Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[FordGT90Concept]

That argument falls down when you consider that there has been zero financial penalty, and zero successful criminal prosecutions, against the companies that designed, built and operated the Fukushima reactors.

[facepalm.jpg]

Westinghouse Files for Bankruptcy, in Blow to Nuclear Power (Published 2017)

The company, whose corporate parent is Toshiba of Japan, led projects once seen as heralding a nuclear renaissance, but its filing casts a pall over the troubled industry.

www.nytimes.com

That triggered a reevaluation of the AP1000 units being built by Westinghouse at South Carolina and Georgia. South Carolina ended up backing out.


Tell me what Westinghouse did that was criminal at Daiiachi.
1) No one plans for a 9.0 earthquake. That's a once-in-a-millennial event.
2) The reactors worked according to specifications up until the point the cooling pumps lost power.
3) Most of the faults were on Tepco principally because they covered it up which caused the situation to spiral out of control. Emergency generators could have been brought in on short notice but it didn't happen because Tepco insisted it was minor. The ruse was over when external sensors not owned by Tepco were picking up elevated amounts of radiation and traced the source back to the wounded power plant. Then they got serious. Only then. If they weren't fools, they would have not taken any risks, drove the control rods in the moment they knew about the earthquake, and put contingency plans in motion should the backup generators failed. They did none of that.

A similar incident did occur in America at Three Mile Island. Everyone moved quick to shut it down and seal it. It was still a PR disaster but no radiation left the containment structure.

 

[lexluthermiester]

That argument falls down when you consider that there has been zero financial penalty, and zero successful criminal prosecutions, against the companies that designed, built and operated the Fukushima reactors.

So being subject to the unpredictable forces of mother nature is a crime? That would be like saying that everyone who has died in a building that collapsed in an earthquake should be able to sue and have imprisoned the people who built said building they died in. Such is very flawed logic and reasoning. The only course of action that can be taken is to learn from the events in question and do better in future.

 

[the54thvoid]

I just read some background about the development of Fukishima and in the 1960's, even seismologists didn't predict the possibility of the 9m waves that rolled in (I think they assumed 3m max?). They concluded in 700 years there had been no significant seismological indicent that had affected the region, declaring it to be low risk. In contrast, another plant built in the same region in the 1980's had walls that could withstand 10m tsunami waves. It just got by when the tsunami hit.

It's like the building regs in places on the US West coast, an element of earthquake proofing is required by law (I believe). But older buildings can't be retrofitted to any great extent. So when the San Andreas (or the Cascadia) fault finally slip, there will still be massive casualties. We live on a dynamic planet and every few-hundred years it reminds us how fragile our human construction can be. Given the common occurence of US litigation, you'd imagine a construction/engineering company stateside would be slightly more risk averse than some other nationalities. Though, Boing recently managed to knock that confidence. So, lets trust good old German manufacturing, because they're honesty is... oh, no wait...

 

[dirtyferret]

German manufacturing, because they're honesty is... oh, no wait...

Are you talking about a certain German automotive manufacturing company with a North American tag line of "truth in engineering*"? If you are, I will have you know that company has had zero CEO arrests since 2019. If that isn't trustful company then I don''t know what is!

*We do not include diesel engines as part of our engineering truth program

 

[FordGT90Concept]

It's like the building regs in places on the US West coast, an element of earthquake proofing is required by law (I believe). But older buildings can't be retrofitted to any great extent. So when the San Andreas (or the Cascadia) fault finally slip, there will still be massive casualties. We live on a dynamic planet and every few-hundred years it reminds us how fragile our human construction can be. Given the common occurence of US litigation, you'd imagine a construction/engineering company stateside would be slightly more risk averse than some other nationalities. Though, Boing recently managed to knock that confidence. So, lets trust good old German manufacturing, because they're honesty is... oh, no wait...

There's only one nuclear power plant left on the west coast and it's closing by 2025:

Diablo Canyon Power Plant - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It should be able to survive a 7.5 earthquake.

Diablo Canyon earthquake vulnerability - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[the54thvoid]

Wonder if that's down to risk aversion, cost, or denial?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

All three. If Fukashima Daiichi was swamped by a historic Tsunami, why couldn't Diablo Canyon? The plant is already well beyond its service life. They did ask for and get approval to extend it before the tsunami but reconsidered afterwards. With PG&E having all sorts of other problems (like power lines starting wildfires), I think they want to take Diablo Canyon of the board in terms of being a risk/liability.

