Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Forgive me for remaining a doubter. Light rail in Huntsville solves this how? You're going to build me a light rail line to every nook and corner that I need to go? No? Then relax on the repeated doomsday oil scenario that assumes [1]no alternative energy vehicles will be developed in the next 30 years.
See, there's this funny thing that happens when prices go up (in this case oil) - people look for cheaper alternatives and commercial enterprise attempts to meet that demand. What's beyond doubting is the massive incentive to produce [2] high capacity batteries for all electric cars, or fuel cell vehicles... however, until "cheap oil" no longer exists, you won't see anyone spend to replace the massive oil infrastructure.
[3] When its all summed up, light rail isn't as much about energy as it is about traffic.
[1] Based on the notion that there's a finite and shrinking per capita amount of energy available, as fuel, the necessity to get the most passenger miles per unit fuel / energy translates to ELECTRIC RAIL. Automobiles (rubber tire on asphalt) are not energy efficient. Rail is roughly 10 to 20 times more energy efficient.
In the last price spike there were little or NO alternatives present. And a little thing called recession began. Fast forward to when gasoline is $5/gallon, and still no alternative mass transit.
Short term greed versus long term wisdom is about to bite us on the bum.
[2] Batteries that rely on chemical reactions will be slow to charge, sensitive to temperature extremes, and prone to short lifespans. And any all-electric vehicle will lose range every time one turns on any accessory: headlamps, windshield wipers, heater, air conditioner, fan, etc. Operating an all-electric vehicle in southern California is fine, but in Saskatchewan it would not be pleasant.
[3] Oh, don't worry - once gasoline passes $5 / gallon, there will no traffic congestion issues and then folks might be willing to "Save Energy" by demanding rail transit. But it might be too late. The economy will have tanked.
Max. Efficiency in urban service:
Rail: 2000 passenger miles / gallon
Toyota Prius : 240 passenger miles / gallon
SUV: 100 passenger miles / gallon
By some estimates, one track has the passenger carrying capacity equivalent to 9 lanes of superhighway. A four track urban rail system equates to the equivalent of a 36 lane superhighway - without gridlock. And with electric powered rail, no fumes, no grit from disintegrating tires, no diesel roar, and no potholes.
Collapse? How does the dwindling US oil production equate to collapse?
The world Hubbert peak is approaching, so that will lead to growing oil prices, but there is no "collapse" in the near future related to oil production.
Once America hit its peak oil production in the 1970s, it started a slow decline in prosperity. Worse, all development has been done assuming nothing has changed. We're no longer queen of oil. 70% of our oil consumption is imported, at a cost of roughly 600 billion / year. ($2000 per capita "gasoline import fee" - and rising)
Demand in Asia (China and India) is beginning to rise. (2.4 billion versus 0.3 billion consumers in the USA)
Higher prices plus dwindling supply equals big problem, since there are no viable alternatives available. Our whole logistical system of production and distribution is dependent upon cheap fuel. In short, we lack frugal energy consumption in America, hence if anything interrupts that flow of imported oil, IT WILL NOT BE PRETTY.
Look around and imagine 70% (or more) of the traffic is gone - because the fuel is not available. Ditto for long haul trucking. And as domestic production continues to decrease, prices continue to rise, and mechanized agriculture is impacted - higher food prices. We already see what happens when tax revenues fall due to economic decline.
Even if every known U.S. oil reserve was drilled and pumped, they would go dry in 11 years.
Oil Shale? Across 4 states and Canada? Won't be cost effective till gasoline passes $90/ barrel and stays there. And let's not forget turning 4 states into a strip mine eyesore, and polluting the environment. Based on world wide reserves, oil shale has 84 year supply at pre 2007 consumption levels.
Every aspect of life dependent upon cheap and plentiful oil will be impacted. And failure to plan for it, means a collapse of the status quo. Even Russia, an oil producing country, electrified its TransSiberian Railroad, in anticipation of decreasing supplies of oil. America? We haven't even begun to electrify our mainline railroads (!) let alone build urban rail mass transit to provide alternative transportation.
Oil producers are not unlike 19th century whalers - hunting without regard to inevitable extinction and their own demise. And once there is no more cheap and plentiful oil?
Doesn't it make more sense to convert to the lowest energy consuming technology?
But DC is subsidizing automobiles and that's the level of "Far thinking" leadership we have.
(35 MPG cars won't solve the problem. We still would need to get 140 million real cars off the road.)
Energy Consumption, percapita:
United States 7794.8
France 4518.4
Germany 4203.1
Switzerland 3718.6
China 1138.3
India 512.4
Do you thinking that if U.S. energy consumption, percapita dropped from 7794.8 to 2338 (double that of China), that the U.S.A. would resemble "collapse"? That's just from losing imported oil. See what happens when domestic oil goes dry.
all your posts are very informative, but posting on and on about doomsday here on C-D literally won't help accomplish anything of what you're saying.
Ok, I get your point and decide to take my car off the road, along with other 20 CD members. that's still 139,999,979 short of the optimum.
We are not decision-makers here. Other than narrating these facts(oids) here, are you doing anything else outside this forum to raise awareness and have people listen to you?
I, personally, can only read and be informed of the possibility, grim however it may be, of running oil dry in 11 years, regardless of whether we start changing our ways now and go the greenest and cleanest possible.
But that's about all I can do: there are no other viable (financially, and otherwise) alternatives for me today in Hsv, AL where I live (house) and work (car).
Heck, I'm all for self-sufficient-energy-efficient-solar-panel-powered-house but I didn't see any built here in my range ($200k), or alternative-energy driven cars (4door for I have 2 kids in carseats , $15k tops) or any other means of transportation from A (home) to B (work) to C (daycare) to D (grocery store).
When they build it, I will ride it (or live in it-the affordable eco-house that is).
[1] Based on the notion that there's a finite and shrinking per capita amount of energy available, as fuel, the necessity to get the most passenger miles per unit fuel / energy translates to ELECTRIC RAIL. Automobiles (rubber tire on asphalt) are not energy efficient. Rail is roughly 10 to 20 times more energy efficient.
In the last price spike there were little or NO alternatives present. And a little thing called recession began. Fast forward to when gasoline is $5/gallon, and still no alternative mass transit.
Short term greed versus long term wisdom is about to bite us on the bum.
I do not disagree with you that rail is more energy efficient.
$5.00, all things considered, is not a disasterous price for gas, much of Europe pays far more than that today and yet I'm not aware of a single light rail network in a city the size of Huntsville.
Oil prices did not cause this recession.
Alternatives will not be readily available until the cost of the alternative is competitive with oil. While I have no doubts that rail is more efficient in terms of energy use, you don't figure in the cost of building and operating the rail itself... you are only considering short term energy efficiency (rail vs present autos). Over a long enough span of time perhaps you recoup that cost... or perhaps electric cars become widely available and most of the efficiency advantage is lost... people are able to afford individual transportation and don't ride your multi-billion dollar metro that can't possibly go everywhere.
Quote:
[2] Batteries that rely on chemical reactions will be slow to charge, sensitive to temperature extremes, and prone to short lifespans. And any all-electric vehicle will lose range every time one turns on any accessory: headlamps, windshield wipers, heater, air conditioner, fan, etc. Operating an all-electric vehicle in southern California is fine, but in Saskatchewan it would not be pleasant.
It's a little early to attack technology that is still in development... you simply don't know what the final product could be. There are a million possibilities. One of the arguments supporting hydrogen fuel cells is that a tank can be readily refilled, and in the end its little more than a storage medium for power. Producing hydrogen comes at a power cost, and is combined with oxygen in a fuel cell to produce power. In a sense, the hydrogen is little more than a battery.
Also consider the possibility that traditional batteries could still be implemented in a "swap out" fashion via some generic battery design. Charging isn't the only solution.
Rail is honestly the most limited, risky and expensive solution, due to its high initial cost and the fact it cannot possibly go everywhere... and its efficiency advantage may be completely eroded by emerging technology. Why take a rail network when you can get in a ubiquitous intelligent self-navigating electric or hydrogen powered car that is able to coordinate within traffic such that it never has to stop at an intersection? Over the span of time necessary to pay for elaborate rail networks in cities all over the country - do you seriously think this technology won't be available? By the time you've paid for your immense rail network, they may have long been obsolete.
Just because its presently more efficient doesn't mean we should jump in head over heels.
Quote:
[3] Oh, don't worry - once gasoline passes $5 / gallon, there will no traffic congestion issues and then folks might be willing to "Save Energy" by demanding rail transit. But it might be too late. The economy will have tanked.
Max. Efficiency in urban service:
Rail: 2000 passenger miles / gallon
Toyota Prius : 240 passenger miles / gallon
SUV: 100 passenger miles / gallon
By some estimates, one track has the passenger carrying capacity equivalent to 9 lanes of superhighway. A four track urban rail system equates to the equivalent of a 36 lane superhighway - without gridlock. And with electric powered rail, no fumes, no grit from disintegrating tires, no diesel roar, and no potholes.
Again, we all know its more energy efficient, but you have not figured in the cost of building this elaborate rail network and the fact that it cannot possibly go everywhere one needs to travel. Then, just a few years down the road just when you're proud of your expansive forward thinking rail networks you may discover them to be a costly ruins alongside the intelligent hydrogen/electric car highway.
Rail has a place, but its a limited one.
Last edited by DvlsAdvc8; 05-28-2009 at 12:39 PM..
Also consider that as oil price rises, processing oil shale becomes more economical (particularly at larger scales). There is not this dramatic imminent end of the world scenario you describe.
Now figure out how long that will last... and you can postpone your crisis.
Generally speaking, the cheapest option will win out. It's certainly early to say "build rail everywhere!"
I honestly think the future is in ubiquitous intelligent electric cars that you pay a service fee for rather than own. They drive you at insane speeds, with insane following distances and an inhuman ability to merge and coordinate traffic such that stoplights become non-existent. Major high speed rail networks link up cities, but local traffic is exclusively by electric car. Refueling is irrelevant - the car is intelligent. When it needs charging, it returns to a charging station. Competition for customers between service providers will dictate that the number of charged cars is sufficient to meet peak demand. Sound like science fiction? I don't think it is as far off as people think.
Last edited by DvlsAdvc8; 05-28-2009 at 01:00 PM..
Once America hit its peak oil production in the 1970s, it started a slow decline in prosperity.
These type of statements give you zero credibility. There is no evidence of causation here at all. There are countries that enjoy tremendous prosperity without any oil at all, and without many other natural resources we possess.
I'm entirely sympathetic to the argument that we need alternative energy sources, and right away, but you do nothing to help sell the idea when you spout irrational claptrap.
These type of statements give you zero credibility. There is no evidence of causation here at all. There are countries that enjoy tremendous prosperity without any oil at all, and without many other natural resources we possess.
I'm entirely sympathetic to the argument that we need alternative energy sources, and right away, but you do nothing to help sell the idea when you spout irrational claptrap.
Perhaps it was a coincidence and the real reason was that we had an unpopular military misadventure in Southeast Asia, inflation impacted savings, socialist overhead on business and labor started driving out manufacturing industries, and rising (fuel) costs drove up the cost of living (or that the dollar bill lost 95% of its buying power since 1914). Or that Nixon closed the "gold window" and hyperinflation was followed by stagflation and then new cheap oil from the North Sea caused oil prices, worldwide, to drop for 20 years.
But if you look at the excesses of oil rich nations, you might notice a parallel with the first half of the 20th century, in America.
"What was good for GM, was good for the USA".
I once read that one in twenty American jobs were directly related to oil, automobiles, or their support. The decline in domestic oil production surely had an effect on those 5% if not more.
Also consider that as oil price rises, processing oil shale becomes more economical (particularly at larger scales). There is not this dramatic imminent end of the world scenario you describe.
Now figure out how long that will last... and you can postpone your crisis.
Oil shale won't be "cost effective" until petroleum hits the ceiling. Processing costs are not trivial. Nor is the capital cost for construction. Environmental impact is steep- strip mining is not benign. But that may be a foregone conclusion when the "tank" hits the Big E.
And even if it stretches our supply to 50 - 80 more years, do you really think it wise to consume a resource that took millions of years to produce, in under 100 years?
After it's all consumed, then what?
You will have an ecological nightmare stretching across 4 states and part of Canada, no more fuel, and no alternatives in place. (I grew up in a coal town "blessed" with strip mining scars and culm banks. The ground was so acidic that living things didn't survive in puddles.)
Or would it make more sense to use current solar energy, embodied in the light, wind, water, etc.? Oil shale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kerogen requires more processing to use than crude oil, which increases its cost as a crude-oil substitute both financially and in terms of its environmental impact. Deposits of oil shale occur around the world, including major deposits in the United States of America. Estimates of global deposits range from 2.8 trillion to 3.3 trillion barrels** (450 × 109 to 520 × 109 m3) of recoverable oil. (**Computes to 84 years at pre-2007 world consumption levels - less if economic growth resumes)
The most common methods of surface mining involve open pit mining and strip mining. These procedures remove most of the overlying material to expose the deposits of oil shale, and become practical when the deposits occur near the surface.
According to a survey conducted by the RAND Corporation, the cost of producing a barrel of oil at a surface retorting complex in the United States (comprising a mine, retorting plant, upgrading plant, supporting utilities, and spent shale reclamation), would range between US$70–95 ($440–600/m3, adjusted to 2005 values). This estimate considers varying levels of kerogen quality and extraction efficiency. In order to run a profitable operation, the price of crude oil would need to remain above these levels.
(Feel free to imbibe the section on pollutants, health hazards, acid runoff, particulate matter, etc., etc.)
One of the arguments supporting hydrogen fuel cells is that a tank can be readily refilled, and in the end its little more than a storage medium for power. Producing hydrogen comes at a power cost, and is combined with oxygen in a fuel cell to produce power. In a sense, the hydrogen is little more than a battery.
Also consider the possibility that traditional batteries could still be implemented in a "swap out" fashion via some generic battery design. Charging isn't the only solution.
But RANGE (repeat) RANGE is dependent upon battery capacity that your vehicle can haul (or pay for). And that RANGE is never going to be at the design maximum, because everything in a modern car runs on electricity.
If the design range is 30 miles, it may drop to half or quarter, on an extremely cold / hot day, or stormy night, or a combination of conditions cause you to - come - to - a - stop - at - the - worst - possible - time. Shucks, your emergency flashers wouldn't run on a dead battery.
(The upside - no one will dare run ear blasting sound systems with impunity!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DvlsAdvc8
Rail is honestly the most limited, risky and expensive solution, due to its high initial cost and the fact it cannot possibly go everywhere...
Before cheap and plentiful oil, there was no impetus to pave roads, let alone build huge ground gobbling multilane superhighways, and yet the bulk of Americans lived without automobiles and got around on electric rail between 1890 and 1930.
Though rail has a high initial cost, its lifespan is far longer than the automobile / road paradigm. If a car lasts ten years, and a train car lasts 50 - 100 - 150 years, it's a no-brainer.
Ex: On average, a single NYC rail car carries 1000 passengers / day. Assuming worst case: equivalent to commuters in 500 cars doing round trips. 500 cars x 5 versus 1 train car. Tracks also last far longer than asphalt and concrete roads.
$25k hybrid car x 500 x 5 (assuming no increase in retail price) = $62,500,000 (in 50 years)
1 train car = 1.5 million to 3 million (and the deal gets better, if the car lasts 100 years or more)
And even if an asphalt road appears to be cheaper than a track, when it comes to maximum passenger capacity, a single track is equivalent to 9 lanes of superhighway - without taking up the space!
Quote:
Originally Posted by DvlsAdvc8
and its efficiency advantage may be completely eroded by emerging technology. Why take a rail network when you can get in a ubiquitous intelligent self-navigating electric or hydrogen powered car that is able to coordinate within traffic such that it never has to stop at an intersection?
An electric or electric hybrid is still far more wasteful than electric rail. And they're still dependent upon petroleum for plastics, rubber tires, lubrication and the pavement they roll on. Hydrogen is an even worse option - entropy rules cannot be broken.
If you haven't noticed, we're no longer a rich manufacturing nation. If things don't change, we're going toward third world status, bankrupt and destitute.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DvlsAdvc8
Over the span of time necessary to pay for elaborate rail networks in cities all over the country - do you seriously think this technology won't be available? By the time you've paid for your immense rail network, they may have long been obsolete.
America once built 500 electric streetcar systems in less than 20 years (1890 - 1910). Streetcar / Trolley tracks reached 34,404 miles by 1907. The interurban electric railways for the entire country totaled approximately 18,000 miles by 1917. Most cities and towns of 25,000 or more got a non-oil transportation system. The U.S.A. did this with a population of less than one-third of today's, approximately 3% of today's GNP, and relatively primitive technology. And the majority of the systems were PRIVATELY OWNED.
Ask a mechanical engineer or a physicist for his opinion on energy efficient land transportation.
In terms of friction, mag-lev beats steel wheel on steel rail, but at a massive jump in power consumption. If you want the most frugal land transportation system, get back on track.
The humble 'Lectric Rail is still champion.
Check out Maintenance of Way track layers. A single operator can lay 1 - 1.5 miles / day. If you wanted to lay 200,000 miles of track, nationwide, in 4 years, it would require 137 track laying machines. Okay, let's be pessimistic and double the number to 274 machines. Woo hoo.
200,000 / (4 x 365) = 137
That time frame is single day shift, too.
Piddling small projects can't utilize economies of scale. We need to think BIG, and start building subway, streetcar, interurban, commuter, HSR, and every other form, ASAP, to take the pressure off Americans trapped in the "car zone".
Quote:
Originally Posted by DvlsAdvc8
Just because its presently more efficient doesn't mean we should jump in head over heels.
Again, we all know its more energy efficient, but you have not figured in the cost of building this elaborate rail network and the fact that it cannot possibly go everywhere one needs to travel. Then, just a few years down the road just when you're proud of your expansive forward thinking rail networks you may discover them to be a costly ruins alongside the intelligent hydrogen/electric car highway.
Rail has a place, but its a limited one.
I disagree. IMHO, (partly based on an education in mechanical and electrical engineering), the scientific and engineering data points to RAIL as the winner for the remainder of the 21st century.
That we're stuck with urban and suburban development based on the flawed assumption that we'd have cheap and plentiful oil to power our individual vehicles, is a challenge. But that means we now have to redefine all future development in parallel with rail rights of way, population consolidation and reduction for transportation (close proximity to one's necessities, etc).
I beg to differ.
Three years ago, I was stone blind to the "rail issue". I came across other persuasive articles and did some number crunching and digging. I've found that there is a huge gaping lack of awareness to the real costs. So by raising awareness, I affect other readers. They, in turn, start considering how their lives might change if their transportation budget dropped 90% (in that Utopian rail world).
Ultimately, as the "buzz" gets big enough, entrepreneurs and investors will risk investing in future rail.
And for those who are preparing for drastic change, it would be prudent to relocate to areas:
[] accessible to low energy consumption transportation (navigable waterways, existing railroad rights of way).
[] within 50 miles of mixed crop agriculture.
[] served by sustainable electricity (hydropower, wind, solar)
[] population density sufficient to sustain a myriad of services and professions
In short, all those moribund "small towns" along side train tracks may become the boom towns in the coming decades. Because as cargo shifts to rail from long haul diesel trucks, those small towns are going to become distribution points for short haul truckers.
P.S. - how's the barge traffic on the Tennessee River?
Last edited by jetgraphics; 05-30-2009 at 03:22 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
