-15431362-detail/story.html. The editor of the paper gave it the title "How green lobby killed lightbulb" and in the hard copy it had a picture of a green incandescent bulb. It's a pity I didn't have this article from Germany to refer to.
Nothing surprises me anymore
On the topic of light bulbs...
http://www.heatbulbs.eu/
What will happen when a major city experiences an earthquake with millions of bulbs being broken. Will sections of the city become off-limits? The whole city?
A very interesting and well thought out essay, to say the least.
A pity that our green friends can't understand the last paragraph of the article:
They need to be careful with aerosols from showerheads too. Legionnaires disease is a particular risk in lightly used showers, the bugs build up in the warm wet environment and an aerosol is an excellent way of making sure any dislodged by the water are inhaled. It's a risk particularly checked for in safety showers in commercial premises.
I recently discovered heavy duty bulbs. Just like the old incandescent ones, but still available. Of course, they cost more.
We saw from the former soviet areas that bureaucratic control of the economy is a synonym for waste and pollution.
Environmentalism is a luxury good that causes itself to become unaffordable. It's why it's mainly advocated by those who inherited wealth and don't need to work, and therefore have the time to go through their religions motions. A sort of economic "peacocking".
From RoSPA website:
# More accidents happen at home than anywhere else
# Falls are the most common accidents, which can cause serious injury at any time of life. Fifty-five per cent of accidental injuries in the home involve falls
# Approximately 1500 people aged over 75 die annually as the result of a fall (in the UK, presumably)
With an EU population of 500 million and with dark winter nights - at least in Northern Europe - there can be no doubt that slow-to-light-up and dim-in-cold-weather lighting on staircases will have resulted in falls, some causing serious injuries. There is no way of knowing how many.
My opinion is that tungsten lamps were phased out on the basis of a knee-jerk "let's be green" reaction that was never thought through, greatly encouraged behind the scenes by lamp bulb manufacturers who much prefer selling profitable "low consumption" lamps than selling tungsten lamps at rock bottom prices.
I found this old article http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1997/0908/6005128a.html
People who live and work in a world where there is a business bottom line, an athletic scoreboard, a military battlefield or life-and-death surgery may find it hard to fully appreciate the difference between that kind of world and one in which the only decisive test is whether your colleagues like what you are saying.
PEER REVIEW in a nutshell.
I suppose pointing out that nuclear waste has a half-life and the mercury in environmentally (un)friendly light bulbs does not would not go down well but I'll say it anyway.
Mentioning that nuclear power is currently the only non-CO2 producing source of electricity that makes any sense would not doubt be equally unpopular in some quarters but truth often is.
Mar 20, 2012 at 5:37 PM Edvin
"On the topic of light bulbs... http://www.heatbulbs.eu/"
Interesting.
My tungsten lamp bulbs, in effect, consume zero energy in winter. The house is heated by French nuclear-generated electricity and, for every kilowatt hour the lamps consume (essentially all of which ends up as heat, even the bit that leaves the lamp as visible light) the thermostat reduces the consumption of the electric radiators.
Re: Martin A
My Dad, who is 90 this year and is now nearly blind, used to have 100w incandescent on the top landing and another at the bottom of the stairs. These where switched on twice a day for about 5 minutes, once in the morning and once at night. They have now been replaced by 4 x 20w compact fluorescents that have to be left permanently on because of how slow to light up they are.
The end result is that instead 0.033kWh a day with incandescents, he is now using 1.92kWh a day with "energy savers".
Mar 20, 2012 at 6:41 PM Mike Jackson
"Mentioning that nuclear power is currently the only non-CO2 producing source of electricity that makes any sense would not doubt be equally unpopular in some quarters but truth often is"
I have no idea how much fossil fuel is consumed in the construction and operation of a nuclear power station, together with its eventual decommissioning, not forgetting the storage/treatment/disposal of its spent fuel.
Has the "carbon footprint" of a nps ever been estimated? Just curious.
Martin A
Pretty much the same argument applies broadscale. In essence you can't manufacture anything without emitting CO2. It's one of the major drawbacks associated with being alive!
