I keep waiting for the lit match to hit the proverbial pool of gasoline that is this thread. Got my popcorn ready though…waiting (and to keep laughing too!).
I went to the source document referenced by the OP. The sponsor of the paper is a global warming believer organization. The have a fancy enonomic model which predicts that under “market based” conditions the year 2011 will see peak oil prices of $350 per gallon leading to a 9% reduction in GDP.
The document claims that by adopting their program there will be a “high elasticity of transportation supply” a condition that was never attained during the years of rail traffic growth.
A favorite phrase was “common industrial knowledge” which is simply a dressed up version of “everybody knows”. Two specific examples were:
“Common industrial knowledge suggests that rail capacity increases by 15% [due to electrification] because trains can accellerate and brake faster”. Passenger trains may be able to accellerate and brake faster, but heavy US freight trains will not. In the context of US freight operation this statement is simply false.
“Common industrial knowledge also suggests that an electric locomotive using 1 BTU of electricity displaces 2.5 BTUs of diesel fuel in flat, rural areas and 3 BTUs of diesel in mountainous and urban areas.” The energy required to move a train is a function of grade and curves. The energy expended at the rail as between diesel or electric locomotive holding tonnage constant has to be the same. The issue is effeciency of conversion of fuel to power at the rail. No data is offered on this, the real point. I suspect that diesel locomotives may well be more effecient than a remote power plant and its associated transmission losses. How an urban area makes electrics more efficent is beyond my imagination.
The next claim is that “Transfering heavy truck inter-city freight to double stack container trains with diesel electric locomotives gives a 9 to 1 reduction in diesel use” The AAR claims that rail provides 4 times the transportation as truck for a gallon of fuel.
[bow] I should find a ‘standing ovation’ image somewhere…
There is no doubt that railroad use of petroleum is a small percentage of the currentoil based transportation system.
As the phrase “red herring” means, to attempt to divert attention, its use here is curious. This posting and the effort being put forth is to bring attention to the fact that the country could minimize its oil based transport reliance.
The country could have a serious interruption to the current supply by a physical attack such as harm to the Striat of Hormuz or the Strait of Malacca. Alternatively, civil disruption in a major producing nation could interrupt supply. For eample, recent events in Tunisia has raised such a concern. Notwithstanding such interruption, there is simply increasing worldwide market demand for the resource. That competitive impediment to supply is a constrained supply making a substantial impact upon the national economy.
FIrst, electrifying the American freight railroads would create a transport system not vulnerable to interruptions to oil supply.
Second, in the event of months or years long interruptions, an electrified non-oil based transportation system would allow the American economy to function.
Third, an electrified railroad will use remarkably less BTUs to do the same transportation function as the oil based transportation system. Lower production costs for transportation services will have a favorable ripple effect throughout the economy.
Fourth, electrifying the freight railroad would increase their carriage capacity and their line haul speed creating new services and new income opportunities.
Our national mindset is on a treadmill of complacency. If a non oil based transport system is not created, household budgets remain deeply affected by upward changes in price. For that matter, if oil supply is constrained, the impact upon the national economy and household budgets will be even more deeply felt.
This reply is a continuing attempt to draw attention, not divert attention from the probl
Therein lies part of the problem, gasoline.
Laughing about the problem posed is a curious reaction.
What bothers me most about electrification is the wire itself…expensive to build and maintain, vulnerable to weather and physical destruction. Is there any engineering for an induction system where by the rails or some inground device(s) be charged and transmitting to a propulsion machine of some kind?
First assertion - TRUE
Second assertion - TRUE
Third assertion - NOT DEMONSTRATED AND LIKELY NOT TRUE. It takes the same amount of power at the rail to move a given train over a given route. No evidence has been offered that electric locomotives would convert fuel to power more effeciently than do modern diesels. The assertions in the paper are false on their face as I explained in my previous post.
Fourth assertion - NOT TRUE Electrification in and of itself will not increase freight rail speed, capacity, or create services.
Increased speed requires increased horsepower and energy consumption. Horesepower per ton ratios can be increased with diesel locomotives. That they are not, indicates that there is no economic incentive to do so. HPPT ratios do vary today based on type of service holding line
-
Red herrings in abundance!
-
I ask myself, why are some folks so opposed to moving to a less oil dependent economy, through electrification, more alternative energy sources and energy conservation? Follow the money.
-
Isn’t it just a bit odd that almost everywhere else in the world there has been a gradual shift to electrification of heavily used mainlines. Wonder why and why not here? Follow the money.
There was a reason to post the resource in the original posting for Forum participants to review. The study is a summary given the large topic.
Many of the concerns noted are dealt with in the footnotes.
For example, the miles to be electrified are the miles doing most of the tonmile carriage. The study makes the point that the route miles needing electrification are essentially the 32,421 railroad miles designated as strategic by the Department of Defense. See footnote 30: “Military Traffic Management Commoand Newport News VA Operations Analysis DIV. Strategic Rail Corridor Network (STRACNET) and Defense Connector Line. A243593.”
It is not difficult to imagine the need to create a non oil based transportation system.
It is not difficult to imagine using proven, mature, practical technology inherent to electrification to achieve a non oil based transport system.
The study asks the reader to consider and imagine a significantly larger Gross Domestic Product in 2030 than is what is possible with an oil based transport system.
While the oil based transport system sees enormous tonnage in freight train operations, Electrification would allows the cost effective option to operate faster, more frequent freight trains. Doing so supports the study’s supposition for greater acceleration and braking capacity.
While the Millennium Institute has its philosophical position on one side of issues and its economic modeling, so to does the Free Congress Foundation have a differing philosophical position yet also advocates for electrification for urban transportation in order to complete a non oil based transportation system. The Free Congress Foundation was also cited in the original post.
The phrase, “common industrial knowledge” was used once in the study for a single point. It was not used to categorize the whole study. The criticism of the BTU ratios cited has merit to the extent that it is difficult reading.
Details are something that can be done a
Yes, it is arguable that electrification of present main lines as they are increase capacity. Given projections for serious freight railroad constrictions in designated places in the nation in 9 short years and a quagmire in 2035 if nothing is done; then electrification is part of the answer. And, whether railroad income is sheltered for 5 to 7 years or a longer period to create a non oil based transport system with sufficient capacity (additional mainline track) is something to e considered. If anything CREATE demonstrates the delay and confusion caused by government subsidy that sheltered earnings could have accomplished with the rational decision making the private sector companies are capable of doing.
Platitudes and open ended questions are on way to communicate.
What is meant by “red herrings in abundance?”
What does “follow the money” mean?
Oh, yeah, the military-industrial-petroleum complex feels threatened by anything that does not promote or ensure their comfortable future.
Electrification in the rest of the world has not been a gradual shift but a constant application since the 1930’s or before. We started the same way here in the US at the time but had a gradual shift away from electrification because of 1) our up to then dedication to coal and the coal industry; 2) the onslaught of the Great Depression; 3) the increasing devotion and adherenced to petroleum products. The diesel locomotive was the Godsend for all as it was cheaper to operate in many ways (labor, continual usage, maintenence, etc.), actually produced electricity for a motor to move the unit and didn’t need wire to be electric. American railroads (governement, public, manufacturers) became more and more complacent with that philosophy.
Sorry if my brevity appeared to be platitudes. I was posing real questions about the underlying motivations of the anti-electrification, anti-alternatives to oil, anti-change crowd, not your post. “Follow the money” refers to looking there for the real motivations of that group. Every President beginning with with Nixon, has mentioned “reducing/eliminating dependence on foreign oil” in S of the U addresses, yet our dependence has only increased. Why? Foreign oil is cheaper to extract, hence greater profit margins for the international petroleum giants. I wonder who are the largest donors to the TP, AEI and the Heritage Foundation? For that matter, to both major political parties?
It is not important as to why poor decisions are made and followed. It is important to identify them and change them.
It has been frustrating to recognize the oft stated problem of foreign oil dependence over the decades without a logical, consistent response.
What the cited studies do is to identify an elegantly logical solution to reliance upon an oil based transport system.
One can have a multiplicity of elegant solutions to problems to no avail if we aren’t aware of the continued impediment to implementation, which has become part of the problem. Failure to recognize this is what has led to 40+ years of inaction, not the lack of solutions to the technical part of the problem. Big oil has had and continues to have an overwhelming influence, probably far greater than the dangers Ike warned us of with the military-industrial complex (originally he called it the military-industrial-congressional complex).
This general proposal about electrifying freight railroads in order to create non-oil transportation is being put forth by several think tanks. It entails the following:
-
Electrification of all freight railroads.
-
Moving 80% of long-haul truck freight off of the highways and onto rail.
-
Obtaining all of the electricity from wind and solar sources.
-
Building a new smart grid and adding new power lines to carry the power from the generally western wind farms eastward.
Once again we see a quasi-straw man argument. (In this case, half-truths.) The proposal you link (from 2008) is hardly representative of all electrification ideas. Some rely on coal or nuclear generation, while recently natural gas is in favor.
Its interesting about the wind farm business. There was a news item about 6 month’s ago where Wartisila was awarded a contract to build a power plant using about 18 of their 10 megawatt gas fuel generators (converted from diesels) to cover the largest wind farm in west Texas when the wind isn’t passing.
“I like passing wind.” - Benny Hill
It is not a straw man. Yes, the article I linked does not represent all thinking about the electrification of railroads. But it certainly is aligned with the article that the original poster mentioned as the basis of his opening thoughts. Trains recently ran an article by Scott Lothas. I will have to check that last name. Anyway, it all connects back the non-oil transportation system with the objectives I listed. No straw man. In many ways, the FRA is on the same page as evidenced by some of there statements.
And this particular group of thinkers is not about to use coal or nuclear to generate the electricity.
[quote user=“Bucyrus”]
schlimm:
Once again we see a quasi-straw man argument. (In this case, half-truths.) The proposal you link (from 2008) is hardly representative of all electrification ideas. Some rely on coal or nuclear generation, while recently natural gas is in favor.
It is not a straw man. Yes, the article I linked does not represent all thinking about the electrification of railroads. But it certainly is aligned with the article that the original poster mentioned as the basis of his opening thoughts. Trains recently ran an article by Scott Lothas. I will have to check that last name. Anyway, it all connects back the non-oil transportation system with the objectives I listed. No straw man. In many ways, the FRA is on the same page as evidenced by some of there statements.
And this particular group of thinkers is not about to use coal or nuclear to generate the electricity.
[/qu