Interesting e-mail I've received today "Fuel: The Mass Debate"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

Uhh.... one of the reasons Australia is about the only country that does not use SOx scrubbers is that the need for them is far less - most if not all Australian coal is low in sulphur, probably because it is mostly Permian rather than Carboniferous as in the northern hemisphere, and the washing carried out before combustion removes most of the sulphur, which is mainly present as pyrites in the coals I have examined. This does not remove all the sulphur, but I expect levels of SOx emissions from Australian power stations would generally be quite low, despite the lack of scrubbers. (One of the hazards of extrapolating data from one area to another!)

John

---

Sorry John - I think your information is either wrong or out of date on this one. I collaborate with some people from the CRC for clean coal. They are of the opinion that SOx emissions from coal combustion in Australia are significant enough that FGD systems should be fitted - even the clean coal (aust) website makes it sound like FGD systems are fitted in Australia.

To check your claims I just did a quick search. I turned up one paper:
Title: Effect of operating parameters on HCN and NH3 release from Australian and Chinese coals during temperature-programmed pyrolysis
Author(s): Chang LP, Feng ZH, Xie KC
Source: ENERGY SOURCES Volume: 25 Issue: 7 Pages: 703-712 Published: JUL 2003
Times Cited: 1

The 2 Australian coals they examined were 0.5-1% sulphur, the 3 Chinese coals were all around 0.1%.

The main reason we don't have such a problem with SOx in Australia is due more to sparse population and weather patterns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

1. You are right, but the proportion of this burden due to particulates is quite unclear, and although as you correctly point out, most Australians live in cities, the health of urban populations is better than that of rural populations, which does not agree with the idea that air pollution is a major problem. And I can't agree that the health effects of alcohol and tobacco are restricted to drinkers and smokers - tell that to the family whose just lost someone to a drunken driver, and the reason for banning smoking in pubs and clubs is to protect bystanders.

3. Same point - I am not saying particulates are not harmful to health - just that theyare not a major problem, at least in Western urban areas, compared to other health problems (and I suspect that in some third world areas with major air pollution, that particulates are the least of the problems!)

---

Hmm - I have read a number of studies which say the opposite - rural people generally have better health - especially if they grow up in a rural area. Have any evidence to support what you say???

3. You must have missed my post on this. A 10 year reduced life expectancy ISN't a major problem?????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by isuzurover

Hmm - I have read a number of studies which say the opposite - rural people generally have better health - especially if they grow up in a rural area. Have any evidence to support what you say???

3. You must have missed my post on this. A 10 year reduced life expectancy ISN't a major problem?????

---

See ABC Southern Queensland - Rural life expectancy report sparks call for more bush GPs
or Report finds higher rates of rural mortality - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Historically cities have always been downright dangerous, a situation that only started to be improved with public health measures in the second half of the nineteenth century. I don't have any figures, but I suspect that rural health continued to be better than city health until around WW2, when improving medical treatment methods made it more important to have a doctor handy. (before that the big improvements in life expectancy were public health and nutrition, very little to do with doctors)

The articles quoted above suggest that the proportion of indigenous Australians in the population affects the results, but from memory, discussion at the time discounted this, at least to some extent. Certainly the figures do nothing to support the supposition that the country is healthier than cities.

3. If air pollution reduced life expectancy by the amount claimed, the difference would show up in life expectancy between city and country areas - it doesn't, which makes the claimed reduction in life expectancy seem rather doubtful. I'm not saying ten years is not significant, just that the figure does not seem to be supported by the actuary tables!

John

SOx scrubbers in China? .. they definitely exist, but in my experience they aren't turned on for at least the hours after dark :)

like all things, they cost money and have a finite life, if you turn them off, they last longer and improve profits in the short term...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by isuzurover

Sorry John - I think your information is either wrong or out of date on this one. I collaborate with some people from the CRC for clean coal. They are of the opinion that SOx emissions from coal combustion in Australia are significant enough that FGD systems should be fitted - even the clean coal (aust) website makes it sound like FGD systems are fitted in Australia.

To check your claims I just did a quick search. I turned up one paper:
Title: Effect of operating parameters on HCN and NH3 release from Australian and Chinese coals during temperature-programmed pyrolysis
Author(s): Chang LP, Feng ZH, Xie KC
Source: ENERGY SOURCES Volume: 25 Issue: 7 Pages: 703-712 Published: JUL 2003
Times Cited: 1

The 2 Australian coals they examined were 0.5-1% sulphur, the 3 Chinese coals were all around 0.1%.

The main reason we don't have such a problem with SOx in Australia is due more to sparse population and weather patterns.

