The Oil Drum

Thinking that we will have BAU to utilize and pay for the modified and expanded infrastructure is just magical thinking.

And the alternatives are?

No. Really. What are the alternatives?

Either the government will do it directly (nationalization) or indirectly via tax breaks, or changes in regulation to attract capital.

Who do you expect to pay for the conversions and expansion? I doubt the private sector will, not unless they forecast a mid to long term profitable return.

The private sector. Via shipping costs. And increased taxes. And a spot o land grab via emirate domain.

Besides - if we are generating most of the power via renewables like wind and solar, electrified transport makes for a great dump load. In the case of moving say ore - if the ore takes a bit longer to arrive - its not like the ore is going to spoil.

Bandits.

People Starving. Riots.

These hyperbolic assumptions don't show your own thinking as seeing the big picture here, or really listening to the proposals that Alan has put forth. Did you ever get a chance to read this?
>> http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2006-05a.htm
"A 10% Reduction in America's Oil Use in Ten to Twelve Years
An Overlooked, Practical, and Affordable Approach Using Mature Existing Technology"

While Alan's hardly proposing we simply maintain today's BAU model, his 10% article at Light Rail Now is focused on proactive steps to fortify our transport sector, not replace it. France, nestled snugly into Western Europe could hardly be accused of seeing itself as an island of self-sufficiency, while she's clearly taking steps to improve sustainable transportation and energy options.

"I suspect that the transport problem will sort itself out. It's low priority."
- Well that's the question, I guess.

Bob

One way of looking at the post-Peak Oil situation (and there are several valid POVs, recall a half dozen blind men examining an elephant) is:

Each nation will be able to afford only so much oil, domestic production plus what their exports can buy.

The default solution to making oil burned = oil available is reduced economic activity (see today ?).

Creating a Non-Oil Transportation system with the ability to expand capacity quickly, rapidly and economically (average costs lower as volume expands) creates an alternative solution to "reduced economic activity". As oil gets tighter, a higher and higher % of transportation shifts from oil based to non-oil transportation.

Non-oil transportation creates a viable alternative to simply doing without, and the economic contraction/destruction that goes with that.

As for inter-city railroads, all that is needed is additional public subsidies (could be largely paid for by reduced subsidies for road repairs caused by heavy trucks). The industry wants a 25% tax credit for capital improvements. Increasing that to 33% would certainly spur major improvements.

BTW, the cost to do what I propose for inter-city RRs would cost somewhere between $250 and $400 billion. Expensive if the bulk of that was spent in the first decade (as I hope it would be), but hardly societies largest expenditure.

Best Hopes for NOT sitting back and waiting some more,

Alan

"Thinking that we will have BAU to utilize and pay for the modified and expanded infrastructure is just magical thinking."

How is it magical thinking to allocate current resources to increase efficiency and attack a supply and infrastructure problem practically? We have the power in hand to change now. Why shouldn't we? It's not Alan who suffers from magical delusions. It's your voodoo doomsday black magic that is out of touch with reality.

The current trucking system is wasteful, inefficient and places unnecessary strains on current FF supply. If we can shore up, leverage, and expand existing rail infrastructure and reduce consumption by 10% it provides a practical mitigation to the peak oil problem.

We are not necessarily short on resources now. We have severely misallocated billions in Iraq that could be building comprehensive renewable and more efficient energy infrastructure at home.

As the old oil infrastructure attempts to drag us over the cliff of peak oil, we will need new infrastructure to keep civilization in place. Certainly, there is a danger of system-wide infrastructure crash -- but only if we ignore the problem, fail to build mitigating infrastructure, and otherwise fail to respond appropriately.

As for France -- they will likely be in a better position to weather the crisis than we will if we continue to fail to act.

What is most shocking to me is not Alan's focus on trains as part of the solution to peak oil, but the assumption by some on this board that a return to cart and buggy days is inevitable or even desirable. We should fight tooth and nail to preserve and improve the systems we have while shedding ugly fat (Wal-Mart, suburbia, SUVs etc) and transforming as much as we can.

We can go local and still have cars -- just smaller ones that we use less because we don't need them so much. We can use trains more for long distance transport and travel. We can have less aircraft aloft but still have a higher priced option for jet travel (and potentially more efficient turboprops on biofuel) with hydrogen powered aircraft as a future, post crisis, potential. We can replace natural gas and coal with solar and wind with energy storage and a new generation of nuclear plants. We can increase battery and electric power for industrial tools that build things like X2G autos, farm, mining, and metal producing equipment. In essence, we can leverage our fossil fuel endowment to transition to a non-fossil fuel economy. It will not be BAU. It will be an economic revolution in response to crisis.

Or we can hunker down, watch the system crash, and pray to the gods we can grow enough food ala Kunstler. Perhaps that is our ultimate fate. But people like you would have us go down into a very dark hole without even a peep of protest.