Future Energy

[Gman3ID]

It seem's to me we are gearing our future energy needs toward renewables(maybe it's just me). Iam curious to see what M.P. er's have to say about where we will be ten years from now regarding Oil, regional conflicts surrounding it and how we can take advantage of renewable technologies?

With the gears turning toward renewables, And Oil producing countries receiveing less demand of their product, and GDP falls, will this create instability on already shacky ground?

It's fair to say that for the past 80 yr's we have geared our politics, our gov't, our business, and yes conflicts to secure our energy future around the world. With our energy future changing, how will we and other's change with it?

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I see no change in the foreseeable future. In the US anyway, even the best estimates for our alternate fuels programs shows they'll barely keep up with expected growth over the next 20 years. So we'll use as much oil then as we do now. IMHO the only way we'll make a serious dent is to change our lifestyles & use less energy (less heat, less AC, less light, less travel etc.)

[Gman3ID]

So consumer's and large companies including Big oil that's proceeding with large scale energy effeciency plans, will not outgrow demand? That's is likely, however I see a decline in energy usage.

Rising demand will have a key role, agree regardless of the projection.

[Ordie]

2 Sheds is right (Geee I actually agree with him)

Most of the infrastructure is geared towards fossil fuels. The best we can hope for is for technology that reduces the green house emissions. (Change CAFE standards)

or change our demand.

For example, we may want to live within walking distance of mass transportation, jobs, goods and services as a means of not using the car. Enter into a car sharing program, flex schedules at work, telecommute, ride a bike, or ride the bus.

[Gman3ID]

Arent changes that you speak of already being enacted,?

[Ordie]

Arent changes that you speak of already being enacted,?

It's there.

But people would need to give up on the idea of a single familiy house in a suburban sub-division located 20 miles from work.

People will need to do the math and figure the pros and cons of living within the inner-urban core.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

It's there.

But people would need to give up on the idea of a single familiy house in a suburban sub-division located 20 miles from work.

People will need to do the math and figure the pros and cons of living within the inner-urban core.

Yeah, that and not having a doghouse with air conditioning.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Or maybe get the government off it's but and force change.

Hell if alot of EU countries can get effective wind farms and tidal power generation happening I'm sure the US could do it. Well you would think that.

I was listening to the radio the other day and it was mention that Spain managed to produce over 30% of it's enerygy needs with wind power alone the other month during a storm.

[Gman3ID]

The EU is far ahead of us on RE (REnewable Energy), And maybe with some sacrifice we can change things in regards to making it viable here in the states.

[Ordie]

Reactivate the Nuke plants.

Technology and safegards are much better than Three Mile Island days.
Much cleaner than anything out there.

[cosimo]

There was an interesting programme on BBC2 a few hours ago. It was about plans to mine the moon for a substance called helium 3. I've heard of this before, people have been talking about it for years. The stuff is used in nuclear fusion reactors, very small amounts can generate enormous amounts of power. Its also supposed to be very clean. According to the programme the race is on to get work started on the moon. They spoke to some american and russian investors.

Check out the clip on the bbc site.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/index.shtml

[Flavius22]

costs 1 dollar /barrel to get oil out of the ground in iraq during war time

and costs 3 collars/barrel to get it out of the ground in saudi lands

so thats the price new cool energy has to compete with

good luck

[shocker1]

I think pure electric drive systems are going to run our vehicles in the future. The technology is already here but expensive and not enough R&D funding from the goverment is coming into the industry. I think we are wasting our time with band aid hybrids and such. These "new" hybrid technologies are not the cure all and actually can end up costing more.

Americans will never be sold on mass transit in a way that all would benefit. I have seen the attitudes of Americans close up when it comes to mass transit. Particularly alternative fuel buses and electric transit buses. The skill set of most mechanics lacks in the areas of PLC's, HV solid state relays and inductve power. Making getting change going even more problematic.

So what ever we do about transportation it will take a very long time to show real fruit. Of course the union shops will make sure the old salty grease monkeys keep their job even though they have no clue how to deal with new systems. Those guys even sabatoged the buses under my wing out of fear of loosing their jobs to highly trained techs. Once again politics drives the problem all around. Then the CEO's of said companies find backdoor ways to get the Federal funds faster in lue of quality and inovation. Rant over

[Gman3ID]

Would you pay a higher price for RE? Or would you continue to pay for fluctuating gas prices that cost far less than 2.74 a gal. to produce , Finance terrorism by buying saudi oil at the same time let exxon wave billion dollar profit's in your face?

[shocker1]

Would you pay a higher price for RE? Or would you continue to pay for fluctuating gas prices that cost far less than 2.74 a gal. to produce , Finance terrorism by buying sudi oil, And let exxon wave billion dollar profit's in your face?
Yes as long as my boat runs good at 70mph and my 3/4 ton 4x4 PU is the only viable option to haul my boat and race car. My drag car is ethanol fueled with grape ape scent BTW, it's green but the fuel is like 4.50 a gallon.

My whole existance revolves around oil, Both in my business and my Professional position. I love oil.

[Gman3ID]

Reactivate the Nuke plants.

Technology and safegards are much better than Three Mile Island days.
Much cleaner than anything out there.
I agree however Nuke opposition has always been 1. cost, 2. not in my back-yard groups,3. time it takes to restart, and 4 fear, and a post 9-11.

[Gman3ID]

Yes as long as my boat runs good at 70mph and my 3/4 ton 4x4 PU is the only viable option to haul my boat and race car. My drag car is ethanol fueled with grape ape scent BTW, it's green but the fuel is like 4.50 a gallon.

My whole existance revolves around oil, Both in my business and my Professional position. I love oil.
The infastructure is there for you to love for a reason.
I can hear King Fahd's wheelchair racing to the computer screen to check his latest figures.

[Gman3ID]

I think pure electric drive systems are going to run our vehicles in the future. The technology is already here but expensive and not enough R&D funding from the goverment is coming into the industry. I think we are wasting our time with band aid hybrids and such. These "new" hybrid technologies are not the cure all and actually can end up costing more.

Americans will never be sold on mass transit in a way that all would benefit. I have seen the attitudes of Americans close up when it comes to mass transit. Particularly alternative fuel buses and electric transit buses. The skill set of most mechanics lacks in the areas of PLC's, HV solid state relays and inductve power. Making getting change going even more problematic.

So what ever we do about transportation it will take a very long time to show real fruit. Of course the union shops will make sure the old salty grease monkeys keep their job even though they have no clue how to deal with new systems. Those guys even sabatoged the buses under my wing out of fear of loosing their jobs to highly trained techs. Once again politics drives the problem all around. Then the CEO's of said companies find backdoor ways to get the Federal funds faster in lue of quality and inovation. Rant over
Good rant, Can we change the infastructure fast enough to really be effective? And why not seize the opportunity to change our attitude towards RE?

[shocker1]

The infastructure is there for you to love for a reason.
I can hear King Fahd's wheelchair racing to the computer screen to check his latest figures.
Well, ole JD had a big hand in the oil machine in this country. His Royal Sheikdom just supplies what was already here. I mean it was the West that developed the Mid East oil and handed it to Fahds family so I don't blame the King. As a matter of fact I admire his shrewd sense of the buck.

That said I work with new transport technologies everyday. I hope we get away from oil. However race cars are exempt from this as well as high powered bass boats.

[Ordie]

My whole existance revolves around oil, Both in my business and my Professional position. I love oil.


Olive Oil???

As for your earlier statement, you are correct.

However, public transit ridership has increased 30% since 1995. Most of them are choice peak commute riders with an option to drive alone. Light rail and commute rail projects are starting to pay dividends. The catch...need to live near a metropolitan area. (Atlanta, Minneapolis, Dallas)

One thing that is needed is to lift the "buy American" regulation on public transit buses and ferry boats using federal subsidies. As long as this regulation is in place, public transit agancies and riders will continue to be shut out of desirible and proven products.

Its a good time for the IBEW to get active on this issue.

PS: How about placing a Tesla in a NASCAR event?

[shocker1]

Good rant, Can we change the infastructure fast enough to really be effective? And why not seize the opportunity to change our attitude towards RE?
To the logical thinker this sounds great. However the fact is most are not so quick on new things and it will take some time.

[shocker1]

Olive Oil???



Its a good time for the IBEW to get active on this issue.

PS: How about placing a Tesla in a NASCAR event?
Capstone Microturbines can burn olive oil, sour gas, corn oil, coal oil, corn mash whiskey and any thing else that burns and pours.

Ridership increases in the cities but do you really think it would really expand beyond that. During surveys we took in Atlanta, Norfolk, Falls Church and LA in 2002(long time ago) most people opted for mass transit because of traffic. Gas prices were 1.75 or so then so now that could be different. Either way riding the bus in Atlanta LA ect is not a pleasant experiance and most will pay whatever to drive their own car to avoid the unfiltered masses in the bus.:)

I love drag racing and have seen some capacitor dragsters. Now they have bikes too. It is not the same though the gravels in the pits do not dance and nobody knows your around untill you take off.

