Electrification of the railroads would not significantly effect US consumption of imported petroleum.
According to the EIA, distillate fuel oil (includes diesel) was 19.38% of US petroleum use for transportation and electric generation in 2009.
http://www.eia.gov/mer/pdf/pages/sec3_21.pdf
The BNSF uses 2% of the diesel in the US. (I read that somewhere.) If we extrapolate BNSF's use we can SWAG total railroad use of diesel at about 15% of the total distillate fuel use. So that would make railroad use of diesel about 2.9% of US petroleum consumption for transportation and electric power generation. (19.38% x 15%)
If railroad use of deisel fuel were totally eliminated, which is totally impractical, there would be no significant effect on US dependence on foreign petroleum. The national defense argument for railroad electrification is a Red Herring used by activists pushing a political agenda.
The reference to information from the US Energy Information Agency represents current reality. As was noted, the debate over reserves is a debate. The reality is that our oil based transport system is a national defense burden that should be lessened as proposed.
Looking at US EIA information, minimally a non-oil based transport system would allow consumption solely from North and South American sources. Pax Americana is much less costly if defense might be focused upon the Western hemisphere.
The legislative process is, was and will continue to be maddening.
The idea to shelter annual earnings from taxation to accomplish funding is a dramatic concept. It would be unique to the railroad industry and recognize the national defense need of a non-oil based transport system as well as the enormous capital costs inherent to the railroad industry.
Should what has been proposed require debt, then part of the enabling legislation should provide debt guarantees and perhaps interest subsidy.
Natural gas could and likely will be more of the power generation capacity in the future. The exploitation of the barnett shale and marcellus shale is most encouraging.
It is within the realm of current engineering technology to foresee natural gas powered motive power of some type being developed.
1.The debate over oil reserves is something that is a debate. Forget the debate.
Reality is that we have a continuing reliance upon an oil based transport system that is nonsensical. Even if there were adequate American reserves and production, why should the resource be used inefficiently? As noted, the Millennium study estimates a 20 to 1 BTU advantage for the transfer of freight form an oil based to non-oil based transport system.
2. For now, for all considerations, electrification is coal. Electrification is the form and fashion suggested.
3. Mac's estimate is much higher than what is likely as noted in earlier posts. The Millenium study indicates that the capacity is available for initial electrification and it indicates that additional future powere requirements can be provided through renewable generation technologies. NIMBYS and enviros can be dealt with legislatively in the enabling legislation that would be required to authorize railroad earnings from taxation for the designated period need to accomplish electrification.
4. Yard dwell time is the achilles heal of railroad service. As the former CEO of CN foresees 100 MPH,together with his noted scheduled operation success, leads to the assumption that linehaul speedand dwell time are interrelated. Faster linehaul speed will have a favorable synergy with dwell time.
5.Clearly, legislation sheltering railroad earnings from taxation must define that the shelter is to accomplish electrification for a parallel national defense non oil based transport system.
6. Government participation is needed to the extent that the purpose and application of the sheltered earnings are applied to the public's interest in an effective national defense non oil based transport system. The type and need for oversight by the government, what might and should that be?
Yes, national defense is a particular interest of our national legislators. Some legislators have a greater awareness of national defense needs than others. Considering our vulnerabilities by being oil transport dependent, it is remarkable that the freight railroads are not now electrified.
This posting was not done in response to the phase of the moon.
tpatrick 1. To remove the threat of foreign oil dependence, just produce more domestically. We have the proven reserves. Our continent is floating on easily recoverable petroleum. According to a report yesterday, we have enough available oil to serve our entire needs for the next thirty years. All we lack is the political will. For starters we could complete the Keystone XL pipeline to tap Canadian tar sands.(I know, Canada is a foreign country to most of us, but who is a closer, more reliable friend?) That pipeline alone can supply one million barrels daily and completely eliminate the need for Saudi and Venezuelan imports. (Ref: David Kreutzer, Ph.D. the Heritage Foundation)
1. To remove the threat of foreign oil dependence, just produce more domestically. We have the proven reserves. Our continent is floating on easily recoverable petroleum. According to a report yesterday, we have enough available oil to serve our entire needs for the next thirty years. All we lack is the political will. For starters we could complete the Keystone XL pipeline to tap Canadian tar sands.(I know, Canada is a foreign country to most of us, but who is a closer, more reliable friend?) That pipeline alone can supply one million barrels daily and completely eliminate the need for Saudi and Venezuelan imports. (Ref: David Kreutzer, Ph.D. the Heritage Foundation)
First of all I'm not so sure you can rely on the Heritage Foundation to be unbiased. However, your statement that we can use the Canadian pipeline to "completely eliminate the need for Saudi and Venezuelan imports" does not jive with numbers from the US Energy Information Agency (part of the US Dept. of Energy). Their figures for 2009 show that the US imported 1.063 mil. B/D from Venezuela and 1.004 Mil. B/D from Saudi Arabia = 2.067 Mil.B/D. In 2009 we already imported 2.479 Mil. B/D from Canada out of its total production of 3.1 Mil. B/D. Even if we took all the current production (and the tar sands production would take some years to come on line) of Canadian oil, we would still need to rely on Saudi and Venezuelan oil for another 1.446 Mil. B/D. Given our 2009 imports of 11.691 Mil. B/D of oil versus US production of 5.361 Mil. B/D, and knowing the greatest production domestically was in 1971 - 9.637 Mil. B/D, it would appear that we will have to continue to import oil.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
The Millennium study projects that the initial electrical power requirements are available. Additional power requirements can be made through renewable generation technologies.
