176 comments on Renewable Fuel Contenders
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
176 comments on Renewable Fuel Contenders
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Google search
Advanced search
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
- How do we maintain adequate phosphorus and potassium levels for crops?
- What should we do with funds set aside for retirement?
- Leading the Way to a Low-Energy Future
TOD:Europe
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- Electric Vehicles: The End Of Australian Manufacturing ?
- Upcoming Forum In Sydney: 'Peak Oil - Is this the end of civilisation as we know it ?'
- From Counterculture To Cyberculture: The Life And Times Of Stewart Brand
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“It's difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on him not understanding it.”
—Upton Sinclair
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Dave Murphy, Engineer-Poet, Glenn, Heading Out, Jason Bradford, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Nate Hagens, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:ANZ: aeldric, Big Gav, Phil Hart
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
Alan,your point about long haul trucking being unnecessary is maybe a little premature but I agree in principle.
Do you have links or references on how long and how much it might cost to get the trains nback into service in to the extent that trucks can really be relageted to local use?How long might it take to realize an energy saving by rebuilding the railroads to such an extent?Do you think it can even be done,given the state of the economy?
RR has done his homework well,has he not?It's going to take a while to digest this article.
Electrifying all mainlines (about 36k miles) and 50k busy branch lines
Double tracking basically all main lines (excess capacity in many cases, but no congestion) (i.e. double tracking expands capacity by x3 to x4 vs. single track and saves time and adds reliability of on time delivery).
Rail over rail bridges when E-W crosses N-S
Grade separating about 90% of crossings (last 10% get difficult price/benefit)
Making all main lines & some branch lines clearance for double stack containers
Many intermodal facilities as well as moving factories & warehouses to rail sidings (or extend rail sidings)
14,000 miles of semi-High Speed rail (freight at 90 to 100 mph, pax at 100 to 125 mph on same tracks)
Time - 20 years (first ten to twelve years at tar sands development pace)
Cost - About 5 or 6 AIG bailouts
Best Hopes,
Alan
Yes. Actually, I think we could get most long distance freight on to the rails (or, to a much lesser extent but not to be ignored, on boats & barges) very quickly, and achieve some very quick energy efficiency gains and corresponding reductions in our need for diesel fuel. The electrification of the rail lines needs to happen and will come, but let's not have the incorrect idea that it must happen BEFORE the freight moves on to the rails. It isn't a precondition, and it is in fact starting to happen right now. Using good old Pareto's rule of thumb, we can probably expect to see about 80% of the benefit with the first 20% of your added investments, so we might not need to wait anything like your 10-20 years to realize most of the gains.
Removing the long-distance truck traffic from the highways would have the further benefit of knocking the support from under the highway construction lobby once and for all, with a consequent reallocation of highway construction funds to better long-term uses.
Kudos all. Revitalizing rail transport is such an obviously logical thing to do environmentally, economically, security-wise that I simply cannot imagine it being allowed to happen. Whatever forces have blocked it for the past many years that that statemen has held true are unlikely to go away.
With the trucks mostly off the roads highway maintainence expense will shrink enormously-another plus for all of us but another nail in the coffin of bau.
This shapes up to be a rumble in the jungle of the halls of congress. Ten years until it is up for a vote maybe?