Electrification in North America

[DMUinCT]

  Wow, that's a good electric rate!

  My bill from Connecticut Light & Power shows a "Generation Rate" of .1178 cents per kWh, and then adds Delivery Service: Customer Service Charge .0205 cents, Combined Public Benefits Charge .0050 cents, CTA Charge .0105 cents, FMCC Delivery Charge .0051 cents.

That's 0.1589 per kWh!!! 

  As for stringing Catenary, that Union Electrician that was paid $20 an hour in 1980 now gets $50 an hour.   When you scale up, include material and labor increases or you may be a very, very low bidded.

 

[eolafan]

You guys are giving he one heck of a headache.

[ndbprr]

Which BNSF line are you talking about be electrified?  I doubt it could be done even if they wanted to.  It cost the PRR 350 million to do what they did in the 1930s.  Where would the power alone come from?  You can't build a new power station in the US.  It might harm the mosquitos or some other absurd creature.  The permits alone take at least ten years and then subject to government regulations which haven't even been thought of yet.  Should it be done is far different from can it be done and I don't think it could.  Where would they get the financing in the present state of banking? 

[tdmidget]

Sol, the oil in transformers is the cleanest money can buy. It is about the same vicosity as diesel and extraordirily pure , thus it's dielectric properties. PCBs haven't been used in 30 years. The reason for high voltage in transmission lines is primarily to allow smaller conductors.

Lee, the term "3rd rail" is a misnomer. This not a rail like a model train set, but a copper based conductor shrouded in an insulated housing. If you are familiar with industrial overhead cranes it very similar to the conductors used there.It is dangerous, at 600v DC it will usually cause horrible burns. The higher AC voltages are much worse. Sort of like the telephone ads used to say "reach out and touch someone". They could arc several feet and death is almost certain.

[rrnut282]

I have suggested that the cost of catenary could be minimized by initally supporting it on wood poles as did the Milwaukee Road. Later on as these required replacing steel support structures could be installed. By that time the cost of the initial installation would have been recovered just through fuel savings and the ongoing profits could easily fund the upgrade.

It may be a crazy idea but I wonder if it would be at all feasable to electrify using trolley wire vs catenary and trolley poles vs pantographs. This would certainly minimize the initial cost. I lack the expertise to really evaluate this but I do know that the Illinois Terminal ran 60 car freight trains using such a system so it might be a possibile low cost option.

Mark

I'm not sure that the cost difference of wood vs. steel poles would be a real factor.  Direct suspension would use less wire but would not be practicable.  Direct suspension wire is more difficult to keep level and is therefore not good at high speed.  Catenary is better suited for high speed since the contact wire is supported from more points than direct suspension and is easier to keep level.  Compound catenary is even better in this regard.

Trolley pole vs. pantograph is similar.  Pantographs have a wider contact shoe and are less prone to dewiring.  More current can be drawn through a pantograph than a trolley pole.  ITC and CNS&M freight motors had double trolley poles to draw enough current, GN electrics had bus bars to allow one pantograph to feed multiple motors.  Pantographs can run in either direction, trolley poles can't.

Back in the 40s the Indiana Railroad was able to run their interurban cars in either direction, at speed, with either trolley pole up.  They used a patened shoe to reduce the wear on the wire when going in the "wrong" direction.

[rrnut282]

 

Why are we stuck on copper as the conductor for overhead?  If it's too expensive, don't use it.  Aluminum, steel, gold, nickel , silver or just about any other conductive metal will work, though not interchangably.  They may wear faster or require a different tension and support system, but those are minor engineering considerations.

As for the argument about transmission loses making it necessary for multiple power plants I ask why?  Except for a peaking plant that is on a long-distance high-tension transmission line, the closest power plant to my house is around 100 miles and it's owned by another power company.  My point is long distance transmission of electrical power happens every day.  It's not a show stopper, like it is portrayed on these pages.

Copper is usually the best conductor.  Aluminum is cheaper, but it is softer and it doesn't conduct as well.  Silver is even better than copper, but that has a tendancy to get stolen.  What would be a really neat idea is if someone (one hell of a chemist) could make superconductors that could be drawn into a wire and operate at room temperature.  Right now, superconductors have to be chilled to a very low temperature (think Kelvin, not Celsius) and when they get down that low they are very brittle - the biggest hindrance to making them in to wires which by their nature must be flexible. 

If someone could perfect superconductor technology, the electric grid in this country would see a rebirth and railroads in particular could take a serious look at elctrification.  Just think - a Little Joe operating over 1000 miles of electrified railroad on 480V AC motors.  Currently this is impossible, but with superconductors they could do all that and more. 

For what it's worth, superconductors would also eliminate a large portion of wasted electricity.  We have to bump up the voltage to eliminate loss over long distances of wire, and all those transformers chew up a lot of aluminum.  They are also filled with an oil that isn't too good for the environment.  Although high voltage minimizes loss, there are still losses associate with transformers, line loss, line capacitance, line inductance, all kinds of things. 

Could be a good idea, anyway.

IIRC, gold and silver both are better conductors than copper.  Copper was the obvious choice due to cost and availablility.  Now that the price of copper has gone up, it may not be the obvious choice it once was.  Just because we used it in the past, doesn't mean we HAVE to use it now. 

Electric companies use high voltage lines for long distance transmission because it lowers the current needed to transmit the power.  Current times resistance equals voltage drop.  The lower the current (and the higher the voltage to conserve energy), the lower the loss. 

 

[Norman Saxon]

Two things I will offer:

1. Adjusted for inflation, todays gasoline (and diesel) are very close to what they were in 1981; which reinforces the point made above that these can and will adjust.

I have virtually no experience with economics but I've heard this argument before and have never understood it or really believed it.  And here's why:

                          1981                2008

Minimum Wage:     $3.35               $6.55

Gallon of Gas:         $1.38               $5.00 and rising fast.  

% Gas to Wage:     41%                 76% 

I doubt if an average wage earner would agree with your statement.

Wayne 

Since we've elected to inject economics into this discussion, here's a quick reminder:  The minimum wage is an arbitrary number used by politicians to show how much they "care" about their constituents, but in reality does nothing except bar entry into the workforce by young adults aka high school kids trying to get their first part time job.  If we really cared about helping our young people obtain their first job experience, we'd eliminate the mininum wage and let them bargain with their prospective employers for a labor contract acceptable to both parties.  In fact, it is likely, given the fact that our ecomomy has been at full employment (most economists define full employment as an umemployment rate of around 7% or less) for several decades now, if the minimum wage were eliminated, real entry level wages might actually rise!

Also, the minimum wage is not an indicator of real average wages as you infer.

Finally, the fact that you folks in SF are paying close to $5.00 a gallon while the rest of the nation is paying around $3.50 a gallon is frankly an indictment of your State government.  If you really want change, you might think of starting there instead of trying to drag the rest of the nation into your socio-economic morass.

That being said, I do agree with your statement that the average wage earner is clueless when it comes to our nation's economic machine.  How else do you explain why they vote in people who think the way to lower gas prices is to eliminate tax breaks for domestic oil production and start taxing so-called "excess" profits of oil companies?  If not from oil companies, where else are we going to get our transportation fuels?  I don't see Google or Yahoo! building any new oil wells or refineries.  How about taxing their excess profits?

As for electrification, not going to happen.  We're more likely to return to reciprocating steam.......

[nanaimo73]

  Where would the power alone come from?  You can't build a new power station in the US.

It would be interesting to see how much power it would take to operate the busiest 25,000 miles of America's railroads, and compare that number to the required increase in electrical consumption that is going to take place in the USA over the next 20 years anyway.

[al-in-chgo]

  Where would the power alone come from?  You can't build a new power station in the US.

It would be interesting to see how much power it would take to operate the busiest 25,000 miles of America's railroads, and compare that number to the required increase in electrical consumption that is going to take place in the USA over the next 20 years anyway.

 

It would indeed!  And while the facts are probably out there that would allow us to compare apples with applies (i.e., MWh increase for electrified RR's vs. MWh increase for home [and/or industry] use), I myself haven't a clue to find them, much less "purify" them to make sure it is really apples and not Golden Delicous vs. Granny Smith. 

 

[Phoebe Vet]

Michael:

While you are quoting oil company propaganda try something different.

Instead of quoting AVERAGE wage, why don't you quote MEDIAN wage?  When you compute averages, one guy making 14 million dollars a year and 100 guys making 10,000 a year gives you an average wage of 148,000 a year.  Median wage means half of all wage earners earn that number or less.  In this example, 10,000.

Then, when you compare the price of gas now and then, compare the price on March 19th, 2003, the day before the invasion of one of the major oil producers with the price today.

Then throw in the freefalling value of the dollar caused by the staggering national debt and the constant reductions of the Fed rates, which is another way of saying "the printing of more money", and you pretty much have a perfect storm.

[MichaelSol]

Instead of quoting AVERAGE wage, why don't you quote MEDIAN wage? 

Because I was responding to a comment about "average" wage, not a comment about "median" wage.

Since you brought it up, median wage is interesting. The ratio of median wage to average wage, a surrogate for income equality was 71% in 1979, rose to its highest (least inequality) under Reagan when it averaged 74%, declined to an average of 72% under Bush I, dropped to 67.9% the last year of the Clinton Administration, rose again under Bush II to 69.45%, and at the last report, was 67.13%. Overall, under Reagan, although the ratio reached its highest, it also declined overall 2.65% from the high, but the lowest level of income inequality was achieved under Ronald Reagan. Under Clinton, the decline was 4%. Under Bush II, 1.79%. The decline during the Clinton years represents the creation of the most wage inequality of the past five administrations; under Bush II, the least.

Yet, under Reagan and Bush there were deficits. Under Clinton generally there were none, yet the greatest income inequality spread occured then. Why? Well, I don't know, but you have a theory. The interpretation of the identical data usually seems to depend on who you voted for and this apparently extends to fuel costs as well. What was Nancy Pelosi's 2006 gas plan that promised to reduce gas prices anyway?

Well, in the context of "interpreting" the effect of inflation and high energy prices, the problem with electrification is that the sure cure for high prices is high prices, and electrification would remain a risky bet because of that and it has nothing to do with budget deficits, median wages, or "oil company propaganda".

 

[sfcouple]

Two things I will offer:

1. Adjusted for inflation, todays gasoline (and diesel) are very close to what they were in 1981; which reinforces the point made above that these can and will adjust.

I have virtually no experience with economics but I've heard this argument before and have never understood it or really believed it.  And here's why:

                          1981                2008

Minimum Wage:     $3.35               $6.55

Gallon of Gas:         $1.38               $5.00 and rising fast.  