World’s Fastest Electric-Powered Drag Bike Breaks Record at 156 mph in 8.16 seconds

http://www.nedra.com/photos/killacycle/killacycle_burnout_168.jpgNEDRA News, April 2 - The world’s quickest electric motorcycle, the “KillaCycle (http://www.nedra.com/pg_killacycle.html)”, made several record breaking runs at the All Harley Drag Racing Association (AHDRA) over the weekend at the Firebird Speedway, Chandler, AZ. Killacycle, driven by Scotty Pollacheck, who just recently made the quickest electric-powered 1/4 mile run in history (8.760 seconds @145 mph) scorched that record on Saturday, March 31 with an official time of 8.210 @ 155.59 mph!
On it's first run of the day KillaCycle clocked 8.30 seconds at 153 mph.
Then on Sunday April 1, KillaCycle beat all it's previous records with another record breaking run of 8.16 seconds at 156 mph.
Just how many times are we going to have to rewrite this story? One things for sure, the 7's are looking pretty close. Stay tuned for more details soon with all the official times.
Check out the YouTube video of the record breaking run made on Saturday at the All Harley Drags. Thanks to Jim Husted, the builder of KillaCycle's motors, for the weekend updates.
http://www.nedra.com/

[Ordie]

Capstone Microturbines can burn olive oil, sour gas, corn oil, coal oil, corn mash whiskey and any thing else that burns and pours.

Moonshinemobile!!!


Ridership increases in the cities but do you really think it would really expand beyond that. During surveys we took in Atlanta, Norfolk, Falls Church and LA in 2002(long time ago) most people opted for mass transit because of traffic. Gas prices were 1.75 or so then so now that could be different. Either way riding the bus in Atlanta LA ect is not a pleasant experiance and most will pay whatever to drive their own car to avoid the unfiltered masses in the bus.:)

I'm in this business. What we found out that frequency trumps mode everytime. Also creating origin and destination routes that competes with autos. What works is entering into a partnership with key major employers. The employers pays for the farebox in return for free access to employees. Instant ridership.

The problem..... need more capacity


What if John Force were to use pure torque.

[Gman3ID]

Capstone Microturbines can burn olive oil, sour gas, corn oil, coal oil, corn mash whiskey and any thing else that burns and pours.

Ridership increases in the cities but do you really think it would really expand beyond that. During surveys we took in Atlanta, Norfolk, Falls Church and LA in 2002(long time ago) most people opted for mass transit because of traffic. Gas prices were 1.75 or so then so now that could be different. Either way riding the bus in Atlanta LA ect is not a pleasant experiance and most will pay whatever to drive their own car to avoid the unfiltered masses in the bus.:)

I love drag racing and have seen some capacitor dragsters. Now they have bikes too. It is not the same though the gravels in the pits do not dance and nobody knows your around untill you take off.
http://www.nedra.com/
I don't think that transportation will be the silver bullet and expand to fully sustainable means of transport, but it does possess a peice of the puzzle that will prove effective if used in combination with other technologies ie Flex-fuels,solar,wind,hydro, and improved CAFE staandards. An overall change will expand the future for RE

[shocker1]

I'm in this business. What we found out that frequency trumps mode everytime. Also creating origin and destination routes that competes with autos. What works is entering into a partnership with key major employers. The employers pays for the farebox in return for free access to employees. Instant ridership.

The problem..... need more capacity


What if John Force were to use pure torque.
Yes I agree, you probably know more about that aspect of the industry. My extent of knowledge is purely technical with a dash of politics here and there. I tried to stay away from the suits that handled those details but I had to be around with the laptop, Fluke 88 and a Leatherman to make sure the dog and ponies went well.

John Force would need some dielectric compound on his fire suit for that.:)

[shocker1]

I don't think that transportation will be the silver bullet and expand to fully sustainable means of transport, but it does possess a peice of the puzzle that will prove effective if used in combination with other technologies ie Flex-fuels,solar,wind,hydro, and improved CAFE staandards. An overall change will expand the future for RE
One thing I must point out are these CAFE standards. Do you know how most California vehicles acheive the proper emission level? They use secondary air pumps to inject fresh air into the exahust system. this dilutes the exahust and helps the converter with more O2. You can not get much cleaner burning with a 14.7-1 optimum fuel ratio. All the cleaning must be done in the exahust. Therefore more converters, pumps and band aids.

[Durandal]

Mass transit...

Always a nice idea, but costly.

If you put a super speed transit train that gets me to Chicago or Cleveland in 1 to 2 hours, I would take it. If you think I am going to take a bus to work or ride share, you are kidding yourself.

I'd like to see it work, but lets be honest, Americans do and will continue through my life time at least, to love their transportation independence.

Plus, trying to get people to live in an area where walking and easy commutes are possible is simply not going to happen.

For example, Cincinnati's urban population is right around 500K give or take. The greater Cincinnati area is 2.5 million. Changing densities is not a smart thing. Besides, people like me, who like to see trees in the backyard, a place for their dog to run, and 2000+ square feet of home.

On Renewable Energy

I am all about it. More windmills, more damns, MORE CORN! I'd love to see the oil prices rise and keep rising. The more oil goes up, the more expensive corn can be and still sell competitively in the Ethanol market. I'd grow switch grass if there was enough demand....or bale the husks and stalk, but no one is buying that stuff.

Nuke power has ALWAYS been the way, I've been preaching that since I joined the forum.

That all said, this is the easiest way to go: tell all car manufacturers they can NEVER make another gasoline powered car again and force everyone to go TDI. My old man's Jetta gets 44MPG and is better to operate than 95% of the "hybrids" out there both in emissions, oil consumption (less consumed to power and less consumed to make kerosene/fuel), and far more reliable than a hybrid (one motor, no batter packs).

Gasoline is what kills us...we bitch about the costs of gas then cheer when the price goes down and diesel fuel costs go up. Gasoline prices ultimately do not effect market prices...diesel does.

Maybe we should all do this: http://renu.citizenre.com/

Maybe not. I have a heat pump and wood furnace combination and the way my trees are set up they provide shade during the hot months and allow sun to reach the home during the cold. Half my light bulbs are fluorescent or LED, and I compost and grow most the vegetables I consume in a year. Probably more than most your hippie tree huggers do.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Problem with the US is that unless it makes profit it's not worth doing. IF US Local, State and Federal governments actually started carrying the cost of running public transport systems, provided proper security for such systems, cleaned up the current mess that makes public transport seem as only blacks or poor people use then it would be a major start.

Europe, Asia and Australia has some of the best public transport systems in the world and it's something the US needs to follow.

[Durandal]

Problem with the US is that unless it makes profit it's not worth doing. IF US Local, State and Federal governments actually started carrying the cost of running public transport systems, provided proper security for such systems, cleaned up the current mess that makes public transport seem as only blacks or poor people use then it would be a major start.

Europe, Asia and Australia has some of the best public transport systems in the world and it's something the US needs to follow.

Min, you give me a public transportation system that will efficiently get me to Home Depot, Soccer Practice, and the Grocery while carrying a pistol concealed, you let me know.

Most public transportation IS subsidized by tax payer money.

Take our only real rail line, AMTrack. It has one highly profitable section and that is the East Coast Corridor from Boston to D.C....maybe Richmond.

Because that is one of the single largest population densities in the U.S...

You simply cannot run the same system between Cincinnati and Chicago. Even if everyone used it, the relative numbers are so low that the costs far out weigh the benefits.

[LaoSexMachine]

In Houston we have public transportaion, Metro bus system, and light rail in downtown only. The problem with Houston it's too big. Most of the population lives in the suburb inlcuding myself. Bus lines to these areas are few. I mean if it takes you about an hour to drive from one side of town to another. How long you think it will take you on the bus? To alleviate the traffic they are expanding the I-10 to 20 lanes I believe.


Min, you give me a public transportation system that will efficiently get me to Home Depot, Soccer Practice, and the Grocery while carrying a pistol concealed, you let me know.

What it all comes down to.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Well put pressure on your government(s) to provide such a system that atleast enables you to get to work and provide a possible alternative. I'm not saying give up your cars, far from it. What I am saying is that if the governments invests in the infrastructer then people will use it.

In the Sydney/Newcastle/Wollongong corridor. (Australia's equiv to NY, DC, Phil) it is possible to travel by public transport to every single major commercial and sporting centre and most regions are covered by atleast a bus service that connects with a train service. Even in the more remote rural areas of the rail network.

Where I live now in Sydney. (Leichhardt) I am within a 10 minute walk to a train station, and there is atleast a bus every 5-10 minutes in peak hour)

I've provided an attachment to our regions rail network and a here is the interactive map
http://www.cityrail.info/networkmaps/index.jsp

The bus maps
http://www.131500.com.au/maps/bus/

Ferry maps
http://www.131500.com.au/maps/ferry/

I'm not saying the network is perfect. It does need alot of work, however living in Sydney I usually find public transport a better alternative to driving in most activities I do. I mainly use my car for shopping during the week and for my weekend/recreational activities. Everything else is public transport.

Maybe this could be a good example for US cities to follow.

Oh I checked out AMtrak's website to. For an equivilent commute to what I was doing prior to my move from Newcastle would cost nearly 10 times the amount on Amtrak as to what I was paying for a trip between Newcastle and Sydney. Food for thought .

[Ordie]

Unfortunately Public Transportation is not a high priority in the United States. Which is sad really. You can provide frequent, rapid and attractive public transit at a fraction of the price of light rail or commuter rail.

Bus rapid transit systems operate like light rail with its own guideways, and stations but use rubbertire buses. Curitiba Brazil, Bogota Colombia and recently Los Angeles Metro currently operate such transit systems. In Los Angeles, they took an abandoned rail right of way, paved it with concrete, and added stations. Since it's implementation ridership has been going up.

Link: http://www.mta.net/projects_programs/orangeline/images/ol_interactive.htm

What they found out in LA is that frequency trump mode everytime.

What I'm seeing here in California, people are taking public transit at an increasing rate. People are casualy picking up other commuters (sometimes strangers) on street corners as a means to use the diamond lane into the city. Some people are using transit on the weekdays, and "flexcar" on the weekends for that Home Depot or Costco trip.

Here's an Op-Ed on energy and the impact California has in setting regional or national energy policy:


Ronald Brownstein (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-columnist-rbrownstein,1,5610295.columnist):
Go green? Go West

LA Times Op-Ed
The energy and environment innovations west of the Rockies could change the nation's mind about what's possible.
April 8, 2007

Denver — SINCE THE ARRIVAL of the white settlers, the American West has been shaped by the discovery and extraction of natural resources, beginning in the 19th century with silver and gold and then extending to timber, copper, uranium and fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas and coal.

For decades, the industries that grew around these resources mined state capitals as thoroughly as they did the riches beneath the earth. As recently as three decades ago, the Mountain West states erupted in what was known as the "sagebrush rebellion" — a loud and sustained clamor from the extraction industries and their political allies for the federal government to open millions of acres of public land for resource exploration and development.

But that has changed. In less than a generation, the sagebrush rebellion has given way across the West to a renewable revolution. Today, from the Rockies to the Pacific, a new political axis is emerging that could transform the national debate over energy, the environment and global warming.

"It's a massive shift in not just policy but … voter attitudes," said Bill Richardson, the Democratic governor of New Mexico and presidential candidate.

Across the West, governors from both parties are advancing the nation's most ambitious policies to promote clean energy, encourage conservation and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

On each of these fronts, leaders in the West are racing far beyond the gridlocked energy debate in Washington — and drawing support from ideologically diverse local coalitions that include new residents concerned about preserving an attractive environment and agricultural and tourism interests fearful that global warming may undermine their industries. Even major utilities across the West have enlisted.

Some critics predict that these initiatives eventually could provoke a voter backlash if they result in higher costs for energy, especially electricity. But if, on the other hand, the interlocked efforts in the West demonstrate economic, environmental and political viability, they will provide enormous momentum for faltering national efforts to build a clean-energy economy less reliant on fossil fuels.

"We've had really very little support from the Bush administration even to analyze this in a thoughtful way," complained Bill Ritter, a Democrat who centered his successful gubernatorial campaign in Colorado last year on a promise of promoting alternative energy. "We really need [action] on a national basis."

Some states elsewhere, particularly in the Northeast, have adopted similar policies, but the push in the West is especially dramatic given the region's historic connection to the fossil-fuel economy.

Western Democrats now control seven of the region's 11 governorships, and their gains are both a reflection and a cause of the shift in priorities. The West's new energy axis rests on a deepening partnership between those Democratic governors and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a centrist Republican.

In some cases, California is leveraging its market power — as what Montana's Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer calls the "900-pound gorilla" in the region's energy economy — to propel change.

California exercised that influence most effectively last fall when Schwarzenegger signed a law barring state utilities from entering long-term contracts to import electricity from power plants that emit more carbon dioxide than the cleanest natural gas facilities — a standard that excludes conventional coal-fired plants.

That decision already is sending ripples through the region as governors from energy-exporting states use it to build support for cleaner alternatives to conventional coal.

"We see it as an opportunity to build and construct new clean and green facilities," said Schweitzer, who is promoting power plants that would generate electricity by converting coal into natural gas and then sequester the carbon dioxide emissions in underground facilities, such as depleted oil fields.

In other instances, California and other Western states are moving independently along parallel paths. Six of the 11 states, for example, have approved "renewable portfolio standards" that require utilities to generate a fixed percentage of electricity from renewable power sources such as wind, solar and geothermal; Oregon is on track to join them this year.

In the last few weeks, New Mexico and Colorado mandated that utilities generate 20% of their power from renewable sources by 2020 — double the existing requirements; California last fall stiffened its rules by advancing the deadline on a 20% requirement from 2017 to 2010.

Washington, Oregon and Arizona have committed to adopting a California regulation requiring huge reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles — a standard that would essentially require improved fuel economy — if the rule receives a federal waiver and survives a court challenge from the auto industry. New Mexico will join too if the Environmental Protection Agency and the courts approve the rule, which appears more likely after last week's Supreme Court ruling pressuring the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

In the most dramatic example of regional coordination, California and its neighbors are pursuing a formal agreement on climate change. In February, Schwarzenegger and the Democratic governors of Arizona, New Mexico, Washington and Oregon agreed to devise a regional plan for mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, most likely through a cap-and-trade system.

That effort, the most sweeping attempt in the U.S. so far to combat the emissions linked to global warming, germinated from discussions that began at last summer's Western Governors' Assn. meeting in Arizona, and blossomed after Richardson and Schwarzenegger exchanged letters in January about their state-level efforts on the problem.

The participating states have agreed to devise a market-based regulation system by fall 2008, and sources involved in the design say they hope to entice into the plan not only other Western states but the Canadian province of British Columbia.

Nevada, Idaho and Utah, the three Mountain states with Republican governors, haven't joined these efforts, but neither have they been completely immune to the trend.

Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman is pursuing an ambitious conservation program. Idaho's Public Utilities Commission in March approved an order decoupling local utility profits from the amount of electricity consumed in the state — a pro-conservation reform already in place in California and Utah.

The political coalition for these sweeping changes begins with the influx to the rapidly growing Mountain states of new residents unattached to the traditional resource industries — and in fact inclined to view those interests as threats to the outdoor lifestyle that in many instances prompted them to relocate.

Industries concerned about the potential economic effects of global warming — such as farmers worried about the effects of declining snowmelt on water supplies and ski towns fearful of warmer winters — are amplifying those voices. And many Western utility companies that initially resisted the renewable requirements now see alternative energy as popular with consumers — and as a valuable hedge against the likelihood that Washington will mandate reduced carbon emissions after President Bush leaves office.

Resistance to this agenda hasn't vanished, especially in the Mountain states traditionally skeptical of government. Jon Caldara, president of the Independence Institute, a conservative Colorado think tank, maintains that the new energy consensus across the region "could be potentially devastating for the states" that adopt it, raising energy costs and suppressing economic growth.

Even supporters who dismiss such a gloomy forecast acknowledge other impediments. Schweitzer and Ritter, while supporting national action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, expressed reluctance to join the regional carbon compact for fear of ceding an economic advantage to neighboring states that don't. Solar facilities and the clean-coal technologies that Schweitzer and other governors are promoting may take many years to develop at economically competitive costs.

But the overall shift in the region's energy priorities appears irreversible. Production of oil and natural gas has boomed under Bush and will remain important to the West's economy. But through the Mountain and coastal states alike, the focus of public policy and private investment is moving toward the technologies that were spotlighted at a state conference on alternative energy in Denver last month: wind farms, solar, geothermal heating, biofuels and the next-generation coal power plants that separate carbon emissions and sequester them underground.

"There is definitely a potential for a backlash," said the University of Denver's Richard Lamm, who served as Colorado's Democratic governor during the raging height of the sagebrush rebellion. "But history is on the side of these governors."

[M_S]

There is not one single energy source able to replace oil, besides oil is also the base for the entire petro-chemical industry:

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

Future solutions include nuclear fusion and the more probable "artificial photosynthesis" which seems very promising.

[Durandal]

Oh I checked out AMtrak's website to. For an equivilent commute to what I was doing prior to my move from Newcastle would cost nearly 10 times the amount on Amtrak as to what I was paying for a trip between Newcastle and Sydney. Food for thought .

That is because their budget has been cut back...every year there are less and less riders in this area.

It takes me 10h 10min to get too Chicago via train. It takes me 5 to 8 hours by bus. It takes me 4.5 hours to drive it and I can stop anytime I want go faster, or slower and have my own transportation at my travel destination.

Which do you think I want to do? Even if the train were cheaper?

[Ordie]

That is because their budget has been cut back...every year there are less and less riders in this area.

It takes me 10h 10min to get too Chicago via train. It takes me 5 to 8 hours by bus. It takes me 4.5 hours to drive it and I can stop anytime I want go faster, or slower and have my own transportation at my travel destination.

Which do you think I want to do? Even if the train were cheaper?

Or you could take the Megabus

http://www.megabus.com/us/schedules/index.php

Amtrak provides better service in areas were it is subsidized by the state government. However, most of AMTRAKs problems is sharing the right-of-way with Union Pacific or any other freight lines. The owner of the right of way gives frieght the priority and whatever time slots left are given to AMTRAK. Since frieght rail is making record profits, it is putting the squeeze on AMTRAK's schedule and schedule adherence.

[Durandal]

Or you could take the Megabus

http://www.megabus.com/us/schedules/index.php

Amtrak provides better service in areas were it is subsidized by the state government. However, most of AMTRAKs problems is sharing the right-of-way with Union Pacific or any other freight lines. The owner of the right of way gives frieght the priority and whatever time slots left are given to AMTRAK. Since frieght rail is making record profits, it is putting the squeeze on AMTRAK's schedule and schedule adherence.

Mega Bus is crap...oh it CAN be good, but its hit or miss...

Mega Bus is ONLY good if you KNOW exactly when you are leaving and coming back and then, ONLY if you get in before the mad rush.

AMTrak does well on the short leg commutes in VERY limited areas but its long distance service simply sucks and yeah, you are right about sharing the lines with freight service.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I'm not talking about long distance travelling. Even there. Europe leads the way.

I'm talking about regional public transportation.

[Durandal]

I'm not talking about long distance travelling. Even there. Europe leads the way.

I'm talking about regional public transportation.

So am I...regions these days are 200 miles or more across. Look at the commuting in D.C. what new infrastructure are you going to install to remove the single largest commuting population in the United States?

Let's take a smaller area that is more typical...Cincinnati its commuting region is at 140 miles in diameter. That's roughly 15400 square miles to access...at who knows what cost, then in doing so you are going to DEMAND that people like me sell property to make it happen. You need a light rail system and a MASSIVE increase in buses (Cincinnati's bus system currently looks like the spokes on a wheel, there are little cross town routes, so a person needs to travel into the heart of the city and then back, essentially doubling the commute time and distance.

It can be a free service or it can be a for profit business and in the end, BOTH will fail because the price a gasoline is not high enough and it is a matter of convenience, which is the core to anything having to with the U.S. that is not government related.

Edit: Oh, and business would probably suffer as a by product. That special Indian Restaurant that people stop at on their way from work or drive 20 minutes to because they want something special?

Gone.

The only time REAL mercantile business is done is on the weekends since people simply do not have an extra 2 hours to spare in their commute.

Not all businesses but certainly a number...probably more than you might think.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I think your missing the point or I'm blessed living in a region of Australia where public transport has been in constant development since 1855. Most of the rail network was completed by WW2. What are now major commercial districts were once minor rural villages.

You build it, people will use it. As for business suffering. If the system is built properly then they should profit from it through extra customers being available who previously were not.

[foxtrot023]

till fusion becomes viable, a reasonable alternative is will power.

From windenergy you can get a wind turbine that with somewaht constant winds of 10km you get 900-1000 watts. The best thing is that it it not that pricely at $2350 USD.

[perdurabo]

I'm not talking about long distance travelling. Even there. Europe leads the way.

I'm talking about regional public transportation.
but check population denisity of europe and america, their cities are spread on large areas and distances beatwin them are huge, even if you put newest shinkansen or TGV there it will be good only in places like east coast or west coast where ppl denisity is high enough and distances are low or medium. In european cities you can work out things like park&ride where you trawel from distant suburb to city border by car there at special parking lot you leave it and travel in city by subway/trams/buses/feet i realy doubt that it will be usefull in america.

[szr]

Not energy, trains. I wish we'd do more trains. High-speed, electric, mass transit. Like the Japanese and the French.

Commuter rail servicing city regions, light rail in and around the cities, high-speed rail around the US.


Rail systems in three states (NY, NJ, CT) all serving the biggest commuter region in the United States:

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/5499/sub1amt2.gif
http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/3010/sub2acj5.gif
http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/9167/mnrmapza5.gif
http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/889/lirrcl6.gif
http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/8112/mapnovember2003qo5.jpg
http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/6393/pathsystemwebqj6.gif

Rail is where it's at.

[Gman3ID]

Patrick to unveil commuter rail plan for New Bedford, Fall River

By Steve LeBlanc, Associated Press Writer | April 3, 2007
BOSTON --Gov. Deval Patrick will announce plans for a $1.4 billion commuter rail link to New Bedford and Fall River on Wednesday, hoping to make good on an long-awaited expansion of the state's public transportation system.
Article Tools


Patrick has yet to identify a funding source for the ambitious undertaking, but plans to name a project manager to shepherd the rail expansion through a regulatory minefield of planning and environmental reviews, according to lawmakers briefed on the project Tuesday.
"They're going to put a project manager on right away and start to do the planning," said state Sen. Marc R. Pacheco, D-Taunton, one of the lawmakers briefed by Patrick's Transportation Secretary Bernard Cohen.
Pacheco said the latest estimate for the project is "in excess of $1.4 billion," far higher than previous estimates, but wouldn't say what kind of timeline the administration offered.
"This is a multiyear project," Pacheco said. "It's not something that's going to be done in a year or two."
The plan sets a proposed start date for service of 2016 and includes $31 million to expand South Station, a key factor was not included into earlier plans, according a source familiar with the project who asked not to be identified because the plan had not been officially released.
The South Station expansion would involve relocating a main Post Office facility to make room for additional rails, according to the source, who said Patrick is committing $17 million over three years for the initial design phase of the rail project.
A spokesman for Patrick declined to comment on the plan.
The plan, which Patrick will unveil at a press conference in New Bedford on Wednesday, also fulfills a key campaign pledge from the Democratic governor who promised during the final debate of last year's campaign that "in the first 90 days of my administration, we will have a timeline to get this project done."
Rep. Antonio F. D. Cabral, D-New Bedford, a long-time proponent of the rail plan, said he was optimistic that after years of false starts, the project might finally be on track.
"This is a very, very positive step. Clearly this governor is very committed to this project," he said. "I wish the timeline would be tomorrow, but we all know this is a project that will face a number of issues that unfortunately previous administrations have not really addressed."
It's not the first time a governor has pledged to bring rail services to the two communities.
In 1995, former Gov. William Weld unveiled a plan to have the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority spend $156 million to bring commuter rail service to New Bedford and Fall River by the fall of 1997.
And in 2005, former Gov. Mitt Romney rolled out his own plan to set aside $670 million to build a rail link between Boston and communities south of Boston.
Patrick's announcement comes in the wake of a major report that found that Massachusetts is facing a budget shortfall of up to $19 billion over the next two decades just to maintain the state's roads, bridges and rails.
The report also concluded that there's no additional money for other large transportation expansion projects.http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/File-Based_Image_Resource/dingbat_story_end_icon.gif
© Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Here in Mass. we have had a "plan" for public transportation for a while, this time it's for real,(I hope). The gov't will defenitely have to get there hands on any large public projects to get anything rolling although the ball is rolling quite fast now and it's the local,state, and federal govt that's playing catch-up. We alsp have something else brewing Capewind.org

[shocker1]

They have been talking about a Meg Lev between Chattanooga and Atlanta for years. One day they say it's going ahead the next not so. I think it is a grand idea and I would love a high speed rail line between all cities with populations over 250,000. Build it right next to most interstates.

[Firetxmi]

However, public transit ridership has increased 30% since 1995. Most of them are choice peak commute riders with an option to drive alone. Light rail and commute rail projects are starting to pay dividends. The catch...need to live near a metropolitan area. (Atlanta, Minneapolis, Dallas)


I can't even begin to tell you what a useless system the DART (Dallas Area Rapid Transit) is! We used to make jokes about it. It is so inconvenient that there are about 5 people riding the 2 or 3 car train. It doesn't go anywhere you need it to, unless you happen to be a tourist going to some special show, or an obscure area of the city. The schedule is unbelievable as well. Besides, when you get off it the walk in 110F heat is so far that you might as well rent a car at the stop. This coupled with the fact that DART buses run nowhere near major areas where most business, etc people go, makes the whole system a massive waste.

[Gman3ID]

priorplanningpreventspisspoorperformance

[shocker1]

priorplanningpreventspisspoorperformance
An election every two years with stumping in between prevents that. Building things with payment stages only hurts quality too. You know the old hurry up and get that done so we can get that Federal buck.

We will never see the political will for any wise choices until the masses rise up against $5 a gallon gas.

[Ordie]

An election every two years with stumping in between prevents that. Building things with payment stages only hurts quality too. You know the old hurry up and get that done so we can get that Federal buck.

We will never see the political will for any wise choices until the masses rise up against $5 a gallon gas.

Yep.

I've seen sooo much wasted on white elephant projects. Electric buses and rail projects that look sexy to the eyes of the voters and golden shovel events, but fail to deliver because the routing and station layout are done to appease political concerns.

The Federal Mandates calls for going for the lowest bidder. End result, you get what you paid for, and the next thing you know the company that produced the vehicles or software goes out of business. So you're stuck with a crappy fleet and no technical back up.

In San Francisco, the MUNI Metro underground system is high tech and ran into chronic software problems. While MUNI's 6o year old PCC / Peter Witt electric surface street cars were much more reliable and ran on-time.

Sometimes low tech is the best tech.



Here's the biggest crime.
There is money for new start ups. But very little in operations, maintenance and expansion.

[Gman3ID]

I don't beleive the political will has been evident in the past,Although it seems the winds are changing I do believe ground will be broken 08-09 on this project as well as capewind. And I dont think 5$ gal.'s of gas are to far away, I'll say.........1yr. max. 1. AQ attack on Al-Suad's Abquaiq refinery, 1. meltdown in Iraq, 1. fart in Iran and I think were there.

[shocker1]

Yep.

I've seen sooo much wasted on white elephant projects. Electric buses and rail projects that look sexy to the eyes of the voters and golden shovel events, but fail to deliver because the routing and station layout are done to appease political concerns.

The Federal Mandates calls for going for the lowest bidder. End result, you get what you paid for, and the next thing you know the company that produced the vehicles or software goes out of business. So you're stuck with a crappy fleet and no technical back up.


