Explosion rocks Connecticut gas plant under construction, at least 2 dead.

[NNadir]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/nyregion/08explode.html?hp

One wonders, with the renewable energy nirvana always about to break out, why people are even building gas plants all over the United States, particularly as there is not one scheme on the drawing board to dispose of dangerous fossil fuel waste forever even under normal operations, never mind the implications of dangerous fossil fuel accidents.

[phantom power]

1. Let us all pause to reflect that NG is part of the renewable nirvana.

"Natural gas -- killing us measurably slower than coal! (TM)"

[Dead_Parrot]

2. At least there's no dangerous waste

Err...
Sorry, what was the question again?

[struggle4progress]

3. See Hannah Bell's excellent post for more background info:

Massive explosion rocks (Ct) power plant
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7663685

[NNadir]

4. Yeah. I'm sure you'll remember this one forever, like Texas City,

like Piper Alpha, like the zillion coal mine collapses in the Ukraine.

Thirty years from now you'll still be talking about it, sort of like Three Mile Island, where no one died.

:eyes:

Or maybe not. I never heard of this one again: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/19/373671/-Situation-Grave-at-Chinese-Coal-Mine:172-Human-Beings-Missing-Underground.

The way I see it, every person who ever dies in any kind of nuclear event anywhere is worth 1,000,000 dangerous fossil fuel deaths in the mind of our anti-nukes.

Let's be clear on something. The anti-nuke mentality is working for the gas industry.

Anti-nuke rhetoric shut Yankee Maine with fear and fantasy.

The result: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/sept05me.xls

Similar results were obtained at Trojan and at Rancho Seco.

Now the anti-nukes are trying to bring gas dependency to Vermont, and trying to do it here in my State by destroying Oyster Creek.

There is nothing more dishonest than an anti-nuke promising - after decades of such destruction that wind and solar will work and "replace nuclear." I never hear an anti-nuke talking about displacing gas or coal or oil. They don't have a clue how to do these things, nor are they interested in doing these things. Those toys have failed for decades to displace natural gas, coal or oil not that I consider ONE anti-nuke to give a rat's ass about dangerous fossil fuels and the people they kill.

Solar, and wind and geothermal are trivial forms of energy but still the anti-nukes rail against what? Nuclear. The world's largest source of climate change gas free primary energy for three deacades running.

I've been listening to denialist "we aren't gas people, we're wind people" tripe since 2002.

Since 2004 the entire wind, solar, and geothermal industry totals have not managed to keep pace with the increase in dangerous natural gas.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/table1.html

Spare me the crocodile tears, and the "evil corporation" rhetoric. It's bull.

[struggle4progress]

5. Hannah Bell made some effort to provide context and background for this event, and as a result

we can really learn something from Hannah Bell's post: in this respect, it compares rather favorably with various other posts which merely provide unpleasant ideological babble

[Wilms]

6. You link to your OWN post about a coal mine collapse in China in order to complain gas-fired plants.

And this somehow vindicates nuclear?

Daily Kos
Situation Grave at Chinese Coal Mine: 172 Human Beings Missing Underground.

by NNadir

Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 07:23:04 PM PST

My contention is that dangerous fossil fuels are well, dangerous, and that there is no way to make them acceptably safe.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/19/373671/-Situation-Grave-at-Chinese-Coal-Mine:172-Human-Beings-Missing-Underground

[FBaggins]

7. Why is it relevant that he posted the older article?

Is there some doubt whether or not it happened?

His point is a valid one. Some people have irrational fears about anything "nuclear" that cause them to act in just that way (irrationally).

[Wilms]

9. What is valid about comparing a mine collapse with a gas line explosions?

Put aside how that then morphs into a (lame) pro-nuke argument.

[FBaggins]

10. Why put it aside?

It was obviously intended to be a pro-nuke argument... and it was in no way "lame".

Natural gas/coal/oil-fired electricity generation is not without risks. The "lame" argument is the fanciful notion that ALL of the nation's power needs can be supplied with wind/solar/hydro. Since there will be large amounts of power generation by fossil/nuclear plants, it's entirely "valid" to point out that the dangers that some see in nuclear power (from radiation and "accidents" of one form or another) should be compared to the dangers involved in the other alternatives.

There articles aren't "compared" to each other... they're compared together to nuclear safety concerns to show how "lame" arguments that rely on them are.

[Wilms]

11. You mean the state of CT has to be abandoned because of gas explosion fallout?

You can make a pro-nuke argument with out the "lame" comparison.

[FBaggins]

12. ???

Sorry... I don't see how that makes sense.

Are you saying that he's using hyperbole and claiming that the state should be running in fear from something that isn't actually dangerous?

[NNadir]

13. Yes. I don't regard dangerous natural gas as qualitatively different from coal.

I favor banning all dangerous fossil fuels, since there is no way to deal with the waste, accidents, terrorism or dangerous fossil fuel wars, of which there have been many in the last several decades.

[phantom power]

8. update: death toll now up to 5

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61619Q20100208