% Gas to Wage:     41%                 76% 

I doubt if an average wage earner would agree with your statement.

Wayne 

Since we've elected to inject economics into this discussion, here's a quick reminder:  The minimum wage is an arbitrary number used by politicians to show how much they "care" about their constituents, but in reality does nothing except bar entry into the workforce by young adults aka high school kids trying to get their first part time job.  If we really cared about helping our young people obtain their first job experience, we'd eliminate the mininum wage and let them bargain with their prospective employers for a labor contract acceptable to both parties.  In fact, it is likely, given the fact that our ecomomy has been at full employment (most economists define full employment as an umemployment rate of around 7% or less) for several decades now, if the minimum wage were eliminated, real entry level wages might actually rise!

Also, the minimum wage is not an indicator of real average wages as you infer.

Finally, the fact that you folks in SF are paying close to $5.00 a gallon while the rest of the nation is paying around $3.50 a gallon is frankly an indictment of your State government.  If you really want change, you might think of starting there instead of trying to drag the rest of the nation into your socio-economic morass.

That being said, I do agree with your statement that the average wage earner is clueless when it comes to our nation's economic machine.  How else do you explain why they vote in people who think the way to lower gas prices is to eliminate tax breaks for domestic oil production and start taxing so-called "excess" profits of oil companies?  If not from oil companies, where else are we going to get our transportation fuels?  I don't see Google or Yahoo! building any new oil wells or refineries.  How about taxing their excess profits?

As for electrification, not going to happen.  We're more likely to return to reciprocating steam.......

You might want to consider spending more time reading what I actually said and less time bashing California's "socio-economic morass."

Minimum wage:  I get it.  My apologies for not being well versed in economic dynamics.  I've spend my adult life in scientific research and I'll leave the economic mumbo jumbo to experts like yourself.

And how can you agree with my statement that the "average wage earner is clueless......"?  I never said that.  If I'm going to be quoted, at least be accurate, you were actually quoting Rush Limbaugh...oops I mean Michael Sol.

It is very comforting to know you are sympathetic to Oil Companies lack of sufficient funds to engage in oil exploration.  You're right, the Oil Companies actually need more tax cuts or perhaps we should just eliminate all corporate taxes.  However, why do you and Michael Sol both ignore something I did say?  Let me repeat it again:  When our current President took office the price for a barrel of crude oil was about $25. Today it is $100 higher!  Why?  Let me guess your answer:  It's Bill Clinton's fault.   

You're fortunate to be paying 'only' $3.50/gallon for gas, and if you are satisfied with our current economic health and vitality please vote to maintain the status quo.  You will be pleased to know that I will be taking  your sound advice and will be voting to change things this coming November, not only in California but in our Nation.

Wayne 

[erikem]

  Where would the power alone come from?  You can't build a new power station in the US.

It would be interesting to see how much power it would take to operate the busiest 25,000 miles of America's railroads, and compare that number to the required increase in electrical consumption that is going to take place in the USA over the next 20 years anyway.

Let's assume that those lines require the services of 20,000 locomotives rated at 4,000HP each. 4,000HP works out to be 3MW (megawatts), so we have a potential demand of 60,000MW. Typically the locomotives average about 22% (pulling a number from a dim and fallible memory), so we're looking at 13 to 14GW (gigawatts). For comparison, the peak load experienced by the state of Claifornia was on the order of 50GW, providing the generation for electrification will not be a huge issue. 

[nanaimo73]

Let's assume that those lines require the services of 20,000 locomotives rated at 4,000HP each. 4,000HP works out to be 3MW (megawatts), so we have a potential demand of 60,000MW. Typically the locomotives average about 22% (pulling a number from a dim and fallible memory), so we're looking at 13 to 14GW (gigawatts). For comparison, the peak load experienced by the state of Claifornia was on the order of 50GW, providing the generation for electrification will not be a huge issue. 

Thanks Erik.

Perhaps electrification would not require more power plants, but rather it would require planned and projected plants to be built sooner.

Regarding locomotives, I'd guess BNSF would still need to purchase roughly the same number every year whether they electrified the Transcon or did not.

[erikem]

Regarding locomotives, I'd guess BNSF would still need to purchase roughly the same number every year whether they electrified the Transcon or did not.

BNSF would probably need to step up their locomotive purchases for a few years, but I'd suspect that the locomotives would last longer (no wear and tear on the prime mover).

Production quantities would likely bring the price down to the same as or less than a similar power diesel - especially for AC traction motors. Something that might make electrification a lot more palatable would be putting batteries on the locomotives to allow for running while not under a wire - the work GE is doing on hybrid locomotive batteries would fit like a glove. 

[Flint Hills Tex]

Basically the problem is too much cash outlay for too little immediate return.  The railroads would have to invest in buying new fleets of locomotives to run on the electrified trackage in addition to laying the third rail or building the catenary system as well as electric generating systems to power it.

Now I've been following the "Could steam make a comeback?" thread, too. What I find interesting is that all of the steam proponents are 100% convinced that RRs would happily shoulder the costs of converting their entire locomotive fleets to coal fired, modern steam, as well as to recreate the no longer extant infrastructure neccessary, just because diesel has become so much more expensive than coal.

Please, nobody start the steam vs. whatever discussion on this thread! But why assume that RR execs would spend massive amounts of capital on a motive power switch of such magnitude, if it were tied to ONE source of primary energy, and by the same token state that electrification will never happen because of costs? It would make much mor sense to invest in versatile technology, and electrification is flexible, in that I can use any number of primary energy source, and get the added benefit (as has been pointed out several times) of saving energy via dynamic braking.

