[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Innovative Strategies for Electric Utilities
Gary,
I'd just like to second your points re P2. As one who learned some
similar lessons in piloting P2 technology and hoping for "customer"
acceptance of perfectly good and economical P2 ideas, it was instructive
to find how few people beat a path to our door.
Tim makes some very good points. "Marketing" is a word that is very
meaningful. The people coming from a technical background (such as
myself) might use a good dose of it to understand the problem better.
People in the business of marketing spend very large amounts of effort
and money to induce changes in existing behavior patterns.
The second point, beware of P2 technology panacea. Typically, with P2
we seem to aim for "cheaper" and "cleaner" as "better" ways of meeting
compliance with existing regulations. The words in quotes are neither
technical or scientific. If you were to take them and answer the
questions "for whom, when, where, how long, how fast, etc. " you can
notice how variable the answers can get. Typically if "everybody did
it all the time" the regulations would have to be rewritten. A large
number of not so transparent assumptions, compromises and trade-offs
went into them.
Exceeding regulations, for example, may or may not be "better" than
meeting them from a scientific standpoint, depending on how well the
relative impacts were understood. For example, right now, there are
knowledgeable people that claim that the making and use of energy is
the source of our worst pollution.
On the other hand, minimizing "waste" seems like a solid approach.
However, an "activity" means input of energy and many activities can
start to get more net energy intensive the more rigorously we clean or
even, dare I say it, PREVENT WASTE, suggesting that there is a crossover
point. What we don't have is a metrics system to determine it. YET.
I know your organization has taken a few whacks at it, but it's
complicated. Naturally, I apologize to those people in the choir who
have heard this sermon before.
Ivars J. Licis
Gary Miller
<gmiller@wmrc.uiu To: jlmartinezp@repsolypf.com,
c.edu> mark.snyder@moea.state.mn.us, nppr@great-lakes.net,
Sent by: p2tech@great-lakes.net, scott.butner@pnl.gov,
owner-nppr@great- Mark.Johnson@lcra.org
lakes.net cc:
Subject: RE: Innovative Strategies for Electric Utilities
07/22/2002 09:23
AM
Dear Fellow P2ers,
This discussion concerns me because too often I have seen companies and
even P2 folks take the easy way out of dealing with a waste problem -
pollution control. Often consulting engineering companies are a large
driving force for control technologies because the technologies are
known (i.e., proven) and the consultants/vendors can make a lot more
money designing a pollution control system versus true P2 solutions.
We have been focusing this discussion on costs. Cost is only 1 of 6
critical factors. I can give several examples of companies who chose
pollution control over the P2 option even though it was agreed by
everyone involved that the P2 option would save a million $ or more per
year and pay back in a short time. By comparison the control option
chosen was shown to never pay back and be more costly. We used to think
it was the companies who were stupid. Then we looked deeper and found
we were not addressing all their concerns. we needed to change.
P2 options most often fail because we forget to address the other 5
values necessary for acceptance of change. Those values are
compatibility with existing systems, complexity, observbility,
trialability and and technical soundness. This has been outlined nicely
by the NPPR Research and Technology Transfer working group in a white
paper they published a few years ago (Pollution Prevention Technology
Diffusion White Paper by the National Pollution Prevention Roundtable's
Research and Technology Transfer Workgroup -
www.p2.org/whitepapers/techdiff.doc) Tim Lindsey wrote several articles
in P2 Review on this topic.
I urge you to read this and Tim's articles and then reconsider your mode
of operations. We have to constantly be on guard to not take the easy
way and we must improve our ability to "sell" p2 by addressing all the
needs of our customers. It's time to move beyond the typical P2
assessment model if we are to win the war on waste, truly conserve
resources and make manufacturers competitive.
Gary Miller
At 08:40 AM 7/22/2002 +0200, jlmartinezp@repsolypf.com wrote:
Very interesting discussion
I am writing form Europe. Here, we have a an internal law called
IPPC (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control); the idea was
to have something like PPAct but being a bit more flexible. We
are trying to combine making a trade off between Prevention and
Control of the Pollution
I think we, process, design or environmental engineers, should be
able to think about a trade off between PP or Pollution Control
following a case by case procedure. Does Pollution Prevention
pay? The answer should be yes, but applying concepts like best
available technologies not entailing excessive costs.
I remember a paper form Bob Pojasek titled: "For PP be descriptive
not prescriptive" so let us select scrubbers when necessary or
let us select any source reduction measure when available at
economic good conditions
I agree that we should avoid to transfer pollutants from air to
land (for example) but this is not always technical or economical
feasible.
I am studying petroleum refineries cases and believe me that it
is harder to decide when to apply Pollution prevention or
pollution control measures that go to your PP recipe book and
select one of them
Jose-Luis Martinez
-----Mensaje original-----
De: Snyder, Mark [mailto:mark.snyder@moea.state.mn.us]
Enviado el: viernes 19 de julio de 2002 20:53
Para: nppr@great-lakes.net; p2tech@great-lakes.net;
scott.butner@pnl.gov; 'Mark Johnson'
Asunto: RE: Innovative Strategies for Electric Utilities
This certainly sounds like a good step forward for cleaner air in
Texas, but after reading the press release, I'm left with some
questions. Is this project to install scrubbers an example of
pollution prevention or is it an example of more stringent
pollution control? Given that scrubbers have been around for a
number of years and have been required for a number of facilities
in different areas, what exactly makes this permit innovative? Or
is there something I'm missing from the press release?
Mark Snyder
Pollution Prevention Specialist
Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance
mark.snyder@moea.state.mn.us
> ----------
> From: Mark Johnson[SMTP:Mark.Johnson@lcra.org]
> Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 12:02 PM
> To: nppr@great-lakes.net; p2tech@great-lakes.net;
scott.butner@pnl.gov
> Subject: Innovative Strategies for Electric Utilities
>
> A shameless plug for my organization Lower Colorado River
Authority (LCRA) and the Texas Natural resource Conservation
Commission (TNRCC) and EPA Region 6!
>
> We recently submitted an application for a Flexible Air Permit
to the TNRCC for our 1,500 MW coal fired power plant in La Grange
Texas. The innovative air permit will allow our facility to
implement many P2 projects that would have not been possible
without the Flex Permit (most of these P2 projects would have
triggered NSR). The Flex permit will be put in motion over the
next 10 years.
>
> This innovative permit strategy can be followed by most other
utilities if the states are able to provide the flexibility. It
can provide some near term benefits and long term reductions
without waiting for CAA reforms or implemntation of the Bush Clear
Skies initiative.
>
> For more details please visit this link
> http://www.lcra.org/about/news/2002/07/plan.html
>
>
> Mark L Johnson, REM.
> Senior Environmental Coordinator
> Lower Colorado River Authority
> Email: mark.johnson@lcra.org
> Phone (512) 473- 3200 ext 2868
> Fax: (512) 473-3579
> Fax (512) 473-3579
>
>
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* *
p2tech is hosted by the Great Lakes Information Network:
http://www.great-lakes.net
To unsubscribe from this list: send mail to
majordomo@great-lakes.net
with the command 'unsubscribe p2tech' in the body of your message.
No
quotes or subject line are required.
About : http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/p2tech/p2tech.info
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* *
p2tech is hosted by the Great Lakes Information Network:
http://www.great-lakes.net
To unsubscribe from this list: send mail to
majordomo@great-lakes.net
with the command 'unsubscribe p2tech' in the body of your message.
No
quotes or subject line are required.
About : http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/p2tech/p2tech.info
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* *
*******************************************************************
Gary D. Miller, Ph. D.
Assistant Director
Illinois Waste Management and Research Center
Department of Natural Resources
One East Hazelwood Drive
Champaign, IL 61820
www.wmrc.uiuc.edu/
www.pneac.org
www.glrppr.org
www.p2rx.org
www.elsevier.nl/locate/issn/0959-6526
217/333-8942 phone
217/333-8944 fax
gmiller@wmrc.uiuc.edu
******************************************************************************
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
nppr is hosted by the Great Lakes Information Network:
http://www.great-lakes.net
To unsubscribe from this list: send mail to majordomo@great-lakes.net
with the command 'unsubscribe nppr' in the body of your message. No
quotes or subject line are required.
About : http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/nppr/nppr.info
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *