Alternative Power sources

Author

Burning Grass

Ron Rosenfeld

2006-02-16, 2:21 pm

I am trying to determine whether heat energy of 5000 watts per sq meter is
sufficient to set dried grass on fire. (This will cause second degree
burns on exposed skin in about 30 seconds).

A developer is trying to site an LNG storage facility in an open field.
The allowable heat energy at the border of the facility is 5kw/m2 and I'm
wondering whether this could start a fire in the dry season.

Thanks.
-- ron (off the grid in Downeast Maine)

Vaughn

2006-02-16, 8:21 pm

"Ron Rosenfeld" <ronrosenfeld@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:45d9v19m045lvrpb825eeo07ddfmtd4dkg@4ax.com...
>
> A developer is trying to site an LNG storage facility in an open field.
> The allowable heat energy at the border of the facility is 5kw/m2 and I'm
> wondering whether this could start a fire in the dry season.

You lost me here. Why would you expect an LNG storage facility to cause
high temperatures?

Vaughn

Ron Rosenfeld

2006-02-16, 10:21 pm

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:32:47 GMT, "Vaughn"
<vaughnsimonHATESSPAM@att.fake.net> wrote:

>
>"Ron Rosenfeld" <ronrosenfeld@nospam.org> wrote in message
>news:45d9v19m045lvrpb825eeo07ddfmtd4dkg@4ax.com...
>
> You lost me here. Why would you expect an LNG storage facility to cause
>high temperatures?
>
>Vaughn
>

Under normal operations, I would not.

But I don't understand how that information helps you answer the question?

-- ron (off the grid in Downeast Maine)

Vaughn

2006-02-16, 11:21 pm

"Ron Rosenfeld" <ronrosenfeld@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:8n9av192nrts49erttg9h3n9401361dogv@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:32:47 GMT, "Vaughn"
> <vaughnsimonHATESSPAM@att.fake.net> wrote:
>
>
> Under normal operations, I would not.
>
> But I don't understand how that information helps you answer the question?

Beause the reason you give for asking the question (on its surface) makes
no sense. I thought sure that you would have a good explanation.

Vaughn

Ron Rosenfeld

2006-02-17, 12:21 am

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 02:17:42 GMT, "Vaughn"
<vaughnsimonHATESSPAM@att.fake.net> wrote:

>
>"Ron Rosenfeld" <ronrosenfeld@nospam.org> wrote in message
>news:8n9av192nrts49erttg9h3n9401361dogv@4ax.com...
>
> Beause the reason you give for asking the question (on its surface) makes
>no sense. I thought sure that you would have a good explanation.
>
>
>Vaughn
>

It sure seems odd to me that you would withhold an answer based on my
reason for asking the question. I don't understand that. Perhaps you
could explain.

But I really do need an answer and I've not been able to find one. The
requirement for this is laid out in 49 CFR 193 and other documents
incorporated by reference where the DOT instructs plant designers on how to
set up thermal (and also vapor-dispersion) exclusion zones. Depending on
the assumptions used as input to the computer models, the minimum allowable
heat levels at the site boundary would be the level that I stated. That
level, I am told, is sufficient to cause 2° burns to human skin within
about 30 seconds.

The proposed plant's boundaries are adjacent to fields and brush that
become extremely dry during parts of the year. My concern is that the
5kW/M2 limit might be enough to start a grass/forest fire. The developer
has not mentioned this in any of his filings. If it is a danger, I want
to, so to speak, hold his feet to the fire.

Since you are giving the appearance of being knowledgeable in this regard,
I would hope you could provide an answer that goes beyond Yes, or No.

Thank you.

