HarveyK400The Eric A Morris article link referencing a Booze, Allen, Hamilton study for the UK DOT argues that construction emissions eliminates the advantage of HSR over air transport; but does this take into account alternative airport improvement and maintenance needs? Or road improvements if auto travel is not diverted?
The core purpose of HSR is the reduction of CO2 emissions by mankind. Therefore, it does not follow that it is okay for HSR to emit CO2 because other forms of transportation emit CO2. For HSR to be viable, it must emit significantly less CO2 than alternate forms of transportation. To achieve that goal, wind-generated electricity is the only viable option.
Here is an article citing the Booz Allen Hamilton report:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/aug/17/high-speed-rail-environment
schlimmGood questions. Furthermore, given Booz Allen's connections primarily to DoD and CIA and electronic surveillance under SWIFT, I wonder how valid the report even is.
Who wrote these lines then considering the connections between Booz Allen and the DoD, CIA and this mmmm? I didn't ---
Oh---and nice sneakiness in assuming me being paranoid---
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
blownout cylinderWonder if'n we don't have the tinfoil hat on a little too tight----- Anything that disagrees with centralized government involvment with HSR, and the associated coordination under a national transportation policy has to be assumed as being suspect----
Wonder if'n we don't have the tinfoil hat on a little too tight-----
Anything that disagrees with centralized government involvment with HSR, and the associated coordination under a national transportation policy has to be assumed as being suspect----
Insults are the last refuge of a fuzzy thinker. The Booz Allen record speaks for itself. Given its connections to the US federal government and your paranoid delusions (those old black helicopters are coming!), I should think you would automatically reject it. In any case, what gives you sitting in Canada, the position to denounce "creeping federal takeovers"?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
HarveyK400The Eric A Morris article link referencing a Booze, Allen, Hamilton study for the UK DOT argues that construction emissions eliminates the advantage of HSR over air transport; but does this take into account alternative airport improvement and maintenance needs? Or road improvements if auto travel is not diverted? These are not all sunk investment, and meeting future road and air demand will be costly without diversion to rail, high speed or conventional.
Good questions. Furthermore, given Booz Allen's connections primarily to DoD and CIA and electronic surveillance under SWIFT, I wonder how valid the report even is.
Bucyrus In a context even larger than the national transportation system, there is intent to derive electricity for all applications from renewable energy sources, and rebuild the entire distribution grid with what is called the smart grid. The smart grid will micromanage electricity use and encourage conservation. The amount of electricity that will be saved by the smart grid and conservation will likely be more than enough to power the near universal electrification of railroads.
There will then be some conservation. Note--SOME conservation because on balance the power needs will shift to large scale operations. The average consumer will conserve due to the price sting while some segments will get access to more energy--
wwhitby One important question in the electrification debate is where is the additional electricity required going to come from? Our current administrator is hostile to the coal industry. Coal and natural gas fired plants will release CO2, which would be impacted by cap & trade. Nuclear, no one wants. That leaves hydro, geothermal, wind and solar, the total of which won't meet all our current needs now, much less so in the future. IMHO, unless we either back away from cap & trade-type legislation, or start building more nuclear power plants, railroad electrification is a non-starter. BTW, I never thought about EMD's F3 killing electrification as well as steam, but you're right.
One important question in the electrification debate is where is the additional electricity required going to come from? Our current administrator is hostile to the coal industry. Coal and natural gas fired plants will release CO2, which would be impacted by cap & trade. Nuclear, no one wants. That leaves hydro, geothermal, wind and solar, the total of which won't meet all our current needs now, much less so in the future.
IMHO, unless we either back away from cap & trade-type legislation, or start building more nuclear power plants, railroad electrification is a non-starter.
BTW, I never thought about EMD's F3 killing electrification as well as steam, but you're right.
While this thread focuses on rail electrification, that is only one small component of the larger plan, which is for a national transportation system. The two most critical elements of the purpose of this plan are to abandon the use of oil, and to avert a climate catastrophe. The latter requires that rail electrification power be derived from renewable energy sources, which will most likely be windmills. However, electrification may commence with energy derived from non-renewable sources such as coal.
Windmill generators will need to be located in areas currently remote from the necessary power distribution grid capacity needed to carry the power to the points of use. So, new power grid capacity will be needed in addition to the wind generators. Aside from the distribution of electricity for rail electrification, railroad right-of-ways may play a key role in providing corridors for new grid capacity for non-rail electrical use.
In a context even larger than the national transportation system, there is intent to derive electricity for all applications from renewable energy sources, and rebuild the entire distribution grid with what is called the smart grid. The smart grid will micromanage electricity use and encourage conservation. The amount of electricity that will be saved by the smart grid and conservation will likely be more than enough to power the near universal electrification of railroads.
BucyrusI 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. There are three possible ways to power HSR: 1) Diesel. 2) Electricity generated from coal or other fossil fuels. 3) Electricity generated from renewable sources such as wind and solar. 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? 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 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. http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/high-speed-rail-and-co2/
I agree with Bucyrus on the energy and emissions goals for HSR being problematic.
First, have we forgotten the discussion on the recouperated gas-turbine for light weight HSR traction for a 4th alternative? Emissions are still a problem; but bio-fuels may offer a solution to an oil shortage.
The Government isn't the only Big Stick - an expected future shortage and scarcity/supply-sensitive pricing and profiteering will affect oil costs regardless of the relatively constant, slow rising, cost of oil production.
The Eric A Morris article link referencing a Booze, Allen, Hamilton study for the UK DOT argues that construction emissions eliminates the advantage of HSR over air transport; but does this take into account alternative airport improvement and maintenance needs? Or road improvements if auto travel is not diverted? These are not all sunk investment, and meeting future road and air demand will be costly without diversion to rail, high speed or conventional.
Next, moving HSR seats produces as much emissions as autos and considerably more than intercity bus; but this is a comparison to normal highway speeds. While the prospect for clean electric energy is acknowledged, the article focuses on emissions from the continued use of fossil fuels for HSR.
I do agree that HSR should be evaluated thoroughly.
schlimm Bucyrus: A very good article with lots of thought-provoking comments. Thanks for the link!
Bucyrus: A very good article with lots of thought-provoking comments. Thanks for the link!
I'll second this comment!! Thanks!!
HarveyK400I 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.
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.
There are three possible ways to power HSR:
1) Diesel.
2) Electricity generated from coal or other fossil fuels.
3) Electricity generated from renewable sources such as wind and solar.
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?
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
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.
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/high-speed-rail-and-co2/
I haven't tried to read this whole thread, but heres my angle. Probably 80-100 years ago we didnt have this oil problem, but we didnt have all the cars out there, technology was at steam and electric, what was useful and viable at the time. In comes oil, cars and diesel engines causing an upheaval in motive power use. We did have a large interurban system which by the sake of business competiton drove off the interurbans leaving a select few surviving.
Nobody is trying to kill off the automobile or its needs or those who have to have its use, but the method of propulsion is changing already with electric cars and hybrids and higher mpg. Thats the push today.
Its simple dispite how many gazillion years we have of coal/oil is packed away underground you must make the alternatives should you run out, when that happens you will be forced the other direction.
That is why now what is going on.
60-80 years ago Detroit had their oil guzzling push and even got Los Angeles to trash their streetcar system.
Now its become turnabout and economics, the same reason steam and electric got nosed off, you're looking at it again.
As far as all the complaints about electrification and wrecks and so on, you just have to be prepared for it, just go look at the South Shore today who deal with all this on a daily basis. Any wreck requires cleanup and thats costly anyways, whooppee.
Recently a UP coal train had a car's trucks damage sevral miles of South Shore track dragging its damaged truck along. South Shore had that track fixed in one day, it was a massive repair with outside contract help, but dang, that was an impressive repair job!!
I don't want to hear about the crybabying against it, its practical about electrification.
UP has had a test track of overhead forever at one of their facilities so its not unknown to them.
Even with electrification I don't think you will eliminate the diesel locomotive, especially in areas of an accident, the diesel engine will get traffic moving again till overhead is repaired, then your back to the electrics. (or as you reroute traffic away while repairs are done)
Just remember if the automobile didnt come around we would be intertwined today with interurbans and streetcars. As time goes solutions will be found and adaptations to the daily lives will be made.
cheers.
blownout cylinderBucyrus Sustainability, when applied to the U.S., is all about sacrifice and reduction of consumption, which will be brought about by higher priced, sustainable energy alternatives. That would be the key there. Sustainability. This would not coincide with HSR precisely because of the increase in electricity usage. Sustainability is kind of counter to HSR in that speed is of no importance in the scheme of things. One cannot attain sustainability if the average person does all the cutting back so that a wild HSR scheme--electrified--can be had. Some proponents seem to think that it can be done however--- In a recent McLeans Magazine I came across an article that mentioned a Alberta consultants report that looked into a HSR link proposed between Calgary and Edmonton AB. This report ruled out any HSR precisely on the basis of cost and the issue of low demand for this HSR link. There was a demand for a rail link but low demand for the HSR portion. And thanks for all the research you put out here, Bucyrus
Bucyrus Sustainability, when applied to the U.S., is all about sacrifice and reduction of consumption, which will be brought about by higher priced, sustainable energy alternatives.
That would be the key there. Sustainability. This would not coincide with HSR precisely because of the increase in electricity usage.
Sustainability is kind of counter to HSR in that speed is of no importance in the scheme of things. One cannot attain sustainability if the average person does all the cutting back so that a wild HSR scheme--electrified--can be had. Some proponents seem to think that it can be done however---
In a recent McLeans Magazine I came across an article that mentioned a Alberta consultants report that looked into a HSR link proposed between Calgary and Edmonton AB. This report ruled out any HSR precisely on the basis of cost and the issue of low demand for this HSR link. There was a demand for a rail link but low demand for the HSR portion.
And thanks for all the research you put out here, Bucyrus
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.
While this thread is not about high-speed rail per se, HSR is one component of the national transportation system, which is the thread focus. And HSR does happen to be the one component that is moving forward with some funding in place. Oddly enough, however, there is an interesting dichotomy between the “green” or sustainability motive of the national transportation system proposal, and the concept of high speed.
Sustainability is a buzzword that refers to limiting consumption to a level that can be renewed by the natural earth processes. It can be illustrated by an example of a small universe consisting of one person and an apple tree. The tree only makes apples once a year, and if it happens to make 365 apples, that means the person can eat one a day. If the person decides to eat two a day, that is not sustainable. If you burn oil, you must not burn it faster than the earth can produce it, or your consumption is unsustainable. In poor countries, consumption is likely to be less than what is available on a sustainable basis. But most rich countries are said to be consuming at a rate that is not sustainable. The United States has generally been labeled as having the most unsustainable lifestyle of all. So the prescription for the U.S. is twofold:
1) Improve the natural yield of energy and resources (develop apple trees that make more apples)
2) Reduce consumption of energy and resources (eat fewer apples)
High speed rail succeeds at item #1, but fails item #2. Shifting people off of rubber tires and highways, and onto steel wheels and rails increases the fuel efficiency. However, pushing the speed higher decreases fuel efficiency. To make transportation sustainable, we should shift people onto rail and haul them as slowly as we can.
The same is true for freight. Corresponding to the HSR component of the national transportation system is the “Rapid Freight Rail” (RFR) component, which is lighter weight freight trains running on improved track at 100 mph. The higher speed is deemed necessary to attract freight transportation away from trucking. Even with a truck pickup at the origin and a truck delivery at the destination, RFR is said to be capable of a higher overall speed than an all-trucking alternative. However, the truly sustainable solution would be to shift truck traffic to rail and to lower the speed. If it takes longer to ship the goods, that just amounts to eating fewer apples.
Here is a piece in The Guardian by John Whitelegg of the Stockholm Environment Institute arguing against HSR for the reasons I have mentioned:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/29/high-speed-rail-travel-europe-uk
He says:
“The HSR plan is a large and expensive sledgehammer to crack a modestly sized nut.”
“HSR does not reduce the fuel consumption of domestic aviation or reduce annual carbon emissions from aircraft. And it produces twice as much CO2 per passenger kilometer as a non-high speed train.”
***
This article from the Wall Street Journal mentions that building all ten potential HSR routes in the U.S. would cut 3 million tons of CO2 emissions per year, which is roughly half the output of one coal fired power plant per year.
It mentions the $8 billion committed to HSR plus an additional $5 billion promised = $13 billion. According to the article, the total price tag for a U.S. system will be $250-500 billion.
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/04/16/working-on-the-railroad-obamas-green-pitch-for-high-speed-trains/
Here is the U.S. national HSR strategic plan, which cites the 3 million tons of CO2 reduction per year:
http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/RRdev/hsrspfacts.pdf
BNSFwatcher Date: 20 Nov 2019 Memo from: BNSF Railway To: J. B. Hunt Transportation Cc: Schnieder Transportation, United Parcel Service Dear Ms. Hunt; in response to your inquiry, we must say "Yes!" Your trailers and containers will arrive on-time, provided the wind blows and the sun shines. Thank you for your faith in 'renewable' energy. Matt Rose, CEO, BNSF Railway
Date: 20 Nov 2019 Memo from: BNSF Railway To: J. B. Hunt Transportation Cc: Schnieder Transportation, United Parcel Service
Dear Ms. Hunt; in response to your inquiry, we must say "Yes!" Your trailers and containers will arrive on-time, provided the wind blows and the sun shines. Thank you for your faith in 'renewable' energy.
Matt Rose, CEO, BNSF Railway
What Rose will tell J.B. Hunt is that the trailers will be on time, but the bill will be higher.
Wind-generated electricity will pull trains just as reliably as electricity from other sources if the wind generation is sufficiently backed up with redundant wind energy capacity. However, this is an extra “hidden” cost of wind energy. There needs to be sufficient surplus capacity to support a given level of use, in case of wind fluctuations.