Westinghouse Electric is fully capable of building cost effective and safe nuclear power generation capacity.
NIMBY can be overcome via FERC legislation as it limits, perhaps eliminates, opposition to new transmission power line location. Electrification would rely upon FERC.
Yes, there is a question as to whether Amtrak is properly paying for its operational slot on a freight railroad.
An electrified freight railroad system would create a freight system speed compatible with passenger train operation.
Once that compatibility is realized, Amtrak may no longer need to exist as it does now as part of the US government. Passenger trains might be operated by a private firm, or a public-private organization, or a public organization. As noted, the BTU ratio for freight changeover from highway to electrified rail is 20 to 1. Those cost savings would translate into opportunities for new passenger train operations in some form. The freight railroad might opt to simply provide the right of way. Or, they might be the private company owning and operating passenger equipment. Or, a new third party private enterprise might operate a passenger service. It is conceivable that currently publicly owned NE Corridor would return to private sector ownership and operation.
The Eisenhower National Defense Highway system, the Interstates, had a national defense rationale. But they are now a defense impediment and burden as they are oil based. That enormous public works project was also undertaken after WWII as there was an incredible fearfulness of the Nation returning to underemployment as had happened in the 1930's. It was a continuation of disproportionate government high way subsidy going back to the early 20th century.
As noted, what is proposed is an electrification of the railroad system that does most of the tonmile work. A fleet of oil based locomotives would remain. The loss of power is not the threat to national defense. Frankly, if what you meant was a loss of power by hostile action, then the national defense has been breached. But what is foreseen is the potential for a major interruption of supply at the Strait of Hormuz or Strait of Molacca. The threat to national defense is long term reliance upon a total oil based transport system. Without an alternative, the nation would face serious, perhaps insurmountable economic consequences.
Yes, an electrified system has vulnerabilities. Those vulnerabiilities are a magnitude less than those posed by the nonsensical continued reliance upon an oil based transport system.
You are certainly correct. The operational slots on the freight railroads used by Amtrak are paid.
Unilateral disarmament? Given the nuclear arsenal, recent efforts are symbolic but important.
If we were not dependent upon an oil based transportation system, much of Pax Americana's, what is it, 750+ overseas bases, would not be needed. Empires collapse under the weight of their military commitments. If oil is the basis for Pax Americana, then lessening oil's hold is a national defense requirement.
My post was lengthy enough that I did not get into the details of "Evaluating the Creation of a Parallel Non-Oil Transportation System in an Oil Constrained Future." The 80-20 rule, 80% of freight ton miles travel over 20% of rail mileage was expressed by the authors as being about 34,000 rail miles. That estimate coincidentlaly converts roughly to the 32,421 DOD strategic miles, Strategic Rail Corridor Network (STRACNET). So the mileage is not near what was assumed.
The rail earnings to be used would be the portion of earnings now taxed. In other words, earnings now subject to general taxation would be sheltered for the purpose of electrification, gradient and curvature improvement, crossing improvements and / or crossing separation, signal enhancement, positive train control, motive power conversion. That allows the normal earnings after taxation to continue to to used as a private enterprise does. This is not a bad investment. It is simply an impossible investment given taxation of earnings. A suspension of taxation for the stated purpose offers lessened government oversight and private sector efficiencies. While my "back of the envelope" guesstimates are just that, what surprised me that doing so seems to fund most of what is needed. If long term debt is needed, then bonds can be guaranteed by the government for the purpose. What I did was to simply add the pretax earnings for the Class I's for the last 4 years. Taking the average, it jumped off the page as being a possible approach.
The world oil supply is increasingly more costly to access, whether it is the Gulf or elsewhere. Demand continues to grow. So, whether oil is constrained by a hostile force or competitive forces; we would still rely upon an oil based transport system. Unless additional supply is under the American flag, it's purchase weakens the Nation by a negative balance of payment account. While the future for natural gas is favorable, crude petroleum reserves under our flag are insufficient.
While freight can be shifted from highway to rail by economic incentives, it remains an oil based transprot system. If the freight railroads were electrified, their costs would be diminished. They would achieve the goal of lessening highway tonmiles by being able to offer cost savings and service improvements. Competition. The free market.
As electrification as proposed would create a speed compatible freight system for passenger service at the 79, 90 and probably 110 mph levels. Hunter Harrison when he was at the CN foresaw 100 mph freight operations.
Electrification of the freight railroads would create the basis for restored passenger service. As one of the authors of the Millennium Organization's study noted, what is proposed is not "higher speed rail" of "high speed rail." What is proposed is "semi-speed rail!"
As to household incomes and transportation costs that are oil based, combing housing and transpotration costs, the typical household is severely harmed by the oil based transportation system. Where competitive light rail and streetcar lines have been built, households respond by using them and having significant household transportation savings. A build out of an electrified urban transportation system would be built upon the freight railroad electrification.
If the government subsidizes via straight subsidy, then it would have to become involved with decisions better done by the private sector. Government subsidy can also mean government whimsy as recent events in Wisconsin, Ohio and new Jersey indicate.
The Millennium study estimates a rough "energy trade of 20 BTUs of diesel for 1 BTU of electrfying by transferring inter-city freight from trucks to electrified rail."
The reason we do not have a parallel non-oil transport system has been nearly a 100 years of goverment highway subsidy. Col. Eisenhower's cross country road trip in 1919 was part of our oil based system we have today.
ERIK: The one area in which we are overwhelmed with more than abundant quantities of gas. The gaseous emanations from "our Friends' in Washington, D.C.
A subtle point, the US is now pretty much self sufficient in energy production in every category except for petroleum. A major story in the last few years has been the rise of natural gas production by frack'ing. The problem is that oil is by far the most convenient fuel for transportation, having both high gravimetric and volumetric energy density at ambient temperatures as well as being relatively easy to handle.
The OP poster is "on the right track" about RR electrification being the most mature technology to provide long distance transportation that doesn't rely on oil with natural gas fueled locomotives as being the second most mature technology. The issue has almost always been economics, in being able to justify the capital cost when there are less expensive alternatives available. The only way that I can see that happening is with a large and lasting increase in petroleum prices. One way to pay for it would be to impose a hefty (on the order of $50 to $100 per bbl) import tax on oil, but that may end up hurting more than it helps.
As for power generation, the US is likely to have sufficient natural gas for a few decades, a short term solution would be building combustion turbine plants (both simple and combined cycle). This could also be supplemented by methane from landfills and it might be easier to get methane from plant material than ethanol or methanol (think swamp gas).
- Erik
2. If you want to stop burning diesel fuel, it would be far cheaper and easier to go back to coal in some form or fashion.
3. A massive $900 billion (assuming Mac's math is correct) project to string catenary would be only the beginning. How many new powerplants would be needed and who will pay for them? How many years in court would it take to overcome the NIMBYS and enviros?
4. What is this nonsense about raising freight train speed to conform to passenger operations? Faster freight will just mean more dwell time in various yards.
5. Shelter railroad income? Are you proposing a zero tax rate? I don't know what rate a RR pays, but for illustration let's assume 20%. Are you saying a railroad, now having 20 cents more of each dollar earned, will be happy to spend the whole dollar on electrification? Or is only the sheltered saving to be used? The former is utter nonsense and I'm skeptical the latter would provide enough to do the job.
6.To combine the OP's final two questions, if I want less government, why would I want government to participate? Is "national defense" the magic phrase that will make conservatives swoon and embrace a lunatic proposal?
A couple of thoughts:
Mac said: "...f ATK is paying $1-2 per train mile, and getting prefferential dispatching, while freight trains are earning $100 per train mile, and contributing $40 per train mile, then ATK is paying no more than 5% of what it should be. May not be free but is not far from it. My point that ATK is a hidden tax on the freight carriers is correct, and I think these numbers are ball park correct..."
Another point was also made about the problems with electrication. The system looses power for Any reason and that part of the system is down until repaired. Operation or rescue of stranded electrical equipment then becomes an ellfort by combustion powered equipment. Sort negates the argument for a total electric system as primary power source.
The other side of that is since the folks who don't like nuclear power have pretty much removed that particular source as a resource for electric generation. That problem pushes us back to reliance on combustion as a mode to gain power generators for electricity. That said; the production of process gasses ( those pesky 'greenehouse ones' would increase exponentially. I would make the argument that there are not enough places or sanity to try and generate this country's electrical power needs with wind power.
All the above would be exacerbated by the various levels of NIMBYs, and other folks who would protest a pwer source for any reason on could possibly imagine. The add to this whole issue the problem of our National Debt load and how that would play out in the finance of this National Defense scenario. Again,
schlimm A really huge and thoughtful response to a huge topic. But your statement above is inaccurate. From the 2010 Amtrak Consolidated Financial Statement: "Most of the rights-of-way over which Amtrak operates are owned by other railroads. Amtrak usessuch trackage under contracts with these railroads. The terms of the agreements range up to six years,although they may remain in effect longer if neither party seeks to renegotiate. Costs incurred are based on usage. The total amount incurred for use of the railroads’ rights-of-way during fiscal years ended September 30, 2010 and 2009 totaled $136.5 million and $115.4 million, respectively, and is included in “Train operations” in the Consolidated Statements of Operations." Those numbers are hardly consistent with providing services for free.
A really huge and thoughtful response to a huge topic. But your statement above is inaccurate. From the 2010 Amtrak Consolidated Financial Statement:
"Most of the rights-of-way over which Amtrak operates are owned by other railroads. Amtrak usessuch trackage under contracts with these railroads. The terms of the agreements range up to six years,although they may remain in effect longer if neither party seeks to renegotiate. Costs incurred are based on usage. The total amount incurred for use of the railroads’ rights-of-way during fiscal years ended September 30, 2010 and 2009 totaled $136.5 million and $115.4 million, respectively, and is included in “Train operations” in the Consolidated Statements of Operations."
Those numbers are hardly consistent with providing services for free.
Free is a slight exageration, but not much. Amtrak pays the marginal cost for its use of the freight railroads' lines, which is next to nothing for the capactiy it consumes and is still a few hundred million dollar per year burden on the freight railroads.
You may recall that a few years ago this shoe was on ATK's foot when it pointed out that it was being underpaid by, IIRC about $900 million per year, since it was forced by law to provide capacity for commuter railroads at marginal cost. The issue was not stated as clearly as I am stating it in the document I saw, but it was the same issue; marginal cost versus the economic value of the slot.
If ATK is paying $1-2 per train mile, and getting prefferential dispatching, while freight trains are earning $100 per train mile, and contributing $40 per train mile, then ATK is paying no more than 5% of what it should be. May not be free but is not far from it. My point that ATK is a hidden tax on the freight carriers is correct, and I think these numbers are ball park correct.
Mac
There are a lot of things this country "should" and "shouldn't" do. But will the military-industrialists and investment banker mentality allow a good course to be set? I personally think the oil and highway lobby took away the concept of rail links for military stratagy with the building of the Eisenhower Highway System. Many military bases were cut off from rail connections, or at least had there status diminished with the building of an interstate nearby the gate.
But I also wonder that an electric system is the full answer to weaning off oil. Cut one string and the whole line goes down and an oil burning motor has to come to the rescue. So what really is needed is a well rationalized, organized, and capitalized system is needed.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
PNWRMNM Introducing passenger service is another huge layer of cost. The railroads were happy to see the Government assume the operating losses and ongoing capital needs of a money losing passenger system. The railroads are still forced to provide infrastructure to support the current system for free. [my emphasis] This is an inequitable tax on the carriers as it is. Fortunately, if Amtrak wants more capacity they have to pay for it. Your 10-12 hour passenger service between Chicago and NYC will require at least two new main tracks all the way. Neither NS or CSX will want them on their right of way.
Introducing passenger service is another huge layer of cost. The railroads were happy to see the Government assume the operating losses and ongoing capital needs of a money losing passenger system. The railroads are still forced to provide infrastructure to support the current system for free. [my emphasis] This is an inequitable tax on the carriers as it is. Fortunately, if Amtrak wants more capacity they have to pay for it. Your 10-12 hour passenger service between Chicago and NYC will require at least two new main tracks all the way. Neither NS or CSX will want them on their right of way.
This is a huge subject. Your first sentance is obviously true. After that it gets hazy.
First we are unilaterally disarming ourselves. That to me is a far greater military threat than our dependance on oil.
