by yesplease » Sun 31 Aug 2008, 16:20:55
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('isgota', 'J')ust that? 75,000 1.5MW turbines? Well, AWEA's report says that there are already >25,000 wind turbines installed on USA, but they only cover about 1% of the electricity demand. Are you sure that only 3 times more wind power is enough to power all road and rail transport?
If we toss all the ton-miles on electric rail, probably.
Trucking and rail ran around 3 trillion ton-miles per year as of 2005 in the US.
Googling comes up w/ ~350btu/ton-mile and 423 ton-miles per gallon, which are both are .1kWh/ton-mile. 75,000 1.5MW turbines pump out about 315,000,000,000kWh/year at 32% of the nameplate output, so that should be enough to cover the 3 trillion ton-miles at .1kWh/ton-mile. In reality, it may actually be a smaller number of turbines since peak efficiency for a diesel drivetrain on a locomotive is at best ~50%, and while transmission losses may be significant, I doubt they're 50% for electric rail, probably more like ~90% so we could probably get by w/ 40,000 1.5MW turbines. In any event, we likely wouldn't toss every ton-mile onto electric rail, but it's a nice little comparison to illustrate how little energy freight really needs. If we want to blast stuff across the country at 75mph in semis, then that's our choice, but it consumes about three to four times more energy per ton-mile, energy which has gone up in price drastically, and that's something that'll be reflected in costs until we toss more stuff on rail and/or electrify rail, which atm requires expansion IIRC.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('isgota', 'S')orry but I have to give you a reality check. My own country is generating near 11% of electricity demand from wind power, and
3 spanish urban areas are among the most extensive railways networks of the world, but I can guarantee you that we are VERY FAR of oil independence in transport.
Unfortunately reality includes capital costs too, so for some sections of rail electrification may not be economically viable even at $10/gallon (see 80/80 rule in the link below). Just because something is more energy efficient doesn't mean it will be implemented. It's been proposed but considering the difference in energy requirements tossing truck freight on rail would save more than electrifying rail, although they would both save a decent chunk, and have other
as well.
In any event, if cost effective, the first to go would probably be passenger vehicle, since they have the worst efficiency on average and use most of the oil produced today. W/ fuel prices at ~$8-10/gallon in some markets manufacturers seem keen on developing and selling electric cars there since they're at cost parity give or take, or less if incentives are included.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('isgota', 'A')nd actually, I have just seen an electric powered bus once, in a country with so much wind power. It's not so easy to get rid of that black stuff called oil, sadly.
Best.