DOT-111 rail tanker cars
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-15-14 1:43 PM (EST)
-- Last Updated: Feb-15-14 4:02 PM EST --
Googling around it looks like these are the most common type of tanker cars used in the US
I wonder if people would be willing to spend more for oil to have them upgraded?
During a number of accident investigations over a period of years, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board has noted that DOT-111 tank cars have a high incidence of tank failures during accidents. Previous NTSB investigations that identified the poor performance of DOT-111 tank cars in collisions include a May 1991 safety study as well as NTSB investigations of a June 30, 1992, derailment in Superior, Wisconsin; a February 9, 2003, derailment in Tamaroa, Illinois; and an October 20, 2006, derailment of an ethanol unit train in New Brighton, Pennsylvania. In addition, on February 6, 2011, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) investigated the derailment of a unit train of DOT-111 tank cars loaded with ethanol in Arcadia, Ohio, which released about 786,000 US gallons (2,980,000 l; 654,000 imp gal) of product. The Transportation Safety Board of Canada also noted that this car's design was flawed resulting in a "high incidence of tank integrity failure" during accidents.
The Transportation Department could issue what are called interim final rules to immediately impose new speed limits for crude trains and standards that require them to stay farther away from densely populated areas, Millar says. The administration, however, has resorted to “quiet backdoor meetings with the railroads and oil companies,” he says, “to see what they’ll agree to do voluntarily.”
Gedi Convertible Helmet
Recreational Kayak Paddle
|Table of Contents|
|Messages in this Topic|
Phone, Pen, Solved. |
Posted by: clarion on Feb-15-14 1:48 PM (EST)
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-15-14 2:58 PM (EST)
I'm sure there's a backup |
Posted by: clarion on Feb-15-14 3:04 PM (EST)
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-15-14 3:52 PM (EST)
It is a regulatory issue|
Posted by: rWVen on Feb-15-14 5:07 PM (EST)
so, technically, the "people" have spoken.
Same as if it was an issue of law|
Posted by: clarion on Feb-15-14 5:34 PM (EST)
No difference really. That's why the "would the people be willing" question is superfluous.
Posted by: rWVen on Feb-15-14 5:47 PM (EST)
I thought you were riffing on the "pen and a phone" thing. Which does deserve to be pushed back on in anyway applicable.
Well this isn't an area of pushback|
Posted by: clarion on Feb-15-14 6:03 PM (EST)
It's just the facts. The DOT spec was conceived by the DOT, who works or Obama. They/He can change it.
I thought we'd determined that|
Posted by: rWVen on Feb-15-14 6:06 PM (EST)
a post or two ago? I guess not.....
Sorry, I haven't really been following|
Posted by: clarion on Feb-15-14 6:19 PM (EST)
He's not in favor of this increase|
Posted by: rWVen on Feb-15-14 6:24 PM (EST)
as it's only about 1/10th of a penny per gallon. That is if my calculation of 371 billion gallons of gasoline per year (2011 US consumption) with the amortized cost of the new tankcars at 372 million dollars per year over 20 years is correct.
I am in favor|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-15-14 11:24 PM (EST)
Of increasing efficient use of oil on our terms and not the worlds.
to be fair|
Posted by: radiomix on Feb-15-14 2:55 PM (EST)
Planes have a high rate of tank failure in an accident too.
What's fair have to do with it?|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-15-14 3:00 PM (EST)
Posted by: radiomix on Feb-15-14 3:20 PM (EST)
How safe is safe? Should skydivers wear three parachutes? The regulators will do what regulators do best.
There are many questions |
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-15-14 3:50 PM (EST)
How risky is risky, how fast is a European swallow?
Posted by: radiomix on Feb-15-14 4:02 PM (EST)
We make them out of diamond coated titanium and hope for the best. Could build a pipeline.
Ahh therein lies a rub|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-15-14 4:28 PM (EST)
Investors need to be confident the oil will flow long enough to justify the capital outlay for a pipeline. It's there for Canadian oil but not fracked Bakken oil. The cool thing is that the utilization of rail cars provides some competition to pipelines and ensures a fairly resilient delivery system.
Posted by: radiomix on Feb-15-14 4:34 PM (EST)
An adamantium train car. Seems to work for Wolverine.
Most Bakken oil|
Posted by: Yakfisher on Feb-15-14 6:07 PM (EST)
is being moved by tanker trucks.
To the railhead|
Posted by: rWVen on Feb-15-14 6:12 PM (EST)
as there is no pipeline infrastructure in the area.
They don't build refineries around|
Posted by: dogmatycus on Feb-16-14 5:07 PM (EST)
"tight" oil supplies. Your information is tainted by activism.
I wasn't talking about refineries|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-16-14 5:42 PM (EST)
There's already an upgrade available;|
Posted by: rWVen on Feb-15-14 3:59 PM (EST)
require crude to be shipped in DOT 112 or 114 railcars. Set a date 2 years from now and the "more" won't amount to much at all.
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-15-14 5:22 PM (EST)
A few billion.
So, problem solved|
Posted by: rWVen on Feb-15-14 5:26 PM (EST)
Tankcar life is measured in decades|
Posted by: rWVen on Feb-15-14 5:44 PM (EST)
amortized over 20 years at 3% that's about $372 million a year. That comes to less than 10 cents per gallon if only added to the price of gasoline, but there are many other products also derived from that crude oil.
I think my math was off|
Posted by: rWVen on Feb-15-14 6:19 PM (EST)
it's actually about 1/10 of 1 cent....
Posted by: rWVen on Feb-23-14 8:53 AM (EST)
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-23-14 9:28 AM (EST)
It's just too bad we're not taking a slice of revenue off this oil for future disruptions in supply.
Posted by: clarion on Feb-23-14 9:29 AM (EST)
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-23-14 9:42 AM (EST)
I'd agree with that|
Posted by: rWVen on Feb-23-14 9:31 AM (EST)
IF that's what the slice would be set aside for. We both know better.
No, "we" don't|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-23-14 9:43 AM (EST)
Present evidence to the contrary|
Posted by: rWVen on Feb-23-14 9:54 AM (EST)
How much of the existing gas tax goes into the general fund? Setting aside money for the future doesn't happen until the existing fiscal house is put in order. Until then it's just more dollars for the rathole.
General fund supplies|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-23-14 10:17 AM (EST)
Highway fund shortfalls. Not vice versa.
At 17 trillion and counting|
Posted by: rWVen on Feb-23-14 10:21 AM (EST)
there's no slice big enough to amount to more than a drop in the bucket. The wealth might as well be in a citizen's hands today.....
Though at 2011 usage levels|
Posted by: rWVen on Feb-23-14 10:26 AM (EST)
an additional $1.00 per gallon would pay off the debt in about 50 years. Except that in 50 years the debt will be greater than 34 trillion if the fiscal house isn't put in order....
To burn up |
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-23-14 10:34 AM (EST)
A strong economy|
Posted by: rWVen on Feb-23-14 10:53 AM (EST)
Allows more people to afford more efficient replacements. The present has to work in order to prepare for the future .
Growth is limited|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-23-14 11:02 AM (EST)
Because of the cost of oil. You don't get to have your strong economy. Sorry.
Maybe Obama should use his |
Posted by: Ayornamut on Feb-23-14 11:05 AM (EST)
phone and pen to declare by executive order that gas prices are fixed at $1 a gallon. You know, to stimulate economic and jobs growth. Because he sure is failing badly at that.
Like maybe Grover Norquist|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-23-14 11:37 AM (EST)
Could tap his heels three times.
No that would be|
Posted by: Ayornamut on Feb-23-14 2:23 PM (EST)
hootchiemamaMichele who would have to tap her heels. Obama has his Magic Phone and Pen, power of 7 if you roll a 9 or above.
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-23-14 2:32 PM (EST)
Well, at least you know|
Posted by: Ayornamut on Feb-23-14 2:44 PM (EST)
who to blame now. Good boy, Lee, good boy!
That's not entirely correct|
Posted by: rWVen on Feb-23-14 4:49 PM (EST)
Expensive energy will limit growth, but we have less expensive energy sources that we don't exploit any longer. Nuclear and coal.
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-23-14 10:44 PM (EST)
Drive your cars, ships, and planes with coal. You. BELIEVE in the free lunch but it doesn't burn shit.
Another country heard from|
Posted by: rWVen on Feb-24-14 6:59 AM (EST)
You gotta fuel your electric car with something.....
US isn't Pakistan|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-24-14 10:07 AM (EST)
And yes it's entirely correct. We have a huge sunk cost in auto based economy that is unsustainable.
Posted by: rWVen on Feb-24-14 10:09 AM (EST)
Another buzzword. How many years have we been hearing that?
I'd like to see some examples |
Posted by: clarion on Feb-24-14 10:19 AM (EST)
... of systems that are "sustainable" in their present form, forever without change.
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-24-14 10:55 AM (EST)
Before you die you maintain your body and health with food, rest, exercise and some care. If you don't get enough rest it becomes an unsustainable behavior and you get sick or fall asleep at the wheel.
Thanks for the examples supporting|
Posted by: clarion on Feb-24-14 11:06 AM (EST)
... my contention
No it doesn't |
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-24-14 11:14 AM (EST)
The term has meaning within a closed system. "Everything" is an attempt to render the word meaningless. Thanking me for something I didn't do is likewise meaningless.
Let's try again.|
Posted by: clarion on Feb-24-14 11:15 AM (EST)
I'd like to see some examples of systems that are "sustainable" in their present form, forever without change.
"Forever" is not a closed system|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-24-14 12:25 PM (EST)
How about putting a time boundary on it?
So "unsustainable" as generally used |
Posted by: clarion on Feb-24-14 12:50 PM (EST)
... is a meaningless term. We agree on that.
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-24-14 12:54 PM (EST)
You are trying to make it meaningless. I provided contexts in which it has meaning and you're non-responsive.
yr an idiot|
Posted by: clarion on Feb-24-14 12:57 PM (EST)
I did respond by agreeing with you.
I didn't agree with you|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-24-14 1:51 PM (EST)
That the term "unsustainable" is meaningless as it is generally used. I used it in context and you tried to say it's meaningless. I tried to engage with you how it has meaning and you created a position for me I didn't make.
What does "sustainabilty" mean|
Posted by: clarion on Feb-24-14 2:09 PM (EST)
... as it is generally used? When I see someone use that term, specifically how should I understand it? Earlier you suggested it might mean 15 years, or it might mean 130 years or so. Or it might mean something else entirely. How should I understand the term when I see it used?
I suggested a limited range of time|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-24-14 2:31 PM (EST)
Rwven's general understanding of "now" made sense and is applicable. Your desire to create a meaningless definition seemed a rhetorical game.
A definition |
Posted by: clarion on Feb-24-14 2:37 PM (EST)
... of sustainable where sustainability is measured against the present is likewise meaningless.
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-24-14 3:20 PM (EST)
Unsustainable means not able to be maintained at the current rate or level. If you're driving 60miles per hour your speed doesn't stop when you measure it in different increments. Why are you trying so hard to render a perfectly useful term meaningless?
I'm sure you find the term "useful"|
Posted by: clarion on Feb-24-14 3:26 PM (EST)
I'm just trying to get you to tell me what it means.
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-24-14 3:31 PM (EST)
And you've yet to supply a correct one|
Posted by: clarion on Feb-24-14 3:32 PM (EST)
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-24-14 3:39 PM (EST)
Get a dictionary if you're so confused about the term. I gave you the definition twice. You prefer a meaningless interpretation for general use and you reject my use as well as a dictionary definition. I even posted lmgtfy link.
Is nuclear power an example |
Posted by: clarion on Feb-24-14 4:02 PM (EST)
... of a sustainable energy supply?
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-24-14 4:13 PM (EST)
Do you accept the dictionary definition I provided?
What's cute about it|
Posted by: clarion on Feb-24-14 4:15 PM (EST)
Does the definition you supplied answer the question of whether nuclear power is sustainable or not?
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-24-14 4:25 PM (EST)
Wouldn't it help if you tell me you accept the generally understood dictionary definition of unsustainable before we continue the conversation given your attempts to render it meaningless, inability to use it correctly or recognize when the definition is given to you twice?
If you need that, sure |
Posted by: clarion on Feb-24-14 4:29 PM (EST)
Let's say I agree with the definition of sustainable you supplied. Now with that out of the way, is nuclear power sustainable?
In order for you to have an argument |
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-24-14 5:26 PM (EST)
you need it. I wouldn't call it sustainable if you attempted a massive replacement of coal and gas with it but it's useful.
Huh? Why are you dancing?|
Posted by: clarion on Feb-24-14 5:33 PM (EST)
Is nuclear power "able to be maintained at the current rate or level" or not?
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-24-14 5:54 PM (EST)
Thanks for recognizing the parameters in sustainability.
Posted by: clarion on Feb-24-14 6:27 PM (EST)
I've never had a problem acknowledging that.
What you mean by "unsustainable"|
Posted by: rWVen on Feb-24-14 11:11 AM (EST)
isn't quite the same thing as what LeeG means. You mean someday, he means now.
He said it's meaningless|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-24-14 12:34 PM (EST)
"Everything is unsustainable"
The star we orbit|
Posted by: rWVen on Feb-24-14 12:42 PM (EST)
We aren't talking about the sun|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-24-14 1:01 PM (EST)
Doesn't take much effort for you to refuse a basic postulate but it sure makes you dance around.
You want "unsustainable"|
Posted by: rWVen on Feb-24-14 1:03 PM (EST)
to be defined only on your own terms. Sorry, I'm not playing.
Get a dictionary|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-24-14 2:18 PM (EST)
I don't see the utility in making meaningless statements. Saying "everything is unsustainable" is meaningless and a way to avoid acknowledging inconvenient facts.
You are the one lacking clarity|
Posted by: rWVen on Feb-24-14 2:37 PM (EST)
To say that our oil based personal transportation based system is "unsustainable" is inaccurate. It can only be sustained for a limited time perhaps, but it is still sustainable up to the point that it is no longer sustainable.
How about this|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-24-14 3:27 PM (EST)
Well look at you|
Posted by: rWVen on Feb-24-14 3:32 PM (EST)
yer starting to sound like a Tea Partier!
No, Baggers are ignorant anarchists|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-24-14 3:42 PM (EST)
Feed the meme|
Posted by: rWVen on Feb-24-14 3:55 PM (EST)
Oddly all the polling shows them to be the most grounded in reality.
Are you and Clarion examples of that?|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-24-14 4:17 PM (EST)
Advocating responsible Constitutionally|
Posted by: rWVen on Feb-24-14 5:32 PM (EST)
limited Government is anarchy! Yer the definer!
In action, in Congress|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-24-14 6:57 PM (EST)
Threatening default was anarchy, on social issues protesting they displayed ignorance.
So trees grow forever to the sky?|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-24-14 10:30 AM (EST)
Our auto centric economy was built on cheap oil, it cannot be run on expensive oil. We could no longer consume 21.5Mbd when the price shot up. That level of consumption is UNSUSTAINABLE.
Funding highways isn't your agenda|
Posted by: rWVen on Feb-24-14 10:57 AM (EST)
Every penny added to the gas tax yields about 1.3 billion dollars per year to the highway fund. A few pennies a gallon is not what you have advocated.
A few pennies won't sustain the fund|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-24-14 12:52 PM (EST)
A few pennies won't encourage greater efficiency. My agenda is a little bigger than a rational fuel tax. A predictable increase would give everyone time to adjust, delay some scheduled increases during price spikes
More efficiency won't sustain the fund|
Posted by: rWVen on Feb-24-14 1:00 PM (EST)
either. You yourself stated that reduced usage due to improved efficiency and the recession is part of the reason the fund is underfunded.
I didn't say that|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-24-14 2:12 PM (EST)
The highway trust is underfunded because the tax isn't indexed to inflation. It may well be full of pork like every other gov't program but one persons pork is another persons local improvement. The fund was running into deficit and revenue from the general fund made up the difference before the recession.
"before the recession"|
Posted by: rWVen on Feb-24-14 2:45 PM (EST)
Like when Reagan, Bush1 and Clinton were allocating some of the funds toward "deficit reduction"?
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-24-14 3:56 PM (EST)
Yes, they realized it needed to be raised until faux fiscal conservatives pandered to people's desire for a free lunch.
Highway Fund Shortfalls|
Posted by: rWVen on Feb-23-14 4:43 PM (EST)
would not exist if a good percentage of the gasoline tax were not allocated to the General Fund.
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-23-14 10:55 PM (EST)
Posted by: rWVen on Feb-24-14 6:48 AM (EST)
That is not the general fund|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-24-14 9:33 AM (EST)
Posted by: rWVen on Feb-24-14 9:36 AM (EST)
I tried to break it down into little bitty pieces in the hope that you might find a clue.
Posted by: rWVen on Feb-24-14 9:38 AM (EST)
What's the dif if the money is being spent on items that should come out of the general fund? Misallocation is misallocation.
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-24-14 9:59 AM (EST)
Is reality. It's a perfectly valid argument that Congressmen allocate money for their constituents that many consider wasteful, that happens across the board.
It's not the case today|
Posted by: rWVen on Feb-24-14 10:07 AM (EST)
How many billions came out of the fund during Reagan, Bush I and Clinton? I've already given you a clue...
The years that 2.5 cents per gallon|
Posted by: rWVen on Feb-24-14 7:11 AM (EST)
The States have every right and power|
Posted by: FishinYak on Feb-24-14 7:18 AM (EST)
to raise their fuel taxes themselves, for their road maintenance. After all, the majority of the users on their roads, are State Residents.
Re. Road wear |
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-24-14 5:46 PM (EST)
It's primarily caused by heavy trucks, the role of passenger vehicles is somewhat insignificant.
Another little white lie|
Posted by: rWVen on Feb-24-14 7:27 AM (EST)
The peak year for gasoline consumption in the US was 2005. The 2008 "reduction" is still about 3.5 billion gallons per year above the 2000 level. Perhaps if the money went to highway infrastructure rather than parking garages, bike paths, advertising......
Infrastructure is more than roads|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-24-14 9:37 AM (EST)
Sure, let's use highway fund|
Posted by: rWVen on Feb-24-14 9:41 AM (EST)
To build power lines! Infrastructure is infrastructure! It's all the same! Everything is everything!
How do expect to get electricity|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-24-14 9:43 AM (EST)
To a highway?
The grid is funded in other ways|
Posted by: rWVen on Feb-24-14 9:54 AM (EST)
And the "highways" buy power from public utilities. Let's stay on topic shall we? I know. It's difficult but give it a try.
How do you get electricity to a highway?|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-24-14 10:19 AM (EST)
Just like drainage, grading, hillside retention these are all a part of infrastructure.
Paid for by public utilities|
Posted by: rWVen on Feb-24-14 10:23 AM (EST)
who are reimbursed by rate payers. Bond issues, loans, that dirty Capitalist stuff....
Shouldn't We Mandate Foolproof|
Posted by: SupremelyArrogant on Feb-24-14 10:53 AM (EST)
Transportation of hazardous materials? Why do rigjties think it's acceptable to poison a limited number of people?