They say accidents never happen. Until they do. Even with a security risk assessment, in the Netherlands..

Published: January 15, 2013 at 11:17pm

This is a Reuters report from last September 12th:

EIGHT INJURED IN DUTCH POWER PLANT EXPLOSIONS

AMSTERDAM, Sept 12 (Reuters) – Eight people were injured, of which at least one seriously, in a number of explosions at a gas-fired Nuon power plant in the Netherlands, a security official said on Wednesday.

“There was one larger explosion and a few smaller explosions. People were injured. There was a small fire at the installation but it has been extinguished,” a spokeswoman for the Dutch security region Kennemerland said.

A spokesman for Nuon, which is owned by Sweden’s Vattenfall , said only one explosion happened around 0830 CET (0630 GMT) while employees were working on the plant’s high voltage grid.

Eight people were taken to hospital, of which four were kept there for further examination, the Nuon spokesman said. One person was seriously injured.

At the complex, which houses two power plants, the explosion took place at the plant which was not operating, the Nuon spokesman said. This plant has a capacity of 460 megawatts.

It was unclear whether the explosion at the plant in the town of Velsen Noord, 30 kms west of Amsterdam, had hit production.

The second plant, which is still running, has a capacity of 360 megawatts.




21 Comments Comment

  1. thehobbit says:

    Why are YOU instead of the party getting on to all of this? Why doesn’t the party wake up? What? Don’t tell me they’re afraid of peaking early….now?

    • Futur Imcajpar says:

      That’s quite unfair. The PN have tackled this head on and shredded the proposal to bits with facts, figures, expert consultations. All in one week, when the opposition had five years to come up with his one proposals.

      In any sane country, the PL would have no chance.

      • Vanni says:

        @ Futur Imcajpar
        PN are engaging the proposal piecemeal. Tonio is factual, and tough, but he still can’t pin Konrad down. Everybody is aware that Konrad can’t produce the necessary documents, experts and what have you to support his argument.

        So challenge Konrad to a discussion. He can’t refuse, it is his proposal after all. But if he won’t turn up, it’s his funeral.

        Get the following speakers on call:

        safety specialist.
        geologist,
        EU expert/procurement law and safety regulations
        Anne Fenech
        civil engineer
        surveyor
        coastal/harbour/marine expert
        KPMG or other consultancy
        cancer/asthma specialists

        All these specialists must have all supporting documents (and able to cite chapter and verse).

        Copies of all relevant EU legislation with regard to procurement, medical data, and all other documents must be availabe to be laid in front of Konrad as each argument is tackled.

        Unfortunately Tonio comes across as unable to suffer Konrad, so ideally he will be supported.

        Then start blowing Konrad’s arguments to bits, slowly and methodically.

        At the moment PN are having the terms of engagement dictated by the opposition. It’s time to change tactics.

    • Angus Black says:

      I think that the Nationalist Party’s response is about right and its counter arguments are backed by credible reports.

      Now Konrad Mizzi is saying that the KPMG report is incorrect as they had factored in the ‘investor’s’ profit twice. Shortly after he stated that, he contradicted himself by saying that the 9.6c/unit did not include profit or the repayment of the capital investment.

      They are going in circles and they are self-destructing.

      Another thing one should keep in mind is that these kinds of debates are held among people with a certain degree of knowledge regarding these matters but the general public is arguing from purely a political affiliation stance.

  2. David says:

    Accidents can laways occur. We already our island littered with fireowrks factories. Many houses use gas for cooking.

    Nevertheless the “government expert” has spoken on this too –

    Mr Seaman said he had no personal experience of fire and explosions in LNG terminals and such cases were unusual. He acknowledged that a gas solution was better, from an environmental point of view, than using oil because there were no carbon emissions and machines could be more efficient (Timesofmalta)

    Any other comment is superfluous.

    • Futur Imcajpar says:

      Apparently you didn’t hear him talk about the possibility of a ‘gas cloud’.

      He also said that accidents have happened, even if he wasn’t involved with them.

      Also, if Labour is going to cut corners when commissioning the necessary studies, in the headlong rush to finish it in two years, the chances of an accident rises significantly. Other comments, superfluous, my foot.

      Progett ‘fazul’, as Alfred Sant would have said.

      Five years to come up with ONE, hare-brained proposal. Kellu x’jaghmel, eh, it-tinktenk.

    • Jozef says:

      This isn’t whether to go for gas or not. This is about Konrad Mizzi’s flippant attitude to any standards.

      If you have any idea what we’re talking about here.

      • Last Post says:

        That’s right, Jozef. Both parties agree on the use of gas.

        Labour has committed itself to continue seeking EU funds for the gas pipeline. They just don’t want to wait, or at least that’s the impression they want to give us.

        They want to build a new power station and a gas depot with all the attendant infrastructure for 370m euro (their estimate) and they’re saying (they’re convinced) it will be forked out by/with the private sector.

        Permits and EIAs and reports apart, what will happen if they don’t find the company to fund their plan? They can always say they performed what they promised “as far as they are concerned”. After all they’re already saying EneMalta is bankrupt, no?

        So it all depends on “the private sector” (not them). The mind boggles.

  3. David says:

    Accidents can always occur. We already have our island littered with fireworks factories. Many houses use gas for cooking.

    Nevertheless the “government expert” has spoken on this too.

    Mr Seaman said he had no personal experience of fire and explosions in LNG terminals and such cases were unusual. He acknowledged that a gas solution was better, from an environmental point of view, than using oil because there were no carbon emissions and machines could be more efficient (Timesofmalta)

    Any other comment is superfluous.

  4. thehobbit says:

    How typically Labour – any other comment is superfluous eh?

    I see…just about as superfluous as Ann Fenech, a proper EIA, safety case, procurment rules, EU State aid rules, Marsaxlokk residents and a ton of other things.

  5. edgar says:

    The Socialists are putting all their eggs in one basket and after a week this basket is falling to pieces. Soon this new kid on the block will be irrelevant, same as that other person whose name escapes me.

  6. Jozef says:

    This is what happened in Viareggio in 2009 when a train carrying LPG derailed in the station sending the tanks tumbling onto the rails.

    The fireball ignited a few minutes later after the gas had found its way into the suburbs surrounding the train station and up into the side streets.

    It is suspected that ignition occurred a couple of hundered meters away from the overturned tanks.

  7. Alan says:

    Although this was a gas-fired power plant, this does not mean that it was necessarily a gas explosion. The high voltage electrical equipment can also explode when a fault develops.

  8. bob-a-job says:

    It seems that exploding power stations are not that uncommon after all.

    ‘The 2010 Connecticut power plant explosion occurred at the Kleen Energy Systems power station in Middletown, Connecticut, United States.

    The plant had been under construction from February 2008 and was scheduled to start supplying energy in June 2010.’

    This means that it took two and a half years to construct excluding all preliminary studies and permits. So much for Konrad’s timeline.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Connecticut_power_plant_explosion

    and this one is similar to Sargas and uses biomass
    http://www.energylivenews.com/2012/11/08/explosion-at-dutch-power-plant/

    and another one
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-65330/Two-dead-power-station-explosion.html

  9. just me says:

    Have a look at this link about the risk and danger of LNG.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLxmzS46jNM&feature=player_embedded

    And also this link about the Cleveland disaster. A leak in an LNG storage tank resulted in a great expolsion and fires. 130 people were killed.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_East_Ohio_Gas_explosion

    This last link shows another LNG expolsion in Algeria which killed at least 72 people.

    http://www.theenergylibrary.com/node/13093

  10. Angus Black says:

    There is no question that a pipeline is by far safer than storing a huge amounts of gas in two tanks.

    A gas pipeline is similar to a water supply line.

    If you open the tap water flows but the reservoir may be tens or hundreds of miles away.

    The pipeline would be underwater and in case of rupture the flow at the receiving end would drop sharply and alarms will go off.

    Alarms at the ‘receiving end’ would trigger alarms at the supply point and automatically shut down the pipeline.

    Not so if a gas tank leaks/raptures. Any alarms would become almost useless due to the proximity to the PS itself. If a resultant gas cloud ignites it could spell disaster and the consequences would be dire to nearby residents.

  11. Village says:

    Madonna Joseph, kif m’intix kapaci taghmel jew tahseb wahda tajba.

  12. Wilson says:

    Tonio and expert yesterday forgot to mention that if the gas tanks go where LP is proposing there is another hidden cost.

    To make safe the present installation that will be next to the proposed tanks. i.e. a re-assessment of the present installation and making it a minimum ULEX install.

    Now there is another hidden expense. It will also mean that the present installation has to be partially stopped from working. The PN did not take it easy with gas for nothing.

  13. Luigi says:

    The UK Expert said that he never encountered any explosions therefore dismissing what dandruff Minister has been saying. No wonder he wasn’t elected Vici Kap, because saying that there will be an explosion is the same as saying that our lady of sorrows is weeping after an apparition. I classify him with Dominionism in the US. He should settle there.

  14. GiovDeMartino says:

    And I have always been under the impression that accidents, any sort of accidents, happen ONLY IN MALTA. But I was mistaken.

Leave a Comment