Skip to main content

View Diary: Fabulous news: Japan a bit closer to exploiting a way to heat the planet yet more: methane hydrates (136 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well given the claim that Fukushima wiped out... (5+ / 0-)

    ...Japan, this is surprising.

    Meanwhile in a place with which very few people here have any familiarity  - a place called "reality" - the fear and ignorance surrounding the earthquake that destroyed some nuclear reactors - the number of people dying from radiation still remaining at zero - caused Japan to burn record amounts of dangerous fossil fuels.

    Burning fossil fuels kills people, 100% of the time.

    In fact, for those who actually are aware of the data at carbon dioxide observatories, the signature of the cloture of Japan's nuclear reactors - cloture to satiate the bizarre fantasies of those who claim that nuclear energy is, um, "dangerous"- was directly observable in the planetary atmosphere.   The first week of May showed the 6th greatest jump in year to year measurments ever observed.   (The first week of February 2013 was the second largest ever observed, this in a data set that covers almost 2000 such data points.

    Heckuva job, anti-nukes, heckuva job.

    You seem surprised that Japan is burning dangerous fossil fuels, as opposed to driving around in solar powered Tesla electric cars, and wind powered sailing cars.

    I'm not.   I'm familiar with the fear and ignorance that shut Maine Yankee, Trojan Nuclear Power Plant, Rancho Seco and other badly run nuclear plants.

    The amazing thing, for all the rending of cloaks about how badly run these plants were, they were pretty remarkable for not killing anyone except for two folks at Rancho Seco who were killed by steam explosions of the type that can be seen in any thermal power plant, not that anyone gives a rat's ass about people killed by dangerous fossil fuel operations.

    All of these reactors - after being bad mouthed by people who know so little physics, chemistry, engineering or even economics as to claim that they would be replaced by so called "renewable energy" - were replaced by gas, coal and oil.   There are no exceptions.

    The reactors in Japan were replaced by coal, oil and gas, which did in fact, lead to deaths, since once cannot turn on a fossil fuel plant without causing death and destruction.

    But no matter.

    Personally, I have heard more about Fukushima - where no one was killed by radiation - then I heard about the people instantly killed in the Horizon disaster, or in the Piper Alpha disaster, or the Banqiao dam disaster (death toll approximately 200,000) or about the 3.3 million people who die each year - half under the age of 5 - from air pollution.

    Don't be in tizzy.   Live by the sword, die by the sword, and be a gas bag, live with gas.

    Heckuva job.   You must be very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very proud.

    Have a nice evening.

    •  You haven't written a diary in a while... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      perhaps it's time.

      And yes, it's your fault.

      Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
      I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
      —Spike Milligan

      by polecat on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 06:07:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You must mean (6+ / 0-)

      no one has died from radiation yet. Exposures for some workers was quite high.

      "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

      by YucatanMan on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 06:54:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ... (5+ / 0-)

        Global report on Fukushima nuclear accident details health risks
         In terms of specific cancers, for people in the most contaminated location, the estimated increased risks over what would normally be expected are:

            all solid cancers - around 4% in females exposed as infants;
            breast cancer - around 6% in females exposed as infants;
            leukaemia - around 7% in males exposed as infants;
            thyroid cancer - up to 70% in females exposed as infants (the normally expected risk of thyroid cancer in females over lifetime is 0.75% and the additional lifetime risk assessed for females exposed as infants in the most affected location is 0.50%).
        Higher cancer risk after Fukushima nuclear disaster: WHO
        WHO ignored Fukushima radiation and softened tone on cancer, tainted food horrors

        Drop the name-calling MB 2/4/11 + Please try to use ratings properly! Kos 9/9/11

        by indycam on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 07:13:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Fukushima is NOT getting better (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sandino, the fan man, entrelac, polecat

          Fukushima is Already Harming Our Children

          Last month the Fukushima Prefecture Health Management Survey acknowledged a horrifying plague of thyroid abnormalities, thus far afflicting more than forty percent of the children studied.

          The survey sample was 94,975. So some 38,000 children are already cursed with likely health problems...that we know of.

          A thyroid abnormality can severely impact a wide range of developmental realities, including physical and mental growth. Cancer is a likely outcome.

          Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

          by Shockwave on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 10:55:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  They won't listen until they're drowning (5+ / 0-)

      I've given up on most people here.  They're more interested in being anti-nuke than in reducing CO2.

      Japan's CO2 levels are at record highs just as we're reaching 400ppm.  We're going in the wrong direction, and they accuse us of lying about it.

    •  Responding to NNadir (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      While I agree with 3/4th of your comment, I must add it was more than fear and ignorance that shut down the Trojan and Rancho Seco nukes.

      The plants were run down and needed 100s of millions of dollars worth of repairs; busted leaking steam tubes, and so on.

      Many other nukes built a decade or so ago have had severe and very expensive equipment maintenance problems, often involving leaking tubing, that made them uneconomical to repair at that time.

      Some plants have sued GE and Westinghouse for ripping them off on parts quality.

      I am pro-nuke only because I'm anti climate change.

      Orly, it isn't evidence just because you downloaded it from the internet.

      by 6412093 on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 10:54:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nevertheless, repairing the plants would have... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        ...saved lives, tens of thousands of them, not that lives have ever mattered as much as money.

        Fear and ignorance were involved in the shutting of all these plants, and a similar program of fear and ignorance is now being addressed against Vermont Yankee.

        It is unbelievably stupid to claim that a few atoms of tritium are more dangerous than the millions of tons of carbon dioxide and leaked methane that would replace that plant if stupid people shut it down, but if you look, you will see that this is precisely the argument that is being used to attack the plant.

        I covered tritium risk - albeit uselessly - in some detail many years ago:   Profile of Radioactive Substance Associated With Nuclear Power:  Tritium.

        By the way, as far as climate change is concerned, you might as well be "anti-sunrise."  

        Nuclear energy nor anything else cannot do very much at this point to ameliorate it even mildly, particularly given the insane reaction to it for the last 5 decades.

        At this point it doesn't matter if you understand nuclear energy - and thus are enthusiastic about it - or if you are, like yourself, grudgingly accepting of it = or if your a "Tesla car/solar is great/wind is sustainable" delusional faith based wishful thinker.   It's done.  It's over.  Ignorance has won, pretty much as usual, although the consequences are unimaginably greater than at any time in human history where ignorance has so triumphed..   If you check out the figures for 2013 you will see that it is already on track to be the worst year ever.    

        I don't write very many diaries anymore, but I do have one on a series of PNAS (and other) papers about exactly how far we've gone, and how it may well nigh be impossible to do anything about it.    The working title is:  A Final(?) Word On Direct Capture of Carbon Dioxide From the Air.

        It's full of my trademark cynicism, which I claim is based on realism.   Avoid it at all costs.

        •  In retrospect (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          you are correct and I agree, they should have renovated all of those plants and kept several thousand MW of carbon-free energy in the grid.

          At the time the utilities discovered the needed repairs, many folks had not "discovered" the urgency of climate change.

          Orly, it isn't evidence just because you downloaded it from the internet.

          by 6412093 on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 11:29:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's not like the health consequences of air... (0+ / 0-)

            ...pollution were not well known at the time those plants were attacked.

            It may be true that the epidemiology of climate change was not understood back then, but air pollution as associated with dangerous fossil fuels is another matter entirely.

            I have personally read many papers from that era in which the consequences of particulates, nitric acid and nitrates and nitrites, and - especially in those times - sulfur oxides and sulfur oxoacids were discussed as extreme hazards.

            It's why legislation to put band aids on these still relevant problems were proposed, and in some cases, passed.

            In the meantime the anti-nukes were elevating their paranoid fantasies about what might happen, as opposed to giving a shit about what was happening.     This bizarre ill thought out approach caused deaths with a 100% probability.

