User login
Personnel
Classic posts
Archives
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
PONYC Archives
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
When given the choice between LNG and Nuclear, I'm starting to side with LNG. Even if you assume the worst, which probably has a very small chance - like less than .001% in either case, at at least the LNG explosion would be localized and have no lingering environmental effects. NG is much cleaner than coal or oil making it more environmentally friendly (among the fossil fuels). With Nuclear, a leak or explosion would have increased radiation levels for decades or centuries.
Frankly, though I think we need both. And we really need to do everything we can to increase renewables and get demand growth under control.
While a spill in a harbor would temporarily freeze the water around the spill, the huge heat sink of the water would eventually contribute to the flashing of the LNG to mix with air. Add a source of ignition and you are toast (literally). What isn't cooked can be "liquified" by the blast wave.
The acronym stands for Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion, but for those with a dark sense of humor in a plant environment where such things can occur it also stands for Blast Leveling Everything Very Effectively.