Are you talkin about a company I know?p-) You sound like me the day the Fed funds dried up and Fleet Supers started calling me in the Field Engineering office. Shocker1 on phone; " Sorry Island Transit, SBETI, Metro (DC), MBTA, Forsythe ect... Those upgrades to the Battery managment system are on hold and the TSB suggests you park your EV/Hybrid fleets!":)

Looks good, breaks down like the space shuttle. Except for the ones in Chattanooga, since the people who built the things are still around to baby and tweek.
http://www.msenergy.ms/images/Microturbine%20Bus/avs.png
Whoops there is a name there!

[that_one_guy]

http://www.seawaterpower.com/seawaterpower/


hmmmmm.

[M_S]

till fusion becomes viable, a reasonable alternative is will power.

From windenergy you can get a wind turbine that with somewaht constant winds of 10km you get 900-1000 watts. The best thing is that it it not that pricely at $2350 USD.

A good example of major wind power initiative is Germany.

I think wind power stands for well over 5% of the country's electrical power production. Any german with more accurate figures?

The number 11% keeps popping up in my mind.

[Durandal]

http://www.seawaterpower.com/seawaterpower/


hmmmmm.

All this is a green battery. A way to store less energy than you put in, except, since you are using sea water there is a probably a fair amount of up-keep.

Looking at the picture and reading a bit of the website I simply do not see net gains. The pond is 10 feet deep and it uses damn good generators, but this is nothing more than a battery...stored electricity.

Now, if you manufactured something that would collect rainwater AND act as a back fresh water reservoir, then there would be useful purposes. Right now its just a tank of evaporating sea water.

[Gman3ID]

Germany is very good example windpower, I wonder if a member from Denmark could inform us on the benefits of it's offshore windfarm???

[Mastermind]

1) Although the government talks a fairly good line about going "green" and all, it really does not mean it. Governemnt is totally hooked on oil and the tax money it generates...nothing is going to interfer with that relationship. If you do not believe this, then wonder why California scrapped out the electric cars that were about to really get popular? The cars were ripped off the show room floors immediately after the State Treasurer reported a real threat to the tax base generated by the gasoline tax. She wanted to get a law putting meters inside cars so drivers would have to pay by prorata mileage...

2) Nuclear was not made unpopular by the public...the public was whipped into a frothing "We hate nukes" by constant nudging by the oil companies who forsaw the future of their own demise in nuclear plants springing up like dandelions. As yourself why it was that right after the nuke planst began successful generation, Gulf, Exxon and Standard all became huge investors in nuclear and then after 3Mile Island, all began destructive immobilization and demanded impossibly stringent government nuclear regulation and oversight?

3) If you do a little research into agriculture, you will not have to dig very deep to realise that it is a physical impossibility for food plant product to replace the total BTU energy requirements for the present energy being used. There simply is not enough land, water or non-petroleum based fertilizer in the world to do that. It actually takes the BTU equivalent of 1.8 gallons of ethanol to make one gallon of ethanol....it is a loss-loss situation. Already, this last month, the "Idiot" President of the USA seems to have understood the consequince of over emphasis on ethanol...by asking congress to come up with a farm subsidy bill to get farmers to grow food crop rather than energy crop...he was talking primarily about corn stocks...Why? Because the econmic disaster that we are building if farmers realize a 400 percent more profit from energy competiton than food competition. People are going to starve because of it...the food starch surplus will dry up over night.

4) Presently, there is only one form of alternative energy capable of easing the reliance on Middle Eastern petro energy and cutting the massive cash flow to the Islamo-terrorists that threaten all of us...it is nuclear power. BUT!!!! The oil companies will never allow that to come to pass....the idiotic public is now so brain washed against nuclear, that lone chance will not come to pass. You can take all the alternative forms of energy...solar, wind, wave, geothermal, corn, (exclucing hydro power, of course) and combine them over a whole year and they will not amount to a single days docking of full super tankers...which currently is about 12.5 super tankers per day off loading in the US alone...worth of BTU's.

5) there is another resource...we could make great use of...that is natural gas...it is plentiful and essentially limitless. It is the least expensive of all natural energy sources. The oil companies have been very careful to de-emphasize natgas and have even gone so far as to see that most big natgas wells already drilled are carefully metered or capped...they pose a tremendous threat to the oil monopoly. Also, notice how the greenies have done the bidding of the big oil companies in limiting drilling off shore and in ANWAR? They also have tossed up huge blockages against new big dams. Protecting a few wild rivers at the expense of keeping big oil in business. Hoover dam, the project that turned nearly the entire south west desert into the greatest food basket the world has ever seen, could never be built in this moronic environment of today.

Alternative energy looks great on paper...but, it is miniscule compared to our total energy requirements in this nation. As long as we are distracted and fed a line of crap (which we cheerfully seem to gulp right up) about these silly "alternatives" we are distracted from encouraging the real threats to oil....nuclear and hydro electric.

There are no wonder energy sources on the forseeable horizon...all that crap about fusion/fission....is just pie in the sky....it is not going to happen any time soon...and even if it did, the oil companies would snuff it in the cradle.

[Gman3ID]

1) Although the government talks a fairly good line about going "green" and all, it really does not mean it. Governemnt is totally hooked on oil and the tax money it generates...nothing is going to interfer with that relationship. If you do not believe this, then wonder why California scrapped out the electric cars that were about to really get popular? The cars were ripped off the show room floors immediately after the State Treasurer reported a real threat to the tax base generated by the gasoline tax. She wanted to get a law putting meters inside cars so drivers would have to pay by prorata mileage.

2) Nuclear was not made unpopular by the public...the public was whipped into a frothing "We hate nukes" by constant nudging by the oil companies who forsaw the future of their own demise in nuclear plants springing up like dandelions. As yourself why it was that right after the nuke planst began successful generation, Gulf, Exxon and Standard all became huge investors in nuclear and then after 3Mile Island, all began destructive immobilization and demanded impossibly stringent government nuclear regulation and oversight?

3) If you do a little research into agriculture, you will not have to dig very deep to realise that it is a physical impossibility for food plant product to replace the total BTU energy requirements for the present energy being used. There simply is not enough land, water or non-petroleum based fertilizer in the world to do that. It actually takes the BTU equivalent of 1.8 gallons of ethanol to make one gallon of ethanol....it is a loss-loss situation. Already, this last month, the "Idiot" President of the USA seems to have understood the consequince of over emphasis on ethanol...by asking congress to come up with a farm subsidy bill to get farmers to grow food crop rather than energy crop...he was talking primarily about corn stocks...Why? Because the econmic disaster that we are building if farmers realize a 400 percent more profit from energy competiton than food competition. People are going to starve because of it...the food starch surplus will dry up over night.

4) Presently, there is only one form of alternative energy capable of easing the reliance on Middle Eastern petro energy and cutting the massive cash flow to the Islamo-terrorists that threaten all of us...it is nuclear power. BUT!!!! The oil companies will never allow that to come to pass....the idiotic public is now so brain washed against nuclear, that lone chance will not come to pass. You can take all the alternative forms of energy...solar, wind, wave, geothermal, corn, (exclucing hydro power, of course) and combine them over a whole year and they will not amount to a single days docking of full super tankers...which currently is about 12.5 super tankers per day off loading in the US alone...worth of BTU's.

5) there is another resource...we could make great use of...that is natural gas...it is plentiful and essentially limitless. It is the least expensive of all natural energy sources. The oil companies have been very careful to de-emphasize natgas and have even gone so far as to see that most big natgas wells already drilled are carefully metered or capped...they pose a tremendous threat to the oil monopoly. Also, notice how the greenies have done the bidding of the big oil companies in limiting drilling off shore and in ANWAR? They also have tossed up huge blockages against new big dams. Protecting a few wild rivers at the expense of keeping big oil in business. Hoover dam, the project that turned nearly the entire south west desert into the greatest food basket the world has ever seen, could never be built in this moronic environment of today.

Alternative energy looks great on paper...but, it is miniscule compared to our total energy requirements in this nation. As long as we are distracted and fed a line of crap (which we cheerfully seem to gulp right up) about these silly "alternatives" we are distracted from encouraging the real threats to oil....nuclear and hydro electric.

There are no wonder energy sources on the forseeable horizon...all that crap about fusion/fission....is just pie in the sky....it is not going to happen any time soon...and even if it did, the oil companies would snuff it in the cradle.

1. Two things here,1. We the people can change the elected officials who stand to benefit from highly demanded gas usage. The gov't receives some serious tax dollars period and always will. Which leads to my second point, The revenue can be tranferred and labeled green tax if need be, we will always be taxed to death, it will never decrease, but it can work. I believe the gov't is serious about getting off gas. The DOE is installing a 30mill. PV system, Exxon, BP, Chevron will all see there tax incentives dissappear(2007 Energy Act). And take the big three car makeres GM, Ford and Chrysler for example, ALL 3 showed up to the white house in hybrid's. In other words the time is now before every gas guzzling dealership goes out of business. Look at it's proven dettrement to this country in numerous circumstances.

2. Ask yourself how much it would cost, How are we going to secure it in a post 9-11, and the timeframe to build just one of these reactors before you think it's viable right now. It will work dont get me wrong but when , we need implementation today!!!

3. There is no single food plant that will supplement the gas usage in full today, we know thats not realistic, However some good research on a combination of Alternatives will close the gap and get us off this crap. The infastructure can be built just like it was for oil. This countries technology can advance faster than you think, so with bolstering R+D, it is the future.