TerryS, Have your dad try LED lights. They're a bit pricy, but turn on immediately. They also should have long lifespans (although I've heard that some of the cheaper ones out of China seem to fail more often than they should). I have one for my stair landing in a spot where incadescents used to burn out quite often (too much heat buildup). Even though the LED I bought warned about installing in enclosed spaces, mine has lasted 3 years so far. I've also placed 2 outside for my garage lights (the fixtures are awkward to get into). These haven't been there so long, but so far so good.
Compact fluorescent bulbs are only going to be around a few more years, anyway. There are enough alternate technologies in the pipeline that don't have the same drawbacks - they just need to get to market and drop in price.
LED bulbs are on the verge - they're still really expensive, but the newest ones have very good color temperature and much longer lifespans without the mercury issue. There are also some "edge" techs that show some real promise, and even better cost effectiveness, like ESL.
Re: MikeP
It is something I have considered and I've been trying some out in various parts of my house. The light quality appears to be very poor and I've tried several different ones from different manufacturers. Since the prices range from £3 to £20+ per bulb it is an expensive bit of experimentation.
If find one with decent light I'll use it.
In fact, many forms of mercury are *more toxic* than plutonium (and the vast majority of nuclear waste is less toxic than plutonium). Furthermore, since plutonium is not stable, it breaks down over thousands of years to even less toxic materials; mercury doesn't.
But that misses the point: mercury bulbs were forced on us for the good of the environment. That wasn't the justification for nuclear power. Hence the hypocrisy is only present in one of these cases. Can you work out which?
Mar 20, 2012 at 7:21 PM Mike Jackson
No - I wasn't arguing - as I said, I was just curious. Presumably someone has done the sums. Is the fossil fuel energy consumed 0.01% of the lifetime output of the nps? 10%? I just have no idea. Somewhere between the two I'd imagine..
It's just so sad isn't it? The EUSSR bans a harmless incandescent bulb to replace it with a toxic bulb in the name of green madness.
As an aside I still have a few incandescent bulbs in my outbuildings and they never fail to startle me at their ability to produce instant bright light.
I recently bought a V-light 7.5 W dimmable "Warm white" LED bulb. I'd say it's better than any other LED bulbs I've seen so far, but for a "warm white" bulb it still has a surprisingly green tint. Especially when you compare to dimmed incandescent light bulbs. And now I'm apparently stuck with it for 20 years :-|
I'd love to hear if anyone has found any good dimmable LED bulbs that _actually_ have a warm white color temperature over the entire dimming range.
How much energy and resources are required to produce a windmill v the energy and resources it will produce and cosume over its lifetime and disposal?
I tend these days to opt for the halogen bulbs - I think you can use them in dimmers and timers. Bright light, long life and cheaper than LEDs...for the moment. Infinitely better than CFLs.
Re nuclear, a reasonable estimate of the whole-life costs of operation can be gleaned from the negotiations that have been underway for a few years between HMG and EDF. The blog capitalists@work has frequent very insightful overviews of UK energy policy. Eg this post from September last year:
http://cityunslicker.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/from-electricity-front.html
Basically, the potential builders of nukes are blackmailing HMG to pick up all kinds of predicted/projected costs - using a term of art from the modelling sphere...;)
For the time being standard incandescent light bulbs are still freely available in bulk on line, including 100W.
Energy saving bulbs are still expensive and in my opinion next to useless for main areas of work like the kitchen or study in and around the home but are OK for the halls landings etc and exterior lighting. I have found that energy saving bulbs if left permanently on have significantly extended life, but when used intermittently fail earlier, so tend to leave a few of them on permanently particularly outside.
What is for me far more annoying is what has happened with eco regulation to paints. The EU restrictions on VOC's in paints and varnishes has now rendered most exterior paint products practically useless for purpose. Even brush cleaners and strippers are going the same way. It is now necessary to reconstitute your exterior gloss paints using whatever you judge to be your own reformulation recipe by adding back in generous slugs of linseed and spirit etc. which on the face of it seems potentially more harmful than leaving the original effective commercially produced product for sale in the first place.
Martin A
I wasn't aiming to pick a quarrel or anything ... <(;-(
The comment was mainly meant as a sideswipe at those who think there is such a thing as a zero-carbon economy. I'm not sure if anyone has calculated the total carbon cost of anything, simply because there are so many imponderables.
