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.
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....
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
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.
Visit look4trains.com
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?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
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
A 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.
Near universal electrification has always been the road that might have been taken, but never was. Maybe when EMD toured their demonstrator #103, they doomed electrification as well as steam, even though electrification had not arrived yet, at least not as a widespread standard.
Ever since, there has been an on-going reevaluation of the economics of electrification. As technology changes, and oil prices rise, electrification hovers on the edge of economic feasibility as the replacement for diesel electric locomotives. However, there is the perpetual trade off between the lower operating cost of electrification, and its major capital investment. The problem, however, is not so much in the financial comparison of the money in that trade-off as it is in the uncertainty of the future, which must be relied upon to generate the business necessary to pay back the investment.
The price of oil is bound to keep rising as its demand rises in the developing world and its supply diminishes. Therefore, if it were not for the uncertainty of future business cycles, we could just stand by and wait for the price of oil to reach the tipping point where it would justify converting from diesel-electric to straight electric. In those terms, it would be inevitable. However, the uncertainty of the future business cycles might never favor electrification, no matter how high the price of oil rises.
Some say the best days of U.S. industrialism are over, that we are entering a period of decline, and our title of world industrial dominance will be taken over by China within twenty years or less. For now at least, the U.S. economy, including its rate of consumption and standard of living, is shrinking. It may turn out that this current recession becomes the economic status quo with unemployment hovering around 10-15% indefinitely. Thus, the investment risk of electrification may stay just one step ahead of the tipping point of rising oil prices during the entire future of the U.S. So, based on the usual economic criteria that would trigger electrification, it may simply never happen.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
For the abovementioned conclusion, I make a starting point assumption that electricity produced by wind is more costly than electricity produced by coal, however, I have no proof, and would welcome any input on the subject. It is such a polarizing question that one cannot find the answer on the Internet. Wind advocates claim that wind is cheaper, but then lose all credibility when they also contend that wind energy is free. Wind may be free, but capturing it is not. Coal could be said to be free before anyone decides to go after it.
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.
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 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?
How would UP, CSX, NS, and BNSF each feel about becoming a small private operating component of a larger nationalized rail electrification system?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.