Energizing America V [UPDATED: Full draft now available]

Energize America - Achieving U.S. Energy Security by 2020 - Executive Summary - Crossposted from Daily Kos.

Update [2006-5-18 13:3:41 by Super G]: The full Energize America draft is now up at Daily Kos. We're also mirroring the PDF version.

In the next few days, we are going to roll out the new draft of the Energize America plan, and we count on you to help us improve this plan even further before it is unveiled formally during the energy panel at YearlyKos in Las Vegas on June 9.

Today, I am posting the Executive Summary of Draft Five and the list of the 20 Acts included in Energize America which give it its comprehensive and coherent character (we hope). The full plan will be posted tomorrow morning on DailyKos.

In the spirit of this endeavor, I ask that you comment and criticize this Executive Summary. As it is likely to be the first (and in many case, the only) document that most people will see, it needs to be compelling and convincing, and we count on your help to improve it further. So fire away with your comments, ideally with suggestions in complement to whatever criticism you may have.

Draft Five was prepared by George Karayannis (DoolittleSothere), with the help of the full Energize America team. Full credits will be given tomorrow.

Energize America - Achieving U.S. Energy Security by 2020 - Executive Summary

Objectives

To provide the U.S. with Energy Security by 2020 and Energy Independence by 2040 by: 1) reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 75%, 2) reducing oil imports by 50%, 3) generating 25% of electricity from renewable sources, and 4) creating or preserving over three million new jobs by 2020.

Description

America remains dangerously and increasingly addicted to fossil fuels, which directly threatens national security, economic stability and the overall quality of American life. In addition to remaining critically dependent upon imported oil to meet transportation needs, America remains highly dependent upon domestic coal to meet its needs for electricity. The rapidly growing use of both of these fossil fuels generates enormous amounts of GHGs, which become trapped in the earth's atmosphere and contribute to global warming and its associated extreme weather events and sea level changes.

Interruptions to oil, gas or coal supplies by natural or man-made events can cause significant and prolonged economic pain and social turmoil with little or no warning.

America once led the world in both automotive and renewable energy engineering, but has seen this lead vanish to foreign competitors along with well over a million manufacturing jobs.

Energize America is a grassroots effort created and refined by informed citizen activists, and not by lobbyists or politicians. As such, it takes an unvarnished and objective look at U.S. energy policy with the single goal of achieving U.S. energy security by 2020, defined as the ability to withstand a prolonged supply interruption, and U.S. energy independence by 2040, defined as energy self-sufficiency.

Energize America provides an ambitious but achievable 20-point plan to wean America from its fossil fuel addiction, to dramatically and responsibly reduce GHG emissions, to rebuild America's manufacturing base, and to insulate the American economy from the effects of political turmoil, natural catastrophes and shrinking oil supplies worldwide.

Energize America strongly favors a free market-based approach to solving our energy dilemma, though the plan is clearly guided by a strategic vision of a sustainable energy future and a public-private partnership model based on the highly-successful Apollo lunar program.

Energize America will leverage the incredible power and innovation of American industry to research, develop and commercialize energy efficiency technologies that will provide significant and continuous improvements to American consumers, and will help focus and unleash this creativity through clear and consistent policies and substantial long-term tax and regulatory incentives.

Energize America aims to create a level playing field for all energy providers, consumers and technologies. For renewable energy sources, this will mean subsidizing the development and deployment of wind, solar, biomass and other solutions. These investments will help these clean and local sources of energy compete more effectively with fossil fuels, which have benefited from decades of direct subsidies and other benefits. Figure 2 below highlights one example of the historical disparity in federal financial support for nuclear and wind power - with nuclear power enjoying nearly 40 times the financial assistance of wind over an initial 15 year development period while delivering only slightly more gross electricity production.

Benefits

Energize America will transform American society - from the way we generate and use energy, to the way we design and drive vehicles, to the way we think about energy efficiency and conservation, to the way we deal with foreign governments. In short, Energize America will create an energy-aware culture that treats energy as a strategic and vital economic resource, and which leads the world in the design and manufacture of renewable energy systems and energy efficient products.

Energize America will:

  • enable Americans to soon drive vehicles that are far safer, cleaner, and dramatically more fuel-efficient than today's vehicles,
  • maximize energy efficiency in homes and businesses,
  • strengthen the U.S. industrial base,
  • ensure that the United States leads the world in the benefits of clean coal, in the design, manufacture and export of renewable energy systems, and in the reduction of GHGs,
  • save taxpayers money by lowering the cost of operating federal, state and local governments,
  • save the US economy billions of dollars per year through reduced medical and other costs associated with global warming and pollution.

Most importantly, Energize America will ensure that all Americans can enjoy continued access to safe, reliable and affordable energy.

In sum, Energize America will save Americans trillions of dollars in energy costs and reduce GHG emissions 75% by 2020, and make energy independence by 2040 attainable.

Benefit Examples

Homeowners - will save money from:

  1. highly energy efficient dwellings,
  2. an ability to directly control energy costs,
  3. greater energy provider choice, and
  4. the ability to generate some or all of their own electricity needs.

Businesses - will benefit from:

  1. energy-optimized buildings and factories,
  2. increased control over energy costs
  3. greater ability to generate some or all of their energy needs, and
  4. access to new markets for energy-efficient products and services

US Automakers - will profit from:

  1. access to a ready market for ultra fuel efficient vehicles
  2. the creation and retention of over 1 million auto manufacturing jobs
  3. a rare opportunity to regain a competitive edge globally

Communities - will gain from:

  1. energy availability in the event of an unplanned, large-scale power failure
  2. energy solutions matched to local needs and resources
  3. new jobs from renewable energies, particularly for rural and remote communities
  4. enhanced ability to attract and retain new residents and businesses

Environment - will benefit from:

  1. stabilized GHG levels
  2. the protection of natural resources and designated ecosystems

Energize America will undoubtedly be attacked by special interests -- namely the fossil fuel lobbies that will resist its aggressive migration to renewable energy sources. In addition, those who do not agree that global warming poses a growing threat may challenge its GHG emissions goals. Energize America will not please everyone, but it is designed with all Americans, and all future generations, in mind. Following is a summary of Energize America's position relative to existing energy sources.

Oil

Energize America is driven by the reality of 'Peak Oil', the fact our planet is reaching or has reached an irreversible period of shrinking oil production- which is compounded by rapidly growing demand worldwide. Tar sands and other oil sources can provide some stop-gap relief from Peak Oil but cannot fully replace increasingly expensive and rare oil. Energize America aims to make the U.S. functionally free from imported oil by 2040 for national security, economic, and environmental reasons.

Coal

America enjoys the largest coal reserves in the world, which is both a blessing and a curse. Coal can meet our long-term needs for electricity and can also be liquefied into oil for transportation. However, the mining of coal can be devastating to the environment if not done carefully, and the burning of coal can release significant amounts of GHGs into the atmosphere if not done responsibly. Energize America aims to minimize the environmental and GHG impact of coal use.

Nuclear

Nuclear power is experiencing a political resurgence of sorts, and several new plants are in various stages of planning. However, the nuclear industry enjoys huge subsidies that shield the industry from nuclear disaster liability. The nuclear industry and our government have also failed for decades to solve the nuclear waste problem. These issues must be addressed before nuclear power is more widely used.

Investment

Energize America will require an investment of approximately $250 billion through 2020, or roughly $20 billion per year - a strategic investment that will provide substantial returns immediately and for generations to come. Included in Act XX is a balanced funding strategy to achieve U.S. energy security.

