251–260 of 272 posts
> The permit, a Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System authorization known as TPDES, allowed up to 231,000 gallons of treated wastewater per day to be discharged into an unnamed ditch that flows into Petronila Creek and from there into Baffin Bay, a longtime South Texas saltwater fishing destination. Ok, so sounds like Tesla got the necessary legal provisions. > What it did not do, explicitly, was grant Tesla t…
The problem is the ammonia concentration due to chemical reactions caused by temperature increase after leaving the facility.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In some cases it still is, but we need to emphasize the exceptions , which can be rather serious. For example, we can hardly "dilute" CFCs or CO2 any more than we did, by putting them into a whopping 5.15×10^18 kg of the entire atmosphere of the Earth. Yet both still cause bad things, because there's no (sufficient) process to break them down or move them to a safe state.
Is that so? The amount of atmosphere stays the same, but we're constantly adding more CO2. So wouldn't this continually reduce the dilution?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So, it's fine as long as it's legal, then? > Love that way of thinking. I mean.. yeah, kinda'? We live in a society made up of laws, that's kind of the premise. So if we don't think something is fine, we can make it illegal (and we often do). It's a pretty good way of thinking methinks, what's your alternative?
Dunno, maybe strive to release no pollutants at all? Then we wouldn't need all the pesky big government overreach.
Your car, heating, toilet and soap and all the rest release zero pollution, right?
[flagged]
How is that a half truth? If you read the article it’s clear that this discharge is fully permitted and legal. All the substances they portray so shockingly were found at barely detectable levels. I read the whole article and I don’t really understand what is being criticized, if not manufacturing itself. Do people think it’s possible to make a massive battery factory with zero industrial waste water output? Or do th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Air pumps were for catalyst efficiency. The old ones needed extra oxygen molecules floating around for the big stuff (hydrocarbons) to oxidize with until the catalyst was up to operating temp and working at peak-ish efficiency. My experience comes from driving and working on a 1988 GMC 6000 truck with an anemic 350 small block with a Muncie SM465 behind it. There was no catalytic converter, only a muffler. It featu…
350ish (or less) + 4spd trucks kinda fell out of favor over the course of the 70s for bigger engines and 5spds (usually with a 2spd rear end but I digress). I'm sure you could still get one, but who would when you could get something better on the lot for the same money. Sounds like someone swapped a 70s-80s engine from a lighter application in. I don't think that truck would've had manual choke from the factory. Lot…
Nope, factory. I have the brochure to that truck and clearly remember the gasoline engine options: 350, 366 and 427 (tall deck big blocks) The 350 + 4spd was billed as a low cost drive line option for local work trucks that did not travel long distances. It had a rater tall rear end (tall is slang for deep reduction ratio) something like a 5:1 or better. On a flat road with your foot to the floor it could barley approach 50 MPH.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
350ish (or less) + 4spd trucks kinda fell out of favor over the course of the 70s for bigger engines and 5spds (usually with a 2spd rear end but I digress). I'm sure you could still get one, but who would when you could get something better on the lot for the same money. Sounds like someone swapped a 70s-80s engine from a lighter application in. I don't think that truck would've had manual choke from the factory. Lot…
The 6000 was a commercial truck. It appears to have had a carburetor for most if not all of the 1980s.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that what a "smog pump" is (was)? LOL. I had heard the term but never knew what it was. Along the same lines then as other emissions equipment that reduced fuel economy but achieved the ppm criteria in the exhaust. Yes, let's address pollution by burning more fuel.
Yes, and it has absolutely nothing to do with increasing air volume. The idea is to lower hydrocarbon emissions by burning them off in the exhaust manifold.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a discussion forum. Putting things into words is the purpose of commenting. If you can’t, then maybe you shouldn’t.
I guess you need to understand the deeper meaning implied by that comment. It's OK if you don't - unfortunately social media and now LLMs have strongly impacted the average Joe's or average Teddy's ability to understand something like this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is that a half truth? If you read the article it’s clear that this discharge is fully permitted and legal. All the substances they portray so shockingly were found at barely detectable levels. I read the whole article and I don’t really understand what is being criticized, if not manufacturing itself. Do people think it’s possible to make a massive battery factory with zero industrial waste water output? Or do th…
The discharge was described as black. Unless I’m missing something regarding the allowable discharges, it would reason they are also discharging something else which isn’t being looked for.