For example, is the CO2 "cost" of constructing a nuclear power station (including all the ancillary matters like shipping costs of materials, etc) greater than the cost of a coal-fired station and if so is it so much more that we would be better off burning coal?
And if the greenies get their way are we going to end up having to burn wood and what would be the effect of that?
And so on and so on and so on.
I don't know the answer and i suspect no-one else does either. The only certainty is that we will continue to emit CO2 whether the greenies like it or not.
Newbie Said
"What will happen when a major city experiences an earthquake with millions of bulbs being broken. Will sections of the city become off-limits? The whole city?"
Or a warehouse full of these bulbs when a fire breaks out. They could explode and distribute mercury far and wide.
Or a juganaut crashing on a motorway and spilling the contents of thousands of bulbs over a wide area.
Something has got to be done.
I sent my son in Oz a package of 60W incandescent lamp bulbs. They did not reach him.
Instead, he received a communication from the Oz customs and excise informing him that his attempt to import illegal items had been noted and any further infractions would be sternly dealt with.
Mar 20, 2012 at 6:55 PM | TerryS
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Terry
I think that you have a point here. I have a habit of not turning off low energy lights. If I leave hall/landing/bathroom lights on over night (which I do) when I get up in the morning, you often cannot tell that they are on so I often do not switch them off during the day. In the garden, I have a number of outside lights that I like to switch on at night but since the switch is in the garden and I am often too lazy, I frequently (this is conscious) leave them on 24hrs a day. Again, because of their low light output, during the day you struggle to see that they are on.
The upshot is that I frequently leave on 5 to 8 lights 24 hours a day. I never use to do that with the old lights.
I have often thought that the new lights probably have brought about a change of use which lessens their energy saving credentials. This coupled with the fact that one has to go up about two sizes; where I use to run 25 watt bulbs, I now often have the equivalent of 60 watts, outside where I use to have 60 or 80 watts I have the equivalent of 100 or 120 watts, the overall energy saving is not so great.
I bet that the practical every day experience was not properly metered in when decisions were taken to push these so called energy savers. They certainly are not as green as the 'greenies' would have one believe.
"The mixture is then packed into airtight bags and filled into blue, 300-kilogram barrels. The barrels are loaded onto a truck and taken to a former salt mine in the Harz Mountains of central Germany. Thus, the energy-saving light bulb ends up in an underground waste depot, where it will remain forever as contaminated waste."
That is gross, infinite, gaggingly awful, stupidity,
I supply materials to the people to the people who make those mercury charges for those light bulbs. One of the vital ingredients in such bulbs is currently $5,000 a kg and rising.
And they are burying this recovered shit in an old mine?
Dear God this is nonsense. The fear of certain metals seems to mean that we cannot actually recycle things that should be recycled.
How in hell did we end up with this nonsense?
My experience has been the same as Pharo's - the CFL bulbs rarely last as long as they state on the package. I have incandescent bulbs still in place from when I bought my house 22 years ago that work. I have CFL bulbs that haven't lasted a year.
Also ironic here in the US is having the EPA issue new regulations further limiting mercury emitted by coal plants - which are estimated to cost utility companies ~ $11 billion a year - while the government encourages the use of CFL bulbs.
Mar 20, 2012 at 8:25 PM | diogenes
///////////////////////////////////////////
Re costs of nuclear.
This is a regretable (and probably unforseen) consequence of privatisation. Of course, corporations are out to squeeze every possible cent out of governments. Particularly galling given that many of the energy providers are foreign owned.
I do not understand any of these incentives. This should all be plant and machinery costs and thus a write down against tax provided the company pays UK tax. The time frame over which the expense can be written down could be negotiable when huge investments are concerned. The write down will go to reduce their yearly profits and hence yearly tax liability, but once written down, the energy company will have huge profits which will in time generate high tax receipts thereby offsetting the earlier write down. If they do not pay UK tax, then it will be a matter of foreign tax law as to whether the costs of building can be offset against profits. This should not be a concern for the UK government but something that Offgen can lool at to make sure that if the energy company wishes to operate in the UK market, the UK consumer is not getting screwed by it choice of tax domicile.
