Thanks for your comments.
As if to underscore the point, there was another big natural gas blast in the city of Windsor, Ontario, on 29 April 2003.
This time the media didn't even bother running a story - just a color photo of the devastation at the accident site, with the following caption: "Paramedics prepare to transport two seriously injured burn victims to hospital after a huge explosion and fire in Windsor, Ont., yesterday. A six-inch natural gas line burst into flames and these two workers were seen on fire running out of a trench."
( the photo is avail. on request to anyone interested).
Some of you may not be aware, but in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada, professional antinuke activists are pushing for nuclear to be replaced by gas power (see also Jim Hoerner's comment, below, for a US view).
I'm not opposed to NG power plants per se -- the technology of modern gas turbines is wonderful and a lot cleaner than coal -- but if one's talking regulation, safety, and environmental impact, nuclear power plants are second to none, on a per-megawatt-hour produced basis.
Besides, most of the serious NG accidents occur in connection with smaller (including domestic) users -- somewhat akin to the case of Tokaimura, where a small shop dealt incompetently with a unique shipment of 20%-enriched fast reactor fuel they were not accustomed to handling....
Jaro
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Michael G. Stabin wrote:
No one is suggesting that the nuclear industry be as "careless" as the NG or chemical and petroleum industries, but could they possibly be as careful as we are? A reasonable perspective in analyzing the situations and in allocating resources for corrective action (to save real lives instead of theoretical ones) is badly needed.
Jerry Cuttler wrote:
The natural gas accident was caused by "repeated gross violations of basic safety procedures".
The "basic safety procedure" to avoid natural gas accidents is to "Call before you dig."
Repeated gross violations for natural gas safety do not cause the loss of public acceptance of natural gas as a source of energy.
Jim Hoerner wrote:
Respectfully, I strongly disagree...
"I have long said that I would like to see Indian Point closed," said Spano.
"These new studies provide a basis to go ahead and investigate buying or condemning Indian Point and building a natural gas plant on the site...
Replacing Indian Point's nuclear reactors will make us all feel safer."
Ted Rockwell wrote:
Why should a particular level of mortality from a nuclear accident [Tokaimura] warrant front-page coverage and annual commemoration, when repeated occurances of much greater public impact are accepted as the price we pay for the benefits? Natural gas, and particularly liquid natural gas, is inherently capable of much greater public damage than any nuclear plant or fuel. Coal makes even greater assaults on the environment.