[Kerrigan]

You can read about it at any news site. Here are some awe inspiring shots from the BBC and elsewhere:

[production_coordinator]

Very interesting... but it isn't a doomsday explosion... but it does look nasty.

[dcmacdaddy]

From what I've read on the BBC there is something like 60 million gallons of petroleum being consumed in this fire. The fire brigade is going to let most of it burn out before making an attempt at extinguishing the blaze. That makes sense.

Anecdotal and uncorroborated statements point to this being the largest peace-time explosion in Europe since the end of WWII. Also anecdotal is a statement tha the explosion was so lound it was heard across the English Channel on the continent.

That's pretty freakin' cool if you ask me. Anyway, all you Brits better start hoarding fuel.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

From what I've read on the BBC there is something like 60 million gallons of petroleum being consumed in this fire.

Anyway, all you Brits better start hoarding fuel.

Narh. It's mostly jet fuel in that depot (servicing the local airports) - won't affect daily transport needs at all.

Oh, and 60m litres, not gallons.

[Cubeoid]

It looks awesome.

[Gator Lager]

wow
http://tinyurl.com/9flp7

[Gator Lager]

...

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Narh. It's mostly jet fuel in that depot (servicing the local airports) - won't affect daily transport needs at all.

I'll believe that when I see it. Oil companies have increased pump prices with less of an excuse.

[Peter]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Anyway, all you Brits better start hoarding fuel.

n:

[Cubeoid]

That Getty guy always takes good pictures.

[JoshuaZ]

Nice pictures. Wow, it'll be interesting to see what kind of ecological impact this has in England.

[Kerrigan]

The thing is, London is already choked with massive pollution as it is. I can't see it getting any worse because of this cloud.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

The thing is, London is already choked with massive pollution as it is. I can't see it getting any worse because of this cloud.

True dat.

[Strix]

On the radio today, the guy was interviewing an environmentalist, and he asked if the fire would impact on the UK's attempt to reduce CO2 emissions in line with the Kyoto Protocol.

The environmentalist said the fire would not impact on the emissions at all, since all the fuel would be burnt anyway; the only difference is that the fuel is being burnt in one go, instead of in several million cars.

The interview just highlighted how poluting cars are when you put all the emissions together...

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Strix

On the radio today, the guy was interviewing an environmentalist, and he asked if the fire would impact on the UK's attempt to reduce CO2 emissions in line with the Kyoto Protocol.

The environmentalist said the fire would not impact on the emissions at all, since all the fuel would be burnt anyway; the only difference is that the fuel is being burnt in one go, instead of in several million cars.

The interview just highlighted how poluting cars are when you put all the emissions together...

That doesn't seem to make too much sense to me, because cars don't just burn it into the air – they have mechanisms to limit byproducts. I mean, I doubt the factory had a catalytic converter built-in. But maybe there's more to it than that...?

greg

[TETENAL]

Cars have mechanisms to limit byproducts, but they can't limit the exhaust of H₂O and CO₂. Those are the endproducts of the oxydation.

[TETENAL]

http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/0,...MQ_3_3,00.html

[analogika]

Of course that logic is complete idiocy, since MORE FUEL will have to be imported for car owners to burn.

You don't think people will stop driving just because some fuel tanks blow, do you?

[Sky Captain]

That's nothing compaired to what I witnessed in Kuwait.
Virtual night.

[Brass]

Originally Posted by Strix

On the radio today, the guy was interviewing an environmentalist, and he asked if the fire would impact on the UK's attempt to reduce CO2 emissions in line with the Kyoto Protocol.

The environmentalist said the fire would not impact on the emissions at all, since all the fuel would be burnt anyway; the only difference is that the fuel is being burnt in one go, instead of in several million cars.

The interview just highlighted how poluting cars are when you put all the emissions together...

What? Is he suggesting that people are going to stop using fuel for the period of time that it would have taken to use that fuel if it had not caught fire?

No! People are still going to use just as much fuel (if they can get it), and therefore the amount used over that period will be double!

[Strix]

The (almost) amusing bit about this is when the Government Environment Agency delayed the fire services from putting out the fire using water and foam, because they thought the foam by polute the water supply.

60m litres of burning fuel must therefore be less poluting....

