Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

That Methyl Methacrylate Tank

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 204 posts

Re: That Methyl Methacrylate Tank

#51

Post by konmok »

oceanplexian wrote: post #24
KennyBlanken wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why wouldn't there be passive protection systems designed in? Because the US chemical industry has been effectively unregulated for a century and can do whatever it pleases. There's a neutralizing chemical that could have been injected to stop the exothermic reaction in its tracks. They didn't have it on site. A "response team" (likely a contractor that responds to chemical emergencies) did, but by the time they sh…

I feel like these arguments are always framed as an evil corporation wants to take advantage of consumers. Except that's misdirection. The guilty party isn't the corporation, it's you, the consumer. And the corporations are already regulated. Heavily. You want Gore-Tex (expanded PTFE) boots, Cobalt EV batteries (Child labor in the DRC), Solar Panels (Open pit quartz mines), Wind Turbine Blades (Epoxy Resins & glass-l…

I don't want any of those things, really (besides solar panels I suppose). I avoid plastic as much as I can. But, let's take your boots example. I recently went looking for a pair of well-made boots that don't contain plastic. But that eliminates something like 99% of the available offerings, and most of the remaining are luxury brands that can cost upwards of 600 dollars. I don't have that kind of budget, so I had to compromise. Do you see the problem here? If I want decent boots without a luxury brand fee, I HAVE to give these chemical companies my money. Extend that to clothing, groceries, furniture, devices, etc etc.

I avoid this stuff as much as I can without upending my life, and I'm still forking over much of my spending to companies that can pollute my land, water, and air with near impunity. I didn't choose this shit!

Re: That Methyl Methacrylate Tank

#52

Post by GolfPopper »

nearlyepic wrote: post #48
oceanplexian wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like these arguments are always framed as an evil corporation wants to take advantage of consumers. Except that's misdirection. The guilty party isn't the corporation, it's you, the consumer. And the corporations are already regulated. Heavily. You want Gore-Tex (expanded PTFE) boots, Cobalt EV batteries (Child labor in the DRC), Solar Panels (Open pit quartz mines), Wind Turbine Blades (Epoxy Resins & glass-l…

You’re reversing causality. People don’t want gore-tex, and they don’t want cobalt batteries. They want dry boots and transportation. If some corporation comes along and says they have dry boots and electric cars, it is not realistic to expect every single consumer in a society to become expertly informed on fluorochemistry or the economics of mining, and then also expect them to make the decision that is best for al…

But it is a nice dodge for those profiting from outsourcing costs on the public.

From one angle, that is all modern corporations are: a mechanism for offloading costs onto the public, while privately pocketing the profit.

Re: That Methyl Methacrylate Tank

#53

Post by robocat »

colechristensen wrote: post #50
robocat wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is active. Something passive could be submerging the tank in a pool of water (also good for proving spill containment won't leak).

Uh, you can't just disconnect a pressurized 35,000 gallon tank and drop it into a an enormous pool you just keep full under it at all times.

Riiight. That is exactly what I was thinking.

Re: That Methyl Methacrylate Tank

#54

Post by Waterluvian »

gpm wrote: post #49
cogogo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read that was the primary concern and wondered about drilling/piercing techniques that could avoid a spark. Spraying water sounds like the dumbest one but some kind of mud applied or something. CNC machines don’t seem to be light shows but i know very little.

My "I have no clue how this works" proposal to minimize the chance of sparking would be to re-purpose a waterjet cutter...

Okay now hear me out. What about we introduce more chemicals and eat through the tank with acid?

Re: That Methyl Methacrylate Tank

#55

Post by ajb »

Waterluvian wrote: post #13

I had wondered the whole time why they didn’t just pierce it with an AM rifle. Would that not have been better than a random partial failure via a crack? Genuinely open question. I don’t know anything about stuff.

Not a direct answer, but there is a standard code for what actions emergency services should take, and the code[1] for this stuff is 3YE, which means "Use foam or dry agent, substance reacts violently/is explosive, BA [breathing apparatus] use is essential, evacuate vicinity, contain spill." So there must be some reason not to let the stuff out.

[1] This is the hazchem code. I think the US uses a different system. A list is here: https://www.ricardo.com/media/radn55jg/dangerous-goods-emerg...

Re: That Methyl Methacrylate Tank

#56

Post by bagels »

colechristensen wrote: post #50
robocat wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is active. Something passive could be submerging the tank in a pool of water (also good for proving spill containment won't leak).

Uh, you can't just disconnect a pressurized 35,000 gallon tank and drop it into a an enormous pool you just keep full under it at all times.

I think the passive version is the tank stays in a pool all the time.

Re: That Methyl Methacrylate Tank

#57

Post by kenhwang »

dan_sbl wrote: post #8
robocat wrote: post #4

Why wouldn't there be passive protection systems designed in? After a big earthquake you don't want to have to also deal with other emergencies (à la Fukushima). Aside: One good side-effect of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake being so horrific is that it stopped the self-obsessed whinging in my city (Christchurch was still trying to recover from an earthquake).

I believe they tried to inject some chemicals to slow the reaction, but the pump and/or valves failed and clogged.

I was thinking maybe have those chemicals sitting in a glass or temperature sensitive container inside the tank. So when there's too much pressure or heat, the container containing the neutralizing chemical is broken like a fuse and the chemical is automatically released.

Re: That Methyl Methacrylate Tank

#58

Post by kotaKat »

Waterluvian wrote: post #13

I had wondered the whole time why they didn’t just pierce it with an AM rifle. Would that not have been better than a random partial failure via a crack? Genuinely open question. I don’t know anything about stuff.

I guess that begs the next point though - the high pressure system inside would want to violently vent out to the low pressure system outside through the relatively tiny hole.

Delta P... when it's got you... it's got you.

Re: That Methyl Methacrylate Tank

#59

Post by bagels »

h335ian wrote: post #9

By the miraculous grace of God, a crack allowed pressure to bleed & enabled our engine company to prevent thermal runaway. A BLEVE was the projected outcome, a firefighters worst nightmare - see the Kingman BLEVE - https://www.cityofkingman.gov/government/departments-a-h/fir...

[flagged]

Re: That Methyl Methacrylate Tank

#60

Post by lokar »

oceanplexian wrote: post #24
KennyBlanken wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why wouldn't there be passive protection systems designed in? Because the US chemical industry has been effectively unregulated for a century and can do whatever it pleases. There's a neutralizing chemical that could have been injected to stop the exothermic reaction in its tracks. They didn't have it on site. A "response team" (likely a contractor that responds to chemical emergencies) did, but by the time they sh…

I feel like these arguments are always framed as an evil corporation wants to take advantage of consumers. Except that's misdirection. The guilty party isn't the corporation, it's you, the consumer. And the corporations are already regulated. Heavily. You want Gore-Tex (expanded PTFE) boots, Cobalt EV batteries (Child labor in the DRC), Solar Panels (Open pit quartz mines), Wind Turbine Blades (Epoxy Resins & glass-l…

You write as if it would not be possible to work with these chemicals safely at a reasonable cost, and that's just not true. Other jurisdictions manage this.

Corporations naturally seek to improve margins, all the time, constantly. They will push and push against rules and regulations. It's the proper role of government to balance the costs to the corporation against the interests of the public. And it can be done well. But in the US, it's becoming more and more rare.

Post reply on HN