No subsidies should be given. It should simply be market cost.
If an incandescent light bulb is run on a dimmer and thus never at full power/full voltage, the life span can be extended by an order of magnitude, eg 1000 hours going over 10,000 hours. It makes a great deal of difference not to 'burn' the filament.
For long life, one should over watt and under power. Thus if you need 60watts, use a 100 watt bulb on a dimmer such that it gives out about 60 watts and the life expectancy will far exceed the CFL bulbs.
After wiping off my fingerprints, I dump them with my similarly fingerprint wiped jars (with metal lids) and bottles in my neighbours glass recycling bin on a Friday morning.
My local council collect all recycled rubbish on Mondays and Fridays and then bury it at the local landfill site.
Can't you just wrap the CFL waste in ... cling film?
<A href="http://michaelkelly.artofeurope.com/karl.htm">http://michaelkelly.artofeurope.com/karl.htm
How in hell did we end up with this nonsense?
Answer: letting bureaucrats actually run things. Take trains: too many passengers, apparently. Bureaucrats answer: increase prices to choke off demand. Commercial gents answer: what are you mad? What could be better than 'too many' customers - bust your nuts off finding ways of meeting the demand. Please, keep these idiots away from the real world.
Richard Verney
based on opinion, belief and knowledge, the companies who effectively own power generation in the UK pay UK tax. If they earn profits in the UK then Uk tax will sweep them up. However, what they want is a guarantee that, if they build nuclear plant in the UK (bearing in mind the AGR bogies of the past) - some future government will not change the rules to stop them recouping their losses. And they are trying to make the guarantee as certain as they possibly can. So look back at the record of the AgR reactors......and Tony Benn placidly smoking his pipe while millions of pounds were expended. Your confidence in British government>
Thank heavens I live in Canada, the federal government has delayed the phasing out of incandescent light bulbs until at least 2014, my bets are that it will not happen. Irregardless I have stockpiled a 30 year supply of incandescent bulbs, that would make me 96 and no doubt I'll likely be in care by that age. The whole idea of the cfl bulbs makes no sense here, we need artificial lights in the winter months when the outside temperature can approach minus 30C so the heat given off is not wasted.
Environmentalists need re-think their motives ....
The Second Law can be illustrated with a hose used as a siphon to empty a swimming pool, for example. It works if the other end of the hose goes down a slope and is significantly below the bottom of the pool.
The water flows and entropy increase because we have a single process. The SLoT requires a single process, as is obvious in everyday life.
If you cut the hose at the highest point you now have two processes, and the water no longer goes upwards from the pool.
Any heat flow from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface is a single completed process. The energy is not constrained to return by radiation or to do anything in particular. It could be conducted elsewhere in the surface for example.
Because it is a single process from atmosphere to surface, there is no justification fro saying that any subsequent process can create a net effect and thus excuse the violation of the Second Law. It would be like water flowing uphill to the town's water tank on the basis that it would subsequently flow further downhill through pipes into houses. But there is no constraint enforcing this, as there was with the siphon before the hose was cut. After all, the tank might leak.
Hence, thermal energy cannot transfer spontaneously from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface. Fullstop.
See my publication Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
http://www.webcommentary.com/docs/jo120314.pdf
no shame.
Uni of Oxford: Blavatnik School of Govt: Peter Gleick - Oxford Amnesty Lectures
24 April 2012 - 5:30pm
DR PETER H. GLEICK is president of the Pacific Institute, a member of the United States National Academy of Sciences, a MacArthur Fellow, and an early contributor to the international discussion around the human right to water. Among his other honors, in 2011 he was awarded the Ven Te Chow Prize from the International Water Resources Association and the first United States Water Prize. ..ETC
http://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/events/peter-gleick-oxford-amnesty-lectures
20 March: Telegraph: Rowena Mason: Climate law survives red tape cull
Britain's laws on climate change that push up energy bills for millions of households have been spared, despite George Osborne’s plea for a reduction in expensive green regulations.
Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat Energy Secretary, said he would not scrap or water down the Climate Change Act, after a year-long review into reducing bureaucracy surrounding environmental laws.
