On the theory that many people who encounter Alan Drake’s own words on greening freight end up overwhelmed by the details, I have presented a very simplified version of Drake’s proposal with my own opinions. This is a deliberate attempt to focus on the most important points, and then steer people to read the whole thing. [Update: The Washington Monthly has a long article on this as well.] Obviously the disagreement with Drake, as well as the political analysis at the end, is my own judgment. In addition Drake does not know me, though we’ve corresponded briefly, and he has no responsibility for anything I wrote.
Grist has discussed Alan Drake’s proposal for greening freight before, but somehow it’s always mentioned in passing and without real recognition that it’s such a game changer. By switching 85 percent of long-haul trucking to rail, we could reduce U.S. oil use by about 12 percent and total U.S. emissions by about 4 percent.
In addition, it would add long-distance power transmission across the lines of regional grids, creating a true U.S. national grid to share power from coast to coast and from north to south, and it would add-high speed passenger travel. Since it would depend almost entirely on existing rail rights-of-way, the environmental impact is small compared to transmission projects and transit projects that use new rights-of-way.
Drake starts with the fact that long-distance freight trucking consumes about half as much oil as passenger transport, and that unlike passenger transport, we have an existing heavy rail system that can move goods with about eight times the energy efficiency of trucking. That system already reaches most destinations where we want to move goods. If we switched to rail, we would still need to use trucks to move goods to and from freight yards, but containerization makes that simple.
That is the good news. The bad news is that our existing rail system won’t let us make this switch on a large scale. Today’s freight rail operates near capacity now, and existing rail freight is slow and unreliable as compared to trucking.
Drake proposes that we upgrade our system, add various new controls and infrastructure, build second tracks besides existing rail runs, and electrify the most heavily trafficked routes, which allows trains to run at higher speeds, giving a capacity boost over and above that provided by additional tracks. These modifications provide vastly improved capacity, speed, and reliability, and they reduce energy requirements per freight-ton. Moreover, this transformation requires only standard technology in use today throughout the world.
Since Drake’s proposal requires running new electric wires—many of the routes he proposes to electrify run through areas with no or low-capacity grids— why not run high-voltage direct current (HVDC) lines along the upgraded line, with occasional electric bridges that would both increase reliability and allow the rail system and grids to connect to those lines? For various reasons, it adds much less to the cost of a rail upgrade than building those lines separately.
As a side effect, upgrading rail freight could easily provide a more reliable Amtrak. The extra capacity and speed would allow us to provide many more Amtrak routes, enhance service along existing routes, and offer faster services with about 80 percent less conflict between passenger and rail transport. These are not 200-mph bullet trains, but they could run a heck of a lot faster than the trains we have now, and they could cover many more routes than bullet trains. We would go from having awful freight and long-distance passanger rail systems to the world’s best freight rail system and mediocre rail passenger transport.
Where a really extensive set of 200-mph trains would cost about $2 trillion, Drake estimates that the cost of combined freight, passenger, and grid upgrades to be about $450 billion total! That is one heck of a bargain.
One last step Drake takes about which I’m not too enthusiastic —though if it can be made to work, I would be very enthusiastic: Many rail rights-of-way pass through really good wind sites. Drake suggests that we take advantage of advanced freight rail to ship 5 meg turbines (which are normally used only offshore because they are too big to ship over U.S. roads) and to install them right along the rail rights-of-way, essentially building long, skinny wind farms.
Now there are major advantages to this proposal: It minimizes the environmental consequences of large wind farms, and train access makes maintenance easy.
My concern is that putting giant spinning blades next to critical power lines and critical transport lines puts too many points of failure too close together. Drake argues that the risk is small because blade accidents mainly happen with small blades. But you have to consider consequences of failure, not just probability of failure, and very small probabilities become larger when multiplied by hundreds of thousands of turbines.
I’m not saying absolutely that this should be ruled out. But I would be much more cautious than Drake. Running HVDC power lines near electric railroads is something that other nations have already tried; the addition of wind turbines to that mix is new. I would want a lot of input from both the utility and wind industry before considering it. At any rate this is not as big a difference as it seems. Drake supports an extensive planning process before implementing it. So really the only disagreement is not a policy disagreement, but differing judgment about what a process we both support is likely to conclude. I would add that these long-distance transmission lines, even without wind generators along the rights-of-way are likely to free a lot of “stranded wind” and make it easier still to “unstrand.”
Lastly there is a large potential coalition for this. The $450 billion subsidy should appeal to the rail industry, the construction industry, and the manufacturing industry who help implement this as well as their unions. The new transmission lines would appeal to both the renewable industries and to existing utilities.
The main benefit to existing utilities would not be the potential for extremely long-distance transmission, but for the accessibility to multiple paths for wheeling electricity a few hundred miles with decreased losses. But the possibility of buying or selling power across longer distances would be welcome security to them, even if they did not use it much. And unlike AC lines, or even DC lines without many bridges, HVDC lines with a large number of bridges increase decrease grid stability.