-- ron (off the grid in Downeast Maine)

Harry Chickpea

2006-02-17, 12:21 am

Ron Rosenfeld <ronrosenfeld@nospam.org> wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 02:17:42 GMT, "Vaughn"
><vaughnsimonHATESSPAM@att.fake.net> wrote:
>
>
>It sure seems odd to me that you would withhold an answer based on my
>reason for asking the question. I don't understand that. Perhaps you
>could explain.
>
>But I really do need an answer and I've not been able to find one. The
>requirement for this is laid out in 49 CFR 193 and other documents
>incorporated by reference where the DOT instructs plant designers on how to
>set up thermal (and also vapor-dispersion) exclusion zones. Depending on
>the assumptions used as input to the computer models, the minimum allowable
>heat levels at the site boundary would be the level that I stated. That
>level, I am told, is sufficient to cause 2° burns to human skin within
>about 30 seconds.
>
>The proposed plant's boundaries are adjacent to fields and brush that
>become extremely dry during parts of the year. My concern is that the
>5kW/M2 limit might be enough to start a grass/forest fire. The developer
>has not mentioned this in any of his filings. If it is a danger, I want
>to, so to speak, hold his feet to the fire.
>
>Since you are giving the appearance of being knowledgeable in this regard,
>I would hope you could provide an answer that goes beyond Yes, or No.
>
>Thank you.
>
>-- ron (off the grid in Downeast Maine)

Frankly, I don't see it as an issue. Just because the allowable
levels are at such an energy limit does not mean that operation is
going to be at that limit. Such a level is not sustainable over
distance, so even a small buffer zone, or a good lawn sprinkler system
could mitigate any effect.

If you want to hold his feet to the fire, you want to state for the
record that you are concerned about the possibility of fire, and
publicly request that he hold a bond to cover the cost of potential
damages, have a written emergency plan for such a situation worked out
with the local fire department, and be subject to semi-annual
compliance inspections by that department.

The key words to use for backup are culpable negligence and liability.
If a person is aware of a danger, and makes no effort to reduce that
danger, and someone or property is hurt because of lack of action, the
courts and juries take a dim view and award large damages. You want
to be sure to state this in public meeting with witnesses present and
get a copy of the minutes.

You cannot stop development, except under extraordinary circumstances.
You can force the plans for new development to take the steps required
to be a good and safe neighbor. There is no way a governing body is
going to sideline a reasonable request for safety that involves local
officials. It lends importance to the fire department and eliminates
embarassing "I told you so's" when the town burns down.

Ron Rosenfeld

2006-02-17, 9:21 am

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 04:02:51 GMT, hchickpeaREMOVEME@hotmail.com (Harry
Chickpea) wrote:

>Ron Rosenfeld <ronrosenfeld@nospam.org> wrote:
>
>
>Frankly, I don't see it as an issue. Just because the allowable
>levels are at such an energy limit does not mean that operation is
>going to be at that limit. Such a level is not sustainable over
>distance, so even a small buffer zone, or a good lawn sprinkler system
>could mitigate any effect.
>
>If you want to hold his feet to the fire, you want to state for the
>record that you are concerned about the possibility of fire, and
>publicly request that he hold a bond to cover the cost of potential
>damages, have a written emergency plan for such a situation worked out
>with the local fire department, and be subject to semi-annual
>compliance inspections by that department.
>
>The key words to use for backup are culpable negligence and liability.
>If a person is aware of a danger, and makes no effort to reduce that
>danger, and someone or property is hurt because of lack of action, the
>courts and juries take a dim view and award large damages. You want
>to be sure to state this in public meeting with witnesses present and
>get a copy of the minutes.
>
>You cannot stop development, except under extraordinary circumstances.
>You can force the plans for new development to take the steps required
>to be a good and safe neighbor. There is no way a governing body is
>going to sideline a reasonable request for safety that involves local
>officials. It lends importance to the fire department and eliminates
>embarassing "I told you so's" when the town burns down.

Your response demonstrates a lack of familiarity with the process involved
in setting up these plants.

And I conclude that you are unable to answer my question anyway.

-- ron (off the grid in Downeast Maine)

louie

2006-02-17, 11:21 am

Here are some VERY rough numbers done by an engineer who is VERY rusty
in the heat transfer dept using some information found online:

cellulose will usually begin primary ignition between 540 degrees F and
900 degrees F, this is true of wood and since cellulose is what burns
in grass... I'm using the same numbers.

