A 10% reduction in America's oil use in 10-12 years (electrified rail)

[jpak]

http://www.energybulletin.net/16682.html

Step One – Electrify US Freight Rail Lines and Shift Freight to Rail

The Russians finished electrifying the Trans-Siberian Railroad, from Moscow to the Pacific, in 2002 and electrified to the Arctic Ocean port of Murmansk several months ago. Almost all of Japan and the continental European Union (EU) have already electrified their railroads – so there are no technical limitations. Electric railroads are cheaper to operate and can carry more freight because they accelerate and brake faster (and can generate electricity while braking, saving energy) and have no delays for refueling.

The United States used 19.8 million barrels of oil per day in 2002 with two-thirds for transportation. (Today, consumption is about 20.7 million barrels per day.) Railroads carried 27.8% of total US ton-miles with 220,000 barrels per day whilst trucks carried 32.1% of total ton-miles with 2,070,000 barrels per day (2002 data). Clearly, railroads are 8 times more energy efficient than heavy trucks and also are more labor-efficient.

In the era of cheap oil and the ascendancy of interstate highways, US railroads cut back capacity and ceded much cargo to trucking. Today, intermodal shipments (local trucking and long distance rail via containers or roll on/roll off) are growing rapidly, but this trend must be accelerated! Electrifying railroads and transferring half of the ton-miles of trucks to rail should save 6.3% of US oil consumption.

<and much much more>

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. I think we should expand rail lines in the US

making them all electric-high speed passenger rails make sense, especially between key cities in the Heartland.

[tocqueville]

3. the plans are such Europe and the rails under construction

it means that short and middle distance flights will disappear within 20 years. Flight will be reserved for long distance. The environmental profits are tremendous. But it means the expansion of nuclear power.

[One_Life_To_Give]

2. What about Barge shipments?

Perhaps it's just my personal preference. But I prefere water born transit for freight wherever possible.

[tocqueville]

4. specially with a river like the Mississipi...

if it's done on the Thames, Rhine, Rhône, Danube etc... it can be done anywhere

[IrateCitizen]

5. Barge is more efficient than rail, which is more efficient than truck

The problem with barge is that it is limited to sizable, navagable rivers. We should use it to the maximum extent possible, and rail after that -- with truck limited to short-distance trips from either docks or rail facilities.

[dcfirefighter]

7. Not much better than rail

when the return upriver and the costs of maintaining navigability are considered. Especially when maintaining navigability means channelling through a delta such that silt is deposited at sea rather than in the delta - causing loss of marshland and 'hurricane buffer' as has happened in Louisiana.

Most barge freight is super bulk materials: grain, quarry materials, and possibly coal. Grain can be processessed locally, with the finished products shipped by rail; quarry materials can be found just about anywhere - building materials should generally be obtained locally; and coal should simply be left in the ground.

Container and bulk sea shipping is quite efficient.

[CAcyclist]

6. We could have a 10% decrease in oil use right now

if we got serious about providing bike lanes for cyclists - which would only take restriping most streets - and aggressively enforcing cyclists' rights.

[dcfirefighter]

9. Probably not 10%

The hardcore already do it
The marginal probably already have fairly efficient transportation, and would probably only commute a few days a week

to reduce oil use by 10%, cycling would have to displace 25% of gasoline use. I just can't see it happening in the world of suburbia.

If we built cities such that most destinations (home, work, play, market, school, etc.) were within a mile of each other, it would be easier to use foot, bike, or rail transit. Coincidentally, in order to maximise the number of destinations in a given area, we can't afford to dedicate so much space to the automobile - automobile space must necessarily be scarce. If it's scarce, it'd be expensive, if available at all. As such, if a city is built properly, it may be far more convenient to ride rather than drive to work.
www.carfree.com

[T Roosevelt]

8. With the rise in gas, we should see a shift back to rail

unfortunately, we've been tearing up existing rail because gas was so cheap, and trucks were more efficient. Oops.

[JHH]

10. And the electricity comes from where?

[dcfirefighter]

11. hopefully from wind or nuclear nt

[JHH]

13. Nuclear?

No nuclear power plant has been made in the U.S. since 3mile island for a good reason

[Massacure]

14. Wrong

Watts Bar was put online in 1996.

[jpak]

16. Watts Bar (1138 MW) cost $6.4 billion and took 23 years to build...

It was one the last nuclear power plants to be ordered in the US.

None have been ordered since 1978 (it was canceled along with 110 other nuclear power plants) and the last one to be actually built was ordered in 1973.

Enormous capital and stranded costs (over $112 billion for the canceled plants) are the reasons why there haven't been any nuclear plants ordered in the US in a generation...

[phantom power]

15. The reaction to 3-mile was knee-jerk, not well considered.

[OneBlueSky]

12. might be a start, but we need more like a 50% reduction . . .

and we need it sooner than 10-12 years . . .

[TheFarseer]

17. Yeah

Why stop at electric? Don't some countries use trains that run on magnets? We are a stupid and lazy country. Russia has electric trains. Communist China has much higher CAFE standards than we do. But, but, but we're a big country. Sorry, China is even bigger. Brazil is energy independent with not much for oil reserves. Are we truly inferior to that group? The only reason is that we are too lazy and corrupt to change. Corporations would be crying about it, but most have managed to pass on their costs so far, so they don't care. The rest are trying to squeeze employees for the difference and ignoring the real problem. If the US goes down in the next century, and mind you, that's not what I want to see at all, it will be our own fault and we will have deserved it.