THE Electric Trains Thread (merged)

[Liamj]

...
The one serious problem I see for rail in urban settings is that tracks embedded in the street are a huge hazard for people on bicycles and small scooters. Anyone have a solution for that?

City i live in has dozens of diff tram lines, been riding here 5 years, have never seen an accident caused by their rails. Am sure its happened, but in no way a major problem here.
[edit for brevity]

[fastbike]

The one serious problem I see for rail in urban settings is that tracks embedded in the street are a huge hazard for people on bicycles and small scooters.

And huge SUV's aren't ?

Solution: Ban bikes

[The_Toecutter]

Electric trains vs. electric cars? I also say both.

Let's assume for a second that it is entirely possible to run a nationwide fleet of automobiles on electric batteries.

Well you really don't need to assume that, but indeed it still would take time to implement.

Basically, switch out our current ICE models for electric ones. Would our mounting transportation crisis be solved?

Not necessarily. Car use has to also be reduced to prevent the expansion of encroachment onto our environment.

Would it allow the continued expansion of suburbia unabated, petroleum-laden crops notwithstanding?

No. See above. We need to begin building upward, not outward.

Could it allow the continuation of the 'entitlement' mindset, with consumer-driven madness now brought to you in electric-car form?

The world doesn't have the resources to sustain unabated consumerism.

However, making all of our fancy gadgets last longer, instead of manufacturing them to last a few years, so that people don't keep buying new ones with every incremental improvement to technology, will allow us to keep a standard of living roughly similar to what we have, if not improved. But this requires the consumption to be trimmed, and that lost money has to come from some where(hint: trim the fat hiding in the profit margins).

I'm assuming, of course, that the cars would have to run on batteries charged overnight when the electrical grid is not near peak demand. It would seem to allow for better management of electric while it's "in the grid", allowing for a constant, steady demand rather than peaks and valleys. -OR- should we implement electric railways instead? -OR- both?

Both. Let the motorsports enthusiasts and those who prefer to liesurely tour with no set destination in mind the cars, and the rest wil gravitate towards other transit methods if they don't need a car AND if cars aren't advertised into their heads 24/7. Cars could still be affordable by the middleclass, but with sensible use and good public transit, car ownership and use in America could plummet to 1920s era levels, basically 1 car for every 3 driving age persons and about 4,000 miles per person travelled per year by car. By gollee, that's beginning to sound like Europe and Japan, who have excellent mass transit systems!

Recommend that and the auto industry and oil lobbyists will call you a commie.

I tend to think in terms of reimplementing rail as it provides a way for our nation to prioritize progress around things that matter, like community, versus our current individualistic mindset of 'keeping up with the Joneses'.

Individualism and collectivism can co-exist. It will take an educated and concerned public willing to hold the government bureaucrats and corporate slave drivers to the fire. Peak oil may bring about that, but if it does, expect civil war, because the power elite won't give up their control without a fight.

[freetoken]

One has to take into account the manufacturing, and maintenance, of electric vehicles.

Remember, the world is more than just the US, and the world demand for autos is growing!

The construction and maintenance of hundreds of millions, maybe upwards to a billion (worldwide, over the transition period), small electric vehicles will consume a large amount of petroleum based products.

Don't get me wrong - I like driving a car that is designed for the driving experience (like a good european sports sedan.) However, it makes much more sense for the world at large to move large quantities of people by rail.

-ft

[The_Toecutter]

One has to take into account the manufacturing, and maintenance, of electric vehicles.

All of these items associated with electric vehicles consume less recourses than a comparable gas vehicle. They really shine when it comes to maintenance: aside from the batteries and small matters like tires and brakes, they don't have any! This is what makes them so cheap to operate. On top of that, batteries are also recyclable, saving even more petroleum.

Remember, the world is more than just the US, and the world demand for autos is growing! The construction and maintenance of hundreds of millions, maybe upwards to a billion (worldwide, over the transition period), small electric vehicles will consume a large amount of petroleum based products.

And it will continue to grow so long as public transit systems are ignored and the auto industry continues to press their agenda. But 1 billion electric vehicles will certainly be more sustainable than 450 million petrol-powered vehicles. Especially since the electric will end up lasting 30 years on up, and over 500,000 miles.

Don't get me wrong - I like driving a car that is designed for the driving experience (like a good european sports sedan.) However, it makes much more sense for the world at large to move large quantities of people by rail.

With this I agree. But that doesn't discount the fact that people will buy cars. It's a matter of having adequate public transit so car ownership and useage is more relegated to liesure instead of the bulk of transportation. If car use in the third begins to model that of America(like it's doing today) instead of Europe, it's going to be a disaster. Otherwise it could be quite bengin to society itself.

[Omnitir]

Assuming it was possible to change all the ICE vehicles over to electric cars charged off the grid, wouldn’t this essentially just be shifting the location of the problem instead of any actual solution?

We have a problem of needing to generate a certain amount of energy to power private transport. Regardless of where this energy is consumed – at the petrol/gas station or off the electric grid – we still have to find a way to generate the energy, right?

I don’t see how converting to electric cars, even if it were possible, would actually solve anything, merely shift the location of the problem, to be dealt with at a slightly later date.

Getting people to use electric trains however is a workable solution.

[gg3]

Both and additional.

Each serves a different function.

Ideal case: A bicycle for local hops where you don't have to carry much stuff (1-2 bags of groceries in side-mounted carriers). A small electric car for local & nearby range where you have to carry passenger(s) and/or a lot of stuff (big shopping runs). Trams/buses/trains for longer distances and small loads (whatever fits in a handcart). Access to a van or truck of some kind when you have to haul a big load over whatever distance (e.g. building materials, furniture, appliances).

Commuting by car should be obsoleted by whatever means are necessary; local public transport & telecommuting.

Here's a Big Unspoken Thing: crime.

Bikes need lockable enclosed parking spaces. I have seen scores of bikes that were locked with proper locks to regular racks, and got vandalized, had parts stolen from them, or were completely stripped down to the frame. Have also seen the remnants of bike locks lying next to where a bike might have been at one time but was stolen.

Enclosed bike parking could be a revenue-generator for cities: pay for the spaces as cars do. These things could be built on sidewalks, or occupy the equivalent of one or two car parking spaces on a block, with eight to ten individually lockable bike-spaces per unit.

Bike thieves & vandals need to be prosecuted vigorously. And people who commit crimes onboard public transport also need to spend a few years in cages.

As for the comparative efficiency of road vs. rail, at this point anything is an improvement. It will be necessary to experiment and find out what works best for various types of areas.

Rural areas are the most difficult to serve with public transport and with small electric vehicles. This is a subject that deserves further discussion in much more detail.

[Eli]

Well I am now all for electric vehicles. I think it will more than just shift where the pollution is generated, they will force people to conserve energy.

If you run out of electricity because you decided it would be fun to do 70 mph on the high way you would pay a cost for that fun by draining your batteries.

Light electric vehicles with 100 mile range would be great for commuting. Long haul we should all be riding on trains.

Of course mass transit should be heavily invested in as well.

I have also looked in to converting my bike to an electric bike.

[emersonbiggins]

Recommend that and the auto industry and oil lobbyists will call you a commie.

I've been called worse things.

[Peepers]

I think both should be pursued, but electric railways has long been an economic workable solution (mostly along heavily trafficked railways), whereas electric cars aren't quite there yet.

There is another thing to consider.... since high-speed trains are invariably powered by electricity, consider the implications of high-speed trains on preserving fast, city-to-city travel when flying become too expensive for all but the rich (assuming the airlines even survive PO!).

Here is a post I wrote for another forum, in which the topic was dream projects for Ohio cities....

Mine is a full-blown TGV-style high-speed rail line linking Chicago and New York City, via Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, with branches from Toledo to Detroit and from Harrisburg to Baltimore and Washington DC. While that may sound like a long distance, China has selected a European consortium to build a TGV-style line from Beijing to Shanghai, a distance of more than 800 miles (similar to Chicago-New York).

The Chinese discovered what the Europeans already know -- that TGV-style trains deliver 80 percent of the time-travel savings of MagLev but at a third of the cost. If our version operated at average speeds of 170 mph like the TGV Mediterranean (it travels the 550 miles from Paris-Marseille in just over 3 hours) it would cover the distance from Chicago to New York City in about five and a half hours.

Consider some of these intermediate markets and travel times that would result from this single high-speed rail line (plus the two short branch lines):

Cleveland to New York City - 3 hours, 30 minutes
Cleveland to Pittsburgh - 45 minutes
Cleveland to Chicago - 2 hours
Cleveland to Detroit - 70 minutes
Cleveland to Baltimore - 2 hours, 45 minutes
Cleveland to Washington DC - 3 hours
Cleveland to Philadelphia - 3 hours
Pittsburgh to Detroit - 2 hours
Pittsburgh to Baltimore - 1 hour, 45 minutes
Detroit to Washington DC - 4 hours
Chicago to Washington DC - 5 hours
Chicago to Detroit - 2 hours
Philadelphia to Chicago - 5 hours

Put the stations in the hearts of these cities, and watch the skyscrapers sprout like weeds. Add $4-$6 gas to the equation, and each of these cities will be an oasis of prosperity in a desert of hub cities for moribund airlines and obsolete highways.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it....

[The_Toecutter]

Assuming it was possible to change all the ICE vehicles over to electric cars charged off the grid, wouldn’t this essentially just be shifting the location of the problem instead of any actual solution?

Peak oil is mostly a liquid fuels problem. However, electricity generation is highly versatile and can be produced from many sources. Thus an electric vehicle could be powered by coal, natural gas, wind, solar, nuclear, oil, biomass, hydro-electric, tidal, diesel... Many options exist.

To switch every car in America to battery electric, assuming an average of 12,000 muiles per year continue to be driven, would see a 15-20% rise in electricity consumption. We could easily make that amount of reduction in electricity consumption to make up the difference just by switching to more efficient appliances. Furthermore, having that many cars and having each drive that many miles is just plain stupid, anyway, but if one wanted, electric car technology can meet our current travel needs, it just needs to have some infrastructure development for quick charge stations.

We have a problem of needing to generate a certain amount of energy to power private transport. Regardless of where this energy is consumed – at the petrol/gas station or off the electric grid – we still have to find a way to generate the energy, right?

Yes. The good thing about electric cars, well to wheels, one unit of energy in will take them 2-3 times more distance at the same speed as a gas-powered car.

I don’t see how converting to electric cars, even if it were possible, would actually solve anything, merely shift the location of the problem, to be dealt with at a slightly later date.

It depends on how they are used. The problem of suburban sprawl stems partially from gross misuse of the car, and mostly from forced reliance on it. The cars themselves aren't the problem: it's how they're used.

Using a car as the bulk of one's transportation is just plain stupid. But that doesn't mean they should be banned or ownership should be restricted. So long as there are alternatives to the car, cars will see much less reduced. This was the case of America in the 20s and the case of Europe/Japan today.

Cars are something that should be for sport, entertainment, and liesure, sometimes meeting the needs of local transportation and perhaps accounting for 20-30% of all travel(if that). Anything more turns the car into a severe environmental disaster.

Getting people to use electric trains however is a workable solution.

It is, but not for all instances. Personal mobility in all forms, bike or car, has its merits and uses. Unless we have a total and utter collapse of the likes of some science fiction movie, we will have cars in the future and they certainly can be sustainable. The bulk of transportation needs to be by bike or train, however. Getting people to adapt to electric trains is not unreasonable in the least, and trains will become a growing part of our transportation mix if the people, instead of the corporations, win out.

[rockdoc123]

recently simmons made the comment that most of our problems would be solved by converting all mercandise transportation (food, manufactured goods, fuel etc.) to electric rail. He suggested that it is this transporation that is responsible for most of the fuel consumption and not private vehicular transport. I have not been able to locate statistics to substantiate this view, but if it is correct perhaps a way to have your cake and eat it to?

[The_Toecutter]

He suggested that it is this transporation that is responsible for most of the fuel consumption and not private vehicular transport. I have not been able to locate statistics to substantiate this view, but if it is correct perhaps a way to have your cake and eat it to?

According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, America's passenger vehicles(cars, light trucks, ect.) account for 3.12 billion barrels of oil per year for their fuel consumption.

http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/rep/app.asp

This is over half of all the oil America consumes, burned up in the engines of its cars.

The Energy Information Administration claims 44% of America's oil consumption is in fuel for motor vehicles.

So 40-50% of America's oil consumption goes to fueling its cars. America, which consumes 25% of the world's oil, consumes about 12% of the world's oil just to fuel its cars and only its cars.

I'd say cars are where the biggest reduction in oil consumption can be made, as far as America is concerned.

[grabby]

The answer to our transportation is not clear, but we have multipletechnologies that sound good but cannot put out capacity.

we can do this.

put in hydro power and make the trains ELECTRIC. they already ARE electric anyway. Just reinjineer a power rail down the center of the tracks.

We are too late to implement now, we have been basically killed by greanpeace.

Hydro power is the only feasable replacement for oil that is non polluting and has the potential to power the whole usa if we go to electric.

ONE DAM puts out 7000 megawatts our whole needs for usa to replace oil is 700,000 megawatts.

solar can help but is very expensive, windmills can help but one dam puts ou t the equivalent power of 30 windmill farms of 6000 windmills of the old type, and 4000 new high tech windmills AT PEAK (multiply by 4 times to get average power,\

1 dam or 16,000 windmills

we need 100 dams like this in the USA about 2 per state, california needs 4 dams

we have hundrdds of wmaller rivers and creeks that can be harnessed by local people.


flat rivers only need a fall of 5 or ten feet and you can use water wheels. they will put out way more than any windmill.

Prez bush needs to declare water power for all natinal lands, yellostone river and grand canyon, can you imaagine filling grand canyon with water? but, its too late.

the green movement prevented dams for twenty years and forced our hand to oil and coal power generation then they whined about CO2 emissions.

The emotional ladies need to be taken out of the equation, we are all going down if we don't move fast, and even now though we may never get it done in time.

water has its built in storage for night time, no grid necessary no batteries necessary, the water piles up in the back for use as needed.

I have watched this web site for a year and no one ever mentions the only viable alternative.

that says most here are river huggers.

there is no other clean option.
non at all

fish or humans, which is it?

P.S. Our dam at our house has no fish ladder and it is the fishing MECCA for the state. lots of fish in the lake.

[emersonbiggins]

File this under "things to do when we have a few trillion dollars lying around." No shit.

Most of the reservoirs we have today were impounded when land was dirt cheap, back during the depression. Try impounding even one these days. Cha-ching! (to say nothing of the needed manpower and concrete!)

[grabby]

YEah, that is a good point, land on a river is expense.

but someone TODAY owns it, they could become power barrons.

Theya re instantly rich.

water canoes and wheels would be docked on their property. government would do nothing but make that property tax free.

Well, after the die off the land will be cheap there won't be oil
No dams will be made. anyone with a windmill generator will modifye them for the river.

Windmills will be in high demand for their motors, the grid won't function so the windmills will be useless, but as a water wheel they will be stupendous.

[emersonbiggins]

ONE DAM puts out 7000 megawatts our whole needs for usa to replace oil is 700,000 megawatts.

The largest dam in the U.S., by measurable generating capacity, only puts out 6,809 MW. (Grand Coulee Dam). The next dam puts out less than 2,000 MW. So, essentially, what you're proposing is to build at least 100-350 of the largest dams ever built in the United States in the next, oh say, 10-20 years. Of course, we can't put more than a few dams on the Colorado (say 10 or so), and the Columbia is pretty well dammed to capacity, as well as the upper Missouri. So we have to find other untapped rivers with the flows and topography to generate at least 2,000 MW of power per facility. Unfortunately, those rivers only exist in a few places, and many of those have already been exploited. So we're screwed any way you look at it.

[grabby]

Hmmm, we are in a bit of a tight spot there, no doubt about it.

Hydro is the best EROI output possible of any technology!

So there it is for hydro.

When I say millions of windmils that does not register clearly,

people can understand 100 grand coulees a bit better I think.

(I am always google eyed how much dam power we use.")

I may have to turn by lights off, but then I'd have to buy vegetables from Brazil.

[emersonbiggins]

YEah, that is a good point, land on a river is expense.

but someone TODAY owns it, they could become power barrons.

Not likely. Many people are land-rich, but have no access to capital for this scale of venture. Sure, many of those owning property bordering the proposed reservoirs stand to make out like bandits, but what about those whose land is under the lake? They'll be given a 'fair market value' (tsk, tsk) offer by the government, issued a condemnation of their land and told to get the hell out. And, as many reservoirs are under the control of the U.S. Corps of Engineers, land ownership around the reservoirs is not retained by the original property owners, but rather it is bought and leased back to them on long (99-year) terms.

[emersonbiggins]

YES! you GOT IT!

Hydro is the HIGHEST output possible of any technology!

thats ALL we have to do to meet our power needs.
Ias more than ever before.

Here is the cost of concrete in the Grand Coulee Dam, using 2004 dollars (before Katrina and cracked-out China, mind you):

Total concrete: 11,975,521 yd³
Cost per yd³ of structural concrete, Q1 2004: $828
Total concrete cost of Grand Coulee, using 2004 dollars: $9.92 billion

x 100 dams

$992 billion, just for the concrete.

Mind you, I'm not accounting for land acquisition, labor, equipment, generators, structural engineering fees, zip. Just concrete. And this is based on the nebulous theory that we can find 100 additional sites that can produce the power that the Grand Coulee (#1 in the U.S., mind you) is currently putting out.