Second, if your $6 million a track mile conversion cost is correct and we wish to drive rail oil consumption to near zero, you are talking in the range of 150,000 track miles and 100,000 route miles. That is 900 million thousand dollars.
You seem to be proposing to divert all rail industry earnings into this conversion. If such a conversion made economic sense it would be at least underway. The fact that it is not tells us that this is a bad investment. There is no reason to divert rail earnings to a bad investment, and to do so would simply be another example of the government stealing from the carriers.
Introducing passenger service is another huge layer of cost. The railroads were happy to see the Government assume the operating losses and ongoing capital needs of a money losing passenger system. The railroads are still forced to provide infrastructure to support the current system for free. This is an inequitable tax on the carriers as it is. Fortunately, if Amtrak wants more capacity they have to pay for it. Your 10-12 hour passenger service between Chicago and NYC will require at least two new main tracks all the way. Neither NS or CSX will want them on their right of way.
If our national goal was to reduce reliance on oil foreign oil we would resume drilling in the gulf TODAY. Clearly that is not a concern of the current administration.
If our goal was to reduce oil consumption, we would shift freight traffic to rail and improve efficiency of oil use on the roads. To shift freight we could start by accellerating depreciation in rail capital investment which would shelter income and increase free cash flow. Second the politicians would stop threatening to reregulate the industry as to rates. Third we would slap a substantial duty on imported oil. That would increase gasoline and diesel fuel prices which would tend to shift freight to the rail system and provide a cash flow that could be used for private investments to further reduce rail costs and to increase freight rail capacity. The carriers do not need or want any help in figuring oout what those investments are. They have over 150 years of figuring that our for themselves.
The import duty would also, and more importantly in terms of consumption, reduce oil consumption on the highway which should be the target. An import tax would increase gasoline prices which would encourage people to use less of it in the long run. Examples include driving less, move closer to work, substitute small cars for SUVs.
I see no chance of an import tax on foreign oil. We the people are too addicted to our cars for politicians to deliberately make them more expensive for the average american.
If the government wants the railroad industry to do something the way to do it is a straight subsidy. If the goal is electification, simply offer a subsidy of $x per route mile. If it makes economic sense at that level of subsidy the carriers will do it. If not they wont.
In summary, I think we have much more immediate defense problems than our reliance on foreign oil. Disarming ourselves is not rational policy. Second, I see no evidence of any political determination to reduce our reliance on foreign oil. Third, the best immediate contribution the rail system can make to reducing oil consumption is by taking freight off the highway. Fourth, the government has been generally hostile to the carriers. Fifth, becuase of #4 the carriers are rightly distrustfull of government. Sixth, congress seems generally incapable of rational action. Finally, electrfying the railroads and providing an effective rail passenger system are end game steps, not the first ones.
Mac McCulloch
The country is dependent upon an oil based transportation system. SImply put, this is a continuing national defense weakness. I recently read a study published by the Millenium Institute.(Note: The proposal to create a national defense, non-oil based transportation system by electrifying the freight railroads can be found at http://www.millenniuminstitute.net/projects/region/na/usa/rail.html.) A electrified urban transport system is described in “Moving Minds- Conservatives and Public Transporation, by Paul Weyrich and WIlliam Lind. It can be accessed at http://www.freeconress.org/project/center-for-transportation/. Drop to the bottom of the page and contents of “Moving Minds” is there. Weyrich and LInd argue for a balanced Federal transportation policy. My "back of the envelope" computations appear to indicate that freight railroad earnings fully tax sheltered could get the electrification job done in 5 to 7 years as Millennium Institute authors believe the electrification project would take. I guesstimated $6 million a mile for catenary, signal improvements, grade crossing and separated crossing improvements, motive power conversion, etc. I used as the basis for my guesstimate Penn Design of University of Pennsylvania's study for a 220 mph new Northeast Corridor infrastructure. An electrified railroad system would prepare for oil interruption by either an enemy or normal economic competition. It would provide for future capacity needs. It would enable freight railroad line haul speed to be compatible with restored passenger service. Imagine, a Chicago to New York passenger service in the area of 10 to 12 hours. That's air competitive given the problems with air service.
Should the US have a national defense, parallel non-oil based transport system?
Should the method of payment for the project be by sheltering railroad income allowing the industry to do the job?
Would private industry funding overcome limitations for restored passenger rail service seen with changes to governorships?
Would the impediments of persons with less government philosophy create an environment for a private sector method to achieve a goal for national defense?
If the rail industry did the job, how should government participate to foster accomplishment? Would broad legislative guidelines for sheltering income without significant regulation be adequate for the public interest?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.