California buys a lot of power from Arizona which is on stable ground and no tsunami risk.

 

[Frick]

Are you talking about a certain German automotive manufacturing company with a North American tag line of "truth in engineering*"? If you are, I will have you know that company has had zero CEO arrests since 2019. If that isn't trustful company then I don''t know what is!

*We do not include diesel engines as part of our engineering truth program

That plus both VAG and BMW have had pertty massive quality issues the past 10+ years.

 

[dont whant to set it"']

@mtcn77 yes petrol, very much so storeable because stainless steel? It kind of is, just let alone knowing where the crude is , and or needed to be explored need arose came.

Analogous to an acumulative battery that's not charged or the "disposable chemical" type, same can be with nuclear fision reactor factoring in the "lag" reaching usable thermal output to be put to use generating electricity or the xenon poisoning of sayd reactor.

 

[mtcn77]

Can someone clear the air surrounding nuclear chemical plants? I think we could run a surplus reactor with the intention of fusing hydrocarbons. Climate correction won't come at an endothermic deficit - no free lunch. We need to facilitate a change and all reclimation efforts will start from a higher entrophy inflection point, let's shed our inherent reluctance to facilitating our effort to where it is needed. We want less atmospheric carbondioxide - I don't get why not the same for sulphurdioxide, but I'm no climatologist. Apparently too dumb for that, sulphur clouds must be the most positively deemed thing...

Why ethanol? Just make longer chain, more inert, hydrocarbons that store chemical energy for longer. We are doing it to reduce entrophy in the chemical energy storage form, not for consumption.

Spoiler: GreenCarCongress - 2006

Based on a reference year 2025 case, the report found that 43.1% of the CO2 projected to be emitted from coal plants could serve to produce the 6.6 billion barrels of ethanol required to displace gasoline use in the US. For the production of that much ethanol, there would need to be between 700 and 900 GWth (gigawatts thermal) of nuclear power to produce the needed hydrogen and energy for the synthesis of the fuel.

Study: Synthetic Fuels from Nuclear Hydrogen and Captured CO₂ Viable

A study published earlier this year by researchers at MIT’s Center for Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems (CANES) concluded that producing synthetic transportation fuels from nuclear hydrogen and captured carbon dioxide would be technically viable. Based on a reference year 2025 case, the report...

www.greencarcongress.com

 

[storm-chaser]

Tell me what Westinghouse did that was criminal at Daiiachi.
1) No one plans for a 9.0 earthquake. That's a once-in-a-millennial event.
2) The reactors worked according to specifications up until the point the cooling pumps lost power.
3) Most of the faults were on Tepco principally because they covered it up which caused the situation to spiral out of control. Emergency generators could have been brought in on short notice but it didn't happen because Tepco insisted it was minor. The ruse was over when external sensors not owned by Tepco were picking up elevated amounts of radiation and traced the source back to the wounded power plant. Then they got serious. Only then. If they weren't fools, they would have not taken any risks, drove the control rods in the moment they knew about the earthquake, and put contingency plans in motion should the backup generators failed. They did none of that.

A similar incident did occur in America at Three Mile Island. Everyone moved quick to shut it down and seal it. It was still a PR disaster but no radiation left the containment structure.

The biggest problem I have with the designers of the Fukushima power plant is the fact that they put the backup generators dangerously close to sea level, in the basement level of each reactor. Now these are big generators. We are talking about the size of an average house (locomotive style engines). Safety is paramount, but even then, some things get missed. Especially considering the tsunami threat in the area. It was a vulnerability they should have never overlooked even with a sea wall (which was also much shorter than it should have been BTW) Just goes to show you can never out engineer mother nature. And humans simply cannot plan for every inevitability.

The control rods were automatically "SCRAMMED" after the earthquake, a safety measure built into the system. But even then, reactors still need to be cooled with water. I attribute this automatic shutdown to be a very important step that prevented an even larger release of radioactivity. Because had the reactors started to cook without coolant and without the control rods inserted, we would have been looking at another Chernobyl, except on a much larger scale.

