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 …
P.s Explocontrol is called Technokontrol today, see http://www.technokontrol.com
Very sad turn of events and dramatic…three confirmed dead so far.
The less dramatic seem not to be so note worthy; “oil spills everywhere”.
Unfortunately the previous is not comprehensive.
Please excuse the overlap…
If only B_P was considered a division of the US military than all info related would be t0p secr3t.
Oh Canada our …
It’s been upped to 3. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/07/07/lac_megantic_death_toll_rises_in_quebec_train_derailment_explosion.html
Mike G.
Willis is pretty good at math:
ton of TNT 4.184X10^9 joules, Kiloton of TNT 4.184X10^12 joules, barrel of crude 6.1×10^9 joules so
820 X 6.1×10^9 = 5002 x10^9 = 5.002X10^12 which is slightly more than a kiloton of TNT.
680 x 6.1
Roger Sowell says:
July 7, 2013 at 8:10 am
_______________________
Prove him wrong…
Gail Combs says:
July 7, 2013 at 8:48 am
If you don’t believe in death trains, accidents like this could change your mind. However accidents involving trains, trucks, aircraft, boats, tankers, but also storage systems tank farms and pipelines filled with carbon fuels always pose a risk. we have to secure it and we can if we stop wasting our money with entirely useless “sustainable power generation” like wind, solar and bio.
Luther Wu says:
July 7, 2013 at 9:05 am
Roger Sowell says:
July 7, 2013 at 8:10 am
_______________________
Prove him wrong…
—————————————-
Let me add- prove him wrong or STFU. No one is interested in your petty little tiny opinion.
At the time of Buffett’s purchase of BN, financial commenters were scratching their heads at the size of the premium (over the market price) he paid for it (about 25%, IIRC) and the tepid prospects for BN. It’s likely that Buffett had an edge–inside information. It’s not hard to put 2 and 2 together in this case, now. It’ll be lots clearer if Obama rejects the pipeline expansion.
At the time of Buffett’s purchase of BN, financial commenters were scratching their heads at the size of the premium (over the market price) he paid for it (about 25%, IIRC) and the tepid prospects for BN. It’s likely that Buffett had an edge–inside information. It’s not hard to put 2 and 2 together in this case, now. It’ll be lots clearer if Obama rejects the pipeline expansion.
I believe Buffet’s investment in rail was based on a view that ,over the longer term, energy prices would increase and rail would have an economic advantage over truck based transport of goods. Plus the rail assets were priced at a level that provided a good return on investment.
It is worth remembering Buffet also owns energy assets, including pipelines, through Mid American.
His most signiicant investments are in insurance and re-insurance, so he has an interest in ‘risk’. It is not in his wider interests to have high risk goods on his railways, when he could invest in a lower risk pipeline.
Sabotage?: I m quite sure sabotage happens but form all the big accidents that happened over the past 30 years involving the carbon fuel chain sabotage simply wasn’t the cause.
I really doubt if sabotage was the cause of this train accident. I didn’t look into the technical specs of the locomotives involved but in the past similar locs got their brakes unlocked because of vibrations or maintenance issues. We should change the regulations and simply don’t allow the engineer to leave the locomotive when the engine is still running. We don’t allow this with cars, we don’t allow this with aircraft and we don’t allow this with ships. Why do we allow this with trains?
It’s old habits and old traditions that are in for a review and some common sense.
Roger Sowell says:
July 7, 2013 at 8:10 am
As usual, here Eschenbach provides dozens of blanket statements with no citations.
Oh wait…I forgot. Providing citations does not apply to Willis the Wonderful.
Why don’t you write your own blog? Oh, I forgot, you’ve got one.
Roger Sowell says: July 7, 2013 at 8:10 am
“..As usual, here Eschenbach provides dozens of blanket statements with no citations….”
As usual, here Roger Sowell is to snipe, gripe and bicker.
Roger Sowell, Willis did indeed pull from his memory in writing this essay. I noticed a couple of things that looked a bit off so checked them out. Willis was close enough for purposes of the essay and his conclusions. I suspect that you are jealous of Willis or you would not have called him Willis the Wonderful. Luther Wu chided you so I will refrain. Let me just suggest that if you look at the broad depth of Willis’ knowledge, the wide range of his ability to analyze situations and the speed at which he can produce essays, you may find him completely worthy of being Willis the Wonderful. I feel glad that he is a part of my life. Please give him his due.
5 dead 40 missing…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/07/us-train-deaths-police-idUSBRE9660D320130707
alerter should have put train into emergency within 5 minutes or so of movement.
A. Scott says:
July 7, 2013 at 1:34 am
Thanks, A. As someone who has worked in the fuel industry, I can assure you that ALL methods of moving fossil fuels are inherently unsafe, including the fuel tank in your car.
All I did was rank them by relative safety. I did not “smear these methods [truck and train] as unsafe”.
I just ranked them in rough order of safety.
w.
RockyRoad says:
July 7, 2013 at 8:45 am
Regarding brakes–on locomotives/wagons and highway trucks they are always “applied”–it takes air pressure to release them.
This is the opposite of how automobile brakes are configured–if they required power to pressurize and release, it would be safer as far as runaways, but makes it very difficult to manually push one out of the way or to tow it to a garage for repairs.
For trucks and locomotives/wagons, it’s safer to have brakes applied as the default.
*********************************************
not the same, trucks have compressed springs in the actuators, air holds it released, loss of air and sping rotates s-cam to apply brakes.
when a train car runs out of air in EQ reservoir the brakes are released. brake pipe in train does not work like treadle valve in truck.
drop of air (iirc initial apply is approx 12psi drop) in brake pipe causes EQ reservoir to apply same pressure to car brakes.
this is why apply brakes too often w/o recharge times can cause runaways.
There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that the blood of this disaster stains the hands of those who have irrationally opposed the Keystone XL pipeline.
That fact needs to be stated publicly and understood.
Agnostic says:
July 7, 2013 at 2:22 am
If he told you that for new construction the cheapest was offshore wind, he was … well … let me call him “the opposite of right” without touching on his motives.
With the exception of solar thermal, for new construction, offshore wind is THE MOST EXPENSIVE form of renewable energy. Except methane from unicorn farts, it’s tough enough catching the unicorns, but catching their methane emissions is a real problem. See Table 1 here for the latest figures.
Oh, and never ever take energy advice from that guy again …
w.
Mr Green Genes says:
July 7, 2013 at 2:34 am
I do love to hear from the pros. My thanks.
w.
The train had been burning for a while before it took off and derailed.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/train-endured-flames-prior-to-derailment-fire-chief/article13053347/
Yeah, call me a conspiracy nut, but out of all the possible causes, the one that I would bet is most likely is that it was an Obama supporting envirowhacko that released the train.
Claude Harvey says:
July 7, 2013 at 3:27 am
I do know that, and I thank you for the excellent analogy, to a power shaft. It highlights the fact that the load always has to be instantaneously (or thereabouts) balanced.
However, I’d add that at the end of the day, whether we burn fuel in a power plant to turn a distant shaft, or transport the fuel to the distant location to turn the shaft directly, we are transferring work in both cases, not just the one you highlight.
We know this because in both cases, the shaft is turning and driving the load.
Many thanks,
w.
Paul Coppin says:
July 7, 2013 at 4:54 am
Paul, I haven’t seen your name, I don’t think, so let me stop you right there. I refuse to have my ideas attacked in such a slipshod manner.
When you disagree with a man, you owe him a very basic courtesy. This is to QUOTE HIS WORDS THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH. In this case, you claim that I have some “opening premise”, which you assure me is “misplaced”, and represents some “step back” from reality, but you don’t quote whatever you think my ” opening premise” might be.
What the hell did I say that you object to? I can’t make sense out of that. I can’t defend my “opening premise” when I didn’t even know I had one. What was it? That railroad accidents are tragic, as the title states? Yes, they are. But is that the “opening premise” you’re talking about?
I don’t know. No one knows. And as a result, you’re just talking to yourself …
Try again if you wish, I’m not dissing your ideas … I just don’t know what they are.
w.