Energize America Acts

The following Acts are detailed in the full version of the plan (to be posted tomorrow):

  1. The Passenger Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Act ("500mpg cars")
  2. The Transportation Industry Efficiency Act ("Long Haul")
  3. The Fleets Conversion Act ("Mass Transit")
  4. The Community-Based Energy Investment Act ("Neighborood Power")
  5. The Passenger Rail Restoration Act ("Bullet Trains")
  6. The Clean Coal Generation Act ("Clean Coal")
  7. The Wind Energy Production Tax Credit Act ("Reap the Wind")
  8. The 20 Million Solar Roof Act ("Harness the Sun")
  9. The Renewable Portfolio Standards Act ("Fair Everywhere")
  10. The Federal Net Metering Act ("Get on the Grid")
  11. The State-Based Renewable Energy Investment Act ("Green States")
  12. The New Energy Technology Demonstration Act ("Liquid Coal and Golden Glow")
  13. The Sustainable Energy Economic Prosperity Act ("Focused for Lasting Success")
  14. The Carbon Reduction Act ("Atmosphere Stability")
  15. The Federal Energy Policy Enforcement Act ("People's Energy Watchdog")
  16. The National Energy Efficiency & Conservation Act ("EnergySMART")
  17. The Home Efficiency Act ("C the Light")
  18. The Demand Side Management Act ("Real Time Energy Pricing")
  19. The Telecommuter Assistance Act ("Work Smart")
  20. The Energy Security Funding Act ("Paying the Piper")

Now, all we need is another Depression or Space Race to supply the unanimous twenty-year political will to do it.
Could not agree more.  Good ideas that will most probably work abound, here and on other sites.  What's missing is the will to at least begin.  In absence of such, I must reluctantly conclude that change will not occur until we drive ourselves merrily off the cliff, and not one minute before. Don't get me wrong--I admire those who tilt at windmills. But all evidence points to Kunstler being exactly correct about Americans: we are a wicked people who deserve to be punished.
"Americans... ...are a wicked people who deserve to be punished."

I would guess that 75% of peak oilers believe this and close to 100% of the peak oil doom mongers do. My impression is that a large portion of the posters here are just rebranded anti-Americans, anti-capitalists or end-of-the-worlders.

There is nothing wrong with believing whatever you want, but don't act so surprised when the people you try to pursuade don't buy into your "doom is coming and you deserve it" fantasies.

I accept the general peak oil theory, but have to laugh when so many posters ask "Why does nobody listen when I talk about peak oil?"

The answer many times is that it is because you are not talking about peak oil, you are trying to get people to believe in your own doom obsession, and have just stolen the peak oil concept as a way to "prove it".

Jack,
  You hit the nail on the head.
matt
Thanks. I stopped commenting here about two months ago because I became demoralized by the doom porn obsession that seems to have taken over. I'm glad I'm not alone.
You are definitely not alone. It is good to see you back. Many of us have missed your sane commentary.
It's Yin/Yang Jack. A "doom porn obsession" is the perfect reaction to the reality of happy-talk-news main stream media.

There is no one magic quick fix solution.  Energize America's twenty point approach is excellent. All our activity may or may not be enough to avoid catastrophe. If people want to know about energy, they can find out and maybe make their own estimations (including doom).

I would be perfectly happy if we manage to muddle our way through this challenge. I keep investing.

Yes, I agree. Although I would have used the word "counterpart" rather than reaction. I don't know which came first, only that they are symetric extremes, neither one better or worse than the other. Yin/Yang is the right analogy.
One of my problems with having a positive outlook is reading the local and national papers to get a feel on how society is behaving. If everyone were like you and the majority of TODers i.e. fairly well educated, willing to make a small or large sacrifice for the common good, conserve energy etc then I would be far more positive about the overall outcome. Unfortunately, you only have to read the local papers about how many hooligans and street thugs there are around.

Americans might not realise this, but this is World Cup year and unfortunately for the Germans, England is in it. England has a bad reputation when it comes to fan violence and drunkenness. About one mile to the north of my local town, is an area of pubs where football "fans" drink and watch England play in international competitions in the pubs. Afterwards, whomever wins, the fans fight amongst themselves and anybody else in the area and smash up property either to celebrate England winning or England losing - it doesn't seem to make a difference. This is very common all over England. Scotland and Wales's fans are very much better behaved than the English savages sorry "fans"- I can't think of a better description at the moment. It is this type of person (unfortunately very common in England) that makes me feel that things will be worse than they really need to. If they can't cope with dealing with a football match, how the hell will they cope with someone telling them to cut back a little on driving or not driving at all?

England is becoming quite a savage society nowadays and this is when England is fairly rich and well off compared to most countries. When TSHTF, how bad will things then get? These savages/people are far more likely to respond violently to any polite request to conserve or cut down on usage.

Schools are now just beginning to install metal detectors for knives etc. It is only one or two schools on a temporary basis for a day at the moment, but in a few years time, my guess is more and more schools will have them and for longer temporary periods. I guess Americans used to New York schools would say it has been standard policy over in the US for a decade or two now, but as America leads, so Britain follows.

Psychologists have shown that people invariably overestimate how dangerous the world outside is, often by a factor of 10 or more - this is almost entirely due to the bias towards bad news in the mainstream media.

I'm with Jack on this one - optimisim is the only rational way forward, anything else is just wasted mental energy.

As I have driven through "fans" celebrating England winning as they swarmed all over the streets and seen the results to the shops the morning afterwards in my home town, I am afraid I don't believe you. To say all English fans behave like this is not true, but for a significant minority it is. England has a short history of drinking to excess and violent behaviour. You only have to read reports from the 17th century onwards and see Hoggarth's Gin Lane to realise the English are only carrying on its traditions. Drunk for 1d and dead drunk for 2d used to be the on signs outside grog shops as whole families marched into them to get their money's worth.

What has not been reported in the local press is behaviour near the main post office. Old age pensioners draw their money out; someone watches them leave the Post Office and then mugs the old lady in an underpass or down a side street where nobody is around. This is only very local knowledge to the police and surrounding shops and shop workers. Not many people know about this. Also there is the amount of thievery going on in stealing purses and wallets. The thief then goes into one of several clothes shops and puts the emptied purse/wallet into a coat for sale. Shop assistants find about 5 purses/wallets per week per shop as people buy the coat and discover the purse/wallet at the payout counter. This is only known to shop workers, the general public knows very little about it. I only know because I talk a lot to a couple of shop assistants about our football teams. So I would say media reporting of crime is greatly under reported. Murders obviously make big news and are fairly rare, but general crime is extremely common in England.

Well, it's hard enough to get people to accept the concept of peak oil in the first place; I'm sure that adding in Kunstler without his admittedly extensive context in which he postulates this would just turn people off faster.  But you are correct, I suppose, that that particular quote is more cultural criticism (Americans have squandered our cheap energy, expect something for nothing, refuse to give up our precious right to drive, etc.) than it pertains to peak oil, although it is our absolute refusal to even consider this idea that makes Kunstler right on target, IMO. The fact that our so-called government has refused to even discuss workable solutions with the citizenry, engaged in debilitating resource wars, and enables our behavior just makes it all the worse. The fact is, we aren't going to prepare for this until its too late, many people are suffering now because of our profligate behavior, and many more will suffer in the future because we could bear to consider that the way we live is unsustainable.  If that's "doomer porn" so be it.
"Americans... ...are a wicked people who deserve to be punished."

I would guess that 75% of peak oilers believe this and close to 100% of the peak oil doom mongers do

So are you claiming that 75% of the peak oilers are Calvanists?

I didn't miss your 'visions of doom and gloom are wrong' posts.   Because you never stepped up and explained HOW the nasty brutish parts of human nature were going to be avoided by providing a conicopia of plenty to make sure the bread, cirrcuses and soma keep comming to the citizens of the world.  And you've never bothered to explain WHY the option of powerdown won't work either.

But feel free to show how to sell more expensive energy in such a way that avoids nasty brutishness.  

Consider it an OPEN challenge the rest of you.

None of us knows the future and no one can say what will happen for certain. I have never said that everything will work out fine. Just that it is one of the options on the table and to pretend that you have a 100% assurance of the future is wrong.

My point is that the repetition of "doom is here and we deserve it" is not part of an analytical discussion, but instead a semi-religious obsessive masturbation. I see the doom fundamentalists as being the same as other fundamentalists. I can't prove that God won't call us all back or that Mother Nature won't destroy us all in a righteous fit of passion. Religious fundamentalists would bring their preconceptions to this site and rant on regardless of facts. The same is true of doom fundamentalists.

