The Oil Drum

If your students wish to delve a little deeper in formation , trapping , drilling then this will help:

http://www.ukooa.co.uk/education/storyofoil/index.cfm

It is meant purely as a general primer and is a pretty good introduction you click on each chapter heading that you find of interest.

Hi Gail,

This is an interesting point:

re: "Major changes in infrastructure need to be evaluated in terms of the upfront expenditure (in terms of energy and other resources) and long term costs compared to the benefits."

It seems a lot depends on how we define "benefits".

If we're talking about energy (extraction/capture) technologies and infrastructure, in terms of "ELM", we're looking at near-zero oil imports, in...(?) a fairly short time frame. It seems like part of the analysis has to do with having "something" that can work v. not having a functioning system.

Hi Gail,

re: "...19 to 23 year olds."

OTOH, they are old enough to volunteer for resource war-fighting. And would be subject to a draft, were one to be implemented.

They also can vote, and presumably debate, if not create, policy. (And, in fact, they can also create policy.)

Perhaps Alan's rail plans could be incorporated in a section called "Current public responses to 'peak oil'" - ? (You could list "Post Carbon Institute" and other efforts there, as well.)

Major changes in infrastructure need to be evaluated in terms of the upfront expenditure (in terms of energy and other resources) and long term costs compared to the benefits. Rail may be a solution is some areas, but this needs to be evaluated in each case, and the amount of resources available for investments of all kinds needs to be considered.

I think that you are wrong.

At a 2004 cost of $2 million/mile of single track and $2.5 million/mile for double track, the oil savings of electrification at elevated oil costs are easily justified. I was told by a retired CSX VP recently that the RRs are under minimal competitive pressure (CSX has a duopoly with Norfolk-Southern, as long as N-S does not electrify, why should CSX ?) and they do not yet believe that $90/barrel oil is permanent.

At $30/barrel of oil I have identified over $100 billion in specific Urban Rail projects that are economic with low oil prices.

http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2007-04a.htm

and electrified rail, with more bicycling and TOD (walkable neighborhoods) is NOT just "conservation" (which is all carpooling is) !

TOD is a more profound, and permanent, means of conservation by changes in Urban structure and daily routine (walk to the grocery store, etc.) than high mileage cars and carpooling.

It is a fundamental paradigm shift from an Oil Based transportation system (from extremely local grocery shopping & commuting to intercity transport) to a Non-Oil Transportation System !

The Non-Oil Transportation System has a large elasticity of supply# as demand increases, without ANY increase in oil use (except a few extra barrels of lubricating grease). This is not true of conservation based solutions.

Your syllabus will likely influence others. PLEASE seriously consider a section on "Non-Oil Transportation". It will give a focus and hope that car-pooling simply lacks.

Best Hopes for Non-Oil Transportation,

Alan

# The rule of thumb is that electrification of a rail line increases capacity by 15% (faster acceleration & braking). CREATE is a public-private partnership to create grade separation RR over RR crossings in the Chicago area. Nationwide impact for $1.5 billion.

In the vast majority of cases, existing Urban Rail capacity can be increased by adding more cars and perhaps uprating the power supplies. In more extreme cases, longer stations allowing longer trains will be needed. Still MUCH cheaper than adding freeway lanes.

Our current roads can accommodate an unlimited number of bicycles and few American sidewalks cannot carry 10x as many pedestrians.