You make great points, I would ask what can be done today?

[foxtrot023]

1.
You make great points, I would ask what can be done today?

simple. Change all incandecent light bulbs to the newer fluorence ones. That move alone would save a whooping 20% electrical consumption in developed nations.

[Gman3ID]

Take the Energy Star Challenge, see there's a start!

[Mastermind]

What we can do today is stop burning gasoline as much as possible....it is the life blood of the oil companies...if we could save just 7 percent we would cause a reverse trend...a mini-crash in the price of oil. But, the price crash would self-limit the reversal by simple supply and demand. We need to start a social reversal of the public stance against nuclear power. It is a fact that if the public and the media were to get behind nuclear power, we could greatly reduce the demand on petro resources. But, as long as the oil cash machine has the power to crush nuclear starts, not much at all is going to change.

The current "Gore-panic" on the idiotic global warming folly is really a blessing in disguise in reforming public thought-trends...but, for false reasons that will not last. You will see the government and the oil companies combine efforts to re-focus the public opinion as people begin to really demand alternatives. The price of oil will greatly increase in a kind of absurd reversal of conventional economic doctrine, very much as the tobacco idustry has, when demand begins to falter. You will see government put huge taxes on oil as the industry reduces output and is itself encouraged to price gouge by the gvt. As long as people keep being pulled along by the nose and refuse to dig a little to get facts on what is happening to them,we will retain the status quo. The only question is how long it will go on. Certainly it will not be stopped for lack of natural petro resources or because the planet is suffocating due to "global warming"...both cases are totally false scenarios. The problem is entirely an economic-social problem....not an envionmental problem as we have been made to believe..

Just keep in mind, Big Oil is our government and our government really is Big Oil...they are one and the same...no matter what Democrats or Republicans are saying...look at the ultimate source of the political cash...you will see I am not wrong.

[Gman3ID]

1) Although the government talks a fairly good line about going "green" and all, it really does not mean it. Governemnt is totally hooked on oil and the tax money it generates...nothing is going to interfer with that relationship. If you do not believe this, then wonder why California scrapped out the electric cars that were about to really get popular? The cars were ripped off the show room floors immediately after the State Treasurer reported a real threat to the tax base generated by the gasoline tax. She wanted to get a law putting meters inside cars so drivers would have to pay by prorata mileage...

2) Nuclear was not made unpopular by the public...the public was whipped into a frothing "We hate nukes" by constant nudging by the oil companies who forsaw the future of their own demise in nuclear plants springing up like dandelions. As yourself why it was that right after the nuke planst began successful generation, Gulf, Exxon and Standard all became huge investors in nuclear and then after 3Mile Island, all began destructive immobilization and demanded impossibly stringent government nuclear regulation and oversight?

3) If you do a little research into agriculture, you will not have to dig very deep to realise that it is a physical impossibility for food plant product to replace the total BTU energy requirements for the present energy being used. There simply is not enough land, water or non-petroleum based fertilizer in the world to do that. It actually takes the BTU equivalent of 1.8 gallons of ethanol to make one gallon of ethanol....it is a loss-loss situation. Already, this last month, the "Idiot" President of the USA seems to have understood the consequince of over emphasis on ethanol...by asking congress to come up with a farm subsidy bill to get farmers to grow food crop rather than energy crop...he was talking primarily about corn stocks...Why? Because the econmic disaster that we are building if farmers realize a 400 percent more profit from energy competiton than food competition. People are going to starve because of it...the food starch surplus will dry up over night.

4) Presently, there is only one form of alternative energy capable of easing the reliance on Middle Eastern petro energy and cutting the massive cash flow to the Islamo-terrorists that threaten all of us...it is nuclear power. BUT!!!! The oil companies will never allow that to come to pass....the idiotic public is now so brain washed against nuclear, that lone chance will not come to pass. You can take all the alternative forms of energy...solar, wind, wave, geothermal, corn, (exclucing hydro power, of course) and combine them over a whole year and they will not amount to a single days docking of full super tankers...which currently is about 12.5 super tankers per day off loading in the US alone...worth of BTU's.

5) there is another resource...we could make great use of...that is natural gas...it is plentiful and essentially limitless. It is the least expensive of all natural energy sources. The oil companies have been very careful to de-emphasize natgas and have even gone so far as to see that most big natgas wells already drilled are carefully metered or capped...they pose a tremendous threat to the oil monopoly. Also, notice how the greenies have done the bidding of the big oil companies in limiting drilling off shore and in ANWAR? They also have tossed up huge blockages against new big dams. Protecting a few wild rivers at the expense of keeping big oil in business. Hoover dam, the project that turned nearly the entire south west desert into the greatest food basket the world has ever seen, could never be built in this moronic environment of today.

Alternative energy looks great on paper...but, it is miniscule compared to our total energy requirements in this nation. As long as we are distracted and fed a line of crap (which we cheerfully seem to gulp right up) about these silly "alternatives" we are distracted from encouraging the real threats to oil....nuclear and hydro electric.

There are no wonder energy sources on the forseeable horizon...all that crap about fusion/fission....is just pie in the sky....it is not going to happen any time soon...and even if it did, the oil companies would snuff it in the cradle.


What we can do today is stop burning gasoline as much as possible....it is the life blood of the oil companies...if we could save just 7 percent we would cause a reverse trend...a mini-crash in the price of oil. But, the price crash would self-limit the reversal by simple supply and demand. We need to start a social reversal of the public stance against nuclear power. It is a fact that if the public and the media were to get behind nuclear power, we could greatly reduce the demand on petro resources. But, as long as the oil cash machine has the power to crush nuclear starts, not much at all is going to change.

The current "Gore-panic" on the idiotic global warming folly is really a blessing in disguise in reforming public thought-trends...but, for false reasons that will not last. You will see the government and the oil companies combine efforts to re-focus the public opinion as people begin to really demand alternatives. The price of oil will greatly increase in a kind of absurd reversal of conventional economic doctrine, very much as the tobacco idustry has, when demand begins to falter. You will see government put huge taxes on oil as the industry reduces output and is itself encouraged to price gouge by the gvt. As long as people keep being pulled along by the nose and refuse to dig a little to get facts on what is happening to them,we will retain the status quo. The only question is how long it will go on. Certainly it will not be stopped for lack of natural petro resources or because the planet is suffocating due to "global warming"...both cases are totally false scenarios. The problem is entirely an economic-social problem....not an envionmental problem as we have been made to believe..

Just keep in mind, Big Oil is our government and our government really is Big Oil...they are one and the same...no matter what Democrats or Republicans are saying...look at the ultimate source of the political cash...you will see I am not wrong.

I agree Oil='s power and we have the most, that is of money and power and It will be for the forseeable future,whether it's Dem/Rep. Iam sure Exxon's billion dollar profits find it's way to the right places. I for one am tired of being sqeezed. Everything in this country has gone up including gas, cost of living, school, heathcare, taxes etc... It's time and demand change in our govt, the social economic divide here is growing perfusely.
RE puts money back where it belongs, in the pockets of it's people.Not Big Oil, Not to fund mismanaged wars, and nowhere else.

I sometimes ponder the thought that through continued instability in the middle-east, certain gov't's and corporations benefit greatly, Is that way off?

[Mastermind]

No..it is not way off. The government actions tells the story...Think of it this way. If Big Oil had their own army, where would that army be right now? Kinda scary huh?

[Gman3ID]

Good analogy, Scary indeed. Sad but true. I served a few yr's,And I wonder how long the current all volunteer force will go on before they are fed up. I realize we are at war with people (and I use that word loosely)that want to kill every single last one of us freedom loving people. But where do we draw the line between laying our lives down for freedom and dying for WMD, links to AQ, and so-called threats. I dont want us to lose any more lives and wars for that matter, but again what are we dying for over there?......Don't answer that.

[Gman3ID]

April 11, 2007
Military Moves to Solar Power, Hires Akeena Solar for the Job

Largest Solar Installation in Fresno Area
Press Release from Akeena Solar
Los Gatos, CA
The California Air National Guard is switching to solar power for the operation of its armory in Fresno. The Guard hired MCC Construction and Akeena Solar (OTCBB:AKNS), already one of the state's biggest residential installer of solar systems, to do the multimillion-dollar job.
Barry Cinnamon, CEO of Akeena, stated, "We are thrilled to be showcasing Akeena's design and integration talents in the Central Valley of California. The hot climate and high electricity rates have been the driving force behind the astounding growth for the solar power industry in this region. We are happy to work with California Air National Guard base to produce clean renewable power while helping the base to save money."

Many government agencies are discovering that there never has been a better time to switch to solar, avoiding volatile and increasingly high prices for conventional energy sources.

The first phase of the Fresno system will produce the equivalent of the power used by 34 average households. By the time the entire system is finished, it will produce the equivalent of power used by 100 households.

Barry Cinnamon, CEO of Akeena, stated, "We are thrilled to be showcasing Akeena's design and integration talents in the Central Valley of California. The hot climate and high electricity rates have been the driving force behind the astounding growth for the solar power industry in this region. We are happy to work with California Air National Guard base to produce clean renewable power while helping the base to save money."

About Akeena Solar, Inc.

Founded in 2001, Akeena Solar's (OTCBB:AKNS) philosophy is simple: We believe producing clean electricity directly from the sun is the right thing to do for our environment and economy. Akeena Solar has grown to become one of the largest national integrators of residential and small commercial solar power systems in the United States, serving customers directly in California, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and Pennsylvania. For more information, visit Akeena Solar's website at www.akeena.net.

Thought I might share this.

[Gman3ID]

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/ssi/story/2.0/banner/sprj.fa07.inc/banner.jpg (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/fueling.america/)
document.write(cnnRenderTimeStamp(1184000237090,['July 9, 2007 -- Updated 1657 GMT (0057 HKT)','updated 12:57 p.m. EDT, Mon July 9, 2007']));updated 2 hours ago

O_GoT('http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/1.3/misc/opinionNewBlue.gifFeedback');


Have we reached the energy tipping point?


<LI class=cnnHiliteHeader>Story Highlights
Poll shows energy is Americans' fourth most-important priority for Washington
Presidential candidates tout "Apollo program" for energy and environment
State, local efforts signal possible shift toward renewables, conservation
Next Article in U.S. » (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/09/wounded.jobs/index.html)
http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/images/1.gif
http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_dg_BL.gif
http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_dg_TL.gif
var clickExpire = "-1";By Manav Tanneeru
CNN
http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/global/story_tools/text_size.gif
http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/global/story_tools/txt_minus.gif http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/global/story_tools/txt_minus_dn_.gif
http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/global/story_tools/txt_plus.gif http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/global/story_tools/txt_plus_dn.gif

(CNN) -- In late June, the U.S. Senate passed an energy bill that would raise gas mileage standards for the first time in 20 years and fund research on alternative energy sources.
http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2007/US/07/06/fa.critical.mass/art.gas.pump.gi.jpg High gas prices and low mileage are among the factors behind an apparent shift in the nation's energy debate.


http://www.cnn.com/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif


The bill's proponents call it a breakthrough in the nation's energy debate, saying the focus is shifting from reliance on fossil fuels and foreign oil toward renewable fuels and green technology.
The measure comes amid another summer of high gas prices (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/gas_prices), state and local conservation efforts and a presidential campaign where voters and candidates say the issue is key.
So is a critical mass building among Americans and legislators for changes in U.S. energy policy? Or are these efforts simply blips on the radar as Americans continue to drive SUVs and Hummers?
A recent analysis by the Gallup Poll showed energy as Americans' fourth most-important priority for Washington, below Iraq, terrorism and national security, and the economy.
The analysis also showed Americans prefer energy conservation over more production, and that a large majority also favors tightening emissions standards and developing alternative sources of energy (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/alternative_energy_technology).
When asked to rate the importance of issues in voting for a presidential candidate next year, 43 percent of Americans said gas prices would be "extremely important," according to a May poll by Opinion Research Corporation. The percentage was tied with health care and below Iraq, terrorism and education.
Don't miss


Fueling America (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/fueling.america)
Democratic and Republican presidential contenders seem to have taken note of voters' discontent.
"It's a national security issue. It's a health care issue," Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, a Democrat, said during a CNN presidential debate in New Hampshire in June. He touted a plan that would require a standard of 50 miles per gallon for automobiles by 2017.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democrat, touted an "Apollo program" -- referring to the 1960s effort that put men on the moon -- that would reduce dependence on foreign oil by more than half and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent.
During the Republican presidential debate in New Hampshire two days later, many candidates said much the same thing.
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Republican, also called for an "Apollo program" and said reducing foreign dependence on oil was intrinsically tied to national security.
"It's frustrating and really dangerous for us to see money going to our enemies because we have to buy oil from certain countries," he said. "We should be supporting all the alternatives."
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, said oil companies ought to play a part in rebuilding old infrastructure, which would increase efficiency and possibly reduce costs.
"Big oil is making a lot of money right now, and I'd like to see them using that money to invest in refineries," Romney said. "Don't forget that when companies earn profit, that money's supposed to be reinvested in growth and our refineries are old."
President Bush, in his State of the Union address this year, announced an initiative to cut U.S. gasoline consumption by 20 percent over the next 10 years through a combination of alternative fuels and more efficient automobiles.
Several months later, during a speech at an Alabama nuclear energy plant, he also spoke of the promises of nuclear energy, coal, ethanol and cars that could run on rechargeable batteries.
Meanwhile, on the state and local level, several developments signal a possible shift among mayors, governors and state legislatures toward energy policies (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/energy_policy) that focus more on renewable fuels and conservation measures.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a Republican, announced the "25 by 25" program last year, with a goal that 25 percent of the energy produced and used in the state come from renewable sources by 2025.
The Nevada legislature has voted to increase the percentage of renewable resources in how the state produces electricity in four out of the last five sessions, according to the National Governors Association.
Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, a Democrat, announced a plan in late June to reduce high energy costs in the state within the next three years through conservation measures.
And New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg unveiled PlaNYC this summer, which includes 127 proposals to reduce greenhouse emissions by 30 percent by 2030 and a congestion charge for driving through certain parts of Manhattan.
When asked by CNN.com if efforts such as these were evidence of momentum toward a shift in energy policy, many readers said they were skeptical about the rhetoric of lawmakers and their political will.
"I can guarantee that whatever is 'done' will take place only to serve the benefits of those corporations directly affected by these issues," wrote Ryan Bate of Portland, Oregon.
"Change in U.S. policy? You must be joking," wrote Dean Cassano of Lakeland, Florida. "Washington is sold out to the environmentalists and tourists. The 1973 oil crisis did nothing to wake us up. We should have been drilling in [Alaska] and the Gulf ever since."
Ilene Lopez of Vero Beach, Florida, questioned whether American society actually wanted change. "The critical mass for change is still not a reality since so many people are still buying into the bigger is better motto of America," she wrote.
Cristian Crespo of Valley Village, California, said he found it ridiculous that automakers hadn't yet come up with a way to combine fuel efficiency with luxury provided by a SUV.
"It's not that Americans don't want to be environmentally friendly, it's just that we don't have much of a choice," he wrote. "As an SUV driver, telling me that my only alternative is a Toyota Prius or a Honda Civic is like telling me to eat beef jerky when I'm used to filet mignon."E-mail to a friend (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/06/fa.critical.mass/index.html#) http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/util/email.gif
All About Energy Policy (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/energy_policy) • Gas Prices (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/gas_prices) • Alternative Energy Technology (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/alternative_energy_technology) • Energy (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/energy_technology)

Seem's like the policies are backing the funding towards energy effeciency.

Since the current infastructure is geared towards fossil fuels, How does one advance RE technology(seems like the easier part) as well as update/change it's existing infastructure.

[Durandal]

America will not change unless Energy companies can find profitability in new energy sources.

When they do, America will change ASAP since all the politicians will be doing back flips for 'em.

Its all about the "green".

[Kilo]

http://media.ft.com/cms/6f68385c-882a-11da-a25e-0000779e2340.gif

World will face oil crunch ‘in five years’

By Javier Blas, Commodities Correspondent
Published: July 9 2007 13:25 | Last updated: July 9 2007 13:25

The world is facing an oil supply “crunch” within five years that will force up prices to record levels and increase the west’s dependence on oil cartel Opec, the industrialised countries’ energy watchdog has warned.
In its starkest warning yet on the world’s fuel outlook, the International Energy Agency said “oil looks extremely tight in five years time” and there are “prospects of even tighter natural gas markets at the turn of the decade”.
The IEA said that supply was falling faster than expected in mature areas, such as the North Sea or Mexico, while projects in new provinces such as the Russian Far East, faced long delays. Meanwhile consumption is accelerating on strong economic growth in emerging countries.
The problem is exacerbated by the fact that supply from non-members of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries will increase at an annual pace of 1 per cent, or less than half the rate of the demand rise.
The widening gap between rising consumption and lagging non-Opec supply will force Opec to sharply increase its production in the next five years.
Lawrence Eagles, head of the IEA’s oil market division, told the Financial Times: “If we get to the point were there is insufficient supply, the only way to balance the market will be through higher prices and a drop in demand.”
The IEA Medium Term Oil Market Report came as oil is approaching last year’s record high. Brent crude oil on Monday rose 72 cents to a 11-month high of $76.34 a barrel.
Refineries are already paying record high prices as producing countries have cut the discount at which they sell their oil relative to Brent, according to an analysis by the FT. Most of the discounts had been reduced to levels not seen since 2004 and some even to six-years lows.
Oil demand will grow at an annual rate of 2.2 per cent during the next five years, up from a previous estimate of 2 per cent, to reach 95.8m barrels a day in 2012. China, the Middle East and other emerging countries will lead the increase.
Rex Tillerson, the chairman and chief executive of ExxonMobil, said recently that he thought non-Opec oil production was close to levelling off. He told the FT: “We still see capacity for a little more growth, but pretty modest, and then in our own energy outlook it begins to plateau. And that results then in this call on Opec.”
UK oil production is set to suffer a dramatic decline from today’s 1.7m barrels a day to just 1.0m b/d in 2012, according to the IEA.
The IEA estimates Opec would have to supply about 36.2m b/d in 2012, up from today’s 31.3m b/d. That would reduce the oil cartel’s spare capacity to a “minimal level” of 1.6 per cent of global demand, down from 2.9 per cent in 2007.

source: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2d97d75a-2e0c-11dc-821c-0000779fd2ac.html

[Durandal]

What I do not understand is there is almost no mention of China and the impact they are continuing to have and how they will be impacted. Not a slam on China or anything just is what it is. A one world market. And while oil prices may rise the average Chinese income isn't super boosting by any stretch.

