Massachusetts gas fires: Another technological tragedy • Hacker News Board

Re: Massachusetts gas fires: Another technological tragedy

#121

Post by someguydave » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 11:52 PM UTC

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #106

thrower123 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compared to heating oil, which is the other viable option in the Northeast US, natural gas is cheaper, generally more efficient, and largely idiot-proof. With heating oil, a big, very common problem is people not scheduling deliveries appropriately, so the tank runs dry, and sucks up sludge that has settled to the bottom, and then you have to do expensive maintenance to clean the system, bleed the lines, etc. Worse,…

I'd love to use electric heat. Too bad electricity costs in my state are stupidly high. It's just beyond insane to heat with electricity here. If my state could do away with the ineptitude, graft and taste for purchasing energy based on political optics that cause those high prices I'd consider electric heat but there's still the always-on issue that would give me pause. Gas infrastructure is much more "always" than…

As to the "always on" issue, you can purchase a fairly cheap generator that runs on natural gas or propane for backup - assuming that the gas is running, you can run your furnace fan to heat the house. And yes my experience is that gas never goes out but electricity sometimes does.

Re: Massachusetts gas fires: Another technological tragedy

#122

Post by Scoundreller » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 1:09 AM UTC

Piskvorrr wrote: post #119

Scoundreller wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a Presto pressure cooker. The blowout disk is a piece of rubber/plastic built into the cap. I have a hard time imagining it getting contaminated in a way that surpasses the strength of the stainless steel lips on the lid/pot. Its design hasn't changed since 1977. It's not a tube that a bean could get into. Maybe you're thinking of the vent pipe? When that gets clogged, the overpressure plug is what blows away…

Well...I have seen the whole lid, firmly embedded in the ceiling. IDK what the brand was, but apparently the failsafe (a rubbery thing, off-center of the lid) failed to fail-safe in that case. Looking into RAPEX, I see multiple recalls for this specific issue (pressure buildup leading to uncontrolled blowout); all for brand names that are unfamiliar to me.

Of the 12 recalls I found on that database, none specifically mentioned failure of a blowout disc/plug1.

1 depended on the rubber gasket itself as the blowout valve. Several could be opened while under pressure, and some were deemed structurally deficient, which I take to mean that the vessel wasn't (consistently) built to withstand the design pressure (and a margin of safety).

[1] 1 did reach 290kpa (42psi), nearly triple the typical pressure cooker. Not sure what happened on that one.

Re: Massachusetts gas fires: Another technological tragedy

#123

Post by joe_the_user » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 5:23 AM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #89

joe_the_user wrote: post #39

I had believed such a catastrophe was all but impossible. The natural gas industry has many troubles, including chronic leaks that release millions of tons of methane into the atmosphere, but I had thought that pressure regulation was a solved problem. Yeah, natural gas tech is old and over time has been worked into a multi-layer system that is close to "inherently safe". I remember years ago trying to light an old h…

The gas company leaks may be insignificant compared to the way natural gas is obtained. In particular, the way it isn't. Dakota fracking just burned off the natural gas, because in the USA its politically incorrect to build pipelines. Result: terawatts of natural gas burned off at the source or released into the atmosphere. More damage to the environment than a century of leaks. The burning flumes could be seen from…

Your argument connecting blowing-off natural gas and the current antipathy to pipelines today is false and disingenuous.

Essentially, it follows the logic that the only way to keep corporations from devastating the environment is giving them some positive market incentive to not do so. But of course, given zero regulations or morality, there's always going to be an economic incentive to toss some poisons in lakes and some pollutants in the atmosphere - because some things just aren't useful and if you have zero-cost disposal, that the (amoral) path of least resistance.

I'd go the opposite rout. Polluting in whatever form should be illegal. Polluters should be fined or go to jail, whatever is appropriate. "I could make money with my stuff so I tossed it/burned it/whatever" should never an acceptable explanation or excuse.

