Ships, trains could solve US energy crisis

[Dover]

Ships, trains could solve US energy crisis

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Forget futuristic hybrid cars and solar-powered homes. The trains and river barges that drove the industrial age may be the key to stemming a U.S. energy crisis, according to one sector expert.

..snip..

The shift would require a huge investment to revamp the old rail system and dredge waterways. But Simmons said the U.S. economy would receive a significant boost if a serious effort to rebuild the transport and energy sectors were undertaken.

"By the time we are rebuilding our railroads and rebuilding our pipelines and re-dredging our ports, we will have the strongest economy in the history of the United States because it will create the most incredible demand for blue collar jobs," he said.

U.S. companies could also help reduce demand by allowing employees to work from home, cutting down fuel used during commuting, Simmons said.

In addition, consumers can help by purchasing food produced and shipped locally rather than buying goods shipped from overseas.

"The (local) can of tomatoes is energy unintensive. Bringing tomatoes into New England from Mexico is very energy intensive," Simmons said. ....>

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=reutersEdge&storyID=2005-12-12T185901Z_01_KWA265320_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENERGY-US-TRANSPORT.xml&archived=False

[mhr]

1. Trains Can Be Electrified

Get ready to forego that Jet Airplane flight for the plush confines of the NY - LA express via bullet train.

The jet fuel will just become to costly.

Only the ultra wealthy and military will fly in the future.

[Dogmudgeon]

2. Not all flying is that expensive

Some of it is cheaper than driving hybrid automobiles. It depends on the kind of aircraft. And, in the future, specially designed biofuels may give jet aircraft much better mileage. But some jet aircraft are dinosurs flying on butterfly wings.

The overall picture is the one we need to attend to, and jet aircraft will not be at the top of the list of common technology. Contrary to the article, solving energy resource and use problems will not be "easy" problems to solve. We will probably spend the better part of a decade or generation solving them. Our world is facing enormous changes.

Are we ready to take them on?

--p!

[mhr]

3. See The Hirsch Report

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirsch_report

[Tesha]

7. Flying is *NEVER* energy-cheaper than steel wheels on steel rails.

The energy cost per passenger-mile of a loaded plane will *ALWAYS* exceed the
energy cost of a loaded train. I'll bet this holds true even when one considers
the "energy capital" costs of building the railway versus building the airplane,
the airports, and the airport-support infrastructure.

Tesha

[Captain Hilts]

8. Rail is the most energy efficient means of transporting people and stuff.

[mallard]

56. Too bad the rail system...

...was abandoned before its time.

[OzarkDem]

74. It hasn't been abandoned

Freight rail shipping is still very active, but there is room for additional capacity.

As for passenger rail - Amtrak and others need a boost in investment.

[cantstandbush]

86. And just think of the jobs it would create in making seats, rails, etc.

So long as we don't out source the building of the railways. I have been saying this since 1977. I even sent a proposal to Congress then. Just think where we might be with a national rail system that linked to public transporation in every major city as well.

[Dogmudgeon]

31. That isn't what I wrote

Here it is:

"Some of it is cheaper than driving hybrid automobiles. It depends on the kind of aircraft. And, in the future, specially designed biofuels may give jet aircraft much better mileage. But some jet aircraft are dinosurs flying on butterfly wings. "

My remark was made simply to contrast the idea that jet aircraft travel is inevitably inefficient, and would become nearly absent. It won't become that rare until well into a post-Peak scenario, after the "Olduvai Cliff" phenomenon presented by Richard Duncan. That was really the intent and extent of it -- appearances may not represent reality. Some of the military "heavy lifters" are quite efficient and may have civilian uses once the price of jet fuel increases a little more.

But there will be plenty of uses for jet and prop aircraft, even if they require "boutique fuel" -- super-expensive petroleum distillates like gasoline may be in 2050 CE. And, for the record, I've proposed LTA -- Lighter-Than-Air or modern dirigible -- transport on several occasions. If California remains a viable agricultural area, LTAs could use the prevailing west-to-east winds to transport food to the rest of the USA, to Eastern Canada, and possibly to Mexico and Latin America.

Of course, a well-tended, modern locomotive is a remarkably economical mode of transportation. Maybe that's why Team Bush is trying to get rid of them, most recently by firing David Gunn, who was the popular and successful CEO of Conrail. It is possible that some trains get worse mileage than jets, but they would have to be exceptionally poorly-maintained trains vs. well-maintained jets.

