Random Thoughts

Responses to David Biello, and Fabulous Free Money Offer to SciAm Editors

David Biello, on the Scientific American (or “Scientific” American) blog, had comments about nuclear power ("Nuclear Loses Its Cool").  He wondered how nuclear power plants could ever be a solution to global warming, if they had trouble staying cool during heat waves.  That whole train of thought contains more nonsense than I’m willing to spend time on…but I did point out to him that he provided no statistical evidence to back up his concern, and even misreported one of the anecdotes he used to support his case.

Specifically, he wrote: "The results of this can be seen at American Electric Power's Cook plant in Michigan where temperatures in the control room reached 120 degrees F.”

The problem with his reporting of the event is that the Reuters article that he hyperlinked to does NOT say that the temperatures in “control room” reached 120 degrees F. 

If the Reuters article HAD said that, anyone who knows anything about nuclear power plants and their operation would say, “What the #%$*?!”…because having nuclear power plant workers working in a control room that is even above 85 degrees is a very serious situation.  People who are hot make mistakes.  I can not even conceive of a situation wherein a control room at a nuclear power plant that was online (i.e., supplying power to the grid) would be allowed to get above 90 degrees Fahrenheit, let alone up to 120 degrees Fahrenheit!   A utility that allowed such operation should--and almost certainly would--be run over hot coals by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission!

What the Reuters article actually says is, “ A spokesman for the Columbus, Ohio-based company said the unit was shut down because the temperature in the containment room(sic) reached 120 degrees Fahrenheit (49 degrees Celsius), exceeding allowable levels."

"Containment room."  NOT "control room!"  (Obviously.  Anyone who actually knows anything at all about nuclear power would know that it wasn't the "control room" that got up to 120 degrees Fahrenheit!")  "The thing is, I and other person pointed out David Biello's (obvious!) blunder, but he seems utterly incapable of recognizing it.  (This is a man who is an editor at Scientific American!)

Instead of saying, "Thanks for pointing out that obvious blunder.  I don't know how I could make such an obvious mistake!" David Biello responded with:

"I am confused about one thing: is there something unclear in my sentence that leads some to believe that I am confusing a containment room and a control room? I was trying to point to two different (but connected) problems related to heat that nuclear power plants were suffering. Perhaps it was merely proximity? Or perhaps I should have further explained the cooling mechanics of such a power plant? Anyway, it's an interesting writing question for me."

Some comments on this response:

 

1)   Your sentence is perfectly clear, David.  It's just clearly and blatantly WRONG.  The control room did *not* "get up to 120 degrees Fahrenheit."  You said it did.  Do you have trouble reading your own words?

 

2)  As far as your question, "Or perhaps I should have further explained the mechanics of cooling of such a power plant?"...I have a return question.  I have a Bachelors in Mechanical Engineering (with course emphasis on power generation) and worked on the analysis and design of nuclear power plants for 3.5 years for Babcock & Wilcox.  (I also worked on the design and analysis of advanced fossil-fired power plants and waste-to-energy plants.)  What is it in your background that makes you arrogant enough that you think you can explain the cooling mechanics of a nuclear power plant to me? 

 

David Biello concludes with, "Finally, please do not accuse me of misreporting. You can disagree with my analysis or opinion--or even the anecdotes I choose to include--but not my facts."

 

Bwahahahahahaha!  David, you're a hoot!  Once again, can't you read your own writing?  If not, why don't you get someone at Scientific American (or "Scientific" American) who CAN read your writing, and who knows the difference between a containment building (or "room" to the clueless writers and editors at Reuters) and a control room.  (Hint:  The control room is the ****AIR CONDITIONED*** room from which the operators control the plant.  And it does NOT get up to 120 degrees Fahrenheit while the plant is operating.)

 

Finally, I have a Fabulous Free Money offer to David Biello (and all the editors at Scientific American):  If any of you can provide *credible* evidence that the *control room* at the Cook Power plant in Michigan reached 120 degrees Fahrenheit on the day in question, I give the first person to do so $120.

Some responses on hurricane mitigation techniques

Jim,

You write, “I am a great fan of science fiction and someday in the distant future, suggestions like yours may be realistic,…”

If you think my suggestions—particularly the water-filled tubes as temporary storm surge barriers—are “science fiction,” then your "science fiction" is pretty tame!  (I’m thinking in particular of one of the books that had some influence on why I’m an environmental engineer today…Robert Heinlein’s “Farmer in the Sky.”  That book—about terraforming Jupiter’s moon Ganymede—was real science fiction!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer_in_the_Sky

“Your suggestions about reducing the strength of storms by covering or cooling the water would likely have extreme environmental consequences.”

Yes, that’s probably true.  But Hurricane Katrina alone produced 100 MILLION cubic yards of debris.  So let’s not pretend that hurricanes…especially Category 3 and higher hurricanes…don’t have extreme environmental consequences.  The real question is—or should be--“Do the adverse environmental consequences of hurricane reduction techniques exceed the adverse environmental consequences of hurricanes left at full strength?”

"Temporary hurricane walls are a logistical nightmare."

Speaking of logistical nightmares...how about this one?...

"A storm surge prediction program used by forecasters called SLOSH (Sea, Lake, and Overland Surge from Hurricanes) has predicted that in a category 4 hurricane, John F. Kennedy International Airport would be under 20 feet of water and sea water would pour through the Holland and Brooklyn-Battery tunnels and into the city's subways throughout lower Manhattan. The report did not estimate casualties, but did state that storms "that would present low to moderate hazards in other regions of the country could result in heavy loss of life" in the New York City area (Time, 1998)."

Do you think temporary hurricane walls present more of a logistical nightmare than that? 

"Where do you store them?"--->Don't know.  Every couple hundred miles along both coasts, perhaps?  Perhaps in the sea?   

"How do you deploy them?"--->Don't know.  By big ships like laying cable, maybe?

"How do you anchor them?"--->Don't know.  In my mind, they don't need anchors.

"How do you deal with rivers and streams (keeping the ocean out but allowing rivers and streams to continue draining)?"--->Don't know.  I just did a calculation (needs to be checked!) that says the entire discharge of the Mississippi River at New Orleans can discharge in a 100 square mile area, and it would only raise the level by 4 inches per 24 hours. So perhaps at New Orleans, you'd block the Mississippi River at Venice, and make your tubes go on a straight line to Pascagoula in the East, and Marsh Island in the West.  Then let the Mississippi drain into the triangle of mostly-water behind those tubes. 

"The average forecast error for 24 hours is near 70 miles in either direction. For 3 days or more, the average error is over 200 miles. If the storm is approaching the coast at an angle, the 70-mile error can translate into many hundreds of miles of coastline, making deployment impossible."

In my mind, the empty tubes are like a fire hose, in that they lie flat.  Perhaps ~500 miles of empty tubes could be deployed along the coast, and only sections where the hurricane is just about to come ashore would be filled with water?  I agree that deployment might be "extremely different" or "extremely costly." 

"There are many more reasons, costs and complications involved, but here is one that you might not have anticipated. Lawyers! If the hurricane hits 'naturally' there is little that lawyers can do. If humans have any effect on a hurricane, real or alleged, the lawsuits will fly faster than the storm winds."

So we let society be held hostage by lawyers?  We don't deploy systems that could save literally hundreds of billions of dollars, simply because lawyers would sue?  Wouldn't it make more sense to pass laws forbidding lawsuits for deployment of the systems?  Or perhaps have the federal government pay compensation for potential damages caused by deployment?

"I hate to be a spoil-sport, but the most cost effective and realistic mitigation of hurricanes remains in building, planning and insurance."

Well, I also hate to be a spoil-sport, but I don’t think you’ve spent even 4 hours thinking about what is “most cost effective and realistic.”  I have the same sort of questions for you that I had for Judith Curry:

1)  In the last 20 years, what has the damage from storm surge averaged in the United States?

2)  In the 2040-2060 period, what do you expect the damage from storm surge to average without any of the measures you advocate?

3)  In the 2040-2060 period, what do you expect the damage from storm surge to average with the measures you advocate?

4)  What do you think is the cost of the measures you advocate?

If you can’t answer these basic questions (and I’m almost certain you can’t, because I doubt you’ve put in any time to studying the matter) than I don't think you can say what is the "most cost effective and realistic mitigation of hurricanes."

Best wishes,

Mark

P.S.  I freely admit that I can't answer those questions for *my* potential solution, either.  But I've never made the claim that, for example, water-filled tubes *will* be a cost-effective solution.  I just think they *may* be, and are definitely worth more study than you (or I, or anyone I know of) have put into them.