MidlandMikeI am not suprised that many in the Adirondack area used wood stoves, but I thought cities like Montreal were also hammered.
We ran a shelter at our social hall for a week. Did more business in meals (serving over 3,000) than in overnight stays. There was a generator keeping the hall running.
The numerous utility crews would often bring in the box lunches they'd been issued and traded them for a hot meal.
We did provide a fair amount of water for people without same. Everyone around here is on a well.
I really don't know how the major cities in the path of the storm dealt with the outage. Several of our smaller cities in the area have a local source of power in the form of hydroelectric.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68 MidlandMike What did people do for heat for 2 weeks in those cold climates? Burned wood in wood stoves, used kerosene heaters (Kerosun, etc). Some people had generators. I dug out my wood stove and got some firewood from a friend. The FD spent a lot of time making the rounds pumping basements, or at least providing power to sump pumps. There was a lot of water involved between the ice and the snow that fell after the ice. Many more people have generators now, both portable and built in.
MidlandMike What did people do for heat for 2 weeks in those cold climates?
Burned wood in wood stoves, used kerosene heaters (Kerosun, etc). Some people had generators.
I dug out my wood stove and got some firewood from a friend.
The FD spent a lot of time making the rounds pumping basements, or at least providing power to sump pumps. There was a lot of water involved between the ice and the snow that fell after the ice.
Many more people have generators now, both portable and built in.
I am not suprised that many in the Adirondack area used wood stoves, but I thought cities like Montreal were also hammered.
charlie hebdo... it seems that continuing to reduce and move towards a cease and desist position with CO2 and methane emissions is essential.
Part of the issue is that I think we need concentration on actual measures that reduce CO2 emissions at relatively high emission level and general distribution, not just start whacking carbon emissions as equally evil. One very clear place that I've studied is the reduction of distributed combustion emissions in home heating; another (which has some implications for professional pollution prosecutors) is distributed transportation emissions artificially enhanced, often by 6% or greater, to address a largely imaginary problem with photochemical NOx reactions.
I have thought, regretfully, that while our participation in any sort of Kyoto or Paris accord is necessary, compelling global emissions reduction to the same standard is just as essential. And I do not see that taking place with either the comprehensiveness, or the thoroughness of execution, or the haste, that is necessary. The politically-practical limiting of gross CO2 emissions (at least in a system where government policy reversal is possible within a relatively short election cycle) even in pre-Trump years was more virtue-signaling than an expedient program to get levels reduced even to dynamic stability at current levels ... which I think you and I agree are already far too high.
Sequestration carbon to bring levels of CO2 back to some agreed upon ppm would need to also occur. In both cases, haste is necessary.
Some of the work done at Intellectual Ventures many years ago now looked at what the best mix of sequestration technologies, including at the time those pertinent to clean-coal technologies, would be. At that time the order of magnitude of simple sequestration capture of sufficient carbon at the points the technologies could be applied at meaningful scale was considerably in excess of global financial capability, independent of the opportunity cost or even possibility of buildout to scale in a meaningful timeframe. Where the global political will to address this issue will come from in a post-pandemic economy where much more basic Maslow-style needs will be increasingly evident is an interesting conjecture ... but almost certainly far short of what is needed. Or perhaps better stated, what was needed some time ago.
I would be highly interested in approaches you may know, or know of (ideally with 'numbers' associated) that would effectively sequester, and ideally then utilize in a stable and irreversible form, atmospheric carbon in the amounts necessary even to reattain historical average level.
OM: Attempting to make sense of what you say is often like cleaning the Augean Stables. However, it seems that continuing to reduce and move towards a cease and desist pisition with CO2 and methane emissions is essential. Sequestration carbon to bring levels of CO2 back to some agreed upon ppm would need to also occur. In both cases, haste is necessary.
GrampIs there scientific proof that reducing CO2 emissions is having an impact on global temperature?
I have been highly critical of some of the ways in which the efforts around establishing anthropogenic greenhouse heating have been conducted, particularly in Europe. That does not involve criticism of much of the actual science, or the actual theorization, about the possibility or probability of AGW; I have believed in that since first being advised of the possibility, in the 1970s. In my opinion it is much more likely to be practically real than alternative explanations like variable insolation, and hence worthy of attention and, where appropriate, right action.
But the real issue is the one you stated: how can the effects be mitigated or turned around? And two of the more critical issues are whether 'the world' has in fact 'decreased' carbon emissions enough to matter (or even has a real prospect of so doing), and whether we can in fact restore the previous state of a complex climate merely by reversing a principal driver of its change. Personally I consider that neither is likely -- and that one condition necessary in any case is to promptly clamp down on excess carbon emissions worldwide, with no exceptions for poverty or 'emerging status' or internal politics, at least to the point low-altitude CO2 measurements can be agreed to show at least prospective tangible year-over-year decline. Does anyone here concur that this would be at best unlikely, at least in the prospective timeframe to irreversible systemic climactic change under most of the valid current models?
