<DrumBeat: November 14, 2006The Oil DrumCERA Response Thread I>

160 comments on The Potential of Electrified Urban Rail and/or Electric Vehicles

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Hothgor on November 14, 2006 - 12:45pm Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
A couple of quick observations:

First, you state that all public subsidies and incentives should go towards electrified freight and railroads, etc, and that EV and nuclear power should be left to market forces.  As most of us have realized right now, market forces alone will not be enough to force US policy makers and automakers to embrace nuclear and EVs.

Seeing how these two fields are sort of a keystone to the all electric future, I think this could be a serious mistake.  We need to apply public pressure to our policy makers and to the automakers and force them to embrace such a future.  CAFE standards, while flawed, did work well until we allowed the 'loopholes' to get involved in the process.  A similar EV standard 'minus the loopholes', which mandates that US automakers begin producing a set and growing % of EVs every year seems like the logical place to start.  Demand for thorium fuel cycle nuclear plants will alleviate opposition to 'dirty' traditional nuclear plants, and allow us to maintain that electrical production for decades longer.

Second, the fundamental problem here is peoples resistance to change.  Forcing the general populace to embrace light rail outright is going to be met with serious opposition, as most Americans would rather continue to drive their gas guzzlers into oblivion.  A more gradual approach involving snazzy and economical EV's would be embraced by a much larger portion of the US, and as TSHTF, the opposition group will have no choice but to adopt to light rail in light of an ever decreasing supply of liquid transportation fuels.  Trying to go from point A to Z will likely kill any political motivation before it gets started.  I feel that we should instead try a more gradual transition 'A to G to O to Z'.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
oilmanbob on November 14, 2006 - 1:15pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Hothgar, thats a well thought out and written comment, thanks!
Thank you for moderating your blog behaviour.

Alan, little ol' Galveston Texas has a remnant of light rail run mainly for tourists from downtown to the seawall. We just completed an extension to the University of Texas Medical Branch and an additional few blocks of seawall. It runs on diesel though, but it goes past two groceries and two pharmacies as well as great medical service. I think extending the line has real merit, and am lobbying my City Council Members, Mayor and local newspaper editor.

Thanks for another great post. I'm convinced   that electric light rail has real promise for saving energy Its two or three silver bb's in our anti-werewolf arsenal!

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on November 14, 2006 - 1:24pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Seeing how these two fields are sort of a keystone to the all electric future, I think this could be a serious mistake

I see EVs and nukes as ancillary (and less desireable) parts of the solution.  Thorium reactors are two (or more) generations away from widespread use (say 20% of US electrical generation) and nukes suffer from long lead times in any case.  Same for EVs.  Long lead time to mature technology and longer still to build even 20% of the car/SUV fleet.

If we were in President Carter's second term, the argument of waiting for new technologies would be more valid. But we are not.

Instead spend our limited monies on things that will have a significant impact within a decade and let market forces take care of EVs & nukes (expect at least a half dozen nukes to be ordered within 2 years).

Second, the fundamental problem here is peoples resistance to change.  Forcing the general populace to embrace light rail outright is going to be met with serious opposition ...

Sayeth the man who yesterday wanted Americans to sleep in sleeping bags and marginally heat two rooms of their homes.

Unlike near freezing in the winter, there is substantial political support for many of the Urban Rail projects listed.  Even projects rejected when gasoline was $1.09/gallon are seeing revived interest today.  Run gasoline above $4/gallon and support will grow much stronger.

I will let market forces take care of Suburbia.  I AM OPPOSED TO MAJOR TAX BREAKS TO PRESERVE SUBURBIA & EXURBIA

Tax supports for EVs larger than GEMs will do just that.

Best Hopes,

Alan

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Steve001 on November 14, 2006 - 3:50pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Nukes should not be left to the marketplace alone.  

There is a significant role for government here.  The government can do much to make nuclear more attractive in the marketplace.  Only big government has the resources to research the next generation of technology that will address safety, proliferation, waste, sustainability and cost issues (e.g. GenIV systems research).  

Government involvement, with a new level of political will, would also be necessary to remake the regulatory environment to ensure it is smooth, fast and reliable to lower costs.  If we had standard reactor designs that come with "pre-approvals" and a smooth predictable permit process, then the outrageous 10-year time horizon for a new nuke facility could be slashed since about 1/2 of that time is taken up by approval process bureaucracy!  

If we need a lot of new nukes ASAP (IMHO we do), especially with next generation technology, we'll need good government policy to help drive it in the right direction in the marketplace.  It will still take more time than we likely have re peak oil, so conservation will have to play a big role over the next 10-20 years and renewables will need to do as much as they can as well.  But, over the long term, our future will require a significant nuclear component if we are to maintain our industrial society, with all its attendant benefits and standard of living, without cooking the planet in greenhouse gases.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
slaphappy on November 14, 2006 - 8:08pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Leave them to the market place, but without externalities. If the Hummer drivers have to pay for what their smog does to my lungs, then maybe we'll have a market, but while coal and SUVs can kill people by the tens of thousands for free, I'm not sure you can really call this a market.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on November 14, 2006 - 2:30pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I feel that we should instead try a more gradual transition 'A to G to O to Z'

It will take a MAJOR crisis (economic & environmental) to get the US to move off of A.  You want to move towards G, (EVs run by coal & NG, preserving >half of Americans in Suburbia/Exurbia) where the US will wait for ANOTHER major crisis (say GW, or Peak Coal) and then go towards O (EVs run by nukes, saving Suburbia) and the US will stay there until ANOTHER major crisis (say Peak U or a nuclear accident) moves us towards a sustainable solution.

My POV is let us start working on as much of the best and sustainable solution as we can politically accept and avoid subsidizing half measures, like EVs.  Let the market develop them.

I worry that we cannot survive a series of MAJOR crisises, and EVs might just lead us there.

Best Hopes,

Alan

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
IowaBoy on November 14, 2006 - 5:29pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I appreciate this description of incremental solutions. I consider your electrified rail a vision of the future that gives me hope that we can maintain a civilization (with the asthma and glaucoma medicines and bicycle tires on which I, for example, depend). The Hirsh report, among others, suggests that it takes signficant time and resources to put in place any such solution, and we don't have a lot of chances, or extra resources, to do it over.

The big problem seems to be a population with no awareness of the complementary problems of peak oil and gas, or at least, of the seriousness. Witness the strident insistent by Robert Samuelson that Global Warming cannot be addressed. Of course, the technological capability to address it and peak oil exist. All that's lacking is motivation by the public and its political representatives.

I think theoildrum is contributing a lot to increased awareness, albeit slowly on the scale of the awareness needed for action. Can we hope for Congressional hearings in the new Congress? Do we know which representatives might be most likely to act? Which might benefit from encouragement? Is there a way to get Congress to engage the National Research Council?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
slaphappy on November 14, 2006 - 8:06pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I'm a big fan of nuclear power, but Thorium doesn't have a significant advantage. There is no shortage of Uranium if we're willing to use breeders. A thorium reactor is automatically a breeder, so if that's on the table, what's the need? It is not significantly cleaner, though it may be a marginally more proliferation resistant, though that difference would also be insignificant.

If you control the reactor, and you don't care who knows and for how long, you can make some sort of halfway reasonable weapons. If you don't control the reactor, or can't openly flaunt every manner of inspection and scrutiny, you have very little (if any) hope. Thorium doesn't change that.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Dezakin on November 14, 2006 - 8:39pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I'm a big fan of nuclear power, but Thorium doesn't have a significant advantage. There is no shortage of Uranium if we're willing to use breeders.

While there is no real shortage of uranium, thorium offers several technical advantages. U233 is often described as the best thermal reactor fuel, produces many delayed neutrons (Which is good for safety and easy reactor control), and produces more neutrons per fission in the thermal spectrum than most other fuels yielding better neutron economy.

In addition, Uranium flourides are far more soluable in molten salts, which are sort of the ultimate in breeder reactors. Its not difficult to imagine that fluid fuel breeder reactors are more economical to operate than solid fuel light water reactors, given there is no necissary refueling downtime, no fuel fabrication, 1/100th the waste disposition, 1/100th the fuel cost, and a significant amount of marketable fission products ready for processing in a molten salt, from xenon to fission platinum group metals.

http://www.thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.