Stuart Staniford, Lou Grinzo, Halfin and others have lifted their voices above the din of doom on many occasions to say that there are a wide number of paths forward and that we can't know what the future holds. The framework that I see most likely is an extended peak that causes price increases resulting in the development of a lifestyle that accommodates the new reality - this would most likely be a combination of new energy sources, changed use of the ones we have and a more efficient use of energy inputs. I might be wrong - in fact I probably am. The future won't be tied down.

I believe that the doom mongers are doom mongers first and peak oilers second. In my view, they have reverse engineered the end of capitalism, which is their ultimate goal, and are today calling it peak oil. Tomorrow they will doom monger elsewhere under another name.  

For the record, I have never claimed that doom is off the table. Just that we don't know. I do find it entertaining to every once in a while say "Everything may just work out", because it is heresy to the doom obsessive faction.

Powerdown, to my mind is rebranded popular Marxism. We can argue forever about the merits of collectivism of various sorts. I don't see any clear pathway to powerdown aside from one forced on an unwilling public by forces of nature or an authoritarian government. I hope and believe man will successfully resist either.

I have a somewhat related POV.  The future is just too complex to properly forecast.  A wide variety of scenarios could happen.

But what good does it do have guessed right ?  To have been Cassandra.

Rather I have focused on some overlooked steps that will help with Peak Oil AND Global Warming under almost every scenario.

These steps are not enough, I admit.  But they are something solid and positive (-10% US oil use in 10 to 12 years) and do not preclude other options.

My energies are better spent working on a solution to a problem of unknown dimensions, rather than trying to precisely define a problem that cannot be properly defined.

Well said. Your best piece.
"Americans... ...are a wicked people who deserve to be punished."

I would guess that 75% of peak oilers believe this and close to 100% of the peak oil doom mongers do. My impression is that a large portion of the posters here are just rebranded anti-Americans, anti-capitalists or end-of-the-worlders.

This is a good sub-thread!

I guess I lean a little bit toward "wicked" but not seriously.  I think people could be as happy, or happier, with a little more thoughtful use of available (and future) resources.

I am happily an American, capitalist (or post-capitalist), non-end-of-the-worlder.  It's just unfortunate that market players are making under-informed (and in some cases, just plain bad) economic decisions.

Get a happly little car, drive to the ocean/lake/river, and have some fun.  If you live close enough to the ocean/lake/river to ride a bike, so much the better.

In my opinion, "doom porn" about energy is probably overstated.

It's water and food shortages that are going to kill us.

Tim

Wicked - certainly not, at least not to a greater extent that any other society in the world.  It is simply that the wickedness which does exist is made more significant by the economic and military power which the US possesses.

When I first became Peak aware, I read as widely as I could, and I found that I was picking up on every article that reinforced the idea that we were rushing headlong over the cliff.  I had to consciously force myself to take a pause from focusing on all the bads news (God knows, there's enough of that), and for a week or so I read as widely as possible, focusing on all the positive trends.  I recommend this, I think you may be suprised.  The really big question is not if change is happening, but will it happen widely enough and fast enough.

I prefer the positive (if slightly rose tinted) view over wallowing in pessimism.  

I certainly didn't put that quote from Kunstler up just to start an argument (oh, wait, that's what we're here for) but I do think Kunstler has some good points to make about the American "character," if there is such a thing, in that we do seem to be primarily interested in big suvs, big sprawling suburbia,fast food shacks, mindless consumerism, the "something for nothing" epitomized by Las Vegas. To the extent that character matters in dealing with the coming crises (plural intentional), we are sorely lacking.  It isn't the geology we can't deal with, it's the psychology.
Looks good, I think the "Energize America" font if is to be different should be larger and a different color to stand out. As it is written it feels a little distracting.
This is a very tall order but it certainly sounds a lot better than discussions about triage.  Constructive thinking has been fractured and frustrated by deconstructivism and this attitude has rewared those who lionize laissez fraire capitalism.  All planned growth is not bad as Katrina should have taught us.

I celebrate the courage it takes to be positive these days about anything.

Those are excellent ideals.

Step one is to abandon GDP
as a measure of progress
and start using GPI.

Only when you start
measuring progress by the
Genuine Progress Index
will anything get better.

Unfortunately, we can be
certain that vested interests
will ensure that GPI will
not be adopted.

Therefore everything will
continue to get worse.

That's the system.
 

Re: To provide the U.S. with Energy Security by 2020 and Energy Independence by 2040 by: 1) reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 75%, 2) reducing oil imports by 50%, 3) generating 25% of electricity from renewable sources, and 4) creating or preserving over three million new jobs by 2020.

Who could object to this laudable plan and the specific acts (though seen without details)?

Let's stay reality-based.

  • Energy Security by 2020: "defined as the ability to withstand a prolonged supply interruption"?

    How big a supply disruption? I will name only a few countries here--Nigeria, Venezuela, Mexico, Iran, Iraq, Russia, Kuwait. We could have a supply disruption in a period of a few short months that takes 2 to 3/mbpd off the world market. The realistic imagination finds no dearth of scenarios here and the mind reels. By 2020? How about by 2010? That's more realistic as an estimate and we can see that this date is virtually impossible.


  • U.S. energy independence by 2040: "defined as energy self-sufficiency"

    By 2040? This is an unimaginable future date. What are we going to do this year? Next year? Goals by 2012? The shit will have hit the fan long, long before 2040. The Hirsch report makes this clear. I don't know what the solution is but I simply will not accept a plan that proposes energy independence by 2040. If you mean the Stone Age for a much smaller population, then, fine, OK. Otherwise, we need to get on the case now. This is Kunstler's Long Emergency.

The US has a little over 4 years of oil supply without any imports. The natural gas situation is almost just as bad. I'm not saying imports will just cease. I am only trying to point out the precariousness of the situation. Maintaining supply reliably at this time in history is like walking through a mine field without a detector.

sorry to say this, Dave

Addendum: I have noticed that once a country experiences an "oil shock", whatever the magnitude, it rarely (if ever) restores former production levels.

Venezuela, with the PDVSA after the strike/crisis of 2002/2003. Russia, which peaked in the mid-80's and has come back a bit but not all the way. I predict the same for Iraq and Nigeria. Once you screw it up, the production never seems to get back to peak levels. This has profound implications for today's world.

I that semi-high speed trains (max speed maybe 110 mph for pax, 85 mph frieght) is a better solution than high speed rail (Article V).  Japanese and EU HSR are exclusively passenger rail; the Swiss are building a combined use system at slightly slower speeds.

Speeds above 110 mph use dramatically more energy.  High speed reliable frieght could steal market share from air and truck express, saving energy.  Vegetables from Florida, fish, parcels, mail, Just in Time inventory are all markets for this.

In Japan and the EU, few pax take rail for more than 400 km (250 miles).  This has to be considered in plans.

I have worked for some time of these issues and would like some input.  Please note my prior efforts.

While super-fast trains do present an alternative to air travel, we probably need to forgo very fast travel altogether, except in emergencies.  I recall reading a George Monbiot column to that effect a few weeks back. He pointed out that even rail is a fuel guzzler when trains run at very high speeds. And why would we need to move freight at 85 mph?  Yes, I know all about that "just in time" business, but "just in time" will be one of the first casualties of the new age of costly fuel.
> Why do we need to move freight at 85 mph ?

To move perishables and high priority freight in the most energy efficient manner.  There will be demand for fresh fish, winter vegetables and citrus fruit outside the local area.  FedEx will still get 1 day and 2 day delivery letters and packages.  JIT inventory will NOT suddenly disappear.

Almost none of this goes by rail today.  An electric rail line  running at 85 mph is roughly as energy efficient as todays slow diesel rail line.  Semi-High Speed rail freight will steal VERY little from todays rail, but will take away from air and trucks.

The Swiss plan to run special streamlined freight cars at 160 kph (100 mph), pax at 250 kph (156 mph) and general freight at ~125 kph (75 mph) on the same tracks.

Semi-HSR rail freight will pay for the infrastruture will rail passenger service a nice bonus.  I see enough demand for rail + pax for a Miami to Boston semiHSR link.  People would travel shorter distances (Charlotte-Atlanta, Miami-Orlando, Philly-NYC, DC-Richmond) along the route @ 110 mph to help cover costs whilst FL vegies and fruit would "pay the freight".

A passenger only service would not come close to paying for itself and would leave a major energy savings "on the table".

Some possible routes (subject to study & review):

Boston-Hartford-NYC-Philly-Baltimore-DC (known as the Northeast Corridor of Amtrak) -Richmond-Charlotte (spur to Atlanta) -Savannah-Jacksonville-Orlando (spur to Tampa) - Miami

Philly-Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Detroit-Chicago (spur to Milwaukee-Minneapolis) -St. Louis-Kansas City-Tulsa-Oklahoma City-Dallas/Ft. Worth and a triangle DFW-Austin/San Antonio-Houston with spur Houston-New Orleans-Birmingham- Atlanta

San Francisco-Bakersfield-Los Angeles (spur to San Diego)-Phoenix

Portland-Seattle-Vancouver

Build the best routes first and then determine where to go from there.  Note that Philadeplhia and Atlanta join up the East Coast and "Heartland" routes.  Almost every city pair listed would generate decent pax #s (taking people out of their cars).

Very interesting.  While I think that the demand for ultrafresh produce will in future be limited to the affluent, those people may be numerous enough to create a significant market.  If that helps support the passenger system, that is fine with me.
One key point, based upon the physics of rail.  This is semi-HSR *N*O*T* High Speed Rail.  Passengers do NOT travel at 180 or 200 mph, but 100 to 110 mph.

Freight can share the tracks and make "dual use" of the new infrastructure, while the EU and Japanese HSR is passenger only.  

Passengers use about 1/3 the electricity at 100 to 110 mph than they would on TGV, ICE or Japanese bullet trains, but still get there faster than driving.  For distances that pax are willing to take the train (say 250 miles/400 km), semi-HSR is time competitive with air travel (door to door times), and uses far less oil :-)


Alan-

If you haven't already, you ought to register at one or both of www.eurotrib.com or www.dailykos.com so that you can explain some of your ideas regarding the electrification of all rail.  Jerome might or might not have seen some of your comments before.

It has been a while since I did this, but I believe there is a 24 hour 'waiting period' to keep people from posting right away (to keep down trolling and spam).

There isn't anything along these thing already in the document - they have bits in there about more efficient trucks and so forth.

Thanks. I just did.

I hope that they read here as well.

Refrigeration makes the need for such modestly high speed transport of fish, fresh fruit and vegetables largely a moot point. These items were available outside of the local area via rail in 1890, at 1/3rd the average speed.
Still, as F John Perry says, if it helps support the passenger system, then it is still a plus.
Oddly, the speed of reliable deliveries (I put shipment of fish on in North Carolina, what is time that I will be 99% sure of delivery to NYC ?) was faster in 1890 than today.

Better and more tracks then was the biggest difference.

Railways have gone to single track from double track in most areas.  Loss of speed and reliability for perishable goods been that few perishable goods go by rail,  Truck or air are used.

Railroads have "downsized" to meet their competition (trucks with cheap oil on highways that pay no property taxes) and specialize in heavy, slow shipments.

Speaking of Japan, JR is always updating the Shinkansen.   Latest news here:
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/business/20060518TDY04004.htm

You are correct in pointing out that the high speed rail is meant for distances such as Osaka-Tokyo, which I have ridden several times.   It is a joy to use, 2.5 hours, better than any plane ride.   However, that distance in the US won't even get you from LA to SF.    In the US, high speed trains will be great for regional transport of people (DC-NY, LA-SF, Dallas-Houston) but it will still be preferable to take air cross country.

Of all the proposals in thar rather omnibus (and probably TOO omnibus) proposal, #5 alone would help accomplish much.