6 ms·

> Texas is in a funny place. They are pumping oil like crazy, but they are building wind like crazy as well. There isn't really anything contradictory about th

> Texas is in a funny place. They are pumping oil like crazy, but they are building wind like crazy as well. There isn't really anything contradictory about that. Oil has a vastly different set of use-cases than wind energy. There are no electric alternatives for most long distance transportation, which is a huge chunk of our energy consumption. Gaining independence from OPEC by supporting local oil extraction while simultaneously moving as much of the grid to renewable as possible is a completely rational choice.

nradov 8y ago
Natural gas is an alternative to oil for long distance transportation, although both are still fossil fuels. Progress is being made on algae biofuels. If electricity gets cheap enough it can be used to make synthetic hydrocarbon liquid fuels.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
  But again, if electricity is cheap enough, why not electric trains like we do in Europe? Or hydrogen if you need some energy storage on board? See http://www.imeche.org/news/news-article/could-hydrogen-trains-be-the-future-of-rail http://www.imeche.org/news/news-article/could-hydrogen-train... I bet that this would be much better for the environment than algae.
  - ac29 8y ago
    >why not electric trains like we do in Europe? While electrification of the US freight rail network certainly may happen, you have to remember the US is twice as large as the EU (9.1M sq km vs 4.5M sq km) and only a quarter the population density (33 vs 117 per sq km). Long distance passenger train routes don't really make sense (electrified or not, very few people want to spend 2 days on the train when a flight is 4 hours), meaning rail in the US is almost entirely freight.
    - ip26 8y ago
      I haven't gone deep into the economics, but I've found rail cost several times as much for a 30 hour ride with nowhere to sleep, compared to the 2 hour flight or 20 hour drive. So of course ridership is low. Some intersection of actually-competitive pricing and higher speed tracks, and it seems like rail would have the potential to be plenty competitive. Lower vehicle purchae, maintenance & fuel costs, greater comfort. If I could make a 2 hour flight in 4 or 6 hours by train for 90% of the cost, I'd probably never fly again.
    - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
      China has a similar size to the USA and has invested heavily in HSR as an alternative to flying. Beijing to Guangzhou is 9 hours by train, which is pretty competitive with a flight when considering travel time to/from airports as well as the other hassle. China also does a lot of freight and has gone through a lot of electrification (75%). Freight runs between Beijing and Lhasa, which is similar to NYC to LA.
  - nradov 8y ago
    Short range commuter rail will be electrified in some places like Caltrain. http://www.caltrain.com/projectsplans/CaltrainModernization/Modernization/PeninsulaCorridorElectrificationProject/Electric-Multiple-Unit-EMU-trains.html http://www.caltrain.com/projectsplans/CaltrainModernization/... Hydrogen is probably a dead end. It's too bulky, hard to handle, and the energy efficiency is terrible. Most hydrogen fuel today is produced from natural gas, which is just stupid.
  - toast0 8y ago
    To my knowledge, Europe doesn't have an extensive network of freight railways, instead it has a working network of passenger rail, with lots of electrification. The US freight network hasn't yet managed to fully rollout positive train control, electrification seems like a much harder problem. Moving freight requires a lot more power than moving people, and also has a lot more sidings and things. Some lines run double height cars, which I'm guessing would add additonal complications.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
      Europe has freight rail, they often use separate tracks, and most of it is electrified. China has a lot of freight, is as large as the USA, and has a decent amount of electrification as well.
rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
>There are no electric alternatives for most long distance transportation, which is a huge chunk of our energy consumption. What about trains?
- electricslpnsld 8y ago
  Trains don't get you and your overseas goods across oceans (yet).
  - andrewflnr 8y ago
    It may not be fast, but wind power is a proven technology for that application.
    - goatlover 8y ago
      It’s also not as economical. If your competitor uses shipping that’s weeks faster and more reliable, then you’re not staying in business long.
      - rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
        At some point, we'll make shipping companies pay for their heavy externalities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Negative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Negative) and we'll have to choose between slow, clean and cheap or fast, dirty and expensive.
        stjohnswarts 8y ago
        Shipping (boats onna water) aren't the 90% problem to solve, that is all on land. You solve that before you worry about the other 10%
        mrpopo 8y ago
        Nothing is a "90% problem", even on land. Tankers' environmental impact is disastrous, although they actually are comparatively quite CO2-efficient for shipping goods. It's just that there is so many of them now.
baybal2 8y ago
In other news, coal prices are actually going up! And China's coal exports began to ramp up, for first time in a decade! https://www.forbes.com/sites/timtreadgold/2018/09/20/the-inconvenient-truth-of-rising-coal-prices/#6a78c7d26b55 https://www.forbes.com/sites/timtreadgold/2018/09/20/the-inc...

