San Bruno go boom!

[Kurt Ullman]

Natural gas is the most widely used less polluting source of electricity.

[David Nebenzahl]

On 9/11/2010 4:25 PM Han spake thus:

Pretty sure that it is a 24" line. That's what I've been hearing from the teevee nooz the last couple days here.

[Pete C.]

There is a notable difference between being blown up in a nat. gas explosion at say 25 vs. dying "prematurely" at 85 due to pollution.

[Pete C.]

Who said anything about solar cells? We're talking about safer alternatives to nat. gas, which is primarily used for heating. Manufacture and recycling of solar thermal collectors (air or water) is pretty non-polluting and they are very recyclable.

I can purchase 100% wind generated power where I am. Folks in other places can get 100% hydro.

If I die at 85 vs. 90 due to pollution, I don't much care since quality of life at those ages tends to be rather low. If I get blown up at 30 due to a nat. gas leak I'd be rather more upset.

[Pete C.]

Nuclear is also a significant percentage of our "green" power generation.

At any rate, I never said that nat. gas shouldn't be used in carefully controlled industrial applications like power generation, I said it should not be used in residential applications, or at the very least gas detectors should be mandatory just like CO detectors.

[Pete C.]

Some 6.6 residential nat. gas fires and/or explosions (they tend to go together) per *DAY* (NFPA statistics) may be small relative to the total number of residential nat. gas installations, but it is unacceptably high given the many safer alternatives, and at the very least the availability of inexpensive gas detectors (every RV has one).

A nat. gas transmission line that blew in the northeast (NJ I believe) was *under* and apartment building. What shit-for-brains allowed that, and how much were they bribed?

[Pete C.]

There was a nat. gas transmission line that blew in the northeast that was directly *under* an apartment building and completely leveled it.

The line appears to be a high pressure transmission line (~600 PSI I believe), not a distribution line to service homes.

[Pete C.]

The pictures seem to show something in the 24" range. It also appears to be a high pressure transmission line, not a distribution line.

I own some property that has one of those transmission lines crossing it way back on the property. I heard that some years back it had a blowout which never ignited, but did blow a 10' crater in the frozen ground (was winter). They apparently traced the failure to a scrape by a backhoe tooth when burying the pipeline years earlier.

[DD_BobK]

Pete-

You're clearly WAY out of your depth.

How do you suggest we heat the homes now currently being served by natural gas? Switch them all over to propane? Wood pellets?

btw natural gas is way too valuable a resource to use for generating electricity, think chemical feedstock.

The average human already comes with a residential natural gas ...... their nose. CO is odorless & colorless, that's why CO detectors make more sense (but examining one's thumb nail color will do in a pinch)

cheers Bob

[Han]

"Pete C." wrote in news:4c8c627e$0$14815 $ [e-mail]:

That was a natural gas major transmission line too close to the building (s), not under it/them. There was 1 fatality, but the fault lay with people digging there, and with inadequate inspection and maintenance. For details see (on 1 line, with comma): .

The lesson is that you should find out what is in the area where you want to live before moving there.

[Han]

"Pete C." wrote in news:4c8c61cf$0$14815 $ [e-mail]:

See my other answer - it was NEXT to an apartment building and inadequate inspection and maintenance was responsible.

Also, I said above that one should examine what might be in the area that you contemplate moving to.

[Gary H]

That sounds right.

BTW, we have a natural gas generating plant near here.

[trader4]

I think that is a gross exageration. About 50,000 people die each year from motor vehicle accidents. That's 2 orders of magnitude more than those that die from natural gas.

That would be some network of sensors. They would have to be placed every 20 feet along the side of roads where gas lines run to start. And subject to rain, salt, slush.... How much do you think that would cost to install and maintain? And you'd get 1000X false alarms for every one valid one.

[trader4]

Perhaps you need to re-think who it is that has the questionable brains. The gas pipeline you're talking about was NOT under an apartment building. It didn't even pass through the land the apartment building was on. It was located hundreds of feet away from the apartment building in Edison, NJ. While you make it sound like a mega disaster, this incident resulted in a total of 1 deaths. How many deaths each year are involved in the alternate fuels that we commonly use and that would be substituted for NG? For example, if you look at all the deaths associated with an alternate fuel like heating oil, including everything from faulty oil burner systems to traffic fatalities, you aren't going to wind up with a meaningfully different number of fatalities than the 43 per year from NG.

Also, if NG is so unsafe, why is it that it's widely used around the world, including many far more regulated places run by progressive socialist type govts that make themselves out to be very enlightened? Is there one place in the world that has taken your suggestion to get rid of it?

[Mark]

you do realize that you are getting the EXACT same electricity as everyone else..

the only thing you can choose is where your money goes to pay for it.

Mark

[willshak]

Han wrote the following:

News Reports say portions of the pipeline weres installed in the 1940s and 1950s before the houses were there.