Burning coal even worse for air than previously thought

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-08-15 05:19pm

http://www.aip.org/pnu/2004/split/696-1.html

The massive Northeast blackout of a year ago not only shut off electricity for 50 million people in the US and Canada, but also shut off the pollution coming from fossil-fired turbogenerators in the Ohio Valley. In effect, the power outage was an inadvertent experiment for gauging atmospheric repose with the grid gone for the better part of the day. And the results were impressive.

On 15 August 2003, only 24 hours after the blackout, air was cleaner by this amount: SO2 was down 90%, O3 down 50%, and light-scattering particles down 70% over "normal" conditions in the same area. The haze reductions were made by University of Maryland scientists scooping air samples with a light aircraft.

The observed pollutant reductions exceeded expectations, causing the authors to suggest that the spectacular overnight improvements in air quality "may result from underestimation of emission from power plants, inaccurate representation of power plant effluent in emission models or unaccounted-for atomospheric chemical reactions." (Marufu et al., Geophysical Research Letters, vol 31, L13106, 2004.)

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-08-15 09:05pm

Time to start making breeder reactors, fellas.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2004-08-15 09:12pm

But, uh, you can't hug people with nuclear arms!

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2004-08-15 09:15pm

Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:But, uh, you can't hug people with nuclear arms!

Yeah you can! It just won't get them all black and dirty...just green and glowing!

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-08-15 09:19pm

Well this is something.

Bring on the Fusion, or just billions of rats in wheels.

Darth Garden Gnome · Post by **Darth Garden Gnome** » 2004-08-15 09:20pm

Gandalf wrote:Well this is something.

Bring on the Fusion, or just billions of rats in wheels.

Or fusion powered rats in wheels, at the very least.

Tribun · Post by **Tribun** » 2004-08-15 09:33pm

Well, that the burning of lots of coal is a bad ide was proven true until 1990 in the GDR(German Democratic Republic) Before it ceased to exist. They almost exclusively used brown caol with the result, that enyone, plants, animals, humans, got sick.

J · Post by J » 2004-08-15 09:52pm

I'm not surprised since most of the smog in Toronto is cause by pollution drifting over to us from America.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-08-15 09:57pm

Yeah you can! It just won't get them all black and dirty...just green and glowing!

All I got to say is

frigidmagi wrote: BRING ON THE GLOW!!!

Seriously, however I think that fusion plants are less of a risk than all these coal smoke stacks. But America has an almost superitious fear of anything that can be connected to the word "nuclear."

Of course there is plenty of sci-fi wank love for the fusion, so maybe...

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-08-16 12:03am

There's absolutely nothing wrong with modern reactors, except that in the U.S. there are idiotic laws that prevent the recycling of fuel. Eliminate those and provide subsidies for a new generation of nuclear power plants. Supplement them by building more hydropower dams (not destroying the ones we already have with the lunacy of a fundie), and exploiting potential tidal and geothermal power sources. A limited number of natural gas plants should be kept as primers for the overall power grid, but otherwise the power should come entirely from the afore-stated sources.

Solar is economically insane due to the cost of manufacturing solar cells, and wind generators just dice tens of thousand of birds when placed in areas where they actually work (which unsurprisingly coincide with bird migration routes). But both are irrelevant since a combination of hydro, geothermal, and most of all, nuclear, could easily provide 97% of our power and the other 3% can consist of reserve natural gas plants.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-08-16 01:48am

There's absolutely nothing wrong with modern reactors, except that in the U.S. there are idiotic laws that prevent the recycling of fuel. Eliminate those and provide subsidies for a new generation of nuclear power plants. Supplement them by building more hydropower dams (not destroying the ones we already have with the lunacy of a fundie), and exploiting potential tidal and geothermal power sources. A limited number of natural gas plants should be kept as primers for the overall power grid, but otherwise the power should come entirely from the afore-stated sources.

Solar is economically insane due to the cost of manufacturing solar cells, and wind generators just dice tens of thousand of birds when placed in areas where they actually work (which unsurprisingly coincide with bird migration routes). But both are irrelevant since a combination of hydro, geothermal, and most of all, nuclear, could easily provide 97% of our power and the other 3% can consist of reserve natural gas plants.

While I fully agree, how the hell are you, we or anyone going to counter the stranglehold of the unholy alliance of super greens and fossil fuel mafia on the media?

Seriously, I was watching a movie where the evil business men were evil because they wanted to build *gasp* nuclear reactors in California!!! NOOO!!!!

Against this level of irrational dread, what stragey can we take to ensure that there is a movement away from coal smog and solar dreams? I'm betting heavy on the sci-fi love of fusion. Provided we can keep Hollywood from doing a Luddite smear campaign on it...

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2004-08-16 02:39am

Well, there goes the plan to purify the atmosphere by burning down the forests...

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2004-08-16 03:02am

frigidmagi wrote:Against this level of irrational dread, what stragey can we take to ensure that there is a movement away from coal smog and solar dreams? I'm betting heavy on the sci-fi love of fusion. Provided we can keep Hollywood from doing a Luddite smear campaign on it...

Yeah, by maybe smacking down idiotic myths about it that keep cropping up... a good example of which was in Spider-Man 2, where a fusion reaction looked like the Sun in miniature (complete with sunspots?!?) and could go critical.

I know the movie wasn't serious about it at all, but still.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-08-16 03:13am

The public needs to be educated about nuclear power. Everytime they hear about nuclear power they think of radiation, atomic bombs, reactors blowing up in a city leveling explosion.

Greenpeace is one step ahead. Long time ago a SD.net member posted a reply email from greenpeace about their opinion about nuclear fusion. They actualy oppose fusion .In the email they mentioned among other things fusion generates deadly radiation, it has all the drawbacks of fission and best of all fusion plants can blow up like bombs !

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-08-16 04:19am

I'd very much like to know how many samples they actually took, and over what area, and this information is quite meaningless without that information. If you're taking a couple samples a quarter mile downwind of a plant's smokestack then I would very much expect this kind of huge reduction. Dozens of samples spread over a wide area though, that's something that might be significant.

LMSx · Post by **LMSx** » 2004-08-16 04:33am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:There's absolutely nothing wrong with modern reactors, except that in the U.S. there are idiotic laws that prevent the recycling of fuel. Eliminate those and provide subsidies for a new generation of nuclear power plants. Supplement them by building more hydropower dams (not destroying the ones we already have with the lunacy of a fundie), and exploiting potential tidal and geothermal power sources. A limited number of natural gas plants should be kept as primers for the overall power grid, but otherwise the power should come entirely from the afore-stated sources.

Solar is economically insane due to the cost of manufacturing solar cells, and wind generators just dice tens of thousand of birds when placed in areas where they actually work (which unsurprisingly coincide with bird migration routes). But both are irrelevant since a combination of hydro, geothermal, and most of all, nuclear, could easily provide 97% of our power and the other 3% can consist of reserve natural gas plants.

I've heard this before-is forbidding nuclear reprocessing just a roundabout way for the green lobby to strangle nuclear development?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-08-16 05:39am

LMSx wrote:
I've heard this before-is forbidding nuclear reprocessing just a roundabout way for the green lobby to strangle nuclear development?

Reprocessing radically reduced the amount of nuclear waste, which needs to be buried and less nuclear waste is something the anti nuke crowd can't dare allow. It also means we don't need to introduce nearly as much fresh uranium into the nuclear fuel cycle and so cuts the total amount of solid waste involved even further. It isn't a very cheep process though.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-08-16 07:27am

evilcat4000 wrote:The public needs to be educated about nuclear power. Everytime they hear about nuclear power they think of radiation, atomic bombs, reactors blowing up in a city leveling explosion.

Greenpeace is one step ahead. Long time ago a SD.net member posted a reply email from greenpeace about their opinion about nuclear fusion. They actualy oppose fusion .In the email they mentioned among other things fusion generates deadly radiation, it has all the drawbacks of fission and best of all fusion plants can blow up like bombs !

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-08-16 11:38am

Sea Skimmer wrote:
LMSx wrote:
I've heard this before-is forbidding nuclear reprocessing just a roundabout way for the green lobby to strangle nuclear development?
Reprocessing radically reduced the amount of nuclear waste, which needs to be buried and less nuclear waste is something the anti nuke crowd can't dare allow. It also means we don't need to introduce nearly as much fresh uranium into the nuclear fuel cycle and so cuts the total amount of solid waste involved even further. It isn't a very cheep process though.

GAH! What the hell is wrong with these people? I thought they liked the environment. Why are they trying to fuck it up?

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2004-08-16 11:40am

Master of Ossus wrote:GAH! What the hell is wrong with these people? I thought they liked the environment. Why are they trying to fuck it up?

Because they don't think they are. They think they're saving everyone. Unfortunately, we all know where the road with good intentions leads to

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-08-16 11:42am

Xenophobe3691 wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote:GAH! What the hell is wrong with these people? I thought they liked the environment. Why are they trying to fuck it up?
Because they don't think they are. They think they're saving everyone. Unfortunately, we all know where the road with good intentions leads to

These people only get stupider as you learn more about the issues they care about. That strikes me as being counter-intuitive, since I would have thought that the fact that they cared about these issues would mean that they would understand them better than a normal human being.

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2004-08-16 11:49am

Master of Ossus wrote: These people only get stupider as you learn more about the issues they care about. That strikes me as being counter-intuitive, since I would have thought that the fact that they cared about these issues would mean that they would understand them better than a normal human being.

One of the main things I've noticed about environmentalists is that they're way too idealistic. Instead of hoping for the best and preparing for the worst, they hope and prepare for the best, and refuse to look even one step down. A compromise to most of them isn't worth an asswipe.

Unfortunately, because of that attitude, they will also throw out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak; they do this simply out of knee jerk reactions. Unfortunately, educating them is harder than educating fundies, since their God is wide and alive around them...

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2004-08-16 11:55am

Master of Ossus wrote:GAH! What the hell is wrong with these people? I thought they liked the environment. Why are they trying to fuck it up?

My theory is Greenpeace's politics play very well with the current energy providers (Oil, coal, etc) policies.

It prevents the only viable alternative power source which is; fusion and fission power stations. Fuel Cell/electric cars research isnt exactly overly favoured either.

While they might not be actively promoting Greenpeace, they sure as hell arent hampering them significantly.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-08-16 02:13pm

Patrick Degan wrote:
evilcat4000 wrote:The public needs to be educated about nuclear power. Everytime they hear about nuclear power they think of radiation, atomic bombs, reactors blowing up in a city leveling explosion.

Greenpeace is one step ahead. Long time ago a SD.net member posted a reply email from greenpeace about their opinion about nuclear fusion. They actualy oppose fusion .In the email they mentioned among other things fusion generates deadly radiation, it has all the drawbacks of fission and best of all fusion plants can blow up like bombs !

Greenpeace's opposition to fusion is very easily understood if you realize they're not opposed to POLLUTION, they're opposed to DEVELOPMENT. Going after energy is an easy way to strangle development. Fusion scares the hell out of them because it doesn't pollute like fossil fuels, doesn't have the potential for disaster like fission, doesn't fuck up riverine ecosystems and drown pretty scenery like hydro, and isn't limited like solar or wind. Noted asshole and population alarmist Paul Ehrlich once said giving cheap, clean, abundant energy to mankind was like giving a child a loaded machine gun, and these jerkoffs think the same way. Doubtless the people at the top know that fusion isn't dangerous, but they're starting the scare campaign early.

Tzeentch · Post by **Tzeentch** » 2004-08-16 03:19pm

The French have the right idea.

For decades, their fast track to political careers has been natural science instead of law school. As a result, they've got a flourishing nuclear power program.