16/10/2012

Hi Justice!. "A Warning!."

Hi Justice!. "A Warning!."


 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Lawsuit to protect Ont. families from industrial pollution in Chemical Valley being challenged by oil company

Suncor seeks to strike case brought by community members affected by the most polluted air in Canada

JAN 31, 2012 05:56 AM

TORONTO Jan 31, 2012

For immediate release.  
TORONTO – Families in Sarnia, Ont., shouldn't be threatened by unsafe amounts of industrial pollution, according to a lawsuit brought against the Ontario government by two members of the Aamjiwnaang First Nation. Suncor Energy, one of the oil companies responsible for Sarnia’s pollution and named in the lawsuit, is trying to have the case dismissed. 
Eco Justice lawyers are in a Toronto court today to defend Ron Plain and Ada Lockridge's right to challenge a decision by Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment to permit pollution in Sarnia’s notorious industrial area, widely known as Chemical Valley. About 800 people live in Aamjiwnaang, making them neighbours with major industrial facilities that refine crude oil into plastics, rubber, gasoline and more. In the fall, the World Health Organization released a study that showed the people of Sarnia inhale some of the most polluted air in all of Canada. 
“Ontario's government has a responsibility to protect the air that Aamjiwnaang and Sarnia families are breathing,” said Justin Duncan, staff lawyer at Ecojustice. “Allowing Suncor to add more pollution in a place that already has the worst air quality in Canada is why we're in court. This is about protecting Canadians’ right to be healthy and safe from the harm caused by cumulative pollution.”
Eco Justice lawyers will be arguing that Ontario must consider the cumulative impacts of pollution before approving more toxic emissions. Lawyers for Suncor and the Ontario government have filed several motions, including two to strike most of the evidence Ecojustice introduced in April 2011, and one by Suncor to strike the entire case. 
“What I fear most is how this cumulative pollution will affect me and my family,” said Ada Lockridge, who has lived in the Sarnia area for 49 years. “Worse, when the sirens sound, I don't know where it’s coming from or what it could be doing to our health. We need the government to step in and protect us.”
In November 2010, Ron and Ada filed a lawsuit against Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment over its decision to approve pollution at the Suncor refinery in Sarnia. The application for judicial review alleges that the ministry’s ongoing approval of pollution – including cancer-causing benzene and other chemicals known to affect respiratory or cardiovascular health – is a violation of Ada and Ron’s rights under sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 
Eco Justice has put forward a motion to protect Ron and Ada from having to pay any adverse costs to Suncor and Ontario if they lose this case. 
Justice Alison Harvison Young will hear arguments on all of these motions, including Suncor’s motion to have the case dismissed, on Jan. 31, Feb. 1 and 2. The hearing is being held in courtroom No. 9 at 130 Queen Street West, Osgoode Hall, and begins at 10 a.m. each morning.  
Ecojustice is the country’s leading charitable organization dedicated to using the law to defend Canadians’ right to a healthy environment.

at

Hi Blog Translate

Hi Engineering Jobs!.

Hi Engineering Jobs!.
Hi Search Jobs >Industry Sector > Region > Job Function > Over 100's Of Jobs

Hi Wikipedia Search.

Search results

Hi Contact Form.

Name

Email *

Message *

Hi Source - Latest Category Technical Articles.

Loading...

Hi Green Tip #4: Hi Size and Select Fans Near Their Peak Total Efficiency.

Even the most efficient fan models can operate inefficiently if improperly sized.Fans selected close to their peak total efficiency (pTE) will use less energy. The 2012 International Green Construction Code requires selections within 10% of peak efficiency, and ASHRAE Standard 90.1,

Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, is considering language that would require a 15% allowable range. If a fan is selected to operate more than 15 point below its peak efficiency, it is probably undersized to result in the lowest purchase price (first cost). The smaller, less-expense fan will have to run much faster with higher levels of internal turbulence than its larger cousin to meet the required air flow, thus consuming a lot more energy.The cost difference to select a larger fan closer to peak operating efficiency is very small when compared to the energy saved.

Simple payback for 10% selections is usually less than one year. Smaller fans operating faster will also require more maintenance and earlier replacement. Smaller fans generate more noise as well.Below is a table showing the output from a fan manufacturer's sizing and selection program. All of the fans in the table would "do the job" of providing the required airflow at the required pressure.

The fan sizes range from 18-inches in diameter to 36-in. Notice that as the fan diameter increases, the fan speed decreases, as does the fan power (expressed as "brake horsepower"). The red region of the table indicates poor fan selection practice - none of these fans have an actual total efficiency (at the airflow and pressure required) within 15 points of peak total efficiency. The green region indicates proper fan selection process - all have an actual total efficiency within 15 points of peak total efficiency.

Note that the 30-in. diameter fan consumes roughly half the power of the 18-in. fan. The lowest cost fan shown is probably the 20-in. fan, with an efficiency of 49%, 29 points off the peak. If this fan runs 6,000 hours per year at a utility rate of 10 cents per kwh, it will cost $4,300 a year to operate. A more efficient selection might be the 24-in. fan because it is "Class I" and complies with both ASHRAE 90.1 and the Green code requirements. It has an actual efficiency of 69%, 10 points less than the peak efficiency of 79%. This fan would cost $3,100 to operate, which is probably more than the fan itself costs. A more efficient 30 inch selection is only 1 point from its peak efficiency of 83% and will consume only $2,600 per year, saving $500 a year relative to a 24-in. fan, and $1,700 a year over the lowest cost fan. Generally, the difference in initial cost of the most efficient fan selection is paid back in less than 5 years over more common less efficient alternatives. Perhaps this observation will bring it home.

Most fans consume more each year in energy cost than they are worth. So, when you buy a fan, think of it as a liability, not an asset. Your objective should be to make the liability placed on those who will pay future energy bills as low as possible. The leverage implicit in choosing a larger, more efficient fan is much greater than most people appreciate. And fans last a long time – 20 years plus – so choose wisely.The bottom line is this. Right-sizing a fan can yield energy savings and generate a lot of operating cost savings for the facility owner or occupants for many, many years.

Hi Total Pageviews.