I don't know what the difference is between biodiesel and renewable diesel. But converting a diesel refinery process to renewable diesel sounds like it is very capital intensive and a losing proposition at that.

"A hydrotreater that operates at 50,000 bpd for petroleum diesel production may only be able to accommodate 5,000 bpd of fresh feed when converted to renewable diesel."

https://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/m ... oT8HGqF75Q

We are going to be dependent on fossil fuels for decades longer then the left wants. America would be much better off, if the government would just fund basic research. We are dependent on the policies and ideology of who is in the White House, the DC bureaucrats and woke Wall Street bankers. That only magnifies what is happening internationally.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gene ... inter.html

I bet there are more than a few people on this forum wondering when to buy, how much to buy and the cost of filling their diesel tanks before next spring.

From what I've read, biodiesel is the result of chemical processes on organic matter; where as "renewable' means derived from something else-but I'm not sure, so I leave it to chemical engineers to answer definitively.

Wow. Just wow. I really hope you never have a stroke but if you do then the people around you are better people than you are.

I would think that if someone has a stroke, that they have enough cognitive ability left to know that they would be unable to undertake a high stress, high demand job. in this case, the seat was more important than the person. Soon enough Fetterman will be replaced by someone that nobody voted for to serve out the term.

Here in Struthers, OH Pilot has a DEF transload facility. Usually there are three to four tankcars on their siding. A few weeks ago there were 13 cars on their siding, the maximum that it would hold. I think Pilot made a big buy probably securing what they could before an impending DEF shortage materializes.

As for diesel, anyone who thinks that the current supply situation is not a crisis is not living in reality. If we are down to 25 days supply with all refineries running at beyond nameplate capacity, that supply chain is wound up so tight that even a small nick may cause it to snap. We are playing a dangerous game here with this artificially created energy crisis.

The danger is real. It is not something ginned up for an election.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/30/diesel-market-in-perfect-storm-as-prices-surge-and-supplies-dwindle.html

I’m going rescind part of my statement about refining capacity. I hadn’t checked this data in over a year and just made assumptions. So, I educated myself a bit.

The Phillips Alliance refinery is NOT going to restart since having hurricane flood damage in 2021. That’s a big hit.

The LyondellBasell (ex-ARCO) Houston refinery is for sale but needs a huge investment to modernize. Nobody wants to buy it yet because of said investment so it’ll be shut down next year to process recycled plastics unless sold. That’s gonna be another big hit.

Phillips Rodeo refinery is converting to biofuel refining (a potential alternative?).

Some of the other big players are expanding capacity a bit and there are a few small refiners coming online but possibly not enough to offset the loss of the Alliance refinery alone.

Part of the “problem” is the drive of the refiners to reduce carbon footprint. Over the long run that’s a good thing, but the same drive hasn’t really trickled down to the consumers in a meaningful way yet. Less gasoline demand leaves more space for diesel when cracking crude. Still, that’s not much more than a temporary solution.

Globally, big producers would rather sell refined product as it carries a higher profit margin. Asian refiners are concentrating on their own area and Africa. The Saudis sell to the highest bidder which puts us in competition with Europe. The big expected jump in ARAMCO crude pricing didn’t happen but production quotas were reduced thus squeezing supply. We’ll see how that works out but I think we know already….

Yeah, it’s gonna be bumpy for a while…..

It's not what you think.

He's not referencing Fetterman.

Some Pennsylvanians LITERALLY VOTED FOR A DEAD MAN.

https://sports.yahoo.com/dead-man-wins- ... 00772.html



And this has happened in Pennsylvania before.

So the joke becomes which is worse: A party whose members elect dead or brain-damaged/senile people to high office (with the help of "dead people's votes"), or a party that can't come up with a candidate to beat dead/brain/damaged people. And the Babylon Bee satire site ran with that yesterday.

https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews ... gulations/
"At a rail industry conference, representatives of four major companies building locomotives in the U.S. agreed the diesel’s days as the primary source of locomotive power are numbered, although its replacement or replacements are yet to be determined."

The standard way for me to shut up any complainers is to say:

"Propose a viable alternative."

It appears the "viable" part has yet to be nailed down here, absent manipulations (economic, regulatory, or moral appeal) in the current relevant factors involved.

This is what pisses me off about you: your reflexive thinly veiled personal animus couched in sanctimonious indignation. As a matter of fact, I am familiar with strokes, because my father had one before a coupe months before he died. Thanks to intensive occupational therapy he was on the road to going home, despite being 88, diabetic, experiencing mid stage dementia and having congestive heart issues-before ultimately succumbing to a heart attack. Despite the other issues, he regained the ability to speak (some) in a few weeks.

My wife, an RN experienced with stoke victims told me the things she observed in Fetterman would make her report his condition to neurology if he was a patient in her care. She simply doesn't understand why his family doesn't insist that he get the therapy and time to recover. That's a more or less expert opinion, but any objective person can see there's a problem.

When we're hiring a Senator, we're hiring people for the chamber of the Congress that is distinguished by the unlimited debate; the ability to speak at length is a job requirement. There's an enormous volume of complex issues that come before you. The parliamentary procedure and rules they observe is in itself a daunting thing to somebody without prior legislative experience.

There's a time you need to put your health ahead of vain ambition. I skipped out on the 2019 season because I had a received a C diagnosis three months after my Das passed. I knew I wasn't fit for the job. I don't know if I would have returned in 2020 after getting the all clear absent COVID, so I understand subordinating ambition to health-and the difficulty in acknowledging personal morbidity.

Better people don't let you ignore serious health issues. He should be in rehab, not in the Senate.

Now you want to complain about my position on the election of the dead guy?

And let's also remember, government regulators aren't exactly people who understand diminishing or even decreasing marginal returns or the law of unintended consequences in their regulatory zeal.

Regarding alternatives, remember when Alco-GE was floating concept art for nuclear powered locomotives, and the small nuclear reactor that Alco built to power Camp Century? That ended in a hurry when the consequences of a potential accident with a reactor in a railroad application were better understood.

PC

The 'near' future is battery-hybrid locomotives; one or two diesels to a battery locomotive with appropriate mother-slug connections. IF appropriate carrier-hydrogen provisions are made (involving government subsidy) and IF the experiments with hydrogen fuel-cell charging of battery locomotives (note I did NOT say hydrogen fuel-cell locomotives) works at larger scale, expect to see them rolled out, probably first in "key" districts overly concerned about carbon emissions.

Stage two is that a logical use for a battery locomotive is the pickup for 'punctate' electrification, where segments are built out and electrified before the whole route is complete, and the consists operate as 'dual-mode-lite' as in the Conrail study as more mileage gets subsidized or incentivized. (This also deals at the source with some of the operating problems of 25kV or higher electrification with restricted clearance under bridges or in tunnels.) There are operating advantages to this sort of arrangement that go beyond "saving the planet" or whatever. (This might be a logical place to quip that France has operated nuclear-powered high-speed trains for quite some time.)

From what I've read in technical literature, B100 biodiesel is not that difficult to make and refine, hydrotreating issues or not; that doesn't substitute for all diesel but should easily accommodate railroad contracts if necessary. I don't look at that as a 'replacement' but it is an alternative if executed correctly... not that it would be.

Meanwhile, LNG with B100 as 5% promoter works just fine in diesel engines, and all that is needed is for some common sense regarding LNG safety issues in accidents. There are engine designs for cryomethane/LNG without promotion, but they aren't compatible with unmodified engines.


Since this should have a preservation focus: something I haven't seen emphasized yet is the use of renewables for lube oil, the kind that some operations clean up and burn in steam locomotives. I don't see the market for this 'fuel' going out of sight, although it may be restricted once 'sealed-for-life' battery-electric car transmissions become the principal source.

Unless someone develops a completely yet unthought of new energy source that packs the same btu punch as diesel VERY SOON, there are no alternatives to diesel locomotives aside from what Overmod proposes.

Reducing carbon emissions where practical may be a good thing, but going way off the deep end to replace things that cannot be replaced in order to push toward Net Zero is what is going to cause way more damage and destruction than any climate change ever could. Just like with PSR, govt. mandates technologies that do not exist and expects the industry to just pull something out of their rears that works. They were able to squeak out something that sorta works with regards to PSR, but inventing an entirely new "holy grail" of an energy source that is as powerful as diesel but without emissions is an entirely different matter. People the world over have only been searching for that magic energy source forever...

Here’s an interesting analysis of the our current diesel situation by Alex Epstein. While many of the points made regard political decisions, the points are not partisan, so hopefully it’s acceptable for inclusion here.

https://alexepstein.substack.com/p/our- ... dium=email

Epstein is the author of the book “Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas--Not Less”. His observation is that almost all discussions of fossil fuels only address their downsides, and completely ignore their profound benefits. Any rational discussion of the use of fossil fuels used in determining our energy policies should compare the pluses and minuses.