Re: Massachusetts gas fires: Another technological tragedy

#124

Post by JoeAltmaier » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 3:25 PM UTC

joe_the_user wrote: post #123

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The gas company leaks may be insignificant compared to the way natural gas is obtained. In particular, the way it isn't. Dakota fracking just burned off the natural gas, because in the USA its politically incorrect to build pipelines. Result: terawatts of natural gas burned off at the source or released into the atmosphere. More damage to the environment than a century of leaks. The burning flumes could be seen from…

Your argument connecting blowing-off natural gas and the current antipathy to pipelines today is false and disingenuous. Essentially, it follows the logic that the only way to keep corporations from devastating the environment is giving them some positive market incentive to not do so. But of course, given zero regulations or morality, there's always going to be an economic incentive to toss some poisons in lakes and…

Uh, its true and the direct cause.

Billions of cubic feet of gas is not a reasonable disposal problem - there's no place to put it, that isn't worse than burning it. Except a pipeline, where it would be ultimately burned anyway, but now yielding energy.

Re: Massachusetts gas fires: Another technological tragedy

#125

Post by gwbas1c » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 5:35 PM UTC

monochromatic wrote: post #30

gwbas1c wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I built my house with solar, heat pumps, an EV charger... And natural gas service just for my stove and grill. It costs $500 for gas service, or $500 to put in the high amperage outlet for the stove, so it's a wash, cost-wise. You can take my gas stove over my dead body. I'll happily pay whatever it takes for carbon neutral methane to come through my pipes. (Natural gas is mostly methane.) The flame just makes everyt…

> so it's a wash, cost-wise For installation. For ongoing costs, gas wins by a mile.

Nope. When you own your solar panels, they produce electricity at about the same cost per therm as gas. (After Federal tax incentives)

Meaning, running an electric oven / stove (edit: with appropriately-matched grid-tied solar panels) costs about the same as running a natural gas oven / stove.

The difference is that my loan never increases in cost, but the cost of natural gas is probably going to go up.

Anyway, I pay about $9-11 a month for natural gas to run my stove and grill. That's much less than the monthly premium to eat organic.

Re: Massachusetts gas fires: Another technological tragedy

#126

Post by gwbas1c » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 5:48 PM UTC

amluto wrote: post #65

geerlingguy wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And in most areas, way more than a mile, especially with 97+% efficient appliances.

In an average house, there are no opportunities for an obviously winning 97% efficient gas burning appliance. A gas stove is nowhere near that efficient. A gas heater may be, but the competition is a heat pump that is far above 100% efficient (in the sense of heat delivered / energy consumed). Same goes for a water heater. (Water heaters are odd. Where I live, there are no highly efficient gas-fired tank water heater…

You also need to take into account the efficiencies of delivery.

I know grid electricity is usually about 1/3rd efficient. (Rough numbers.)

Re: Massachusetts gas fires: Another technological tragedy

#127

Post by amluto » Wed, Oct 24, 2018, 6:25 PM UTC

gwbas1c wrote: post #126

amluto wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In an average house, there are no opportunities for an obviously winning 97% efficient gas burning appliance. A gas stove is nowhere near that efficient. A gas heater may be, but the competition is a heat pump that is far above 100% efficient (in the sense of heat delivered / energy consumed). Same goes for a water heater. (Water heaters are odd. Where I live, there are no highly efficient gas-fired tank water heater…

You also need to take into account the efficiencies of delivery. I know grid electricity is usually about 1/3rd efficient. (Rough numbers.)

Measured how? If you mean delivered energy / higher heating value of fuel, I’d believe it. But a good heat pump may have a COP greater than 3. And an increasing fraction of grid power comes from renewables.

(I’ve seen swimming pool heaters with heat pumps that quote a COP of 6 in mild weather. In appropriate climates, you can get a heat pump that pumps heat from your house to your pool, which can be extremely efficient.)