As a further illustration of LNG spill behavior, note the following video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-JZU7wSgl8
In particular, watch what happens starting around 2:55 regarding the behavior at ignition. Rather eye-opening for the proponents of grand explosive disaster.
One more thing: See this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-EY82cVKuA
This describes PHYSICAL 'explosions' (similar to steam explosions in sulfuric acid, hot metal or lava) that occur when a comparatively large volume of cryomethane is quickly dumped into water. I consider it very likely that some of the effects of the 1944 Cleveland accident were produced by this mechanism.
Note, however, that this is not a 'detonation' in the combustion sense, and if you watch the sequence at the end of the video you will see that even ignition of the developing 'physical explosion' cloud only produces a deflagration and comparatively tiny pressure increase.
Wizlish In particular, watch what happens starting around 2:55 regarding the behavior at ignition. Rather eye-opening for the proponents of grand explosive disaster.
erikemWhat impressed me was the guy walking up to the simulated spill to ignite the gas plume and his calmly walking away after ignition
Precisely.
WizlishI consider it very likely that some of the effects of the 1944 Cleveland accident were produced by this mechanism.
The incident in Cleveland was significant if for no other reason than the sheer volume of LNG involved. The tank that initially failed (which failure led to the explosion) had a capacity of 100,000,000 cubic feet of LNG. Factoring in the 640:1 difference between gaseous and compressed LNG, and assuming that 100M CuFt figure to be gaseous, not compressed, that's about a 160,000 cubic foot tank, equal to around a 1.25M gallon water tank.
Liquid LNG entering the sewer system obviously began its expansion, which forced the now gaseous gas back into homes, causing much of the damage there.
Pretty much any flammable substance, given the right circumstances, will burn very quickly and violently (ie, explode). If that explosion occurs in a confined space (ie, sewers) mayhem will follow, as it did. One responding fire truck found itself in a crater as a sewer exploded under it.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
The whole discussion of this thread comes down to environmental and risk management. Gas is flared at new oil fields (or the wells are shut in) because gas pipelines have not reached there. Besides wasting the resource, burning the gas creates greenhouse gases. Venting the gas would be even worse, since methane, as a greenhouse gas, is an order of magnatude worse than CO2. Formerly when more gas was needed, it was imported by LNG tanker. Now it could be hauled by rail car.
Euclid The article says that there is a good market for LNG moved by rail, but it places great emphasis on a public perception problem presented as a showstopper. Interestingly, the article offers little hope of overcoming this public perception problem. The public perception problem for LNG is simply that the public perceives oil trains as being unsafe, and they will naturally apply the same reasoning to LNG trains. One might argue that the oil train problem has been exaggerated and sold to the public. If so, to the extent that the oil train safety problem is false, that falsity would extend to LNG trains. But even if the oil problem has been exaggerated, from what has been said here, the safety risk of hauling LNG is much less than the risk of hauling Bakken oil. We are told that LNG will not offer an explosion hazard, and that its fire hazard is apparently much lower than that of the oil. So the question is whether the industry is simply going to cower away from the promising LNG market because they refuse to fight the public relations battle. From the tone of the article, the answer is yes.
Johnny
Deggesty In other words, the public is being sold a bill of goods by people who apparently do not want to really learn the facts of the matter..
In other words, the public is being sold a bill of goods by people who apparently do not want to really learn the facts of the matter..
Facts? Since when does the public want to be confused by facts.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Deggesty Euclid The article says that there is a good market for LNG moved by rail, but it places great emphasis on a public perception problem presented as a showstopper. Interestingly, the article offers little hope of overcoming this public perception problem. The public perception problem for LNG is simply that the public perceives oil trains as being unsafe, and they will naturally apply the same reasoning to LNG trains. One might argue that the oil train problem has been exaggerated and sold to the public. If so, to the extent that the oil train safety problem is false, that falsity would extend to LNG trains. But even if the oil problem has been exaggerated, from what has been said here, the safety risk of hauling LNG is much less than the risk of hauling Bakken oil. We are told that LNG will not offer an explosion hazard, and that its fire hazard is apparently much lower than that of the oil. So the question is whether the industry is simply going to cower away from the promising LNG market because they refuse to fight the public relations battle. From the tone of the article, the answer is yes. In other words, the public is being sold a bill of goods by people who apparently do not want to really learn the facts of the matter..
Public perception has not stopped the crude oil trains, so I don't see why it would stop LNG-by-rail. LNG appears to be safer than propane, which is hauled all the time. If a practical LNG tank car is developed, and the LNG shippers present it for carrage, the common carrier RRs have to accept it.
EuclidI get the impression that the industry feels that talking about a new market for LNG would further damage their position with oil by rail.