Pertaining to the argument about long distances being electrified, somone pointed out on the 2005 thread that the Trans-Siberian is electrified from Moscow to Vladivostok (a distance of 6,800 km or 4,216 miles). So distance, just by virtue of being great, is not a hindrance. As to costs, RRs already get federal and state funding to aid capacity projects. We have heard several times that electrification would raise mainline capacity (by how much? Anybody got some figures?), so RRs would not have to fund electrification on their own. Maybe power companies could get in on it, bartering a deal, for example: we (the power company) string up so-and-so-many miles of caternary/3rd rail, and you deliver our coal at a reduced rate/for free for x number of years.

[doghouse]

 

Trading one form of energy for another.  Still, you have to make electricity and hydrocarbons are still the most economical.  Alternates don't have the capacity, yet.  Thats where the cost is.

[KCSfan]

A lot of what follows is based strictly on intuition and maybe someone who has access to more facts and figures than do I will confirm, or better yet begin to quantify, the economies that would result from these factors.

Maintenance costs for all electric motors would be significantly less than for diesel electric locomotives. With no on-board diesel engines and generators this seems to me to be a no brainer. This also means better utilization since less time spent in repair and waiting to be repaired translates into more hours available for actual service.

Both the initial and maintenance costs of diesel electrics will be increased as they are required to meet Tier III emissions compliancy. These could be very significant factors which are completely eliminated with all electric motors.

As electification progresses and production is ramped up to meet the demand for electric motors their initial cost is likely to be less than for a diesel electric locomotive of the same horsepower/tractive effort.

As previously mentioned all electric motors will return the power generated by dynamic braking to the grid as opposed to this energy being dissipated and completely lost by conventional diesel electrics.

The cost of energy generated in a highly efficient fixed power plant, whether it be hydro, nuclear, coal or even oil or gas fired has to be less than that generated by a relatively small on-board diesel engine. This advantage increases with every single additional penny in fuel cost as diesel continues its skyrocketing price climb. 

Then there is the pollution issue. Large fixed power plants which burn hydro carbons (the fuel used by the majority of US power plants) employ lower cost and more efficient air pollution control technology than is available for mobile diesel engine applications.

Mark

[MichaelSol]

And how can you agree with my statement that the "average wage earner is clueless......"?  I never said that.  If I'm going to be quoted, at least be accurate, you were actually quoting Rush Limbaugh...oops I mean Michael Sol.

It is very comforting to know you are sympathetic to Oil Companies lack of sufficient funds to engage in oil exploration.  You're right, the Oil Companies actually need more tax cuts or perhaps we should just eliminate all corporate taxes.  However, why do you and Michael Sol both ignore something I did say?  Let me repeat it again:  When our current President took office the price for a barrel of crude oil was about $25. Today it is $100 higher!  Why?  Let me guess your answer:  It's Bill Clinton's fault.   

You're fortunate to be paying 'only' $3.50/gallon for gas, and if you are satisfied with our current economic health and vitality please vote to maintain the status quo.  You will be pleased to know that I will be taking  your sound advice and will be voting to change things this coming November, not only in California but in our Nation.

Well, that I allegedly said "the average wage earner is clueless" happening to be a wholesale fabrication, that underscores your acknowledged political agenda that since you don't understand economics, you are going to rely on politicians to solve your problems for you. Good luck; that's my reference to Plato. My point is that the markets will adjust these things and that is the handicap suffered by electrification: the very fact that there are high prices is going to bring old wells back into production, shift consumers and industries to more economical approaches, and prices will climb back down. That is the risk to any highly capital intensive endeavor, and nobody is going to risk the capital over short term fluctuations. The cost of oil is going to have to represent a sea change and a permanent price change and that is unlikely at the present, particularly in the United States were demand is declining because of increased efficiencies. But, that probability creates investment risk. Risky enough that massive capital investment is just not in the cards, and particularly so when a much most cost-effective alternative continues to exist in the form of coal.

 

[MichaelSol]

Now I've been following the "Could steam make a comeback?" thread, too. What I find interesting is that all of the steam proponents are 100% convinced that RRs would happily shoulder the costs of converting their entire locomotive fleets to coal fired, modern steam, as well as to recreate the no longer extant infrastructure neccessary, just because diesel has become so much more expensive than coal.

Please, nobody start the steam vs. whatever discussion on this thread! But why assume that RR execs would spend massive amounts of capital on a motive power switch of such magnitude, if it were tied to ONE source of primary energy ...

"Why assume ...?" The answer is staring you in the face. That's exactly what happened when diesel, rather than electrification, replaced coal.

 

[wsherrick]

Basically the problem is too much cash outlay for too little immediate return.  The railroads would have to invest in buying new fleets of locomotives to run on the electrified trackage in addition to laying the third rail or building the catenary system as well as electric generating systems to power it.

Now I've been following the "Could steam make a comeback?" thread, too. What I find interesting is that all of the steam proponents are 100% convinced that RRs would happily shoulder the costs of converting their entire locomotive fleets to coal fired, modern steam, as well as to recreate the no longer extant infrastructure neccessary, just because diesel has become so much more expensive than coal.

