I would agree with you except for the fact that the standards for gas
pipeline inspections are not very high. In fact, I would venture to say that
there are no standards requiring continuing inspection for home piping after
it is installed. Over time, there are several different ways that piping can
be damaged or corroded in ways that can cause leaks and hazards. That is why
natural gas is distributed with an additive that gives a distinctive odor - as
long as people pay attention to that warning, they are probably going to be
okay.
The damage would be limited in the case of a home leak - though some
homes (think about apartment high rises) are closer together than
others.
There is a different and much larger scale issue, however, with regard to
natural gas transmission pipelines.
There have been a number of warning explosions that have already caused
human suffering and death, but the warnings have not been followed with the
kind of increased scrutiny that may be merited. Often, the gas pipeline
companies have been able to ward off inspection requirements by talking to
politicians and regulators about the high cost of implementing them.
These are high pressure, high capacity piping systems that occasionally
get dinged, corroded, eroded, etc. They carry a high energy gas that is quite
hazardous if allowed to accumulate to a certain concentration, especially if
exposed to a spark source.
I, for one, will never forget the plight of the family that was camping
near Carlsbad NM on August 19, 2000. A pipeline running near their riverside
camp site exploded, causing a huge crater and killing all twelve members of
the family - eventually. Two family members died very painful deaths after
being burned over a large portion of their bodies.
The damage to the pipeline (owned and operated by El Paso Natural Gas
Co.) was at least as big a culprit as Enron in the energy crisis experienced
by California that winter, since the pipe represented about 1/3 of the import
capacity for the state and it required about 6-9 months to repair/reroute the
pipe. The tight supplies are what allowed the market manipulation in the first
place.
However, you never find any anti-gas group saying something like
"remember Carlsbad" or commemorating the memory of the victims. You cannot
also point to any change in direction or regulation of the industry as a
result of the warning that was far more deadly to the general public than was
TMI.
Here is a reference that I saved describing the accident: (It came off of
AOL's news service, and gives LCG as the original source. I no longer remember
what LCG stands for.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Last
Pipeline Victim Dies
LCG, Sept.
6, 2000—Twenty-five-year-old Amanda Smith, who lost her husband, children and
in- laws in a New Mexico natural gas pipeline explosion on August 19, became
the 12th fatality of the fiery blast when she succumbed to burns yesterday in
a Lubbock, Texas hospital.
Twelve
members of two families on a fishing trip had camped along the Pecos River,
not far from Carlsbad Caverns, when a pre-dawn eruption of a pipeline owned by
El Paso Natural Gas Co. engulfed them in flame. Ten persons were killed
outright and Smith and her father-in-law were taken in critical condition to
University Medical Center in Lubbock. The father-in-law died two days after
the explosion.
El Paso
Natural Gas said last month the pipeline had been inspected a year ago and
could not explain the cause of the rupture in the 50-year-old conduit.
"Pipeline doesn't have a life span as long as it's well maintained,"
maintained company spokesman Mel Scott.
The federal
Office of Pipeline Safety warned El Paso Natural Gas in a letter dated March
27, 1997, that company technicians had not been properly instructed in the
operation of an anti-corrosion system that protects buried pipelines from
corrosion caused by natural electrolysis.
National
Transportation Board investigators say they found corrosion inside the killer
pipeline that had eaten half-way through the pipeline wall in places, but
added that their investigation could take up to a year to pinpoint the cause
of the tragedy.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On February 11, 2003 the National Transportation Safety Board issued
its findings in NTSB report number PB2003-916501. If you are interested
in reading the report and following the actions that were actually
implemented, you can find some information by entering that report number in a
Google search. (The report itself is at
http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2003/PAR0301.pdf)
One of the more interesting documents that I
found in my search was titled Transmission Pipelines and Land Use Issues: A
Risk-Informed Approach which is available at
That report gives quite a few recommendations, but I have been unable to
determine if any of them were implemented.
Bottom line - all large scale energy systems are potentially hazardous
and need good design engineering, sufficient rules and operators with a safety
culture. Unfortunately, it often seems to me that the "cost be damned"
approach that is applied to nuclear power is generally not equitably applied
to other power sources, which leaves risk that is not adequately addressed or
understood.
Rod Adams
Editor, Atomic Insights
On Jun 2, 2006, at 12:07 PM, Bill Garland wrote:
I understand the sentiment but I don't
worry about the gas line into my house any more than I do worry about the
other managed risks at my home. I suspect there are more electrical
related deaths than gas related deaths. No one was hurt in the
Montreal incident. So I assume we can manage the risks of any of these
technologies. If the overall cost gets too high because of the safety
features, then it won't be used. At any rate, the big driving factor
for using gas, oil, etc for heating is efficiency. My high efficiency
gas furnace is 97% efficient I think. Why not, given that heat
transfer can be 100% efficient in principle. But if you use a heat
source to do work (ie pump electrons up hill) the heat engine efficiency is
typically 30 to 40%. Using electricity is quite an inefficient way to
heat a house. It does make sense to use electricity to run a heat
pump, though, if the pipes can be economically installed in your back
yard.
Bill