5 ms·

I wonder if diesel heating will be banned there. Geothermal is banned to avoid harming the environment. But, diesel is OK? Perhaps humans shouldn't be there unt

by wankle 4y ago

I wonder if diesel heating will be banned there. Geothermal is banned to avoid harming the environment. But, diesel is OK? Perhaps humans shouldn't be there until fusion is fully developed.

ed25519FUUU 4y ago
> “Temperatures may reach 8°C (46°F) in summer and -50°C (-58°F) in winter.” There’s no way I would trust my life to any fuel but diesel in this environment.
- hammock 4y ago
  That, and/or seal fur
  - jibe 4y ago
    and whale oil
    - the_third_wave 4y ago
      And a radioisotope thermal generator.
- jszymborski 4y ago
  And yet today seems to be only -4°C
  - messe 4y ago
    So… within the typical range for summer?
    - jszymborski 4y ago
      I'm dumb and forgot for a moment that the southern hemisphere has opposite seasons from the northern hemisphere.
      - LAC-Tech 4y ago
        People from the Northern Hemisphere don't occasionally forget this - they very rarely remember.
briffle 4y ago
They had a small nuclear reactor in the 60s. But removed it in the early 70s. Could be a perfect place for a new SMR. http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph241/reid2/ http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph241/reid2/
sp332 4y ago
Diesel heating for 1,000 people isn't going to make a dent.
- sacrosancty 4y ago
  [dead]
- wankle 4y ago
  I suppose but it's a scientific community. @briffle commented they had a small nuclear reactor in the 1960's. @l- commented geothermal is no longer banned. If a 1000 strong group of hardy scientists surviving at Antarctica need diesel fuel to provide heating and power then is there realistic hope of human exploration of other planets any time in the near future?
londons_explore 4y ago
Diesel is a "tragedy of the commons" type damage - your damage blends with everyone elses. Geothermal on the other hand is local damage - it will be blatantly obvious who exactly is responsible for any environmental damage. Top tip for polluters: If possible, give out pollution like CO2, because it's invisible and mixes with everyone else's CO2, and when global warming sea level rise wipes out pacific islands, you can shrug and point to everyone else. Whereas if you damage one specific area, some government might come and fine you or put you in prison.
- the_third_wave 4y ago
  CO₂ is not "pollution", without it at at least 150ppm none of us would be alive for a lack of plant life. NOx and SO₂ are pollutants responsible for smog (etc.), better focus on those if you want to give an example of something which can be seen in the light you try to place CO₂.
CuriousCosmic 4y ago
They used to have a small scale nuclear reactor run by the army but it was too difficult to maintain without issue so they ended up decomming it. At mcmurdo and scott, wind power, etc are healthily supplementing and slowly substituting diesel but ultimately arctic diesel will stay a staple because it consistently operates at extremely low temps. Especially inland where the temperatures are regularly lower than -70C. As for the geothermal being banned, that's because it takes a lot of digging and "permanent changing of the environment". Doubly so since the low temperature environment means you have to use a ton of additives in your transfer fluid to keep it from freezing up during condition 1. If the circulation loop blows, those additives will stay in the environment effectively indefinitely given the weather. So as much as I prefer geothermal, it makes sense why it's banned. Even if they just accepted the risk, they'd still need diesel infra in case of emergency or else there's a very real risk of people on station dying in the middle of a long, hard condition 1 storm which would prevent fly-ins from bringing emergency supplies. Also it's only mcmurdo(~1k people), scott(~70-80 people), palmer(~40-45 people), rothera(~150 people), and signy(~10-15 people) which have actual ground contact that aren't in a pristine field lab environment (like the dry valley) so there's only a few locations that could even use geothermal. The rest are either in field lab environments where you can't risk contaminating the ground or on ice shelfs where you have to dig down a few hundred meters or even a few kilometer to find anything other than solid ice. Of those few viable locations, only mcmurdo, scott, and rothera actually justify the infrastructure cost (with all but mcmurdo only having enough people to justify it in the summer months). So ultimately instead of choosing between maintaining diesel infra and maintaining both diesel infra and geothermal which both have their own problems you know have to address, they chose to just use diesel unless a project can prove the geothermal infra won't have con 1 failure and deep ground contamination risks.
l- 4y ago
The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty does not ban geothermal. Its surprising "scientific" exploratory attempts have not occurred given the proximity to Mt Erebus.

by wankle 4y ago

I wonder if diesel heating will be banned there. Geothermal is banned to avoid harming the environment. But, diesel is OK? Perhaps humans shouldn't be there until fusion is fully developed.

ed25519FUUU 4y ago

> “Temperatures may reach 8°C (46°F) in summer and -50°C (-58°F) in winter.” There’s no way I would trust my life to any fuel but diesel in this environment.

hammock 4y ago
That, and/or seal fur
- jibe 4y ago
  and whale oil
  - the_third_wave 4y ago
    And a radioisotope thermal generator.
jszymborski 4y ago
And yet today seems to be only -4°C
- messe 4y ago
  So… within the typical range for summer?
  - jszymborski 4y ago
    I'm dumb and forgot for a moment that the southern hemisphere has opposite seasons from the northern hemisphere.
    - LAC-Tech 4y ago
      People from the Northern Hemisphere don't occasionally forget this - they very rarely remember.

briffle 4y ago

They had a small nuclear reactor in the 60s. But removed it in the early 70s. Could be a perfect place for a new SMR. http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph241/reid2/ http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph241/reid2/

sp332 4y ago

Diesel heating for 1,000 people isn't going to make a dent.

sacrosancty 4y ago
[dead]
wankle 4y ago
I suppose but it's a scientific community. @briffle commented they had a small nuclear reactor in the 1960's. @l- commented geothermal is no longer banned. If a 1000 strong group of hardy scientists surviving at Antarctica need diesel fuel to provide heating and power then is there realistic hope of human exploration of other planets any time in the near future?

londons_explore 4y ago

Diesel is a "tragedy of the commons" type damage - your damage blends with everyone elses. Geothermal on the other hand is local damage - it will be blatantly obvious who exactly is responsible for any environmental damage. Top tip for polluters: If possible, give out pollution like CO2, because it's invisible and mixes with everyone else's CO2, and when global warming sea level rise wipes out pacific islands, you can shrug and point to everyone else. Whereas if you damage one specific area, some government might come and fine you or put you in prison.

the_third_wave 4y ago
CO₂ is not "pollution", without it at at least 150ppm none of us would be alive for a lack of plant life. NOx and SO₂ are pollutants responsible for smog (etc.), better focus on those if you want to give an example of something which can be seen in the light you try to place CO₂.

CuriousCosmic 4y ago

They used to have a small scale nuclear reactor run by the army but it was too difficult to maintain without issue so they ended up decomming it. At mcmurdo and scott, wind power, etc are healthily supplementing and slowly substituting diesel but ultimately arctic diesel will stay a staple because it consistently operates at extremely low temps. Especially inland where the temperatures are regularly lower than -70C. As for the geothermal being banned, that's because it takes a lot of digging and "permanent changing of the environment". Doubly so since the low temperature environment means you have to use a ton of additives in your transfer fluid to keep it from freezing up during condition 1. If the circulation loop blows, those additives will stay in the environment effectively indefinitely given the weather. So as much as I prefer geothermal, it makes sense why it's banned. Even if they just accepted the risk, they'd still need diesel infra in case of emergency or else there's a very real risk of people on station dying in the middle of a long, hard condition 1 storm which would prevent fly-ins from bringing emergency supplies. Also it's only mcmurdo(~1k people), scott(~70-80 people), palmer(~40-45 people), rothera(~150 people), and signy(~10-15 people) which have actual ground contact that aren't in a pristine field lab environment (like the dry valley) so there's only a few locations that could even use geothermal. The rest are either in field lab environments where you can't risk contaminating the ground or on ice shelfs where you have to dig down a few hundred meters or even a few kilometer to find anything other than solid ice. Of those few viable locations, only mcmurdo, scott, and rothera actually justify the infrastructure cost (with all but mcmurdo only having enough people to justify it in the summer months). So ultimately instead of choosing between maintaining diesel infra and maintaining both diesel infra and geothermal which both have their own problems you know have to address, they chose to just use diesel unless a project can prove the geothermal infra won't have con 1 failure and deep ground contamination risks.

l- 4y ago

The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty does not ban geothermal. Its surprising "scientific" exploratory attempts have not occurred given the proximity to Mt Erebus.