Chernobyl is still the "worst" nuclear disaster in history, however, Fukushima is the "most complex" nuclear disaster in history.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

They likely had the generators where they were because the shorter the cables are, the less power they lose. Pumps as big as a power plant uses need a lot of power. In hindsight, yeah, not the best idea to put them there.

Yeah, three cores experienced meltdown versus one at Chernobyl.

 

[the54thvoid]

They likely had the generators where they were because the shorter the cables are, the less power they lose. Pumps as big as a power plant uses need a lot of power. In hindsight, yeah, not the best idea to put them there.

Yeah, three cores experienced meltdown versus one at Chernobyl.

I think the article I read stated (asides from inadequate knowledge of historical Tsunami effects) that for transport reasons, the generators were shipped in, and being so huge, it was cost-effective to install them close to shore. That, I think, is the one glaring lack of foresight.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Fukushima disaster was preventable, new study finds

Critical backup generators were built in low-lying areas at risk for tsunami damage — despite warnings from scientists.

news.usc.edu

At the four damaged nuclear power plants (Onagawa, Fukushima Daiichi, Fukushimi Daini and Toka Daini), 22 of the 33 total backup diesel generators were washed away, including 12 of 13 at Fukushima Daiichi. Of the 33 total backup power lines to off-site generators, all but two were obliterated by the tsunami.

Unable to cool itself, Fukushima Daiichi’s reactors melted down one by one.

“What doomed Fukushima Daiichi was the elevation of the EDGs (emergency diesel generators),” the authors wrote. One set was located in a basement, and the others at 10 and 13 meters above sea level — inexplicably and fatally low, Synolakis said.

Explains why Japan ordered them all shutdown.

 

[storm-chaser]

They likely had the generators where they were because the shorter the cables are, the less power they lose. Pumps as big as a power plant uses need a lot of power. In hindsight, yeah, not the best idea to put them there.

Yeah, three cores experienced meltdown versus one at Chernobyl.

I was especially worried about reactor #3 which ran on a mixed core, containing both uranium fuel and mixed uranium and plutonium oxide, or MOX fuel. Especially after seeing the hydrogen explosion, and playing it back a few times, I thought for sure the containment vessel had been breached and we would potentially be dealing with far more lethal forms of radiation. Not to mention the fact that it's Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) failed completely and at one point, the top three meters of the uranium/mixed oxide (MOX) fuel rods were not covered by coolant. Not a good thing!

All I can say is thank god for human ingenuity. At one point, members of the Fukushima 50 were out in the staff parking lot pulling batteries from cars in a last stitch effort to power some of the critical gauges and sensors in the control room in an effort to control the beast known as nuclear power. Amazing work they did, absolutely amazing.

TEPCO should have done more but hindsight is 20/20. They didn't really have a grasp on the crisis as a whole in the first few hours, nor did they understand the gravity of the devastation inflicted. Initially TEPCO tried to save the plant. They didn't want to pump sea water into the reactors at first because that would damage the reactors to the point of no return. Still, there is no excuse for some of their actions.

There were also a number of problems of getting power restored to the plant. All the roads were out, leading to and from the reactor complex and surrounding areas. All power lines surrounding the plant were essentially gone or totally compromised to the point they couldn't be re used. The first generators that showed up were not fitted with the correct equipment and they failed to connect to the plant's electrical system.

Homage to Yoshida Masao, the Man Who Saved Japan

Yoshida Masao, the plant manager who led the epic fight to contain the March 2011 meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, lost his battle with cancer on July 9 this year. The author of a major book detailing the struggle draws on extensive interviews with Yoshida and his staff...

www.nippon.com

 

[FordGT90Concept]

The Japan-US “military” response to the earthquake, and the strengthening of the military alliance as a result | Fukushima On The Globe

The relief efforts of the U.S. military were centered mainly in Iwate prefecture and Miyagi prefecture. It is because of the criteria set by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). It required that activities done by the U.S. military be 80 km away from the Fukushima nuclear power plant. Thus, except for a small part, the U.S. military did not conduct relief work in Fukushima. Operations were managed in a way not to extend the danger of radiation to American troops.

The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, George Washington, whose homeport is Yokosuka, was kept on standby in the Sea of Japan, which is the opposite side of Japanese archipelago.145 members of special units called the Chemical Biological Incident Response Force (CBIRF) were dispatched to Japan, but their activities were limited to outside the 80-km radius from the Fukushima nuclear power plant; they went back home after staying for three weeks without doing anything other than waiting at the far area from the nuclear power plant.