I assumed a summertime ambient temperature of 90degrees F
To raise one square meter of bone-dry air from 90 degrees to 540
degrees with free (non-forced) convective heat transfer will require
approximately 6.2 kW of power (compared to your 5kW over one square
meter). So it shouldn't ignite the grass under these circumstances,
especially since some of the heat will be spent evaporating any
moisture in the grass, soil, and atmosphere.

However, since this is a LNG storage facility, I suspect that the
buffer zone and limit in question is for situations where there might
be an explosion. I won't claim to know much about these facilities,
but I doubt very much that there will be a continuous output of 5kW/m2
around this plant. An explosion is MUCH harder to calculate, at least
to me it is and I haven't the time to do it right now. I'd agree with
the previous poster about making some noise with your local
representatives about your concerns. Even if nothing is done, at least
you have a record of having brought it to their attention.

Ron Rosenfeld

2006-02-17, 11:21 am

On 17 Feb 2006 06:31:42 -0800, "louie" <jcski@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Here are some VERY rough numbers done by an engineer who is VERY rusty
>in the heat transfer dept using some information found online:
>
>cellulose will usually begin primary ignition between 540 degrees F and
>900 degrees F, this is true of wood and since cellulose is what burns
>in grass... I'm using the same numbers.
>
>I assumed a summertime ambient temperature of 90degrees F
>To raise one square meter of bone-dry air from 90 degrees to 540
>degrees with free (non-forced) convective heat transfer will require
>approximately 6.2 kW of power (compared to your 5kW over one square
>meter). So it shouldn't ignite the grass under these circumstances,
>especially since some of the heat will be spent evaporating any
>moisture in the grass, soil, and atmosphere.
>
>However, since this is a LNG storage facility, I suspect that the
>buffer zone and limit in question is for situations where there might
>be an explosion. I won't claim to know much about these facilities,
>but I doubt very much that there will be a continuous output of 5kW/m2
>around this plant. An explosion is MUCH harder to calculate, at least
>to me it is and I haven't the time to do it right now. I'd agree with
>the previous poster about making some noise with your local
>representatives about your concerns. Even if nothing is done, at least
>you have a record of having brought it to their attention.

Thank you for that response. It will be useful in helping me produce an
intelligent request to the authorities regarding my concern.

So far as the duration of possible exposure in the event of an accident,
I'm no engineer or physicist. But as I understand it, the model is not
that of an explosion, but rather of a leak of defined size that is entirely
contained within the secondary containment zone. The LNG then vaporizes
and ignites. It will not really "explode", as I understand the term, but
rather burn continuously until the fuel source is exhausted. So that
exposure level would, in fact, be long-term.

There are many who would argue that the assumptions made as to leak size,
and the ability of the secondary containment system to restrain the leak,
are inadequate -- but that's a different issue and unlikely to be taken
into account in this situation, in any event.

Thanks again for getting me pointed in the right direction with this
analysis.

Best wishes,
-- ron (off the grid in Downeast Maine)

Derek Broughton

2006-02-17, 12:21 pm

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

>
>
> Your response demonstrates a lack of familiarity with the process involved
> in setting up these plants.

Yeah - probably 9 out of 10 of these developments _do_ get stopped. If this
is the Passamaquoddy Bay plant, it's going to be an international incident
if it doesn't...

> And I conclude that you are unable to answer my question anyway.

I wish someone could. I would think it _could_ light grass, but that's
intuition, not knowledge.
--
derek

Harry Chickpea

2006-02-17, 1:21 pm

Ron Rosenfeld <ronrosenfeld@nospam.org> wrote:

>Your response demonstrates a lack of familiarity with the process involved
>in setting up these plants.

Since LPG storage facilities aren't in everyone's backyard, and you
seem to be demanding technical answers in a forum that doesn't
normally discuss such matters, perhaps the issue of lack of
familiarity is more one of your lack of understanding of how usenet
works, or where to go to get answers to specific questions.

Reviewing your initial question and your responses to those who have
stepped up to try to help, I begin to wonder if you are just naturally
abrupt or socially challenged. Unless you are paying people, your
style of responding doesn't seem to be a very effective way to elicit
help or get dialog going.

>And I conclude that you are unable to answer my question anyway.

And your question shows a lack of understanding of what your question
is. Anyone with a basic knowledge of math and physics can pony up
situations where adding energy to a limited area will ignite grass or
even melt metal. One of many missing parts to the question is; how
much of that heat can be re-radiated or convected back out of the
area? Does the spec assume a flat open surface with no buildings,
walls, or equipment that can reflect or concentrate the heat? When
you say "allowable... at the border" do you mean as a measurement of
radiated heat impinging on a vertical surface, or on a horizontal
surface at ground level, at stack height near a refinery flare, as a
constant, as a momentary event, or over a given amount of time? I
doubt anyone is going to bother to try to answer a question so
incompetently framed.

Besides, if it is just a storage facility and not some sort of
refinery, to my "unfamiliar" mind, it isn't likely to be generating
large amounts of heat unless there is (1.) a major spill that ignites,
or (2.) it explodes. These are both unlikely events of a magnitude
that generate major news coverage and regulatory slaps. When they do,
worrying about whether a nearby dry field will catch on fire from
radiated heat over an unspecified period of time is stupid. If the
fire is minor, it won't. If the fire is major, the vehicles and
containers involved will likely be shooting rockets that far exceed
the perimeter.

It sounds as though you are clutching at grass straws just looking to
keep the terminal out of your backyard, probably because you built in
or near an unzoned or mixed use area or are so eco-oriented that you
automatically hate infrastructure. Grass fires? Deal with it. We
deal with lightning strike fires in many parts of the country.
Lightning causes more grass and forest fires in a week that there have
ever been LNG terminal fires.

Oh yeah, FWIW there was a gas storage facility in Miami last year that
had an event with more dangerous gasses:

MIAMI _ A puncture to a gas cylinder, which allowed acetylene to vent
and ignite, sparked a spectacular fire and series of explosions at a
Doral, Fla., plant Wednesday morning _ the third such incident in two
years at an Airgas distribution center in the United States.

Federal and local authorities today will sift through debris at Airgas
South to pinpoint the cause of the blaze, which caused up to 30
explosions and sent fireballs and chunks of shrapnel into the air,
rattling those who work and live nearby. No one was injured. ...

Enough. I've wasted enough time on this.

Ron Rosenfeld

2006-02-17, 1:21 pm

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 16:34:31 GMT, hchickpeaREMOVEME@hotmail.com (Harry
Chickpea) wrote:

>Ron Rosenfeld <ronrosenfeld@nospam.org> wrote:
>
>
>Since LPG storage facilities aren't in everyone's backyard, and you
>seem to be demanding technical answers in a forum that doesn't
>normally discuss such matters, perhaps the issue of lack of
>familiarity is more one of your lack of understanding of how usenet
>works, or where to go to get answers to specific questions.
>
>Reviewing your initial question and your responses to those who have
>stepped up to try to help, I begin to wonder if you are just naturally
>abrupt or socially challenged. Unless you are paying people, your
>style of responding doesn't seem to be a very effective way to elicit
>help or get dialog going.
>
>
>And your question shows a lack of understanding of what your question
>is. Anyone with a basic knowledge of math and physics can pony up
>situations where adding energy to a limited area will ignite grass or
>even melt metal. One of many missing parts to the question is; how
>much of that heat can be re-radiated or convected back out of the
>area? Does the spec assume a flat open surface with no buildings,
>walls, or equipment that can reflect or concentrate the heat? When
>you say "allowable... at the border" do you mean as a measurement of
>radiated heat impinging on a vertical surface, or on a horizontal
>surface at ground level, at stack height near a refinery flare, as a
>constant, as a momentary event, or over a given amount of time? I
>doubt anyone is going to bother to try to answer a question so
>incompetently framed.
>
>Besides, if it is just a storage facility and not some sort of
>refinery, to my "unfamiliar" mind, it isn't likely to be generating
>large amounts of heat unless there is (1.) a major spill that ignites,
>or (2.) it explodes. These are both unlikely events of a magnitude
>that generate major news coverage and regulatory slaps. When they do,
>worrying about whether a nearby dry field will catch on fire from
>radiated heat over an unspecified period of time is stupid. If the
>fire is minor, it won't. If the fire is major, the vehicles and
>containers involved will likely be shooting rockets that far exceed
>the perimeter.
>
>It sounds as though you are clutching at grass straws just looking to
>keep the terminal out of your backyard, probably because you built in
>or near an unzoned or mixed use area or are so eco-oriented that you
>automatically hate infrastructure. Grass fires? Deal with it. We
>deal with lightning strike fires in many parts of the country.
>Lightning causes more grass and forest fires in a week that there have
>ever been LNG terminal fires.
>
>Oh yeah, FWIW there was a gas storage facility in Miami last year that
>had an event with more dangerous gasses:
>
>MIAMI _ A puncture to a gas cylinder, which allowed acetylene to vent
>and ignite, sparked a spectacular fire and series of explosions at a
>Doral, Fla., plant Wednesday morning _ the third such incident in two
>years at an Airgas distribution center in the United States.
>
>Federal and local authorities today will sift through debris at Airgas
>South to pinpoint the cause of the blaze, which caused up to 30
>explosions and sent fireballs and chunks of shrapnel into the air,
>rattling those who work and live nearby. No one was injured. ...
>
>
>Enough. I've wasted enough time on this.

I was going to pen a long reply, but I'll take your last sentence as truth.
You clearly have nothing to contribute to the problem I posed, but rather
need to pontificate about other things.
-- ron (off the grid in Downeast Maine)

Ron Rosenfeld

2006-02-17, 1:21 pm

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 11:43:46 -0400, Derek Broughton <news@pointerstop.ca>
wrote:

>Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>
>Yeah - probably 9 out of 10 of these developments _do_ get stopped. If this
>is the Passamaquoddy Bay plant, it's going to be an international incident
>if it doesn't...
>
>
>I wish someone could. I would think it _could_ light grass, but that's
>intuition, not knowledge.

It is one of the THREE proposed Passamaquoddy Bay plants.

Louie posted some information which will be useful in forming a
response/request to FERC.

Thanks.
-- ron (off the grid in Downeast Maine)

louie

2006-02-17, 2:21 pm

Please understand that it's been almost a decade since I've had to do
any serious heat transfer calculations and that this one was performed
using some broad assumptions. For use as a starting point, it may be
useful to you, but I just want you to know that it's far from a
professionally done model.

I hadn't considered the leak/sustained burn model, that would indeed
produce a continuous heat source. If my calculations of 6.2kW are even
close to correct, the 5kW/m2 only provides a 1.24:1 safety factor.
This is considered extremely low in most engineering circumstances.

Just for curiosity's sake, what are you hoping to accomplish with this
information? Are you trying to stop the development entirely, or just
trying to get them to increase the perimeter for an added buffer zone?

Harry Chickpea

2006-02-17, 4:21 pm

Ron Rosenfeld <ronrosenfeld@nospam.org> wrote:

>You clearly have nothing to contribute to the problem I posed, but rather
>need to pontificate about other things.

OK, let me cut the pontificating and be brief. This is one time I
find it hard to quell the urge for a deserving ad-hom attack.

I was curious about Passamaquoddy Bay and LNG, so I googled and found
<http://www.savepassamaquoddybay.org/index.html>

Lordy, I haven't read so much whining since I left Burlington Vermont
and the "environmentalists" were crying over adding more parking lot
runoff to a tiny seasonal brook and were going all out to stop
construction of a road designed to reduce traffic jams.

Here is the clue. Developers look at pristine waterfront property and
drool. If you stop construction of the storage facility, I can almost
guarantee that within ten years you'll need ten million dollars to buy
property in the area AND you won't have gas for heating or cooking.
Unless you are one of the ultra-rich, you're going to lose either way
and are just being played as a pawn by hidden people with deep
pockets. I've seen too many of these games and was once stupid enough
that I took them at face value.

I stayed on your topic, and provided information relevant to LPG/LNG
storage, but I now realize that you have an agenda that is totally
outside of alt.energy.homepower, and you seem to think that your being
off-grid makes it on-topic. Take it to alt.politics.nimby and leave
this newsgroup alone on the subject. I don't think any of us want
local politics in the alt.energy.homepower backyard.

Ron Rosenfeld

2006-02-17, 4:21 pm

On 17 Feb 2006 09:22:33 -0800, "louie" <jcski@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Please understand that it's been almost a decade since I've had to do
>any serious heat transfer calculations and that this one was performed
>using some broad assumptions. For use as a starting point, it may be
>useful to you, but I just want you to know that it's far from a
>professionally done model.

Yes, I understand that. That was clear to me from your post, but I do
appreciate even the rough attempt you made. It has helped me in orienting
my thinking, and deciding on how to approach the issue.

>
>I hadn't considered the leak/sustained burn model, that would indeed
>produce a continuous heat source. If my calculations of 6.2kW are even
>close to correct, the 5kW/m2 only provides a 1.24:1 safety factor.
>This is considered extremely low in most engineering circumstances.
>
>Just for curiosity's sake, what are you hoping to accomplish with this
>information? Are you trying to stop the development entirely, or just
>trying to get them to increase the perimeter for an added buffer zone?

The ideal outcome would be to stop this project entirely. The developer
involved has demonstrated, both in this project to date as well as other
projects in which he has been involved, qualities which I disdain.

However, my immediate goal is to ensure that if the project goes forward,
all reasonable safety considerations are taken into account. If taking
those into account makes the project not feasible, so much the better.

The developer has not yet published the considerations he is using to
define the thermal and vapor-dispersion exclusion zones. The 5kW/M^2
value, however, is the lowest number that would ordinarily be used. It may
be that he is using higher numbers. (5kW/M^2 will cause 2nd degree burns
on exposed human skin in about 30 seconds).

From the information I've gathered so far, I think my comment will be
directed to including a requirement that the design take into account the
danger of the heat at the boundary starting a grass or brush fire.
Obviously, if dry grass could be set on fire with an energy level of
3kW/M^2, I would have a powerful argument for requiring the developer to
either enlarge the exclusion zone; or fund a full-time presence (at least
during the warmer months) of personnel and equipment capable of dealing
with a grass fire of the size the regulations will allow to occur.

Again, thank you for your input.

Best wishes,
-- ron (off the grid in Downeast Maine)

barry@sme-online.com

2006-02-17, 4:21 pm

Hey Ron, loosen up. We don't have princes here. Your initial question,
and subsequent stuff from you, is vague and nebulous. And your attitude
needs work. Lots of work.

Obviously from away.

J

andre_54005@yahoo.com

2006-02-17, 4:21 pm

You do realize that if the CNG facility is burning nobody is going to
give a shit about a little grass fire.
_________
Andre' B.

Ron Rosenfeld

2006-02-17, 8:21 pm

On 17 Feb 2006 12:03:29 -0800, andre_54005@yahoo.com wrote:

>You do realize that if the CNG facility is burning nobody is going to
>give a shit about a little grass fire.
>_________
>Andre' B.

There's not much that can be done about the NG fire other than to let it
burn out, from what I've been told.

I presume that is why there are regulations requiring the developer to
control all of the land within the mandated exclusion zones. I'd like to
ensure those zones are large enough to do so.

-- ron (off the grid in Downeast Maine)

William P.N. Smith

2006-02-17, 10:21 pm

barry@sme-online.com wrote:
>And your attitude needs work.

I'd have to agree, Ron seems like a pretty reasonable guy normally,
but he's being pretty grumpy in this particular thread.

Ron Purvis

2006-02-18, 10:21 am

How do you figure this will cause an international incident?

--
Ron Purvis
ronpurvis@charter.net
"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:ii7hc3-qkf.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca...
> Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>
> Yeah - probably 9 out of 10 of these developments _do_ get stopped. If
> this
> is the Passamaquoddy Bay plant, it's going to be an international incident
> if it doesn't...
>
>
> I wish someone could. I would think it _could_ light grass, but that's
> intuition, not knowledge.
> --
> derek

LinkBot