Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

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

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-07-10 02:35 PM
Original message
Explosion rocks Connecticut gas plant under construction, at least 2 dead.
Edited on Sun Feb-07-10 02:36 PM by NNadir
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/nyregion/08explode.ht...

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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-07-10 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
1. Let us all pause to reflect that NG is part of the renewable nirvana.
"Natural gas -- killing us measurably slower than coal! (TM)"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dead_Parrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-07-10 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. At least there's no dangerous waste


Err...
Sorry, what was the question again?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-07-10 06:26 PM
Response to Original message
3. See Hannah Bell's excellent post for more background info:
Massive explosion rocks (Ct) power plant
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-07-10 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Yeah. I'm sure you'll remember this one forever, like Texas City,
Edited on Sun Feb-07-10 09:34 PM by NNadir
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/-Situati... .

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/se...

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_energ...

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

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-08-10 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #4
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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-08-10 04:22 AM
Response to Reply #4
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/-Situati...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-08-10 06:00 AM
Response to Reply #6
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).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-08-10 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #7
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-08-10 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #9
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-08-10 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #10
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-08-10 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #11
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #6
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-08-10 08:37 AM
Response to Original message
8. update: death toll now up to 5
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Sep 22nd 2014, 01:15 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC