4 ms·

How else should it be transported? By truck?

beebmam 4y ago
By truck (or by plane!) sounds even more dangerous, to me
anonymouskimmer 4y ago
The conventional alternative are pipelines, but for small loads such as vinyl chloride they would likely be problematic even ignoring the likelihood of eventual leaks. A better alternative is to keep using trains, but have sufficient protection built in to survive a derailment and fires.
- bagels 4y ago
  It's going to take a lot of pipelines to transport every hazardous substance this way.
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    I think there are ways to use a single pipeline for multiple kinds of loads (in serial), but yeah a bunch of new pipelines would be needed to get the loads to a bunch of new places.
    - BlueTemplar 4y ago
      Like this one ? https://channelnz.com/what-we-do/terminal-pipeline-services https://channelnz.com/what-we-do/terminal-pipeline-services Not sure how dangerous it would be though to have one transport wildly different chemicals...
    - giardini 4y ago
      "single pipeline for multiple kinds of loads (in serial)" <--recipe for pipeline explosion. Who wants a pipeline behind their home that transports chlorine gas one hour and ethylene gas the next?
- mindslight 4y ago
  All but one vinyl chloride tank did survive the derailment intact! Vinyl chloride is a gas at standard temperature and pressure, and so AFAICT it's transported in insulated tanks, staying cool enough throughout its journey to be at a manageable pressure (<~200psi). The adjacent fire meant the clock was ticking on how long before it would rise in pressure and be vented through the tanks' relief valves. It was then a deliberate decision to preemptively vent the tanks and burn the contents. A lot of hubbub is being made about the chemical, but in the gamut of chemistry it's really not that bad of a chemical nor are its combustion products, at least as far what has been demonstrated. I'm not throwing that out there as a justification for deliberately releasing industrial quantities of chemicals into the environment (including residential areas), but rather examining the decision process. An alternative approach would have been bringing in mobile chillers and replacement tank cars to cool and recover the vinyl chloride. But of course that would have cost more than simply discarding the product. Everyone is talking about railroad safety, and that needs addressing for sure. But the situation with the vinyl chloride specifically was a direct result of a deliberate decision, and not accidental. If we want this decision process to be different in the future, then we need to focus on that.
  - Gibbon1 4y ago
    > it's really not that bad of a chemical nor are its combustion products Dioxins are a result of low temperature burning of chlorinated hydrocarbons.
    - mindslight 4y ago
      The article touches on that, but I haven't seen any mention of testing revealing a large number of dioxins. That's why I hedged with "as far as what has been demonstrated". I can totally see the scenario where the people signing off on the burn look at the ideal combustion products (only CO2, H2O, and a little HCl), while a much more imperfect burn creates a bunch of other crap, that becomes significant due to the quantities involved. FWIW do you know which dioxins are possible? The only specifics I've seen seemed to be people fearmongering about things like 2,3,7,8-TCDD, which seemed implausible to form from vinyl chloride, at least as far as my rudimentary knowledge of ochem would suggest.
deelowe 4y ago
Require it to be produced on site just like many other hazardous chemicals.
- quickthrowman 4y ago
  How do you get the precursor chemicals on-site? At some point, something needs to be transported.
  - deelowe 4y ago
    Obviously, you produce the less hazardous precursors off premises.
    - quickthrowman 4y ago
      What if the precursors are more dangerous? Chlorine is a precursor to Vinyl Chloride and is far more dangerous than Vinyl Chloride.

By truck (or by plane!) sounds even more dangerous, to me

The conventional alternative are pipelines, but for small loads such as vinyl chloride they would likely be problematic even ignoring the likelihood of eventual leaks. A better alternative is to keep using trains, but have sufficient protection built in to survive a derailment and fires.

bagels 4y ago
It's going to take a lot of pipelines to transport every hazardous substance this way.
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  I think there are ways to use a single pipeline for multiple kinds of loads (in serial), but yeah a bunch of new pipelines would be needed to get the loads to a bunch of new places.
  - BlueTemplar 4y ago
    Like this one ? https://channelnz.com/what-we-do/terminal-pipeline-services https://channelnz.com/what-we-do/terminal-pipeline-services Not sure how dangerous it would be though to have one transport wildly different chemicals...
  - giardini 4y ago
    "single pipeline for multiple kinds of loads (in serial)" <--recipe for pipeline explosion. Who wants a pipeline behind their home that transports chlorine gas one hour and ethylene gas the next?
mindslight 4y ago
All but one vinyl chloride tank did survive the derailment intact! Vinyl chloride is a gas at standard temperature and pressure, and so AFAICT it's transported in insulated tanks, staying cool enough throughout its journey to be at a manageable pressure (<~200psi). The adjacent fire meant the clock was ticking on how long before it would rise in pressure and be vented through the tanks' relief valves. It was then a deliberate decision to preemptively vent the tanks and burn the contents. A lot of hubbub is being made about the chemical, but in the gamut of chemistry it's really not that bad of a chemical nor are its combustion products, at least as far what has been demonstrated. I'm not throwing that out there as a justification for deliberately releasing industrial quantities of chemicals into the environment (including residential areas), but rather examining the decision process. An alternative approach would have been bringing in mobile chillers and replacement tank cars to cool and recover the vinyl chloride. But of course that would have cost more than simply discarding the product. Everyone is talking about railroad safety, and that needs addressing for sure. But the situation with the vinyl chloride specifically was a direct result of a deliberate decision, and not accidental. If we want this decision process to be different in the future, then we need to focus on that.
- Gibbon1 4y ago
  > it's really not that bad of a chemical nor are its combustion products Dioxins are a result of low temperature burning of chlorinated hydrocarbons.
  - mindslight 4y ago
    The article touches on that, but I haven't seen any mention of testing revealing a large number of dioxins. That's why I hedged with "as far as what has been demonstrated". I can totally see the scenario where the people signing off on the burn look at the ideal combustion products (only CO2, H2O, and a little HCl), while a much more imperfect burn creates a bunch of other crap, that becomes significant due to the quantities involved. FWIW do you know which dioxins are possible? The only specifics I've seen seemed to be people fearmongering about things like 2,3,7,8-TCDD, which seemed implausible to form from vinyl chloride, at least as far as my rudimentary knowledge of ochem would suggest.

deelowe 4y ago

Require it to be produced on site just like many other hazardous chemicals.

quickthrowman 4y ago
How do you get the precursor chemicals on-site? At some point, something needs to be transported.
- deelowe 4y ago
  Obviously, you produce the less hazardous precursors off premises.
  - quickthrowman 4y ago
    What if the precursors are more dangerous? Chlorine is a precursor to Vinyl Chloride and is far more dangerous than Vinyl Chloride.