Sustainability, when applied to the U.S., is all about sacrifice and reduction of consumption, which will be brought about by higher priced, sustainable energy alternatives.
jclass Why would electrification and HSR be seriously considered to be part of the new purpose (other than for use as a political bargaining chip)? I don't see where either would increase political support for those pushing sustainability. Railroads in the general public's perception are a liability.
Why would electrification and HSR be seriously considered to be part of the new purpose (other than for use as a political bargaining chip)? I don't see where either would increase political support for those pushing sustainability. Railroads in the general public's perception are a liability.
I am not sure I understand your question. What I call the new purpose is basically the new reason to electrify, and that new reason is for the achievement of sustainability. In this case, sustainability will be boosted by the use of renewable energy in the form of wind-generated electricity. The use of renewable energy will accomplish the following two objectives:
1) It will eliminate the use of oil, which will insure against a crisis of oil shock, should foreign sources of oil be interrupted
2) It will eliminate CO2 emissions, which will help avert a climate crisis.
The previous main reasons or purpose for electrification was as follows:
1) It would lower operating cost.
2) It would eliminate smoke during the steam age.
The elimination of smoke during the steam age was an emissions issue similar to the CO2 emissions issue of the new purpose, but the objectives are quite different. Up until a couple years ago, CO2 had never been considered to be nuisance or hazardous emission, so no previous objective of smoke abatement was based on the desire to eliminate the CO2 component of smoke emissions. So the two reasons that make up the new purpose for electrification have never been part of the rationale of any previous analysis, proposal, or execution of railroad electrification.
Because rail is low friction, it is inherently more energy efficient than either air or highway transportation. So there is an economic attraction to shifting as much air and highway transportation to rail as possible. And by shifting that present non-rail transport to rail, it can be powered by renewable electricity instead of oil-based, non-renewable fuels. So electrified rail is the centerpiece of this sustainable transportation vision, not only for the traditional rail shipments of today, but for future shipments of much of what is today shipped by truck. Likewise, passengers from air and highway will be diverted to rail and be thus powered by renewable energy.
schlimmIn his response, htgguy went on to state several misrepresentations. "So, are we to conclude that air travel should be banned? Or is the proper conclusion that persons wishing to travel from London to Los Angeles should instead drive or take the train (I guess the crossing of the Atlantic would be by SUBway)?"
In his response, htgguy went on to state several misrepresentations.
"So, are we to conclude that air travel should be banned? Or is the proper conclusion that persons wishing to travel from London to Los Angeles should instead drive or take the train (I guess the crossing of the Atlantic would be by SUBway)?"
Look again. I cited htgguy.
htgguy schlimm Saw this in the New York Times, 11/18/2009: "A recent study in Britain concluded that one flight from London to Los Angeles produced more carbon dioxide per person than the average British commuter produces in a year by traveling by train, subway or car." So, are we to conclude that air travel should be banned? Or is the proper conclusion that persons wishing to travel from London to Los Angeles should instead drive or take the train (I guess the crossing of the Atlantic would be by SUBway)? And how many people were on the flight that produced more carbon dioxide than ONE commuter? What is the point of your post in this discussion? If I posted statistics that showed how much more carbon dioxide was emitted as a result of travelling by rail versus bicycle, would that be the basis of an open and shut case to eliminate rail travel? Why not?
schlimm Saw this in the New York Times, 11/18/2009: "A recent study in Britain concluded that one flight from London to Los Angeles produced more carbon dioxide per person than the average British commuter produces in a year by traveling by train, subway or car."
Saw this in the New York Times, 11/18/2009:
"A recent study in Britain concluded that one flight from London to Los Angeles produced more carbon dioxide per person than the average British commuter produces in a year by traveling by train, subway or car."
So, are we to conclude that air travel should be banned? Or is the proper conclusion that persons wishing to travel from London to Los Angeles should instead drive or take the train (I guess the crossing of the Atlantic would be by SUBway)?
And how many people were on the flight that produced more carbon dioxide than ONE commuter?
What is the point of your post in this discussion? If I posted statistics that showed how much more carbon dioxide was emitted as a result of travelling by rail versus bicycle, would that be the basis of an open and shut case to eliminate rail travel? Why not?
Again. This is where the comment came from.
schlimm"So, are we to conclude that air travel should be banned? Or is the proper conclusion that persons wishing to travel from London to Los Angeles should instead drive or take the train (I guess the crossing of the Atlantic would be by SUBway)?"
I did NOT say that. Try attributing that to someone else---
blownout cylinderThe 'Straw Man' in this case was this long distance flight .
I realize Wikipedia is not the greatest source and this is getting rather far from the original point, but...
"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
Example: Person A claims: Sunny days are good.Argument Person B: If all days were sunny, we'd never have rain, and without rain, we'd have famine and death. You are obviously wrong. Problem: B has falsely framed A's claim to imply that A says that only sunny days are good, and has argued against that assertion instead of the assertion A has made."
I read the whole report on this and can see why there is a confusion here now. This sentence,when taken out of the context of the article, is very mangled. The 'Straw Man' in this case was this long distance flight . A commuter in England--especially in the London vicinity does tend to travel a fair bit hence his/her total mileage is pretty close to equal. But why it wasn't couched in those terms is kinda weird--
I would like to know why short hop flights were not questioned in the first place.
htgguySo, are we to conclude that air travel should be banned? Or is the proper conclusion that persons wishing to travel from London to Los Angeles should instead drive or take the train (I guess the crossing of the Atlantic would be by SUBway)?
Sorry, but the "straw man" reference was to your sarcastic speculations cited above. I assume you are being funny/sarcastic, and not serious. Since we were talking about electrification and one of the points raised by proponents was "green" issues, I thought this article was appropriate. Sorry I didn't give the link.
I am as entitled to advance a viewpoint as anyone. I try to give as many facts in support as most, more than some, less than some of the mechanical gurus in this forum. I also try to avoid the "flaming" that seems so common here.
schlimm htgguy So, are we to conclude that air travel should be banned? Or is the proper conclusion that persons wishing to travel from London to Los Angeles should instead drive or take the train (I guess the crossing of the Atlantic would be by SUBway)? And how many people were on the flight that produced more carbon dioxide than ONE commuter? What is the point of your post in this discussion? Apparently the point was missed. The article is only saying that air travel produces a lot of CO2, not any of the "straw man" points you interjected.
htgguy So, are we to conclude that air travel should be banned? Or is the proper conclusion that persons wishing to travel from London to Los Angeles should instead drive or take the train (I guess the crossing of the Atlantic would be by SUBway)? And how many people were on the flight that produced more carbon dioxide than ONE commuter? What is the point of your post in this discussion?
What is the point of your post in this discussion?
Apparently the point was missed. The article is only saying that air travel produces a lot of CO2, not any of the "straw man" points you interjected.
Now I have to say, just a minute. Let's look back over this discussion. You and I have had a bit of back and forth. You have posted some things that I have responded to. I have tried to do it in a spirit of goodwill, even if I have challenged you a few times. You've requested some clarification. You've asked questions. I've gone out and dug up information to support my position. I have, in return, asked some questions of you. This is at least the second time you have re-directed the conversation.
I think it was fair to ask what your point was when you post a reference to an article, without even including a link, that compared the CO2 emissions of flying from London to Los Angeles, which happens to be about 5500 miles, with the CO2 emissions of a British commuter. I get the point about the airplane, but the article raised other issues. The excerpt of the article you posted is the one that mentions trans-Atlantic flights and commuters. I didn't mix the two. They are not "staw men". So I posed some questions.
You know, schlimm, people are pretty much up to speed on the fact that air travel produces a lot of CO2. I enjoy intelligent debate and discussion on this message board when people can keep it fact based. I come here looking for new information. What you posted earlier about German rail commuters was a great piece of info and prompted me to do some research of my own, which may in some small part help someone else learn something.
If you have a viewpoint to advance, find some pertinent facts to use to support it and share them with the board.
Visit look4trains.com
HarveyK400A couple things have occurred to me since reading the recent Trains article on electrification.......................
Harvey, Thanks for your comments, but when you respond within my quote, it may be confusing to others to as to what you are saying versus what I said. You could go back and edit your post to change the color of your text and leave mine black. You just click EDIT.
schlimm Just reread the Trains article this thread concerns. To read some of the posts here, you'd think they were talking about some other article.
Just reread the Trains article this thread concerns. To read some of the posts here, you'd think they were talking about some other article.
How so?
BucyrusA couple things have occurred to me since reading the recent Trains article on electrification. Rail electrification for the traditional purpose may never happen, but there is a new purpose for rail electrification that may compel it to happen very soon. That new purpose is a non-oil, non-carbon, national transportation system for the U.S. The assumed reduced rail operating cost from electrification would shift the competitive balance and divert some road use, further reducing the carbon footprint and progressing toward national energy goals. At the same time, the gas tax, a user fee, needs to be increased to meet system maintenance and improvement needs. The current below-cost recovery level subsidizes and encourages use of less energy-efficient road transportation.There are other reasons to electrify such as improved efficiency, reduced highway accidents, and less asthma, but they do not justify government financing with taxpayer money.Actually, road collisions, emissions (including impact on public health), travel time reduction are monetized for highway and transit improvement cost-benefit and environmental impact analyses for use of tax money. A similar approach could be used to determine public benefit to justify a level of rail electrification federal grant assistance. It is the two-prong crisis of oil supply and carbon footprint that calls for the federal solution.As above there are a number of reasons for federal assistance beside oil supply and carbon footprint, albeit not the focus of some activists. Furthermore, the total scope of the federal solution to this crisis goes beyond the electrification of rail. It also includes shifting the majority of truck haulage off of the highways and onto the rails. Likewise, it calls for HSR to be introduced in conjunction with universal electrification to shift the majority of automobile traffic off of the highways. And it goes on to include massive new rail line improvements, new routes, elimination of grade crossings, ECP brakes, PTC, and new terminal facilities to mesh with the increase in the long haul traffic previously handled by trucks. Couldn't agree with you more; but reality may reign in the scope of electrification to the 25,000 miles level (from the previous thread) or less. Previous business models for electrification have weighed it against transport profit. The new model weighs it against the prevention of a national crisis. The two objectives are not comparable. So there is no guarantee that electrification, according to the new purpose, will reduce costs. The new purpose may call for sacrifice and higher costs in order to confront the national crisis just like the cost of going to war, for example. While a national crisis may be prevented; the railroads are not alone in the equation. Fuel costs for planes, trucks, buses, and automobiles would go up; and likely much higher than any resulting cost increase for rail alternative energy consumption. Railroads say that electrification will be too costly without government funding. If railroads cannot raise or risk the capital for electrification, would they be willing to borrow it if the government would lend it to them? If they are not willing to borrow the money, and the government is willing to fund it anyway, and wants to fund it in the national interest, what role would government then play in the operation of the electrified railroads? Wouldn’t the taxpayers insist on some form of direct government management of the public investment in electrification such as what is being done with GM and Chrysler? While public demand for a government investment position in the respective railroads would be justified, this could be avoided by grants limited to the level that monetized public benefits would be achieved. This approach would seem to favor the more viable, higher traffic volume, railroad electrification prospects and preclude universal mainline electrification. This does not offer a way around the I-81 Corridor and similar situations that would require substantial, costly, line relocation to bring the railway up to modern standards. If, ironically, the Man from Omaha can invest in BNSF, why can't governments get stock in companies they invest in? This would not be nationalization. Furthermore the government would be in a position to trade the stock and recover the public money. While one scenario would be for the government to offer a direct subsidy to the railroads in order to spur electrification, another scenario would be for the government to impose carbon caps that would make diesel operation so costly that they would have to electrify in order to survive. If railroads cannot raise the capital to electrify on a voluntary basis, what will they do if the imposition of carbon caps forces them to electrify? I agree that punitive, discriminatory carbon caps on railroads alone would be a disaster. I could be wrong, but aren't carbon caps typically established near existing levels with provisions for trading? Would truckers pay enough for railroad credits to at least partially finance electrification? How would UP, CSX, NS, and BNSF each feel about becoming a small private operating component of a larger nationalized rail electrification system? Maybe the question should be how would the railroads feel having a large block of stock controlled by the government?
There are other reasons to electrify such as improved efficiency, reduced highway accidents, and less asthma, but they do not justify government financing with taxpayer money.
Actually, road collisions, emissions (including impact on public health), travel time reduction are monetized for highway and transit improvement cost-benefit and environmental impact analyses for use of tax money. A similar approach could be used to determine public benefit to justify a level of rail electrification federal grant assistance.
It is the two-prong crisis of oil supply and carbon footprint that calls for the federal solution.
As above there are a number of reasons for federal assistance beside oil supply and carbon footprint, albeit not the focus of some activists.
Bucyrus [Regardless of what anybody believes about the effects of CO2, congress intends to take action to reduce it, based on the belief that it is a big problem.
[Regardless of what anybody believes about the effects of CO2, congress intends to take action to reduce it, based on the belief that it is a big problem.
I have a real problem with that statement. Other voters may, too.
And of your scenarios, I agree, with the current politcal environment, #3 is most likely to happen. By the time anything does happen, #2 may be more likely. I just hope the unfunded costs, if this does happen, don't cripple railroading as we know it, or worse trigger more retrenchment.
rrnut282Using reductions in CO2 production to justify electrification of railroading is a paper lion. Barring government mandate (most likely unfunded to make it worse) electrification will have to stand on its own merits.
Regardless of what anybody believes about the effects of CO2, congress intends to take action to reduce it, based on the belief that it is a big problem.
These are the probable scenarios leading to near universal rail electrification:
1) A private business investment by the railroads similar to the decision to dieselize.
2) A government offer of public financing to railroads to make it financially feasible to voluntarily electrify.
3) A government law making carbon caps that raise the operating cost of railroads to the point that it is cheaper to electrify, coupled with government offer of public financing to railroads to make it financially feasible to voluntarily electrify.
Item #1 is unlikely because the cost is too high to justify the investment. Item #3 is the most likely scenario.
I believe that you are right in your assessment that the first action on this matter is likely to be on the BNSF.
Interesting parallel: after 9/11 the post office stopped shipping USMail on passenger flights over the US, and look at what the lost revenue did to the airlines, and decades earlier, railroads.
Also, CO2 isn't the problem. It's just an easy target. I read somewhere that it accounts for only about 10% of the effects of "global warming". Water vapor in the atmosphere is almost 10x more effective as CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere. So let's ban di-hydrogen monoxide like California allegedly almost did. Without sunshine on the ocean creating evaporation, the number one source would be contained. Shall we ban sunshine, too? Using reductions in CO2 production to justify electrification of railroading is a paper lion. Barring government mandate (most likely unfunded to make it worse) electrification will have to stand on its own merits. In our myoptic quarterly results driven management style, it won't happen.
IMHO, the one to watch is BNSF, once Mr Buffet takes ownership. Freed of the tyrrany of satisfactory quarterlies, they may have the ability to make a long-term, strategic, bet-the-company, investment that won't see results for several years in reduced operating costs. If they can't do it, in all likelyhoood, no one can.
schlimm blownout cylinderTo me this only proves that you can use any statistical tool to prove anything---all you gotta do is find something that'll have a higher number -- in this case they used air travel---not just LOCAL air travel but a LONG DISTANCE one! Calm down. I didn't make the comparison. The study cited in the Times did. Anything that shows air travel in a somewhat negative light seems to get you so upset. Anyway, I suspect a short-hop flight would produce a lot of CO2 also. Take-offs and low altitude flights burn a lot of fuel compared to cruising at 35000.
blownout cylinderTo me this only proves that you can use any statistical tool to prove anything---all you gotta do is find something that'll have a higher number -- in this case they used air travel---not just LOCAL air travel but a LONG DISTANCE one!
Calm down. I didn't make the comparison. The study cited in the Times did. Anything that shows air travel in a somewhat negative light seems to get you so upset. Anyway, I suspect a short-hop flight would produce a lot of CO2 also. Take-offs and low altitude flights burn a lot of fuel compared to cruising at 35000.
Nope it didn't make the comparison, but you did post it.....here is the link by the way
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/science/earth/18offset.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=carbon%20dioxide&st=cse
Anyway short haul flights could be a lot more efficient, by using turboprops instead of jets. Anything under 500 miles the prop is much more efficient. That being said, the public has shown an unwillingness the fly props, most feel that they are old or unsafe, regardless of the age of the aircraft and what the safety stats say. So the aircraft builders came out the the "regional jet" which for the most part has taken over the under 500 mile aircraft routes.
An "expensive model collector"
Did it happen to say how long the average commute is? The flight from London to Los Angeles is 5442 miles long. I drive about 10 miles each way to work a day. My yearly drive would be about 5200 miles, NOT counting the three weeks of vacation that I don't drive, the 10 personal days which I can use, or any sick days that I might need. However since I will go in on by days off for OT every now and then, we will stick to the 5200 miles. Now I would think that 242 miles traveled extra would produce more carbon dioxide. Lets look at some other things about long haul flights, did the study factor in air freight? Just about any widebody flight, along with many narrowbodys, with have any room in the cargo carpartment that is not used for passenger's bags filled with freight. It can vary from fresh fruits to autos. Weight has a large effect on carbon output. My 5200 miles commute a year is just little old me, with no freight to speak of. What kind of aircraft was it, a 20 year old 747-400, or a 2 year old A330? I am sure my 2006 Mustang puts out much less CO2 than Blownout's 68 429CJ or Ed's 71 Challenger. Did they study what the new, all composite 787 or A350 would be? Both of those aircraft are making some large promises on how efficient they will be. Maybe a better study, and less misleading, would be the amount of carbon dioxode produced vs ton hauled...
Edit...found this study on the web. If this is true and the goverment is serious about the enviorment, I think the 8 billion would be better spent on sending America to the Biggest Loser rather than HSR.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517264,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/04/20/thin.global.warming/index.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Diet/story?id=4865889&page=1
blownout cylinder htgguy schlimm Saw this in the New York Times, 11/18/2009: "A recent study in Britain concluded that one flight from London to Los Angeles produced more carbon dioxide per person than the average British commuter produces in a year by traveling by train, subway or car." So, are we to conclude that air travel should be banned? Or is the proper conclusion that persons wishing to travel from London to Los Angeles should instead drive or take the train (I guess the crossing of the Atlantic would be by SUBway)? And how many people were on the flight that produced more carbon dioxide than ONE commuter? What is the point of your post in this discussion? If I posted statistics that showed how much more carbon dioxide was emitted as a result of travelling by rail versus bicycle, would that be the basis of an open and shut case to eliminate rail travel? Why not? Strange context mangling in that article. Maybe we could advocate for wind powered waterborne vessels---also known as the tall ships I guess
Strange context mangling in that article.
Maybe we could advocate for wind powered waterborne vessels---also known as the tall ships I guess
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
I'm calm--I just use drama to emphesise the point! LOL!! The article itself is problematic in that the way the thing was constructed could have been used to advocate tall ship travel as the way to go then. And take off/landing will have been taken care of by just adocating a much slower form of travel----mmm--I wonder how many travellers will go for that As for short hop commuter flights, that might haave been a better thing to do the comparison with-----
Again: Read the sentence you wrote down here. The thing was comparing two specific contexts here--air travel and car. I am not sure why a mode of travel--in this case air travel to another continent over the ocean was used to compare a local commute with!! To me this only proves that you can use any statistical tool to prove anything---all you gotta do is find something that'll have a higher number -- in this case they used air travel---not just LOCAL air travel but a LONG DISTANCE one! Sheesh!!
htgguySo, are we to conclude that air travel should be banned? Or is the proper conclusion that persons wishing to travel from London to Los Angeles should instead drive or take the train (I guess the crossing of the Atlantic would be by SUBway)? And how many people were on the flight that produced more carbon dioxide than ONE commuter? What is the point of your post in this discussion?
A complete system of HSR is just one small component of the national transportation system and its affiliated agenda of switching to 100% renewable energy for all purposes, and the new distribution smart grid that will link to new energy production sites and manage power usage. And then there is the new catenary, track, substations, locomotives, rolling stock, and terminal facilities. All of these facets of the big plan are somewhat interdependent, so they must advance more or less simultaneously.
The $8 billion that has been committed to HSR is just a tiny symbolic token of what must ultimately be committed to the big plan. The whole price tag would likely be in the several trillion-dollar price range, if an accurate price could even be calculated. It is hard to believe that a project this large could be undertaken without spreading out over a long time. But we are told that this is to address a national emergency, so quick action is implied. And the people who have the authority to spend money have unbounded zeal to do so. They will tell us that it is an investment that will yield a handsome return, so don’t worry about the price.
However, I have a hunch that ramping up spending on this scale will be impossible. It would be almost like defying the laws of physics. The institutions that spend money are suited to the flow of spending that they normally handle. If you suddenly give them one-thousand times the amount they spend in one year, and give them one year to spend it, they won’t be able to do it.
It is true that they must have the money to spend in order to spend it, but that is not enough when you ask them to spend way out of scale. The problem is that, even though they are given the money to spend, they will need more resources just to spend it. If you give them a trillion dollars to spend fast, they will need another trillion to ramp up their resources and assets needed to spend the first trillion. And due to the tendency to milk this kind of windfall, they will need a third trillion to spend the first two. It will spiral into spending lockup by its own inertia.
I suspect we will see that just with the $8 billion for HSR. The bigger the chunk of money we lay on the table, the less efficiently it will be spent. I would not be surprised if $8 billion only buys some track improvements.
Certainly the government can spend money in any amount if they simply transfer it in one big chunk. But the kind of spending that will be required with these infrastructure projects needs bids, contracts, and management-- all performed by government bureaucracies. Think what that will cost for letting a trillion dollars worth of work.
So, in my opinion, spending on this scale, in a short time frame, will simply not be possible. There is not enough money or resources anywhere on earth to meet the ballooning cost of managing spending on this scale. It will consume money like a black hole.
schlimm htgguy What it looks like to me, is they hauled a whole bunch of commuters. 1.8 billion is a whole lot of people, but I think it should be clear that they aren't all racing about Germany on high speed rail. Glad you examined their site. I wondered at first about that number too. Of course it includes commuters, although not all the commuter or regional services in Germany (there is some competition). But I and others are talking an integrated transport system including HSR where appropriate and upgrades short of true HSR on other routes. BTW, I wonder how many commuters are carried in the US yearly?
htgguy What it looks like to me, is they hauled a whole bunch of commuters. 1.8 billion is a whole lot of people, but I think it should be clear that they aren't all racing about Germany on high speed rail.
What it looks like to me, is they hauled a whole bunch of commuters.
1.8 billion is a whole lot of people, but I think it should be clear that they aren't all racing about Germany on high speed rail.
Glad you examined their site. I wondered at first about that number too. Of course it includes commuters, although not all the commuter or regional services in Germany (there is some competition). But I and others are talking an integrated transport system including HSR where appropriate and upgrades short of true HSR on other routes. BTW, I wonder how many commuters are carried in the US yearly?
Going from wikipedia (if you believe it-I guess I would for this kind of data), my figuring showed about 430 million a year. Wait, that's just heavy rail-I found light rail, and that adds another 530 million a year. So between the two, about 960 million a year. Darn near a billion people a year on rail transit! I am really surprised by that number.
Now I found another site from the American Public Transportation Association. I took the average weekly ridership for heavy rail, light rail, and commuter rail, and multplied each of them by 52 weeks. They added up to 737,380,800. So I guess the true number is between about 750 million and 950 million a year. That's rail commuters in the US. Oh I see I missed about 18 million a year trolleybus riders too. That's not much percentagewise.
Then I looked at buses. That looks like another half billion a year, 504,816,000 to be exact using the same methodology as for the trains.
That's what I have found. I'm surprised.
Jim
schlimm Frankly, the degree of opposition to improving passenger rail transit here makes me wonder if many of you work for the airlines and trucking concerns, not just opposing a government rail subsidy.
Nope, I am a dispatcher for a class one railroad. I just hate to see my hard earned tax money wasted on someones pipe dream.
Now if you want to talk about banning all long haul trucking I am game! Just think of all the fuel that would be saved, along with the increase in road capacity.
I do not work in the transportation industry myself but in healthcare--where one can see abuses going on. We recently had a hoohaw develop over untendered contracts being sent out to friends of people who were in the admin. of a local hospital--to the tune of about $1.45 million dollars. These went for consultants fees and services. A large chunk of change out of a hospital budget that is currently out by a few million. The individual was released from their duties with a nice severance package too, BTW.
Any subsidy would need vetted if these are going to be used. There must be strict guidences on these things to prevent those kinds of incidences --- hence the scepticism towards subsidies --- they can become a means of extending governmental bureaucratic controls--and the bureaucracies as well.
schlimm "For the full year of 2008, the number of scheduled domestic and international passengers on U.S. airlines declined by 3.7 percent from 2007, dropping to 741.4 million, 28.2 million fewer than a year earlier." [BTS] Sure, but we are talking about upgrading services which would result in a large increase in passengers carried by rail. For example, in 2007 Deutsche Bahn carried 1.835 billion passengers. Admittedly circumstances are different, but it shows the potential is there. And I'm not talking about "little kid waah waah" copying other countries' systems. Frankly, the degree of opposition to improving passenger rail transit here makes me wonder if many of you work for the airlines and trucking concerns, not just opposing a government rail subsidy.
"For the full year of 2008, the number of scheduled domestic and international passengers on U.S. airlines declined by 3.7 percent from 2007, dropping to 741.4 million, 28.2 million fewer than a year earlier." [BTS]
Sure, but we are talking about upgrading services which would result in a large increase in passengers carried by rail. For example, in 2007 Deutsche Bahn carried 1.835 billion passengers. Admittedly circumstances are different, but it shows the potential is there. And I'm not talking about "little kid waah waah" copying other countries' systems. Frankly, the degree of opposition to improving passenger rail transit here makes me wonder if many of you work for the airlines and trucking concerns, not just opposing a government rail subsidy.
To be fair, let's look at what the numbers indicate. DB carried more than 1.8 billion passengers in 2007. If you used their entire revenue for that year (about 31 billion euros, or 46 billion dollars at current exchange rates-got it from this site), and figured they hauled 312 million tons of railfreight, 1.3 million tons of air freight, 800 million bus passengers, and almost 1.5 million TEU's for FREE the same year, they grossed about $25 per passenger. If they actually charged for their other services the gross income per passenger was MUCH less than $25. What it looks like to me, is they hauled a whole bunch of commuters.
schlimm htgguyCan I interpret that as you being in favor of building more nuclear power plants, allowing utilities to study clean coal technology funded by a surcharge on electric rates, open up more drilling for oil in the western states and offshore, and removing barriers to oil shale development? Sure, if they can be done as you say and without excessive environmental destruction. For nuclear, the keys are safe spent fuel storage and competitive costs on construction. Clean coal answers are there, at a price. Oil shale hasn't been competitive since the 70's, as I recall, but I might be wrong on that. I take it you favor increased renewables?
htgguyCan I interpret that as you being in favor of building more nuclear power plants, allowing utilities to study clean coal technology funded by a surcharge on electric rates, open up more drilling for oil in the western states and offshore, and removing barriers to oil shale development?
Sure, if they can be done as you say and without excessive environmental destruction. For nuclear, the keys are safe spent fuel storage and competitive costs on construction. Clean coal answers are there, at a price. Oil shale hasn't been competitive since the 70's, as I recall, but I might be wrong on that. I take it you favor increased renewables?
100% in favor of any energy source that can be developed without subsidies. As noted above, clean coal research should be paid for by electric customers. That is the same way wind, solar, ethanol, and any other renewable should be handled. I'm curious about how much wind or ethanol would exist currently if they had to compete in the market? I suspect none.
schlimm jclassNow, airlines are going to be "fixed", too. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091112/ap_on_bi_ge/us_fixing_airlines $ 29 - 42 Bil. for a new GPS air traffic control system and the equipment in the planes. It is almost certainly needed, but I wonder if the failing airlines will still be contributing their fair share (35% or $ 10.15 - 14.7 Bil.) for that? But so many are upset that Amtrak might/is getting $8 Bil.?
jclassNow, airlines are going to be "fixed", too. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091112/ap_on_bi_ge/us_fixing_airlines
$ 29 - 42 Bil. for a new GPS air traffic control system and the equipment in the planes. It is almost certainly needed, but I wonder if the failing airlines will still be contributing their fair share (35% or $ 10.15 - 14.7 Bil.) for that? But so many are upset that Amtrak might/is getting $8 Bil.?
Yes they are. Last year airlines carried 660 million people on domestic flights. Amtrak carried just over 29 million. That is over 22 time as many passengers, yet they are only looking for under 2 times the amount of money. Seems like more than a fair deal to me.
BTW how much money will Amtrak look for from the goverment to fund the PTC upgrade?
Bucyrus One of the major justifications for the $8 billion HSR proposal is that it will create jobs. It is, after all, part of the economic stimulus plan. A lot of people are skeptical of the very premise of the Keynesian economic theory that government spending can stimulate the economy and end a recession.
Yes. One of our nephews administers construction projects in our state's DOT. His department had to hire eight people to handle the many project applications from localities around the state that have been trying to get a piece of the stimulus $$ pie. Where is the productivity in that?
Our governor has mandated state employees take furlough days, supposedly to cut costs. A friend who is an hourly worker showed me her work calendar with numerous added overtime hours highlighted. Because of furloughs, her department has had to schedule overtime (time and a half) to cover furloughs. Approximately $10 per hour higher than normal. She likes the extra overtime pay, but also knows the department's annual labor budget was used up over a month ago.
Another thread here has discussion about the governor's agreement that will bring Talgo's to the Chi-Milw. Amtrak route, tilt technology to be used on a straight row. A new firm is to be created to build the equipment in-state. The last time I heard, Super Steel assembles passenger railcars here. A new competitor for an in-state manufacturer?
Now, airlines are going to be "fixed", too. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091112/ap_on_bi_ge/us_fixing_airlines
"What a way to run a railroad... "
schlimm Some (though not all) of the opposition to electrification, HSR, etc. here sounds a bit like the opposition to the the Industrial Revolution's innovations (water-powered mills, steam power, etc) by the the original saboteurs - they would stick their wooden shoes (sabots) into the powered looms to wreck them. If there are measures that can be taken that could reduce our reliance on oil from the Mideast, even at a fairly high price, I think we would all benefit. Besides, it really does sound like electrification by private rails will happen.
Some (though not all) of the opposition to electrification, HSR, etc. here sounds a bit like the opposition to the the Industrial Revolution's innovations (water-powered mills, steam power, etc) by the the original saboteurs - they would stick their wooden shoes (sabots) into the powered looms to wreck them. If there are measures that can be taken that could reduce our reliance on oil from the Mideast, even at a fairly high price, I think we would all benefit. Besides, it really does sound like electrification by private rails will happen.
I replied that I don’t think there is an analogy between the opposition to the industrial revolution and the opposition to HRS, electrification, etc.
You replied:
“Not to be taken literally. It is a metaphor or symbol for the opposition to inevitable progress.”
My response:
I understand your metaphor, but my point was not about whether you were using a metaphor, or were literally objecting to people putting their shoes in the machinery to stop progress. My point is that there is a big difference between being opposed to progress and being opposed to excessive growth of government.
The traditional opposition to progress is often expressed by people who fear societal change because they have difficulty in changing personally to accommodate it. They may also fear technological progress because its efficiency improvement eliminates certain jobs and careers in which people have stakes. The Luddites are the classic example. I suspect that hardly anybody opposes HSR (and other elements of this new energy / transportation proposal) for this group of reasons. If HSR and were merely a better mousetrap being marketed by private business like new computers or software, I think that the only people opposing it would be those who have an interest in competing forms of transportation.
However, HSR, (to cite one component of rail electrification), is not simply an example of the inevitable technological progress. It is instead, a public sector, publicly funded, government run system of socialized transportation. People fear it because government is known to waste money due to poor oversight, fraud, abuse, and political opportunism. People resist it because they do not want to be taxed for something they don’t need. People are wary of the loss of freedom that tends to come from unbridled government expansion.
The basic topic of this thread is about a broad proposal that includes rail electrification and HSR, among several other things. It is all to be public funded by the government. Assuming that the government will manage the construction and operation of this new infrastructure, it represents a massive increase in socialism. Some people fear that.
Right now, this is all in the preliminary stages. It may or may not develop and be fully executed. It may develop gradually, or it may take off with a bang. The most developed component of the overall proposal is the embryonic, $8 billion HSR proposal. It is purely a public sector proposal, and people oppose it for all of the reasons I have stated. Mostly those reasons can be summarized as resistance to building something we don’t need.
Much of the justification for the need sounds flimsy. I am referring to the need to worry about what people in other countries think of us, for example. One of the major justifications for the $8 billion HSR proposal is that it will create jobs. It is, after all, part of the economic stimulus plan. A lot of people are skeptical of the very premise of the Keynesian economic theory that government spending can stimulate the economy and end a recession.
So, overall, I don’t see any connection between the opposition to HSR and its greater dimensions of nationalized transportation, and the traditional opposition to progress. Moreover, many would argue that these government-spending proposals are not progress.
I'm in favour of all methods being used --- that includes renewables---
schlimmIf there are measures that can be taken that could reduce our reliance on oil from the Mideast, even at a fairly high price, I think we would all benefit.
Can I interpret that as you being in favor of building more nuclear power plants, allowing utilities to study clean coal technology funded by a surcharge on electric rates, open up more drilling for oil in the western states and offshore, and removing barriers to oil shale development? Because all of those things would make a huge difference in our imported oil needs, especially when compared to the effect of rail electrification.
If you are opposed to the above programs, how is that opposition not like what you are referring to in your post?
I think we would all benefit from the projects I listed.
Not to be taken literally. It is a metaphor or symbol for opposition to inevitable progress.
Those people trying to sabotage the industrial revolution were resisting the threat that it posed to manual labor. This sweeping energy / transportation policy we are discussing is a public sector proposal, thus entirely different than the industrial revolution. I don’t think there is any analogy between the resistance to the industrial revolution and those who resist this public sector energy / transportation proposal.
Bucyrus He believes the best solution to mass transit is to get people to stop moving around so much.
This specifically is in reference to the issue of urban development and the idea that we needed to radically 'cleanse' what some planners called 'urban blight' or 'cancerous growths' or such--referring to older more settled neighbourhoods that were a mix of residential/light-heavy industrial/commercial/retail. Now, with the single use zonal system in place since the 1970's we now have whole neighbourhoods which are seperated by a network of highways and arterial roads from anything resembling retail ( giant hypertrophied 'Power Centers being one example) or commercial ( strip plazas out in the middle of nowhere). Toronto, which is about an hour and a half from where I live shows this beautifully----some urban planners view some neighbourhoods as problematic--Kensington Market being one mentioned---yet everything in that part of TO is within walking distance to each other. The 'planned' neighbourhoods OTOH do not even have a variety store within the residential fortress walls---one neighbourhood, in which a friend lives in, has no retail within a 25km radius---which makes for a nice drive.
Basically, however, I see where this is coming from---there is/are a pile of issues around transportation that needs to be looked into----piecemeal---with no centrally planned 'systems'-----look what centrally planned urban planning got us
Here is an article by someone who advocates the steel interstate concept of rail electrification, but opposes HSR for a variety of reasons. He believes the best solution to mass transit is to get people to stop moving around so much.
He refers to the $8 billion for HSR as an earmark, and he laments,
“We are planning to spend $8 billion so that people who already travel more than they should can do it faster and easier.”
While the inherent low friction of rail make it the transportation champion of energy efficiency, that virtue begins to disappear as the speed goes up. The author claims that electrified passenger trains running between 140 and 220 mph on electricity from fossil fuels produce more CO2 emissions than airplanes.
http://www.prorev.com/2009/02/high-speed-high-cost-high-income-rail.html
Deggesty Murphy SidingAfter the 1973 (?) gas shortage, Yes, you are right about that year. One event sticks in my mind--we took a trip, going by rail from Jackson, Miss., to Chicago, on to Albuquerque, and then back, retracing the route. Before we left, a friend hoped that we would not have any trouble getting gas. I think that I told her that we were not worried, since we were going by train. In 1079, we were living in Utah, not Alabama. Johnny
Murphy SidingAfter the 1973 (?) gas shortage,
Yes, you are right about that year. One event sticks in my mind--we took a trip, going by rail from Jackson, Miss., to Chicago, on to Albuquerque, and then back, retracing the route. Before we left, a friend hoped that we would not have any trouble getting gas. I think that I told her that we were not worried, since we were going by train. In 1079, we were living in Utah, not Alabama.
Johnny
I remember a whole pile of shortage situations back in the '70's. Taking a trip anywhere involved checking ahead the day before to see whether there was gas at some locations. It was getting kind of tedious as well watching the cars getting weirder looking every year----until one found-----"the K car"---ohno ohno
BNSFwatcher Subject: Railroads. Q: why doesn't South Dakota have ANY Amtrak service? To be fair-and-balanced, I can ask the same about Wyoming. I do think SD could support a tri-weekly accomodation, consisting of six baggage cars and a rider coach. It would be full of DBs of old geezers that tipped-over-wicked when hearing the room rates at the Rapid City "Econo Lodge". Of course, your references to the "Gas Shortage of 1973" is a-political. I happen to remember it occuring in 1979, but that would be political. Yeah, President Bush caused "Hurrimicane Katrina". Lighten up! Bill
Subject: Railroads. Q: why doesn't South Dakota have ANY Amtrak service? To be fair-and-balanced, I can ask the same about Wyoming.
I do think SD could support a tri-weekly accomodation, consisting of six baggage cars and a rider coach. It would be full of DBs of old geezers that tipped-over-wicked when hearing the room rates at the Rapid City "Econo Lodge".
Of course, your references to the "Gas Shortage of 1973" is a-political. I happen to remember it occuring in 1979, but that would be political. Yeah, President Bush caused "Hurrimicane Katrina".
Lighten up!
Bill
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Dakguy201 As a gesture in furtherance of the public good, Murphy and I volunteer personally to pay the bill to electrify all the routes routinely used by Amtrak in South Dakota.
As a gesture in furtherance of the public good, Murphy and I volunteer personally to pay the bill to electrify all the routes routinely used by Amtrak in South Dakota.
Murphy Siding Just a reminder. We need to keep this thread focused on railroads please. If it turns to heavy political content, it tends to go downhill. Thanks. Back to the topic at hand. Haven't we been through this a couple times before? After the 1973 (?) gas shortage, folks got on the bandwagon about ridding our country of foreign dependance on oil. Remember all the ugly solar panels tacked onto houses? Despite all the big talk, we back to the same place around 1980. Folks got on the bandwagon to rhetoric and nowhere again. Act 3 came with hurricane Katrina. Same bandwagon, same big talk. What makes this time any different?
Just a reminder. We need to keep this thread focused on railroads please. If it turns to heavy political content, it tends to go downhill. Thanks. Back to the topic at hand. Haven't we been through this a couple times before? After the 1973 (?) gas shortage, folks got on the bandwagon about ridding our country of foreign dependance on oil. Remember all the ugly solar panels tacked onto houses? Despite all the big talk, we back to the same place around 1980. Folks got on the bandwagon to rhetoric and nowhere again. Act 3 came with hurricane Katrina. Same bandwagon, same big talk. What makes this time any different?
Any time that one gets working papers coming out of sources such as recently posted one always runs the risk of a politics getting played out. It does tend to wear thin.
There was another period in the early 1990's that sorta had the same thing going on. And how about that "Back To The Land" movement? Just fun stuff
My feeling is that there is really not that big of a difference between now and whatever there was back then. The only difference is that the media seems to play up the paranoia gambit by talking up the so called Global Climate Change-----BTW, IIRC wasn't there in the mid '70's a pile of warnings about the coming "Ice Age"?
creepycrankThe Long Island Railroad can make a claim, at least partially, to running on renewable energy. This is how it goes: several branches are electrified and they buy their power from LIPA which in turn buys power from the garbage incinerators at Roosevelt Field and in Suffolk County{ I can't remember where). So they have been using the most reliable renewable energy source- garbage, for almost 30 years now. Its solved the land fill or transport our trash to the moon problem very neatly and is profitable too.
There was an attempt to have an energy from waste power plant for a local hospital here in London ON not too long ago which got shut down due to the air borne pollutants found coming out of the station. Even though the stack had all the latest equipment on it and the plant was not 'burning' toxic waste materials there was just enough to close it down. Maybe differing standards exist for these things---it did work in generating a lot of energy though
Article about BNSF electrification in Railway Age:
http://www.railwayage.com//content/view/931/121/
Quote from the article:
“The economics of cap and trade could tilt in the railroads’ favor. As well, future carbon restrictions affecting railroads could justify the high cost of electrification and locomotive acquisitions.”
The author seems to be finding benefit for the railroads in the upcoming carbon caps by this tortured logic:
Right now, the cost of electrification is too high for the railroads. So if the government makes a carbon cap law that forces the railroads to electrify, despite that fact that they cannot afford it, that is a good thing because it allows them to have something that they cannot afford.
Perhaps the author believes that the higher cost is not a burden on the railroads because they can simply pass it on to the customers. However, if this were true, the railroads would have no reason to not electrify right now. They could simply raise their rates to pay for electrification.
carnej1 The objection to Hydro seems to stem from the immense construction projects, Dams and resevoirs, necessary to make it work..of course here in the Northeast we are more than happy to purchase every hydroelectrically generated kilowatt our friends north of the border (Quebec Hydro) can send us... What Maglev are you referring to?
The objection to Hydro seems to stem from the immense construction projects, Dams and resevoirs, necessary to make it work..of course here in the Northeast we are more than happy to purchase every hydroelectrically generated kilowatt our friends north of the border (Quebec Hydro) can send us...
What Maglev are you referring to?
Quebec Hydro does pump out a lot of energy from the James Bay area, that is for sure. The issue there is the huge lakes and dams that reside in and around the area. Of course, it is not as bad as what some 'environmentalists' say they are. I do think that the issue clouds what happened to many of the Cree people's situatiion though.
The Mag-Lev issue is a whole other critter altogether. The story I got is one involving a plan some people threw together to get a magnetic levitational HSR system that could 'potentially'(?) save energy by creating a field around the rails(again:?). I may have buggered up the thing here but there we are. If anyone can throw some light here----
BNSFwatcher As to why the 'solons' consider hydro a non-renewable resource, I don't know.
One reason is if dams are deemed a non-renewable resource, they can feel good about pressing for dam-razing to restore rivers to their pre-dam, idyllic state. That the properly-maintained dams provide fossil fuel-less electricity at low cost to many people including themselves no longer causes dissonance in their minds.
oltmanndschlimm rrnut282Yes, nuclear power plants can dump a large amount of heat, if they want to or are being operated by Homer Simpson. Well, then I guess Homer must be operating the ComEd plant in Byron, Illinois. You can see the steam clouds from miles away. Also examine cooling ponds near most plants and check the water temp. Carnot efficiency cannot be exceeded (kinda like the speed of light for heat engines), so there has to be waste heat from a nuclear plant. Everyone had this in HS Physics, right?
schlimm rrnut282Yes, nuclear power plants can dump a large amount of heat, if they want to or are being operated by Homer Simpson. Well, then I guess Homer must be operating the ComEd plant in Byron, Illinois. You can see the steam clouds from miles away. Also examine cooling ponds near most plants and check the water temp.
rrnut282Yes, nuclear power plants can dump a large amount of heat, if they want to or are being operated by Homer Simpson.
Well, then I guess Homer must be operating the ComEd plant in Byron, Illinois. You can see the steam clouds from miles away. Also examine cooling ponds near most plants and check the water temp.
Can't I eggagerate for effect a little?
Thermal efficiency of a typical light-water nuclear power plant is around 35% (the rest of the heat is lost to the environment), whereas a supercritical coal plant can achieve 44%. Gas turbines are in the 40% range with some recent designs pushing 46%. Combined-cycle gas turbine designs that presently are in the R&D stage are seeking to obtain 60%+ thermal efficiency.
RWM
schlimm Unfortunately, there are a lot of bnsfwatcher-types out there. They deny global warming as the "ultimate silliness" and label renewables like wind turbine generation as silly, even though Denmark is energy independent in part because 19% of its electrical generation is now by wind. Oddly enough, he sees hydro as acceptable, but not wind or solar.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of bnsfwatcher-types out there. They deny global warming as the "ultimate silliness" and label renewables like wind turbine generation as silly, even though Denmark is energy independent in part because 19% of its electrical generation is now by wind. Oddly enough, he sees hydro as acceptable, but not wind or solar.
The "ultimate silliness" is demanding people change their habits by fiat because there is a "consensus" (not proof) by a few liberal-minded scientist and politicians that they can accurately project the consequenses by comparing 100 years of weather data to a 4 billion year old climate.
Global warming and cooling has been going on since this this planet was formed. Trains hauling coal to power plants all this time hasn't made the same impact as one medium-sized volcanic eruption. Electrification of the mainlines would be cool, and the railroads would benefit from reduced costs of operation, but I don't expect others to pay increased taxes for my railroad viewing pleasure.
schlimmrrnut282Yes, nuclear power plants can dump a large amount of heat, if they want to or are being operated by Homer Simpson. Well, then I guess Homer must be operating the ComEd plant in Byron, Illinois. You can see the steam clouds from miles away. Also examine cooling ponds near most plants and check the water temp.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
aegrotatio Someone said that nuclear power plants really increase the temperature of the atmosphere. I presume through the steam coming out of coolant towers. Really?? That sounds impossible.
Someone said that nuclear power plants really increase the temperature of the atmosphere. I presume through the steam coming out of coolant towers.
Really?? That sounds impossible.
I was hoping Eric would jump all over that statement, but since he didn't, I'll attempt to enlighten (or at least entertain).
Yes, nuclear power plants can dump a large amount of heat, if they want to or are being operated by Homer Simpson. The whole point of most nuclear power plants is to generate heat to boil water to make steam to drive the turbine which turns the generator. Nuclear fuel (enriched uranium) is very expensive to ship, store, install, and remove, so you try not to waste it by dumping heat into the atmosphere without a darn good reason. Do you drive with the clutch in or out??
blownout cylinderAs for the European experience of electrification most of the power generated there is coming through nuclear power----Denmark included
Fact Check:
In Germany in 2008, all renewable sources contribute 15.3% of electrical use, wind 6.5% and growing. Nuclear contributes 22%, much of which is exported to France.
In Denmark in 2008, wind was ~20%; they do not generate electricity by nuclear and are an exporter of energy to nearby states.
blownout cylinder schlimm Unfortunately, there are a lot of bnsfwatcher-types out there. They deny global warming as the "ultimate silliness" and label renewables like wind turbine generation as silly, even though Denmark is energy independent in part because 19% of its electrical generation is now by wind. Oddly enough, he sees hydro as acceptable, but not wind or solar. I'm not so sure myself---the current term used now is Global Climate Change. And there is an over weening amount of fear and paranoia mongering that really has nothing at all to do with the environment but good ol' business bashing. Not to mention the issue of man being the sole creator of climate change. I wonder what created all the climate changes for the past 4+ billion years of the earth's existence-- Be that as it may----Hydro power is seen not as renewable because we are now being told that it too is a scarce resource. Then we allow large corporations to buy up and build up bottled water plants in some areas like they are going out of style---- Funny this---- As for the electrification----if we consider the conserving of energy from the individual side then we can also see the intensification of electrification at that end. In other words we cut our usage down to single light in one room with no TV and radio so the big boys can play with their toys------Mag Lev will be next
I'm not so sure myself---the current term used now is Global Climate Change. And there is an over weening amount of fear and paranoia mongering that really has nothing at all to do with the environment but good ol' business bashing. Not to mention the issue of man being the sole creator of climate change. I wonder what created all the climate changes for the past 4+ billion years of the earth's existence--
Be that as it may----Hydro power is seen not as renewable because we are now being told that it too is a scarce resource. Then we allow large corporations to buy up and build up bottled water plants in some areas like they are going out of style----
Funny this----
As for the electrification----if we consider the conserving of energy from the individual side then we can also see the intensification of electrification at that end. In other words we cut our usage down to single light in one room with no TV and radio so the big boys can play with their toys------Mag Lev will be next
That seems to be the argument although from this little one's view it would be a reach----then again.
As for the European experience of electrification most of the power generated there is coming through nuclear power----Denmark included
Schlimm: have you checked the tax burden the Danes carry? Outrageous, but the flatulence that they eminate from drinking Akvavit and "Tuborg" chasers negates the "deadly" carbon dioxide elimination from going to wind power. Only a politician could love that!
Our local PP&L (Pennsylvania Power and Light. Yar PA in MT!) is replacing six old water turbines in Great Falls. The one new turbine will produce 70% more electricity than the old ones. Private enterprise at work!
As to why the 'solons' consider hydro a non-renewable resource, I don't know. Have they told Noah to stand down, 'cause it ain't gonna rain no more? Yar!, I pulled the plug on my TV nine years ago, and only have one task light on. I'm doing my part!
As far as "energy gobblers" go, Mag-Lev wins the prize!
jclassPeople don't matter to these people. Back to finding enjoyment in trains.
It is possible to enjoy both people and trains, old and current, as well as appreciate that some advances in rail technology are desirable and necessary.
Ahh... isn't utopia great!
If everybody just stopped exhaling, we could really reduce the carbon footprint. Cap and trade?
Sorry to be sarcastic. People don't matter to these people. Back to finding enjoyment in trains.
For as comprehensive and massive as this energy/transportation proposal is, there is still one more major component of it that has not received much attention. That component is energy conservation. In fact, that may be the first component to be implemented because it requires no funding and no time to build.
Conservation may begin as soon as next year after congress passes an energy bill. One of the centerpiece features of this legislation will be cap-and-trade. Without discussing the pros and cons of this curious mechanism, what is objectively clear is that it will raise the cost of energy derived from all non-renewable sources. Therefore it will reduce energy consumption by raising its cost.
Conservation sounds timid, but when driven by price rationing, it will be a very potent component in the campaign for national sustainability. And all it requires is a new law. Just look what happens to driving when gasoline rises to $4 per gallon. Think how much energy could be saved if every household in the U.S. reduced electricity use by 20%. There is easily enough elasticity in consumption for that amount of reduction to occur. The only reason that it has not is that it has not been forced by price yet. A reduction of residential consumption of that magnitude could easily liberate enough electrical capacity to electrify the railroads, even if they were expanded to include HSR and to assume substantial truck haulage.
The so-called smart grid will further refine this pricing/conservation principle of cap-and-trade by managing electric consumption according to the necessity of how it is used. The smart grid knows what you plug in or turn on, and how necessary it is. The smart grid then sets the price accordingly. It also sets the price according to periods of high and low collective average demand. It can encourage conservation by raising the price as your total rate of consumption increases. This is the future of energy distribution, however, it is a physical infrastructure system that will have to be built and paid for. It is called a smart grid because of the stinging pain it can deliver when you open your electric bill.
Great post!
I, for one, believe that the cost of initial electrification is grossly over-exaggerated. It should be amortized over the life of the railroad. I'd be delighted to hear what the amortized cost of the PRR's 1930s electrification is.
Here is a link to an interesting blog piece by someone who is espousing rail electrification for non-oil, sustainability reasons similar to the others I have linked.
http://midnight-populist.blogspot.com/2009/09/sunday-train-21st-century-steel.html
This author goes into a lot of detail about the logistics of train operations such as getting Rapid Freight Rail trains around the heavy rail trains. He also discusses the diversion of truck traffic to rail. He claims RFR will be faster than trucks door-to-door even if trucks have to haul from origination to the starting rail terminal and from the ending rail terminal to the destination. He advocates three types of rail service operating on the same corridor. The three types of rail operation are:
1) Emerging HSR passenger (110mph)
2) Heavy freight (conventional freight, 60 mph with 33 tons/axle loading).
3) Rapid Freight Rail for higher speed, priority delivery (100 mph with 25 tons/axle loading).
The author advocates an import fee on foreign oil to fund the electric rail vision.
BNSFwatcher [snip] As far as transmission lines go, did anyone object to the ultra-tall power lines PRR erected in their northeast corridor, in conjunction with the catenary? I wonder why they did that. The New Haven didn't, even with the same 11,000 volt AC lines. [snip]
To tie together internally within its own system and provide redundant sources of supply - those initial transmisison lines were at 132 KV, now 138 KV I believe, but 25 Hz.
Later, I believe Phila. Electric Co. added stubs on top for its 60 Hz. high-voltage transmission line 'overbuild', which made those tall towers even taller along certain lines. But I'll have to look to find any documentation to confirm or refute that thought, or a PECo Transmission & Distribution employee or expert to tell for sure.
I agree on the basic point. I'm sure no one objected to the Swiss Federal Rwys. stringing catenary through the Alps . . .
- Paul North.
I think electrically-powered railroads is a great idea. However, I wouldn't want to be the one telling the shipper that his delivery will be "next Monday, if the wind blows!". Utter silliness, and at 52x the cost of hydro power. Jeezum! They don't even consider hydro power a "renewable"! Solar = silliness, too, as is geothermal.
As far as transmission lines go, did anyone object to the ultra-tall power lines PRR erected in their northeast corridor, in conjunction with the catenary? I wonder why they did that. The New Haven didn't, even with the same 11,000 volt AC lines. Sorry. Nuclear is "the only way to go!", with "clean" coal doing the job until then, and beyond.
Ultimate silliness: "Global Warming"!
It seems to me that Nuclear energy is the only way to produce enough electricity to power what we need. France produces about 70% with the "N" word. It is the only way to produce what we will need into the 22nd century.
Dick
Mudchicken has stated emphatically that electricity transmission and electrified railroad rows don't mix.
Also, I suspect that by the time a "policy framework for transportation issues" is codified, the conditions underwhich it was created will have changed, and the framework will hinder what is needed.
Permit me to suggest a couple of [editorial insertions] that may clarify what was intended:
klahm [snip] 1) The current administration appears very likely to try to create and implement a policy framework for transportation issues that considers the various modes as components of a synergistic whole, something [i.e., the policy framework] that has never been done [by the government] before in the US (and may be an undertaking that can't possibly result in meaningful change [in the policy framework] in the [present] fractious political climate). [as opposed to/ distinguished from a meaningful change in the fractious political climate, which is a whole 'nother subject - PDN] [snip]
Is this closer to what was meant ? I'm not enough of a grammarian to know the correct name for this - but I know it when I see it !
LNER4472 There's one major flaw in this entire discussion. There's only one way that anything close to our current energy needs can be met with "renewable" energy: if nuclear power is regarded as part of the "renewable" package. Any attempt to meet our current, or even drastically-reduced-with-efficiency, needs with only solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, etc. sources will mandate such massive infrastructure investment that electrifying the rail network will pale in comparison. Even wholesale conversion to nuclear power (such as the French have done) will not be cheap, and frankly the problems are more"political" than financial or logistical--the old "NIMBY" or "BANANA" (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) factors. If such "green" energy sources are not used, there is little to be gained from electrification from a planetary/global perspective aside from potential increased efficiency of energy production and use.
There's one major flaw in this entire discussion.
There's only one way that anything close to our current energy needs can be met with "renewable" energy: if nuclear power is regarded as part of the "renewable" package. Any attempt to meet our current, or even drastically-reduced-with-efficiency, needs with only solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, etc. sources will mandate such massive infrastructure investment that electrifying the rail network will pale in comparison. Even wholesale conversion to nuclear power (such as the French have done) will not be cheap, and frankly the problems are more"political" than financial or logistical--the old "NIMBY" or "BANANA" (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) factors.
If such "green" energy sources are not used, there is little to be gained from electrification from a planetary/global perspective aside from potential increased efficiency of energy production and use.
The model of change that I have described and that is being widely promoted does indeed essentially require that the electricity for rail electrification be derived from wind energy, although there is a nod to the possibility of nuclear power as well. However nuclear power is as objectionable in green circles as carbon-based fuels are, although for somewhat different reasons. Like fossil fuel, nuclear is seen as being non-sustainable or non-renewable. Nuclear is also said to produce enough heat to add to the global warming problem. And dealing with the toxic nuclear waste is considered to be another environmental problem.
While renewable energy is preferred, there is some concession to the fact that electrification is better than diesel power even if the power for electrification comes from coal. This is because of the better efficiency of electrification plus the better ability to control emissions at large fixed plants rather than on individual locomotives. The acceptance of coal as a generating fuel is also intended to prevent the need to develop sufficient wind power before embarking on the rail electrification project. The proponents are willing to accept the temporary, continuing use of coal as the price of getting rail electrification done as fast as possible.
You mention that meeting our current, or even drastically-reduced-with-efficiency, needs with only solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, etc. sources will mandate such massive infrastructure investment that electrifying the rail network will pale in comparison. That is absolutely true, but that is the intention. The way this plan is detailed by the proponents, rail electrification will indeed be only a small portion of the whole plan. I would say that rail electrification would be less than 10% of the whole plan.
The plan is nothing less than a revolution in energy and transportation. Besides rail electrification, the plan calls for a national system of HSR. It also calls for a completely new power grid, and a complete conversion to renewable energy, not just for railroads, but for all uses. It calls for new railroads to be built, and massive rail infrastructure improvements. It calls for a whole new way of combining rail with trucking, which will require new terminal facilities.
The use of existing railroad right of ways for new transmission lines is viewed as a great advantage in mitigating the NIMBY problem.
Perhaps this isn't the forum to be discussing this on. Maybe we need a "Historical" forum. Anyhoo...
In 1805, the Lewis and Clark Expedition, of the "Corps of Discovery", coined the name "Maria's River", which CPT Meriwether Lewis named for his cousin Maria Wood. In 1889, John Frank Stevens 'discovered' the pass that the Great Northern Railway crossed the Rockies on. He named it "Maria's Pass", referencing it to the so-named river, which has headwaters there.
Lately, "PC"ers have railed at the use of "extraneous punctuation". The change, in the name of Camel's Hump, in Vermont is another example. The Burlington (VT) Free Press did an article on the removal of the apostrophy. All responses were negative, except for one. The only one in agreement was a high school ENGLISH teacher! He said it would "make his job easier, not having to teach punctuation! That, to me, is pretty scary!!!
All concerned lovers of our English language should go out, at night, if necessary, and replace the apostrophies on the road signs with a bit of adhesive tape! Take that!, "PC" fools!
Please... no more 'meaningful change' ideas.
klahmThis is all most interesting, especially from the "policy wonk" perspective. Good points to provoke thought, especially "out of the box". But let's consider some realities: 1) The current administration appears very likely to try to create and implement a policy framework for transportation issues that considers the various modes as components of a synergistic whole, something that has never been done before in the US (and may be an undertaking that can't possibly result in meaningful change in the fractious political climate). Of course, the consultant and think-tank industries about the Beltway all want a piece of the action on this and thus are publishing their theses widely, in hope that policymakers notice and involve them in the process. Hence the proliferation of papers/articles/etc. 2) Implementation of policy can take many forms. Nationalization of industry is an extreme one. Tax incentives are others. Matching grants/loans/etc. can also be components of the mix. While it is certain that the federal government will be involved in this at some level(s), it is by no means certain that it will or must take the industrial nationalization form. It will take a major crisis, with no meaningful alternatives, to follow that radical path. 3) Incremental changes might pass Congress. Wholesale changes won't, absent a major crisis. Few Republicans dare to depart from the "party line", which would undoubtedly oppose most of the "alternative energy" initiatives, absent some revolutionary technology that would be so attractive that industries would run to it before Congress could hold its first hearing on the topic. Democrats are far less monolithic and enough would look out for the parochial interests of their districts in opposition to the leadership to block any radical, rapid change. 3) Electrification will reap the greatest and earliest benefits in high-density corridors, such as the BNSF Transcon, NS Chicago-NY, UP Overland, etc. Implementation of any of these would not be cheap, but the extreme dollar amounts discussed in some posts above for nationwide, rapid deployment are unlikely to be realized over the short term. And, as the BNSF "clean sheet" thinking reported in some of Bucyrus's references suggests, there may be ways to use synergies to spread costs over a broader industrial base, reducing marginal cost to the railroads (and public). All this suggests an incremental migration of railroad power sources away from the internal combustion engine and braking via friction and/or heat dissipation. But not an "overnight", "break the bank" approach.
Huh? Say what?
I've got one word of advice, "Paragraphs."
I did get enough out of your writing to understand that you believe the current administration will bring a new paradigm to transportation "that considers the various modes as components of a synergistic whole, something that has never been done before in the US"
That's not true. Anyonel who thinks about it will realize that the modes are simply different tools that do the same thing. They create time and place utility by putting a person or thing (i.e, a banana) where he/she/it needs to be when he/she/it needs to be there.
The modes have long been integrated in attempts to produce a "synergistic whole" as you put it. Sometimes it makes sense to use one tool, such as an aircraft, while at other times it makes sense to use another tool, such as a bus. Transportation pros realized this from the get go and have an established history of modal integration in an effort to produce a "synergistic whole".
Staying on the passenger side, I'll point out the formation of Northeast Airlines by New England railroads, the start of the Trailways Bus System as a "Santa Fe Trail" operation by the Santa Fe and the operation of steamship service by the Southen Pacific between New Orleans and New York.
The problem was not, as you falsely state, that no one had ever thought this way before. The problem was the dang government which actively blocked modal integration by forcing divestitures of multi-modal ownership.
I've often stated that I think the worst government regulatory rulling regading transportation was "In the Matter of Container Service" A rulling handed down in 1931 that greatly hindered intermodal freight movement for 50 years.
And now you'e out here saying (sans paragraphs) that no one has ever thought of this before. That just isn't true.
BNSFwatcher A small clarification: GN never electrified Maria's Pass (non-PC spelling. The dumbed-down Gummint, and the NEA/NFT has removed the apostrophe. In Vermont, the mountain is "Camels Hump" [so do dogs] now.) GN's electrification was over Stevens Pass, including the Cascade Tunnel. [snip] Hays
[snip]
Hays
Thanks for the Stevens Pass clarification. Don't know why I was thinking Maria's Pass. And since you've now mentioned that at least twice here - how come it was named that ? I always thought that Marias was something like a corruption or a misapplication of a French word - kind of like Tetons for that mountain range. So who was "Maria", and why did they name a pass for her ? [For the record, somehow I do know I'm going to regret asking that question . . . ]. No "Sound of Music" answers, please.
Another double-entendr/e that I can use for the enjoyment of others - we have a "Camel's Hump" here in Pennsylvania, too - in Northampton County, a few miles northeast of the City of Bethlehem, just south of Rt. 22, between Rts. 512 and 191.
aricat First of all no talk about nationalization.Railroading is a business with customers to serve. It is about making money providing service to those customers.Warren Buffet would not have bought BNSF if he didn't think he could make money. All this talk about electrification is for nothing unless we remember that railroading is a business.
First of all no talk about nationalization.Railroading is a business with customers to serve. It is about making money providing service to those customers.Warren Buffet would not have bought BNSF if he didn't think he could make money. All this talk about electrification is for nothing unless we remember that railroading is a business.
In response to your post, greyhounds made some great points about the motivation behind this plan, and I just want to add to them in regard to your post.
Nationalization of railroads is the 600-pound gorilla in the living room all right. I don’t see how nationalization would be inconsistent with serving customers, as you suggest. I have no idea how it might affect Warren Buffet or his expectations, but I would not conclude that the participation of Warren Buffet proves nationalization is out of the question.
You say, “All this talk about electrification is for nothing unless we remember that railroading is a business.” Actually, the opposite is the case with the topic of this thread and the sources I have referenced, including the Trains article in the last issue. This is precisely about electrification not as a private business decision, but rather, as a public policy decision regarding the safety, security, and general welfare of the United States. It is like FEMA responding to Katrina.
Nothing I have found directly advocates the nationalization of the railroads in connection with electrification. However, references do call for a National Transportation System and a National Energy Policy. The FRA calls for a National Rail Plan to promote sustainable transportation among other things.
Nationalization does not usually happen only out of necessity. It has its own self-motivated, gravitational pull, and looks for opportunities for fulfillment. The current political climate in the U.S. is unusually favorable to the basic concept of nationalization. Nationalization often advances itself by calling for a national policy or the need to address a crisis.
What is definitely being called for is a national transportation system powered by renewable energy instead of oil. Rail is the centerpiece of this plan. The plan not only calls for rail electrification, but also a major expansion of rail capacity for both freight and passenger traffic. A complete HSR system is just a small part of this plan. Directly linked with this gigantic proposal, is the call for a national conversion from fossil fuel energy to renewable energy, and a complete reconstruction and expansion of the national power grid.
Taken all together, the enormous scope of this project can only be accomplished as a publicly funded, government project. Furthermore, when you compare what will be new construction in this project to the existing private railroad plant, the size and value of the new part is much larger than the existing railroad plant. Just the electrification of the railroads alone is too costly for the railroad companies to fund themselves with private capital, and BNSF has called for government financing for their electrification.
Therefore, if this plan were implemented, the private railroad companies would be just a small component of it. Even if the rest of the plan does not become a permanent nationalization, the government will be calling the shots for a long time until the public debt is paid off. So if the railroads remain private in the context of this plan, they will be like the tail trying to wag the dog.
BNSFwatcherA small clarification: GN never electrified Maria's Pass (non-PC spelling. The dumbed-down Gummint, and the NEA/NFT has removed the apostrophe. In Vermont, the mountain is "Camels Hump" [so do dogs] now.) GN's electrification was over Stevens Pass, including the Cascade Tunnel. Anyhoo, the operative word is "Government". At 52x the cost of hydro power, wind energy is silly! Without government subsidy, it would go nowhere and a lot of birds would live. Give us a network, supplied by nuclear power (non-PC), and it might work. Lemme know, and I'll buy copper futures. Hays
A small clarification: GN never electrified Maria's Pass (non-PC spelling. The dumbed-down Gummint, and the NEA/NFT has removed the apostrophe. In Vermont, the mountain is "Camels Hump" [so do dogs] now.) GN's electrification was over Stevens Pass, including the Cascade Tunnel.
Anyhoo, the operative word is "Government". At 52x the cost of hydro power, wind energy is silly! Without government subsidy, it would go nowhere and a lot of birds would live. Give us a network, supplied by nuclear power (non-PC), and it might work. Lemme know, and I'll buy copper futures.
Ay, there's the rub. (somebody said that once.)
You see, you and I think of railroading as a business. And as a business in North American it's doing quite well. It serves its customers efficeintly. It rewards its investors. It provides good jobs with good pay and beinfits. It pays taxes instead of draining the public for their hard earned dollars. I think the Federal Railroad Administration said it well in October 2009 when they said:
"By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the
The present economic structure and system seem to be doing quite well railroad wise. Economic resources are added to the system where needed as needed (and removed as needed). Unlike the bad old regulated days.
But there's another view. An "Activist" view that does not consider railroads to be a business, but as an instrument of "Change". Activists are all about "Change". And if their desired "Change" can't be had voluntarily, they'll seek government fiat to force it upon us. They develop good skills at manipulating the media. (as shown in the November Trains article on electrification.) This allows them to influence public opinion and to further their goals. They also make stuff up predicting more than dire consequences if we do not accept their desired changes.
Believe it or not, there are people who lie awake at night worrying about the use of carbon as a fuel and about the resultant "Climate Change." They seek a good night's sleep by forcing us to "Change" in the direction they want. In this case the "Change" involves using railroads as a tool to force people from their cars and freight out of trucks. None of this would be a free choice, and little, if any, of it would be good.
So not everyone views railroads as a business. Some view them as a tool to be used to change the way we live. If we don't want to make that change, it's our tough luck. The activists want a good night's sleep. Of course, the next morning most of 'em would just focus on something else to fret about. It is their nature.
It's already happened - one of these disputes recently occurred in Springfield Township, Upper Bucks County, Pennsylvania with PPL wanting to install a new transmission line. See the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's [''fFERC''] web page on ''Transmission Line Siting'' at:
http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/siting.asp
EDIT: The act of Congress was the ''Energy Policy Act of 2005'', or "EPAct2005''. From page 5 the FERC brochure on ''A GUIDE TO THE FERC ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION FACILITIES PERMIT PROCESS'', at: [emphasis added - PDN]
3 The Commission has also interpreted “withholding approval” as including a state’s denial of an application for a transmission project.''
So, if the state can't or won't approve a transmission line - because of environmental opposition, for example - but that FERC thinks is needed, then FERC has the power to step in and grant the needed approvals. In effect, the power company may still get its approval in the end, either the 'easy way' or the 'hard way'.
- PDN.
Not to squelch the pipe dream to harshly but I don't think you will see high tension lines strung along to many railroad tracks. It will take an act of congress to pass a national law allowing such a thing to happen without every NINBY between LA and NY and FL and Washington state filing law suits up the wazoo. Not to mention the environmental impact work that will have to be done. Nobody and I mean nobody wants new high tension wires/poles within miles of their homes, they just don't. And reason has nothing to do with it.
Think Washington DC, lobyist for, lobyist against, getting re-elected, whatever. Talk is cheap, planning is easy, getting it done is tougher than you think. I'm 65 and I sure don't think I'll see it in my lifetime.
SactoGuy188 I'm not sure if electrification can work unless we pour in truly frightening amounts of investment to electrify the main long-distance lines. Remember, Russia plans to do a massive electrification of their rail lines, and the cost for the Russian government is mind-boggling: around an estimated US$400 BILLION.
I'm not sure if electrification can work unless we pour in truly frightening amounts of investment to electrify the main long-distance lines. Remember, Russia plans to do a massive electrification of their rail lines, and the cost for the Russian government is mind-boggling: around an estimated US$400 BILLION.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Russia sitting on the 4th or 5th most proven reserves of crude oil??
Irony of ironies, all that oil and they're spending oil money (taxes on that oil) to electrify instead of building refineries to make diesel fuel.
Paul_D_North_Jr Well, . . . would the $8 Billion in 'stimulus' funding for High-Speed Rail count as proof ? Like the requisite 'overt act' in furtherance of a conspiracy ? Just askin', that's all. . . . - Paul North.
Well, . . . would the $8 Billion in 'stimulus' funding for High-Speed Rail count as proof ?
Like the requisite 'overt act' in furtherance of a conspiracy ?
Just askin', that's all. . . .
8 billion (and no, I'm NOT implying that is an insignificant chunk of public money) does not buy a complete electrification of the freight railroads (or even any electric freight at all, most likely)...most of those projects have been proposed for a while, well back into previous administrations...
Here in the USA, to do such large scale electrification we have to consider the following:
1) The cost of putting up overhead wiring to cover as much as 45,000 miles of mainline tracks.
2) The cost of powering all that overhead wiring.
3) The cost of increasing tunnel and bridge clearances to accommodate overhead wiring.
4) The cost to railroads to buy over 6,000 new all-electric locomotives.
5) The cost to railroads to buy next-generation "well" railroad cars with lowered floors so they could accommodate doublestack containers without interfering with overhead wiring.
The total cost, in my estimation, could run as as much as US$500 billion, even if the cost is spread out over two decades. Besides, with today's EMD SD70M-2/SD70ACe and GE ES44DC/ES44AC locomotives, diesel-electric locomotives are far more environmentally friendly, and unlike gasoline, diesel fuel can be produced from far more sources than just crude oil (indeed right from the start diesel engines were designed to run off vegetable oil derivatives--the first prototype engine Rudolf Diesel built ran off peanut oil!), which means in the near future diesel-electric locomotives can be fueled with diesel fuel made from renewable plant sources.
Paul_D_North_JrNow, however, it appears from the commentary above by Bucyrus that extensive government funding is contemplated and even necessary; and that the government may want to have a say in where that power comes from, and how. Those appear to be the chief differences from past electrification proposals.
Paul,
Yes, the chief difference is the new purpose. That is why I underscore new purpose in my first post. The new purpose is the overarching remedy to the two-prong crisis of oil supply and carbon footprint. All of the traditional reasons for electrification still apply as a component of the new purpose, but the two-prong crisis is completely unprecedented. It has never been a part of previous analyses of rail electrification. Also unprecedented is the method of bringing about the new purpose of near-universal rail electrification through public funding. I see it as being more a national public agenda than it is a railroad agenda.
If this were just the radical fringe pushing this agenda, it might be dismissed as being all talk and radical wishful thinking. However, all four major railroads are discussing it. BNSF in particular, seems quite serious about pursuing it. Only UP seems wary of it. I think one of the most significant aspects of this is the implication for the railroads becoming intertwined with a nationalized plant improvement that may be larger and more valuable than the railroads themselves.
As you have mentioned, this rail electrification proposal is only one component of a national transportation system that will involve trains, trucks, cars, and airplanes. But even beyond that, there is a fast track agenda to convert the country to renewable energy, and that requires another major component in the form of a new energy grid. Renewable energy in the form or wind and solar installations must be placed in ideal locations for wind and sun, and the current grid does not go to those places.
With the need for a new grid for new routing, comes the opportunity of making it a smart grid. The smart grid not only delivers electricity to users, it knows how they use it, and it manages the use by pricing accordingly. A big part of the renewable energy movement is to conserve, and the smart grid will force conservation of power by micro-managing its use. So, the conversion to renewable energy and the new grid are huge undertakings on their own. Rail electrification is just one more piece of low-hanging fruit in this vision.
In fact, one might wonder whether the renewable energy agenda is larger than the rail electrification agenda, and is merely using rail electrification as a carrot to entice railroad companies into allowing the use of their rights of way for the new power lines needed for the new grid. One of the biggest impediments to the renewable energy agenda is the right of way acquisition for the necessary new power lines. Running the new lines on ready-made rights of way belonging to the railroads may be the biggest plum of all in this game. Maybe that is why UP is wary.
carnej1And what legislation is planned or proposed to make this happen? The only "proof" that there is a secret master plan to electrify and possibly nationalise the U.S rail system is a single TRAINS article and a website or two?
There is no proof. Right now it is just a case of, “where there is smoke, there is fire.” But there is no proof that we are going to have national healthcare either, and yet it sure seems like it is headed that way. A non-oil transportation agenda is clearly very popular with today’s decision makers.
carnej1I doubt any plan as far reaching as that would survive the inevitable changes from one adminstration to the next especially when the party in power loses it....
That certainly is true, and highly relevant to what we are talking about here.
htgguy -
Like Bucyrus above, I'm not advocating this - merely trying to explain it simply so that we can all grasp what is being proposed, and the implications of it. That's just the where and why of the ''assertions about cutting the fuel savings by 1 1/2 orders of magnitude [that] need to include detailed answers to the questions I pose'' came from.
Your points are completely valid and understood. The 1-1/2 orders of magnitude is my interpretation of what the proponents think they will be able to achieve = no longer using most of the fuel that's now being used for surface road transport. That figure is based on what I saw and found when answering some other questions about what percentage of liquid petroleum fuels is used by railroads, and what percentage of US generating capacity would be used if all railroads electrified, etc. Whether that savings is actually achievable or not ranks right up there with the ''pigs with wings'' kind of thing, etc., and is certainly open to debate. But those numbers as to the outer bounds of what might conceivably be done in someone's perfect world are legitimate - railroads use like a single-digit percentage, but the road vehicles use like 80+ percent - and so I'll get them for you. I don't have time right at the moment, but expect to within the next day or so.
I too had that kind of 'outside sales and service' lifestyle for about 13 years - the proposed systems won't work, and shouldn't, for the reasons you cite. But as Don Oltmann correctly pointed out a couple weeks ago, the vast majority of auto fuel is used in commuting and around-town kinds of trips, and electrified commuter systems could make a big dent in that. Long-haul passenger, like driving cross-country or airlines - I don't think it will work there either, but for under say 500 miles between the major cities and corridors, sure. Trucking - I don't know whether the Over-The-Road or local pick-up/ delivery uses more fuel, but the OTR portion is clearly subject to diversion to rail.
Finally - does the 'htg' in your screen name stand for heating ? Just curious, because I've had a short-course 'life experience' in HVAC matters over the past couple years in building a new house. Send a PM if you like - no offense taken if you don't, either.
Victrola1 Whatever happened to room temperature, super conductivity? There was a break through 20 years ago allowing it to be achieved under liquid nitrogen instead of liquid helium. Unlike a battery, power in and power out with no chemical reaction. The efficiency achieved was supposed to be impressive. The prophets has us driving electric cars with super conductive gas tanks by 2010. That has not happened. If Buck Rogers ever delivers, would this technology be applicable to railroads? Could The coal tender of old become a tender of electricity stored in a super conductive medium? It is certainly not a serious point of current consideration.
Whatever happened to room temperature, super conductivity? There was a break through 20 years ago allowing it to be achieved under liquid nitrogen instead of liquid helium.
Unlike a battery, power in and power out with no chemical reaction. The efficiency achieved was supposed to be impressive. The prophets has us driving electric cars with super conductive gas tanks by 2010. That has not happened.
If Buck Rogers ever delivers, would this technology be applicable to railroads? Could The coal tender of old become a tender of electricity stored in a super conductive medium?
It is certainly not a serious point of current consideration.
According to the link below, it is not happening...yet:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room-temperature_superconductor
Dan
I don't think Paul was proposing any kind of panacea...nor do I think he was suggesting that electrification is one. Rather, that it's got the possibility of saving resources.
htgguyMany of you, who live in cities, have no idea of the reality of living in a more rural setting, or of having a job that requires you to travel.
Once things get to the tipping point referenced above I think some change in what's an acceptable level of inconvenience is needed. You can't do what you can't do and change happens.
And what legislation is planned or proposed to make this happen? The only "proof" that there is a secret master plan to electrify and possibly nationalise the U.S rail system is a single TRAINS article and a website or two?
I doubt any plan as far reaching as that would survive the inevitable changes from one adminstration to the next especially when the party in power loses it....
Paul_D_North_JrOne of the comments above appears to be skeptical about how much petroleum fuel will be saved by electrifying trains - a point that's valid. However, it appears that the goal of this movement is not so much to save oil that way, as it is to instead save oil (and carbon emissions, etc.) by forcing gasoline-powered cars and diesel powered trucks, etc. off the road or at least into much less usage than now - and that traffic onto electric trains - as much as possible. Those fuel savings would appear to be about 1-1/2 orders of magnitude [i.e., about 30 times] higher than the railroad-only fuel savings from electrification.
So are we to believe that we will have trains stopping at every town with a population of more than 200 in order to allow those people to ditch the automobile? Will the trains run multiple times per day? Will there be a straddle crane in Wadena (and hundreds of other small Minnesota cities) to load and unload the containers that are currently being transported by highway? Is there room for a straddle crane under the catenary, or will there be a hybrid switcher stationed here to place the well cars on the siding that constitutes an intermodal yard? Paul, I respect your posts, but assertions about cutting the fuel savings by 1 1/2 orders of magnitude need to include detailed answers to the questions I pose. They are real, and they are not going away. As someone once said, reality bites.
My point is that people are ignoring the complexity of our transportation infrasturcture. I drove more than 40,000 miles last year for work-working in almost 30 cities in Minnesota-and in no (zero) cases was rail an alternative. None. I sometimes leave home at 5:30 AM. sometimes at noon, sometimes at 6:00 PM. My work day might start at 7:00 AM. My work day might end at 10:00 PM. I arrive home anywhere between 2:00 PM and 11:00 PM, depending on where I am coming from. I travel all over the state. I am not able to dictate my schedule. I often meet people from other parts of the state in a third location. I always carry equipment with me that would likely fill two or three large steamer trunks, in addition to a computer and my overnight bag.
If anyone thinks they can successfully divorce Americans from their automobiles without being at the least, run out of office, I would like to see them try. Many of you, who live in cities, have no idea of the reality of living in a more rural setting, or of having a job that requires you to travel.
Once again, wish whatever you like. Don't impose it on me, I don't have the time or the money to waste on entertaining you.
Paul_D_North_JrOne of the comments above appears to be skeptical about how much petroleum fuel will be saved by electrifying trains - a point that's valid. However, it appears that the goal of this movement is not so much to save oil that way, as it is to instead save oil (and carbon emissions, etc.) by forcing gasoline-powered cars and diesel powered trucks, etc. off the road or at least into much less usage than now - and that traffic onto electric trains - as much as possible. Those fuel savings would appear to be about 1-1/2 orders of magnitude [i.e., about 30 times] higher than the railroad-only fuel savings from electrification. - Paul North.
Perhaps a 'test market' or something similar could be tried to determine the feasibility of such an integrated system. Maybe the Big 4 (6 w/Canadians) could come up with some kind of joint venture somewhere and actualy work together on this with the Federal Govt. in exchange for some kind of incentive...but I won't hold my breath.
I can't help but wonder what net effect on our atmospheric physics 100 million giant windmills will have scattered here and there in fields and on hilltops around the globe. Taking energy out of the atmosphere on a scale like that...won't it eventually become another "D'Oh!" when our undertanding accumulates to the point at which we now understand carbon-related problems and the problems associated with our usage of fossil fuels?
As for the physics and engineering required to extract the energy from the wind...no way it'll ever be 'free'. One thing we all know too well...energy usage in converted form is costly, no matter who offers it to us. It's just that I don't think we know all the costs, just as we didn't when we started the industrial revolution.
-Crandell
htgguyIs it your view that we could currently "come up with the money"? I also think you need to support the single sentence in this entire essay stating that "Our very survival depends on it".
htgguyFirst, what percentage of the oil used in the United States is used in rail transportation? If it is 10% (which I suspect is an outrageously high estimate) a major interruption will still kill the economy-other transportation methods, chemical feedstocks, fertilizer production, etc would all be crippled.
htgguy,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I Just to be clear, I need to say that I am not advocating this. I am just connecting all the dots to draw the picture of a movement. Let me explain what I meant when I said, “Our very survival depends on it.” I say that as being the premise of this new purpose agenda for publicly funded rail electrification, not as my personal viewpoint. If you read the article by Scott Lothes called WIRED UP and the references in it, clearly they advocate electrification for the reasons that I have mentioned. And the premise of the most important reason is that our survival as the human race depends on preventing the destruction of the climate. So when you connect all the pieces of the reasoning behind this sweeping proposal, it inevitably leads to the conclusion that our very survival depends on it. Some may not agree with that conclusion, but clearly, it is the main motivation of the non-oil transportation agenda.
You asked if I believe that we could come up with the money. Certainly the cost would be enormous, but we are in the era of committing to enormous spending. And the motivation to do this could not be higher in the minds of those who decide to spend. I would expect that we could come up with some of the money, but as I mentioned, if we remain in economic decline, the money for this may run out. We could certainly come up with enough money to get started. The starting point would maybe be something like the multiple wind farm, rail right-of-way transmission line, electrification of part of the BNSF proposal that is being discussed by Matt Rose and others. I believe this is very likely to happen. How much further it goes depends on how this country chooses to spend money in the future, and how economically promising the future turns out to be.
You asked about the amount of oil used by railroads, and whether cutting that amount would make a big difference. This is about more than just the oil fuel currently used by rail. What is being advocated is a national transportation system that moves a large part of what is being shipped by trucks onto rail. So it eliminates much of the oil used by trucks. The proposal also calls for shifting a large part of automobile and air traffic onto rails. So it eliminates much of the oil used by cars and planes.
Remember, talk is cheap, especially in Washington.
First, a brief review: Historically, mainline U.S. railroads alone financed all of their electrifications by themselves - including the PRR's 1930s anti-Depression loans from the government, since those were soon repaid - typically for only one of the following purposes or to cope with one of the following conditions:
- Tunnels - the smoke from steam locomotives was recognized from the 'get-go' - by the railroads themselves, without any government intervention or requirement or mandate - as just not tolerable - e.g., the B&O, B&M at Hoosac Tunnel, GN at Marias Pass, Detroit's St. Clair River tunnels, PRR into NYC, NYCentral at Cleveland, etc.
- Grades over mountains - N&W, VGN, MILW, etc.
- Traffic volume - esp. passenger and commuter trains, though some freight was also electrified - PRR's 1915-1938 11KV expansions over its eastern region, and the New Haven; mainly commuters - IC, RDG, D&LW, NYCentral and LIRR suburban operations, Amtrak from NH to Boston - others ?
- Tunnels and underground - again, the smoke from steam locomotives, but motivated by a City requirement - chiefly New York City's - to eliminate steam locomotive smoke by a certain date as a result of collisions and loss of life from missed signals in the smoke, etc. - NYCentral, PRR, and LIRR in NYCity - others ?
This last one is the most significant one here. Note that even though the NYCentral's and LIRR's electrifications were mandated by the government - which the later PRR operations had to conform to as well - that's where the government's involvement stopped. The financing and technical means of implementation - the source of generation and distribution systems, etc. - was left up to the choice and discretion of the railroads themselves, as well as any savings or additional costs that might result.
Now, however, it appears from the commentary above by Bucyrus that extensive government funding is contemplated and even necessary; and that the government may want to have a say in where that power comes from, and how. Those appear to be the chief differences from past electrification proposals.
One of the comments above appears to be skeptical about how much petroleum fuel will be saved by electrifying trains - a point that's valid. However, it appears that the goal of this movement is not so much to save oil that way, as it is to instead save oil (and carbon emissions, etc.) by forcing gasoline-powered cars and diesel powered trucks, etc. off the road or at least into much less usage than now - and that traffic onto electric trains - as much as possible. Those fuel savings would appear to be about 1-1/2 orders of magnitude [i.e., about 30 times] higher than the railroad-only fuel savings from electrification.
Bucyrus However, what is emerging today is a fast track agenda for near universal electrification that does need the proper economic business incentives to materialize. This is because the purpose of this electrification is different than any purpose considered in the past, and unlike previous objectives, there is no price for electrification for this new purpose that is too high. Electrification for this new purpose will not be done by a consensus of individual railroad companies deciding that the time is right economically, as was the case with dieselization. Instead, this will be national project that railroad companies will simply agree to be a part of.
In other words, this huge capital investment would be done because politicians think it is a good idea, and because belief in the climate change theory has attained critical mass in our society.
Bucyrus This is truly something different, and I am convinced that it will lead to universal electrification commencing very soon, and perhaps completed within ten years. The only thing that could derail this plan is if current poor economic conditions deteriorate so fast and far that the nation cannot come up with the money. Otherwise it will happen because it must happen. Our very survival depends on it. And most importantly, the call for U.S. electrification is for it to be a national investment as a component of a new National Energy Policy, which is currently being developed. The rationale for this massive endeavor is well detailed in many readily available Internet publications, which mirror the article in Trains by Scott Lothes, entitled, WIRED UP.
Is it your view that we could currently "come up with the money"? I also think you need to support the single sentence in this entire essay stating that "Our very survival depends on it". Why does our very survival depend on it? Did our very survival depend on the invention of the internal combustion engine? On the invention of the microprocessor? On the discovery of antibiotics? On the development of an electrical distribution system? On the discovery of hybrid seed, chemical fertilizer, and modern pesticides? Is electrification of the entire rail network of the United States more crucial to the survival of our culture than any of these?
"Our very survival depends on it" is a pretty dramatic and sweeping statement and needs some supporting argument if it is to be taken seriously. It's over-arching statements like these, on either side of the discussion, that lead me to discount whatever else is said in making the case. Maybe our survival is dependent on rail electrification, but if it is, tell me why?
Bucyrus There are two main objectives that raise this issue to the level of requiring nationalization, and both are related to a supposed crisis. One objective is to insure against the economic shock of our transportation system suddenly being brought to a halt because of a disruption of oil supplies. The other is to prevent catastrophic climate change. There are other reasons to electrify such as improved efficiency, reduced highway accidents, and less asthma, but they do not justify government financing with taxpayer money. It is the two-prong crisis of oil supply and carbon footprint that calls for the federal solution.
First, what percentage of the oil used in the United States is used in rail transportation? If it is 10% (which I suspect is an outrageously high estimate) a major interruption will still kill the economy-other transportation methods, chemical feedstocks, fertilizer production, etc would all be crippled. There would be no material or products for the shiny new electric trains to haul as the economy would be at a standstill.
Second, how much greenhouse gas would be eliminated? Has there been an analysis done to determine if this (electrification of railroads) is an efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions? Would the huge amounts of money spent be more effective if spent elsewhere? Is global warming worse than the alternative of crippling our economy? Is it acceptable to even ask these questions?
Bucyrus Not only does the new purpose for electrification override the concern about the investment risk and payback that has prevailed in the past, but it also might actually result in a higher cost of electric operation compared to what that cost would be under the traditional electrification business analyses of the past. That is because electrification for the new purpose prefers wind energy, whereas past plans would have used electricity from coal, nuclear, or hydro, and not considered wind energy as being economically viable. So, this new plan for electrified transportation requires new wind farms, and a new electrical distribution grid to serve those wind farms and handle the new intricacies of the variable output generation that results from wind. This unique grid objective melds with the attributes of the so-called smart grid under consideration as a major infrastructure improvement.
But don't put those ugly, bird killing windmills in MY backyard! Once again, this focus on wind power illustrates that the entire electrification argument is focused on eliminating the evil that mankind imposes on mother earth than on making the lives of mankind better. Those advocating wind are intent on imposing a lower living standard on mankind (with the exception of the political "leader" class) in order to protect our mother, the earth.
Bucyrus Railroads say that electrification will be too costly without government funding. If railroads cannot raise or risk the capital for electrification, would they be willing to borrow it if the government would lend it to them? If they are not willing to borrow the money, and the government is willing to fund it anyway, and wants to fund it in the national interest, what role would government then play in the operation of the electrified railroads? Wouldn’t the taxpayers insist on some form of direct government management of the public investment in electrification such as what is being done with GM and Chrysler?
Central planning-has it ever worked to achieve the best outcomes for an economy, anywhere in the world, anywhere in history? It's saying-here is the answer-we will consider no other! Death to innovation, death to efficiency.
Bucyrus While one scenario would be for the government to offer a direct subsidy to the railroads in order to spur electrification, another scenario would be for the government to impose carbon caps that would make diesel operation so costly that they would have to electrify in order to survive. If railroads cannot raise the capital to electrify on a voluntary basis, what will they do if the imposition of carbon caps forces them to electrify?
Go out of business, just like all the other manufacturers that won't be able to survive economically. Seems like common sense to me. You can't operate as you have been, and you can't afford the changes that you need to keep operating, so there is no other alternative to quitting.
Hopefully we will realize, before getting too far down this path, that just because you wish something was true (the glories of electrification) doesn't make it true. Otherwise we, and our children, will be re-learning a hard lesson.
Bucyrus,
Thank you for your effort. Well put together.
I remain skeptical of the entire environmental movement. I'm interested in making wise use of resources - natural, labor, and capital. I'm concerned that we are embarking on a massive misallocation of resources, which in the end will kick people living at or close to the margin in the teeth.
Wow ! ! !
Bucyrus, you said you wanted to put together something more comprehensive on this - and by golly, you did. Very well-written - I followed almost all of it on my first perusal, and really appreciate all the links and summaries. I'd say you've summarized the 'movement' and the various issues associated with and resulting from it pretty well and concisely for the space utilized.
Now let the debate begin/ continue.
Yeah, Murphy - he's taking all of this seriously. Just look at the quotes from Matt Rose and the NS guy - they are too. Evidently Warren Buffett takes Matt Rose seriously as well . . . although maybe not [yet] on this matter . . .
Are you serious, or is this meant to be tounge in cheek?
Some links:
Here is the article on electrification for the new purpose that appeared in Trains called WIRED UP by Scott Lothes:
http://www.railsolution.org/uploads/PDF/TRAINSarticle11-09.pdf
Here is a paper about BNSF contemplating electrification. In the other thread, I referred to a “tipping point” where the market price of oil would rise so high that it will become preferable to electrify. However, Matt Rose speculates that the economic tipping point will soon arrive in the form of U.S. government-imposed carbon caps driving up the operating cost of oil-powered locomotives.
http://www.ble.org/pr/news/headline.asp?id=25899
About carbon caps, Rose said this:
“I think we’re going to start pricing carbon out at some point in time in the future. There’s lots of good news and lots of bad news in that for the railroads.”
The bad news seems obvious in a government-imposed carbon cap system that raises operating costs to the point where it is cheaper to electrify. I wonder what the good news is that Rose refers to. Maybe the good news, at least for BNSF, is that they will become a large enough carrier of electricity to offset the burden of carbon caps.
Here is an article about how NS is generally for electrification and UP is not. UP president James Young, BNSF president Matt Rose, and NS executive vice president Donald Seale share their views. Rose and Young both mention the possibility of carbon caps forcing the need to electrify.
http://www.joc.com/node/411794
About electrification and carbon caps, Young said this:
“Within a yard, electrification certainly would be possible, but over-the-road train moves would be another matter, and we are not looking at that. However, there may be some math down the road, when you start looking at carbon footprints, and the cost of cap and trade, that could force you to take a look at it.”
On the same topic, Rose said that any future carbon restrictions affecting railroads could help make electric trains financially viable compared with justifying today the high costs of converting their networks and locomotive fleets.
That is certainly a case of seeing the glass half full as they say. A new mandate will be so costly that it will force you to spend money that you could not afford to spend before the mandate.
Young mentions that high voltage power lines along the right of way do not necessarily mix with the UP business of moving freight.
Rose mentions the possibility of BNSF not only carrying electric power on its right of way, but also selling that power to heavy electric use customers. I wonder if BNSF would go so far as to diversify into wind farms, thus becoming an electric utility as well as a railroad.
Here is a blog piece that discusses the requirement that electrification for the new purpose be accomplished with electricity from wind or nuclear, but prefers wind because nuclear power releases heat, which causes global warming. They say that the heat produced by nuclear power is three times the energy of the electricity it generates. The piece is followed by lots of interesting comments that paint a picture of the larger context.
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/07/14/readying-an-electrified-transportation-system/
Here an article about CSX’s reservations about electrification. Michael Ward mentions the added cost of cleaning up freight train derailments because they are likely to tear down the catenary, which will add cost to the cleanup and repair process.
He also alludes to the impending climate change (carbon caps) legislation as a factor that may force railroads to electrify.
http://www.joc.com/node/412165
Here is an article about BNSF’s preference for “dual-mode” locomotives as a way to bridge the motive power transition from diesel-electric to straight electric. GE says it would take about three years to take such a locomotive design from concept to production, and that they would cost twice as much as comparable diesel-electric locomotives or about $5-million for each dual-mode locomotive.
http://www.joc.com/node/410843/
Here is an article continuing the discussion of the dual-mode locomotives, and whether to use AC or DC power. BNSF’s Matt Rose says he hopes the federal government will help pay for electrification as a public policy decision to cut emissions and oil dependence.
http://www.joc.com/node/410837
Midwest power grid manager, Carl Dombek, in an interview, describes the vision of DC power lines in the railroad rights of way in order to move power from remote wind farms to population centers, and also power freight trains on those railroad rights of way. Public resistance is expected to be less when a new power line is added to an existing railroad right of way, as opposed to a new power line added to a new right of way. Less public resistance will substantially speed up construction of a power line.
http://www.joc.com/node/410846
Here is further discussion of upgrading the power grid. Dale Osborn is the transmission planning technical director for the non-profit organization Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator.
Quotes from the article: “Dale Osborn helped get the sizzling notion of electrified freight railroading before some of the Obama administration’s top planners on energy and environmental issues.”
Dale Osborn said, “This is a special moment in history for groups like MISO, as the nation is shaping plans for massive investments in new power lines to upgrade the creaky grid and to shift toward more clean-energy sources. But new power corridors take years to get permit approvals, much less build, which adds cost and precious time.”
http://www.joc.com/node/410840
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.