The Potential of Electrified Urban Rail and/or Electric Vehicles
Posted by Robert Rapier on November 14, 2006 - 12:12pm
Topic: Environment/Sustainability
Tags: electric rail, electric transport, ev, light rail, peak oil, public transportation [list all tags]
Liquid transportation fuels are not the only option for transportation. There is a general consensus on The Oil Drum that shifting long and medium distance inter-city freight from heavy trucks to electrified railroads is an essential "silver BB" with an implied expansion of inter-city passenger rail service on these electrified tracks.
This modal transfer trades about 20 BTUs (or joules) of diesel for 1 BTU (joule) of electricity. The massive gain in efficiency makes electrified railroads sustainable if social order can be maintained. The history of railroads in the 1800s shows that oil is not essential for railroad operation and maintenance. Some "doomers" have suggested that "running the railroads" with their essential freight and passenger service may be a key to maintaining social order.
My formal position is at:
http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2006-05a.htm
Walking and bicycling are the ideal post-Peak Oil urban transportation modes. But they are suitable for only a few urban trips (0.5% commuted by bicycle in 2000) and almost never used for suburban trips. And many Americans simply cannot imagine walking to the grocery store or bicycling to the post office or work due to the post-WW II changes in our urban form and habits.
Thus the most appealing alternative for most (but not all) Americans contemplating post-Peak Oil is a car or SUV that pulls up to an E85 pump or just plugs in at home or work. But I question if this is the best or even a workable solution for our society.
Suburban and exurban living requires a high energy support system for maintaining roads, providing police and postal service, package deliveries, home repair, home health care, garbage pickup, and utilities. Police can bicycle an urban beat but not a suburban one. Postal workers can walk an urban route but not a suburban one. Garbage trucks, plumber vans, UPS, and every other service and support simply travel much further over many more miles of concrete and asphalt roads to service people in suburbia. And the daily use profile for many of these service vehicles will resist electrification in suburbia. An electric garbage truck in Phoenix?
In addition, newer suburban & exurban construction is larger (requiring more energy to heat, cool, and illuminate) and lower quality (major repairs can start in just 20 years). Preserving over half of Americans in suburbia by giving them an EV to plug in at home may be feasible in the early years of post-Peak Oil (with very adverse impacts on Global Warming) but it will create a second crisis in a generation as oil supply shrinks further and perhaps as the US enters the early stages of Peak Coal.
In my opinion, which is still evolving, the magic bullet of an all EV solution to urban transportation is politically popular and leads to a trap. There is also some political support for the list of urban rails appended below but this support lacks the passion of a Suburbanite desperately searching for the easiest possible way to preserve his or her way of life and property values.
The "secret" of Urban Rail is not its direct energy savings (although excellent) but the indirect savings by changing the urban form (with smaller homes) that makes walking and bicycling (the best modes) easier. Ed Tennyson has estimated that US cities with Urban Rail systems (more than one line) use 159 gallons of gasoline less per capita per year than those without. He also noted the declines in Washington DC Metro gasoline consumption relative to the rest of the US as line and line of DC Metro opened. And this observed difference is with the generally minimal Urban Rail systems that US cities have.
I live in an ideal example of a walkable neighborhood supported by a streetcar line, the Lower Garden District of New Orleans. 5 grocery stores within 6 blocks (4 reopened), my tailor and insurance agent both 4 blocks away, bank 3 blocks away and the St. Charles Streetcar Line 2.5 blocks away. We had at least 3, perhaps 4, GEMs ( http://www.gemcar.com ) in use in my neighborhood or nearby.
EV supporters point to the growing renewable generation and say "This is where our sustainable energy will be coming from. What is wrong with that?"
Were it not for the new demand from electrified transportation (rail and EV) this new renewable (mainly wind) generation would largely displace natural gas and some minimal coal generation. New demand for electrified transportation in the next decade will run off of the marginal generation sources, which will be coal, natural gas, and conservation (driven by cost) for at least a decade. Of course, more gasoline and diesel would be burned (if available) in a non-electrified transportation future so a no electrified transportation future is the worst of all worlds.
A crash program (war time effort) of HV DC lines, pumped storage and massive wind turbine installation MIGHT have North America running 100% off of renewables and nuclear power plants for 1,000 hours/year (out of 8.760 or 8,784) in a decade. 2025 would be an optimistic date for an urgent commercial effort.
Until then, we will be trading fossil fuel generated electricity for gasoline and diesel via electrification. ~20 to 1 gains in efficiency available from Urban Rail (direct & indirect) should have priority over lower gains from large EVs. Compressed natural gas or propane vehicles would be "almost as good" as EVs at that stage.
When the marginal electrical power source comes from non-Green House Gas sources (nuclear plus wind turbine plus other renewable), those 1,000 hours (11.4% of the time) will largely be late at night when there is minimal Urban Rail demand. EVs could recharge then, for a positive improvement in reducing Green House Gases (GHG) and fossil fuel consumption.
My concept is that Urban Rail, bicycling, walkable neighborhoods, and massive wind turbine installations are the Phase I solution to post-Peak Oil and EVs larger than GEM will lead to a second crisis. In Phase II, once a non-GHG grid is in place and suburbia is largely (but not completely) depopulated or reformed around rail stations, EVs and trolley freight may be critical in displacing the residual liquid transportation fuel use as supplies get ever tighter.
Electrified rail (inter-city and Urban) has a positive feedback with post-Peak Oil. The worse things get, the more people and freight they can carry and the more efficient they become. A crush load on a subway car or streetcar is extraordinarily energy efficient if uncomfortable. A healthy person can bicycle six miles in the rain instead of driving if they absolutely have to. This is far less true of EVs, coal-to-liquids, tar sands and other potential silver BBs. A post-Peak Oil future needs this elasticity of transportation supply which only electrified rail and bicycles can supply.
No one can precisely predict the future quantity and availability of liquid transportation fuels so crisis alternatives will be needed periodically to quickly make up shortfalls in supply. Urban Rail can expand ridership easily, EVs can only carpool sporadically.
An odd position, Phase I - EVs not good. Phase II - EVs good. My policy preference for the next decade is that all public subsidies and incentives go towards electrified freight railroads, Urban Rail, bicycling, high efficiency Transit Orientated Development, solar space & water heat, and building a renewable grid, with EVs and nuclear power left to market forces. Once a renewable + nuclear grid is in place, with a growing electrified rail system in operation, EVs should be encouraged. This delay will also allow EV technology to mature.
My views are still evolving and I have made several conceptual jumps to get to my current nuanced position. There are shades of grey in reality and I want aggressive but realistic approach to dealing with post-Peak Oil transportation and overall energy use.
What say you ?
Best Hopes,
Alan Drake
Electric Transport Project List
The following list was composed by Lyndon Henry and the author from memory and likely overlooks some projects. The degree of engineering on file for each project varies significantly, and much of the information is dated. However, all of the projects noted below could start construction in one to three years if it was an urgent national priority.
A rough guess is that the projects below would cost roughly $125 billion to complete.
Albuquerque - Light Rail and Commuter Rail plans
Atlanta - Beltway Light Rail, Northern suburbs Light Rail extension, downtown streetcar
Austin - Two Light Rail Lines plus Commuter rail and downtown streetcars
Baltimore - East-West Light Rail Line, 4 mile extension to current subway
Birmingham AL - Streetcar lines
Boston - All rail plans promised as environmental offset to "Big Dig"
Buffalo - Planned extensions to current light rail subway
Charlotte - All plans currently scheduled
Chicago - Expansions to Metra, South Shore Line
Cincinnati -Light Rail plans voted down
Columbus OH - Light Rail and streetcar lines
Corpus Christi TX - Streetcar line
Dallas - All plans through 2015 and all 2015-2030 options (roughly 145 mile system)
Dayton OH - Streetcar plans
Denver - 117 miles of Light Rail and Commuter Rail (already locally funded)
Ft. Lauderdale - Light Rail and streetcar plans under active development
Honolulu - Line currently under development
Houston - All plans voted for, 65 new miles light rail 8 miles commuter
Indianapolis - Light Rail Line plans
Kansas City - Light Rail Line proposed
Las Vegas - Light Rail plans
Little Rock - Short extensions of existing streetcar line, Light Rail line
Los Angeles - Red Line "Subway to the Sea", Vermont Avenue subway, XX miles of Light Rail, electric trolley bus plan, electrify commuter rail
Louisville KY - Light Rail line plans
Madison WS - Streetcar and Commuter Rail plans
Memphis - At least two Light Lines in comprehensive plan
Miami - 103 miles of elevated Rapid Rail (subway type) + Miami Beach streetcar (already locally funded) 90% of the population would be within 3 miles of a station and half within 2 miles of a station
Minneapolis-St. Paul - Central Light Rail connector between the cities
Missoula MN - Commuter Rail
Nashville - Commuter Rail in process
New Orleans - Desire Streetcar Line, Riverfront Streetcar Line extensions
New York City - 2nd Avenue Subway, 3rd Tunnel under Hudson, Penn to Grand Central connection, Staten Island Light Rail, New Jersey Light Rail extension, commuter rail improvements
Ogden UT - Streetcar plans
Orange County CA - Center Line Light Rail plan voted down
Orlando - Light Rail plan voted down
Phoenix - 90 miles of Light Rail already approved
Pittsburgh - Two Light Rail Lines north from current, under construction line
Portland - Green Line (both routes, one funded, other "studied" for future build)
Raleigh-Durham NC - Streetcar plans
Sacramento - Additional Light Rail expansion
San Antonio - Light Rail plans voted down
St. Louis - All plans evaluated, perhaps 100 mile system
Salem OR - Streetcar plans
Salt Lake City - 90 miles of Light Rail, streetcar and Commuter Rail (vote soon to accelerate)
San Diego - Light Rail spur to North, another to West
San Francisco - New TransBay tunnel, trolley line, BART extension, eBART
San Jose - BART extension, several Light Rail extensions
Seattle - Proposed north extension
Spokane - Light Rail line planned
Tampa - 1992 and later plans
Toledo OH - Streetcar plans
Tuscon AZ - Streetcar plans
Washington DC - Tyson's Corner-Dulles extension, Purple Line, 40 miles of streetcar lines in DC
Winston-Salem NC - Streetcar plans
http://www.theoildrum.com/comments/2006/4/29/0555/40710/5#5
This idea isn't entirely new though - the "smart grid" and "vehicle to grid" energy storage concepts have both been around for a while.
Any reason why you don't consider the concept of energy storage (which helps make the case for a greater mix of renewables) and its inter-relationship with plug in electric hybrids ?
http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2005/10/richard-smalley-and-smart-grids.html
http://www.greencarcongress.com/v2g/
http://www.udel.edu/V2G/
Checmical battery life is usually a function of the # of cycles. Using them on the grid could be prohibitively expensive.
Since EV technology is far from mature, nothing can be determined with certainity.
I prefer hydro pumped storage, The US has about 8 GW installed today.
Best Hopes,
Alan
I somewhat arbitrarily place the transition from Phase I to Phase II when the US/North America can run 100% off renewables + nuke for 1,000 hours/year.# I assume that this is a point of ever increasing renewables (+ nuke ?) and the next year will have even more hours of 100% renewable + nuke.
Strong March winds might fill up all available pumped storage and leave no option but "spilling" (hydro term) some renewable energy. The spill at the Phase I/II boundary would be much less than 1% of total energy, but it is a trend not to be continued (IMHO).
Thus I stated "Phase I - EV not good, Phase II - EV good".
Small EVs (also called neighborhood EVs) like GEM are almost like electric bicycles, good at any time. Their energy consumption is so low, efficiency so high and they are not suitable for high speed, long distance commuting so I support them now, in Phase 0.
OTOH, the Toyota RAV4 EV has higher consumption and can help preserve suburbia. Let "the market" push that EV w/o gov't subsidies.
Again, I propose no disincentive for large EVs (better than ICEs) but also no incentives. Focus gov't assistance on the "bigger bang for the buck" Urban Rail UNTIL we cross the Phase I/II boundary. Then subsidize EVs.
I have thought quite a bit about this and am working out my conceptual framework. This is a work in progress and not a completed plan.
Best Hopes,
Alan
# The 1,000 hours/year will be mainly at night during the spring & fall. Summer wind is at a minimum in many areas and winter is peak output but also has heating demand to absorb much wind generation.
In early Phase II (excess renewable + nuke generation for 1,xxx hours/year that can be used for pumped storage and/or charging EVs), EVs would recharge off of fossil fuels more than 1/2 of the time. Basically all summer long the marginal generation source would be fossil fuels. Also true for much of the winter and occasional periods in the spring & fall.
This assumes that the EVs recharge when told to do so by a central dispatch and not when the owner plugs them in.
However, once we get to a point where EVs can recharge, say, 1/3rd or 1/4th of the time from renewable sources AND that % is growing over time, it may be time to start pushing EVs to replace residual ICE uses.
This is a judgment call.
Best Hopes,
Alan
Checmical battery life is usually a function of the # of cycles. Using them on the grid could be prohibitively expensive.