--p!

[iconoclastNYC]

37. Yes. True

The person you respond to forgets that the aerospace industry is constantly improving designs. The next big revolution in airline design is to move to a blended "flying" wing design. The reason this hasn't happened is because it requires expensive airport changes (gates mostly)....Blended wing designs are supposed to be much more fuel efficient.

High fuel prices will stimulate innovation in airplane design.

No bullet train will be able to cross the country in less time than a plane.

[Tesha]

57. Not true.

> No bullet train will be able to cross the country in less time than a plane.

Not true. If one were willing to build (for example) an evacuated guideway,
a maglev train might very well cross the country at speeds well in excess
of ordinary sub-sonic aircraft. In fact, the Swiss are developing just such
a design. See:

http://www.swissmetro.com/

Tesha

[iconoclastNYC]

64. Mighty big ifs there.

First of all there is no political will to build such a project here.

Secondly....compare the size of Switzerland to the USA. When there is a maglev train going from Paris
to St. Petersburg then we have the proper inspiration.

This project will never happen here. It'd be nice if it did....but to America planes are sexy and trains are not.

The best we can hope for is that Blue states will continue to build out state-run train companies. California has plans for this i think.

[SKKY]

12. I'd much rather take a 9 hour bullet train ride from NY to LA...

...than fly. And considering the newest bullet trains coming out of France and Japan are topping 300 miles per, it would probably be less than that. Plus, I'm terrified of flying.

[Lorien]

63. I love train travel. It's very relaxing, people are more civil

on trains, and you get to see the country. It's one of my favorite parts of visiting Europe.

[pokercat999]

70. Getting to the airport 2 hours early along with the drive there

combined with the wait for luggage on the other ends makes it a nine hour flight across the US.

[RedOnce]

16. Yes, electrified and even powered by photocells.

[Lorien]

61. Or Maglevs on raised monorails. A train was developed here in FL

(no, not at Disney World-but it looks similar) that sounds similar to what you've mentioned. Besides being extremely energy efficient and non-polluting, the Maglev is nearly silent and runs on a raised monorail that can easily be placed in the medians of major highways. There was a great deal of excitement about in here in Florida several years back; pre-Jeb there was even talk of running the first one down the I-4 corridor, then Jebby stole the office, slashed taxes for the richest 1% and has nearly bankrupted the State-and that was the end of that. :grr:

http://travel.howstuffworks.com/maglev-train.htm

http://www.gluckman.com/Maglev.html

[RedOnce]

67. Yes, Maglevs! Very nice.

I bet the old Diesel Locomotives can be converted to solar since they are actually Diesel/Electric now. Let them pull the freight.

Build new 350 mph Maglevs for passenger traffic. Let them run express from hub to hub.

All solar powered!

[TommyO]

68. The 500 Billion spent in Iraq

could have built 5000 miles worth of maglev system guideways and rolling stock. One of many things that could have been used with the money squandered by this administration. A nationwide high-speed ground-based transportation system will create jobs and opportunities, as well as moving people far more efficiently than by air.

[RedOnce]

69. Well said! I totally agree.

[Massacure]

77. $226 billion have been spent in Iraq, not $500 billion.

http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

[TommyO]

87. 226B so far, but with much more in the works.

[Massacure]

104. Yes, but you said spent, not about to be spent.

;)

[SammyWinstonJack]

102. But that wouldn't have made bushco and friends rich beyond their

dreams. Can't have none of that. It's the BFEE's right to become wealthier at the expense of Americans. :sarcasm:

[Massacure]

76. There is no way you could get a train going 300 mph on solar power.

That would be WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY to energy intensive.

[RedOnce]

79. Solar scales up. What's the problem?

[Massacure]

80. I don't understand. What do you mean by solar scales up?

[RedOnce]

81. If you have enough photocell area exposed to the Sun

you should be able generate enough power.

[Massacure]

83. The train is only so big...

[RedOnce]

84. True...so you don't put the photocells on the train!

[RedOnce]

85. Think of the train as part of a linear motor and put the photocells

anywhere you want, probably on both sides of the track and maybe above like a carport roof.

