Even the New York Times withholds the address
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/19/nyregion/19FUEL.html The New York Times is withholding the addresses of the buildings at the request of city officials, who cited their importance to international telecommunications and their potential as terrorist targets. While almost everyone on this list knows which building is the subject of the article, we can discuss the issue without discussing the particular building. On-site fuel storage is one of those double-edge swords. Without on-site fuel there are several "ordinary" disasters which would be worsened if the telecommunications infrastructure went dark. For example, during ice stores, hurricanes, etc we want telecom facilities to stay up for one, two or three days, depending on how long you believe it will take for the roads to be passible for fuel trucks or the power to be restored. On the other hand, storing 72-hours of fuel in a building is a lot of fuel. NORAD has a million of gallons of fuel to run for at least 30 days inside the mountain. Hospitals, police stations, etc have a similar problem. Natural gas, fuel cells, more batteries each have their own issues. Less fuel, more risk of a community's 9-1-1 service being interrupted. More fuel, more risk of a catastrophic building fire.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/19/nyregion/19FUEL.html ... While almost everyone on this list knows which building is the subject of the article, we can discuss the issue without discussing the particular building.
On-site fuel storage is one of those double-edge swords.
The article is comparing the relatively 'inert' diesel fuel to the aircraft fuel that caused the devastation at the WTC. Did the authors of this article ever hear about heating oil tanks? -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- jullrich@euclidian.com Collaborative Intrusion Detection join http://www.dshield.org
On Tue 19 Nov 2002 (07:12 -0500), Johannes Ullrich wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/19/nyregion/19FUEL.html ... While almost everyone on this list knows which building is the subject of the article, we can discuss the issue without discussing the particular building.
On-site fuel storage is one of those double-edge swords.
The article is comparing the relatively 'inert' diesel fuel to the aircraft fuel that caused the devastation at the WTC. Did the authors of this article ever hear about heating oil tanks?
I suggest you have a closer look at what aviation fuel actually is. -- Jim Segrave jes@nl.demon.net
Not sure what they would gain by converting to fuel cells as the article suggests. They probably would still require onsite storage for their hydrogen source in order to insure uniterupted supply, either hydrogen, lng, natural gas or propane. what's better in a fire, a heating oil tank or a propane tank? joelja On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Johannes Ullrich wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/19/nyregion/19FUEL.html ... While almost everyone on this list knows which building is the subject of the article, we can discuss the issue without discussing the particular building.
On-site fuel storage is one of those double-edge swords.
The article is comparing the relatively 'inert' diesel fuel to the aircraft fuel that caused the devastation at the WTC. Did the authors of this article ever hear about heating oil tanks?
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Jaeggli Academic User Services joelja@darkwing.uoregon.edu -- PGP Key Fingerprint: 1DE9 8FCA 51FB 4195 B42A 9C32 A30D 121E -- In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of the scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first. -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
... what's better in a fire? a decent oxider, mixed with fuel.
Not sure what they would gain by converting to fuel cells as the article suggests. They probably would still require onsite storage for their hydrogen source in order to insure uniterupted supply, either hydrogen, lng, natural gas or propane. what's better in a fire, a heating oil tank or a propane tank?
joelja
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Johannes Ullrich wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/19/nyregion/19FUEL.html ... While almost everyone on this list knows which building is the subject of the article, we can discuss the issue without discussing the particular building.
On-site fuel storage is one of those double-edge swords.
The article is comparing the relatively 'inert' diesel fuel to the aircraft fuel that caused the devastation at the WTC. Did the authors of this article ever hear about heating oil tanks?
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Jaeggli Academic User Services joelja@darkwing.uoregon.edu -- PGP Key Fingerprint: 1DE9 8FCA 51FB 4195 B42A 9C32 A30D 121E -- In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of the scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first. -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Not sure what they would gain by converting to fuel cells as the article suggests. They probably would still require onsite storage for their hydrogen source in order to insure uniterupted supply, either hydrogen, lng, natural gas or propane. what's better in a fire, a heating oil tank or a propane tank?
How about using water power for backup? Store a big tank of water on the top floor and use a water turbine to generate power in an emergency... Wonder how much water it would take... but for sure this would do well in case of fire. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- jullrich@euclidian.com Collaborative Intrusion Detection join http://www.dshield.org
Not sure what they would gain by converting to fuel cells as the article suggests. They probably would still require onsite storage for their hydrogen source in order to insure uniterupted supply, either hydrogen, lng, natural gas or propane. what's better in a fire, a heating oil tank or a propane tank?
How about using water power for backup? Store a big tank of water on the top floor and use a water turbine to generate power in an emergency...
Brilliant. Lets go back to school and study a little bit of physics that one successfully slept through. The formulas that you would like to review come from E1 = E2, E = mgh, W = K1 - K2. Alex
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 08:37:33AM -0500, Johannes Ullrich wrote:
How about using water power for backup? Store a big tank of water on the top floor and use a water turbine to generate power in an emergency... Wonder how much water it would take... but for sure this would do well in case of fire.
Have you done the math? Let's say it's a 100 meter high building. A kilogram of water 100 meters off the ground has: 1kg * 100m * 9.8m/s^2 = 9800 J of energy. Let's say we want to be able to run for one day without power. So 9800J is enough to provide 9800J/(24*3600)s = 0.113W for a day. So, roughly speaking, you need 10 kilograms of water for every watt. One milliliter of water weighs one gram. So that 10 kilograms is 10000ml, or 10000cm^3, or .01m^3. One cubic meter, then weighs 1000kg, and, thus, can provide about 100W (for a day). Now, figure out how many kw you need to run a telecom hotel, and you'll know just how large your tank needs to be (and how much weight the building structure is going to have to support). Even if you assume 100% efficiency, the tank is still going to me, um, rather largish. -- Brett
Even if you assume 100% efficiency, the tank is still going to me, um, rather largish.
That's what happens if you forget a ';-)' ... ;-) -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- jullrich@euclidian.com Collaborative Intrusion Detection join http://www.dshield.org
One last addition to this idiotic water idea.. since the water doesn't get up there to the reservoir on the roof by itself, add your costs of huge pumps, plus the cost of pumping it up there, and a less than 100% efficiency in converting falling water to electricity. Also, add heating it in the winter to keep it liquid instead of solid, decontamination chemicals (cant have any Leigonella bacillus growing in there in the summer) Its all moot, as the weight factor makes this a non-starter. Next: You cant store large amounts of propane inside an occupied building, I cant imagine any FD allowing it. We had an example in a nearby city some years ago, a 500 gallon propane tank leaked and exploded inside a brick building, leveled a city block and killed 12 firefighters. Nahh... Fuel cells, run on natural gas are the best idea I've heard to date, and the safest if you're confined to upper floors, but youre talking BIG $$$ here...whats wrong with batteries, a natural gas genny and a converter system, telco style? If this is all about diesel storage, why not put the tanks/gennys in the basement or lower more secure floors? (Im assuming burial is out of the question in NYC) That way a small day tank would suffice at the upper floors. Marc
Now, figure out how many kw you need to run a telecom hotel, and you'll know just how large your tank needs to be (and how much weight the building structure is going to have to support). Even if you assume 100% efficiency, the tank is still going to me, um, rather largish.
-- Brett
at Tuesday, November 19, 2002 6:43 PM, blitz <blitz@macronet.net> was seen to say:
One last addition to this idiotic water idea.. since the water doesn't get up there to the reservoir on the roof by itself, add your costs of huge pumps, plus the cost of pumping it up there, and a less than 100% efficiency in converting falling water to electricity. Also, add heating it in the winter to keep it liquid instead of solid, decontamination chemicals (cant have any Leigonella bacillus growing in there in the summer) Its all moot, as the weight factor makes this a non-starter.
Nah, you just have to think about placement; find a convenient reservoir, dig a big hole in the stone to one side of the dam, and put your datacenter there. now, about that anti-flooding insurance.... :)
Don't laugh too hard at this "stored energy" idea... We back up ~2500 Kva with a -=Flywheel=- System! (And Generator) CAT-UPS, don't leave home without it. :) "Yesterday's Ludicrous Fiction is Tomorrow's Reality!" blitz wrote:
One last addition to this idiotic water idea.. since the water doesn't get
<Yes, I -am- actually on topic for a change.>
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Richard Irving wrote:
Don't laugh too hard at this "stored energy" idea...
We back up ~2500 Kva with a -=Flywheel=- System!
(And Generator)
CAT-UPS, don't leave home without it. :)
Unless of course, the flywheel leaves your home when the bearings sieze. -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, alex@nac.net, latency, Al Reuben -- -- Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net --
Thus spake "blitz" <blitz@macronet.net>
Fuel cells, run on natural gas are the best idea I've heard to date, and the safest if you're confined to upper floors, but youre talking BIG $$$ here...whats wrong with batteries, a natural gas genny and a converter system, telco style? If this is all about diesel storage, why not put the tanks/gennys in the basement or lower more secure floors? (Im assuming burial is out of the question in NYC) That way a small day tank would suffice at the upper floors.
A fuel cell is just a generator: H2 goes in one side, electricity and H2O come out the other side -- the trick is doing this without internal combustion. You'll either need pressurized H2 storage tanks or a fuel reformer to extract H2 from your methane/propane/whatever utility; that's a bit more complicated than storing diesel or feeding utility gas straight into a normal generator. Otherwise, a fuel cell has the exact same design parameters as a diesel generator for a high-rise application: store the fuel wherever code allows, feed it into a generator, and carry the power up to your battery plant. S
Before we get too, too, smug about this if you view the Manhattan skyline, particularly downtown (e.g., SOHO/Tribeca) you'll see house-sized water tanks on many, many buildings, particularly 3-10 story older buildings. I assume due to inadequate water pressure but I honestly don't know why they're there, but they're all over. I don't know if they're quite large enough for the proposed use, but their existence would seem to defy most of the objections asserted below. On November 19, 2002 at 13:43 blitz@macronet.net (blitz) wrote:
One last addition to this idiotic water idea.. since the water doesn't get up there to the reservoir on the roof by itself, add your costs of huge pumps, plus the cost of pumping it up there, and a less than 100% efficiency in converting falling water to electricity. Also, add heating it in the winter to keep it liquid instead of solid, decontamination chemicals (cant have any Leigonella bacillus growing in there in the summer) Its all moot, as the weight factor makes this a non-starter.
Next:
You cant store large amounts of propane inside an occupied building, I cant imagine any FD allowing it. We had an example in a nearby city some years ago, a 500 gallon propane tank leaked and exploded inside a brick building, leveled a city block and killed 12 firefighters. Nahh...
Fuel cells, run on natural gas are the best idea I've heard to date, and the safest if you're confined to upper floors, but youre talking BIG $$$ here...whats wrong with batteries, a natural gas genny and a converter system, telco style? If this is all about diesel storage, why not put the tanks/gennys in the basement or lower more secure floors? (Im assuming burial is out of the question in NYC) That way a small day tank would suffice at the upper floors.
Marc
Now, figure out how many kw you need to run a telecom hotel, and you'll know just how large your tank needs to be (and how much weight the building structure is going to have to support). Even if you assume 100% efficiency, the tank is still going to me, um, rather largish.
-- Brett
-- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo*
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 16:54:21 EST, Barry Shein said:
Before we get too, too, smug about this if you view the Manhattan skyline, particularly downtown (e.g., SOHO/Tribeca) you'll see house-sized water tanks on many, many buildings, particularly 3-10 story older buildings. I assume due to inadequate water pressure but I honestly don't know why they're there, but they're all over.
They're there only to guarantee enough water pressure to make the sinks work on the 30th floor, and to make sure you have enough water to flush the toilets even if the supply goes belly-up. That's a long way from using it as a power source - take a look at the spillway of a hydro dam sometime. Incidentally, plumbing a high-rise is non-trivial - the naive approach causes a pressure differential of 14PSI for every 32 feet, which means if you have enough pressure to make water come out on the 60th floor, the first-floor bathrooms have 250PSI water. ;)
Barry Shein wrote:
Before we get too, too, smug about this if you view the Manhattan skyline, particularly downtown (e.g., SOHO/Tribeca) you'll see house-sized water tanks on many, many buildings, particularly 3-10 story older buildings. I assume due to inadequate water pressure but I honestly don't know why they're there, but they're all over.
I don't know if they're quite large enough for the proposed use, but their existence would seem to defy most of the objections asserted below.
