Oil train derailment near Mosier

Use this forum to post links to news stories from other websites - ones that other hikers might find interesting. This is not intended for original material or anecdotal information. You can reply to any news stories posted, but do not start a new thread without a link to a specific news story.
Webfoot
Posts: 1186
Joined: November 25th, 2015, 11:06 am
Location: Troutdale

Re: Oil train derailment near Mosier

Post by Webfoot » June 3rd, 2016, 10:35 pm

Charley wrote:
pdxgene wrote: Why can't vehicles get gas mileage multiple times of what they currently get? I drive a 1991 Civic and get 35mpg or so on the freeways. In 25 years think of the technological advances we've made. Yet gas mileage isn't one of them? That's probably not a coincidence..
You're absolutely right! My wife's 2004 Honda Civic gets 35 mpg at the most. My '99 got 45 at the most. How did cars get that much less efficient in five years? My 2001 Tacoma gets 24-26mpg highway at the most. The Tacos from the '90's supposedly get 5mpg better than that. I get so ticked off when I think about all the bad directions we've gone in the last 20 years since we've learned of climate change. I mean, electronic photo frames? Now you have to plug in photos????? Ugh. Consumerism has gone too far for us to survive on this planet.
From what I have read it is safety standards mainly, and expected features secondarily. Cars are much heavier than they once were, but also much safer for occupants, and recent standards even have additional zones for pedestrians. According to Wikipedia the original Mini had a curb weight of 1,360 to 1,512 pounds. You simply cannot build a car like that now, not because the technology is worse but because it would never be allowed on the street. The contemporary Mini has a curb weight of 2,605 to 2,760 pounds. Without regenerative braking there is only so much that can be done to counter that.
Last edited by Webfoot on June 3rd, 2016, 11:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Peder
Posts: 3397
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:02 pm
Location: Lake Oswego

Re: Oil train derailment near Mosier

Post by Peder » June 3rd, 2016, 10:56 pm

pdxgene wrote:Why can't vehicles get gas mileage multiple times of what they currently get? I drive a 1991 Civic and get 35mpg or so on the freeways. In 25 years think of the technological advances we've made. Yet gas mileage isn't one of them? That's probably not a coincidence..
As I see it, it is a question of policy. Energy is dirt cheap here when compared to Europe, in Denmark a gallon of fuel is about $6; making that F350 kind of less attractive as a mode of transportation! Likewise, houses are smaller and much better insulated in Denmark, as otherwise your whole pay would be spent on heating your home. The end result is that the carbon footprint of an average American is about twice that of an European. In Denmark a 1.8 liter car engine is "big"! :shock:
Some people are really fit at eighty; thankfully I still have many years to get into shape…

User avatar
Guy
Posts: 3284
Joined: May 10th, 2009, 4:42 pm
Location: The Foothills of Mt Hood
Contact:

Re: Oil train derailment near Mosier

Post by Guy » June 4th, 2016, 4:52 am

Charley wrote: Why can't vehicles get gas mileage multiple times of what they currently get? I drive a 1991 Civic and get 35mpg or so on the freeways. In 25 years think of the technological advances we've made. Yet gas mileage isn't one of them? That's probably not a coincidence..

You're absolutely right! My wife's 2004 Honda Civic gets 35 mpg at the most. My '99 got 45 at the most. How did cars get that much less efficient in five years? My 2001 Tacoma gets 24-26mpg highway at the most. The Tacos from the '90's supposedly get 5mpg better than that. I get so ticked off when I think about all the bad directions we've gone in the last 20 years since we've learned of climate change. I mean, electronic photo frames? Now you have to plug in photos????? Ugh. Consumerism has gone too far for us to survive on this planet.
Yeah, I had one of those mid 90's Honda Civics until about 8 years ago. It was a stick shift and would get about 38 around town but I could squeeze 50mpg on a trip to Seattle out of it at 60-65mph.

It's my understanding that it's a lot of the new emissions control standards & the methods used to meet them that have reduced MPG which is kind of ironic really!

That and of course diluting gas with corn ethanol, IMHO one of the biggest boondoggles of all time!
hiking log & photos.
Ad monte summa aut mors

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 12760
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: Oil train derailment near Mosier

Post by retired jerry » June 4th, 2016, 6:17 am

I don't think it matters where the oil goes

Oil is a global commodity. If there's not enough, the price will go up everywhere, which will affect us all.

I've always thought it funny they couldn't just ship Alaska oil to Japan and use Mexican oil in the U.S., which would be more efficient.

Abrupt change in oil supply will cause large increase in price which will be very disruptive. There may be backlash that will actually slow down the swicth from oil.

Better to make slower changes. Not that our current pace of change shouldn't be increased.

Like there should be federal program to use natural gas for trucking. This is technically possible, but it's too difficult to get the infrastructure up to make the switch.

mreha
Posts: 81
Joined: July 26th, 2015, 7:51 pm
Location: Portland

Re: Oil train derailment near Mosier

Post by mreha » June 4th, 2016, 7:03 am

There are national security / foreign policy reasons why many politicians want to increase domestic oil production. We actually get a relatively small part of our oil from the Middle East, but that's usually the justification given.

There are also different types of crude oil, and most refineries in the US are set up to process one particular type (heavy). So the argument is that it's much more efficient to export the oil that we produce that's the "wrong" type and import the "right" type than it is to revamp our infrastructure to allow processing of the "wrong" type.

A lot of the regulations on export of crude oil have been lifted recently, so unfortunately we can definitely expect to see a lot more domestic production and export, and undoubtedly more accidents like this will follow... :(

Steve20050
Posts: 395
Joined: November 12th, 2009, 8:06 pm

Re: Oil train derailment near Mosier

Post by Steve20050 » June 4th, 2016, 2:42 pm

Guy wrote:
Charley wrote:<br abp="879">Why can't vehicles get gas mileage multiple times of what they currently get? I drive a 1991 Civic and get 35mpg or so on the freeways. In 25 years think of the technological advances we've made. Yet gas mileage isn't one of them? That's probably not a coincidence..<br abp="880"><br abp="881">You're absolutely right! My wife's 2004 Honda Civic gets 35 mpg at the most. My '99 got 45 at the most. How did cars get that much less efficient in five years? My 2001 Tacoma gets 24-26mpg highway at the most. The Tacos from the '90's supposedly get 5mpg better than that. I get so ticked off when I think about all the bad directions we've gone in the last 20 years since we've learned of climate change. I mean, electronic photo frames? Now you have to plug in photos????? Ugh. Consumerism has gone too far for us to survive on this planet.
<br abp="882"><br abp="883">Yeah, I had one of those mid 90's Honda Civics until about 8 years ago. It was a stick shift and would get about 38 around town but I could squeeze 50mpg on a trip to Seattle out of it at 60-65mph.<br abp="884"><br abp="885">It's my understanding that it's a lot of the new emissions control standards & the methods used to meet them that have reduced MPG which is kind of ironic really! <br abp="886"><br abp="887">That and of course diluting gas with corn ethanol, IMHO one of the biggest boondoggles of all time!
And recently in AZ I had a speed limit of 75 and of course people were driving 80 which is also legal in other places. What happened to the 55 mph?
retired jerry wrote:I don't think it matters where the oil goes<br abp="813"><br abp="814">Oil is a global commodity. If there's not enough, the price will go up everywhere, which will affect us all.<br abp="815"><br abp="816">I've always thought it funny they couldn't just ship Alaska oil to Japan and use Mexican oil in the U.S., which would be more efficient.<br abp="817"><br abp="818">Abrupt change in oil supply will cause large increase in price which will be very disruptive. There may be backlash that will actually slow down the swicth from oil.<br abp="819"><br abp="820">Better to make slower changes. Not that our current pace of change shouldn't be increased.<br abp="821"><br abp="822">Like there should be federal program to use natural gas for trucking. This is technically possible, but it's too difficult to get the infrastructure up to make the switch.
I believe a large amount of our oil is from Mexico. About the same as we get from Saudi Arabia. Then there is Venezuela :shock:

Obviously OPEC is keeping prices lower to keep us from more local production. What were those internet arguments we just had to live thru about Buffet oil trains or Koch brothers oil ad nausea, keystone pipeline and safety. I don't think some folks realize that it was only phase 4 that got canceled. The American oil does already enter the system and flood south for export. Just slower than would be if they had built phase four. It does produce jobs in refinery of products. One can only wish for more of this with our log exports from private lands.
kepPNW wrote:
adamschneider wrote:(By the way, what's the alternative to shipping oil on trains through the Gorge: sending it through Snoqualmie Pass? Donner Pass? The Panama Canal?)
Best alternative is leaving it in the fracking ground! (At least until we burn up everyone else's.)
Thanks Karl :lol:

User avatar
sgyoung
Posts: 317
Joined: November 3rd, 2013, 7:30 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Oil train derailment near Mosier

Post by sgyoung » June 4th, 2016, 4:13 pm

adamschneider wrote:
retired jerry wrote:maybe enough land between it and the river so there won't be oil in the river
That was my thought, unless it gets into Rock Creek (which may or may not have water in it right now).
Oil in the Columbia now, it seems: Link

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 12760
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: Oil train derailment near Mosier

Post by retired jerry » June 4th, 2016, 4:29 pm

That's too bad oil in Columbia. Could have been worse. Maybe this will be wakeup call before a worse disaster.

"The American oil does already enter the system and flood south for export. Just slower than would be if they had built phase four"

Yeah, rather than pipeline they use oil trains.

User avatar
Waffle Stomper
Posts: 3577
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: Oil train derailment near Mosier

Post by Waffle Stomper » June 4th, 2016, 4:29 pm

Charley wrote:
You're absolutely right! My wife's 2004 Honda Civic gets 35 mpg at the most. My '99 got 45 at the most. How did cars get that much less efficient in five years? My 2001 Tacoma gets 24-26mpg highway at the most. The Tacos from the '90's supposedly get 5mpg better than that. I get so ticked off when I think about all the bad directions we've gone in the last 20 years since we've learned of climate change. I mean, electronic photo frames? Now you have to plug in photos????? Ugh. Consumerism has gone too far for us to survive on this planet.
Where's the like button?
"When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe." - John Muir

User avatar
BigBear
Posts: 1614
Joined: October 1st, 2009, 11:54 am

Re: Oil train derailment near Mosier

Post by BigBear » June 6th, 2016, 11:08 am

Getting back on the topic of oil trains...

I can't believe that the railroad is running trains through Mosier without first removing the oil cars. If the cars are too hot to move, all the more reason not to run trains. I know that money is the big motivation for the trains running, but there is some money sitting on the shoulder of the tracks in all of that oil.

Well, safety first, right? Oh, my mistake, the list was upside down.

Post Reply