nradov 8y ago

Natural gas is an alternative to oil for long distance transportation, although both are still fossil fuels. Progress is being made on algae biofuels. If electricity gets cheap enough it can be used to make synthetic hydrocarbon liquid fuels.

rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
But again, if electricity is cheap enough, why not electric trains like we do in Europe? Or hydrogen if you need some energy storage on board? See http://www.imeche.org/news/news-article/could-hydrogen-trains-be-the-future-of-rail http://www.imeche.org/news/news-article/could-hydrogen-train... I bet that this would be much better for the environment than algae.
- ac29 8y ago
  >why not electric trains like we do in Europe? While electrification of the US freight rail network certainly may happen, you have to remember the US is twice as large as the EU (9.1M sq km vs 4.5M sq km) and only a quarter the population density (33 vs 117 per sq km). Long distance passenger train routes don't really make sense (electrified or not, very few people want to spend 2 days on the train when a flight is 4 hours), meaning rail in the US is almost entirely freight.
  - ip26 8y ago
    I haven't gone deep into the economics, but I've found rail cost several times as much for a 30 hour ride with nowhere to sleep, compared to the 2 hour flight or 20 hour drive. So of course ridership is low. Some intersection of actually-competitive pricing and higher speed tracks, and it seems like rail would have the potential to be plenty competitive. Lower vehicle purchae, maintenance & fuel costs, greater comfort. If I could make a 2 hour flight in 4 or 6 hours by train for 90% of the cost, I'd probably never fly again.
  - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
    China has a similar size to the USA and has invested heavily in HSR as an alternative to flying. Beijing to Guangzhou is 9 hours by train, which is pretty competitive with a flight when considering travel time to/from airports as well as the other hassle. China also does a lot of freight and has gone through a lot of electrification (75%). Freight runs between Beijing and Lhasa, which is similar to NYC to LA.
- nradov 8y ago
  Short range commuter rail will be electrified in some places like Caltrain. http://www.caltrain.com/projectsplans/CaltrainModernization/Modernization/PeninsulaCorridorElectrificationProject/Electric-Multiple-Unit-EMU-trains.html http://www.caltrain.com/projectsplans/CaltrainModernization/... Hydrogen is probably a dead end. It's too bulky, hard to handle, and the energy efficiency is terrible. Most hydrogen fuel today is produced from natural gas, which is just stupid.
- toast0 8y ago
  To my knowledge, Europe doesn't have an extensive network of freight railways, instead it has a working network of passenger rail, with lots of electrification. The US freight network hasn't yet managed to fully rollout positive train control, electrification seems like a much harder problem. Moving freight requires a lot more power than moving people, and also has a lot more sidings and things. Some lines run double height cars, which I'm guessing would add additonal complications.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
    Europe has freight rail, they often use separate tracks, and most of it is electrified. China has a lot of freight, is as large as the USA, and has a decent amount of electrification as well.

rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago

>There are no electric alternatives for most long distance transportation, which is a huge chunk of our energy consumption. What about trains?

electricslpnsld 8y ago
Trains don't get you and your overseas goods across oceans (yet).
- andrewflnr 8y ago
  It may not be fast, but wind power is a proven technology for that application.
  - goatlover 8y ago
    It’s also not as economical. If your competitor uses shipping that’s weeks faster and more reliable, then you’re not staying in business long.
    - rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
      At some point, we'll make shipping companies pay for their heavy externalities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Negative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Negative) and we'll have to choose between slow, clean and cheap or fast, dirty and expensive.
      - stjohnswarts 8y ago
        Shipping (boats onna water) aren't the 90% problem to solve, that is all on land. You solve that before you worry about the other 10%
        mrpopo 8y ago
        Nothing is a "90% problem", even on land. Tankers' environmental impact is disastrous, although they actually are comparatively quite CO2-efficient for shipping goods. It's just that there is so many of them now.

baybal2 8y ago

In other news, coal prices are actually going up! And China's coal exports began to ramp up, for first time in a decade! https://www.forbes.com/sites/timtreadgold/2018/09/20/the-inconvenient-truth-of-rising-coal-prices/#6a78c7d26b55 https://www.forbes.com/sites/timtreadgold/2018/09/20/the-inc...