NationStates Jolt Archive

The truth about biofuels? These magic elixers are not an answer. We need trains. We need to make cars a thing we use for nothing other than a fun drive every couple weeks. We need mass transit to our schools, workplaces and shopping centers. We need to abolish the deisel truck for anything other than short hauls from a freight train station to a drop off.

http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/Frankenstein_fuels.pdf

The truth about biofuels? These magic elixers are not an answer. We need trains. We need to make cars a thing we use for nothing other than a fun drive every couple weeks. We need mass transit to our schools, workplaces and shopping centers. We need to abolish the deisel truck for anything other than short hauls from a freight train station to a drop off.

http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/Frankenstein_fuels.pdf

This is something I've been saying for years. Of course, mass transit isn't practical in many areas, but in urban areas there's little reason not to.

Trains are one of the things I really miss about living in Europe. Whenever I wanted to go shopping or something I'd hop a quick train to Frankfurt. The train station was about 1.5km away from the Army post I lived on, and within easy walking distance of the mall in Frankfurt.

I used to be against mass transit then I went on vacation to chicago, I fell in love with the over-street trains and the subways made almost anywhere within walking distance if I lived there I would never buy a car

Eh, lived with NYC mass transit all my life. Fine if you've got all day to get where you are going. I can drive to work in 22 minutes -- if I take the bus, it's an HOUR and 22 minutes. Still, I won't take the car into Manhattan for ANY reason, and yes, you can get anywhere in NYC for $2.00.... it's not necessarily going to be a straightforward route, though.

You want good mass transit, though -- the Metro in DC is fabulous, and the transit in San Francisco is a dream.

Biofuel won't solve the problem, no -- but it will mitigate it some. And perhaps it will make farm subsidies less necessary if farmers are actually planting crops that are profitable and getting paid what they are worth. For instance: a farmer could plant feed corn, take the ears to sell for animal food, and the stalks, husks, silks, roots etc to be sold for biofuel. It may help two problems at once.

PS: "Pioneered by bearded hippies running clapped-out vans on recycled chip fat..." -- you don't think this article is just a TAD biased?

Eh, lived with NYC mass transit all my life. Fine if you've got all day to get where you are going. I can drive to work in 22 minutes -- if I take the bus, it's an HOUR and 22 minutes. Still, I won't take the car into Manhattan for ANY reason, and yes, you can get anywhere in NYC for $2.00.... it's not necessarily going to be a straightforward route, though.

You want good mass transit, though -- the Metro in DC is fabulous, and the transit in San Francisco is a dream.

Biofuel won't solve the problem, no -- but it will mitigate it some. And perhaps it will make farm subsidies less necessary if farmers are actually planting crops that are profitable and getting paid what they are worth. For instance: a farmer could plant feed corn, take the ears to sell for animal food, and the stalks, husks, silks, roots etc to be sold for biofuel. It may help two problems at once.Are you kidding? Half the subsidies corn farmers get are to cover the cost of all the oil they use growing that corn.

PS: "Pioneered by bearded hippies running clapped-out vans on recycled chip fat..." -- you don't think this article is just a TAD biased?Of course it's biased. It's an op/ed piece.

;) Then an OPINION on biofuels, perhaps, would be more suitable than "the truth?"

I tend to discount anything that feels the need to resort to namecalling (bearded hippies, frankenstein fuel) before it actually gets to its point... it's not a very effective way to get people to listen to what might otherwise actually be a good argument.

We need to abolish the deisel truck for anything other than short hauls from a freight train station to a drop off.


Hm.. no thanks there. Train freight takes more than twice as long to reach its destination if you're lucky, and gets lost or stolen more often. Also, short haul is shit work and I don't feel like doing it..

Hm.. no thanks there. Train freight takes more than twice as long to reach its destination if you're lucky, and gets lost or stolen more often. Also, short haul is shit work and I don't feel like doing it..
Maybe where you live;) Besides, hauling 4000 tons of coal/ore per train is much better than per truck. But trucks are better for smaller goods etc.
Why doesn't none mention boats anyway, Holland isn't the only country with canals, right?:confused:

The truth about biofuels? These magic elixers are not an answer. We need trains. We need to make cars a thing we use for nothing other than a fun drive every couple weeks. We need mass transit to our schools, workplaces and shopping centers. We need to abolish the deisel truck for anything other than short hauls from a freight train station to a drop off.

http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/Frankenstein_fuels.pdf
Don't know where you are, but the geography in the United States doesn't lend itself to mass transit, except for a very few large urban areas. And learn how to spell diesel. More realistic would be some sort of diesel/electric hybrid car. That would be accepted and would be easily produced.

Synthetic bio-fuels are far more promising than the veg-oil ones, too.

;) Then an OPINION on biofuels, perhaps, would be more suitable than "the truth?"

I tend to discount anything that feels the need to resort to namecalling (bearded hippies, frankenstein fuel) before it actually gets to its point... it's not a very effective way to get people to listen to what might otherwise actually be a good argument.
Who's telling "the truth?"

This guy has done his research and in his opinion biofuels are an energy sink and are not the carbon neutral fuel they are cracked up to be. An opinion shared by many outside the corn and soybean lobbies.

Maybe where you live;) Besides, hauling 4000 tons of coal/ore per train is much better than per truck. But trucks are better for smaller goods etc.
Why doesn't none mention boats anyway, Holland isn't the only country with canals, right?:confused:

That 4000 tons still has to be divided by 100 trucks at some point.. the net savings of fuel isn't worth the hassle of using trains. Trains are much cheaper to the shipper than trucks, and yet almost all freight is shipped using trucks. When businesses will pay 10 times the shipping rate to avoid trains, that's a good indicator that something is wrong with the rail system at this point.

Don't know where you are, but the geography in the United States doesn't lend itself to mass transit, except for a very few large urban areas. And learn how to spell diesel. More realistic would be some sort of diesel/electric hybrid car. That would be accepted and would be easily produced.That's a load of crap. I'm in Los Angeles and I see no reason why we couldn't have good mass transit. Everywhere there's a road there could be a rail. In fact, rail is far more durable than road.

I might remind you that prior to the 1950s when GM, Firestone and Standard Oil bought all the existing rail lines in the US and tore them up the cities were doing just fine on mass transit.

BTW - The few large urban areas you are talking about are where the vast majority of our people live.

Synthetic bio-fuels are far more promising than the veg-oil ones, too.Like? If you're talking about ethanol over biodiesel you've got it completely backwards. Biodiesel gives you may more EROEI than ethanol.

Who's telling "the truth?"
The truth about biofuels?
I beg your pardon, I thought you were.

An opinion shared by many outside the corn and soybean lobbies.

I see -- and who here is part of the "corn and soybean lobby"?

That 4000 tons still has to be divided by 100 trucks at some point.. the net savings of fuel isn't worth the hassle of using trains. Trains are much cheaper to the shipper than trucks, and yet almost all freight is shipped using trucks. When businesses will pay 10 times the shipping rate to avoid trains, that's a good indicator that something is wrong with the rail system at this point.
The reason they use trucks is because there isn't enough rail capacity. The point is we need to increase the capacity of rail.

That 4000 tons still has to be divided by 100 trucks at some point.. the net savings of fuel isn't worth the hassle of using trains. Trains are much cheaper to the shipper than trucks, and yet almost all freight is shipped using trucks. When businesses will pay 10 times the shipping rate to avoid trains, that's a good indicator that something is wrong with the rail system at this point.
ah, but you live in the USA, I live in Europe. But it mostly depends on from where to where you transport.

For example the trains I mentioned, they go from Rotterdam to the Ruhrgebiet. They're loaded in Rotterdam from those huge piles of coal and are unloaded in Germany, where are those coals are thrown on another huge pile. They don't use or need trucks for that.
Now, it it were 4000 tons of refrigerators and the like, they would need to be reloaded in to trucks for further transport. In that case using trucks would be better since you can immediately fine distribute them.

The reason they use trucks is because there isn't enough rail capacity. The point is we need to increase the capacity of rail.

Or run trucks on biodiesel, which some people already do. It's not fully efficient yet, but it works.

I see -- and who here is part of the "corn and soybean lobby"?

Big Corn are everywhere.. be afraid. :eek:

I beg your pardon, I thought you were.I guess you didn't notice the question mark at the end there.



I see -- and who here is part of the "corn and soybean lobby"?
No one that I know of. What does that have to do with what I said? I never mention NS in that statement. :confused:

ah, but you live in the USA, I live in Europe. But it mostly depends on from where to where you transport.

For example the trains I mentioned, they go from Rotterdam to the Ruhrgebiet. They're loaded in Rotterdam from those huge piles of coal and are unloaded in Germany, where are those coals are thrown on another huge pile. They don't use or need trucks for that.
Now, it it were 4000 tons of refrigerators and the like, they would need to be reloaded in to trucks for further transport. In that case using trucks would be better since you can immediately fine distribute them.

I'm not disagreeing with you here. We don't usually use trucks to haul coal either.

Or run trucks on biodiesel, which some people already do. It's not fully efficient yet, but it works.
Or increase rail capacity and get huge fuel savings. The fact is it is FAR more efficient to move things by rail than by truck. Period. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.

I'm not disagreeing with you here. We don't usually use trucks to haul coal either.
Okay:p

Or increase rail capacity and get huge fuel savings. The fact is it is FAR more efficient to move things by rail than by truck. Period. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.

How do you measure efficiency? Trucks have the advantage when it comes to speed, even assuming a well-run rail system, unless you're considering hypotheticals like MagLev and such. Trucks deliver straight to the consignee with BOL in hand, no need to have documents change hands. This cuts down on complications. Delays can be phoned in directly to the consignee, whereas railyards will lose loads for weeks at a time sometimes unless you're assuming perfect efficiency from the railyards, which I think is unlikely from my experiences with them, which have been almost Kafkaesque in complications.

You already get a huge savings by choosing rail, it's just that shippers would rather have their goods on time. Biodiesel has the potential to be much cheaper than the fuel we use now, and could mean lower prices for fuel, which would sweeten the deal even more.

That's a load of crap. I'm in Los Angeles and I see no reason why we couldn't have good mass transit. Everywhere there's a road there could be a rail. In fact, rail is far more durable than road.

I might remind you that prior to the 1950s when GM, Firestone and Standard Oil bought all the existing rail lines in the US and tore them up the cities were doing just fine on mass transit.

BTW - The few large urban areas you are talking about are where the vast majority of our people live.

Like? If you're talking about ethanol over biodiesel you've got it completely backwards. Biodiesel gives you may more EROEI than ethanol.
I'm in rural Georgia and I don't see why I should be forced to participate in a mass transportation scheme that can't work. Even the suburbs aren't conducive to mass transport. You still have to go to some central collection point and have transport from a central dispersal point at the terminus.

Don't make assumptions, do research instead. When I talk about synthetic bio-fuels, I am talking about bio-fuels that don't depend on crop products. They're already used in Sweden, for one country. Very efficient, just nasty to deal with.

How do you measure efficiency? Trucks have the advantage when it comes to speed, even assuming a well-run rail system, unless you're considering hypotheticals like MagLev and such. Trucks deliver straight to the consignee with BOL in hand, no need to have documents change hands. This cuts down on complications. Delays can be phoned in directly to the consignee, whereas railyards will lose loads for weeks at a time sometimes unless you're assuming perfect efficiency from the railyards, which I think is unlikely from my experiences with them, which have been almost Kafkaesque in complications. Well the thread is about fuel. As efficiency goes there is no comparison at all. Trains, and boats as was mentioned earlier, make trucks look like machines designed for the express purpose of burning fuel. As far as speed is concerned, are you trying to tell me tha a truck can get something from Long Beach Harbor to Pheonix faster than a train?

You already get a huge savings by choosing rail, it's just that shippers would rather have their goods on time. Biodiesel has the potential to be much cheaper than the fuel we use now, and could mean lower prices for fuel, which would sweeten the deal even more.
I don't by your speed argument. Intercity freight, sure. But I don't believe for one second that a truck driving between cities will beat a train.

whereas railyards will lose loads for weeks at a time sometimes
That's seems unlikely to me, or it might be an USA thing. In Europe it know what train carries what and where it is, they don't loose cargo, save for the times it's stolen (but that's mostly in Eastern Europe).

Don't know where you are, but the geography in the United States doesn't lend itself to mass transit, except for a very few large urban areas.

Funny. I am no expert in geography in the USA, but I thought that some general principles are true. In my country, there are bus transport in cities of inhabitants 10,000-50,000. In cities of around 100,000 population there are also trolleybus or tram system, and in capital city there is also train stations in city that helps (besides, tram, trolleybus, and buses). Underground metro is not possible due to soil, but mass transit in general is everywhere.

If you would tell me that USA consists of almost exclusively cities of population of 5,000 inhabitants or less, I would agree with you, but my genereal knowledge about usa tends to disagree.

I'm in rural Georgia and I don't see why I should be forced to participate in a mass transportation scheme that can't work. Even the suburbs aren't conducive to mass transport. You still have to go to some central collection point and have transport from a central dispersal point at the terminus.I wouldn't expect people in rural areas to take mass transit and I never mentioned forcing anyone anywhere to do anything. What I am advocating is that rail be biult so that the option can be offered. And why would you say that suburbs are not conducive to9 mass transit? There are all kinds of suburban locations in the US that are using them when they are available. What specifically do you mean when you say that?

Don't make assumptions, do research instead. When I talk about synthetic bio-fuels, I am talking about bio-fuels that don't depend on crop products. They're already used in Sweden, for one country. Very efficient, just nasty to deal with.I research energy every single day. Post a link to your "synthetic biofuel" please. For some reasonm, though I read energy bulletin everyday, have oil, gas, energy, ethanol, and a host of other keywords for Marketwatch news notificatiosn everyday, I have never heard of such a thing. :confused: What are they made of?

If you would tell me that USA consists of almost exclusively cities of population of 5,000 inhabitants or less, I would agree with you, but my genereal knowledge about usa tends to disagree.
US metropolitan areas may have a relatively high population but they extend over enormous areas with very low density. That's the problem.

I agree with Myrmidonisia. Mass public transit can not work as things stand now. However, things can't continue to stand the same way for much longer either.

That's very true. Biofuels from crops are little more than a handout to the agricultural lobby and a cheap way for the US automakers to shirk their CAFE requirement. The only real advantage that crop-based biofuels have is that they advance the efficiency of the general process for when cellulosic and other technologies become available; even those will not be a panacea to our energy needs but they will provide a valuable source of fuel and a convienent way to dispose of waste biomass and nonfood crops. Biofuels will have an important role, but they won't solve the problem and they're definitely not going to come from food crops.

I personally think diesel should be expanded to replace as much gasoline as possible; upgrading our fleet to diesel would not only boost fuel economy by 30% or more but would also make it easier to use biodiesel, the most viable biofuel. Another plus is that biodiesel functions well as a lubricant for ULSD and would create synergy between the fuels. Saving 30% of our fuel consumption even before any changes in fuel efficiency are made would be a significant savings on the order of up to 3 million bpd. Given that many of the advantages of gasoline are now achievable with diesel I think replacing the fuels is of a huge priority. The main barrier to diesel fuel is the cheapness of producing gasoline relative to it and the lack of a large diesel market in the US; however, the new ULSD standards make diesel engines viable in LDVs.

Plus, diesel fuel can be more easily made from natural gas, oil shale/sands, high sulfur crude, or coal. Diesel is also the fuel of choice for rail lines and heavy equipment, both of which will be central to replacing oil in our energy infrastructure. Lastly, a fungible fuel source will remove many of the logistical challenges and make us less vulnerable to supply disruptions.

That's seems unlikely to me, or it might be an USA thing. In Europe it know what train carries what and where it is, they don't loose cargo, save for the times it's stolen (but that's mostly in Eastern Europe).

I used to sit around with railroad employees while on lunch at the speedway in Rialto during driving school.. the average rail shipment takes at least twice as long to reach its final destination than if it had gone by truck, excluding inevitable delays that occur at all points. The DVD collections some of these guys had were prodigious.. lots of time to kill while coupling, uncoupling, waiting for signals, testing equipment, stopping for mail shipments, etc. Trucks are much faster. I was assuming perfect efficiency for the sake of argument earlier, since we were assuming the rail lines would improve if we as a nation switched to rail. I'd be highly skeptical that that improvement would actually come, but it was stipulated. As for stolen cargo, it happens, but more often the problem is missing paperwork, which is usually even stickier.

Well the thread is about fuel. As efficiency goes there is no comparison at all. Trains, and boats as was mentioned earlier, make trucks look like machines designed for the express purpose of burning fuel. As far as speed is concerned, are you trying to tell me tha a truck can get something from Long Beach Harbor to Pheonix faster than a train?


I don't by your speed argument. Intercity freight, sure. But I don't believe for one second that a truck driving between cities will beat a train.

I don't doubt that trucks burn more fuel (I get 7-9mpg), but when you speak of switching the bulk of the economy over to rail, the economic efficiency of that course of action has to be considered too, right? The problem of fuel efficiency is only a problem so long as their is either a pollution problem or a supply shortage. I think biodiesel can solve the supply shortage, while other fuels could help on the pollution end.

As for the speed of trucks, they are unquestionably faster to the consignee than rail. Well, except for your example of Long Beach Harbor.. nothing gets out of there on time. :p It's a unionized nightmare. Most companies only run teams for long hops, meaning the truck runs 22 hours a day at least, at an optimal 70+ miles per hour, without any need to couple or uncouple cars, etc. My company governs us at 68mph, but owner/operators have a bit more freedom and some companies don't govern speed at all.

I used to sit around with railroad employees while on lunch at the speedway in Rialto during driving school.. the average rail shipment takes at least twice as long to reach its final destination than if it had gone by truck, excluding inevitable delays that occur at all points. The DVD collections some of these guys had were prodigious.. lots of time to kill while coupling, uncoupling, waiting for signals, testing equipment, stopping for mail shipments, etc. Trucks are much faster. I was assuming perfect efficiency for the sake of argument earlier, since we were assuming the rail lines would improve if we as a nation switched to rail. I'd be highly skeptical that that improvement would actually come, but it was stipulated. As for stolen cargo, it happens, but more often the problem is missing paperwork, which is usually even stickier.

You have a point there, but, don't forget that it's unfair to compare one truck and one train. It takes much more time to load the train, couple and uncouple the cars etc then it takes to load a truck. I think it's better to compare the time they need to transport thesame amount of cargo.
But it also depends on what needs to be transported, coal, ore and the like don't have to be hurried, whereas flowers must.

Actually, I don't think we disagree.:)

I don't doubt that trucks burn more fuel (I get 7-9mpg), but when you speak of switching the bulk of the economy over to rail, the economic efficiency of that course of action has to be considered too, right? The problem of fuel efficiency is only a problem so long as their is either a pollution problem or a supply shortage. I think biodiesel can solve the supply shortage, while other fuels could help on the pollution end.

That's true. I'm assuming that any large-scale rail switchover will occur when the costs of shipping goods by truck (i.e. fuel costs) outweigh the costs of reduced efficiency due to the complications of rail shipping.

If diesel was $5/gallon but the additional economic inefficiency of shipping those goods by rail cost the equivalent of $7/gallon, it wouldn't be worth it to switch over to rail.

According to the AAR, rail gets as much as 400 ton miles per gallon of fuel. That's a gigantic improvement over trucks. While the AAR is obviously an advocacy group, even were you to cut that in half you're still saving huge amounts of fuel by using rail than by using trucks. I also have to mention that I have stuff shipped by rail from time to time out of Toronto and Vancouver and it has never been late. Fed Ex, UPS, all the major shippers offer rail shipping. If the problems you are talking about were pervasive I doubt very seriously they would offer the service at all and it also bares note that they offer rail shipping at a big discount over air and ground precisely because of the fuel savings. If there was enough rail in the country to offer direct rail shipping from city to city I'd bet that would spell the end of trucking between cities. I think the only reason trucks ship stuff at all from city to city is because with our rail system the way it is you end up shipping from Long Beach CA to Miami FL by way of Michigan.

You're also pretty optimistic about biodeisel. I'm a fan of biodeisel, but I don't think it will ever be anything but a part of teh fuel mix on a local scale. It will never be the type of fuel source that oil is because it does not have anywhere near the net energy of petroleum. Not only that, but when you do the math about how much land it would take to supply the fuel we need to maintain our car dependent way of life through biofuels you don't end up with any land to grow your food.

According to the AAR, rail gets as much as 400 ton miles per gallon of fuel. That's a gigantic improvement over trucks. While the AAR is obviously an advocacy group, even were you to cut that in half you're still saving huge amounts of fuel by using rail than by using trucks. I also have to mention that I have stuff shipped by rail from time to time out of Toronto and Vancouver and it has never been late. Fed Ex, UPS, all the major shippers offer rail shipping. If the problems you are talking about were pervasive I doubt very seriously they would offer the service at all and it also bares note that they offer rail shipping at a big discount over air and ground precisely because of the fuel savings. If there was enough rail in the country to offer direct rail shipping from city to city I'd bet that would spell the end of trucking between cities. I think the only reason trucks ship stuff at all from city to city is because with our rail system the way it is you end up shipping from Long Beach CA to Miami FL by way of Michigan.

You're also pretty optimistic about biodeisel. I'm a fan of biodeisel, but I don't think it will ever be anything but a part of teh fuel mix on a local scale. It will never be the type of fuel source that oil is because it does not have anywhere near the net energy of petroleum. Not only that, but when you do the math about how much land it would take to supply the fuel we need to maintain our car dependent way of life through biofuels you don't end up with any land to grow your food.

Assuming that 400 ton MPG means one gallon of fuel will propel one ton of freight 400 miles, that would mean that my one gallon of fuel, which propels 40 tons 9 miles, would get 360 ton MPG (40 tons x 9 miles). Not sure that equals a big improvement considering trucks go straight to the consignee rather than to a railyard where it is offloaded to another driver.

Containers are also heavier than trailers, meaning the total weight of the freight you can drop would be less than the net weight you can drop with a trailer. (Although, it is getting more and more common to see loaded trailers themselves being shipped by rail, I'll admit). In any event, I don't think trucks are going anywhere, and I've heard that the efficiency of biodiesel versus conventional is approaching %85 presently.. I think it's getting there. I'm certainly not a scientist, but I hear good things.

Assuming that 400 ton MPG means one gallon of fuel will propel one ton of freight 400 miles, that would mean that my one gallon of fuel, which propels 40 tons 9 miles, would get 360 ton MPG (40 tons x 9 miles). Not sure that equals a big improvement considering trucks go straight to the consignee rather than to a railyard where it is offloaded to another driver. For the short haul acors town, no. But what I'm talking about is fron city to city. That amount to huge savings when you consider that, I don't have numbers on this, but I'd guess the amount of freight leaving Long Beach for teh Midwest measures in the tens of millions of tons a year at least.

Containers are also heavier than trailers, meaning the total weight of the freight you can drop would be less than the net weight you can drop with a trailer. (Although, it is getting more and more common to see loaded trailers themselves being shipped by rail, I'll admit). In any event, I don't think trucks are going anywhere, and I've heard that the efficiency of biodiesel versus conventional is approaching %85 presently.. I think it's getting there. I'm certainly not a scientist, but I hear good things.
No, trucks will always be necessary for driving the produce to the store. What I'm talking about is getting the produce to the city. As for efficiency, you are talking about teh efficiency f energy conversion from the fuel. I'm talking about net energy - the amount of energy produced from the fuel minus the amount of energy used to produce the fuel. As an overly simplified example, how many gallons of gasoline does it take to move a gallon of gasoline to a service station? If it takes one or more, you don't do it. Biofuels take enormous amounts ofe energy to produce when compared with oil.

Yes, biofuels aren't the magic cure all everyone thinks they are. They're full of problems. I've said this before. They waste energy. People say that alcohols burn cleaner (And they do) but that cleanliness of the final product doesn't matter if the production was dirty.

I've also ridden buses before and I'm going to avoid them in the future like the plague. If you have lots of time on your hands to waste, ride the bus. You'll make 3 or 4 stops before getting to where you're going and add about 40 minutes to your commute while sitting on a ripped seat some bum probably peed on, but hey, it's mass transit.

Another big problem with mass transit is that (as others have pointed out) the country isn't densly populated enough for it to be effective. And it shouldn't be! Crime rates sky-rocket in dense population centers. So does poverty. And disease. And in case you hadn't noticed, big cities can cause local climate disruptions (urban heat islands) because they're just a bunch of giant thermal masses (all that concrete) piled together. If we spread out our population more, moved more people out into rural and suburban communities, we'd be able to spread out and our impact and it wouldn't be quite as hard a blow.

There are concept cars and designs that could get 60-100+mpg, but they're tiny and can't pull shit. These problems are not as simple as you might think, and neither are the solutions. It seems like every time a new answer is found it creates 3 more problems to be solved. Make everyone drive hybrids: disposal problems (batterie packs and electronic waste), expensive new parts, small/weak gas engine is more affected by AC and higher speeds/pulling loads, etc. Make plug-in hybrids: adds strain to the grid, previously stated problems. Frankenstein Fuels: the article in the first post of this thread says a lot. Trains are stuck on tracks. Jets are wholloping hunks of iron that suck down fuel like ocean liners and belch fire. Biking is slow. Walking is slower.

No matter what you try there're problems. You can either take the good with the bad or spiral toward rock bottom taking 1 step forward, 2 steps back, and 4 to the side. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

For the short haul acors town, no. But what I'm talking about is fron city to city. That amount to huge savings when you consider that, I don't have numbers on this, but I'd guess the amount of freight leaving Long Beach for teh Midwest measures in the tens of millions of tons a year at least.


No, trucks will always be necessary for driving the produce to the store. What I'm talking about is getting the produce to the city. As for efficiency, you are talking about teh efficiency f energy conversion from the fuel. I'm talking about net energy - the amount of energy produced from the fuel minus the amount of energy used to produce the fuel. As an overly simplified example, how many gallons of gasoline does it take to move a gallon of gasoline to a service station? If it takes one or more, you don't do it. Biofuels take enormous amounts ofe energy to produce when compared with oil.

Some things are better sent by rail, no doubt, including fuel. I don't have a tanker endorsement, so I'm not sure how many gallons a tanker holds (I believe around 1200 though) but a fuel truck driver should still get around 8 or 9 mpg since the weight limit is the same.

It still appears to me that fuel efficiency is about comparable between trucks and trains, assuming the ton/mile ratio above. Highway and street mpg are about the same in my experience. I just don't think it's practical to sacrifice the speed of trucking for that extra 40 ton/mpg in the current economic climate. Consider also that corporate logistics infrastructure would need to change radically in some cases if rail were the standard. The sunk costs are enormous as it stands, and adjusting to a new network would probably require drastic reconfiguration given the distance from railyards of many distribution centers.

Edit: time for some shuteye. Good talking with you PsychoticDan, I'll check this thread out again later. :)

Some things are better sent by rail, no doubt, including fuel. I don't have a tanker endorsement, so I'm not sure how many gallons a tanker holds (I believe around 1200 though) but a fuel truck driver should still get around 8 or 9 mpg since the weight limit is the same.

It still appears to me that fuel efficiency is about comparable between trucks and trains, assuming the ton/mile ratio above. Highway and street mpg are about the same in my experience. I just don't think it's practical to sacrifice the speed of trucking for that extra 40 ton/mpg in the current economic climate. Consider also that corporate logistics infrastructure would need to change radically in some cases if rail were the standard. The sunk costs are enormous as it stands, and adjusting to a new network would probably require drastic reconfiguration given the distance from railyards of many distribution centers.

Edit: time for some shuteye. Good talking with you PsychoticDan, I'll check this thread out again later. :)I think we're operating from different perspectives. If rail were more efficient given the state of our existing rail systems they'd use them more. What I'm proposing isn't switching from truck to rail under current conditions. What I'm proposing is laying a shitload of new rail both for moving freight from city to city and for moving people from teh suburbs where they live to the inner city where they work. I drive a car round trip 60 miles a day. I don't take a train because there is no train that leaves early enough for me to get to work on time and because I have to go all the way to downtown Los Angeles from Simi Valley and then back to Hollywood by train to get to work which is a much longer haul than it needs to be. If they would just extend the Red Line three more miles so it meets the Metrolink at Burbank Airport I'd take the train everyday.

Enjoy your sleep.

I wouldn't expect people in rural areas to take mass transit and I never mentioned forcing anyone anywhere to do anything. What I am advocating is that rail be biult so that the option can be offered. And why would you say that suburbs are not conducive to9 mass transit? There are all kinds of suburban locations in the US that are using them when they are available. What specifically do you mean when you say that?

I research energy every single day. Post a link to your "synthetic biofuel" please. For some reasonm, though I read energy bulletin everyday, have oil, gas, energy, ethanol, and a host of other keywords for Marketwatch news notificatiosn everyday, I have never heard of such a thing. :confused: What are they made of?
You've got Vetalia interested in the thread, now. He's a much better source of information on non crop-based fuels. My information is mostly from print sources, rather than on-line, so it's tough to print a link. Vetalia can probably direct you to some good sources.

My main interest is to keep the Dodge diesel running on waste veg-oil, but I know that isn't a solution that will apply to any more than the few of us that already use it.

You've got Vetalia interested in the thread, now. He's a much better source of information on non crop-based fuels. My information is mostly from print sources, rather than on-line, so it's tough to print a link. Vetalia can probably direct you to some good sources.

My main interest is to keep the Dodge diesel running on waste veg-oil, but I know that isn't a solution that will apply to any more than the few of us that already use it.
Vetalia and I post about energy back and forth pretty much everyday and I've never heard him mention synthetic biofuels. Actually, the phrase "synthetic biofuels" seems like a contradiction in terms. He and I don't disagree much on teh basic principles anyways, he's just a lot more optimistic than I about us being able to implement all these changes.

Vetalia and I post about energy back and forth pretty much everyday and I've never heard him mention synthetic biofuels. Actually, the phrase "synthetic biofuels" seems like a contradiction in terms. He and I don't disagree much on teh basic principles anyways, he's just a lot more optimistic than I about us being able to implement all these changes.

Myrmidonisia is probably talking about biodiesel from algae/biomass ethanol, something I brought up in a thread a few months ago; either that, or he's talking about non-crop based biofuels that can use a much larger variety of feedstocks than conventional corn ethanol or soybean biodiesel. Those could be considered "synthetic" biofuels in the sense that their feedstocks are deliberately engineered and produced; unlike corn or soybeans whose primary purpose is for food, these feedstocks are totally designed for fuel.

Myrmidonisia is probably talking about biodiesel from algae/biomass ethanol, something I brought up in a thread a few months ago; either that, or he's talking about non-crop based biofuels that can use a much larger variety of feedstocks than conventional corn ethanol or soybean biodiesel. Those could be considered "synthetic" biofuels in the sense that their feedstocks are deliberately engineered and produced; unlike corn or soybeans whose primary purpose is for food, these feedstocks are totally designed for fuel.
There was a Yahoo! article, probably from one of the news services, about how the Swedes were going to start using cattle(?) parts to make diesel fuel. It sounded like they were going to render waste animal parts into some kind of fuel and run their diesel trains on it. I can't find anything with just a quick search of the Yahoo! archives, but I swear it was published.

There was a Yahoo! article, probably from one of the news services, about how the Swedes were going to start using cattle(?) parts to make diesel fuel. It sounded like they were going to render waste animal parts into some kind of fuel and run their diesel trains on it. I can't find anything with just a quick search of the Yahoo! archives, but I swear it was published.

I have an idea of what you mean;the one I'm talking about isn't quite the same but has a similar priniciple. It's being developed in the US and involves using manure to produce fuels; unfortunately, there's not enough manure to power more than 10,000 vehicles, but since those 10,000 vehicles are most likely being used in rural areas to transport crops or run farm machinery, the benefits are going to be pretty disproportionate to the amount of fuel produced..

If you can find the article, I'd be interested in seeing it; Sweden has already made its commitment to end dependence on oil by 2020, so that would be really interestubg to read about. If it's major progress in something like thermal depolymerization that would be even better; that process was promising but had some technical problems when it was developed. The alternative energy and fuels market is taking off; the kind of progress being made is really promising about the viability of these technologies. If oil peaks by 2020 (an early date) then we're going to be in excellent shape transitioning from oil to alternatives. Even if we peak now, we're still advanced enough to make a transition with only moderate economic difficultly.

PsychoticDan and I disagree frequently on the specifics of the issue, but I believe we will adapt successfully to Peak Oil.