It is at least 10x the cost to bury lines even more as the voltage increases.
A couple questions:
Is it really more expensive long term to bury electric lines in most situations?
Is there scientific proof that reducing CO2 emissions is having an impact on global temperature?
OvermodI'd like to be able to say this was the wake up call to use better distribution infrastructure. It was put back about as expediently as it had been.
The local utility is still dealing with the aftermath here. Because they needed so many poles, they bought what they could find, some of which were substandard.
As well, many outside utility companies were called on to assist. Some weren't as diligent as may have been desired.
Perhaps the more interesting ice-storm result was the one in north Louisiana in the early 1990s, which took down nearly all the overhead power lines. I lived in a neighborhood -- and it was one of the "better" ones in Springhill -- where the electric power was out 35 days. A couple of local supermarkets were wall-to-wall utility trucks at night for much of that time...
I'd like to be able to say this was the wake up call to use better distribution infrastructure. It was put back about as expediently as it had been.
Perhaps the more interesting ice-storm result was the one in north Louisiana in the early 1990s, which took down nearly all the overhead power lines. I lived in a neighborhood -- and it was one of the better ones in Springhill -- where the electric power was out 35 days. A couple of local supermarkets were wall-to-wall utility trucks at night for much of that time...
MidlandMikeWhat did people do for heat for 2 weeks in those cold climates?
tree68 kgbw49 What happens at the next big earthquake when electric lines are down for weeks and charging can't happen. Extending the concept outside of California - The Ice Storm of '98 here took out as many as 10,000 poles, including some major transmission towers. We got power at my house after a week only because the utility brought in a large portable generator to an area substation and fired up what they could. Some areas were out for two weeks and more. The area affected ran from the eastern Lake Ontario region well into Quebec.
kgbw49 What happens at the next big earthquake when electric lines are down for weeks and charging can't happen.
Extending the concept outside of California -
The Ice Storm of '98 here took out as many as 10,000 poles, including some major transmission towers. We got power at my house after a week only because the utility brought in a large portable generator to an area substation and fired up what they could.
Some areas were out for two weeks and more.
The area affected ran from the eastern Lake Ontario region well into Quebec.
What did people do for heat for 2 weeks in those cold climates?
BaltACDThere was a similar storm 'sometime' in a early December that ravaged the Carolinas and Virginia - the year is lost in the gray matter.
No reason to doubt it.
tree68 BaltACD If I remember correctly - that was in early December... Late January 1998 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_1998_North_American_ice_storm
BaltACD If I remember correctly - that was in early December...
Late January 1998
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_1998_North_American_ice_storm
There was a similar storm 'sometime' in a early December that ravaged the Carolinas and Virginia - the year is lost in the gray matter.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDIf I remember correctly - that was in early December...
kgbw49 I have relatives in southern California. The rolling blackouts are fairly constant. One wonders how all the electric cars for the 2035 mandate will be powered in addition to the current load that they seem to be having great difficulty serving.
I have relatives in southern California. The rolling blackouts are fairly constant. One wonders how all the electric cars for the 2035 mandate will be powered in addition to the current load that they seem to be having great difficulty serving.
The irony in all this.. California imports most of it's electricity from coal fired generation in the intermountain west.. Prime example.. Six municipalities in California are the largest shareholder in the Intermoutain Power Agency located in Delta, Utah. Which operates one of the largest coal fired generating stations in the country. Can you guess which ones? The hint is they are all in Southern Califronia.. Mind you this plant will be converted to gas by 2025.
If I remember correctly - that was in early December - it wreaked havoc through the Carolina's, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania in route to New York and Canada.
It basically coincided with my Winter vacation when I was in Jacksonville and gave me my easiest trip to Maryland - ever. Very little traffic on I-95 but you could see all the damage along the way.
Remember reading about that in Trains..
https://steemit.com/history/@kiligirl/remembering-canada-s-worst-ice-storm-ever-part-5-postscript-what-happened-in-my-home-town
http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/194245.aspx
During one of those ice storms CN ran a old MLW M420 down a street and plugged it into a hospital.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
kgbw49What happens at the next big earthquake when electric lines are down for weeks and charging can't happen.
"I read somewhere that the waste issue would be reduced for nuclear energy if we weren't against breeder reactors that could recycle the present waste into more fuel sources. It wouldn't eliminate contaminated waste from nuclear power facilities, but it would reduce the more intense sources."
Even solar and wind have come under fire for various reasons. People fight wind in this area.
The same here. The"swoosh" of the blades can drive you nuts and impacts on sleeping. Plus the folks arround here are mainly in the know as to the damage the turbine blades can do to the birds and especially the raptors. I did read where one of the Nordic countries (I can't remember which one) is now testing painting one of the blades black to see if it helps with the bird kill. But eagles weren't mentioned specifically in the article so maybe they aren't a factor in that country.
kgbw49What happens at the next big earthquake when electric lines are down for weeks and charging can't happen. How will emergency vehicles operate? How will hospitals stay operating if their load is larger than what rooftop solar can provide. If you can't get fuel to run a backup generator, what are the options?
Works as well as anything else they seem to know how to implement in California.
One of the issues is that both 'clean coal' and nuclear have fairly dramatic stranded capital cost -- the figures I was familiar with for the simpler clean coal alternatives show a ~35% increase in the cost of power for the former, plus the lead time involved in procuring and building out the equipment. I thought then, and really still do, that the 'correct' use of coal is processing via some version of SRC, which puts the carbon into a form useful for other industries and purposes and can get rid of the ash and metals content effectively in the chemistry. At least some of the cost of the SRC plant and operations, and of sequestration of the flue gas (probably via recompression to ~35atm where the CO2 naturally separates) can be justified as 'public good'; I have actually advocated that these be parts of the planning for a Green New Deal (if we can agree on properly safe conditions for miners).
Frankly I don't see the proper support for nuclear of almost any kind, particularly the thorium scam... we can't support it as a society at present, and the likelihood of adopting, say, an EdF model here does not seem too great. I notice that China, with the capital access needed for large economy of scale in nuclear development, seems to have done nothing even to encourage theoretical development (e.g. via university grants); I don't know if they have anything like the akademgorodok system for training nuclear engineers, but it wouldn't be difficult for them, if they had the interest... I think we'd see more if they did, though.
Big target for the 'Biden plan' continues to be not better wrap of existing buildings, but proper combination of 'ground source heat pump' geothermal and IAQ improvement. The most important thing there is ramping up the necessary knowledge and skills in the next four years... the operational model to accomplish that looking amusingly like the startup of the business plan for emu meat. Of course if that's to be accomplished within the culture of the existing unions, the training needed to start, oh, about the end of the Obama administration. To me this is more evidence of chronic shortsightedness for the past "over 20 years" that another poster brought up a couple of weeks ago.
Mind you, I have nothing against electric cars, or solar or wind as part of an overall strategy.
What happens at the next big earthquake when electric lines are down for weeks and charging can't happen. How will emergency vehicles operate? How will hospitals stay operating if their load is larger than what rooftop solar can provide. If you can't get fuel to run a backup generator, what are the options?
There seem to be many questions related to an all or nothing strategy.
MidlandMike I can understand banning gas stoves for the indoor air pollution, but I wonder what legal theory they are using to ban gas for furnaces.
I can understand banning gas stoves for the indoor air pollution, but I wonder what legal theory they are using to ban gas for furnaces.
My understanding is that the ban is intended to eliminate the need for natural gas infrasctructure - there are a fair number of people who want to ban frac'ing. At least frac'ing sand generates a fair amount of RR traffic.
One problem with banning gas is that it presupposes that there is a reliable source of electricity. An additional problem is the push to go "all-renewable" for electric power production, which will require massive amounts of energy storage to be practical. With current technologies, the amount of mining needed to provide the materials for energy storage may make coal mining a clean alternative.
charlie hebdo Obviously several serious accidents plus the problems with spent fuel created a negative situation.
Obviously several serious accidents plus the problems with spent fuel created a negative situation.
Problem with focusing on well publicized "serious accidents" is that the death and injury toll from much more frequent minor incidents can easily exceed the toll from the major incidents. As far as I know, there have been no fatalities in the general public directly attributable to an serious accident at a commercial nuclear generating station. I do know of two incidents (there may be more) in the last 21 years where members of the general public have been killed by failures of natural gas pipelines.
Waste storage is more of a political problem than technical, although there may be an advantage in prolonging above ground storage for a long a time as reasonably possible.
We need a mix of energy choices in order to maintain price stability. Otherwise, if you put all your eggs in one basket, you are captive and vulnerable to someone raising the price.
As the price of green energy rises, the cost will need to be paid by conservation. So, conservation will become the new green energy.
tree68 MidlandMike I can understand banning gas stoves for the indoor air pollution, but I wonder what legal theory they are using to ban gas for furnaces. I would suspect the answer would be "green." Right now your choices are basically solar and wind, with some battery thrown in for good measure. Or all electric (ie, commercial), but that power has to come from somewhere. Even solar and wind have come under fire for various reasons. People fight wind in this area.
I would suspect the answer would be "green." Right now your choices are basically solar and wind, with some battery thrown in for good measure.
Or all electric (ie, commercial), but that power has to come from somewhere.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.