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

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

    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.)

      Anyway.

      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:
        NNadir

        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.

Click here for the mobile view of the site