[Thorin]

Originally Posted by analogika

Of course that logic is complete idiocy, since MORE FUEL will have to be imported for car owners to burn.

You don't think people will stop driving just because some fuel tanks blow, do you?

Since we probably won't stop burning fossil fuels until there's none less, I doubt anymore will be burned in the end by this.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Narh. It's mostly jet fuel in that depot (servicing the local airports) - won't affect daily transport needs at all.

Oh, and 60m litres, not gallons.

My local paper this morning led with the fire/explosion, and they said that a lot of Britains were panic-buying petrol for their cars. They must not have known anything but "a huge lot of petrol is burning!"

I grew up a ten minute drive from at least three such depots, and I didn't have any idea what they stored. We were close enough to Detroit Metro airport that any one of these places could have been servicing them. And frankly, it wasn't until I'd been out on my own for quite a while that I really grasped the concept of "different grades of petroleum fuels." I doubt most people ever do.

The only "bright" spot in this is that it seems to have been entirely finished products at that depot, so the smoke may be ugly, but it's not as bad as it could have been.

[Mediaman_12]

Originally Posted by Strix

The (almost) amusing bit about this is when the Government Environment Agency delayed the fire services from putting out the fire using water and foam, because they thought the foam by polute the water supply.

60m litres of burning fuel must therefore be less poluting....

There where worries that the chemicals from the foam could seep from local water courses in to the local water table (the whole area sits on a bed of chalk), thus poisoning the local tap water supply. With them having to use such an enormous amount of foam over a large area.

They where delayed anyway because of getting enough of the foam concentrate to the site, I doubt that any environmental worries created any extra delay.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ghporter

My local paper this morning led with the fire/explosion, and they said that a lot of Britains were panic-buying petrol for their cars. They must not have known anything but "a huge lot of petrol is burning!"

No real sign of that up here (I'm central England). Most blokes (in general conversation) seem to realise that there's different grades of fuel - i.e. a difference between petrol and jet fuel.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by analogika

Of course that logic is complete idiocy, since MORE FUEL will have to be imported for car owners to burn.

IIRC, we're completely self-sufficient in fuel.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Strix

On the radio today, the guy was interviewing an environmentalist, and he asked if the fire would impact on the UK's attempt to reduce CO2 emissions in line with the Kyoto Protocol.

The environmentalist said the fire would not impact on the emissions at all, since all the fuel would be burnt anyway; the only difference is that the fuel is being burnt in one go, instead of in several million cars.

The interview just highlighted how poluting cars are when you put all the emissions together...

Environmentalists are usually idiots though. They'll say anything to get their lifestyle message across. For starters he must have missed the fact that the fuel wasn't destined for cars but for aircraft - and I'm betting he's not about to start foregoing his two weeks in Ibiza.

Interestingly, Clarkson said last night that new research had discovered that a cow has more effect on global warming than a Range Rover. Interesting, as I've been banging on about this for years. I'll bet the environmentalist on that radio show had a nice steak with his dinner today.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Doofy

IIRC, we're completely self-sufficient in fuel.

I realize that "imported" might not have been the best choice of word.

But "self-sufficiency" is rather odd for something that's culled from the depths of the North Sea, and besides, that wasn't my point.

Claiming there is no net increase in pollution since the fuel was going to be burned anyway is rather silly, unless of course you're seeing it in relation to the absolute finite nature of fossil fuels...so yeah, in light of the next 50 years, when oil runs out, it won't make a difference.

But this year, it's an extra X million litres of fuel being burned (since people aren't driving any less).

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by analogika

But this year, it's an extra X million litres of fuel being burned (since people aren't flying any less).

Correctinated. Very little car fuel at that depot.

[analogika]

Either way, my pint stands, right?

(that there was a typo, but a much better idea than arguing on the internet. Cheers! )

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by analogika

Either way, my pint stands, right?

I thought you were on litres over there?

Originally Posted by analogika

(that there was a typo, but a much better idea than arguing on the internet. Cheers! )

Yep.

[Mr Kino]

Dang... But you know ... i wonder if there are high resolution versions of those pictures. They would make awesome wallpaper. =)

[Dale Sorel]

Uh oh, here comes the "nuclear winter"

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Interestingly, Clarkson said last night that new research had discovered that a cow has more effect on global warming than a Range Rover. Interesting, as I've been banging on about this for years. I'll bet the environmentalist on that radio show had a nice steak with his dinner today.

Yep. Cows make methane (from BOTH ends), while the gasses a Range Rover puts out are CO2, CO and various nitrous oxides (most of which combine with natural environmental chemicals and settle out as nitrates that help the soil-but not enough to be a selling point ). Methane by itself is much more heat-trapping than CO2, while CO seems to have no greenhouse effect as it reacts with other chemicals and adds carbon that settles out into the environment.

Interestingly, a car can burn methane creating CO2 and water vapor-and only a small amount of CO2 at that. But again, I don't think "run your car on cow farts" would be a good selling point.

[wdlove]

Those are aweome pictures, thanks for posting. My wife has a friend who's father works for that company. Very sad.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Doofy

No real sign of that up here (I'm central England).

Doofy, quick question, and this is way off topic: Are there a lot of other conservatives like yourself in the midlands? I've always wondered where the Tories live.

[11011001]

Originally Posted by Strix

On the radio today, the guy was interviewing an environmentalist, and he asked if the fire would impact on the UK's attempt to reduce CO2 emissions in line with the Kyoto Protocol.

The environmentalist said the fire would not impact on the emissions at all, since all the fuel would be burnt anyway; the only difference is that the fuel is being burnt in one go, instead of in several million cars.

The interview just highlighted how poluting cars are when you put all the emissions together...

That's a stupid explanation.

The fuel was going to be used in the future, but planes aren't going to stop flying, therefore this is not going to have much impact on fuel consumption. Which means that an extra 60 million liters of fuel was just burned.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by ghporter

The only "bright" spot in this is that it seems to have been entirely finished products at that depot, so the smoke may be ugly, but it's not as bad as it could have been.

You are right. Cancer will occur dramatically in 20 years instead of 2.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Doofy, quick question, and this is way off topic: Are there a lot of other conservatives like yourself in the midlands?

To the west of me there's none - just about the safest Labour seat in the country, has been solid Labour since WWII. Labour could put a rosette on a pineapple and folks would vote for it.

To the east of me there's loads of very sensible Tories.

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

I've always wondered where the Tories live.

Clue: To the west of me it's urban, to the east it's rural.

[Kerrigan]

Life in British cities has gotten so unpleasant, it's no wonder the conservatives have moved out. The odd thing about it, is that when you get used to all the crime and the rudeboys and the depressing reconstruction-era buildings, you don't want to leave.

The only city dwelling tories I know are my lucky friends from boarding schools like Harrow or Fettes. Apart from that, I never bump into any conservatives, ever.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Life in British cities has gotten so unpleasant, it's no wonder the conservatives have moved out. The odd thing about it, is that when you get used to all the crime and the rudeboys and the depressing reconstruction-era buildings, you don't want to leave.

Once you've lowered your standards sufficiently, you mean.

[ambush]

Happened here too during forest fires... sky was smoky RED.

[Dale Sorel]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Cows make methane (from BOTH ends)...

Uh, so do humans

[d0ubled0wn]

Originally Posted by Dale Sorel

Uh, so do humans

A single cow produces around 600 litres of methane per day. I've never measured my own gas output but I know it's nowhere close, even after scarfing down a grab bag of bean burritos from Taco Bell.

[nath]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Once you've lowered your standards sufficiently, you mean.

Or opened your mind just wide enough to tolerate living around people different to yourself.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nath

Or opened your mind just wide enough to tolerate living around people different to yourself.

Are you stalking me or what?

[Insurgent]

I saw something like that when flying to Australia recently, but was far more extreme. We were coming into land at KL, Malaysia when people on board could smell something strange. As we got nearer to Kuala Lumpur, the odour was pretty intense to the point some were wondering if it was the plane. Folks were fairly calm but as soon as we landed we realized it wasn't the plane but the entire city, covered in smoke.

Turns out Indonesia was doing its usual forest burning exercises in which so much smoke is thrown into the air it actually reaches Malaysia and blankets it in this polluted mess. Couldn't see 5 feet in front of me until we reached the terminals.

Still, was amazing to see.

[Duracell]

I live in reading, west of London, about the same distance away from the blast as london and the smoke was over us as well - pretty odd feeling, I can tell you.

Also, this is the best image of it that I've seen so far,