I have talked quite a bit about the dangers of CNG vehicles, but the much bigger danger is the CNG infrastructure required to maintain them. CNG pipelines, tanks and fuel depots would cover the country.
These are all ideal targets for terrorists. All they need to do is violate the integrity of the high pressure pipeline or storage tank, and massive amounts of methane will immediately disperse across a wide area. One spark and a massive explosion occurs, like what happened in Brenham, Texas.
they thought an atomic bomb had been dropped
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IpYIvyCXv9w]
Building this infrastructure would provide America’s enemies a simple and nearly indefensible way to destroy the country in a matter of a few minutes.
It has happened before, under much less extreme confditions. In 1906, San Francisco was destroyed by fires caused by ruptured low-pressure gas lines after an earthquake.
What Obama is proposing is vastly more dangerous. Which makes me wonder – is he an idiot, or is he planning genocide? His justification is to reduce CO2 emissions by a few percent. Complete insanity.
My vote he is an idiot.
A natural gas plant explosion in Victoria, Australia virtually shut the state down for 3 weeks in 1998.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esso_Longford_gas_explosion
Seems irrelevant to Steve’s claim as it wasn’t compressed natural gas that caused the problem.
Do you even bother to read my posts before commenting?
Unfortunately, in this case, I did. Still stupid.
More school children killed by natural gas than by guns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqCRNtZ12mo
Why do you require CNG pipelines, tanks and fuel depots all over the country? You only need to compress it before pumping it into motor vehicles because the energy density of natural gas is so low relative to other fuels such as diesel. Don’t you already have natural gas infrastructure in the US?
It might be theoretically possible to have everyone own their own CNG compression system and a few spare tanks, rather than having any centralized distribution like a filling station. That would be extremely expensive, create hundreds of millions of potential failure and leak points, and it is questionable if the existing infrastructure could provide the volumes of gas required.
It would probably be even more expensive to do the alternative. I don’t have any issues with anyone pointing out issues with both types of approaches. Frankly, I don’t see how any government would be dumb enough to invest in an entirely new infrastructure if the only point of the exercise is to get the compressed gas into motor vehicles. We’re just talking about compressors here, where they should belong, which is gas stations.
LPG (Liquefied Petrolatum Gas) has been available at most petrol/gas stations in Oz for over 15 years or more. Most city taxi’s and light commercial vehicles run on LPG as do many private vehicles. The gas is delivered to the stations by tankers. It’s cheaper than petrol which is why commercial vehicles use it.
OK we are maybe not the terrorist targets that you guys are, but lets move with the times here.
Rex
As I have explained about three dozen times, LPG and CNG are completely different entities. The pressure of CNG is 100X higher than LPG.
Please read the blog before commenting.
But you keep shifting your argument as it suites you. You show images of, and put up posts of, low density gas and imply its dangers. When someone points to flaws in your argument, you get on your high horse, claim everyone is stupid, and imply that you’re only talking about the dangers of gases under high pressures.
cut the crap please
Sent from my Virgin Mobile Android-Powered Device
I was thinking the same thing… 😉
What part of methane mixes with air and becomes an explosive hazard is confusing to you? You are arguing mindlessly. It is very annoying.
You have three boxes 1m x 1m.
One is filled with petrol.
One is filled with natural gas.
The other is filled with compressed natural gas.
You ignite all three. (Not sure how you are going to ignite No.3., but imagine you *could* anyway.)
Which makes the biggest bang?
None will make a bang, unless they get a large surface area in contact with oxygen. Gasoline won’t do that, because it is well below its boiling point. It will burn only near the liquid surface.
Methane will explode, because it is far above its boiling point and completely mixes with the air..
This is not a difficult concept.
Thanks Will Nitschke I should also have said that LPG is a compressed petroliam Gas.
Constantly requiring new standards for conventional automobiles helps to ‘level the playing field’ for start up companies like Tesla. This does not favor the American consumer, whom Skeeter despises.
Don’t fix it if it isn’t broken. Obama wants to break the “system”, the way things are done now (in every field, not just fuel consumption), with absolutely no reasonable idea how to fix it afterwards. And the incompetent scientific demonization of CO2 is just a means to his greater end. He doesn’t care about the effects of CO2. He doesn’t care what any of you–especially, any scientific expert–thinks, for or against natural gas. He certainly appreciates that the issue divides you. That is the main thing for him. He wants a populace increasingly divided and thus ineffective, over which he can exert totalitarian control. You should all be saying together, “the markets can control what fuels are used, and where, far, far better than any petty ideologue, who is merely determined to break the system(s) that now operate to serve our societies–our civilization.”
Somewhat related:
I was a senior instructor in NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical warfare)
Without saying too much, I have often wondered about the short sightedness (thankfully) of terrorists means of attack. I can say two things which should be obvious:
1. The more interdependent infrastructure we have, (technologically controlled) the greater our vulnerability and
2. The more interdependent infrastructure we have, the amplification of very minute points of insertion is greatly magnified due to synergy with other terrorist means.
Palestinians have tried to attack Israeli fuel depots numerous times.
I am thinking of significantly more covert operations.
Don’t worry – Obama’s 2,700 tanks, 7,000 assault rifles and 1.6 billion rounds of ammo will be deployed – after the damage is done.
That’s why I’ve always been an anti-nuke kind of a guy. But I never use the arguments of anti-nuclear activists… because… those types of arguments are both dumb and deceitful.
Will, of the threats, there are worse than Nuclear, which puts some threats at an extreme
category.. Although, a terrorist, with the right type of nuclear bomb, could send the US into the dark ages without much damage or injury.