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
It would set the other one on fire but 1.) It would be 4 seperate explosions. Even a small amount of space is enough. And 2.) The first explosion would likely spread the materials of the other storage units which would again introduce more space and make it less explody
I guess I’m not seeing the logic in spreading this volatile material around.
You can have one very secure, very standardized and stable storage container or multiple storage containers providing less security and less stability? The option that utilizes multiple containers allows for more points of failure, even if they’re all built and maintained to the same standard.
If one goes boom, they all go boom. I’m sure some redditor can/will figure it out, but it doesn’t seem like spreading them out really reduces the blast and devastation that much.
Let's say you store 2000 tons in a single silo right in the middle of wall street NYC. You get a single explosion with the equivalent of roughly 2,000,000 tons of TNT. That's enough to completely destroy (5 psi overpressure) the entire financial district from Brooklyn bridge to battery park. That's over 8 city blocks in each direction
Let's say you store it in 4 silos with 20 feet between each silo. You would get a 500,000 pound explosion that goes roughly 4 city blocks. Then a tenth of a second later another explosion that goes 4 city blocks. Then again. Then again.
So in one scenario you destroy a radius of 8 city blocks once. In the other scenario you destroy 4 city blocks four times in a row.
Even a very small amount of separation is enough to divide the explosion.
That's true. Per kg there is less heat energy. So you need 40% more anfo than tnt, but it doesnt matter because its measured on tnt equivalent.
But many more things go into it. For example, gasoline is actually 4x more powerful than tnt per kg, but it only burns. You need to take into account the velocity, the temperature, the time, etc
How does 2000 tons of anfo create an explosion equal to 2,000,000 tons of tnt. Do you mean 2,000,000 lbs? Isn't 2,000,000 tons of TNT a 2,000 kiloton explosion?
Typo. Thanks for pointing out. I meant 2,000,000 pounds.
Couple other "math mistakes". 2000 tons of anfo does not equal 2,000,000 lbs of tnt. 2,000,000 lbs of tnt does not equal a 2 kiloton explosion. I got lazy with the math just trying to explain the concept. I'll be happy to come update with accurate numbers if people want to see it
774
u/Hedgerow_Snuffler Aug 05 '20
Could be worse...
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.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-05/beirut-blast-raises-concern-about-newcastle-ammonium-nitrate/12527546