[aztc]

99. SSTeam

Think STEAM: http://solarsteamtrain.com

[Hypatia82]

18. Jet engines...

can run on any combustible fluid. Most jet fuel is highly-refined kerosene, but gasoline would work, diesel would work, ethyl alchohol would work and so on. All that changes based upon the fuel used is power output. And wouldn't take much to come up with an alternative to kerosene based fuel that delivers the same power.

[mhr]

21. See The Hirsch Report Cited Above

We have a liquid fuels problem not an energy crisis as that term is usually used.

[Hypatia82]

22. And when market forces make it favorable...

someone will come out something new to use. Not however before it becomes worthwhile to do so.

[mhr]

24. You Obviously Did Not Read The Report And Only Regurgitate

Right wing talking points.

Do your homework before you spout this pablum.

The rest of us have done the homework and you are adding nothing to the discussion.

[Hypatia82]

33. Funny..

all I said is when the time comes someone will come up with an alternative to current jet fuel. That's a matter of engineering. Has bugger to do with politics. Of course being that I'm working on designing an airplane, the things are near and dear to me. Silly me not thinking the only possible source of cheap jet fuel is petroleum. Let me go burn my chemistry books while I'm at it...

[mhr]

34. Your Not The Only One That Knows A Thing Or Two About Planes

Given that Syn Fuels typically use more energy to produce than they yield in usable energy, one wonders how long the world can support Syn Fuel powered airplanes.

[Solon]

49. Its also a matter of physics...

I do not doubt that differently designed planes that either run on another fuel, or are some combination of fuel cell, electrical, etc. are possible. But I do strongly doubt that such planes would reach the size, speed, or cargo capacities of a Boeing 747, more like the size of old monoplanes that hold 6 people. Not exactly an efficient way to travel, though still usefull in places like Alaska.

[chopper]

59. asdf

by the time 'market forces make it favorable' its already pretty late in the game.

look at gas. we could turn coal or other things into oil, or use ethanol, but by the time market forces make that favorable, gas would already have to be at like 6 bucks a gallon, and by then the damage is already done to the US economy.

[karlrschneider]

39. Nobody damn well better fill my plane's tanks with diesel and let me

find out about it before I take off...

[Porcupine]

51. Google "diesel aviation" you'll be surprised.

Apparantly there are diesel aircraft engines and they work rather well. Go figure.

[BiggJawn]

4. "Huge Investment" is an understatement...

Look at a railroad map from the 20's, and look at where the rails run today. For a hint, go look for "Rails to Trails" maps.

F'instance, there is ONE track between Indianapolis and Chicago. I don't think the L&N/ICG line from Indy to Louisville exists, either.

Sure would create a lot of jobs, rebuilding all that track...

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

5. Given the responses...

...I received in another thread yesterday for supporting efficient, environmentally friendly high-speed TGV trains in Italy (over the vociferous objections of some local residents) I'd say you couldn't even build a proper rail service here. Nobody wants rails in their backyard.

[DoYouEverWonder]

10. Run them down the middle of the existing interstate highways

That way the impact on the envirnoment and communities would be greatly reduced.

We can solve all of these problems if we want to.

[Tesha]

13. "If we want to"

> We can solve all of these problems if we want to. (emphasis added)

You said a mouthful there!

Tesha

[displacedtexan]

14. I-35 (Texas/Okla) was built with that very idea in mind.

From OK City to Austin (maybe farther). My dad worked on that highway, and that was LBJ's idea.

[Lorien]

62. See post #61. That was nearly done a few years ago in Florida.

and has already been done in Shanghai.

[DoYouEverWonder]

66. Heck, they did it on the Brooklyn Bridge

almost 100 years ago. This isn't a new concept.

[aztc]

97. New Athena National Passeneger Rail System

A project to upgrade the nation's passenger rail transportation system.

Riding home from Washington DC last year on the Empire Builder, I had a conversation with a long time employee regarding his perception of the original intent of the national highway system.

He told me that the original plan included right of way for passenger rail along the same corridors used for the highways. My first reaction was that this seemed unlikely, but that has changed now and I believe it to be a fantastic idea.

This project would finally separate passenger rail from freight by laying all new tracks along right of ways that already exist, the national highway system. The new railway will be built to accommodate high speed travel with reduced consumption of energy and increased employment and business opportunities.

[BiggJawn]

15. That's true.

One of the biggest problems R-t-T groups have here are property owners exercising the "Property reverts to original landowners upon abandonment of R-of-W..." clause, even if the railroad had been there since 1890.

Couldn't re-lay the old trackage. I know of a few routes where buildings have been built on what used to be Right of Way..

Sucks. We should have NEVER gotten away from rail transit.

[midnight armadillo]

20. Buildings can be moved

Not to sound callous, but eminent domain exists for exactly this reason: when private property is in the way of public interest, the state can take it away. I live a 5 min walk from a commuter rail line (unfortunately, it goes east/west and I commute north/south) and never hear the train. I'd much prefer living by a train track than a highway - quieter, less pollution, less space taken up by it.

There are three obstacles to restoring lots of rail service: money, political will, and cars. The first two can be overcome. People's love of cars is a tougher nut to crack. You can give people every reason NOT to drive, and they still will. The only way to make intra-city rail and mass transit to work is to make driving too expensive or inconvenient: taxes on miles driven, don't build parking spaces, etc.

Inter-city rail is a much easier sell, and it could certainly be both cost and time-competitive with air travel. Even the so-so ACela train from Boston-NYC-DC is a success, and that only goes 75 mph.

[Tesha]

28. But "What's good for GM is"...

> Sucks. We should have NEVER gotten away from rail transit.

But "What's good for GM is, umm, err, Good for GM!" ;-)

Tesha

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

30. How is R-t-T doing these days?

My father was somewhat involved with them. Hope they're doing well.

[BiggJawn]

32. Slow here in Indiana.

The Monon Trail notwithstanding. Seems a big problem is that thing with property owners reclaiming the abandoned RoW's. I read a while back that's just about killed any hopes for the Indy-Monticello trail.

[RedOnce]

17. Yes, a Huge Investment but probably a much smaller investment ...

as a percentage of GNP than when they were first built.

[Dover]

6. BRING BACK TROLLEYS AND INCREASE MASS TRANSIT!

Ahhh.....got that off my chest.

[DoYouEverWonder]

11. LEGALIZE

INDUSTRIAL HEMP.

Ahhh...me too.

[Massacure]

36. Hemp has nothing to do with trains. Algae maybe, but not hemp.

Think Hemp, think paper and cloth, not fuel.

[DoYouEverWonder]

43. Hemp is a great source

for biomass, so yes it is a good fuel. Plus the oils from the plant have all sorts of uses. It's not just for paper and cloth, which of course would also cut down on fuel usage if we stopped importing cotton from half way around the world, among other benefits.

[Massacure]

78. Hemp gives a few hundred gallons per acre. Algae 10,000-20,000.

That is a big difference. ;)

[aztc]

98. Hemp for trains

Hemp fiber would be fantastic for all the seat and window coverings, carpeting, dining car linens and such for a start.

Used in composites it will lighten, strengthen and make more environmentally sound all of the molded composite panels and structures such as seats, pillars, racks, and aerodynamic improvements, to name a few.

Hemp for energy, only in certain specific cases. I wrote a paper a couple years ago: http://www.fuelandfiber.com/Hemp4NRG/Hemp4NRG.htm

[aztc]

95. Trolley's in Sacramento

Future Sacramento Solar Steam Train routes:

Trains consisting of a locomotive and one to six passenger cars, according to demand will move rather slowly along the original trolley lines, revitalizing these areas by making them more pedestrian friendly as the predictable train is on a track and doesn't exceed 30 mph, with many stops providing a steady 12-13 mph average travel speed throughout the city.

Due to this deliberate low speed design, even the track can be much less aggressive and neighborhood friendly than used for high speed electric, which has a place for longer distances, but not through residential neighborhoods.

On sunny days, all the energy can be collected using high efficiency thermal solar collectors, and as the system expands, recharge stations can be built as needed. For example, recharge stations at Folsom and Truckee would probably enable a round trip to Lake Tahoe on the Solar Steam Train with zero energy cost, using existing technology, and zero emissions!

[Deja Q]

9. Just as long as those jobs are reasonably paid.

[Rambis]

19. I would ride every day

Here in Iowa (the sticks) they have van pools from small towns that come to the University of Iowa and Iowa State that bring workers that can't afford to live in the Univerity town to work.

[theophilus]

23. Absolutely a fantastic idea and needs to be done. The GOPers can't ruin

the rebuilding of our railroads by outsourcing, either! It's not like they will bring in a bunch of Chinese.......oh, wait a minute.......never mind.

[cally]

25. Another critical reason to save Amtrak

We have to save the rails we have, so we can build on these in the future. It's ridiculous that more rail service is not available. You cannot take a train from SF to LA. You have to switch to a bus. :crazy:

Recommended

[wordpix]

35. yes, Save Amtrak!

[Sequoia]

101. I love trains.

I took one from Los Angeles to Grand Junction, CO and it was loads of fun. Went through pretty Salt Lake City and returned to Oakland over the original tracks built back in the 1800s with their snow sheds and Truckee. As a kid the sound of them would help me sleep.

[Javaman]

26. Things like this, make me think of, what could have been with Gore...

We have suffered so much in the country from lack of vision, leadership* and a basic plan.

It's just more of the same bullshit day in and day out.

Nothing inovative.

colossal racist backwards failure*

[hedgehog]

27. What if you could driveyour car onto a train and drive off

at your destination? I've done enough white knuckle trips down the New York State Thruway between Syracuse and Buffalo at Christmas to make that my dream. I need a car at the Buffalo end; I've got family scattered across 40 miles of Erie County. It sure would be nice not to have to drive the 120 miles between here and there though. (For those of you unfamiliar with the area, I-90 from Syracuse to Cleveland and probably points west runs through the Lake Ontario/ Lake Erie snow belts. Wicked snow squalls can spring up at a moments notice and literally make it impossible to see the road.)

[Tesha]

29. Intermodal transportation is a *VERY GOOD SOLUTION*...

Intermodal transportation is a *VERY GOOD SOLUTION* to a large number
of problems. For example, there's absolutely no reason why a tractor-
trailer truck should be driven the entire distance across the country.
A sensible transportation system would have the tractor driven to a
railhead, put on a flat-be car, moved across the country at 120 MPH
or more, and then loaded back onto a tractor to make the final local
delivery. It would save time, money, energy, and even (shudder!) labor.

'Won't happen soon, though, because it would costs Teamster (and
non-union trucker) jobs.

Tesha

[NuttyFluffers]

42. hmm, what i'm thinking too. but how to sell the concept?

perhaps the teamsters can be persuaded because it means more union members to recruit or be involved. increase train workers union, transfer old sea port workers (which are now far more mechanized intensive and leads less labor than before) and create huge land ports. could be cheaper too for the transport business owners, though i'd have to learn more about the subject and compare it to any current implementation. wonder if there's a way to create a train car that is directly convertable to plop on a big rig... cutting gas costs, overtime costs (do truckers get overtime?), insurance issues, accident costs, etc. there's potential, though i'd have to learn more.

[Tesha]

58. I suspect the winning strategy would involve...

I suspect the winning strategy would involve pointing out that
huge construction projects will employ huge numbers of nominally
blue-collar workers, many of them involved in the transportation
and allied trades.

Tesha

[sidpleasant]

65. The railroads are way ahead of you

Railroads have been carrying trailers on flat cars (it's called TOFC) for over 50 years. Primitive freight containers were first used back in the 1930s. UPS alone does so much TOFC shippping that they've been able to negotiate for special UPS only high priority TOFC trains. The railroads compete for UPS's business by finding ways to shave minutes off the cross country transit time for these trains.

There are already several hundred hybrid switching locomotives called "Green Goats" in use around the country. The Green Goats replace the typical switcher's 1000 horsepower diesel with a 300 HP motor driving a generator and a bank of batteries. GE is working on hybrid heavy freight locomotives that would capture the energy that's currently wasted when the train uses its brakes. The problem is that a 9000 ton train generates far more energy slowing down than can be absorbed by any battery.

[Tesha]

71. (I knew the TOFC stuff, but not the "Green Goat" stuff.) (NT)

[NuttyFluffers]

40. intriguing... i wonder if that's done now and the cost.

i wonder if there's a way to turn a train car and just auto load it onto 18 wheeler, instead of open and transfer the goods. might be good to keep 18 wheeler driving more local. give our kind truck drivers much needed decrease in stress.

anyone know if this is done anywhere else in the world? perhaps we can learn from their successes and failures? if americans set their minds to it we can be pretty creative.

[DelawareValleyDem]

47. Actually, it's done the opposite way (warning: two big images)

fully loaded truck trailers are loaded onto flat cars. Piggybacking, as it is called, has been around since the fifties. Also common is stacking, in which containers from ships are loaded directly on to trains.

[Vogon_Glory]

38. Freight Railroads Usually Doing Fine, But

Today's US freight railroads are doing very well these days, although even some of those do need some further upgrading of their physical plant. What does need upgrading is the passenger rail network.

To be blunt about it, I think that the US has the worst passenger rail network in the industrialized world. Most of the rest of the industrialized world has at least one high-speed passenger rail line and some have several; the US still has none. Even the vaunted Northeast Corridor between Boston and Washington can't run as fast as Japan's Tokaido Express or France's TGVs and Amtrak has to share its Corridor lines with freight trains.

Elsewhere, Amtrak is grossly underfunded. This is largely on purpose, right-wing ideologues like Grover Norquist want to eliminate Amtrak entirely. Amtrak has to run on rails owned by freight railroads who have at best an indifferent attitude and sometimes hostile. Amtrak's equipment is shabbier than it could be and trains on some routes only run three or four days a week in one direction and are often late to boot.

One of the many bitter ironies of Amtrak and passenger rail is that right-wingers like to blather about "free enterprise" stepping in to take over. Reality-challenged right-wingers ignore the fact that NO private outfit--NONE--has made a serious bid to take over any of Amtrak's long-distance passenger rail operations and that the bus services ivory-tower right-wing ideologues tout as an alternative are also retracting and leaving larger and larger stretches of rural America without public transportation.

[Solon]

50. Of course they wouldn't take over Amtrak...

Its damn near impossible for it to be profitable and not be priced out of its own market. Competing lines cannot be practically built, so the best solution is public owned railroads dedicated for human travel. Simple solution.

[OzarkDem]

75. Passenger rail has to be subsidized

its no different than subsidizing auto & truck (govt funding for highway systems) or airlines (airport and ATC govt funding).

[cap]

89. half of me hopes they do privatize

RW congressional staffers ride the train to NYC; and Wall Streets ride the train to DC. They will be suffering.

[gulfcoastliberal]

41. K&R - I want a 1st-world rail system, not the current system even the

poorest nations would be ashamed of. MORE RAIL, LESS ROAD.

As for the riverboat idea, I think the pollution from that would negate any positive gains.

[Solon]

45. Not necessarily...

One idea I have off the top of my head is this, have a solar powered electrical motor on them, this is only backup understand. That is for going under bridges, the main mode of transportation would be sails, good old fashion sail boats. Of course, with modern metallurgy and materials, like high grade steel for the masts, and nylon for sails, along with computer controlled servos for the lines and adjustments, they would be much more efficient that sailing boats of old. Not to mention that, to pass under bridges, the masts could be retractable, once retracted, the motor kicks in and then the ship passes under the bridge, then the masts are extended, and the motor shut off. Simple solution, really.

[gulfcoastliberal]

46. You have some great ideas; I was thinking of human sewage discharge

But if the boats include holding tanks that are required to be pumped out dockside, then I'd have no objections. And all trash must be stowed an disposed of dockside, too.

Military and cruise ships are some of the biggest industrial polluters of the seas. I had a friend who served on a nuclear carrier and he said there was a "slick" of human waste extending for miles after they anchored in Marmaris, Turkey for 2 days and kept the waste in the pipes while at anchor, since Marmaris bay is so clear and beautiful. When they set sail they did the old salt water flush and he said it was a sight and smell to behold. And they dump all kinds of toxic chemicals like jet fuel overboard, and all plastic and paper garabge is also tossed over. They attach weights so it sinks, but he said it didn't always work. That's one aspect they never mention when you see those Discovery type programs about these wonderous "cities at sea" of thousands of people - the enormous amount of untreated pollution dumped right into our blue waters.

Another friend of mine played trumpet for Royal Caribbean and he said it was the same deal - they discharged sewage, oil, and chemicals (such as those for photo processing) all the time. In the rare event the Coast Guard caught them, it was (and still is) cheaper for them to pay the fines rather than comply with the regulations, even if the fines run in the millions. One good reason I'll never patronize the cruise industry.

[Solon]

48. Some other ideas, for any type of large water craft...

Let's see, one thing, raw sewage, one solution to that is to break it down using bacteria, once treated, it can either be sold as fertilizer at port, and/or, be used for botanical gardens or small to medium sized outside gardens on deck. This would be kinda cool on Cruise ships(fresh grown food, on ship, imagine the ads!), but some freighters, for example, have acres of space, and they have a small crew, one thing is for a ship of about a Kilometer or so in size could have a large enough botanical bay where the diesel tanks used to be for about a dozen people.

Other things, for most "natural" trash, mainly paper and food products waste, compost piles can be used, bacteria breaks these down, and the piles themselves emit a great amount of heat, as high as 180 degrees or so. This heat could then be used through a heat exchanger(water) to be converted to electricity, in addition to the heat, these compost piles also emit methane, a greenhouse gas. This can be captured while produced, compressed into tanks, and then burned, cleanly, to power electric motors for docking maneuvers and inclimate weather.

Also, I wanted to mention that the type of freighter I'm talking about is like a huge container ship, with slight modifications for a post hydrocarbon world. Namely, large masts, about 3 or more of them, some 150 to 200 feet high, with large COLORFUL sails made of a lightweight material similar to nylon or so, burlap isn't really an option though. They could be retractable for the Suez and Panama Canals, and also would be largely computer controlled with GPS tracking and advanced weather advisories and knowing wind speed and direction, and responding to any changes instantly.

The SUPER tankers(Too big for the Panama Canal) could be modified in a similar way, but wouldn't need retractable masts, however, this may required modified docks. I don't know that much, just an armchair researcher into solutions for future problems. It may be cheaper to modify their masts as well, I could be off on the basic dimensions, but I would say this is a solution. Out in the open ocean, you could have ships that are wind powered, and near docks, the sails are tied up and the engines take over. Since the engines don't do nearly as much work, they don't need to be as big as the ones now, and the tanks for fuel can be smaller, not to mention that the ship would produce fuel on board, from the waste of the humans on board.

Like I said, just some ideas I kicked around.

[gulfcoastliberal]

52. Great ideas! You should post in the environment forum!

We need bright, positive ideas in there - it's so gloom and doom!

[Solon]

54. I have many more too!

Actually, I was going to write a book, actually still thinking about doing just that. I'm thinking about calling it "A layman's guide to Peak Oil and what YOU can do about it!" I think its too long, but I want something that is more descriptive than "OH MY GOD, WE'RE GONNA DIE!!!!!" :)

[Tesha]

60. Solar power (on the trains) is insufficient.

While there's no question that centrallized solar power could power
electric railroads, there's also no question that no train could
carry enough solar panels to power itself. A typical modern electric
locomotive is in the range of (say) 6,000 HP continuous rating. That's
about 4.5 Megawatts of electrical energy. (And these locomotives can
run at about twice their rating when first starting a train.)

Insolation (the maximum amount of solar energy falling on the surface
of the earth) is about 1,000 watts per square meter (which we can round
to 10 square feet, so 100 watts/square foot). Solar cells have an
efficiency in the (roughly) 25% range, so lets say 25 watts/square foot
of derived electrical energy.

So our 4.5 MW train would require 180,000 square feet of solar cells.
If the train is (say) 10 feet wide, that's a train 18,000 feet long!

Tesha

[Solon]

72. Wasn't talking about trains, but barges. n/t

[mahatmakanejeeves]

92. An answer based on engineering

Thank you.

[aztc]

94. Solar Steam Train

I'll just add a link and some of my thoughts about this:

Solar Steam Train
http://SolarSteamTrain.com

And,

New Athena National Passenger Rail System (NANPRS)

A project to upgrade the nation's passenger rail transportation system.

Riding home from Washington DC last year on the Empire Builder, I had a conversation with a long time employee regarding his perception of the original intent of the national highway system.

He told me that the original plan included right of way for passenger rail along the same corridors used for the highways. My first reaction was that this seemed unlikely, but that has changed now and I believe it to be a fantastic idea.

This project would finally separate passenger rail from freight by laying all new tracks along right of ways that already exist, the national highway system. The new railway will be built to accommodate high speed travel with reduced consumption of energy and increased employment and business opportunities.

[Xithras]

73. The riverboat also won't work because we don't have navigable rivers.

Most of the rivers in the US have been dammed and have had their flows reduced. From the back of my house I can see the Stanislaus River in central California. In the 1800's they used to run steamships up this river to pick up grain and cattle from the farmers. Today I can walk across it midsummer without getting my knees wet. Where'd that water go? It grows the food we eat. A little ways south of me is the Tuolumne River, which up until the end of the 1800's was a main transportation corridor for this entire region. Today its water flows out of the taps in San Francisco and the river itself is little more than a creek most of the year. Even further south is the mighty San Joaquin, once one of the largest rivers in the country. Today you can walk across its dry bed in warm years...it doesn't flow at ALL sometimes.

This same scenario has played out all across this country. Aside from the Mississippi and it's major tributaries, I don't see where river traffic will ever be viable again.

[rfkrfk]

44. tax on airline jet fuel in the US is four cents a gallon

tax on fuel for international flight is zero

zero

not one penney

[aztc]

96. Jet fuel is kerosene is heating oil

US Consumption of jet fuel each DAY = 63 Million gallons EACH DAY (1.5 mbpd)

Chavez heating oil contribution = 17 million gallons total

EACH DAY, jets burn 4 times as much as the amount Hugo Chavez supplied at 45% off to the poor.

This fuel is also 3000+ ppm sulfur - compare to regular on-road diesel that makes all that black smoke, which is LESS than 300 ppm (yes, 300 ppm) and the new Ultra low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) promised to be LESS than 15 ppm sulfur.

[truthisfreedom]

53. and of course, so many railroad tracks have been ripped up in the name of

progress over the years that we'll have to re-build that infrastructure first...

[Solon]

55. Actually that isn't the worst idea in the first place...

Laying out new lines will allow us to redesign them for higher speeds, so they are safer, with better grades steel and making them easier to maintain. At the same time, we can revamp the freight lines that currently exist over time for increased speeds and heavier loads.

[aztc]

100. NANPRS

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1983176&mesg_id=1988570

[Gregorian]

82. The fact is, we are running out of oil.

Yes, there are many ways to use less oil. Actually, the biggest contribution to the use of oil is the number of users. Assuming we live in a modern world. And we do.

But the bottom line is that there is only so much oil left. End of subject.

As for what to do next, there are a few things. And no new means of producing energy that we can foresee.

And it's not simple. If we make biofuels from crops, we lose our topsoil. If we go solar, we have a long ways to go before it's efficient. And even still, we have to make the systems. And that takes energy.

To be honest, no one wants to talk about the real issue. We either stop living in a modern world, or we decrease the population. Population.

Solar, wind, alchohol, hydroelectric. And maybe tidal energy. But what happens when you suppress tides? Something happens. Do the ocean currents change? Do thermal dynamics change.

We're maxed out. And even if we do find a way to convert the energy we need for the 6.5 billion we have, not only are we headed toward 10 and then 12 billion, but energy is not the only problem. Food. Water. If we make alchohol, we don't have that ground for corn.

Population...

[Larkspur]

88. This has been known for quite some time, but the trucking industry and

the Teamsters lobbied hard against it and will continue to do so.

I'm all for revamping our transportation infrastructure, but there are major political hurdles to overcome.

[hedgehog]

90. Sad but true

Jerry Brown campaigned on building high speed railroads back on 1992, but got wiped out in the primaries by a guy from the South with big money behind him, I think his name was Clinton?

[jokerman93]

91. There's always THIS forgotten technology

Dirigible, blimps, air ships.

We have the technology and materials now to make such technology cost effective and safe. A brave entrepreneur with an effective marketing campaign to influence perception of this alternative, who knows, might be able to start a trend.

I came across this when I googled. It's an interesting read.

http://www.ungermark.se/lakehurst.html

Any thoughts from engineers, marketers, others???

[olddad56]

93. would all of these blue collar workers go to illegal immigrants?

[november3rd]

103. why is this just making news now?

This is like, early 70s, Barry Commoner, Rodale Institute, Ralph Nader shit.

Are Americans really this backward that we didn't know this? I thought the problem was the corporate special interests for globalization were holding back localization of the economy.