Sziasztok,

> milyen tetelekbol all a benzinar

1. termelo es forgalmazo fedezete
2. kornyezetvedelmi termekdij
3. jovedeki ado
4. AFA

A szamok kulonbozo benzifajtaknal elteroek es idoben is valtoznak.
A januar 1-i allapot (azota volt nemi aremelkedes, nem tudom mennyi):

	fed.	k.dij	j.ado	AFA	ossz
EN  91	36.69	3.53	86.90	31.78	158.90
ESZ 95	39.09	3.53	86.90	32.38	161.90
ESZ 98	46.29	3.53	86.90	34.18	170.90
dizel	39.67	3.65	75.00	29.58	147.90

Az olmozott 98-as arusitasa kozben mexunt, az olommentes 98-hoz
pedig egyes kutaknal olompotlo adalekot tesznek amitol dragabb.
Es persze voltak aremelkedesek az olajpiacion januar ota. Az
kornyezetvedelmi dij es a jovedeki ado fix osszeg, a bejelentett
termeloi aremelkedes csak az AFA-t hizlalja.

Ja es nalunk olcso a benzin. Forintra atszamolva (ez meginkabb
a multat tukrozi, 1998 december 25-i allapot) az ESZ 95 ara ("ar"
= fogyasztoi ar, "adok" az osszes ado+dij+jarulek+afa egyben):

		ar	adok
Anglia		239.80	129.30
Franciaorszag	228.40	144.70
Olaszorszag	226.00	150.30
Ausztria	219.40	140.00
Nemetorszag	206.90	154.70
Svajc		180.80	129.50
Magyarorszag	149.90	109.56
Szlovenia	140.10	 98.00
Horvatoszag	134.30	 78.20
Szlovakia	133.30	 71.80
Romania		 87.70   61.50 (ugy hallottam azota emelkedett)
Ukrajna		 53.40	 17.70

Forras: Autoselet 99/februar.

Udv///Laci

> 1. biomassza
> 2. atom
> 3. kulfoldi kutatasok

1.

A biomassza hasznosithato. Jelentosege (mennyisegenel fogva) sajnos
marginalis, ha csak a kWh-ban merjuk, de a mindenkepp felszabadulo
metant jobb ha elegetjuk mint ha elszall. Valahol nemetorszagban van
egy sorgyar, amely egy csirkeneveldevel es egy arpatablaval egyutt
zart rendszerben mukodik, kiveve persze a sort, azt nem mind isszak
meg a dolgozok :-). Sajnos azonban en onmagaban az internetezeshez
tobb aramot hasznalok mint amennyit a biomasszam erjesztesebol elo
lehetne allitani, es meg nem beszeltunk a biomasszat ugyszolvan nem
termelo am tekintelyes energiafogyasztokrol (pl aluminiumkohok).

2.

Az atomeromuvekrol: nehany balesetnek koszonhetoen a legjobban felugyelt
ipari letesitmenyek koze tartoznak. Szerintem igy eleg biztonsagosak.
Az elmult evtizedben mar tobb atomeromuvet ill nuklearis futomuvet is
szanaltak, igy az utogondozas koltsegeire "a posteriori" becsles is
adhato. Alternativaja a gaz es szentuzelesu hoeromu, mindketto erosen
szennyezo (kulonosen a szen) es hihetetlenul kornyezetrombolo (kulszini
fejtesekre gondolok). Diana tavaly szervezett egy vitaestet errol a
CEU-n, sajnos nem tudtam elmenni, de az eredmenye azert erdekelne.

3.

Ez lehet a kakukktojas? Nem ertem es/vagy nem is tudok hozzaszolni.

Udv///Laci

Subject: videotek t keresek
X-Charset: HUN1;
X-Char-Esc: 29;

Keresek olyan budapesti videotekat, ahol nagy valasztek van 
termeszetfilmekbol, okologiaval foglalkozo oktatofilmekbol.
Ki ismer ilyet? 
Cimeket koszonettel veszek az  drotpostara
Varga Ildiko

> ============================================================
Pollution Online Newsletter
Volume 2   Issue 27
Wednesday, April 28, 1999
> ============================================================



******** ONLINE BOOKSTORE ********

This week's Professional E-Bookstore SPECIAL.  All Editor's Picks 20% off!
Visit the address below to check out what the Editor's recommend.  Get it for
20% off and Free Freight! (US Continental Orders Only)  You can't find a better
deal on the Web.
Visit the Pollution Online Bookstore at:
http://www2.pollutiononline.com/Store/books_prof_market_home.asp


******** FEATURED ARTICLES selected by Paul Hersch ********

1) Simple System May Solve Bangladesh’s Arsenic Problem
2) Bioponic M3 Ships First Product from Purifying Process
3) Study Shows Minerals Hasten Remediation by Radiation

> ------------------------------------------------------------

1) Simple System May Solve Bangladesh’s Arsenic Problem
The Center for Environmental Studies said that the Bangladesh government is
currently considering its proposal for ridding that nation’s groundwater
arsenic problem.

http://news.pollutiononline.com/industry-news/19990423-421.html	


2) Bioponic M3 Ships First Product from Purifying Process
Bioponic International Inc. has shipped the first product to be made in its M3
reclamation/purification plant.

http://news.pollutiononline.com/firms-and-faces/19990419-6184.html	


3) Study Shows Minerals Hasten Remediation by Radiation
Researchers have shown that radiation remediation of soils is more rapid for
soils with high mineral content.

http://news.pollutiononline.com/industry-news/19990416-6083.html	


******** EDITOR'S CHOICE PRODUCTS ********

1) Pump Station Level Controller. By: Greyline Instruments (Massena, NY)
2) Gas Analysis Sampling System  By: Perma Pure Inc. (Toms River, NJ)
3) Coalescer/Separator By: Hayward Industrial Products (Elizabeth, NJ)

> ------------------------------------------------------------

1) Pump Station Level Controller. By: Greyline Instruments (Massena, NY)
The pump-station level controller features a non-contacting ultrasonic sensor,
isolated 4-20mA output, and six programmable control relays.

http://news.pollutiononline.com/product-releases/19990420-6634.html	


2) Gas Analysis Sampling System  By: Perma Pure Inc. (Toms River, NJ)
The sample conditioning systems are designed to treat hot sample gas streams.

http://news.pollutiononline.com/product-releases/19990420-6619.html	


3) Coalescer/Separator By: Hayward Industrial Products (Elizabeth, NJ)
The 35L-CLC is a two-stage, vertical separation vessel designed to segregate
liquid from gas or vapor.

http://news.pollutiononline.com/product-releases/19990420-6408.html	


******** NATIONAL SPONSOR ********

Why wait for the next time? You're 60 seconds from e.card Visa and a 3.9%
introductory rate.  Apply for your card today by visiting:
http://app1.firstusa.com/card.cfm/XEC74EC18/6BB1



****** FEATURED COMPANY (information from sponsors): ******

Visit the company below for more industry news and product information:

Trinity Air Technologies started in 1993 as a supplier of air pollution control
equipment, including but not limited to recuperative thermal and catalytic
oxidizers, regenerative thermal oxidizers, concentrator wheels, dust collector
systems, packed bed scrubber systems, engineering and design of capture and
recirculation processes and complete turnkey installations.
Visit Trinity Air Technologies at:
http://www.pollutiononline.com/storefronts/trinityairt.html




> -------------------------------------------------------------------

If you enjoy reading Pollution Online's Newsletter, please tell a
friend or colleague about it.  Anyone can sign up for a free
subscription on our Web site at http://www.pollutiononline.com

> --------------------------------------------------------------------

If your company wishes to sponsor this newsletter, please
contact Mike Wilson at mailto: to learn more.

> ==========================================================

If you wish to unsubscribe, please go to the following web page:
http://www2.pollutiononline.com/content/newsletter/unsubscribe.asp

> ==========================================================
The Pollution Online Homepage: http://www.pollutiononline.com

(c) Copyright 1999 VerticalNet, Inc. All rights reserved. All
product names contained herein are the trademarks of their
respective holders.

Vizi Szilard erdekes kerdesere:
(ha eddig nem tudtam volna, hogy muszaki ember, most kitalaltam 
volna. Gyk: ez nalam dicseret)

>1. biomassza energetikai hasznositas mellett, ellen

a., mellett: ez az a megujulo, amelyik alig dragabb a mai olcso 
hagyomanyos energiaforrasoknal, jol kidolgozott a felhasznalas, 
technologiaja, CO2 hatasa - megfelelo felhasznalasnal - csekely.
A megfelelo megoldas az e celra ultetett, gyorsan novo, asszimilalo 
novenybol allo erdo ill. az egyebkent is keletkezo egheto hulladek 
hasznositasa.

b., ellen: a CO2 hatas nem nulla, mint sokan hirdetik, sot, ha nem 
kifejezetten erre a celra telepitett energiaerdot egetunk, hanem 
meglevot irtunk, akkor ketszeresen is rossz, mert a CO2-t fogyaszto 
zoldfelulet is csokken (ez persze a biogazra nem vonatkozik, csak a 
tuzelesre).  Energiaerdo gondozas, betakaritas gazolajat hasznal. 
Fatuzeles csak a nagyfogyasztoknal lehet gazdasagos es 
kornyezetbarat. Kis teljesitmenynel sok rosszul elegett szenhidrogen 
tavozik.

>2. atomenergia fejlesztes mellett, ellen

a., mellett: gazdasagos, kornyezetet alig (talan legkevesbe) terheli 
(kell ennel tobb erv?)

b., ellen: (bar lehet, hogy ezt masnak kene hagynom, lesz eleg 
vallalkozo ra) keves az uran, a jelenlegi once thrugh modszerrel 
(0.5-0.7% anyaghasznositasi fok) a jelenleg ismert erc formaju U 
keszlet kb. 1500 GW eromu uzemanyaganak eleg (30 ev uzemidovel 
szamolva) es ennek a kb. harmada mar megepult. Uj forrasokra vagy 
jobb technologiara (pl. tenyeszreaktor) van szukseg.
Jelenleg nagy egysegekben (800-1000 MW es feljebb) igazan gazdasagos 
es ez egy ekkora villamosenergia-rendszerben, mint a mienk (kb. 7000 
MW osszes kapacitas) kicsit sok. Ezen segithet a kisebb egysegek 
folyamatban levo fejlesztese, ill. a szorosabb nemzetkozi kooperacio 
az orszagos rendszerek kozott.

>3. kulfoldi kutatasok atultetese hazai formaba

a., mellett: minek talaljuk ki azt a langyosvizet ujra, amit mar mas 
kitalalt? (Az penz es energiapocsekolas lenne es indokolatlan 
gogosseget eredmenyez, hogy lam, mi is ki tudtuk talalni)

b., ellen: (igaz, csak a rossz modszeru atvetel ellen) nem szabad 
beletorodni, hogy masok mar mindent kitalaltak, nekunk mar nem kell 
gondolkodni. Nem szabad kritika nelkul atvenni a kulfoldi 
eredmenyeket (korved pelda: a nemet TA Luft legrosszabb reszeinek 
kritikatlan atvetele "hurra, EU-konformitas" kurjantassal, amikor a 
gyenge magyar szabalyozas is jobb nala). Atvetelnel figyelembe kell 
venni a forras orszag es Magyarorszag eltero viszonyait (pl. 
gazdasagi lehetosegek, termeszeti adottsagok stb.) es nem gepiesen 
masolni (maskepp: ilyenkor is kell hasznalni a szurkeallomanyt, bar 
az nagyon faraszto).

Erdeklodessel varom masok velemenyet is. Remelem lesz.

Gacs Ivan

Ui: most latom, hogy legrovidebb az "atomenergia mellett", 
leghosszabb az "atomenergia ellen" lett. Meg vagyok lepve.

THE GREAT NORTH AMERICAN CARBON SINK -- MAYBE

"Aha!  We knew it!" a number of conservative columnists have been crowing
lately.  "Greenhouse, schmeenhouse, go right on driving those sports utility
vehicles."

The cause of their excitement is an article published in Science magazine, one
of the most prestigious places a scientific article can be published, claiming
that the North American continent is a huge carbon sink.  The authors found,
essentially, that the carbon dioxide content of air blowing onto our west coast
is higher than that of air blowing out to sea from our east coast.  (Carbon
dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas.)

Somehow, the authors conclude, in crossing the continent, the prevailing
westerlies must run across massive carbon dioxide absorbers, perhaps growing
forests.  Those forests, or whatever, must take even up more carbon dioxide
than the enormous amount we put out as we burn coal, oil, and gas.  (North
America accounts for twenty-five percent of the world's fossil fuel consumption
with just six percent of the world's people).  Therefore, say the columnists,
not the scientists, we are not causing any greenhouse warming and needn't be
bothered with the Kyoto climate treaty.

"I don't believe that article," said a visiting forest scientist at a Dartmouth
seminar this week.  "I don't know anyone who believes it."

So goes science, back and forth, up and down, maybe, maybe not, that's an
interesting finding but let's see if we can repeat the experiment, let's see if
there are other explanations, let's put it in the perspective of all these
other findings.

And so goes column-writing, a handmaiden of politics, which likes to seize any
shred of evidence to support what one already thought and hit everyone over the
head with it.
A difficult combination, science and politics.  Especially in a democratic
society where the public is charged with figuring out what to believe.

Take the dioxin muddle, for example.  This chemical (set of chemicals,
actually) is a common contaminant in some herbicides, in wastewater from
paper-making, in the stack gas of garbage incinerators.  Science found it to be
poisonous early on; environmentalists hyped it into "one of the most toxic
chemicals known to humankind."  Then the chlorine industry did some studies
that found it to be not so immediately toxic after all, and the conservative
columnists proclaimed it harmless.  

Along came new science about chemicals that act like hormones and disrupt the
development of embryos.  They're called endocrine disrupters.  Dioxin proves to
be one of the most powerful.  Excruciatingly tiny amounts seem to distort all
sorts of developing critters: birds, fish, reptiles, mammals, people too.

Now both the pro- and anti-dioxin crowds have evidence they can blow out of
proportion.  So is dioxin safe?  Science is still figuring it out.  In the
meantime, how much risk do we want to run with developing critters?

Another study on endocrine disrupters, from a respected lab, seemed to
confirmed something environmentalists had suspected for a long time.  Several
different chemicals apparently acted together to create thousands of times more
disruption than any one of them alone.

That result hit the press hard, one set of true believers trumpeting it, the
other set studiously ignoring it.

Meanwhile other labs tried to duplicate the study and couldn't.  Soon the
original researchers published a retraction; they couldn't repeat the results
either.  That happens sometimes. These are delicate processes.  There could
have been a contaminant in the solutions or even in the plastic labware. 
Exactly that problem has messed up endocrine disruption studies before.  The
researchers would be considered dishonorable only for failing to publish a
retraction, not for publishing one.  That's science.

What's politics is to write nyah-nyah columns saying, see there?  All those
fears about exposure to multiple chemicals are groundless.  Such columns were,
of course, written.

Failure to disprove is not proof.  It only means that a particular test showed
no effect.  In this case the test was in a lab using cultured cells, not in a
developing embryo.  Both theories -- chemicals acting together can add up to
worse effects than they do separately, or they cannot -- are still alive.

A similar story caused havoc in England last fall.  A scientist, again a
respectable one from a good lab, found that rats fed genetically engineered
potatoes had suppressed immune systems and stunted growth, compared to rats fed
ordinary potatoes or even rats fed ordinary potatoes spiked with the specific
protein whose code had been spliced into the transgenic potatoes.

That last bit looks scientifically suspicious.  So does the fact that the
researcher announced his results on TV instead of in a scientific journal.  He
was fired and forbidden to talk to the press.  He sent his data to other
scientists, 21 of whom have defended him and asked that he be reinstated.  Foes
of genetic engineering are demanding to know why his study was suppressed.

So are gene-spliced potatoes dangerous to eat?  No one really knows,  My
scientific instinct says no.  Science will slowly find out.  In the meantime
I'm not inclined to eat them.

Is there a great North American carbon sink?  No one really knows.  My
scientific instinct says no.  Science will slowly find out.  In the meantime I
see no reason to risk the climate of the planet just to drive around in
oversized vehicles.

 (Donella H. Meadows is director of the Sustainability Institute and an adjunct
professor of environmental studies at Dartmouth College.)