Huge Solar Spill In Arizona

orogenicman

Darwin was a pastafarian
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Messages
8,546
Reaction score
826
Points
175
No wait...

Data Oil Trains Spill More Often But Pipelines Spill Bigger ThinkProgress

Which is safer: pipeline or rail?

The question’s been hot on bloggers’ minds since Monday, when a train carrying 3 million gallons of crude oil derailed and exploded in West Virginia. And it’s not a bad one to ask, considering recent political discussion has been dominated by a debate over whether a certain pipeline is in the national interest.

Many blogs, this one included, have pointed out that oil train disasters are on the rise. In 2014, oil trains in the U.S. spilled more often than any other recorded year. These accidents have happened as crude-by-rail shipments are soaring, increasing 40-fold since 2008. And compared to pipelines, rail incidents are occurring more frequently — according to U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) data, rail incidents outnumbered pipelines two to one over the period of 2004 to 2012.

A lot of people have used this data to argue that transporting oil via pipelines is safer than rail. And that’s true, if your idea of safety is defined by the frequency of accidents, regardless of how large the accidents are. If, however, you think massive releases of oil into the environment pose a greater risk to human health, than pipelines are the greater evil.

According to the same PHMSA dataset, compiled and analysed by the International Energy Agency, U.S. pipelines spilled three times as much crude oil as trains over that eight-year period, even though incidents happened much less frequently. And that eight-year period was dominated by large pipeline spill events, including one that saw 800,000 gallons of Canadian tar sands crude spill in and around the Kalamazoo River, and another 63,000 gallon pipeline spill into the Yellowstone River.

There are numerous other factors at play. When a pipeline bursts, it can be harder to contain than a leaking oil tanker — only a certain, contained amount can spill out of a single punctured rail car. A pipeline can just keep spilling until the operator shuts down the flow, and will usually continue to gush until it’s empty. Large oil spills pose major, long-term risks to human health and the environment. Three years after the Kalamazoo spill, for example, cleanup crews were still working to remove oil from the ground, and residents reported experiencing headaches, breathing problems, and nausea — not to mention a negative impact on business.

But when a rail car tips over while traveling at 40 to 50 miles per hour, it has a much larger chance of exploding. That’s a more immediate threat to human life if it happens in a populated area, not to mention the smoke and fumes that are released into the air from the open burning of hydrocarbons. Most infamously, the Lac-Mégantic rail disaster in 2013 killed 47 people. No one was killed by the West Virginia derailment on Monday, but one person was treated and released from the hospital for inhaling toxic fumes.

So there are two separate arguments to make. You could say that more-frequent rail accidents make crude-by-rail an inherently more dangerous game than pipelines, because locomotives travel at high speeds and are more likely to explode and kill people. Or you could also say that larger spills from pipelines are worse, because they’re tough to clean up and pose long-term risks to human and environmental health.

Or, you could choose a third argument: that both rail and pipelines pose serious risks to human health, and instead of forcing people to choose between two dangerous options, we should focus on improving the safety of both modes of transport while transitioning to inherently less dangerous sources of energy (such as solar and wind).
 

chikenwing

Guest
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
7,387
Reaction score
834
Points
190
So when do you think they will have a solar 18 wheeler,how big of a sail would-it take to get a train up and over the Rockies?
 
OP
orogenicman

orogenicman

Darwin was a pastafarian
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Messages
8,546
Reaction score
826
Points
175
So when do you think they will have a solar 18 wheeler,how big of a sail would-it take to get a train up and over the Rockies?
Better idea is to get as many of the long haul 18 wheelers off the road as possible, and put their cargo on trains where they belong. Much more energy efficient, and the savings on road maintenance will be huge.
 

depotoo

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
40,161
Reaction score
12,770
Points
2,280
Arkansas Train Derailment and Explosion
In North Dakota oil train explosion a wake-up call Midwest Energy News
Explosion and oil spill after train derails in West Virginia - CNN.com
Disaster in Quebec Canada Toronto Star

So when do you think they will have a solar 18 wheeler,how big of a sail would-it take to get a train up and over the Rockies?
Better idea is to get as many of the long haul 18 wheelers off the road as possible, and put their cargo on trains where they belong. Much more energy efficient, and the savings on road maintenance will be huge.
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
55,393
Reaction score
13,905
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
Why are trains derailing and having accidents? Is our railway outdated? Are the railway carry cars not strong enough?

Why are their leaks in our pipelines? Are they outdated, rusting, not maintained? Could they be made safer and stronger?
 

Kosh

Quick Look Over There!
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
24,717
Reaction score
2,645
Points
280
Location
Everywhere but nowhere
See how these AGW cult members prove they do not care about the environment.

Even if solar panels covered the entire desert it still would not replace fossil fuels..
 

OnePercenter

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2013
Messages
23,652
Reaction score
1,842
Points
265
So when do you think they will have a solar 18 wheeler,how big of a sail would-it take to get a train up and over the Rockies?
Better idea is to get as many of the long haul 18 wheelers off the road as possible, and put their cargo on trains where they belong. Much more energy efficient, and the savings on road maintenance will be huge.
If we still had warehousing, which we don't. It take roughly two weeks to move freight from coast to coast. Trucks can do that in 72 hours. Most, if not all business today operate 'just in time.'
 

depotoo

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
40,161
Reaction score
12,770
Points
2,280
Some people don't care for the facts. If it sounds good, it must be right.

Oil usage is here for many, many moons to come.

Boy! Does wiki ever have an agenda! No list of derailment explosions or accidents since 1959, but they sure have every pipeline accident listed-even pipelines that could not ever be eliminated.

See how these AGW cult members prove they do not care about the environment.

Even if solar panels covered the entire desert it still would not replace fossil fuels..
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
115,256
Reaction score
27,766
Points
2,220
Location
Location, location
No wait...

Data Oil Trains Spill More Often But Pipelines Spill Bigger ThinkProgress

Which is safer: pipeline or rail?

The question’s been hot on bloggers’ minds since Monday, when a train carrying 3 million gallons of crude oil derailed and exploded in West Virginia. And it’s not a bad one to ask, considering recent political discussion has been dominated by a debate over whether a certain pipeline is in the national interest.

Many blogs, this one included, have pointed out that oil train disasters are on the rise. In 2014, oil trains in the U.S. spilled more often than any other recorded year. These accidents have happened as crude-by-rail shipments are soaring, increasing 40-fold since 2008. And compared to pipelines, rail incidents are occurring more frequently — according to U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) data, rail incidents outnumbered pipelines two to one over the period of 2004 to 2012.

A lot of people have used this data to argue that transporting oil via pipelines is safer than rail. And that’s true, if your idea of safety is defined by the frequency of accidents, regardless of how large the accidents are. If, however, you think massive releases of oil into the environment pose a greater risk to human health, than pipelines are the greater evil.

According to the same PHMSA dataset, compiled and analysed by the International Energy Agency, U.S. pipelines spilled three times as much crude oil as trains over that eight-year period, even though incidents happened much less frequently. And that eight-year period was dominated by large pipeline spill events, including one that saw 800,000 gallons of Canadian tar sands crude spill in and around the Kalamazoo River, and another 63,000 gallon pipeline spill into the Yellowstone River.

There are numerous other factors at play. When a pipeline bursts, it can be harder to contain than a leaking oil tanker — only a certain, contained amount can spill out of a single punctured rail car. A pipeline can just keep spilling until the operator shuts down the flow, and will usually continue to gush until it’s empty. Large oil spills pose major, long-term risks to human health and the environment. Three years after the Kalamazoo spill, for example, cleanup crews were still working to remove oil from the ground, and residents reported experiencing headaches, breathing problems, and nausea — not to mention a negative impact on business.

But when a rail car tips over while traveling at 40 to 50 miles per hour, it has a much larger chance of exploding. That’s a more immediate threat to human life if it happens in a populated area, not to mention the smoke and fumes that are released into the air from the open burning of hydrocarbons. Most infamously, the Lac-Mégantic rail disaster in 2013 killed 47 people. No one was killed by the West Virginia derailment on Monday, but one person was treated and released from the hospital for inhaling toxic fumes.

So there are two separate arguments to make. You could say that more-frequent rail accidents make crude-by-rail an inherently more dangerous game than pipelines, because locomotives travel at high speeds and are more likely to explode and kill people. Or you could also say that larger spills from pipelines are worse, because they’re tough to clean up and pose long-term risks to human and environmental health.

Or, you could choose a third argument: that both rail and pipelines pose serious risks to human health, and instead of forcing people to choose between two dangerous options, we should focus on improving the safety of both modes of transport while transitioning to inherently less dangerous sources of energy (such as solar and wind).
Are you using a solar powered computer?

If "no", please STFU
 
OP
orogenicman

orogenicman

Darwin was a pastafarian
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Messages
8,546
Reaction score
826
Points
175
So when do you think they will have a solar 18 wheeler,how big of a sail would-it take to get a train up and over the Rockies?
Better idea is to get as many of the long haul 18 wheelers off the road as possible, and put their cargo on trains where they belong. Much more energy efficient, and the savings on road maintenance will be huge.
If we still had warehousing, which we don't. It take roughly two weeks to move freight from coast to coast. Trucks can do that in 72 hours. Most, if not all business today operate 'just in time.'
A train-load of freight can travel from Los Angeles to Chicago in 48 hours. I rode an Amtrack from Chicago San Francisco in two days. When I drove it, it took me four. As for warehousing, we do, in fact have lots of warehousing in this country. There are hundreds of thousands of Americans working in them.
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
115,256
Reaction score
27,766
Points
2,220
Location
Location, location
So when do you think they will have a solar 18 wheeler,how big of a sail would-it take to get a train up and over the Rockies?
Better idea is to get as many of the long haul 18 wheelers off the road as possible, and put their cargo on trains where they belong. Much more energy efficient, and the savings on road maintenance will be huge.
If we still had warehousing, which we don't. It take roughly two weeks to move freight from coast to coast. Trucks can do that in 72 hours. Most, if not all business today operate 'just in time.'
A train-load of freight can travel from Los Angeles to Chicago in 48 hours. I rode an Amtrack from Chicago San Francisco in two days. When I drove it, it took me four. As for warehousing, we do, in fact have lots of warehousing in this country. There are hundreds of thousands of Americans working in them.
A train leaves Los Angeles headed east at 60mph. How soon before it spews enough CO2 into the atmosphere to melt the polar ice caps?
 
OP
orogenicman

orogenicman

Darwin was a pastafarian
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Messages
8,546
Reaction score
826
Points
175
Some people don't care for the facts. If it sounds good, it must be right.

Oil usage is here for many, many moons to come.

Boy! Does wiki ever have an agenda! No list of derailment explosions or accidents since 1959, but they sure have every pipeline accident listed-even pipelines that could not ever be eliminated.

See how these AGW cult members prove they do not care about the environment.

Even if solar panels covered the entire desert it still would not replace fossil fuels..
Never say never.
 

OnePercenter

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2013
Messages
23,652
Reaction score
1,842
Points
265
A train-load of freight can travel from Los Angeles to Chicago in 48 hours. I rode an Amtrack from Chicago San Francisco in two days. When I drove it, it took me four. As for warehousing, we do, in fact have lots of warehousing in this country. There are hundreds of thousands of Americans working in them.
You're forgetting about getting product to the transload center, the train ride, then from the transload center to the destination. In transportation, if it absolutely, positively has to be there in two weeks, put it on a train.

You can't compare Amtrak to freight trains. Amtrak has priority on rail lines. Nobody would ride the train if they didn't. When Amtrack had service from LA to Vegas it took 8 hours, not including travel time to the station, and travel time from the Plaza Hotel in downtown. Comparable, it takes 4 hours to drive, and 45 minutes to fly.

A truck can pick up at 5pm Monday in Los Angeles, and deliver at 7am Thursday in Chicago.

I think you're getting warehouses confused with distribution centers. Distribution centers have a 48 hour goal to recycle product.

Warehouses are being converted to condos.
 
Last edited:

ScienceRocks

Democrat all the way!
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
59,455
Reaction score
6,754
Points
1,900
Location
The Good insane United states of America

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top