In addition to Drake’s description, I also recommend Bruce McFadden’s take on this: Bruce part 1, part 2 (calling for 200 mph trains, which I think should be delayed in favor of completing Drake’s proposal), and part 3. Warning: Bruce’s writing style makes both Drake and myself look concise by comparison.
‘Heretic’ battles straw man
Comments
View as Threaded
Sean Casten Posted 3:50 am
14 Jan 2009
Today, there is a compelling reason to ship high-volume loads over rail, for precisely the reasons you note. Less fuel per ton = less cost per ton, to an significant degree. That's why we have coal trains instead of coal trucks.
I have no personal experience shipping coal, or anything else at that kind of volume. I do, however, have experience shipping the kinds of things that tend to go on trucks (modular power plants, wood fuel, etc.) In the occasional lucky instance where the source and destination are close to a rail hub, it may make sense to go rail - but even then, you've got logistics hassles associated with getting a single car out of the line, on-loading/off-loading material, etc. (After all, a part of the reason that rail is more efficient is because all those cars are ganged together - if every car had it's own engine, we'd lose a lot of the gain!)
The upshot is that more often than not - at least in my limited experience - trucking is preferred because it saves all the intermodal complexity. For all their flaws, trucks are innately good at transporting small batches from any point to any other point, while rails are good at transporting large batches from a finite number of defined points to another. Clearly, more rail access would increase the number-of-points piece of the equation. But how does Drake's proposal address the innate bias of rail towards large volumes (and therefore against truck-sized loads)?
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 4:23 am
14 Jan 2009
Permalink
PurpleOzone Posted 4:32 am
14 Jan 2009
Ship containers are packaged to be unloaded whole onto trucks for transport to the ultimate destination.
Energy can be reduced by unloading ships from Asia with containers sized to trains directly to trains and moving it across the country. This is also manpower efficient, compared to using a truck driver per container, a train can carry a lot with just a couple of guys.
Seems like the first place to start would be cross-country or up and down the coasts. But there has to be stations to load/unload from trains.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 5:15 am
14 Jan 2009
Permalink
Danothebaldyheid Posted 5:49 am
14 Jan 2009
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 8:04 am
14 Jan 2009
Even more efficient than rail are the tug and barge mode of transportation. Inland and coastwise towboats move a great amount of dry and liquid bulk products, of course being located on the coast or major rivers and canals. If there is a 6X factor for rail over trucks, it might be 16X for barges.
What has happened to our country's inland waterway system is nothing short of a travesty. The channels are silting up, canals are being closed because of lack of maintenance, and the Army Corps of Engineers has cut lock and channel maintenance by about half.
I have worked on proposals to ship municipal waste out of New York via barge instead of truck and have helped with a "container on board" barging system as well. A few things have worked! Let's be fair, barging need to be included along with rail. I agree with the customer service part too! -sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 8:26 am
14 Jan 2009
And I agree that waterway maintenance is a disgrace and that we might restore barge traffic back to close to what it was in the sixties. There are inherent limitation to barges. Obviously waterways don't go everywhere. Also much barge efficiency comes from moving stuff slowly. A barge by nature does not travel fast. So you will never move anything by barge you need in a hurry. Also dredging can be harmful to water systems, so you may never be able to do all the dreging you need. Bottom line: we can maintain our waterways beter than we do and increase barge traffic, but it can never be the dominant way to transport freight.
Permalink
frflyer Posted 10:32 am
14 Jan 2009
I have been thinking about how much rail freight capacity would be freed up by phasing out coal.
Coal uses 24% of rail freight cars and something like 44% of tonnage capacity.
The solar proposal for the southwest that was published last year in Scientific American included HVDC tranmission lines in the plan. The authors spoke of using existing rights of way, including highways, to run new lines, and avoid the problems of getting new rights of way. I haven't heard anyone else mention this idea.
Another difference between that plan and others is that they talked of subsidies to encourage investment in solar power plants, but thought that the new HVDC transmission lines would be built without subsidies, saying that the utilities would invest the money and get a return on it. Any thoughts?
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 11:54 am
14 Jan 2009
In terms of utilities paying for HVDC lines on their own
1) I see no evidence they will do this
2)The cost of HVDC lines to create a national grid is given as 300 billion to 400 billion dollars. (Though Al Gore thinks we can include full smart grid capability in that higher figure.) The rail upgrade Drake proposes would cost 400 billion without including a national grid. The cost of a national grid and rail upgrade combined is 450 billion to 500 billion dollars. So you have huge synergy and huge cost savings by doing them together.
