<An oilfield in Arabia The Oil Drum Whither Cellulosic Ethanol?>
<DrumBeat: August 15, 2006 DrumBeat DrumBeat: August 17, 2006>

457 comments on DrumBeat: August 16, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

GreyZone on August 16, 2006 - 10:46am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
As others have discussed previously (I think it was Alan?), much of modern diesel usage is in truck based shipping, which can be completely replaced by electrified long haul rail. I don't recall the exact figures but something like a 25% change from trucking to long haul electrified rail would reduce US oil (primarily diesel) consumption by several million barrels. Consequently, there is much more elasticity there (for the country as a whole) than is widely believed. Of course, if you are a trucker out of business because of this, then it hurts but that's the nature of the free market.

Perhaps someone else recalls the article or comment where this was discussed in more detail?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
totoneila on August 16, 2006 - 11:52am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Hello Greyzone,

Thxs for responding.  I don't dispute the potential energy savings of RRs and mass-transit at all--in fact, I have posted before how I hope everything AlanfromBigEasy advocates comes true, and soon!  But this is mostly a political voter decision, not a true supply-demand decision.  Unfortunately, RRs & mass-transit companies are outgunned by widespread Peakoil ignorance and denial, combined with the influence exerted by the Iron Triangle as explained by TODer Westexas.  Only when gas prices put a solid hurt to the typical SUV owner is when they will vote in mass for RRs, and mass-transit.

The CA oil companies are having to fight Prop 87 with one hand tied behind their back due to BP's Prudhoe screwup.  I really feel they are trying to give the gasoline motorist a break hoping to get them, in exchange, to vote down Prop. 87.  By further refining and chemical upgrading of diesel: you can get more gasoline, but at a increased cost.  If Prop. 87 wasn't on the CA ballot, the IOCs could pursue the higher goal and lower cost of optimizing the efficiency of the refineries' chemical output production mix instead of having to pursue a politically driven output production mix.  In other words, since they are having to use ever heavier and sour inputs-- it would be normal to expect more diesel and less gasoline per input barrel of crude.  The price disparities between diesel and gasoline should actually be reversed for optimal refinery efficiency on a chemical and cost basis.

I would argue that this is better for the West Coast in the long run too, as it would encourage gasoline conservation from higher prices, yet make diesel relatively cheaper for the farmer and trucker to provide us with food.

Please bear in mind that I am not an expert, but the API degree, sulfur content, and other crude factors chemically predetermine the optimal refinery outputs.

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
eric blair on August 16, 2006 - 12:01pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
much of modern diesel usage is in truck based shipping, which can be completely replaced by electrified long haul rail.

Nope.  Not completely.  In part, and in fact some long haul work is now being done by rail.  

But not completely.  The capitol costs of moving all the rail to the business or the businesses to the rail will make sure that does not happen.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
tate423 on August 16, 2006 - 12:24pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I work at the RR on the intermodal side, where all the trucks meet rail.  I can say this area has done nothing but explode and it's not stopping.  Long haul trucking is dead.  You can't even find the truckers who are willing to perform it if the $$ as right.  I talk to trucking companies all day about their business.  There going to be fine so long as people keep swallowing fuel surcharges that increase in some cases weekly.  

It seems to have lulled now though, but even many executives at these co's know that the future is rail.  They realize that it is simply more efficient to move distances on rail and move trucking back to strict local.  The funny thing is when I approach the topic of diesel prices and question changes made to personal habits etc and many just don't see the WHOLE forest.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
existentialtribalist on August 16, 2006 - 2:40pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I've heard thru a credible source that manufacturers of large diesel trucks will be tacking up to 10,000 dollars extra for 2007 emission requirement trucks for the fire service. If the fire service has to pay so much extra then I assume long haulers will be as well when they go to buy new trucks.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
tate423 on August 16, 2006 - 3:01pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I don't really know what you're talking about.  Many trucking co's are middlemen and nothing more.  Most truckers are private contractors free to move to anther company for whatever the reason.  I run into issues with truckers damaged our equip but moved to another company and we can't charge people only companies.  So if they will be forced to take on $10K in charges, it will get passed on somehow.  Long haul trucking is dying if it's not dead already.  
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
moreoilplease on August 16, 2006 - 4:02pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I am not sure of the amount, but you are correct that there are additional costs associated with purchasing a new diesel vehicle.

The change consists of additional particulate traps, catalytic converters, etc... got a few friends that work in the heavy truck sector emmissions... it's all they talk about

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Apuleius on August 16, 2006 - 4:28pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The next step after intermodal is for businesses to start getting rail sidings installed like in Days of Yore. We'll see how long that takes.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
tate423 on August 17, 2006 - 8:56am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Many businesses still have these.  I worked in a factory for two years in my first few years of college and there was a section of the plant where we stored rail cars still on the tracks.  We used the rail cars for storage ironically.  I don't think it would take much to reactivate these hook ups throughout the country.  I'm sure I'll see companies going back to this in my lifetime.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TrueKaiser on August 16, 2006 - 12:39pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
exactly.
our current rail infrastructure can't handle the load if the vast majority of long haul trucking was moved back to being moved by freight train.
if we were to do this we would have to have a massive build up of our rail infrastructure which will gobble up any of our savings(capital and energy) we would gain by putting the freight back onto rails.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jokuhl on August 16, 2006 - 4:07pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I don't get your point.  If there is a solid energy savings, then the capital-intensive buildup of new track/rolling stock would justify itself in cheaper running costs, wouldn't it? (Over time.. the farther out you go still only improves the picture if you anticipate continued rising energy costs)

The way you put it, it sounds like you don't accept the aggregate savings of cheaper fuel needs (plus, I believe, better maintenance performance, too)

Bob Fiske

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TrueKaiser on August 16, 2006 - 4:33pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
in theory there are savings.
our current rail structure is a shadow of what it once was before trucking took over. to go back too having things sent mostly or all by rail would mean we would have to rebuild lines that we either tore down for recycling or let rust into uselessness and build more locomotives, rail stations, etc.
the cost of such a build up will either make the savings from ditching the fuel hog trucks dry up to next to nothing or nothing at all.
there was a reason we originally switched from rail to trucks. and that was it was cheaper in both energy and money and it was relatively faster.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Apuleius on August 16, 2006 - 5:12pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
No, that is not the reason we switched. I suggest you read Goddard's book Getting There. The reasons we switched are that the freight companies acted too comfortably and monopolistically (not to mention oligopolistically) and that created a huge political impetus for building ways to bypass them. During World War 1 there was considerable tension between army officers and the rails regarding the shipping of material from the industrial areas of the Midwest to the East Coast for the war effort, which resulted in experimental truck convoys being used.

That in turn inspired the Interstate Highway System and the rest is history.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
PaulS on August 16, 2006 - 8:58pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
It was also the behavior of the rail companies, as Apuleius implies. They really hosed the farmers, especially in the western half of the country, or at least that's what those farmers believed. I still recall the astounding, absolute, vitriolic hatred of anything to do with railroads that I ran into in Colorado and Utah years ago, just in casual conversation about the gas crises of the 1970s.

Given that context, I find it astonishing that Denver has built light rail. I suppose the bad memories are fading and lots of newcomers have moved in. Still, I don't know that I'd look for any love of freight rail anytime soon. Alanfrombigeasy, are you reading, from wherever you are?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
GreyZone on August 17, 2006 - 1:07am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
So we shouldn't rebuild it at all, even as energy costs on trucking skyrocket? That's asinine. Of course there is going to be a cost but we can't just keep on doing what we are doing right now. Further, building out rail can provide jobs here in the US. And the reason we switched from rail to trucks was massive lobbying by Detroit and Standard Oil in the 1920s and 1930s that imposed regulations and costs on rail while subsidizing trucking in order to kill the former for the benefit of the latter. You may wish to study your history on this topic.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Apuleius on August 16, 2006 - 4:29pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Laying down track is far cheaper than laying down or even maintaining macadam.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
PaulS on August 16, 2006 - 9:02pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Is that still true at today's extremely tight tolerances (if you want to run the trains at any decent speed)?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Apuleius on August 16, 2006 - 9:23pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Still true. Those tolerances are decided by the rails and the ties. Everything else is still plain old gravel.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
tate423 on August 17, 2006 - 8:59am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Ties today are made of hardened concrete at least on heavy travelled tracks.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Frugal on August 16, 2006 - 10:37pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Why not lay down rail tracks right on the interstate highways? The right-of-ways and overpasses are already in place, which account for most of the cost of building a new rail line. This would be a cheap and energy-efficient way of massively increasing the railway capacty. We should start doing that right now, the motoring public be damned.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
tate423 on August 17, 2006 - 9:00am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I would think that the interstate system would be divided down the center and light rail would be installed in many cities to keep suburbia going.  Freight still won't be going through urban areas unless it's the destination.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
moreoilplease on August 17, 2006 - 6:22pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Rail lines running right down the expressway median... sounds like Chicago, or some places in Europe... mainly light / commuter rail as you mentioned.  I don't see why that would not be a very cheap alternative to transporting people into and out of town... I think the biggest issue though would be the freight to support those towns.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on August 17, 2006 - 10:34pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"Trolley freight" uses Urban Rail built for passengers to transport freight.  Not universal in Europe, but several cities there do it.

I think DART in Dallas would be a good candidate for trolley freight (single containers/ flatcar) once current expansion plans are completed.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on August 17, 2006 - 10:42pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"Auto Sewers" repell people. including potential rail pax.

The Green Line in Los Angeles is in the middle of a freeway, and that location has reduced rail ridership (per analysts that I believe).  Would you want to wait even a few minutes amongst the noise & exhaust of a nearby freeway.

Although running an Urban Rail line down a "freeway" is the "least best" option; it could be cheap and fast and we may need to do this.

All sorts of detail issues (overhead clearances under bridges,  entering & exiting freeways) make this option a site specific "maybe".

So

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
tate423 on August 18, 2006 - 11:08am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Alan I don't disagree, but I'm trying to be pragmatic in my thinking on this.  Bottom line is there is only a handful of politicaians with the mettle to address the coming energy issues.  Since they will most likely wait until the last possible moment, the fastest most cost effective way, IMO, is to simply put it in the middle of open stretches of land, mostly highways.  There would be no rights of way arguments, no environmental studies & reduced demand for freeway space.  We've got 8 lane highways mostly, so at WORST is we put in a single track in each direction.  I don't even think you should bother to spend the cash to raise it, since this is a capital investment that will be built upon later and elevating the track just makes it cost more unnecessarily.

Alan you call it an auto sewer, but that's ONLY predicated on a belief in cars.  I'm talking a pardigm shift in peoples perception of local travel.  My sprawling metro area is maybe 75 miles end to end.  By car it's no issue since I can get anywhere I need to in about an hour.  Once you destroy that relationship of a car and a mile, you'll see more people willing to get into the sewer to get to work.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

457 comments on DrumBeat: August 16, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version