Since EV technology is far from mature, nothing can be determined with certainity.
All true at the moment.
I'm thinking more of ultracapacitors as the basis for this setup (do a search on "EEstor" for some background) - which may be a way off (or may not materialise at all) - but it does seem to be the most promising line of development, to me at least.
Logically, if such a discharge is unlikely to happen except in bad enough accidents where fatalities are likely, it would be an acceptable new risk.
But emotionally, not so OK.
Still
Best Hopes,
Alan
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'.
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!
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).
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
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.
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
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?
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.
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/
What differences are there between the 1800's and the Present Peak World in terms of the availability and costs of the necessary resources (copper, iron etc)?
Are their significant differences in demand and competition for those resources in our current Peak Civililzation economy compared to the 1800s?
Are their significant differences in the availability of those resources in terms of abundance, difficulty/ease of mining and location of mines?
At this late date in the Oil Age I think we will go electric by default (too late for the Jettsons flying hydrogen circus carz etc).
Maybe the dying economic powerhouses that helped dismantle the rail systems in favor of fossil-fueled busses with rubber tires could be reinvigorated with a national program for rail.
On the positive side, we have GIGANTIC mountains of potential scrap that can be recycled with low energy input. And we have MUCH improved technology that can do more with less material input (and substitute materials, aluminum was priced close to gold in the 1800s). We can also extract lower grades ores with our improved technology.
OTOH, almost all high grade ores are depleted and there are more people (good & bad, rail works more efficiently with higher density).
Best Hopes,
Alan
But if Joe and Linda Lou Blockhead are convinced its the only way they are going to be able to afford their McMansion we have a chance to make it work.
The "other internal combustion-dependent" dinosaurs will either adapt or die. Their (or their share-holder's) choice.
electric rail lines is a bit problematic because
rail lines move much heavier loads that highways.
It isn't impossible to do, it would just require
digging the existing right-of-way down to bedrock
or some similar man-made substitute and rebuilding
that portion of the right-of-way to handle the
increased load.
New Orleans Streetcars can take any street corner that an 18 wheeler can. 10% grade is possible.
Light Rail has 90' radius curve & 6% grade.
Freight Rail depends upon load. US Coal trains and some others have heaviest loads in the world, cold steel deforms. Double stack containers require ~20' (forgot exactly) clearance. Grades over 1.5% are problematic. Interstate curves are OK for rail (I think freight can take 200-250' radius curves but they have to slow down, Interstate (vague memory) is 600-900' minimum radius curve.
tate123 may know more.
Alan
Yes, I'm thinking of the Blade Runner here.
And maybe aluminum will be priced close to gold in 20xx ????
I'm sure some locales will be able to do this successfully. I hope yours is one of them.
I think the value of all metals will increase substantially - not necessarily as high as gold on an wt:wt basis, but enough to crush our current world mass-production economy.
Any mining, farming, synthesis or transportation requiring cheap oil for energy and/or for material will no longer be subsidized by Mother Nature.
According to Heinberg's "The Party's Over," we mine coal using oil - mostly via strip mining using giant diesel powered heavy equipment (burning hundreds of gallons per hour), and in the transportation, which can be more expensive than than the cost of the coal transported. And in the manufacture of the equipment and machines (how many barrels per car etc) involved in mining, transport and processing.
Heading Out did a series on coal mining (see TOD index above) but I don't recall he or anyone else on TOD broke down the energy inputs for the different types of coal mining or the indirect costs in the equipment and transportation (I may have simply missed it).
Oil depletion also affects electricity indirectly - as former oil users Fuel Switch (twitch) to electricity for their energy needs the cost of electricity will increase as will all mining processes that require electricity.
There are already concerns that North America will not meet current demand for electricity within the next few years. And we freqently discuss switching our Mass Transit and EVs to electric power.
I don't know the energy breakdown for the mining and transportation and refining of all base metals but I suspect oil is involved much more than not... and no matter, because as oil declines people will migrate to all other energy sources and costs will rise.
Peak Oil means Peak Matter.
All of civilization can be run on nuclear power.
France is able to ~90% nuke by 1) being 10% hydro 2) Trading power with Switzerland (and Austria 2) they sell nuke late at night and get back less hydro power at peak 3) Sell nuke at Luxembourg which has pumped storage 4) Sell nuke at night to Germany, Spain, Italy and perhaps England. They turn off their FF plants then.
Nuke is good for base load and that is about it (and filling pumped storage with excess).
Alan