Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I was saddened to read this morning that a train with a load of crude oil derailed and caught fire in Lac-Mégantic, Canada, and I started writing this post. I heard during the afternoon there was one person killed, and more may still be found. In addition, the oil spilled into the Chaudière River. And most curiously, the derailment wasn’t from overspeed or failed brakes or a crash or the usual stuff. Instead, the train took off on its own and committed suicide … go figure.
The train had been parked and the conductor was not aboard when “somehow, the train got released,” Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway, Inc Vice President Joseph McGonigle said on Saturday.
“We’re not sure what happened, but the engineer did everything by the book. He had parked the train and was waiting for his relief,” McGonigle said. The Star
Figure 1. Derailed tank cars, Canada SOURCE
In addition to the human compassion we all feel for the folks to whom these tragedies occur, plus hoping that no train workers or hobos were hurt, the crash sparked off a boatload of thoughts about the absolute need for storable transportable energy; about the inherent dangers of concentrated stored energy; and about how we move stored energy around the planet.
First, energy is synonymous with development. Our civilization requires huge amounts of it. Without the ability to extract, move, and store immense amounts of energy, we’re literally back to the Bronze Age, where wood melted the bronze and cooked the food. I’ve tried living at that level, it’s not my idea of a good party. Plus, if everyone burns wood for energy the world will look like Haiti … so we’ll take the need for some kind of storable energy as a given.
Next, stored energy is inherently dangerous. If you accidentally drop a wrench across the terminals of a car battery, it could cost you your life … and that’s just a car battery, not a railroad tank car full of crude oil. If stored energy gets loose, it is immensely dangerous.
The materials in which the energy is stored are also often, as in this case, a danger to the environment. If you think electricity solves the problem, crack open a car battery and consider the toxicity of the chemicals and heavy metals involved.
Finally, there are more dangerous and less dangerous ways to transport energy.
Arguably the least dangerous way to transport energy is in the form of electricity. We move unimaginably large amounts of energy around the world with only occasional injuries and fatalities. Don’t get me wrong, a 440,000 volt power line is not inherently safe. But we are able to locate our electric wires in such a way that we don’t intrude into their space, and vice versa.
But that’s just moving electrons. If you have to move the molecules, the actual substance itself, things get more hazardous.
In terms of danger, railroads aren’t the most dangerous. That’d be the fuel trucks carrying gasoline, diesel, kerosene, and propane on the highways. Plus of course the stored energy in the fuel tanks of the cars and trucks involved in every crash. If you consider an electric power line transporting energy running alongside a freeway, with each vehicle transporting stored energy in the form of liquid fuel, and how often lives are lost or damage done from the power lines, versus how much damage the stored energy does when a tanker truck crashes and catches fire on the freeway, you’ll get a sense of what I’m talking about.
I’d put railroads as the second most dangerous way to move energy. This for a couple reasons. One is because people built along the railroad tracks, and cities grew up around the rail hubs. This means you’re moving things like crude oil and gasoline, each of which stores huge amounts of what was originally solar energy, through highly populated areas.
Another is that a railroad tank car stores a huge amount of energy. A tank full of crude oil hold about 820 barrels of oil, which conveniently has about the same energy as a thousand tons of TNT. Of course, normally this energy is released slowly, over time. Even if the tank ruptures and the fuel pours out, the release of energy occurs over tens of minutes.
However, the fuel is contained in enclosed tanks. As in this case, if fire is raging around an intact tank car, it heats the tank until the contents start boiling. Depending on the fuel involved, if the vapor pressure of the contents is high enough, the tank can rupture in what is called a BLEVE. That stands for “Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion”, and it was the cause of death in boiler explosions in old-time Mississippi steamships. When a boiling liquid under pressure suddenly experiences an instantaneous pressure drop, the entire body of the liquid can directly flash into vapor. With a steam engine the liquid is water, and the resulting steam from an exploding boiler was incredibly lethal and destructive. Now, consider a BLEVE of a flammable liquid … instead of making an expanding ball of steam, you get an expanding ball of fire.
At that point, the “kilotonnes of TNT” is no longer a metaphor.
So what is safer than a railroad? Well, on land there are pipelines, and at sea there are tankers. The tankers are dangerous for the environment, but given the amount of energy moved per year, the spills are not numerous. Obviously, as a sailor and a commercial fisherman I’d prefer there’d be no spills … but energy is synonymous with development, and stored energy is inherently dangerous. So all we can do is continue to improve the safety of the tankers, and stay aware of the dangers. Having worked in the industry, I know the many safety regulations surrounding tanker ships. These regulations are indeed numerous and cover the situation well … and despite that, there is always more to learn.
On land, pipelines have an excellent safety record. People are generally unaware of how many pipelines there are in the US. Here are the trunklines that just move crude oil, including from Canada:
Figure 2. Crude oil trunklines SOURCE
Figure 3 shows the major pipelines for “refined products”, meaning gasoline, diesel, and the like:
Figure 3. Pipelines carrying refined products. SOURCE
Finally, Figure 4 shows the pipelines carrying gas, both within and between the states:
Figure 4. Gas pipelines, from the EIA
Considering the very large number and length of the pipelines, the number of accidents per year is very, very small. Like electrical lines, we generally don’t notice (or even know) that these pipelines exist, but they move huge amounts of many kinds of both crude and refined products all over the US.
Which brings me to the final thought brought up by the Canadian train derailment.
There is a proposed expansion of the KeystoneXL Pipeline, to handle an increased amount of heavy crude from Alberta. Opponents of the expansion think that stopping the pipeline expansion will somehow stop the flow of Canadian heavy crude into the US. This is not true for two reasons.
First, the existing Keystone pipeline is already bringing Alberta heavy crude into the US. The expansion will just, well, expand that amount.
More to the point, however, is the fact that large amounts of Alberta heavy crude is also being moved into the US by railroad. And not by just any railroad. It’s mostly coming in on the Burlington Northern Railway.
And by what can only be considered an amazing coincidence, the Burlington Northern Railway is owned by a major Obama donor. And by an even more amazing coincidence, the major donor bought the BNR just three years ago.
And this was not just any major Obama donor, but Mr. Warren Buffett, a key money supplier for the Obama re-election effort …
Now of course, the longer that Mr. Obama can delay approving the Keystone Pipeline, the longer the oil will be moved by Mr. Buffet’s railroad. I’m sure you can predict what Mr. Buffet wanted for his investment in the Obama campaign, those guys don’t pitch in the big bucks without wanting something …
And very likely Buffett learned early on, during Obama’s first administration, that Obama would block the pipeline, which is probably why he bought it. Buffett is many things but he’s no fool. Will we ever be able to prove that chain of events? Don’t be naive, Buffett is immensely wealthy for a reason. He doesn’t leave tracks, he doesn’t show his cards, he plays everything close to the vest. We won’t find any smoking guns on this one.
I find it quite amazing. In the late 1800s, the railroads were major players in the political scene, and no one made an important decision without first kissing the rings of the railroad barons.
And now, more than a hundred years later, we still have a President kissing the ring of a railroad baron before making his decision.
So … don’t expect any quick resolution by President Obama of the Keystone Pipeline issue. Every day it is delayed, hundreds of thousands of dollars flow into Warren Buffet’s pockets.
And US politics continues to fashion in the old, time-tested way … money talks. And even in this modern time of emails and smartphones, I’m glad to know some of the most valuable hoary, ancient US political traditions have been kept alive.
And when I say valuable traditions … I mean very, very valuable. These days, being a friend of Obama is worth big bucks.
Finally, we see that the claims by the opponents of the pipeline that they are trying to “protect the environment” are simply not true. If they were really concerned about the environment, they’d want the KeystoneXL pipeline expansion. It is much more dangerous to the environment to move the Alberta heavy crude by railroad tank car than by pipeline … and the tragedy in Canada is an excellent example of why.
And a happy Independence Day weekend to all,
w.
PS—In any case, if the pipeline is blocked, the Alberta heavy crude will still be burned, either shipped to China, or shipped to the US and Buffett will be even richer, or burned in Canada, but it will be burned. That’s the crazy part—the opposition to the pipeline, even if successful, will achieve nothing … welcome to the crazy world of modern environmental NGOs and their followers …
Very good Mr. Willis!!! Too early to tell about sabotage, but anything, and I mean ANYTHING is possible with green fanatics The one saving grace about the fanatics is they don’t see or comprehend they are harming their own cause. But they are stupid .
As it happens, last night I met a mechanical engineer whose speciality was energy infrastructure development, and he has been deeply involved in renewables over the last few years (as one would imagine). It was good opportunity to grill someone involved in the area regarding the various issues we encounter regarding renewable energy. He has just accepted a job developing energy infrastructure in Africa.
And, as is so often the way, his view was quite nuanced. The main difficulty both in terms of cost, and politics, is what he called “t-lines”. The transport of electricity. He emphasised there is no one size fits all best solution for each situation. Interestingly, he pointed out that the cheapest form of energy from a new build perspective, is off-shore wind, and there are solutions to handle dips and peaks in demand and production, which are improving all the time with new technology. It seems the most important thing from a cost effective view, is keeping your energy source and point of delivery as close as possible.
I asked him about natural gas, but he said that depending on the location it isn’t always the cheapest or most practical solution. Another thing he stressed is that when people propose large power plants they rarely factor in the costs of decommissioning – a problem in particular with nuclear. He wasn’t aware of the potential of thorium liquid salt, and fusion is too far away yet for it to concern him. He asked, “well if TLS is commercially viable why hasn’t it been done?”. My reply to that was that the existing uranium technology and supply infrastructure still dominates, and the revisiting of thorium is fairly recent and will take time before a commercial venture is proposed. But I don’t really know for sure, and it remains a good question.
From the local paper linked in the original article:-
The president and CEO of Rail World Inc., the parent company of Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway, said the train was parked uphill of Lac-Megantic before the incident.
“If brakes aren’t properly applied on a train, it’s going to run away,” Edward Burkhardt told The Canadian Press.
“But we think the brakes were properly applied on this train.”
Burkhardt, who indicated he was mystified by the disaster, said the train was parked because the engineer had finished his run.
During my time working in the UK railway industry I had the good fortune of meeting Ed Burkhardt when he was in charge of the UK’s biggest railfreight operator. He’s a good guy and knows his stuff. I’m sure that the company will get to the bottom of this.
This is the first time there has ever been an article on WUWT on a subject I know something about so, for what it’s worth, here’s my take.
It’s clear to me that the brakes weren’t on (applied) properly for the train to run away. I am as certain as I can be that the braking system will consist of the locomotives pumping air through pipes to each wagon to charge up air reservoirs. When the pressure is at the right level the wagon’s brakes will be released. Therefore, with no air being pumped down the pipe, the brakes should be hard on. It is therefore probable that the locomotive(s) were attached when the train ran away since it would require multiple failures on individual wagons before the mass of the train overcame the resistance of the remainder and rolled away. That also presupposes that the train was ‘parked’ on a slope which might be the case if there is nowhere else to stop for the crew change but is not good practice and should be avoided if at all possible.
If I’m correct that the locomotives were attached, there are two obvious possibilities. Firstly, the brakes were never applied and the locomotives were left running. The incoming crew then simply walked away leaving the train in a highly dangerous state. That would be the height of incompetence, and a breach of many operating instructions, and can probably be discounted.
There is always the possibility that the locos were left running with the brakes applied imperfectly, allowing the pressure to buid up very slowly, releasing the wagons’ brakes some time later. Alternatively, if the brakes were applied properly but the locos were left running (which may have been the case if they were manned at all times during the changeover), or, as has been suggested by a few posters here, were illegally restarted by a malicious act, then you are in the realms of sabotage. With the locos running, just release the brakes normally and you have a run away. There is, of course, the possibility of the same kind of multiple failure as I described in the paragraph above, but that is as unlikely with the locos attached as without.
I have discounted the possibility that the train was “unfitted” i.e. had no piped braking system but relied on the locos’ brakes for stopping and would then have required the crew to manually operate brakes on each individual wagon when ‘parking’ the train. It is inconceivable to me that such a system would be allowed at all nowadays, and certainly not on a large train with a highly hazardous cargo.
One further point. A couple of posters have mentioned that the train was seen to be on fire before it crashed. If the brakes were partially off but still rubbing, the friction would quickly have led to increased heat sufficient to ignite any grease around the axle and possibly in the axle box itself (depending on the design of the bogies). I’ve seen quite a few flaming axle boxes on freight wagons in the UK over the years caused by dragging brakes and I know how hot they can get.
Mr Green Genes says:
July 7, 2013 at 2:34 am
Thanks. Always good to have an expert’s opinion.
“Mr Green Genes says:
July 7, 2013 at 2:34 am
I’ve seen quite a few flaming axle boxes on freight wagons in the UK over the years caused by dragging brakes and I know how hot they can get.”
I have seen smoking, but not flaming, axle boxes and brakes here in Australia on intercity commuter trains. It’s easy to detected smoking/overheating brakes, they have a very distinctive smell. Raised the issue with the station master but he didn’t seem too bothered. So much for the safety of passengers!
In Russia, in the old days (as well as now, it appears) if there was a locomotive attached to a train, there would be two men sitting in it at all times, until the other two men came aboard to replace them. They could only sign out and leave with the new crew at the controls. Even so, they’ve had runaway train accidents, although those were due to system failures en route.
It never ceases to amaze me the depth of WUWT readers and commenters. Here we have a train accident in Canada and Mr. Green Genes comes forward to set us straight. One wonders at the depth of CGW sites. You go Mr. Green Genes.
Willis, I know you understand the following when you think about it, but many do not. I point it out in order to distinguish the enormous difference between what an electric power grid does and what pipelines and tanker cars do.
Technically, in a synchronous power system the electric power lines do not transfer energy, storable or otherwise. They transfer “work”. A power line should be thought of as a long shaft with a driving engine on one end and a driven load on the other. Power produced (force over time) on one end always must equal power consumed on the other. Only if that driven load is something like a pumped-storage plant, where the transferred work is converted into potential or some other form of energy, can energy said to have been transferred from one place and stored in another.
Matching instantaneous generation exactly to instantaneous load while holding system frequency steady is a delicate dance every electric utility performs every second of every day.
Although I didn’t adopt the “It must be sabotage” view when I read this, I did wonder which side would make the most capital out of it. Despite the prevailing opinions on this thread that (if sabotage) it must have been the greens, I think the pro-pipeline lobby has more to gain. The accident shows that moving such cargoes by rail makes accidents and sabotage more likely, thereby reinforcing the contention that pipelines are safer, let alone less intrusive, expensive and damaging to the environment.
Despite conspiracy theories to the contrary, I don’t think I’ve ever seen proof of the pro-business faction indulging in chess like terrorist attacks. On the other hand the Greens have a long history of using destructive means to get their point across. Not enough information to make any assumptions, but it would not surprise me in the least if this was some sort of sabotage that went too far.
Rail car traffic is up 35% over last year in this report. Mostly due to rail shipments of oil from the Bakken deposits in North Dakota. It has since gone to over 50%.
Also note Warren Buffet’s involvement, and that Buffet opposed the Keystone pipeline.
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/09/us-railroads-are-on-fast-track-thanks.html
Buffet and Carl Icahn both have a stake in railroads, and thus in stopping pipelines.
As an added bonus, it’s a bit funny that one tank car manufacturer shut down a wind generation factory, to build rail cars.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-03/buffett-like-icahn-reaping-tank-car-boom-from-shale-oil.html
And it deosn’t end therte. Billionaire Tom Steyer, who opposes the KXL pipeline, has a 100 million dollar investment in a compeititor, Kinder Morgan. KM is currently expanding its pipeline from Alberta to the pacific, and is a direct compeitor for KXL clients.
http://freebeacon.com/fox-reports-on-accusations-of-obama-donors-keystone-hypocrisy/
Reblogged this on pdx transport.
With the derailment in Lac Megantic Canada, I would suspect that the locomotives were left idling and that the locomotive cab was locked. It is unlikely this is a case of sobotage, that the brakes were improperly set though their is a remote possibility of mechanical failure. In a situation like this one of the rail car brakes were also supposed to be manually set as a safeguard. As for the photo circulating around that shows a locomotive with fire coming out of the stack, it is unlikely this is a photo of the derailed train, that these older type GE locomotives sometimes have firey exhaust from the turbocharger (they belch fire). There is a curve in town and this is where the train derailed. It is unfortunate, in that Lac Megantic is pretty area and that this situation will cause debate about the safety of rail transport for oil as well as potentially bankrupting the Montreal Maine and Atlantic Railroad and on whose tracks the train derailed.
CodeTech says:
July 7, 2013 at 1:57 am
This train would have entered Maine and gone through my service (jurisdiction) area when I served as Fire Chief back in the early 2000’s. Knowing the tension between those who want Keystone and others who want the Maritimes and Northeast pipeline, (and those who finance them), I recall how eco terrorists have harassed logging companies in the region and conclude that Code Tech may be right.
BLEVE was demonstrated, at USN firefighting school, by igniting a barrel of fuel oil, letting it come to a full boil and then plunging a pint of water held on the end of a long pole. Very impressive. Within the week, we could walk into the flaming trainer, splash the burning oil away from us, breathe the fresh air entrained in the firehose water and extinguish huge fires.
While I appreciate the discussion of the unfortunate events as they occurred, I think Willis’ opening premise is misplaced, and represents .the “step back” from reality that is characterizing the 21st century. Life is inherently dangerous. No one on this planet, nor the planet itself, comes with a guaranteed mean time to failure before expiration.. We assume risk based on our personal sense of survival and control of our immediate environment. Our perceptions in this regard have always been somewhat egotistical – its the evolutionary means that keeps us exploring, but its only indirectly rooted in actuarial reality. If life risks really mattered to us , none of us would drive, live in cold climates, on coastal plains and flood zones, on fault lines and beside volcanoes, nuclear plants and religious fanatics.
We can act to mitigate risk, but risk is never zero. Acceptance of risk and the understanding that there will be a “cleanup in aisle 3” from time to time is the only choice there is.
Uncharacteristically, Willis is indulging in some handwringing here. Enough of that comes from the ideologically left side of our society. This isn’t to say that mitigation isn’t of beneficial interest; of course it is, but there is big difference between perceived risk and actuarial risk, and over time, we’re increasing our spent capital more on perceived risk than on actuarial risk.
As population increases, the frequency of “risk-managment failures” will increase, and in some instances, actuarial risk will increase too. Pessimistic as this sounds, its the cost of our species growth, and it is inevitable. The choices that are coming will focus increasingly on risk benefit, and the fight will ramp up over who gets to assume the risk, and for whom the benefit accrues.
3 unmanned locomotives crash…vandals set them loose.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1144&dat=19881119&id=OOAcAAAAIBAJ&sjid=fWMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3353,1967459
The other thing about this that is curious is that this is third major train event in as many days. While not being an active conspiratorialist, given that we (Cdn officials) arrested a few ideologically handicapped individuals a month or so back planning a similar event in the same part of the country, seems like it might be more than a co-incidence, something I’m certain the official risk-mitigators will be looking at.
This is very interesting – despite pressure relief valves, they only work when a sustained flame is boiling propane and hence keeping the whole tank cool. When the flame is above the liquid the metal can get hot enough to fail and allow the tank to rupture. Keep in mind the pressure relief valve is designed to keep the tank at a safe pressure for normal to moderately extreme conditions and that it cannot be designed to keep propane at zero relative pressure. Well unless if it opens and stays open. That might be a good idea if the valve points up and is not in an enclosed space.
While hunting that back down, I came across a simple sort of idiot with a camping propane canister.
More infromation on Buffet, and especially on Dick Holland. Holland financed one the Nebraska groups (BOLD) that opposed KXL. Of course, Holland is a democrat (only contributions to the democrats), and is a friend of Buffet’s as well as an investor in Berkshire Hathaway.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-23/buffett-s-burlington-northern-among-winners-in-obama-rejection-of-pipeline.html
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/7026-warren-buffett-to-benefit-from-obama’s-keystone-xl-decision
http://docstalk.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/cop-warren-buffett-keystone-pipeline.html
http://www.examiner.com/article/thank-you-warren-no-thank-you-mr-president
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/warren_buffett_the_keystone_pipeline_and_crony_capitalism.html
The recent SFO incident recalls the 1968 Japan Airlines event, when a DC-8 landed three miles short of one of these runways due to the pilot misreading his instruments. Runways 28L/R are shown with elevation 13 feet, runways 19L/R are 10 feet and 9 feet respectively. By the images published, I believe Asiana 214 is at the end of 28L.
NOTAMS 06/005 SFO NAVIGATION INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM RUNWAY 28L GLIDE PATH OUT OF SERVICE WITH EFFECT FROM OR EFFECTIVE FROM 1306011400-1308222359″.
I think we should calm down a little. To accuse any particular group without the slightest evidence is unethical. In addition it will only cause steeper fronts between so called “greens” and so called “global warming skeptics” and those fronts are already dangerously steep.
I think these steep fronts are very damaging to the climate research since it makes it difficult to have a civilized discussion between the parties.
Incidentally, two of the most iconic images of 777s on airliners.net are that very plane sitting in the very spot it crashed (SFO 28L), waiting to take off, with an Emirates 777 appearing to be right on top of it. Almost eerie.