4 ms·

Can we please avoid mass hysteria about pipelines? As you've seen, bulk shipping by rail is incredible stupid.

Retric 3y ago
Can we please avoid mass hysteria about rail? As you've seen, bulk shipping by pipelines is incredible stupid. Moving dangerous stuff is always risky, there’s plenty of disasters from both. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents From 1994 through 2013, the U.S. had 745 serious incidents with gas distribution, causing 278 fatalities and 1059 injuries, with $110,658,083 in property damage. US: From 1994 through 2013, there were an additional 110 serious incidents with gas transmission, resulting in 41 fatalities, 195 injuries, and $448,900,333 in property damage.[83] From 1994 through 2013, there were an additional 941 serious incidents with gas all system type, resulting in 363 fatalities, 1392 injuries, and $823,970,000 in property damage.[84]” The US list is so long it’s broken out by year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_... The pipeline page lists individual highlights starting: Belgium 2004, killing 24 people and leaving 122 wounded… with some highlights being Quebec killing 28, 2013. China 2013 55 people were killed. India 2014 killed 22 people and injured 37, Kenya 2011 killed 100 hospitalized 120. Mexico: 12 people were killed, killing 52 people, killed at least 27 people and injured more than 50, 2019: killed at least 96 people and injured dozens more Russia: 1989 Up to 645 people were reported killed on June 4, 1989 Taiwan: At least 30 people were killed and over 300 injured Of course Nigeria is the scariest with several accidents each of which killed hundreds.
- q1w2 3y ago
  The science is conclusive that pipelines are the LEAST dangerous and leaky method of transporting anything.
  - DwnVoteHoneyPot 3y ago
    Most environmentally friendly too. Oil tankers, trains and trucks get into accidents and use large amounts of fuel to transport.
  - Retric 3y ago
    They are significantly more dangerous than using power lines to move the equivalent amount of energy. This is one of the reasons we moved to electric lighting from gas lamps, but the same is true of home heating and electric cars etc.
- justrealist 3y ago
  > From 1994 through 2013, the U.S. had 745 serious incidents with gas distribution This is incredibly misleading because of the scale and method of distribution. Tens of millions of houses in the US have gas pipelines leading directly into the kitchen! Of course there will be a lot of serious incidents. If people shipped gas to their kitchen ranges by rail, there would be a lot more serious train incidents too! Similarly, if you shut down pipelines, you have to include all TRUCK accidents as well, because trains are never going to solve the last-mile problem that pipelines already have.
  - Retric 3y ago
    I highlighted the bit associated with transmission vs distribution, but it’s not completely clear cut. Some issues with transmission resulted in distribution problems: https://youtu.be/QPL8dh6b1M0 https://youtu.be/QPL8dh6b1M0 Anyway, by far the safer solution is electricity not using rail or pipelines to move fossil fuels.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - dghlsakjg 3y ago
    Tons of people (almost everyone in rural areas) do get their gas shipments by rail and truck. Although, in that case it tends to be LPG and not natural gas.
bequanna 3y ago
Did you read the article? This is a pretty different risk from a hydrocarbon liquid or gas pipeline (which obviously carry their own risk). Odorless, colorless CO2 can leak and cause suffocation with no warning. Those in the affected area may have absolutely no idea what is happening and by the time they feel the effects, it may be too late for them to take any action and move to another area. Furthermore, the only reason these carbon pipelines exist are to take advantage of overly generous Government subsidies. There is absolutely no economic benefit whatsoever.
snake_plissken 3y ago
How does this qualify as hysteria? Who even knows CO2 is being transported via underground pipelines and that during a leak you have to worry about the gas settling and suffocating you, and that any cars/trucks will be un-able to operate in that environment?

Can we please avoid mass hysteria about rail? As you've seen, bulk shipping by pipelines is incredible stupid. Moving dangerous stuff is always risky, there’s plenty of disasters from both. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents From 1994 through 2013, the U.S. had 745 serious incidents with gas distribution, causing 278 fatalities and 1059 injuries, with $110,658,083 in property damage. US: From 1994 through 2013, there were an additional 110 serious incidents with gas transmission, resulting in 41 fatalities, 195 injuries, and $448,900,333 in property damage.[83] From 1994 through 2013, there were an additional 941 serious incidents with gas all system type, resulting in 363 fatalities, 1392 injuries, and $823,970,000 in property damage.[84]” The US list is so long it’s broken out by year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_... The pipeline page lists individual highlights starting: Belgium 2004, killing 24 people and leaving 122 wounded… with some highlights being Quebec killing 28, 2013. China 2013 55 people were killed. India 2014 killed 22 people and injured 37, Kenya 2011 killed 100 hospitalized 120. Mexico: 12 people were killed, killing 52 people, killed at least 27 people and injured more than 50, 2019: killed at least 96 people and injured dozens more Russia: 1989 Up to 645 people were reported killed on June 4, 1989 Taiwan: At least 30 people were killed and over 300 injured Of course Nigeria is the scariest with several accidents each of which killed hundreds.

q1w2 3y ago
The science is conclusive that pipelines are the LEAST dangerous and leaky method of transporting anything.
- DwnVoteHoneyPot 3y ago
  Most environmentally friendly too. Oil tankers, trains and trucks get into accidents and use large amounts of fuel to transport.
- Retric 3y ago
  They are significantly more dangerous than using power lines to move the equivalent amount of energy. This is one of the reasons we moved to electric lighting from gas lamps, but the same is true of home heating and electric cars etc.
justrealist 3y ago
> From 1994 through 2013, the U.S. had 745 serious incidents with gas distribution This is incredibly misleading because of the scale and method of distribution. Tens of millions of houses in the US have gas pipelines leading directly into the kitchen! Of course there will be a lot of serious incidents. If people shipped gas to their kitchen ranges by rail, there would be a lot more serious train incidents too! Similarly, if you shut down pipelines, you have to include all TRUCK accidents as well, because trains are never going to solve the last-mile problem that pipelines already have.
- Retric 3y ago
  I highlighted the bit associated with transmission vs distribution, but it’s not completely clear cut. Some issues with transmission resulted in distribution problems: https://youtu.be/QPL8dh6b1M0 https://youtu.be/QPL8dh6b1M0 Anyway, by far the safer solution is electricity not using rail or pipelines to move fossil fuels.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dghlsakjg 3y ago
  Tons of people (almost everyone in rural areas) do get their gas shipments by rail and truck. Although, in that case it tends to be LPG and not natural gas.

bequanna 3y ago

Did you read the article? This is a pretty different risk from a hydrocarbon liquid or gas pipeline (which obviously carry their own risk). Odorless, colorless CO2 can leak and cause suffocation with no warning. Those in the affected area may have absolutely no idea what is happening and by the time they feel the effects, it may be too late for them to take any action and move to another area. Furthermore, the only reason these carbon pipelines exist are to take advantage of overly generous Government subsidies. There is absolutely no economic benefit whatsoever.

snake_plissken 3y ago

How does this qualify as hysteria? Who even knows CO2 is being transported via underground pipelines and that during a leak you have to worry about the gas settling and suffocating you, and that any cars/trucks will be un-able to operate in that environment?