You are currently browsing the Lamont County Environment weblog archives for the day September 5, 2007.
- Acid Rain (14)
- Alarmist Insanity (22)
- Alternative Energy Sources (32)
- Bruderheim Seniors (10)
- Bunker Fuel (9)
- Censorship (6)
- Civil Rights (2)
- Climate Change (175)
- Climate Craziness (8)
- Community & Industry (97)
- Corruption & Fraud (32)
- Deficits and Debts (5)
- Derailments (2)
- Electric Energy Prices (10)
- Emission Incidents & Issues (138)
- Energy Issues (27)
- Energy Newsletter (3)
- Energy Purchases (4)
- Explosions & Fires (28)
- Fines & Penalties (18)
- Gardening (2)
- Hazco (13)
- Hazco EIA Review (3)
- Health issues (17)
- Heavy-Metal Poisoning & Pollution (11)
- Humour (4)
- Hydrogen-Sulphide (20)
- Innovations (1)
- Maps (2)
- Nitrogen-Oxides (15)
- Organizational News (2)
- Pollution: Health Issues (53)
- Propaganda debunked (71)
- Shell CCS Project (20)
- Sulphur Logistics (38)
- Sulphur-Dioxide (68)
- Sulphur-Related Construction Costs (27)
- Taxes (13)
- The New World Order (10)
- Tips and Notes (2)
- Town of Bruderheim (21)
- Ultra-Low-Sulphur Diesel (18)
- Uncategorized (4)
- Weather (29)
- Wildlife (5)
- World Sulphur Glut (20)
- January 17, 2012: Alberta Electricity Consumers to Reduce Consumption
- January 8, 2012: Alberta Electricity Price-Rise Causes Run on Contracts
- January 4, 2012: Fred Singer: Fake! Fake! Fake! Fake!
- January 4, 2012: Is global warming a problem?
- December 20, 2011: Europe's Green Lobby Fighting For Survival
- November 5, 2011: CO2 advertising blitz by Alberta government
- October 27, 2011: CCS solutions start with the Government of Alberta?
- October 22, 2011: Longannet carbon capture and storage project is no more
- October 7, 2011: Costs jeopardize CO2 Capture and Storage Project
- September 28, 2011: Second thoughts on smart meters
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
Archive for September 5, 2007
Court stops California from regulating shipping fuel standards
September 5, 2007 by Walter Schneider.
landlinemag.com
A federal court has stopped California from enforcing a new fuel standard designed to cut use of bunker fuel from cargo ships as they reach ports in the Golden State….
The Long Beach Press-Telegram reported that bunker fuel contains sulfur content as high as 27,000 parts per million, compared with U.S. diesel limits on cars and trucks of sulfur no higher than 15 parts per million….(Full Story)
___________
Note by folc.ca: At 27,000 parts per million, bunker fuel used by diesel-powered ships and locomotives contains 1,800 times as much sulphur by volume than does ultra-low-sulphur (ULS) Diesel at 15 parts per million used by highway trucks.
It appears that the [U.S.] EPA adamantly protects a system for waste-sulphur disposal through dispersion in the environment. Why would the EPA do that?
Posted in Bunker Fuel, Emission Incidents & Issues, Sulphur Logistics, Ultra-Low-Sulphur Diesel | Print | No Comments »