---

You seem to be right on sulphur content - and probably on the weather as well; most Australian coal fired power stations are pretty much right on the east coast, which with prevailing westerlies would take any sulphur fumes well out of the way of any population. Although, for example, the Wallerawang power station has the city of Lithgow just downwind from it, and although I have heard of complaints (denied by the power company) of problems with fly-ash, I have never heard of SOx being even mentioned, and they are in the same local news area as I am. Maybe someone from the area such as Ace might comment?

John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

1. You are right, but the proportion of this burden due to particulates is quite unclear, and although as you correctly point out, most Australians live in cities, the health of urban populations is better than that of rural populations, which does not agree with the idea that air pollution is a major problem. And I can't agree that the health effects of alcohol and tobacco are restricted to drinkers and smokers - tell that to the family whose just lost someone to a drunken driver, and the reason for banning smoking in pubs and clubs is to protect bystanders.

3. Same point - I am not saying particulates are not harmful to health - just that theyare not a major problem, at least in Western urban areas, compared to other health problems (and I suspect that in some third world areas with major air pollution, that particulates are the least of the problems!)

5. And palladium is even rarer than platinum*! Its cheaper at present I think, but only because it has much less demand, being used largely as a platinum substitute! OK, gold is much more common, but it is not exactly cheap either. I don't have much faith in nano-iron I am afraid, but certainly an affordable fuel cell that needs hydrogen to work is likely to be the only thing to justify a hydrogen economy, and even then it may not. Depends on other developments, and I am thinking especially of battery improvements.

*One of my favourite historical tid bits, possibly apochryphal, is that shortly after the Spanish conquest of Peru, a shipload of silver was despatched from Mexico to Spain. A few days after sailing, tests carried out on board revealed that several tonnes of the metal on board was not silver but some unknown metal (platinum). As the ship was heavily loaded, and it was clearly valueless, it was dumped over the side, somewhere in the gulf of Mexico.

John

---

Re 1 and 3, I think Isuzurover beat me to it. Same question as previously, the claim that health in rural areas is worse than in urban areas, (As with morbidity for London Vs LA) is this documented study you're quoting, or once again, your gut feel?

In addition, I'm not arguing the relative treatment costs of alcohol & tobacco related ilnesses Vs petroleum related ones. All I'm saying that health costs associated with petroleum product emissions far exceed the levies collected on them. One can therefore hardly argue that its not fair that people who use more fuel shouldn't be making a greater tax contribution (through fuel levies).

Furthermore, when you say "I'm not saying that particulates are not harmful to your health"... You're really saying that you agree that they are harmful to our health. Are you not? Because if so, (and it would be hard to argue otherwise, given the large body of PUBLISHED evidence showing it is) then you'll also agree that there is a cost burden associated with the health care system (which the government pays for). Please note that we're only talking about economic "costs" for providing health care to treat petroleum related pollution ilnesses. As Isuzurover rightly points out, this does not take into account "costs" to our health, the impacts it has on our quality of life, as well as life expectancy. How does one put a dollar value of that?

5.) To be honest, I've always assumed, but never actually bothered to check. Considering that I'm debating relative rarity of various precious metals with a retired geophysicist, I thought it prudent to check the facts. Here are my results:

Crustal Abundance of palladium 0.015ppm
Crustal Abundance of platinum 0.003ppb

In all honesty, the estimates I got for platinum varied between 0.003 and 0.005 ppb (parts per billion).

Compare this to abundance of palladium of 0.15 ppm (parts per MILLION), it is between 3000 to 5000 times more common than platinum, so sorry but you should check your facts.

In any case, we're straying so far away from the arguement I'm trying to make. It's viable as a future "source"... I'll call it an energy storage medium, for fear of another off-the-track arguement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Offender90

Re 1 and 3, I think Isuzurover beat me to it.
1. Same question as previously, the claim that health in rural areas is worse than in urban areas, (As with morbidity for London Vs LA) is this documented study you're quoting, or once again, your gut feel?

2. In addition, I'm not arguing the relative treatment costs of alcohol & tobacco related ilnesses Vs petroleum related ones. All I'm saying that health costs associated with petroleum product emissions far exceed the levies collected on them. One can therefore hardly argue that its not fair that people who use more fuel shouldn't be making a greater tax contribution (through fuel levies).

Furthermore, when you say "I'm not saying that particulates are not harmful to your health"... You're really saying that you agree that they are harmful to our health. Are you not? Because if so, (and it would be hard to argue otherwise, given the large body of PUBLISHED evidence showing it is) then you'll also agree that there is a cost burden associated with the health care system (which the government pays for). Please note that we're only talking about economic "costs" for providing health care to treat petroleum related pollution ilnesses. As Isuzurover rightly points out, this does not take into account "costs" to our health, the impacts it has on our quality of life, as well as life expectancy. How does one put a dollar value of that?

5.) To be honest, I've always assumed, but never actually bothered to check. Considering that I'm debating relative rarity of various precious metals with a retired geophysicist, I thought it prudent to check the facts. Here are my results:

Crustal Abundance of palladium 0.015ppm
Crustal Abundance of platinum 0.003ppb

In all honesty, the estimates I got for platinum varied between 0.003 and 0.005 ppb (parts per billion).

Compare this to abundance of palladium of 0.15 ppm (parts per MILLION), it is between 3000 to 5000 times more common than platinum, so sorry but you should check your facts.

In any case, we're straying so far away from the arguement I'm trying to make. It's viable as a future "source"... I'll call it an energy storage medium, for fear of another off-the-track arguement.

---

1. See references already given.

2. I am not arguing against people who use more fuel paying more taxes - in fact I would prefer to see the taxes on fixed parts of the costs of motoring moved onto fuel. I don't see any evidence presented that costs of health effects of fuels exceed the revenue collected, and I would be rather surprised if they did - or even if it was possible to say what these costs are. And I am not arguing for lower fuel taxes! (although the equity of GST on excise is questionable)

5. I'm afraid that you are confusing crustal abundance with availability. After all, to go back to the nub of the question, hydrogen is the most abundant element, but is not exactly available. If you look at the same references you quote, you will find that the 2006 production of platinum was approximately 217 tonnes and palladium 222. Now OK, I was wrong - it is slightly more common than platinum, but the difference is not significant. And seeing that both metals sell for very high prices, you may be sure that if there was any easy way of getting more of either, then someone would have done it.

John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

See ABC Southern Queensland - Rural life expectancy report sparks call for more bush GPs
or Report finds higher rates of rural mortality - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Historically cities have always been downright dangerous, a situation that only started to be improved with public health measures in the second half of the nineteenth century. I don't have any figures, but I suspect that rural health continued to be better than city health until around WW2, when improving medical treatment methods made it more important to have a doctor handy. (before that the big improvements in life expectancy were public health and nutrition, very little to do with doctors)

The articles quoted above suggest that the proportion of indigenous Australians in the population affects the results, but from memory, discussion at the time discounted this, at least to some extent. Certainly the figures do nothing to support the supposition that the country is healthier than cities.

3. If air pollution reduced life expectancy by the amount claimed, the difference would show up in life expectancy between city and country areas - it doesn't, which makes the claimed reduction in life expectancy seem rather doubtful. I'm not saying ten years is not significant, just that the figure does not seem to be supported by the actuary tables!

John

---

John, the 3 worst air polluted areas in Australia are 1 Launceston, Tas. 2 Tuggeranong, ACT. 3 Armidale, NSW and are typical of Country towns throughout Colder areas of Australia. According to CSIRO Dept. of Atmospheric Research (DAR) and NSW EPA the enormously high Particulate Matter (PM2.5) is soley attributable to Domestic Wood Heater (DWH) emissions, with 60% + usage in Country areas, it is no wonder that the health of Country folk are at risk, the area I live in, covered by the GSAHS has the highest rate of Lung Disease and Asthma as well as the LOWEST recovery rate of Cancer patients in Australia. The World Health Org. (WHO) states that there are more than 3 million deaths/year directly attributable to PM2.5 Pollution and that there is "No safe Level of exposure to PM2.5 air pollution.
In Australia there are 4000+ deaths every year due to PM2.5 air pollution. in Sydney during Winter 2/3 of ALL PM2.5 air Pollution comes from DWH (EPA, NSW, DoH, NSW). Recent studies in NZ and Australia have calculated the medical costs of PM2.5 from DWH ONLY at $3000 each/year, the AMA, The Australian Lung Foundation et al, recommend the Total ban of DWH in Urban areas of Cities and Country towns, NZ has Banned them and is phasing out existing heaters, Australian State Governments have Buy-Back schemes for DWH. Canadian Government research has shown Bush-Fire Fighters on average have a 10 year shorter life-span, also a modern DWH operated correctly for 9 hours creates more Greenhose Gas and Pm2.5 pollution than driving a new car 18,000klms.
John I know you have your opinions and highly educated ones as well, but you seem determined not to accept the devastation caused by PM 2.5 Pollution, you seem to want to deny research and studies done by prestigous organisations like the CSIRO, WHO and others, I am wondering what you base your opinions on PM Pollution on, Regards Frank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tank

John, the 3 worst air polluted areas in Australia are 1 Launceston, Tas. 2 Tuggeranong, ACT. 3 Armidale, NSW and are typical of Country towns throughout Colder areas of Australia. According to CSIRO Dept. of Atmospheric Research (DAR) and NSW EPA the enormously high Particulate Matter (PM2.5) is soley attributable to Domestic Wood Heater (DWH) emissions, with 60% + usage in Country areas, it is no wonder that the health of Country folk are at risk, the area I live in, covered by the GSAHS has the highest rate of Lung Disease and Asthma as well as the LOWEST recovery rate of Cancer patients in Australia. The World Health Org. (WHO) states that there are more than 3 million deaths/year directly attributable to PM2.5 Pollution and that there is "No safe Level of exposure to PM2.5 air pollution.
In Australia there are 4000+ deaths every year due to PM2.5 air pollution. in Sydney during Winter 2/3 of ALL PM2.5 air Pollution comes from DWH (EPA, NSW, DoH, NSW). Recent studies in NZ and Australia have calculated the medical costs of PM2.5 from DWH ONLY at $3000 each/year, the AMA, The Australian Lung Foundation et al, recommend the Total ban of DWH in Urban areas of Cities and Country towns, NZ has Banned them and is phasing out existing heaters, Australian State Governments have Buy-Back schemes for DWH. Canadian Government research has shown Bush-Fire Fighters on average have a 10 year shorter life-span, also a modern DWH operated correctly for 9 hours creates more Greenhose Gas and Pm2.5 pollution than driving a new car 18,000klms.
John I know you have your opinions and highly educated ones as well, but you seem determined not to accept the devastation caused by PM 2.5 Pollution, you seem to want to deny research and studies done by prestigous organisations like the CSIRO, WHO and others, I am wondering what you base your opinions on PM Pollution on, Regards Frank.

---

I am aware of your views, but we have heard in the above that the particulates are caused by fossil fuel, and you are saying they are mostly due to wood heaters. Both cannot be right. The figures quoted for mortality from this cause are estimates, and there is no way of telling which deaths are caused by particulate matter, but there is a test as to whether the figures are accurate - a ten year difference in life expectancy should show up in the statistics, and it doesn't.

There are plenty of similar examples in different areas - a good example is mandatory annual roadworthiness tests; obviously they make a worthwhile difference to road safety, right? So why is it that states that have them don't have better road statistics than those that don't?

Similarly, it is obvious that using mobile phones while driving is dangerous - and although illegal, we all know that a lot of people do it. But ten years ago mobile phones were rare, now everyone has them, so there are far more used while driving than there were then - but road safety has improved, not got worse in that time. (Also, if we go overseas, to the USA, in some states using phones is illegal, some it isn't, and there is no perceptible difference in the trend of road statistics since phones were introduced, nor when they have been made illegal). (I do not answer my mobile when driving, despite these statistics)

Getting back to medical matters, tobacco smoking has been easily shown to be dangerous, because tobacco smokers are a definable group, and you can reasonably accurately separate those that smoke from those that do not, and show that the health outcomes are far worse for those that do compared to those that do not, despite the fact that the mechanism of the damage is still, after all these years of research, not clear (although there are ideas). But it has been almost impossible to 'prove' that environmental smoke from smokers is hazardous, since there is no statistical source for this, since it is so difficult to say who has been exposed and who has not.

But we seem to have gone a long way from the subject of this thread, which was a proposal to solve the fuel price problem, which unfortunately was based on a number of critical errors of fact, including the such basic ones as the rate of excise and the proportion of Australia's oil imported.

John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

See ABC Southern Queensland - Rural life expectancy report sparks call for more bush GPs
or Report finds higher rates of rural mortality - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Historically cities have always been downright dangerous, a situation that only started to be improved with public health measures in the second half of the nineteenth century. I don't have any figures, but I suspect that rural health continued to be better than city health until around WW2, when improving medical treatment methods made it more important to have a doctor handy. (before that the big improvements in life expectancy were public health and nutrition, very little to do with doctors)

The articles quoted above suggest that the proportion of indigenous Australians in the population affects the results, but from memory, discussion at the time discounted this, at least to some extent. Certainly the figures do nothing to support the supposition that the country is healthier than cities.

3. If air pollution reduced life expectancy by the amount claimed, the difference would show up in life expectancy between city and country areas - it doesn't, which makes the claimed reduction in life expectancy seem rather doubtful. I'm not saying ten years is not significant, just that the figure does not seem to be supported by the actuary tables!

John

---

Australian Data is not necessarily representative - it is skewed by indigenous populations, mental health issues (suicides, etc), and often WORSE air quality - dust/pollen/smoke etc - induced by our unique climate/flora/bushfires.

European data generally shows that health and life expectancy is better in countries than cities. A long term study in holland found that children raised in country areas (and exposed to more microorganisms, etc) had a much lower chance of contracting illness later in life, compared to an equivalent study group who were raised in cities.

As I said, data from Europe shows a strong correlation between mortality/life expectancy and air quality.

However - Australia generally has good air quality - so there isn't much of a link to be found. HOWEVER _ mortality rates in frail/elderly people, and heart attacks, etc., Increases during incidences of exceptionally low air quality.