The Act underpins all of the Government’s policies on reducing carbon dioxide emissions, from support for wind farms to higher road taxes for more polluting cars.
It costs up to £18 billion per year, the equivalent of £650 for every household, according to a government analysis...
Mr Davey said yesterday that the Climate Change Act is an “example of essential legislation” and all its supporting regulations must remain unchanged.
His only concession is a consultation on reducing red tape for companies forced to pay for every ton of carbon dioxide they emit...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/9156410/Climate-law-survives-red-tape-cull.html
We are at the electrical, first fit stage in our new extension. Halogen downlighters, 12 volts and dimmable, have been my choices in part renovations, but this time we have selected GX53 downlighters, 240 volts, that can use either dimmable CFLs or LEDs. Yes, they are 3 times the cost of our previous purchases, but with 3 watt consumption LEDS set against 35 watt Halogens for essentially the same lighting performance; well, you do the calculations.
Were we to entertain the idea of a similar project, it would be worth investigating the suitability of a diesel/SVO powered generator, deep cycle batteries and a sophisticated inverter like Victron. Such systems are used in leisure boating and offer full independence from shore-power, with the benefit of running the generator at its maximum efficiency for only 3-4 hours per day. The rest of the day is generator free.
http://www.downlightsdirect.co.uk/downlights/gx53-shallow-downlights-low-energy/none-fire-rated-gx53-downlights/flush-gx53-downlights/flush-gx53-downlight-adjustable-satin-chrome-c/w-flow-connector.html
http://www.downlightsdirect.co.uk/lamps-light-bulbs-/cfl-bulbs/gx53-lamps-cfl-led/cat_83.html
http://www.victronenergy.com/
Wouldn't it be great to be independent from the likes of EON & EDF?
Pharos
"The EU restrictions on VOC's in paints and varnishes"
Quite agree, but I think they're available if you dig a bit. There's usually the odd tin of 'high VOC' paint among the 'quick drying' water-based rubbish. Mrs P's car had a paint job a few years ago, and it was done with two-pack epoxy, which was vastly better than the original finish. There wasn't a mark on it after 7 years.
BTW I recommend Lidl's 'universal thinner' when it's available. I think it might even have Benzene in it...
Whale oil for lighting is the answer. It is renewable and sustainable. Innit. :-)
@ Pat
Mr Davey said yesterday that the Climate Change Act is an “example of essential legislation” and all its supporting regulations must remain unchanged.
In our former democracy public opinion counts for nothing.
When this 'low energy lightbulbs' lunacy was first announced, I went into as much print as I could, calling them the 'eight track stereo' of the lighting world - because LEDs would take over as soon as the price dropped, and they were designed to fit normal bayonet and Edison Screw fittings. That's happening now.
I've seen HUGE display pallets of CFLs in supermarkets - with them priced at - wait for it - 50p each - OR five for 10p..! That is not a typo...
Anyway - re disposal - hands up everyone who disposes of their CFLs 'correctly'. Yep - thought not. So the EUSSR has created a mercury timebomb in our landfill sites. Very clever, and just SOOOO unnecessary. But then - since when did politics hgave any basis in common sense..?
@ David
Anyway - re disposal - hands up everyone who disposes of their CFLs 'correctly'.
A couple of months ago I wrote to Defra to ask if there's been any study to find out the proportion of CFL lamps being disposed of in normal household waste rather than being taken to a recycling centre. Eventually they replied that they hold no data on "CFL disposals". So, not important then.
Scientists like Sir John Sulston and the Royal Society’s People and the Planet Working Group have good work to do that is best accomplished by being uncompromisingly honest in the reporting of their research as well as by being unambiguously objective and forthcoming in reporting their findings with regard to the research of others. When honesty and effectiveness are viewed in opposition to one another, honesty must prevail over effectiveness in science. Finding a balance between them is not sufficient. Sacrificing honesty in order to maintain professional effectiveness is inadequate.