            You will note that they have not changed their tune in 2013, and are still handing out the same murderous bull, but the difference between then and now is that the more serious issue of climate change may have been possible to address then, but it is not so now.   For instance, they think that Fukushima was a serious energy disaster, even though any rational examination of it in comparison to the well known continuing tragedy of air pollution both in it's climate related and independent of climate forms is a far greater tragedy.

            The relevant points are these:   Anti-nukes relied on disinformation, ignorance, and their bizarre and often fatal selective attention to cause the deaths of innocent people who were killed by air pollution and would have been saved were the plants repaired and better managers were found to run them.

            Even these plants, admittedly the worst nuclear plants ever built in the United States, were superior to the best run dangerous fossil fuel plants in the United States.

            (The Nobel Laureate Burton Richter wrote a very amusing paper to smack down the puerile anti-nuke clown Stanford Professor Mark V. Jacobsen, using only Jacobsen's assumptions to show that even destroyed, the nuclear plants at Fukushima saved lives by running for several decades.)


            A few people have dropped me lines or comments wondering why I don't say much about it anymore.    Possibly the reason is that I have nothing to say anymore.   There is nothing that I could possibly say that would cause these people to stop killing, and again, nothing that can be done to address climate change.   While they were burning coal, oil and gas, to express their strong opinions on how wonderful the electric car for billionaires and millionaires - the Tesla - is, the atmosphere collapsed, irreversibly.

            Check the 2013 data out.   It's truly frightening.

            Thanks for your comment.   Have a nice evening.

            •  I've challenged fossil fuel power plants (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              air permits since the mid-1980s, but I always thought that widespread requirements for highly advanced pollution controls such as SCR could reduce conventional pollutants to trivial levels.

              Of Course Gov'ts never required the most stringent controls.

              Also you can't "scrub" away climate change gasses. I once reviewed a pulp mill permit that was making calcium carbonate (for paper whitening) by running their exhaust gasses through a calcium compound, and the exhaust CO2 would combine with the calcium, thus removing the CO2.

              I thought how neat, a solution to greenhouse gasses.  But I never calculated the countless billions of tons of scrubber wastes that kind of CO2 removal would generate.

              Orly, it isn't evidence just because you downloaded it from the internet.

              by 6412093 on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 09:04:48 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The metal oxide carbon scrubbing technology... (0+ / 0-)

                ...of which calcium based systems is but one subset, has been known for many decades.

                The issue with using them has always been a thermodynamic one.

                I do have a diary on the thermodynamics of carbon dioxide capture in preparation on a paper that I consider to be realistic - if lacking in comprehensiveness - in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, out of MIT.   It claims that it will never be feasible to remove carbon dioxide from the air because it would require more energy than would be feasible to obtain.

                Of course, some of the authors are people who advocate building carbon dioxide dumps using exhaust gases from dangerous fossil fuel waste pipes - aka smokestacks.

                That won't work either.

                If I ever publish that diary, however, you may be interested to read it, I don't know.

                It does seem that maybe you might actually get it.   That alone makes you somewhat unique, especially here.

                Have a nice evening.

                •  You probably also know (0+ / 0-)

                  about the amine systems that remove CO2 from natural gas streams and from power plant exhausts.

                  I've been pushing those as part of my comments on "Best Available Control Technology" (BACT) for new emissions sources for greenhouse gasses.

                  However, I'm recommending it in the Gulf area where captured CO2 can be reinjected for enhanced oil recovery, which somewhat mitigates the very extreme capture costs you cited.  The Govt' currently heavily subsidizes those costs.

                  Of course, it's probably too little, too late, but I never give up.  Other factors may arise to buy us time.

                  Orly, it isn't evidence just because you downloaded it from the internet.

                  by 6412093 on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 10:10:05 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (127)
  • Community (60)
  • 2016 (47)
  • Elections (43)
  • Environment (37)
  • Climate Change (32)
  • Bernie Sanders (32)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Republicans (29)
  • Education (28)
  • Civil Rights (28)
  • Media (28)
  • Culture (27)
  • Law (25)
  • Science (25)
  • Congress (24)
  • Barack Obama (23)
  • Labor (20)
  • Economy (19)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site