It is interesting how quickly discussions on this forum quickly devolve from personal plans to use a bit less energy to apocalypse.

Gail's post was:

It depends a lot on how much resources we have.

If we have close to as much resources as we have now, Alan's model works. If we skip that level, because the credit crunch takes out most electricity, for example, it won't work at all. If we can somehow keep things together, it may work for a while, but long term, it doesn't work.

One of my concerns is that we "aim too high". One possibility is that we will spend our remaining resources trying to build something that might have worked in 2008, but by the time it finally gets built in 2020, won't work with what we still have available then. We will have trains to take people to jobs in the financial sector which no longer exist. There may not be enough food produced and shipped to the cities to keep them going. Lack of electricity is likely to affect basic services like the New York City subway system.

It seems like we would be better off using our remaining resources assuming we will not be able to keep massive infrastructure of whatever type maintained (roads and bridges, electric transmission wires, trains with imported parts) for very long.

My counterpoint is that this is nonsense.

In extremis, if we are only able to produce 1/8th (12.5%) of todays electricity, we could devote a tenth of that to electrified rail (1.25% of current US electrical production) to electrified rail and the remainder to essential services (sewage, minimal lighting, industrial, energy efficient cooking) and still maintain an industrial society (one without air conditioning, electric hair dryers, electric hot water heaters and a TV in every home).

I also pointed out that any rail we build in the next 5, 10 or 15 years will be useful under almost any scenario, even scenarios of social collapse (not that I expect social collapse).

If we are to abandon anything today, it should be Suburbia. No more good resources after bad.

Addressing the balance of your post, I have pointed to the suburbs of Boston, served by commuter rail, as viable models of Rail Suburbs. Walkable communities of mainly well built housing, with over half the employment locally, and clustered around the rail station.

The energy efficiency of fossil fuel buses do not make them very viable post-Peak Oil. Specialty gap fillers, and feeders to urban rail; maybe. They cannot carry the bulk of the people transportation load.

Best Hopes,

Alan

Electric railroads are inherently dual fuel. One can always run diesel under wire (all freight on the 104 mile electrified rail from Philadelphia to Harrisburg is diesel, too short to justify a changeover).

My "7 year plan" is to electrify 20% of the track miles, carrying about 80% of the ton-miles. The old locos will still be around for some decades, operating on the un-electrified track. And electrified rail lines always keep a few diesels around for rescue locos.

However, even in nations with routine blackouts (see China and South Africa in recent years), I have NEVER heard of a single instance of them blacking out rail.

Even the Paris Metro, under German occupation, when coal and electricity were diverted from French homes for the German war effort, the Germans still let the Metro run.

The Trans-Siberian Railroad is the world's most strategic RR by at least one order of magnitude. Russia could not hold onto Siberia without it ! Yet is was completely electrified in 2002. Putin is very concerned about security, but electrification is not considered a risk.

Too little electricity used and far too much value produced.

That is the key, too little electricity used by electrified rail to matter. And too much value created.

I do know that when Washington DC had brownouts and blackouts during a heat wave, DC Metro slowed to 40 mph to save electricity (vs. 55 mph top speed normally). My feeling was that this was more a PR stunt, but perhaps not. But DC Metro was never browned or blacked out.

After the San Francisco earthquake, they got the streetcars running the next day (at 3 mph through the tracks twisted by the earthquake and hurriedly realigned). On the day after the earthquake, supposedly all of the available electricity in SF was diverted to the street and cable cars.

If there is ANY electricity, electrified rail will get most or all that they need. People may be dying of heat stroke for lack of air conditioning in homes ill suited for life without a/c, but electrified rail will get what it needs. And all it needs is 1% or 2% of the electricity.

Meeting a/c demand in a heat wave can take over half of the electricity. That used by electrified rail will simply not make a difference, too small.

As of 2006, all of the New York subways, Amtraks' Northeast Corridor, Long Island RR, BART, subways in Chicago, Philly, Boston, DC, LA, Miami, Atlanta, Baltimore and light rail everywhere took only 0.19% of US electricity. About as much as hair dryers. Or about two month's typical growth in demand. And the USA gets about 7% of it's electricity from hydro, another 3% from other renewables and 19% from nukes.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p1.html
(other renewables was 2.4% in 2006, but has grown since then).

I hope this clarifies why I am not that concerned about a lack of electricity.

Alan

Very small scooters and electric cars (several GEMs in use in New Orleans) work best in a low speed urban environment. The distances and speeds required for all but the oldest/closest suburbs work against them.

Commute 48 miles each day (2x24) by scooter on high speed roads or move to walkable TOD ? For those not already already in Suburbia with an upside down mortgage, that is a no brainer !

Multitasking repair people, perhaps. But where do they get specialty repair parts ?

Provide one day/week postal delivery in Suburbia and 6 days/week in dense urban areas should balance the energy requirements of the two.

And those miles of water and sewer lines (both requiring pumping energy) will not go away.

Perhaps some of those many acres of streets will. I have wondered just how many acres of paving (streets, parking lots, driveways, garages, sidewalks, auto dealers & repair) there is for every Suburbanite ?

Best Hopes for Less Suburbia,

Alan

The other point is that, while it may be far more efficient to slow the TGVs down, given today's realities the high speed is a necessary feature and probably saves energy on the whole. Why? Because the alternative, generally, is flying. Shift even a small percentage of the TGV's market share to air travel on the same route and you have a net increase in energy costs.

Now, if you assume a severely energy-constrained world, this will not be an issue as air travel will simply cease to be a viable alternative. Energy use by trains, as noted, can be dramatically reduced by cutting speed. The same cannot be said for aircraft. Indeed, over "short hops" (e.g. Paris-Bordeaux), jet-powered aircraft can do almost nothing to reduce their energy usage, as very little time is spent at cruise altitude. Jet engines are dramatically less efficient at lower altitudes.

Good work ! I uprated you.

However, Gail is arguing that we cannot find enough electricity to run electrified rail.

*IF* society runs short of electricity, one of the steps is not to black-out electrified rail, but slow it down. (As DC Metro went from a top speed of 55 mph to 40 mph during a summer heat wave).

Alan