With regard to the science of human population dynamics, intellectual honesty appears not to have prevailed over professional effectiveness. That convenient rationalizations in support of effectiveness have been deployed by too many experts who have refused to be fully honest and open about such a vital matter of concern, seem somehow not right. Science is not compatible either with less than the ‘whole truth’, according the lights and best available empirical data we possess, or with the collective avoidance by professionals of research regarding what could be real. Science is an expression of truth, is it not? There can be no room for compromise between honesty and effectiveness where science is concerned.
It appears that we have a lot work to do…..fast. Endless growth of the immense ‘artificial reality’ will end either as a function of intelligent human thought, the best available science and morally courageous action or else the colossal artificial reality (aka economic colossus, aka global political economy) will somehow expand until it implodes because an endlessly growing, gigantic global economy in a finite world like the one we inhabit cannot be sustained much longer on a planet of the size, composition and frangible ecology of Earth. To put this situation in another way, if we keep up our reckless overconsuming, relentless overproducing and unbridled overpopulation activities, then a point in human history will be reached when some unimaginable sort of cataclysm can be expected to occur. Allow me to deploy words from A. Schweitzer. We need a new ethics based upon “reverence for life”. To revere an ethical system based upon idea that ‘greed is good’, the idea we see governing and dominating so much human activity on our watch, needs to be appropriately criminalized rather than ubiquitously legitimized, socially sanctioned and made lawful.
If faith in the goodness of science is ever lost, then I fear the future of children everywhere, life as we know it, and Earth as a fit place for habitation by coming generations, that we think we are preserving and protecting in our time, could be ruined utterly. Somehow the honesty of science must come to prevail over professional effectiveness and the pernicious silence of too many of ‘the brightest and the best’ on one hand and the specious, intellectually dishonest, deceitful, cascading, ideologically-driven chatter of clever ‘talking heads’, overly educated sycophants or other minions in the mainstream media who selfishly serve the primary interests of self dealing masters of the universe among us on the other.
There is nothing ever insignificant to be gained from science and nothing trivial about truth. This is especially so with regard to science that indicates: human population numbers are a function of food availability (not, definitely not, the other way around) and human population dynamics is essentially similar to the population dynamics of other species. From my perspective, the science tells us something vital about ourselves, our distinctly human creatureliness and our ‘placement’ as the top ranking creature among the living beings on Earth. For all the miraculous and occasionally unique attributes of the human species, the research shows us that the human species is not, definitely not, most adequately or accurately placed “a little lower than angels” in the order of living things. Although such an attractively elevated and self-aggrandizing position for the human species sets human beings apart from other species, this view appears to be a widely shared, consensually validated and culturally-prescribed illusion. Rather human beings are assuredly situated within all that is living on Earth. Homo sapiens is an organism that is an integral part of the natural world, not apart from it. We see science once again ‘cutting’ from under us ‘the pedestal’ upon which we believe stand as we oversee, steward and dominate life on Earth.
This reminds me of the fiasco of desulphurised diesel around 15 years ago. The ecofascists convinced the powers that be in Yerp - and, since then, in a number of other places besides - that sulphur in fuel was A Bad Thing and needed to be removed. It was causing acid rain which was causing deforestation, see? We were drinking in the last chance saloon. If we didn't do Something, all the forests would, like, die.
So Something was done - the level of sulphur in diesel was duly mandated down from 2,000ppm to 500ppm to today's 10ppm.
Unfortunately, sulphur's main use is in the production of fertiliser. Removing it from the fuel, which removed it from the rain, also removed it from the crops, on which nutritious sulphur no longer fell. Crop failure ensued all over Yerp. Hilariously, one of the worst-affected was oilseed rape, which is used to make ecologically friendly diesel. Tee hee!
The solution was to take the sulphur, pelletise it, bag it, drive it to chemical factories, process it into fertiliser, truck it out to farms, dissolve it in water and have F. Giles Esquire spray it all over his crops from the trailer behind his tractor.
Quite how this was a better environmental solution than the status quo ante, where it was distributed for no cost, is unclear. In fact especially so, since acid rain turns not to cause deforestation after all anyway, and the cost in emissions of doing things the stupid green way is clearly a lot worse.
Being an ecofascist means never having to say you're sorry, however.
J4R
Yep. Brussel sprouts and the other Brassicaceae needs loads of sulphur to develop that special smell.