If NRC didn't do that and Tepco/Japan agreed, the military could have brought in 60 tons worth of emergency generators and supplies on each LCAC. One LCAC could carry 3 x 928 kW diesel generators. I think NRC didn't issue an exemption because Tepco covered up the severity of the situation.

US military was limited to disaster relief 80 km away from Fukashima.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I hope climatologists are taking note. The virus is drastically reducing the number of flights which is yet again reducing the number of contrails in the atmosphere. This is an opportunity to measure the effect of aircraft traffic on surface temperatures as 9/11 suggested.

They found that contrails depress the difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures, typically decreasing the maximum temperature and raising the minimum temperature. In this respect, the contrail clouds mimic the effect of ordinary clouds.

 

[Chomiq]

Coronavirus: Lockdowns continue to suppress European pollution

New data confirms the improvement in air quality over Europe - a by-product of the coronavirus crisis.

www.bbc.com

 

[lexluthermiester]

Coronavirus: Lockdowns continue to suppress European pollution

New data confirms the improvement in air quality over Europe - a by-product of the coronavirus crisis.

www.bbc.com

That is one side benefit with all of the crazy that is happening.

 

[the54thvoid]

Data Are Finally in: Electric Cars Really Do Produce Less CO2 Pollution

Electric cars absolutely do produce less CO2 than gas guzzlers, a new study has confirmed – countering claims that carbon emissions from the manufacture of electric cars and the production of electricity outweighed the savings on the road.

www.sciencealert.com

It's been a topic of debate for a while but new data analysis supports electric as a CO2 reducer, even accounting for production and power origin. Interestingly, Poland relies extensively on coal, so it's one of the view places electric vehicles aren't so green.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I don't think that article is taking into consideration the environmental cost of batteries. They're only looking at the grid.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Reuters made an interactive webpage/slideshow showing the sharp decline in air traffic:

The toll on travel

Global air travel plummeted after coronavirus locked down Wuhan, China.

graphics.reuters.com

From March 24 to March 30, FlightAware tracked about 280,000 flights, down almost 500,000 from the same week a year earlier.

US International flights have fallen by 80%, Domestic by 30%. Cargo planes are still moving.

Because passenger jets transport about half of all air cargo carried worldwide, the grounding of those planes has increased demand for freighters. In response, some commercial airlines such as American, Delta and Virgin Atlantic are using passenger jets solely for shipping cargo.

WMO concerned about impact of COVID-19 on observing system

The meteorological community relies on observations taken manually by weather observers from all around the world.

www.aljazeera.com

Commercial aircraft were a major source of high altitude temperature readings. Submissions of that data is plummeting:

It's too soon for studies on this but...they're undeniably coming.

 

[the54thvoid]

I wonder if that has an effect on turbulence mapping as well? I think that relies on similar information gathering, to create maps of pressure variance across flight paths. As far as the pollution levels, they're way down already, early studies above China showed the difference.

 

[Vayra86]

I don't think that article is taking into consideration the environmental cost of batteries. They're only looking at the grid.

No they're looking at the entire production and lifecycle. They talk alot about the grid because that is where the biggest hurdle is. If we can produce renewable energy, the gap with petrol is going to get even bigger than it is in the study.

"countering claims that carbon emissions from the manufacture of electric cars and the production of electricity outweighed the savings on the road."

It was painfully obvious from the get-go of course. The only real hurdle is in the production of batteries and the specific resources it requires. That's going to place a major strain on those resources, though Tesla is already making strides with alternatives that are dirt cheap and widely available. I believe it was about using less cobalt, its an older story but still a major factor.

Another painfully obvious fact is that the combustion engine industry is lobbying like mad to get FUD stories out. This whole 'battery environmental issue' is much like it. Yes, there is a real concern. But it does not relate to a new future for combustion engines. If anything, long range and heavy duty vehicles will be using hydrogen instead, which can also be easily used in your typical EV. Combustion is rapidly losing ground, and for only good reasons.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

If you're hoping to curb emissions before 2050, electric vehicles aren't the answer, at least not for the majority of Americans over the next 30 years.