Slashdot Mirror


Blackout Was Good News, For Pollution

squidfrog writes "In regard to the August blackout, University of Maryland researchers have announced the results of measurements indicating the level of pollution normally caused by power plants in the region of the blackout, which could be measured for the first time by comparing the idle power plants with those still operational. 'Aircraft sampling in the 24 hours following the blackout found a 90 percent drop in sulfur dioxide and a 50 percent cut in ozone levels, while visibility increased by more than 25 miles.'" MSNBC has a related story.

6 of 64 comments (clear)

  1. Reducing dependence on utilities by jaredmauch · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I've been researching over the past year or so in small bursts, how I can become a better enviro-citizen. At my home, I consume a significant amount of power, peaking over 90KwH/day in some cases. I did some rough math on some of my past 18 months of electricity bills (I have no natural gas, only electric, with the exception of my propane grill) and over that 18mo period, i have utilized somewhere around 48MwH.

    My home lost power as a result of this outage, (I was on vacation), but since then, I've had several outages in the past 2 months, ranging from 4 to 6 hours in length. During the longer, I started up a small (1100W) generator and was able to run some of my equipment. Being a work-at-home employee that depends on my utilities (telephone, electricity) to work properly, this does create some dilemas for me.

    Are there people out there that have reduced your dependence on the utilities using "clean" energy (solar/wind)? What i'm looking at is a hybrid system, where I would take input from: Grid, Solar and Wind. As a result, I would need to store some amount of reserve energy, and prioritize my consumption (eg: Well, Smoke Detectors, Fridge, Stove, Hot Water Heater, etc..). My intention is to not completely disconnect from the grid, or even to sell-back, but to reduce my electrical expenses.

    The result would be that I would not depend so much on the outside entities, and see a cost savings after a few years (aside from possible battery replacement costs). I've found some good worksheets online at NW Power (See the calculation help sidebar) and have been using SolarDyne as my cost reference.

    Now all I need is some nice blackout curtains that kill the light and output electricity for those days I want to sleep in.

    1. Re:Reducing dependence on utilities by michaelredux · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What i'm looking at is a hybrid system, where I would take input from: Grid, Solar and Wind. ...to reduce my electrical expenses.

      If you consider the whole system, the best way to reduce your utility costs is almost certainly not by augmenting the supply side with a sexy solar / wind turbine hybrid, but rather looking seriously at the demand side. That's where the really money can be saved. I have no idea how you are using up to 90 KWHrs/day, but you mentioned an electric water heater, for example. Heating water with electricity is like cutting butter with a chainsaw. A solar water heater could pay for itself in the first year, compared to PV panels that might take ten to twenty years to pay off.

      Why not pick the low-hanging fruit first? It may not be the sexy answer, but if you are serious about lowering your utility costs, the real money savings usually turn out to be on the demand side.

      I would need to store some amount of reserve energy

      Because you have access to the grid, it would be a lot cheaper to use the generator to cover for occasional power outages, and use a standard battery-backed UPS for each PC or other other critical use (cordless phone, etc).

      michael.

  2. Re:Proof for the idiots who dont already know it. by isorox · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Did the wolly mamouths in the last Ice Age drive Hummers? Did the grapes growing in scotland 600 years ago die off because of horse manure? Climate changes with or without us.

  3. Re: Now the question is... by CA_Jim · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I would submit that nuclear reactors have less impact on the environment. What is interesting about coal is that there is cleaner coal deposits in the USA that aren't being used. Federal polution laws mandated removing a percentage of certain particulates from the exhaust. Some western coal has so little of these pollutants, that it is impossible to remove the mandated percentage. Thus, coal with more sulfer is used which ultimately causes more pollution. Nuclear power can be made safe. The wastes from reactors can be handled safely and disposed of. The question is can the required safety and automated shutdown be designed and built at an economical cost? Chernobyl was a disaster caused by poor training and a management system that didn't understand what it was doing. Most nuclear plants are much safer, and safety systems work, and have improved since 1986. We tend to forget that all human activity has associated risks. We humans worry about airplane crashes because they hill a hundred people at once, but overlook automobile accidents. People forget that a fire at your local tire dealership or hardware store (pvc piping) can cause major a major evacuation. When was the last time someone protested a natural gas pipeline, but our civilization depends upon such mundane items. Has anyone noticed the Liquified Natural Gas tanks outside Boston? If someone crashed an airplane there, I suspect a rather massive disaster. I'm not suggesting we build nuclear power plants in downtown NYC or San Francisco. It may not be possible to build a reactor safe enough to every economically generate power. At the same time, nuclear power isn't the end of the world either.

  4. Re:Slightly offtopic, but... by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's better to keep it in a nice isolated place than to try and launch it, because it'd create an enormous mess if something happened to the rocket. This may change if we start launching stuff using something other than a large amount of explosives.

    But the fact is, most "nuclear waste" is actually EXTREMELY useful if re-refined, and is being deliberately discarded because the US government is paranoid about having Plutonium in private hands.

  5. Re: Now the question is... by Molina+the+Bofh · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A little radiation is not really a hazard. In fact, some radiation is benefical. You may not be familiar with hormesis.

    I suggest you read this:

    this
    and this
    and this.

    --

    -
    Roses are #FF0000, Violets are #0000FF, find / -name '*base*' |xargs chown -R us && mv zig greatjustice