Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
Fast Track To Public Rail Electrification

Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="HarveyK400"]I don't think speed is irrelevant, even in the sustainability mode.  That is the carrot enticing travel mode choices if energy cost is not wildly excessive and rationing is not involved.  The point is achieving a balance that saves some energy overall by diversion to rail, notwithstanding the small proportion of rail.[/quote]   I agree that speed is not irrelevant.  Some degree of speed is essential just to accomplish transportation.  The question is all about how much speed destroys the mission.  I also agree that the higher the speed, the more it will entice people to take the train rather that flying or driving.  But the whole point of doing that is not a private investment wager that high-speed trains will become profitable.  On the contrary, it is a government sector, publicly financed response to a crisis on behalf of the U.S. citizens.  Specifically, the most critical purpose for HSR, which is the reduction of CO2, is intended to avert an incredibly dire catastrophe.  It is not even asked to make a profit, let alone expected to do so.  It is intended to save our lives.   <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p> There are three possible ways to power HSR: <o:p></o:p> 1)      Diesel. 2)      Electricity generated from coal or other fossil fuels. 3)      Electricity generated from renewable sources such as wind and solar. <o:p></o:p> With method #3, no CO2 is produced regardless of train speed, so there is no conflict between speed and CO2 emissions.  With methods #1 and #2, there are CO2 emissions, which rise with train speed.  At the highest speeds contemplated for HSR, trains produce, per passenger mile, CO2 emissions similar to that of flying and driving.  So what would be the point of fossil fueled HSR running at those highest speeds if it fails to reduce the earth’s CO2? <o:p></o:p> With fossil fueled HSR, to the extent it attracts travelers away from air and highway, it succeeds in its mission.  But to the extent that it increases its speed, it fails in its mission.  But then again, to the extent that HSR is fueled by renewable energy, it succeeds at its mission <o:p></o:p> The objective should be to get people to trade air and highway for rail and then to produce as little CO2 as possible.  It is true that rail speed is an enticement for people to ride it, and the train speed needs to be exceptionally high in order to get people to choose it over flying.  High train speed is the carrot all right.  But the government has sticks as well as carrots to get people to behave properly.  The government can give the people the new train as a carrot, and get them to ride it by raising the price of gasoline, as the stick.         Here is a New York Times blog piece that is critical of the green claims for HSR, and it is followed by lots of interesting comments.    <A href="http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/high-speed-rail-and-co2/" mce_href="http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/high-speed-rail-and-co2/">http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/high-speed-rail-and-co2/</A>
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag