Not to be taken literally. It is a metaphor or symbol for opposition to inevitable progress.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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.
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
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/
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
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
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!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.