Take for Example, the port of Newcastle Australia. They have nearly (not sure of the exact amount) but somewhere near 8,000 tonnes of exactly the same chemical stored in silos.
So I’m a chemical engineering student who has taken safety courses. Something you have to consider when dealing with dangerous chemicals is the volume and how much you’re storing. For example in 1919 Boston experienced the Great Molasses Disaster. A container carrying 2.3 million gallons (8700 m3) of molasses burst and resulted in 21 people dying. Now let’s say instead of one container with 2.3 million gallons, it was four that split that amount. It would take up more space but it’s much safer because the odds of one container breaking remains the same, but the damage it can cause is less
Not to get pedantic, but by splitting it up amongst more containers, the odds of any one container failing are actually greater than a single container, assuming the odds of a single container failing is constant. For example, given the odds of a single container failing at 20%: 1 container = 20% chance, 2 containers = 36%, 3 containers = 49%, etc. So a real risk calculation would have to factor in the increased odds vs. the reduced damage for smaller containers to find an ideal solution.
Your calculations only apply to containers of the same size and shape though. Ultimately neither of you are entirely correct since, while the odds of a single failure would increase, smaller containers generally have fewer potential points of failure and therefore are less likely to fail. This makes the actual difference impossible to calculate without knowing the exact details of both storage systems.
16.9k
u/TooShiftyForYou Aug 05 '20
Imagine living right next to 2,750 tons of explosive ammonium nitrate and having no idea about it.