Wouldn’t hydrogen be great?
The news article “Study reviews risks of fuel-laden trains” in the Feb. 23 edition of the Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette had some alarming data that did not get the attention it deserves.
The article states that the federal government predicts trains hauling crude oil or ethanol will derail an average of 10 times a year over the next two decades, causing more than $4 billion in damage, and costing possibly hundreds of lives. A July 2013 oil train explosion in Quebec alone killed 47 people with estimated damages of $1.2 billion. If such an explosion happened in a densely populated area of the United States, the cost could be much higher.
This shows climate change is not the only reason to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. The debate over the Keystone XL pipeline does not consider there is no risk-free way to transport fossil fuels.
There is certainly concern that conversion to alternative forms of energy would cause economic disruption. However, while there would be winners and losers, studies have shown a carbon fee and dividend system would keep our economy even while reducing emissions and saving lives.
On a related issue, the Feb. 26 issue of the Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette business section carried an article on hydrogen-powered cars to be produced by Toyota. If hydrogen production and infrastructure issues could be resolved, what would be better than using a fuel resulting in water for emissions?
ROBERT BROWN
Bella Vista