While that may certainly be true, I think that even a cursory examination of LNG-by-rail fails some very fundamental economic smell tests.
LNG is a comparatively low-energy fuel, that would need to be transported in specially-built and expensive cryogenic tankers that could be used for few alternative purposes. You would need steady lanes between source liquefaction plants and ... whoever would be using LNG in preference to regular pipeline-delivered gas, or CNG from cheap compressor stations; I don't know what aside from locomotive fuel service would meet such a set of requirements. And the profit (as with unit coal trains) would need to involve empty backhaul, both in terms of tare and the time the units are out of revenue-haul movement.
Perhaps a large-scale export of LNG to foreign markets would provide the 'magic' combination of factors that would make LNG unit trains practical. But here, too, I think you'll wait a long time to find someone stupid enough to gamble all the capital required for the fleet of cars on such an uncertain means of generating a return. The fact that people think LNG explodes, and the fact that it has an easily-located history of disaster, puts additional layers of icing on the cake. Even if we assume industry PR to get the word out on relative LNG safety ... watch for it to become the next bugbear of the no-nukes folks. Who (of the people relying for a paycheck on that area of the energy industry) has the time to waste 'educating the ignorant' when there is so little gold in the pot even if they succeed?
Yes, LNG-by-rail would lose in head to head compition with a gas pipeline. Earlier in this thread it was pointed out that the main customer would be in places like the Bakken, which is still underserved by pipelines. Gas produced along with the oil would have to be flared for lack of gas lines. Sometimes O&G regulators will shut in such a well to prevent waste. The oil producers might ship LNG at low margin just to be able to produce the oil.
I have questions regarding this quote from the article linked to the OP:
“Transporting gas by rail, most likely as cryogenic liquefied natural gas (LNG), faces obstacles. The technology is in its infancy, and so far no tank car is permitted to carry the fuel on U.S. rails.
More-volatile liquids like ethylene and propane already travel on the rails in growing volumes. But as concerns about the safety of crude by rail intensify, regulators are exercising extreme caution with uncertified fuels like LNG, said executives involved in developing the technology.
Regulators and railroads last year established a task force to establish standards for LNG rail cars. A spokesman for the U.S. Federal Railroad Administration said there was no specified deadline for drafting actual rules.
Building these tank cars would be "a natural progression into hauling LNG, similar to what we do with crude oil," said Ken Webster, chief accounting officer at Chart Industries Inc.
Outside North America, steps have already been taken. Chart is developing an LNG tank car in Germany in a joint venture with Hamburg-based manufacturer VTG Aktiengesellschaft.”
Is it accurate to conclude the following?
1) No LNG has ever been shipped by rail in the U.S.
2) No LNG tank car has ever been approved and manufactured for LNG transport in the U.S.
3) No LNG tank car federal specifications have ever been developed for the U.S.
4) No LNH can be shipped by rail in the U.S. in a tank car that is not approved by federal specifications.
The current (Jan. 2015) issue of Trains - in the Florida East Coast article, by Fred Frailey - says that all of its locos (all will be new GE's by the end of 2014) will be powered by a 80% LNG - 20% diesel mix starting next April, and then converting the rest of the fleet. A specially built 10,000 gal. cryogenic tank car/ tender will be used, and the FRA "gave the railroad the go-ahead to continue its work on LNG". See page 46, cols. 1 and 2, under the heading "A BIG POWER GRAB".
- Paul North.
EuclidIs it accurate to conclude the following? 1) No LNG has ever been shipped by rail in the U.S. 2) No LNG tank car has ever been approved and manufactured for LNG transport in the U.S. 3) No LNG tank car federal specifications have ever been developed for the U.S. 4) No LNG can be shipped by rail in the U.S. in a tank car that is not approved by federal specifications.
A great many of the answers might be derived from one of the actual waivers that have been granted (in this case for movement of 'tender cars' to Pueblo for testing).
Paul_D_North_Jr The current (Jan. 2015) issue of Trains - in the Florida East Coast article, by Fred Frailey - says that all of its locos (all will be new GE's by the end of 2014) will be powered by a 80% LNG - 20% diesel mix starting next April, and then converting the rest of the fleet. A specially built 10,000 gal. cryogenic tank car/ tender will be used, and the FRA "gave the railroad the go-ahead to continue its work on LNG". See page 46, cols. 1 and 2, under the heading "A BIG POWER GRAB". - Paul North.
FEC is not replacing it's entire locomotive fleet;it will still roster a sizable number of older EMD units (SD40-2/GP38-2/GP40-2 models) for switching and local service. The railroad will be selling its small fleet of SD70M-2'S on delivery of the new Ge's,however....
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.