Please, nobody start the steam vs. whatever discussion on this thread! But why assume that RR execs would spend massive amounts of capital on a motive power switch of such magnitude, if it were tied to ONE source of primary energy, and by the same token state that electrification will never happen because of costs? It would make much mor sense to invest in versatile technology, and electrification is flexible, in that I can use any number of primary energy source, and get the added benefit (as has been pointed out several times) of saving energy via dynamic braking.

Pertaining to the argument about long distances being electrified, somone pointed out on the 2005 thread that the Trans-Siberian is electrified from Moscow to Vladivostok (a distance of 6,800 km or 4,216 miles). So distance, just by virtue of being great, is not a hindrance. As to costs, RRs already get federal and state funding to aid capacity projects. We have heard several times that electrification would raise mainline capacity (by how much? Anybody got some figures?), so RRs would not have to fund electrification on their own. Maybe power companies could get in on it, bartering a deal, for example: we (the power company) string up so-and-so-many miles of caternary/3rd rail, and you deliver our coal at a reduced rate/for free for x number of years.

Why not? You juice bugs sure felt like you had the right to take up pages of meaningless space on the other thread.

As to your last supposition about a trade value for value deal-that is a good idea and might have worked in the good old days when Capitalism wasn't hog tied by Government regulation. Today as we free fall towards a proto Marxist society such an arrangement is illegal.  It's called ,"collusion." Take a look at the Hepburn Act and the Sheman Anti Trust Act.

 

[KCSfan]

  The cost of oil is going to have to represent a sea change and a permanent price change and that is unlikely at the present, particularly in the United States were demand is declining because of increased efficiencies.

Michael,

While I generally agree with most everything you post, I think you are wrong in regard to the above. I believe the cost of oil will continue to rise because it is a limited finite resource. Sure there will be dips in its price but the long range trend will be ever upward. I also think that any decline in demand resulting from improved efficiencies will be more than offset by increased consumption for highway and airline transport if for no reason other skyrocketing population increases both in the US and abroad.

Mark

[blue streak 1]

Nanaimo 73 is completely correct. There is some excess capacity in electrical generation and this excess would cover the initial startup of electrification. Alsp remember the light bulb regs are gping to cut electrical consumption and we already now CFLs that are over 3 tiimes as efficient. (I am using some now with definite reduction of electrical consumption). LED technology will provide a 90% reduction. (note: all new RR and automobile traffic light installations are LED however the main reason for this installation is maintenance and not energy conservation. The reason we dont see more 50,000 hr LEDs for home useage yet is industry is taking almost all the present production; but that demand will soon be filled and then we will see some very innovative lighting schemes. Most people do not realize there are three colors of CFLs and the best daylight color costs the most and that's why they are not demanded more.

I have been working on an extensive post on this subject but need help and for some reason my PM will not receive. Some items of interest would be amount of HP assigned to certain routes, signal considerations, and costs of present electrification in the US and other countrys.   

[nanaimo73]

Let's assume that those lines require the services of 20,000 locomotives rated at 4,000HP each.

I was thinking along the lines of an updated BC Rail 6000 hp GF6C. With AC traction motors, and other advances made over the past 25 years, would not 8000 hp be most likely for modern freight electrics?

[sfcouple]

And how can you agree with my statement that the "average wage earner is clueless......"?  I never said that.  If I'm going to be quoted, at least be accurate, you were actually quoting Rush Limbaugh...oops I mean Michael Sol.

It is very comforting to know you are sympathetic to Oil Companies lack of sufficient funds to engage in oil exploration.  You're right, the Oil Companies actually need more tax cuts or perhaps we should just eliminate all corporate taxes.  However, why do you and Michael Sol both ignore something I did say?  Let me repeat it again:  When our current President took office the price for a barrel of crude oil was about $25. Today it is $100 higher!  Why?  Let me guess your answer:  It's Bill Clinton's fault.   

You're fortunate to be paying 'only' $3.50/gallon for gas, and if you are satisfied with our current economic health and vitality please vote to maintain the status quo.  You will be pleased to know that I will be taking  your sound advice and will be voting to change things this coming November, not only in California but in our Nation.

Well, that I allegedly said "the average wage earner is clueless" happening to be a wholesale fabrication, that underscores your acknowledged political agenda that since you don't understand economics, you are going to rely on politicians to solve your problems for you. Good luck; that's my reference to Plato. My point is that the markets will adjust these things and that is the handicap suffered by electrification: the very fact that there are high prices is going to bring old wells back into production, shift consumers and industries to more economical approaches, and prices will climb back down. That is the risk to any highly capital intensive endeavor, and nobody is going to risk the capital over short term fluctuations. The cost of oil is going to have to represent a sea change and a permanent price change and that is unlikely at the present, particularly in the United States were demand is declining because of increased efficiencies. But, that probability creates investment risk. Risky enough that massive capital investment is just not in the cards, and particularly so when a much most cost-effective alternative continues to exist in the form of coal.

 

I really do not have a political agenda, in fact you and I would probably enjoy having a beer together.  I just look at things differently than you and have had different life experiences than you.  

I was only able to attend College because of the GI Bill of Rights enacted by the Kennedy/Johnson administration.  A significant portion of my retirement income is from Social Security which was started by FDR.  I was only able to purchase my first home because of the GI Bill.  When my only child was gravely ill I was able to take time off from work, without loosing my job, thanks to the Family Leave Law passed during the Clinton administration.  And finally, and not at all least, my only health care is through the Veterans Hospital.   

I proudly served my country during the Viet Nam War and my country in turn has provided me an opportunity to lead a decent life.   A Win Win situation.  So, I don't look upon  Government as the enemy, our Government and our Country has been an immeasurable help to me.  And if called again at age 62 I would proudly serve another tour in the Army.  

I hesitate to add another quote for fear of another lecture about Plato but here goes:  "If we were all angels we would not need a government."  (Can't remember the author).

I truly hope we can all come together to solve the many issues facing our country today and in the immediate future.  

Wayne  

 

[Norman Saxon]

Two things I will offer:

1. Adjusted for inflation, todays gasoline (and diesel) are very close to what they were in 1981; which reinforces the point made above that these can and will adjust.

I have virtually no experience with economics but I've heard this argument before and have never understood it or really believed it.  And here's why:

                          1981                2008

Minimum Wage:     $3.35               $6.55

Gallon of Gas:         $1.38               $5.00 and rising fast.  

% Gas to Wage:     41%                 76% 

I doubt if an average wage earner would agree with your statement.

Wayne 

Since we've elected to inject economics into this discussion, here's a quick reminder:  The minimum wage is an arbitrary number used by politicians to show how much they "care" about their constituents, but in reality does nothing except bar entry into the workforce by young adults aka high school kids trying to get their first part time job.  If we really cared about helping our young people obtain their first job experience, we'd eliminate the mininum wage and let them bargain with their prospective employers for a labor contract acceptable to both parties.  In fact, it is likely, given the fact that our ecomomy has been at full employment (most economists define full employment as an umemployment rate of around 7% or less) for several decades now, if the minimum wage were eliminated, real entry level wages might actually rise!

Also, the minimum wage is not an indicator of real average wages as you infer.

Finally, the fact that you folks in SF are paying close to $5.00 a gallon while the rest of the nation is paying around $3.50 a gallon is frankly an indictment of your State government.  If you really want change, you might think of starting there instead of trying to drag the rest of the nation into your socio-economic morass.

That being said, I do agree with your statement that the average wage earner is clueless when it comes to our nation's economic machine.  How else do you explain why they vote in people who think the way to lower gas prices is to eliminate tax breaks for domestic oil production and start taxing so-called "excess" profits of oil companies?  If not from oil companies, where else are we going to get our transportation fuels?  I don't see Google or Yahoo! building any new oil wells or refineries.  How about taxing their excess profits?

As for electrification, not going to happen.  We're more likely to return to reciprocating steam.......

You might want to consider spending more time reading what I actually said and less time bashing California's "socio-economic morass."

Minimum wage:  I get it.  My apologies for not being well versed in economic dynamics.  I've spend my adult life in scientific research and I'll leave the economic mumbo jumbo to experts like yourself.

And how can you agree with my statement that the "average wage earner is clueless......"?  I never said that.  If I'm going to be quoted, at least be accurate, you were actually quoting Rush Limbaugh...oops I mean Michael Sol.

It is very comforting to know you are sympathetic to Oil Companies lack of sufficient funds to engage in oil exploration.  You're right, the Oil Companies actually need more tax cuts or perhaps we should just eliminate all corporate taxes.  However, why do you and Michael Sol both ignore something I did say?  Let me repeat it again:  When our current President took office the price for a barrel of crude oil was about $25. Today it is $100 higher!  Why?  Let me guess your answer:  It's Bill Clinton's fault.   

You're fortunate to be paying 'only' $3.50/gallon for gas, and if you are satisfied with our current economic health and vitality please vote to maintain the status quo.  You will be pleased to know that I will be taking  your sound advice and will be voting to change things this coming November, not only in California but in our Nation.

Wayne 

Wayne,

You stated "I doubt if an average wage earner would agree with your statement" which I interpret as the average person's inability to correctly analyze the current economic situation, or in short, clueless.  How else do you explain the election of politicians who promised to do something about high energy costs in 2006, only to have those same energy costs rise 50%?  Clearly, the average American is clueless if they think raising the costs of domestic energy production will lower their retail prices.  You don't have to have an economics degree to understand that, but one does have to have some cognitive abilties beyond "we want change from the current policies."

It's not that I'm sympathetic to the oil companies, but you need to understand that it costs more for them to explore, drill, produce, and refine oil here in the USA than it is for them to do the same outside our boundaries.  If we take away tax incentives for domestic production, they'll just get it elsewhere.  That lack of domestic production is a large part of why speculators are running up the market price of oil.  At least domestic production is free from socio-political upheavals and/or anti-US production manipulation.  And for that matter, the profit margins for oil companies are still way below those of those California companies I referenced.  Shouldn't they fall under the same banner of "excess profits"?

Well, since you brought up Clinton, remember he is the one who paved the path to 9/11 via ignoring the growing threat of middle east extremism all the while blocking attempts to drill in ANWR etc.  But I'm not one to blame him soley for the rise in oil prices.  Bush has been just as cupable, in that he thinks oil should flow in a free market, yet with OPEC there is no real free market.  But the real villians in all this are those Senate Democrats who kept threatening filibusters if we okay'ed ANWR drilling, or tried to ease some of the more stringent environmental rules such as the 46 different blends of fuel as required by the EPA, et al.  Add to them the RINO's that promoted this ethanol fraud, which has raised both fuel prices and food prices.

However, it seems to me that all the energy price problems we are experiencing now can be traced back to California in some way or another.  It is California that is leading the charge to have CO2 regulated as a pollutant, California that lead the charge for those 46 different fuel blends, California that is leading the charge to force all of us into smaller less safe vehicles, California's congressional delegation that is blocking attempts at domestic hydrocarbon production, while at the same time blocking attempts are reviving nuclear power, California that caused the 2000 electricity crisis via their insane ISO rulemaking which encouraged energy traders to bid up market prices.  It is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that always knockes out pro-energy court cases.  It was your own Pelosi that knowingly and falsely promised that if the Democrats took over Congress in 2006 they'd lower energy prices, it is your own Barbara Boxer that heads the Senate EPW which is still trying to enact strict CO2 regulations even in the face of growing contrarian evidence that the climate models are 100% off......

But hey, don't let that stop you from completing the circle of economic suicide and letting the nutjobs take over the White House as well as Congress and the courts.  Just for the record, how DO these folks plan on lowering energy prices?  Or do you even know or care?

All we know for sure is that with Democrat control the rail industry will be reregulated.

As for voting for change, that's what the folks down in Venezuela thought.  And Peru.  And 1930's Germany......

[Norman Saxon]

Nanaimo 73 is completely correct. There is some excess capacity in electrical generation and this excess would cover the initial startup of electrification.

I disagree.  There is no current excess electical generation capacity, and projections of future consumption will only make things worse.  Of all the projected generation construction proposed even 10 years ago, how many have actually been built, let alone even turned a spade of dirt?

Regarding CFL's and other conservation techniques, keep in mind you cannot conserve your way out of an energy shortage.  You either build new generation facilities, or you die.

In light of this, how can one convincingly argue for railroad electrification unless the railroads build their own generation facilities?

In fact, on a larger scale we might see some of the larger energy users do that very thing, e.g. providing their own energy needs internally.  BNSF has talked of buidling a CTL plant in Montana as a way of hedging continued rises in diesel prices. 

The point is, if the railroads opt for internal provision of energy sources to run the trains, I'm not sure electrification would be on the top of the list.  More likely it'd be CTL, or even a return to external combustion engines using coal.

Now, if it's the federal government that get's involved, that's a whole different story.  If the feds pay for stringing catenary, then yes electrification might become the prefered mode of propulsion.

[sfcouple]

Two things I will offer:

1. Adjusted for inflation, todays gasoline (and diesel) are very close to what they were in 1981; which reinforces the point made above that these can and will adjust.

I have virtually no experience with economics but I've heard this argument before and have never understood it or really believed it.  And here's why:

                          1981                2008

Minimum Wage:     $3.35               $6.55

Gallon of Gas:         $1.38               $5.00 and rising fast.  

% Gas to Wage:     41%                 76% 

I doubt if an average wage earner would agree with your statement.

Wayne 

Since we've elected to inject economics into this discussion, here's a quick reminder:  The minimum wage is an arbitrary number used by politicians to show how much they "care" about their constituents, but in reality does nothing except bar entry into the workforce by young adults aka high school kids trying to get their first part time job.  If we really cared about helping our young people obtain their first job experience, we'd eliminate the mininum wage and let them bargain with their prospective employers for a labor contract acceptable to both parties.  In fact, it is likely, given the fact that our ecomomy has been at full employment (most economists define full employment as an umemployment rate of around 7% or less) for several decades now, if the minimum wage were eliminated, real entry level wages might actually rise!

Also, the minimum wage is not an indicator of real average wages as you infer.

Finally, the fact that you folks in SF are paying close to $5.00 a gallon while the rest of the nation is paying around $3.50 a gallon is frankly an indictment of your State government.  If you really want change, you might think of starting there instead of trying to drag the rest of the nation into your socio-economic morass.

That being said, I do agree with your statement that the average wage earner is clueless when it comes to our nation's economic machine.  How else do you explain why they vote in people who think the way to lower gas prices is to eliminate tax breaks for domestic oil production and start taxing so-called "excess" profits of oil companies?  If not from oil companies, where else are we going to get our transportation fuels?  I don't see Google or Yahoo! building any new oil wells or refineries.  How about taxing their excess profits?

As for electrification, not going to happen.  We're more likely to return to reciprocating steam.......

You might want to consider spending more time reading what I actually said and less time bashing California's "socio-economic morass."

Minimum wage:  I get it.  My apologies for not being well versed in economic dynamics.  I've spend my adult life in scientific research and I'll leave the economic mumbo jumbo to experts like yourself.

And how can you agree with my statement that the "average wage earner is clueless......"?  I never said that.  If I'm going to be quoted, at least be accurate, you were actually quoting Rush Limbaugh...oops I mean Michael Sol.

It is very comforting to know you are sympathetic to Oil Companies lack of sufficient funds to engage in oil exploration.  You're right, the Oil Companies actually need more tax cuts or perhaps we should just eliminate all corporate taxes.  However, why do you and Michael Sol both ignore something I did say?  Let me repeat it again:  When our current President took office the price for a barrel of crude oil was about $25. Today it is $100 higher!  Why?  Let me guess your answer:  It's Bill Clinton's fault.   

You're fortunate to be paying 'only' $3.50/gallon for gas, and if you are satisfied with our current economic health and vitality please vote to maintain the status quo.  You will be pleased to know that I will be taking  your sound advice and will be voting to change things this coming November, not only in California but in our Nation.

