The Oil-by-Rail Problem
Here’s a piece on railway disasters involving oil tankers. I could be wrong, but it seems that the ecological damage of these incidents is an externality of the oil business that is seldom counted—even by the people who are counting.
Yes, the volume of oil by rail has exploded recently – with little attendant coverage.
Craig,
Actually on this side the oil lobbyists are a good source of information.
You know that you and I have been on the opposite side of the fence regarding the Keystone XL pipeline. This is why: Currently that oil is produced and then delivered by rail. The Keystone pipeline wouldn’t even increase the capacity, it would just offer a far safer method of distributing the oil.
Rail collision is not that bad of an issue, but there is a little spillage associated with the filling and emptying of the cars for every single train. In all things in energy, it’s a matter of “do less harm”, not “do no harm”… The doing no harm may be possible in a half a century or so, but it’s certainly not possible now.
Oil by rail is pretty risky.
To play off your last line, I would say, “oil itself is pretty risky,” given what we know. In other words, there is no excuse for our country’s not having a policy that moves us steadily away from fossil fuels.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/04/26/pick-your-poison-for-crude-pipeline-rail-truck-or-boat/
Wow, http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/04/26/pick-your-poison-for-crude-pipeline-rail-truck-or-boat/ is terrific. In the first few paragraphs it shows how difficult the measurement process associated with all this stuff is. The implied question is: What do you value more–the environment or human life? It’s like asking if you’d rather lose a kidney or a lung.