Before and After the Insane Fort McMurray Fire, From 350 Miles Above Earth

Last week, a firestorm leveled the northern Canadian city of Fort McMurray. It still burns, under a cloud of smoke and ash that hide how much it has destroyed. But only from the naked eye. Satellites equipped with infrared cameras have peered through the black cloud to reveal a charred Fort McMurray.
The images in the above gallery come from a pair of satellites operated by DigitalGlobe, a remote sensing company. Called WorldView 2 and 3, each looks at different swaths of the infrared spectrum, which allows them to see a dynamic picture of the devastation. This is not disaster porn. First responders use images like these to predict a fire’s movement, and plan their suppression efforts. And they provide those of us lucky enough to be far away from Fort McMurray a reminder of the dangers of a warming world.

Temperatures in Fort McMurray last week were close to 90˚F. In May. In Canada. Northern Canada. Fort McMurray is pretty far inland, but near the same latitude as Juneau, Alaska. That warm weather came off a pretty light snow year, which means the trees around the city were pretty dry. Add strong winds to the mix and you get, well, the situation playing out on these satellite images.
The WorldView-3 orbits at around 385 miles above the Earth’s surface. It is sun-synchronous, which means it is always in daylight. Its onboard camera has 16 different bands, one of which captures light in the short wave infrared spectrum. “As you move from visible light, to near infrared, to shortwave infrared, you are picking up sunlight reflected from the surface, but also the heat signature from planet itself,” says Kumar Navulur, DigitalGlobe’s senior director of strategic solutions. Essentially, the short wave infrared camera’s heat sensing ability lets it see the fire’s flicker through the cloud of smoke.

Another of DigitalGlobe’s satellites, the WorldView-2, also looked at the fire. Though it wasn’t able to peer through the smoke, it did allow DigitalGlobe’s technicians to create before and after images of the fire. Those technicians combine the infrared imagery with false color pictures of the landscape. Which leads to some weird color schemes. For instance, red is good, because it represents living forest. Burned areas are grey. “After a fire, all the chlorophyll in the trees is killed, so it has no color value,” says Navulur.

DigitalGlobe’s constellation of satellites collect over a million square miles of satellite imagery every day. In a year, that’s around 80 petabytes of data. They can fly over places like Fort McMurray once a day. “Once we collect the data, within about two hours it can be available online anywhere in the globe,” says Navulur.
Not just for first responders. DigitalGlobe’s clients include tech companies, governments, aid groups, oil and gas companies—virtually anyone with a desire to understand how the Earth works. Including other cities looking to protect themselves from the vagaries of the changing climate. “You want to prepare, react, recover,” says Navulur. Hotter, drier weather means longer fire seasons. Wetter, warmer winters means more flooding. Vigilance—aided by an all-seeing eye—is the best way to peer through the smoke of uncertainty for what is yet to come.

 http://www.wired.com/2016/05/insane-fort-mcmurray-fire-350-miles-earth/?mbid=social_fb#slide-5

US testing of lithium batteries alarms aviation officials

http://www.pulse.me/ap/d70ea1fd65a347eea7a6ec1e7386c518?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews
WASHINGTON (AP) — International aviation officials are trying to quickly come up with safer packaging for cargo shipments of lithium-ion batteries on passenger planes after U.S. testing confirmed that aircraft fire suppression systems can't prevent overheated batteries from causing powerful explosions and fires.
The hazardous cargo committee of the International Civil Aviation Organization, a U.N. agency, met this week in Montreal. Officials familiar with the discussions said the panel heard a detailed presentation by aircraft manufacturers and pilot unions on the potential for the batteries to cause an explosion and resulting fire capable of destroying a plane.
The committee agreed to create a special working group to try to come up with packaging for batteries that would contain any fire or explosive gases to the inside of the package, officials said. If the working group cannot come up with such packaging, officials said they consider it likely that a formal proposal to ban bulk battery shipments from passenger planes will be offered at an ICAO meeting on dangerous cargo in October.
The batteries are used in devices from cellphones to electric cars. It's not unusual for as many as 80,000 batteries to be carried on board a plane. The global battery industry has been lobbying heavily against significant restrictions on battery shipments other than minor changes to current regulations.
Testing by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration over the past year and a half has repeatedly shown that a single short-circuiting battery in a large shipment of batteries can cause overheating to spread to other batteries. Fire suppression systems have been able to put out the initial flames, but they haven't been able to stop the spread of continually increasing temperatures known as thermal runaway.
The overheated batteries emit a mixture of explosive gases, of which hydrogen is the most abundant. As the gases build up, they eventually explode and ignite an intense fire.
An FAA test in February resulted in a powerful explosion despite being conducted in a pressurized chamber with an atmosphere of 5 percent halon. Halon is the main gas used to suppress fires in the cargo compartments of passenger planes. Triggered by smoke, fire suppression systems unleash halon until the gas reaches 5 percent of the air in the cargo compartment. It has long been accepted by aviation authorities that this level of halon is enough to put out most fires, including a lithium-ion battery fire.
"We now no longer believe that would be the case," said pilot Mark Rogers, who represents the Air Line Pilots Association in the U.S. and Canada and other international pilot unions on cargo issues in the civil aviation organization's proceedings.
The February test resulted in an explosion in which pressure in the chamber rose from a normal 15 pounds per square inch to 70 psi, according to an agency slide presentation. Without the presence of halon, the explosion was even more powerful, with pressure rising to about 80 psi.
Two safety experts interviewed by The Associated Press described an explosion of that force as "significant." John Goglia, a former National Transportation Safety Board member, said such an explosion could possibly blow a hole in a plane and cause depressurization for passengers without destroying the plane. He pointed to examples of planes that have landed safely after experiencing such a blowout.
Last month, the International Coordination Council of Aerospace Industry Associations, which represents aircraft companies such as Boeing and Airbus, and the pilot unions submitted a joint working paper to the civil aviation organization recommending a ban on bulk battery shipments on passenger planes until safer packaging can be developed. The paper, which is not considered a formal proposal under the U.N. agency's rules, called the threat of battery fires "an unacceptable risk."
The FAA tests show "the uncontrollability of lithium battery fires can ultimately negate the capability of current aircraft cargo fire suppression systems, and can lead to a catastrophic failure of the airframe," the position paper said.
"It has been our consistent position that theses batteries shouldn't be transported until (adequate packaging) standards are in place," Rogers said. "We'll continue to work with the manufacturers on influencing operators and getting the word out that aircraft cargo compartments aren't capable of handling a fire involving these materials."
A growing number of airlines have also said they will no longer accept bulk battery shipments, including Delta, United, Cathay Pacific, Qantas, British Airways and Cargolux.

Explosion and blaze inside protected area at U.S. nuclear plant in Arkansas — Transformer blows in Unit Two, causes fire that was not contained for 1.5 hours — “Loud, ground shaking explosion” reported — Reactor remains shut down, extent of damage unknown (PHOTOS & VIDEO)

River Valley Leader, Dec. 9, 2013, 9:25a ET updated at 4:26p ET: BREAKING: Pope County 911 receives reports of explosion at Arkansas Nuclear One [...] Just before 8 a.m., Monday morning, December 9, reports of an explosion at Arkansas Nuclear One were made to Pope County 911 operators. At this time details have not been released in the explosion, but fire officials are reportedly responding to the nuclear facility and a fire is being fought. A resident in the vicinity of the Arkansas Nuclear One plant reported a “loud, ground shaking explosion and then saw smoke.”

Wall St. Journal, Dec. 9, 2013 at 2:31p ET: The fire started in the electrical switchyard after a transformer exploded and ignited [NRC spokesman Victor Dricks] said […] The blaze started at 7:50 a.m. and was contained by 9:17 a.m., according to Entergy.

Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Dec. 9, 2013 at 11:45a ET: Arkansas Department of Emergency Management spokesman Tommy Jackson said that the fire had not extinguished within the 15 minutes of detection. “The auxiliary transformer exploded in Unit Two, and there was fire within the protected area,” he said.

River Valley Leader, Dec. 9, 2013 at 3:31p ET: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has activated its incident response center in Arlington, Texas, following the declaration of an Unusual Event at the Arkansas Nuclear One nuclear power plant. [...] The Unusual Event was declared by operators at 8 a.m. CST after Unit 2 experienced a transformer explosion in an electrical switchyard. The interruption of electrical power to Unit 2 caused protective systems to shut down the reactor.

River Valley Leader, Dec. 9, 2013 at 3:28p ET: [...] reports of an explosion at Arkansas Nuclear One were received by Pope County 911 dispatchers. The explosion that was later determined to be atransformer blowing, caused a fire to erupt in the nuclear facility.

KUAR, Dec. 9, 2013 at 1:29p ET: “The issue was that the transformer itself contains oil. [...] the respondersmade the decision to let the oil fire burn off,” says [Entergy spokesman Mike Bowling].

Russelville Courier, Dec. 9, 2013 at 10:17a ET: Operators will keep the Unit 2 reactor offline while the cause of the explosion is investigated and a determination is made on what repairs are necessary. [ANO spokesperson Donna Gregory] said it has not yet been determined how long the unit will remain offline. Currently there is an investigation into the cause of the fire and extent of damage.

Watch the local CBS broadcast here

http://enenews.com/explosion-and-blaze-inside-protected-area-at-u-s-nuclear-plant-in-arkansas-transformer-blows-in-unit-two-causes-fire-that-goes-uncontained-for-90-minutes-loud-ground-shaking-explosion-rep