U.S. Energy Secretary favors oil pipelines over rail

[cali]

NEW YORK, Feb 19 (Reuters) - U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz supports reducing the amount of crude oil shipped by rail in favor of pipelines that are safer, cheaper and cleaner, Capital New York reported on Wednesday. -

"What we probably need is more of a pipeline infrastructure and to diminish the need for rail transport over time," he said in an interview published on the Capital New York website.

He said the infrastructure is "not there" to handle the surge in North Dakota Bakken oil production from near zero to 1 million barrels per day (bpd).

"Frankly, I think pipeline transport overall probably has overall a better record in terms of cost, in terms of emissions and in terms of safety."

- See more at: http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/131713/Report_US_Energy_Secretary_Favors_Reducing_Oil_Shipped_By_Rail#sthash.9z3gBbC3.dpuf

[Adrahil]

1. He's right, of course....

... but so many just react viscerally to such things. I mean, I get it. We need to be moving AWAY from fossil fuels. But we're stuck with it in some form or another for another 50 years or so at least.

[cali]

2. I'm conflicted about pipelines.

And why should it take another fucking 50 years? How about actually investing in non-fossil fuels the way we invest in national defense?

[Adrahil]

4. I'm with ya...

On both the conflicted feelings about pipelines and the outrage at our refusal to invest SERIOUSLY in both the research and infrastructure necessary to get us OFF fossil fuels. I work in engineering R&D. Sadly, most of that work is for the DoD (aviation navigation R&D). It's just where the money is in my kind of work. I would GLADLY put my efforts towards developing systems for sustainable energy, or even space exploration. <sigh>

I hope we can turn that corner soon, but until some Republicans die off, I am not hopeful. So, we do the best we can until then.

[kentauros]

8. I'd love to see us invest in alternatives at those levels!

Because one of the biggest hurdles to transitioning to non-fossil fuels is converting our entire automotive fleet to those alternatives. If our nation spent 500 billion (or whatever the cost) to buy up every vehicle and replace it with a new one operating on an alternative, we could transition quickly. I don't see that happening, though. t will be a slow transition as more people can afford those alternatives, and others finally make it into the used stage or lower (a beater electric car?)

[Skink]

3. the rail system provides jobs

[Adrahil]

5. At a higher cost, greater safety risk, and with a bigger carbon footprint. NT

[kentauros]

7. However,

until every single road crossing is dug under the rails with overhead trestles for the rails, all rail-transport will still be far more dangerous to carry liquid fuels than through pipelines.

It's bad enough that we don't insist that all roads go under the rails to avoid collisions to begin with, whether for the immediate safety of people, or to avoid the spilling of all those other nasty chemicals that do get transported by rail.

[H2O Man]

6. Moniz pretends

that there are only two choices. This is, of course, what lying politicians do, in order to feign concern about the environment.