It's my understanding that these tanks exist for the purpose of providing adequate water pressure for residential use (e.g. showers, faucets, toilets, etc.) I don't think they could possible hold even a small fraction of the water necessary for emergency power generation. -- David
Just to keep it off-topic :) The kinetic water-based accumulating stations actually do exist, though they use elevated reservoirs to store the water. The water is pumped up during off-peak hours, and then electricity is generated during peaks. This is not common, though, because most energy sources can be throttled to save fuel, or to accumulate in-flowing water naturally. However, I think we will see more of those accumulating stations augmenting green energy sources (wind, solar, geothermal, tidal) which have erratic performance on shorter time scales, unless things like very large supercapacitors or hydrolizers/fuel cells become a lot cheaper. In some cases accumulating stations are useful in places remote from any regular power sources because they can minimize energy loss in long transmission lines (it is proportional to current squared, while delivered power is linear to the current). --vadim On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, blitz wrote:
One last addition to this idiotic water idea.. since the water doesn't get up there to the reservoir on the roof by itself, add your costs of huge pumps, plus the cost of pumping it up there, and a less than 100% efficiency in converting falling water to electricity. Also, add heating it in the winter to keep it liquid instead of solid, decontamination chemicals (cant have any Leigonella bacillus growing in there in the summer) Its all moot, as the weight factor makes this a non-starter.
To close this out, look for information on the Tennessee Valley Authority's Racoon Mountain Pumped Storage Facility. Take top off mountain, make reservoir on top, drill shaft down to base of mountain, put generators with discharge to a lower reservoir. Its called a peaking plant. Drain the top reservoir during peak times and produce electricity. Cool thing is, the generators can be reversed and become pumps to pump the water back up the mountain during off peak hours. Without going into how fossil fuel fired generation desires to run at a relatively constant level and has minimum loading requirements below which it cannot stabley operate at, and hey you can't store the power, so they use it off peak. Unlike your house or our bandwidth, within the industry, power costs fluctuate over the course of the day. So they take advantage of it. Closest thing to storing electricity thats possible. Even though pumping consumes more power than the falling water produces, the drastic cost differential over the course of the day makes it economically viable. On the flip side, their reservoirs are not hundreds of gallons, but hundreds of acres. One of the interesting design problems they had to overcome was how to keep the top reservoir from swirling like a bathtub when all the generators were online. And when they open the rather large valves (measured in tens of feet) for the tunnels, the mountain tends to shake. a little, at least when you're in the mountain. Fascinating place to tour. It was about 15 years ago. Don't know if they still do tours, but the geek factor was pretty high if you're into that kind of thing. IIRC, they're somewhere in the vicinity Oak Ridge. We took a bus ride from ORNL to there for a day tour. Eric
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Vadim Antonov Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 5:15 PM To: blitz Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Even the New York Times withholds the address
Just to keep it off-topic :) The kinetic water-based accumulating stations actually do exist, though they use elevated reservoirs to store the water. The water is pumped up during off-peak hours, and then electricity is generated during peaks. This is not common, though, because most energy sources can be throttled to save fuel, or to accumulate in-flowing water naturally. However, I think we will see more of those accumulating stations augmenting green energy sources (wind, solar, geothermal, tidal) which have erratic performance on shorter time scales, unless things like very large supercapacitors or hydrolizers/fuel cells become a lot cheaper.
In some cases accumulating stations are useful in places remote from any regular power sources because they can minimize energy loss in long transmission lines (it is proportional to current squared, while delivered power is linear to the current).
--vadim
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, blitz wrote:
One last addition to this idiotic water idea.. since the water doesn't get up there to the reservoir on the roof by itself, add your costs of huge pumps, plus the cost of pumping it up there, and a less than 100% efficiency in converting falling water to electricity. Also, add heating it in the winter to keep it liquid instead of solid, decontamination chemicals (cant have any Leigonella bacillus growing in there in the summer) Its all moot, as the weight factor makes this a non-starter.
Yes. There is a good sized one, man-made, only 20-odd miles from me. It is called Yards Creek, it is in Blairstown, NJ -- where I grew up coindentally. http://www.pseg.com/customer/usgeneration.html bu specifically, http://www.pseg.com/companies/power/pdf/factsheets/yards_creek.pdf "The Yards Creek Generating Station is a 400 MW pumped-storage hydro plant located five miles northeast of the Delaware Water Gap in Warren County, NJ. PSEG began studying pumped storage in 1947 and the technology had advanced by 1956 to make this type of project feasible. Yards Creek was completed in 1965. Yards Creek has two reservoirs separated in elevation by 700 feet. When electricity demand is low and electricity is inexpensive (mainly nights and weekends), water is pumped from the lower reservoir to the upper reservoir. When demand and prices for electricity are high, water is allowed to flow from the upper to lower reservoir. On its way, the water turns three, 140 MW generators. The generators are actually reversible pump turbines that act as motors in one direction and generators in the other. [...]" All in all, in accounts for a very small amount of the power needs in NJ; NJ needs about 2600 MWatts of juice, and this supplies 400 during peak only -- remember, it doesn't generate, it stores. More off topic stuff: while searching google for this info, i searched for 'yards creek gpu', and many of the first 10 hits were 'confidential' documents from pjm.com.. Interesting reading. On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Vadim Antonov wrote:
Just to keep it off-topic :) The kinetic water-based accumulating stations actually do exist, though they use elevated reservoirs to store the water. The water is pumped up during off-peak hours, and then electricity is generated during peaks. This is not common, though, because most energy sources can be throttled to save fuel, or to accumulate in-flowing water naturally. However, I think we will see more of those accumulating stations augmenting green energy sources (wind, solar, geothermal, tidal) which have erratic performance on shorter time scales, unless things like very large supercapacitors or hydrolizers/fuel cells become a lot cheaper.
In some cases accumulating stations are useful in places remote from any regular power sources because they can minimize energy loss in long transmission lines (it is proportional to current squared, while delivered power is linear to the current).
--vadim
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, blitz wrote:
One last addition to this idiotic water idea.. since the water doesn't get up there to the reservoir on the roof by itself, add your costs of huge pumps, plus the cost of pumping it up there, and a less than 100% efficiency in converting falling water to electricity. Also, add heating it in the winter to keep it liquid instead of solid, decontamination chemicals (cant have any Leigonella bacillus growing in there in the summer) Its all moot, as the weight factor makes this a non-starter.
-- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, alex@nac.net, latency, Al Reuben -- -- Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net --
--On Tuesday, November 19, 2002 13:43 -0500 blitz <blitz@macronet.net> wrote:
Fuel cells, run on natural gas are the best idea I've heard to date, and the safest if you're confined to upper floors, but youre talking BIG $$$ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ here...
Except in earthquake-prone regions, where the mandatory pendulum cutoff valve will probably trip in the same moment when your utility power goes out. Useful for some emergencies, but not others. BTDT.
I called a friend still in the business. He's not been an operator for decades, but he specs the following: Kero/JetA: 110-120F #2 Heat 120F #2 Diesel >120F, he recalls 125 but won't swear to that number. That said, the military had their own brews. USAF used to use nasty JP4, it being laced with tolune and naptha. The Navy would not touch the stuff, not wanting low flash stuff inside a carrier. They used JP5, which ISTM is higher temp JetA. The AF has since wised up and gone to JP8, which I believe is almost identical to JetA. Exception {past} -- the Blackbird used JP7, much thicker {"3 in 1 oil" feel, I'm told.} and higher flash. In any case, there is no practical difference in a building tank housing any of the top three. Regarding the pressure difference issue.... The tank by the generator [aka "day tank"] is filled from below. If you have a 30 story building, with a roof generator, that's ~~150psi. If the line ruptures on floor 3.... One approach is coaxial lines: the inner is the high pressure "up" line; the outer the overflow return. If the inner ruptures, it will be into the outer.... -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Thus spake "Johannes Ullrich" <jullrich@euclidian.com>
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/19/nyregion/19FUEL.html ... While almost everyone on this list knows which building is the subject of the article, we can discuss the issue without discussing the particular building.
On-site fuel storage is one of those double-edge swords.
The article is comparing the relatively 'inert' diesel fuel to the aircraft fuel that caused the devastation at the WTC. Did the authors of this article ever hear about heating oil tanks?
Jet fuel ak.a kerosene is essentially the same thing as diesel. The only reason it's 'inert' is that it's too dense to explode like gasoline. You have to mix in oxidizers (e.g. fertilizer) or atomize it mechanically (e.g. BLU-82) before ignition if you want a big boom. The problem with the WTC was actually the lack of a big boom -- the slow-burning fire lasted long enough to weaken the structure. If there had been a couple tons of fertilizer on those planes, you would have seen a massive fireball but the buildings would have stayed up, just like in 1993. Not sure how this is relevant to NANOG, but I find it interesting. S
Thus spake "Johannes Ullrich" <jullrich@euclidian.com>
The article is comparing the relatively 'inert' diesel fuel to the aircraft fuel that caused the devastation at the WTC. Did the authors of this article ever hear about heating oil tanks?
Unnamed Administration sources reported that Stephen Sprunk said:
Jet fuel ak.a kerosene is essentially the same thing as diesel. The only reason it's 'inert' is that it's too dense to explode like gasoline. You have to mix in oxidizers (e.g. fertilizer) or atomize it mechanically (e.g. BLU-82) before ignition if you want a big boom.
Essentially is a big understatement. Jet A **is** Kerosene. The highest grade, best inspected, Kero around, but still Kero. When it flunks one of those 20-odd tests, it's sold off as Kero. (At ~~40% of the JetA price...) Diesel, and #2 Heating Oil are slightly thicker but in this context not a whole lot different. [Diesel has a higher 'cetane' rating, very roughly equivalent to octane in gasoline..] Note that Conrail burn[ed,s] Kero in their locomotives; not sure why. Eons ago, [it seems..] I worked at a tank farm where we ..spooled.. hundreds of thousands of barrels [1 bbl == 42 USGal.] of gasoline and 'distillates' through local storage [tanks]. As I recall, we pumped the major airport 10 miles away just shy of half a million gallons of Jet A per day. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Diesel can even exstinguish flame in some cases. It is a much different anamal than aircraft fuel. There are concerns yes but not a good compairison. On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Johannes Ullrich wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/19/nyregion/19FUEL.html ... While almost everyone on this list knows which building is the subject of the article, we can discuss the issue without discussing the particular building.
On-site fuel storage is one of those double-edge swords.
The article is comparing the relatively 'inert' diesel fuel to the aircraft fuel that caused the devastation at the WTC. Did the authors of this article ever hear about heating oil tanks?
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------- jullrich@euclidian.com Collaborative Intrusion Detection join http://www.dshield.org
Actually, there are different grades of jet fuel as well as diesel. JP4 is 'common' but JP3 also has the characteristic of extinguishing fires and requires an accelerant to ignite. It was used in SR-71s among others. Best regards, ______________________________ Al Rowland -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Scott Granados Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 9:28 AM To: Johannes Ullrich Cc: Sean Donelan; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Even the New York Times withholds the address Diesel can even exstinguish flame in some cases. It is a much different anamal than aircraft fuel. There are concerns yes but not a good compairison. On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Johannes Ullrich wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/19/nyregion/19FUEL.html ... While almost everyone on this list knows which building is the subject of the article, we can discuss the issue without discussing the particular building.
On-site fuel storage is one of those double-edge swords.
The article is comparing the relatively 'inert' diesel fuel to the aircraft fuel that caused the devastation at the WTC. Did the authors of this article ever hear about heating oil tanks?
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------- jullrich@euclidian.com Collaborative Intrusion Detection join http://www.dshield.org
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Scott Granados wrote:
Diesel can even exstinguish flame in some cases. It is a much different anamal than aircraft fuel.
<http://www.ameriburn.org/Preven/Educator's%20Guide.pdf> is a nice document describing the different properties of different fuels. I quote some from it that seems relevant: The flash point is the minimum temperature at which the liquid will give off sufficient vapor to form an ignitable mixture with air. Gasoline is very dangerous because of its low flash point of 45ºF (- 43C). Substance Classification* Flash Point Vapor Density** Gasoline Flammable Liquid -45o F. 3-4 Propane Flammable Liquid -156o F. 1.56 @ 32o F. Ethanol Flammable Liquid 55o F. 1.6 Methanol Flammable Liquid 52o F. 1.1 Turpentine Flammable Liquid 95o F 4.8 Kerosene Combustible Liquid 100o F. 4.5 Diesel Fuel Combustible Liquid 125o F. >1 Safety Solvent Combustible Liquid 100-140o F. 4.8 Paint Thinner Combustible Liquid 105o F. 4.9 As can be seen here, you basically have to warm diesel to 125F before it will burn, gasoline will immediately burn/explode at almost any temperature seen on any habitable part of the earth. I believe kerosene is aircraft fuel, and as someone said here it's not that different from diesel. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
Diesel can even exstinguish flame in some cases. It is a much different anamal than aircraft fuel.
There is no single thing as "aircraft fuel". Commercial jet aircraft are usually fueled with Jet A1 which has a flashpoint of 38´C (100´F). So it does not take that much to get it going. For less flammable alternative, use JP5, which has a flashpoint of 60´C and is generally used on shipboard military operations. If you´d like extra margin on your diesel safety, order JP5 instead of the usual junk. Pete
There are concerns yes but not a good compairison.
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Johannes Ullrich wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/19/nyregion/19FUEL.html ... While almost everyone on this list knows which building is the subject of the article, we can discuss the issue without discussing the particular building.
On-site fuel storage is one of those double-edge swords.
The article is comparing the relatively 'inert' diesel fuel to the aircraft fuel that caused the devastation at the WTC. Did the authors of this article ever hear about heating oil tanks?
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------- jullrich@euclidian.com Collaborative Intrusion Detection join http://www.dshield.org
A steam-generating plant I once toured (another story) used number _six_ fuel oil. I asked, "Is that the stuff that comes in blocks?" I thought I was being funny. The reply: it's delivered and kept hot in an underground tank, else it "starts to get kind of glassy". Might be just the thing. Also, today's oil tanker under 11,000 feet of the Atlantic ocean may not leak much after all, according to one source, if it hits cold water. I don't know if this ship was carrying number six, but it's plausible.
At 06:57 PM 11/19/2002, Jim Hickstein wrote:
A steam-generating plant I once toured (another story) used number _six_ fuel oil. I asked, "Is that the stuff that comes in blocks?" I thought I was being funny. The reply: it's delivered and kept hot in an underground tank, else it "starts to get kind of glassy".
The building where I lived in NYC when in high school switched from using Con Edison steam to boilers and oil storage. My father oversaw the project for the co-op board. The system ran on #6 diesel. It's even worse than you thought... System had to be started on #2 fuel oil. Once running on #2, the boilers were able to apply heat to the warming coils in the fuel storage tanks. The fuel must be kept warm or it becomes the consistency of jelly. The boilers can NEVER be shut down now. There are multiple boilers so at least one should always be able to heat the tanks. Oh, and you have to be careful to monitor the temperature at which the oil is delivered. If the temperature is wrong, you can be over or under charged for the oil (delivered by the gallon, metered at the truck, temperature affects volume). This is NOT the oil you want to use for your generator. My vote is for natural gas, which is easy to obtain in the street in NYC. If the gas lines get interrupted, what are the chances your fiber ducts are still intact? Gas has no on-site storage, cleaner burning, etc. On the water storage subject, every building over a few stories has water storage. Street pressure will get you 6 stories at best. Past that, you need pumps. Tanks are filled by pumps in the basement, and the water used for domestic purposes. Some buildings have the hot water generation on the roof too, along with the expansion tanks. When pipes burst in the walls (happens too often in the building where I grew up) it's really a mess. Power failures suck, as you wind up without water. Are we far enough from a topic yet?
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Sean Donelan wrote:
On-site fuel storage is one of those double-edge swords. Without on-site fuel there are several "ordinary" disasters which would be worsened if the telecommunications infrastructure went dark. For example, during ice stores, hurricanes, etc we want telecom facilities to stay up for one, two or three days, depending on how long you believe it will take for the roads to be passible for fuel trucks or the power to be restored.
These guys have an idea: http://www.solarhost.com/ C
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: MD5 Hello Charles, Tuesday, November 19, 2002, 11:36:28 AM, you wrote: CS> These guys have an idea: CS> http://www.solarhost.com/ Sorry, it is still only a single power source and eventually the Sun is going to burn out. If they want my business I would expect them to have panels pointing toward multiple stars, so they have redundant connections ;). allan - -- Allan Liska allan@allan.org http://www.allan.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAwUAPdprfykg6TAvIBeFAQFe9wQAtC7UPXmzFdk8Usy1k417P9w9Me8uROa6 G7OoZ4N6UMk9Mzm7uVJBJFsqU30T9itpuBiQFOadZ4uh7RIEFoR7xwBHj05a+MLx qfMGD8t7K5jBMptHIyup7gdnG1gRnbIUzrBccybY3nPysFp3YbjIupsA1t/8l9Yr 0M2/25LQEe4= =8hzL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (26)
-
Al Rowland -
Alex Rubenstein -
alex＠yuriev.com -
Allan Liska -
Barry Shein -
blitz -
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
Brett Frankenberger -
Charles Sprickman -
Daniel Senie -
David Charlap -
David Howe -
David Lesher -
Eric Germann -
Jim Hickstein -
Jim Segrave -
Joel Jaeggli -
Johannes Ullrich -
Mikael Abrahamsson -
Petri Helenius -
Richard Irving -
Scott Granados -
Sean Donelan -
Stephen Sprunk -
Vadim Antonov -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu