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.
In true /. fashion, I haven't RTFA yet, but I did hear the story a day or two back, on NPR.
I also heard a related story, about how North Dakota has come up with an alternative pollution formula to allow them to build more power plants, and burn more coal in them, even though the current formula says they're already over the limit. The scientists at the EPA disagreed, but the politicians at the EPA overruled, and approved the EPA formula.
Meanwhile, here in Vermont, we have strict limits on the local fish we're supposed to eat. (For instance, one Walleye per person per month, and they advise that children or pregnant women probably shouldn't have even that much.) One component of this is mercury, which is largely from powerplant emissions. The North Dakota report cited their 'pristine sky'. Of course it is, it all blows downwind on the prevailing westerlies. As a kid in school in Ohio, they talked about how tall smokestacks got the junk up into the stratosphere, and were the solution to pollution. Right. It got it into the prevailing westerlies, and made it S.E.P. (Somebody Else's Problem)
No doubt if we took a similar attitude in Vermont, it would blow out to sea, and we'd hear more about dying fisheries. As it is, we have some of the highest power rates in the country. I'll rant no further.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
This sounds very similar to the stories of the ban of aircraft travel in the few days after 11 sept affecting the climate.
This just proves how much of a huge differance we are making to the planet. One more reason to take global warming seriously.
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.
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.