[Kilo]

Europe's railways
A high-speed revolution

Jul 5th 2007 | BRUSSELS, FRANKFURT, PARIS AND STRASBOURG
From The Economist print edition

European railways form an alliance to promote swifter international travel


http://www.economist.com/images/20070707/CWB934.gif


AS THE fastest train in Europe reaches its top speed of 320kph (200mph) the glasses of wine on the bar barely wobble. Champagne country is a blur as the train tears along Europe's newest high-speed line—the first to link France and Germany. France's Train à Grande Vitesse (TGV) can now travel between Stuttgart and Paris in only three hours 40 minutes instead of six hours. The latest generation of Germany's Inter-City Express (ICE) trains has similarly shrunk the journey time between Frankfurt and Paris.
This week high-speed railways in France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria and Switzerland joined with existing international services, such as the cross-channel Eurostar and the Paris-Brussels Thalys, to form Railteam, a new marketing alliance. The aim by the end of next year is to have one website that will allow travellers to view timetables and prices and, with one or two clicks, book tickets from one end of Europe to another. At the European Commission's insistence, Railteam members will compete on prices, though there could be some tricky moments as some of them team up to take on airlines.

Europe is in the grip of a high-speed rail revolution. Four new lines are opening this year and next, with trains running up to 320kph (see map). The eastern France TGV line is the first, to be followed in November by a new link from the Channel Tunnel to a new rail hub at London St Pancras, connecting Britain's first really fast line to the rest of the network. Paris will be only two hours 20 minutes away, and Brussels less than two hours. By 2008 Brussels will have new high-speed links to Amsterdam and Cologne. Railteam's aim is to increase high-speed passengers from 15m a year today to 25m by 2010.
The opening of the TGV-Est last month marked a huge change of heart for France. Its high-speed rail network has been spinning a web from Paris to the corners of the French hexagon since the mid-1970s. But now the TGV-Est wires France into the heart of its biggest neighbour, Germany, and gives birth to a joint venture between the French and German state-owned railways, SNCF and Deutsche Bahn (DB).
Although joint ventures between state-owned rail champions and a grand Railteam marketing alliance might not seem an ideal way of introducing a new level of competition into an industry long regarded as rusty, it is an important start. International passenger-rail services in Europe will be opened up to competition from January 2010. It could lead to a dramatic liberalisation of Europe's railways, akin to that of its airlines. Europe's open skies led to more privatisation of state airlines and the emergence of new, low-cost carriers such as easyJet and Ryanair. If Europe's railway revolution stays on track, an easyTrain or Ryanrail could emerge.
The prospects for Europe's trains have hardly been better since the great age of steam. For decades planes, cars and lorries have been quicker, more convenient and usually more reliable ways to transport people and goods throughout much of Europe. But concern over climate change, hassles at overcrowded airports, delayed flights and congested roads have conspired with better high-speed rail technology to make the train an increasingly attractive alternative, and an especially green one: a full high-speed electric train emits between a tenth and a quarter of the carbon dioxide of a plane, according to the bosses of Eurostar.

Signalling problems

Nevertheless, running railways is an expensive business and integration across national borders is painful and fraught with technical and political obstacles. Much of the expense is shouldered by taxpayers, who pay for the dedicated high-speed tracks, but the train services that run on them mostly make a profit (though Eurostar has been dogged by losses relating to the Channel Tunnel).
Then there are the technical difficulties. Brussels has been piling up directives on inter-operability for the past 16 years. Yet apart from a few services such as Eurostar and Thalys, rail travel has remained national, with locomotives and drivers changing at borders and little in the way of through tickets or co-ordinated timetables. Harmonising high-speed train control systems is an expensive nightmare. Eurostar trains have four different power systems for France, Belgium, the Channel Tunnel and the London commuter lines they had to use while waiting for the high-speed link to open.
Another obstacle to change is that governments and trade unions regard railways as providers of stable jobs that are shielded from competition. So there has been much resistance to opening up the market, particularly in France and Germany. The hope is that a grand alliance, and joint ventures under its umbrella, stand more chance of breaking free from old constraints than attempts to strike separate deals on particular routes.

Vorsprung durch DB

There is no doubt that Germany's state-owned railway is at the forefront of Europe's rail revolution. Hartmut Mehdorn, chief executive of DB, has turned a chronic loss-making railway into a powerful international business which plans to float some 30% of its shares next year. It is already a world-class logistics company, with a global business based on its international rail-freight activity. That could prove to be a useful hedge against greater competition in passenger rail.
DB carries twice as much freight and three times as many passengers as SNCF and owns and operates more than 90% of Germany's rail network. Over 200 competitors, mostly small firms that bid for franchises to run local services subsidised by regional authorities, run trains on its tracks. But DB still dominates the long-distance and inter-city traffic. Only two rivals compete on long-distance passenger services: Veolia on the Leipzig-Berlin-Rostock route, and Georg Verkehrsorganisation, which runs night trains between Berlin and Malmo in Sweden.
State rail firms have the ability to foil smaller rivals and new entrants. One way DB does this is with access to its tracks: InterConnex, owned by Veolia (a French group), fought a losing battle to run a passenger service between Frankfurt and Cologne. It was only offered a track on the right bank of the Rhine, which is winding and subject to delays. Some believe this is why DB will not be allowed to retain full ownership of the rail network in its pending privatisation. But Mr Mehdorn more or less made keeping the tracks a condition for staying when his contract was renewed for three years last month. Britain showed what can go wrong when track and train companies are separated: after the shambolic privatisation of British Rail the network company, Railtrack, collapsed and in effect had to be renationalised. Not surprisingly, there is little appetite to try anything similar on the Continent.
Over at SNCF the debates are different. Guillaume Pepy, SNCF's managing director, was taken aback when he was recently asked about privatisation. “No politician in France ever suggests privatising SNCF,” he replied. But even if privatisation is not on the agenda in France, that does not mean greater commercialisation has been ruled out. There will be no avoiding it once access to Europe's passenger lines follows the freight liberalisation that started last January. SNCF's union-bound freight business is suffering so badly in the new environment that it will probably need rescuing by a partly privatised DB. But both SNCF's charismatic president, Anne-Marie Idrac, who made her name rejuvenating the Paris Metro, and Mr Pepy are bullish about international high-speed passenger rail: they conceived Railteam.
How successful will the new high-speed lines be at taking business away from airlines? A big shift in passenger numbers would be more likely if airlines had to pay the same taxes that train operators do, namely value-added tax and a tax on fuel, both of which would push up air fares. But despite the resulting price disadvantage, high-speed rail still has many attractions. The added comfort of a train and the ability to walk about, eat in a dining car, work online or use a mobile phone—not to mention the lack of endless queues and security checks—mean that high-speed rail offers a good alternative to flying. Hence the razzmatazz on May 25th when SNCF and DB ran their first high-speed trains from Stuttgart and Frankfurt to Paris, under a joint venture called Alleo, which is part of Railteam.


http://www.economist.com/images/20070707/2707WB1.jpg


Move over, aeroplanes

There is more to the rivalry between rail and air than the experience in transit, however. Railways must compete in other respects, too. SNCF is justly proud of its airline-style yield management system (originally based on the expertise of Sabre, an offshoot of American Airlines), which fills up seats by pricing them according to demand. This booking-only system enables SNCF to fill over 80% of seats on average.
DB tried to introduce a similar system in 2003, but abandoned it because of opposition from politicians and consumer groups. They wanted DB to retain its turn-up-and-pay style of rail travel, which German passengers cherish. Karl-Friedrich Rausch, the head of DB's passenger business, consoles himself with the thought that although DB does not fill as many of its seats as SNCF, travellers can at least arrive at, say, Frankfurt airport's shiny new station and be sure that they can get an ICE train every half hour to Stuttgart or Munich without booking. One of the reasons for the German preference for hop-on, hop-off high-speed trains is that stage lengths are shorter than in France, where the population is more spread out, with fewer big towns. One German idea adopted by Railteam is that frequent travellers will be able to board the next train and get a guaranteed seat if they miss a connection because of a delay.
Mr Rausch, who used to work for Lufthansa, reckons airlines are 15 years ahead of railways in the way they manage their businesses. But he is doing his best to catch up. He is concentrating initially on the improvements to customer service that trains can offer. DB already runs co-ordinated services with Lufthansa that allow travellers to transfer from a plane to a train with a single ticket, for example. Mr Pepy at SNCF reckons that when rail networks are opened up in 2010, airlines such as Lufthansa and Air France-KLM will start operating their own train services. Mr Rausch is more cautious. He thinks open access will take some years to become a reality and that airlines will probably get involved only as partners to train operators.
Whether through competition, co-operation or both, a plethora of European directives such as the “Railway Interoperability Directive” and the “Third Railway Package” will encourage the emergence of this new era of international rail travel. Rail bosses note that on six-hour journeys they are typically winning more than 60% of the leisure market from airlines. The same is happening with business travellers on four-hour journeys. It may be a while before you can choose between a French TGV or a German ICE to ride to Bucharest or even Naples. But as when Lenin sped in his sealed carriage through war-torn Germany 90 years ago, the train of revolution has left the station.


http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9441785