Wayne 

Wayne,

You stated "I doubt if an average wage earner would agree with your statement" which I interpret as the average person's inability to correctly analyze the current economic situation, or in short, clueless.  How else do you explain the election of politicians who promised to do something about high energy costs in 2006, only to have those same energy costs rise 50%?  Clearly, the average American is clueless if they think raising the costs of domestic energy production will lower their retail prices.  You don't have to have an economics degree to understand that, but one does have to have some cognitive abilties beyond "we want change from the current policies."

It's not that I'm sympathetic to the oil companies, but you need to understand that it costs more for them to explore, drill, produce, and refine oil here in the USA than it is for them to do the same outside our boundaries.  If we take away tax incentives for domestic production, they'll just get it elsewhere.  That lack of domestic production is a large part of why speculators are running up the market price of oil.  At least domestic production is free from socio-political upheavals and/or anti-US production manipulation.  And for that matter, the profit margins for oil companies are still way below those of those California companies I referenced.  Shouldn't they fall under the same banner of "excess profits"?

Well, since you brought up Clinton, remember he is the one who paved the path to 9/11 via ignoring the growing threat of middle east extremism all the while blocking attempts to drill in ANWR etc.  But I'm not one to blame him soley for the rise in oil prices.  Bush has been just as cupable, in that he thinks oil should flow in a free market, yet with OPEC there is no real free market.  But the real villians in all this are those Senate Democrats who kept threatening filibusters if we okay'ed ANWR drilling, or tried to ease some of the more stringent environmental rules such as the 46 different blends of fuel as required by the EPA, et al.  Add to them the RINO's that promoted this ethanol fraud, which has raised both fuel prices and food prices.

However, it seems to me that all the energy price problems we are experiencing now can be traced back to California in some way or another.  It is California that is leading the charge to have CO2 regulated as a pollutant, California that lead the charge for those 46 different fuel blends, California that is leading the charge to force all of us into smaller less safe vehicles, California's congressional delegation that is blocking attempts at domestic hydrocarbon production, while at the same time blocking attempts are reviving nuclear power, California that caused the 2000 electricity crisis via their insane ISO rulemaking which encouraged energy traders to bid up market prices.  It is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that always knockes out pro-energy court cases.  It was your own Pelosi that knowingly and falsely promised that if the Democrats took over Congress in 2006 they'd lower energy prices, it is your own Barbara Boxer that heads the Senate EPW which is still trying to enact strict CO2 regulations even in the face of growing contrarian evidence that the climate models are 100% off......

But hey, don't let that stop you from completing the circle of economic suicide and letting the nutjobs take over the White House as well as Congress and the courts.  Just for the record, how DO these folks plan on lowering energy prices?  Or do you even know or care?

All we know for sure is that with Democrat control the rail industry will be reregulated.

As for voting for change, that's what the folks down in Venezuela thought.  And Peru.  And 1930's Germany......

Wow, your logic and political ideas are strange to say the least.  May I recommend a few news sources for your consideration:  US News and World Report, The Wall Street Journal, Reuters News Service.  And stay away from FOX News.  We have become a very divisive country, which is not condusive to solviing our many problems.  There are no easy, one size fits all, solutions to these issues, but we can all benefit from the talents of everyone, regardless of political affiliation.    

I don't appreciate your condescending manner, name calling,  and lumping all of our Nation's problems on one political party.  There is certainly enough blame for everyone, including those you support.     

Wayne  

[erikem]

Let's assume that those lines require the services of 20,000 locomotives rated at 4,000HP each.

I was thinking along the lines of an updated BC Rail 6000 hp GF6C. With AC traction motors, and other advances made over the past 25 years, would not 8000 hp be most likely for modern freight electrics?

That sounds like a good candidate for intermodal frieght, but I'd suspect that coal trains would use lower power. I suspect that the RR's could get by with fewer 8,000 hp loco's than 4,000 hp locos. The reason for using the 4,000 hp figure was to get an order of magnitude estimate for the expected electric power demand from wide scale electrification and not that 4,000 hp diesels would be replaced one-for-one by 4,000 hp electrics. 

[erikem]

The cost of energy generated in a highly efficient fixed power plant, whether it be hydro, nuclear, coal or even oil or gas fired has to be less than that generated by a relatively small on-board diesel engine. This advantage increases with every single additional penny in fuel cost as diesel continues its skyrocketing price climb.

The cost at the generator terminals will probably be lower for a fixed plant, but cost to the traction motor terminals is a different story. Having said that, it is possible to get significantly higher efficiencies with a fixed power plant than a mobile plant - don't think a combined cycle (combustion turbine with a steam bottoming cycle) plant would be practical on anything smaller than a ship - GE's latest plants are capable of 60% efficiency.

 

Then there is the pollution issue. Large fixed power plants which burn hydro carbons (the fuel used by the majority of US power plants) employ lower cost and more efficient air pollution control technology than is available for mobile diesel engine applications.

In addition, it may be practical to sequester the CO2 produced by a fixed power plant. The ultimate may be the integrated coal gasification plant combined with CO2 sequestration.

Back in 1990, Southern California Edison proposed electrifying the freight lines in the LA basin to reduce pollution and the Southern California Regional Rail Authority scheduled hearings on the feasibility of the idea. One product was the estimated cost, which worked out to $4 billion, half of which was for increasing clearances on the hundreds of overpasses. The electrification zone would have extended to the state line on the then UP, SP and AT&SF main lines to Arizona and Nevada.

I would expect the per mile costs of extending past the state line would have been much less than in CA - not as many overpasses to deal with.