3) And believe me, getting long distance transmission available will be of tremendous benefit to renewable industries. That does not we should not do additional things. I do support carbon intensity regulations for utilities that would be benefit renewables (and also efficiecy means such as recycled power - truly technology neutral). But this is a move toward a low carbon economy with huge potential, and it ties in to so many other things we need to do.
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 12:24 pm
14 Jan 2009
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 2:21 pm
14 Jan 2009
Permalink
cjwirth Posted 10:53 pm
14 Jan 2009
Independent studies indicate that global crude oil production will now decline from 74 million barrels per day to 60 million barrels per day by 2015. During the same time, demand will increase. Oil supplies will be even tighter for the U.S. As oil producing nations consume more and more oil domestically they will export less and less. Because demand is high in China, India, the Middle East, and other oil producing nations, once global oil production begins to decline, demand will always be higher than supply. And since the U.S. and Europe represent one third of global oil demand, whatever oil we conserve will be consumed elsewhere.
Thus, conservation in the U.S. and Europe will not slow oil depletion rates significantly.
With increasing costs for gasoline and diesel, along with declining taxes and declining gasoline tax revenues, states and local governments will eventually have to cut staff and curtail highway maintenance. Eventually, gasoline stations will close, and state and local highway workers won't be able to get to work. We are facing the collapse of the highways that depend on diesel and gasoline powered trucks for bridge maintenance, culvert cleaning to avoid road washouts, snow plowing, and roadbed and surface repair. When the highways fail, so will the power grid, as highways carry the parts, large transformers, steel for pylons, and high tension cables from great distances. With the highways out, there will be no food coming from far away, and without the power grid virtually nothing modern works, including home heating, pumping of gasoline and diesel, airports, communications, and automated building systems.
Documented here:
http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html
http://survivingpeakoil.blogspot.com/
cjwirth http://www.peakoilassociates.com
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 11:24 pm
14 Jan 2009
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 12:31 am
15 Jan 2009
The problem being the off grid portion will not have corporate support because they have been accustomed to controlling the production and distribution of our energy. I believe the typical $60,000 cost for an off grid solar package for a medium sized home could and should be brought down to around &20,000 with the added tax incentives to make the installation appealing to most home owners. Of course non carbon back up and alternatives to solar for regions where total solar is not feasible.
The off grid power sector is not practical at this time but should be at some point if a portion of the recovery money is directed toward this end. The off grid power generation for third world countries should have domestic applications here also. As the technology and efficiency improves and of course as they become not so cost prohibitive the off grid should combine seamlessly with a smart grid. If this is the thinking in the planning stage. Small scale alternative energy stations with the consumer bearing most of the cost will work better in some regions than large scale alternative energy production that depends on private sector and corporate funding.
If the government fronts the money large energy concerns will of course take the money and give the plan a half hearted try. If it does not compete with the energy source or model they are involved with. An industry set up around providing off grid power should have priority when doling out the funds. None of the carbon based energy suppliers should be involved in this because it stands in direct competition with this portion of an alternative based energy supply grid or off grid to be more exact.
New innovation requires new thinking and I don't believe any of the carbon based entities will pay it any more than lip service just to get at the government funding.
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
kmp Posted 12:36 am
15 Jan 2009
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 1:31 am
15 Jan 2009
You can have the same set up for off grid alternative energy if you can keep the major carbon providers out of it until the market has legs. Of course the network that controls the grid at this time is going to be as warm to the idea as cable was to satellite in the early days. The infrastructure cost for running and maintaining energy transmission lines to non metropolitan area's is a large portion of the grid cost at present. Wireless communications has proven more cost efficient in 3rd world countries where no telephone lines existed.
If you have non carbon entities develop alternative energy off grid plants for individual homes the cost will far less than a large energy concern trying to build a large mega watt alternative energy generation plant and having to build and maintain the distribution system. You will have the added benefit of most the cost being on the home owner and a manufacturing , installing and maintaining industry being built around it. There is a large portion of your 3 million jobs Obama is looking for.
I can see upgrading the present grid for seamlessly transporting all types of electricity be it carbon or alternative based. You will have to, to take advantage of large corporate controlled windmill farms or solar banks. I suppose large geothermal and hydro sources will be part of the mix. You will get the added benefit of creating jobs in this economic downturn. In reality energy conservation is one of the most cost efficient programs needed while we sort this all out. I still feel that it you consider all the area of the U.S. that lays outside the medium sized metropolitan areas and count the added cost advantages of taking them off grid plus the energy savings if you did it with alternate energy it would be a no brainer. Even if you just made it a voluntary choice and did away with some of the corporate and government restrictions in doing so this off grid energy sector would take off. Once you come up with just a few more advances in solar efficiency and cost especially in manufacturing the same conditions will appear as when satellite TV become a cost efficient alternative to cable TV.
Someone will jump on it and a whole economy will be developed around it independent of government funding.
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink