Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [carfree_cities] Re: Fuel-Sipping Trains

Expand Messages
  • J.H. Crawford
    I don t trust that page; I ve found a number of errors without really looking. Surely someone, somewhere has put together a good synopsis. You have to be
    Message 1 of 18 , Jun 13, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      I don't trust that page; I've found a number of errors
      without really looking. Surely someone, somewhere has
      put together a good synopsis.

      You have to be careful to differentiate between
      SEAT-miles/gallon
      and
      PASSENGER-miles/gallon

      Joel

      At 2007-06-13 13:00, you wrote:

      ><http://www.airwaysociety.org/airway/milespergallon/index.htm>http://www.airwaysociety.org/airway/milespergallon/index.htm
      >
      >I'm not attesting to this page's accuracy, but if it is accurate...it says as much as 108
      >passenger miles per gallon.
      >
      >A 26 MPG Honda Civic fully loaded with five passengers? 130 passenger miles per gallon.
      >
      >Even regarding this as fact, we are ignoring the environmental and economic costs of
      >producing the cars (which might be be parked 23 hours per day) vs. rail cars that receive
      >near-continuous use, costs of roads and associated space, etc.
      >
      >Also, can a bit of efficiency credit be given to Amtrak, considering that they're also hauling
      >cafés, bedrooms, bathrooms, showers, etc? Last I checked, the "square feet per passenger"
      >factor is slightly higher on a (especially sleeper) train vs. airplanes or cars.
      >
      >> Newspaper people often have trouble with math....
      >>
      >> Can Amtrak really be as little as 20% more efficient
      >> than planes and cars???
      >>
      >> Joel
      >
      >



      ----- ### -----
      J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
      mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com
    • Richard Risemberg
      ... Leaving aside the question of whether a 500-mile trip in a Honda Civic crammed with five passengers would be tolerable, I still fell that the numbers are
      Message 2 of 18 , Jun 13, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        On Jun 13, 2007, at 3:20 PM, J.H. Crawford wrote:

        >
        > I don't trust that page; I've found a number of errors
        > without really looking. Surely someone, somewhere has
        > put together a good synopsis.
        >
        > You have to be careful to differentiate between
        > SEAT-miles/gallon
        > and
        > PASSENGER-miles/gallon
        Leaving aside the question of whether a 500-mile trip in a Honda
        Civic crammed with five passengers would be tolerable, I still fell
        that the numbers are off in the Baltimore Sun article, since trains
        are generally four times as fuel efficient per pound-mile for
        freight, so why such a small difference for passengers? Except
        possibly because of the trains being too short for the amount of
        horsepower of a standard over-the-road loco these days.

        I know Japanese shinkansen run up to 2,000-passenger loads (at ten-
        minute headways during peak hours!), as I counted the seats when I
        was on 'em a while ago; I think Amtrak puts fewer than 800 on a
        train....

        Here's a table from http://www.vtpi.org estimating energy use per
        passenger mile in BTUs:

        BTUs/Passenger Mile

        Car: 3,578

        Vans, Pickup Trucks, SUVs: 4,495

        Aviation: 4,000

        Transit, Bus: 3,697

        Intercity Rail, diesel: 2,134

        Transit, Electric Light Rail: 1,152

        Obviously they use some statistical assumption about vehicle
        occupation levels. To quote them:

        "Fuel consumption and emission rates per passenger-mile depend on
        load factors: A bus with 50 passengers uses about one-tenth the
        energy per passenger-mile as an average automobile, but in the U.S.,
        energy consumption per passenger-mile is little higher for transit
        systems than for driving, due to low load factors. In other
        countries, and in U.S. cities with higher levels of transit demand,
        transit is much more energy efficient than driving."

        Again, from a different article in the VPTI.org site ( http://
        www.vtpi.org/railbensum.pdf ):

        "Rail transit can provide substantial energy conservation and
        emission reduction benefits.
        Rail travel consumes about a fifth of the energy per passenger-mile
        as automobile travel,
        due to its high mechanical efficiency and load factors. Electric
        powered rail produce
        minimal air and noise emissions. Rail provides even greater energy
        and emission
        reduction benefits when it leverages additional reductions in vehicle
        travel."

        So something may be fishy....

        Cheers,

        Rick
        --
        Richard Risemberg
        http://www.bicyclefixation.com
        http://www.newcolonist.com
        http://www.rickrise.com
      • J.H. Crawford
        This WikiPedia article is also worth a look, but it is also not flawless: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation Passenger trains, by
        Message 3 of 18 , Jun 13, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          This WikiPedia article is also worth a look, but it
          is also not flawless:

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

          Passenger trains, by the way, are generally WAY to heavy in the
          USA, due to extreme requirements for crashworthiness imposed
          by the FRA. The American approach is to assume that trains
          will crash and you need to protect the passengers. The
          European approach is to make sure they don't crash. Europe
          appears to have much better overall safety. The lightweight
          French TGVs have never had a passenger fatality, I believe.

          Joel


          At 2007-06-13 17:43, you wrote:

          >On Jun 13, 2007, at 3:20 PM, J.H. Crawford wrote:
          >
          >>
          >> I don't trust that page; I've found a number of errors
          >> without really looking. Surely someone, somewhere has
          >> put together a good synopsis.
          >>
          >> You have to be careful to differentiate between
          >> SEAT-miles/gallon
          >> and
          >> PASSENGER-miles/gallon
          >Leaving aside the question of whether a 500-mile trip in a Honda
          >Civic crammed with five passengers would be tolerable, I still fell
          >that the numbers are off in the Baltimore Sun article, since trains
          >are generally four times as fuel efficient per pound-mile for
          >freight, so why such a small difference for passengers? Except
          >possibly because of the trains being too short for the amount of
          >horsepower of a standard over-the-road loco these days.
          >
          >I know Japanese shinkansen run up to 2,000-passenger loads (at ten-
          >minute headways during peak hours!), as I counted the seats when I
          >was on 'em a while ago; I think Amtrak puts fewer than 800 on a
          >train....
          >
          >Here's a table from <http://www.vtpi.org>http://www.vtpi.org estimating energy use per
          >passenger mile in BTUs:
          >
          >BTUs/Passenger Mile
          >
          >Car: 3,578
          >
          >Vans, Pickup Trucks, SUVs: 4,495
          >
          >Aviation: 4,000
          >
          >Transit, Bus: 3,697
          >
          >Intercity Rail, diesel: 2,134
          >
          >Transit, Electric Light Rail: 1,152
          >
          >Obviously they use some statistical assumption about vehicle
          >occupation levels. To quote them:
          >
          >"Fuel consumption and emission rates per passenger-mile depend on
          >load factors: A bus with 50 passengers uses about one-tenth the
          >energy per passenger-mile as an average automobile, but in the U.S.,
          >energy consumption per passenger-mile is little higher for transit
          >systems than for driving, due to low load factors. In other
          >countries, and in U.S. cities with higher levels of transit demand,
          >transit is much more energy efficient than driving."
          >
          >Again, from a different article in the VPTI.org site ( http://
          >www.vtpi.org/railbensum.pdf ):
          >
          >"Rail transit can provide substantial energy conservation and
          >emission reduction benefits.
          >Rail travel consumes about a fifth of the energy per passenger-mile
          >as automobile travel,
          >due to its high mechanical efficiency and load factors. Electric
          >powered rail produce
          >minimal air and noise emissions. Rail provides even greater energy
          >and emission
          >reduction benefits when it leverages additional reductions in vehicle
          >travel."
          >
          >So something may be fishy....
          >
          >Cheers,
          >
          >Rick
          >--
          >Richard Risemberg
          ><http://www.bicyclefixation.com>http://www.bicyclefixation.com
          >http://www.newcolonist.com
          ><http://www.rickrise.com>http://www.rickrise.com
          >
          >



          ----- ### -----
          J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
          mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com
        • Richard Risemberg
          ... As far as I know there has been one fatality in forty+ years of bullet train travel: in Germany (faulty wheel caused a derailment). Japan initiated
          Message 4 of 18 , Jun 13, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            On Jun 13, 2007, at 3:54 PM, J.H. Crawford wrote:

            >
            > This WikiPedia article is also worth a look, but it
            > is also not flawless:
            >
            > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation
            >
            > Passenger trains, by the way, are generally WAY to heavy in the
            > USA, due to extreme requirements for crashworthiness imposed
            > by the FRA. The American approach is to assume that trains
            > will crash and you need to protect the passengers. The
            > European approach is to make sure they don't crash. Europe
            > appears to have much better overall safety. The lightweight
            > French TGVs have never had a passenger fatality, I believe.
            As far as I know there has been one fatality in forty+ years of
            bullet train travel: in Germany (faulty wheel caused a derailment).
            Japan initiated shinkansen service in 1964, and has continually
            increased running speeds since then.

            To quote Wikipedia (hence not the final word!):

            "There have been no passenger fatalities due to derailments or
            collisions during operation of the Shinkansen, including during
            earthquakes or typhoons, in its 40 plus year 6 billion passenger
            history. Injuries and a single fatality have been caused by doors
            closing on passengers or their belongings. Attendants are at
            platforms to prevent this. Japan's record over its earthquake
            detection system was why Taiwan chose Shinkansen over the ICE.
            "There have been suicides by passengers jumping both from and in
            front of moving trains. This has resulted in some stations installing
            barriers preventing passengers from accessing the tracks, although an
            incident on January 9, 1999 at Sakudaira Station on the Nagano
            Shinkansen showed that even these would not stop determined suicides.
            A man climbed a safety barrier and was hit by a non-stop service.

            "The only derailment of a Shinkansen train in passenger service
            occurred during the Chūetsu Earthquake on October 23, 2004. Eight of
            ten cars of the Toki No. 325 train on the Jōetsu Shinkansen derailed
            near Nagaoka Station in Nagaoka, Niigata. However, there were no
            casualties among the 154 passengers. [2] In the event of an
            earthquake, an earthquake detection system can bring the train to a
            stop very quickly. The next generation FASTECH 360 trains will have
            ear-like air resistance braking flaps to assist emergency stops at
            high speeds."



            Rick


            --
            Richard Risemberg
            http://www.bicyclefixation.com
            http://www.newcolonist.com
            http://www.rickrise.com
          • J.H. Crawford
            ... Not to pick nits, but the German ICE wreck facts are: Nearly 100 killed Speed only 200 km/hr (not true high-speed operation) A tire came off a wheel, train
            Message 5 of 18 , Jun 13, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              >As far as I know there has been one fatality in forty+ years of
              >bullet train travel: in Germany (faulty wheel caused a derailment).


              Not to pick nits, but the German ICE wreck facts are:

              Nearly 100 killed
              Speed only 200 km/hr (not true high-speed operation)
              A tire came off a wheel, train derailed several km. before
              a switch at which the train split, rear 2/3s of
              train ran into an abutment at full speed

              This was a really terrible wreck, and I think many
              more were badly injured.

              The steel tire coming off a wheel is a known risk but
              is supposed to be detected before disaster strikes.
              (manufacturing defect in this case)

              If an alert passenger had pulled the rip cord when the
              wheels started to hammer on the concrete (?) ties,
              there probably would have been no wreck.




              ----- ### -----
              J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
              mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com
            • Richard Risemberg
              Hmmm--sorry about that. I was working from memory and did not double check as I did with the Japanese info. Rick ... -- Richard Risemberg
              Message 6 of 18 , Jun 13, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Hmmm--sorry about that. I was working from memory and did not double
                check as I did with the Japanese info.

                Rick

                On Jun 13, 2007, at 4:24 PM, J.H. Crawford wrote:

                >
                >
                >> As far as I know there has been one fatality in forty+ years of
                >> bullet train travel: in Germany (faulty wheel caused a derailment).
                >
                >
                > Not to pick nits, but the German ICE wreck facts are:
                >
                > Nearly 100 killed
                > Speed only 200 km/hr (not true high-speed operation)
                > A tire came off a wheel, train derailed several km. before
                > a switch at which the train split, rear 2/3s of
                > train ran into an abutment at full speed
                >
                > This was a really terrible wreck, and I think many
                > more were badly injured.
                >
                > The steel tire coming off a wheel is a known risk but
                > is supposed to be detected before disaster strikes.
                > (manufacturing defect in this case)
                >
                > If an alert passenger had pulled the rip cord when the
                > wheels started to hammer on the concrete (?) ties,
                > there probably would have been no wreck.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > ----- ### -----
                > J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                > mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >

                --
                Richard Risemberg
                http://www.bicyclefixation.com
                http://www.newcolonist.com
                http://www.rickrise.com
              • Joel Siegel
                I m hoping this is on-topic (certainly follows the subject line). It concerns the fuel/energy requirements for _high-speed_ rail. George Monbiot has an
                Message 7 of 18 , Jun 13, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  I'm hoping this is on-topic (certainly follows the subject line). It concerns the fuel/energy requirements for _high-speed_ rail.

                  George Monbiot has an article in the 7-May-2007 issue of The Nation. Titled "Flying Into Trouble", it mostly covers the environmental damage (particularly greenhouse emissions) resulting from air travel.

                  http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070507/monbiot (subscription required)

                  A paragraph from the article on that topic: "Carbon dioxide emissions per passenger mile from a standard airliner are very similar to those from cars. But you can cover nearly 15,000 miles in one day by plane. The CO2 produced by planes is augmented by the other greenhouse gases they release, magnifying its effect by 270 percent. This means that flying is one of the most destructive things we can do."

                  Monbiot also observes that "new [aviation] fuels are the stuff of fantasy[]", that "[t]he standard jet engine has more or less reached the limits of efficiency, and there is no replacement anywhere near production[]", and that new aircraft designs which might cut fuel consumption by 30% or so are barely in the "concept" stage, with unproven workability or stability.

                  High-speed rail does not escape criticism, however.

                  "The obvious replacements for planes are scarcely better. Fast passenger ships appear to be even worse for the environment than jets. ... [Paragraph] Nor are ultra-high-speed trains the answer. Though trains traveling at normal speeds have much lower carbon emissions than airplanes, Professor Roger Kemp of Lancaster University shows that energy consumption rises dramatically at speeds above 125 miles per hour. Increasing the speed from 140 to 220 mph almost doubles the amount of fuel burned. If the trains are powered by electricity, and if that electricity is produced by plants burning fossil fuels, they cause more CO2 emissions than planes. Running trains on renewable electricity is certainly possible, but this faces problems: Trains must run on time, and that means there is little room for 'demand management,' which means reducing the electricity load in response to fluctuations in supply. In all transport systems, high performance is incompatible with low consumption. The faster you go, the more energy you need."

                  In general, the last sentence is the important one: Monbiot contends that high speed is incompatible with environmental stewardship, particularly with preventing runaway climate change, at least with today's technologies or those whose viability becomes reasonably foreseeable in the near future.

                  Thoughts?

                  Regards,

                  Joel (Siegel)
                • J.H. Crawford
                  ... That s physics at work: resistance increases with the square of the speed. There are ways around it, to a degree. If the trains are light, energy
                  Message 8 of 18 , Jun 13, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Joel Siegel said:

                    >High-speed rail does not escape criticism, however.
                    >
                    >"The obvious replacements for planes are scarcely better. Fast passenger ships appear to be even worse for the environment than jets. ... [Paragraph] Nor are ultra-high-speed trains the answer. Though trains traveling at normal speeds have much lower carbon emissions than airplanes, Professor Roger Kemp of Lancaster University shows that energy consumption rises dramatically at speeds above 125 miles per hour. Increasing the speed from 140 to 220 mph almost doubles the amount of fuel burned. If the trains are powered by electricity, and if that electricity is produced by plants burning fossil fuels, they cause more CO2 emissions than planes. Running trains on renewable electricity is certainly possible, but this faces problems: Trains must run on time, and that means there is little room for 'demand management,' which means reducing the electricity load in response to fluctuations in supply. In all transport systems, high performance is incompatible with low consumption. The faster you go, the more energy you need."

                    That's physics at work: resistance increases with the
                    square of the speed. There are ways around it, to a degree.
                    If the trains are light, energy requirements are much
                    reduced. If the streamlining is good, resistances is
                    also reduced. I have heard (no substantiation) that the
                    double-decker TGVs running from Lyon to Paris use about
                    the same amount of seat-mile energy as conventional
                    trains despite running at 300 km/hr or so. They are
                    very light weight, have low frontal area for the number
                    of seats, and the streamlining is good. That's about
                    the limit of the technology, IMHO. I also think that
                    it probably doesn't make sense to run trains much above
                    300 km/hr. The newest TGVs are 360, but the cost is
                    large and the actual reduction in travel time is not
                    great. Not worth the cost?

                    It is NOT all that hard to store electricity, although
                    there are losses. Pump storage is proven and can be
                    used, essentially, to store electricity. Pump water
                    up hill when there's plenty of electricity. Let it
                    flow back down hill to turn generators when there's
                    not enough. Losses are about 30% IIRC.

                    But, in general, things are probably going to have to
                    slow down, unless you go with the nuke option.

                    Regards,

                    Joel




                    ----- ### -----
                    J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                    mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com
                  • dawie_coetzee
                    There are secondary effects that are not reflected in any of these comparisons. For instance, a railway station within easy reach of pedestrians will both be
                    Message 9 of 18 , Jun 14, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      There are secondary effects that are not reflected in any of these
                      comparisons. For instance, a railway station within easy reach of
                      pedestrians will both be symptomatic of and increase the viability of
                      pedestrian-accessible destinations in general. Compared with car travel
                      there is therefore at worst a lesser tendency to generate a need to
                      travel. In practice there might well be a tendency to reduce the need
                      to travel.

                      We all know how car-dominated environments create dependence on cars,
                      requiring that we take longer trips more often. A truer comparison
                      might be 1km by train to perhaps 8km by car, 7km of the latter
                      contributed solely by the sort of environment associated with that mode
                      of transport. Has anyone actually quantified this?

                      -Dawie

                      --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, Richard Risemberg <rickrise@...>
                      wrote:
                      >
                      > > Fuel-sipping trains
                      > > June 11, 2007
                      > >
                      > >
                      ...
                    • Jym Dyer
                      ... =v= In the U.S. cars are rarely filled to seating capacity. The average ridership is slightly over 1 person per car. So it s hard to take numbers like that
                      Message 10 of 18 , Jun 14, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > A 26 MPG Honda Civic fully loaded with five passengers?
                        > 130 passenger miles per gallon.

                        =v= In the U.S. cars are rarely filled to seating capacity.
                        The average ridership is slightly over 1 person per car.
                        So it's hard to take numbers like that seriously.

                        =v= Also, wow, Honda Civics are way down to 26 MPG now?

                        =v= One complication in these comparisons is that passenger
                        rail in the U.S. has very little dedicated track. For the
                        most part Amtrak runs on track owned by freight companies.

                        =v= Another complication is that Amtrak is subject to a dogmatic
                        "business model" that competing modes are not. The ideology is
                        that Amtrak should turn a profit, and there's a budget fight for
                        its small subsidy every year. So service keeps getting hurt and
                        the trains do such things as haul freight along with passengers
                        (preventing a switchover to lighter trains).

                        =v= Meanwhile, of course, cars and planes enjoy a staggeringly
                        high and rarely-mentioned subsidy.
                        <_Jym_>
                      • Greg Steele
                        There is an accountant joke I once heard where three accountants are applying for an executive position. The CEO of the company asks each of the candidates
                        Message 11 of 18 , Jun 14, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          There is an accountant joke I once heard where three accountants are
                          applying for an executive position. The CEO of the company asks
                          each of the candidates what is 2+2. Two of the applicants says 4
                          and don't get the job. The third, who gets the job, asks the
                          CEO, "What do you want it to be?"

                          I am not aware of any studies that would answer some important
                          questions raised in this discussion and in the larger discussion
                          about funding for rail.

                          The laws of physics say that the faster an object moves through
                          space the more resistance it will encounter, therefore, more energy
                          is required to achieve higher speeds. I am sure that the field of
                          aero-dynamics has can provide formulas to quantify this in terms of
                          frontal area and speed. What is lacking is a quantified functional
                          relationship of increased weight and drag from adding one additional
                          coach car to a train-set. Intuitively, it seems that adding cars
                          (therefore, more passengers) would add a very small increase in
                          energy usage while greatly improving the passenger- miles/gallon
                          ratio. Therefore, one could state the passenger- miles/gallon to be
                          anything they wanted to by adding or subtracting the number of
                          coaches/passengers per train. There are of course practical limits
                          to how long a passenger train can be in terms of station platforms
                          and crews. In addition, at some point the weight of the train will
                          require an additional locomotive which alters the equation.

                          I have heard passenger – miles/gallon figures that are all over the
                          map. Until someone does some hard science on this that deduces the
                          issue to friction of steel wheels on steel rails vs. rubber wheels
                          on assault. I suggest that we look at any calculation of passenger –
                          miles/gallon will a great deal of skepticism.
                        • J.H. Crawford
                          This is all pretty tangential. The basic physics are: It takes lots of energy to accelerate a train, and the total amount of that energy increases with the
                          Message 12 of 18 , Jun 14, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            This is all pretty tangential. The basic physics are:

                            It takes lots of energy to accelerate a train, and the
                            total amount of that energy increases with the SQUARE
                            of the speed.

                            It takes lots of energy to drag trains up hills; this
                            is related to weight and elevation, not to speed.

                            Long, thin objects have high "Reynolds Numbers" which
                            means that the amount of air drag is considerably lower
                            than for short, fat objects.

                            Mass of a train has no effect whatever on the amount
                            of aerodynamic drag.

                            Light, long, streamlined trains are the most efficient.
                            Slower trains are more efficient than faster ones, all
                            other things being equal.

                            Again, the TGV double-decker gets good efficiency despite
                            its very high speed.

                            Regards,


                            ----- ### -----
                            J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                            mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com
                          • Matt Hohmeister
                            Actually, this brings up a question I ve been wondering for some time. In an era of dwindling oil supplies, are we better off with jets or ships? 747 or QM2?
                            Message 13 of 18 , Jun 17, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Actually, this brings up a question I've been wondering for some time. In an era of dwindling
                              oil supplies, are we better off with jets or ships? 747 or QM2? Or is there another solution?
                              Anybody?

                              > "The obvious replacements for planes are scarcely better. Fast passenger ships appear to
                              be even worse for the environment than jets. ... [Paragraph] Nor are ultra-high-speed trains
                              the answer. Though trains traveling at normal speeds have much lower carbon emissions
                              than airplanes, Professor Roger Kemp of Lancaster University shows that energy consumption
                              rises dramatically at speeds above 125 miles per hour. Increasing the speed from 140 to 220
                              mph almost doubles the amount of fuel burned. If the trains are powered by electricity, and if
                              that electricity is produced by plants burning fossil fuels, they cause more CO2 emissions
                              than planes. Running trains on renewable electricity is certainly possible, but this faces
                              problems: Trains must run on time, and that means there is little room for 'demand
                              management,' which means reducing the electricity load in response to fluctuations in
                              supply. In all transport systems, high performance is incompatible with low consumption.
                              The faster you go, the more energy you need."
                            • Richard Risemberg
                              ... Ships do not have to be powered by oil or coal. Highly refined sailing vessels with solar auxiliary power for days of calms and for harbor maneuvering can
                              Message 14 of 18 , Jun 17, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On Jun 17, 2007, at 8:40 PM, Matt Hohmeister wrote:

                                > Actually, this brings up a question I've been wondering for some
                                > time. In an era of dwindling
                                > oil supplies, are we better off with jets or ships? 747 or QM2? Or
                                > is there another solution?
                                > Anybody?
                                >
                                Ships do not have to be powered by oil or coal. Highly refined
                                sailing vessels with solar auxiliary power for days of calms and for
                                harbor maneuvering can move considerable tonnage and numbers of
                                passengers. However, it is obvious that if we are serious about
                                sustainability, we will have to accept that international trade and
                                travel will be slower and more expensive. (Although someone, upon my
                                telling them this, suggested that sail transport labor costs could be
                                lowered by using crews of slaves...I hope they were kidding.)

                                And no, I don't think nuclear-powered ships are the answer!

                                http://tinyurl.com/25u5bt

                                Rick
                                --
                                Richard Risemberg
                                http://www.bicyclefixation.com
                                http://www.newcolonist.com
                                http://www.rickrise.com
                              • dawie_coetzee
                                Localization. ...it is obvious that if we are serious about sustainability, we will have to accept that international trade and travel will be slower and more
                                Message 15 of 18 , Jun 18, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Localization.

                                  "...it is obvious that if we are serious about sustainability, we
                                  will have to accept that international trade and travel will be
                                  slower and more expensive."

                                  Precisely. I know Joel Crawford takes a somewhat contrary position in
                                  his book, but I'm a firm localist. Pedestrian cities and localized
                                  economies are perfect for each other. Indeed, the one only comes to
                                  full fruition in the context of the other.

                                  -Dawie



                                  --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, Richard Risemberg
                                  <rickrise@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > On Jun 17, 2007, at 8:40 PM, Matt Hohmeister wrote:
                                  >
                                  > > Actually, this brings up a question I've been wondering for some
                                  > > time. In an era of dwindling
                                  > > oil supplies, are we better off with jets or ships? 747 or QM2?
                                  Or
                                  > > is there another solution?
                                  > > Anybody?
                                  > >
                                  > Ships do not have to be powered by oil or coal. Highly refined
                                  > sailing vessels with solar auxiliary power for days of calms and
                                  for
                                  > harbor maneuvering can move considerable tonnage and numbers of
                                  > passengers. However, it is obvious that if we are serious about
                                  > sustainability, we will have to accept that international trade
                                  and
                                  > travel will be slower and more expensive. (Although someone, upon
                                  my
                                  > telling them this, suggested that sail transport labor costs could
                                  be
                                  > lowered by using crews of slaves...I hope they were kidding.)
                                  >
                                  > And no, I don't think nuclear-powered ships are the answer!
                                  >
                                  > http://tinyurl.com/25u5bt
                                  >
                                  > Rick
                                  > --
                                  > Richard Risemberg
                                  > http://www.bicyclefixation.com
                                  > http://www.newcolonist.com
                                  > http://www.rickrise.com
                                  >
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.