Sciencemadness Discussion Board

Plastic Recycling Factory Up In Smoke

Morgan - 7-8-2023 at 10:35

Lots of black smoke
https://youtu.be/WLtHgjj05tk

Johanson - 7-8-2023 at 14:35

Looks like a polyethylene pipe manufacturer, "United Poly Systems". Massive fire indeed.
That's one way to recycle plastic, if you have a long enough time frame in mind

j_sum1 - 7-8-2023 at 17:36

What a mess!

Does not look fightable. Probably have to let it burn out.
Of course, that means even more release into the atmosphere.



Just a thought...
Is there a case to be made for some fires (not necessarily this one) to deal with them by adding an oxidant? That way there is quicker combustion, more complete combustion, and ideally less damage. It also introduces additional risks. Is this procedure ever done?

Keras - 7-8-2023 at 23:50

Impressive. Is that tyres burning?
I love the firefighters but really, that puny water hose against such a blaze looks ridiculous.

[Edited on 8-8-2023 by Keras]

Parakeet - 8-8-2023 at 14:52

Quote: Originally posted by j_sum1  

Just a thought...
Is there a case to be made for some fires (not necessarily this one) to deal with them by adding an oxidant? That way there is quicker combustion, more complete combustion, and ideally less damage. It also introduces additional risks. Is this procedure ever done?

I’ve never heard such a method. I think that would probably make things even more uncontrollable. Mild fire is more manageable than fierce ones, and residual combustibles are often not a problem.

But there is a method of extinguishing a wildfire by intentionally setting fire to burn out combustibles in the direction the fire is moving. So your idea of burning out everything is not entirely wrong in some cases.

SnailsAttack - 8-8-2023 at 19:48

That is one nasty-looking smoke cloud.
Quote: Originally posted by j_sum1  
Is there a case to be made for some fires (not necessarily this one) to deal with them by adding an oxidant? That way there is quicker combustion, more complete combustion, and ideally less damage. It also introduces additional risks. Is this procedure ever done?
humanity's long history of terrible ideas marches onward

j_sum1 - 8-8-2023 at 23:51

Quote: Originally posted by SnailsAttack  
humanity's long history of terrible ideas marches onward


Haha.

Not really wanting to provide material for the Darwin Awards.
I just know that for many fires, the only feasible option is to contain the fire, prevent spread, and wait until the fuel is exhausted. I also know that a small explosion in a campfire can extinguish flames without necessarily spreading material too far. (No one owned up to throwing the aerosol can in there.)

It seemed to me that there may exist niche situations where acceleration via oxidant may be beneficial. I wondered if this strategy has ever been used.

Of course it would be unsuitable in this fire. That thing is starved of oxygen as it is. Complete combustion of all that soot would be very scary.

unionised - 9-8-2023 at 03:59

Extinguishing oil well fires with explosives is well documented.

It would be impractical to run all that smoke + soot through a jet engine. But , if you could, it might actually get oxidised to CO2 and water.

SnailsAttack - 10-8-2023 at 02:45

Quote: Originally posted by j_sum1  
It seemed to me that there may exist niche situations where acceleration via oxidant may be beneficial.
Possibly, yeah, but it'd have to somehow be safer or more cost-effective to bring in thousands of pounds' worth of chlorate or nitrate salts than to douse it with water.

averageaussie - 10-8-2023 at 19:55

Quote: Originally posted by j_sum1  

Just a thought...
Is there a case to be made for some fires (not necessarily this one) to deal with them by adding an oxidant? That way there is quicker combustion, more complete combustion, and ideally less damage. It also introduces additional risks. Is this procedure ever done?

there could maybe be a reason to in some niche cases? Where incomplete combustion releases nasty chemicals into the air. adding an oxidiser could maybe reduce the amount of toxic smoke, which might mean that people in the surrounding area and downwind are less likely to be exposed. I do know that large fires can suck up all the oxygen from an area, making the air unsafe to breathe, and adding an oxidiser might help this by giving the fire oxygen to take other than from the air, but we have breathing apparatuses (apperati?) so the oxygen thing isn't an issue for the firefighters.
plus with a blaze the size of this, making it end quicker might not be terrible, I guess? less time wasted?

B(a)P - 10-8-2023 at 20:59

Quote: Originally posted by averageaussie  
Quote: Originally posted by j_sum1  

Just a thought...
Is there a case to be made for some fires (not necessarily this one) to deal with them by adding an oxidant? That way there is quicker combustion, more complete combustion, and ideally less damage. It also introduces additional risks. Is this procedure ever done?

there could maybe be a reason to in some niche cases? Where incomplete combustion releases nasty chemicals into the air. adding an oxidiser could maybe reduce the amount of toxic smoke, which might mean that people in the surrounding area and downwind are less likely to be exposed. I do know that large fires can suck up all the oxygen from an area, making the air unsafe to breathe, and adding an oxidiser might help this by giving the fire oxygen to take other than from the air, but we have breathing apparatuses (apperati?) so the oxygen thing isn't an issue for the firefighters.
plus with a blaze the size of this, making it end quicker might not be terrible, I guess? less time wasted?


I think there could be a few other applications for this.
- Force a fire to use up all available fuel before unfavourable weather conditions arrive.
- Possibly reduce airborne embers if they are consumed faster, not sure about that though, maybe it would be worse because the additional heat would cause a greater updraft.
- less post fire residual contaminants that would otherwise have been generated through incomplete combustion such as PAHs and dioxins.

averageaussie - 28-8-2023 at 15:29

Quote: Originally posted by B(a)P  
Quote: Originally posted by averageaussie  
Quote: Originally posted by j_sum1  

Just a thought...
Is there a case to be made for some fires (not necessarily this one) to deal with them by adding an oxidant? That way there is quicker combustion, more complete combustion, and ideally less damage. It also introduces additional risks. Is this procedure ever done?

there could maybe be a reason to in some niche cases? Where incomplete combustion releases nasty chemicals into the air. adding an oxidiser could maybe reduce the amount of toxic smoke, which might mean that people in the surrounding area and downwind are less likely to be exposed. I do know that large fires can suck up all the oxygen from an area, making the air unsafe to breathe, and adding an oxidiser might help this by giving the fire oxygen to take other than from the air, but we have breathing apparatuses (apperati?) so the oxygen thing isn't an issue for the firefighters.
plus with a blaze the size of this, making it end quicker might not be terrible, I guess? less time wasted?


I think there could be a few other applications for this.
- Force a fire to use up all available fuel before unfavourable weather conditions arrive.
- Possibly reduce airborne embers if they are consumed faster, not sure about that though, maybe it would be worse because the additional heat would cause a greater updraft.
- less post fire residual contaminants that would otherwise have been generated through incomplete combustion such as PAHs and dioxins.


forcing the fire to burn hotter is also risky though, could probably light other things on fire. in a situation like in the video it would be fine (probably) but if a house is on fire, the risk of catching the whole neighborhood on fire is to great.