Want more efficient transportation? "Move to Cleveland"

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

CHamilton

Engineer
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
5,301
Location
Seattle
Update: Lessons from the Livermore Laboratory's energy use graph

2012newUSEnergy.jpg.662x0_q100_crop-scale.jpg

Public Domain Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Department of Energy; click here for larger image


The Lawrence Livermore Laboratory energy use graph for 2012 is out, and it tells so many stories, one could study it all day. ...

1) Efficiency really matters, and it is getting worse, not better

The basic message of the graph has not changed since Mike wrote about it in 2007, that our energy systems are shockingly inefficient, with 71% of the energy we create being wasted. ...

2) Transportation is our single biggest problem.

There are two completely different worlds on this graph; a whole pile of energy sources going into making electricity that does a whole pile of things, and there's petroleum going into cars. A tiny bit of electricity and natural gas going into transportation and a tiny bit of petroleum going to industry but that's the only crossover between them. And why do we need so much petroleum?

transportation.jpg.492x0_q85_crop-smart.jpg

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Department of Energy/Public Domain

3) Cars are incredibly inefficient converters of energy.

Of the 26.7 quads of energy going into transportation, barely a fifth of it is doing useful stuff, the rest is wasted. The idea of pushing a ton of metal to move 200 pounds of flesh is just insanely inefficient. This doesn't even account for the energy used in maintaining the infrastructure and building the roads; It is an inherently stupid way to design a transportation system.

buildings.jpg.492x0_q85_crop-smart.jpg

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Department of Energy/Public Domain

... What does the graph tell us we should do?

1. Embrace urbanism.

The fact is, people are getting in their cars to go from place to place, not drive in circles for fun. We have to make it possible to survive without the car, and that means greater density and local shopping. It does NOT mean everyone has to live in New York and high rise buildings; many of our small towns and cities are eminently walkable.

2. Do everything possible to promote walking, bikes, electric bikes, mopeds, buses, light rail, subways, anything that moves more human and less iron.

Gasoline is problem 1 and Electricity is problem 2. Anything that moves more human per unit of energy is an improvement. Anything that reduces the distance human has to move, such as working from home, promoting main streets and supporting local business, is also a big help.

3. Move to Cleveland.

Or Buffalo or Detroit. Cities with rail and canals and water and hydro power and moderate climates that don't need as much air conditioning, the major electrical draw.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Update: Lessons from the Livermore Laboratory's energy use graph



3. Move to Cleveland.

Or Buffalo or Detroit. Cities with rail and canals and water and hydro power and moderate climates that don't need as much air conditioning, the major electrical draw.
The graph tells us a lot. How much is wasted is a most important part of the message. The waste in electric generation is such that we are kidding ourselves if we think we are saving energy by electrifying railroads. It is only meaningful if we can get the electricity by means not available to a mobile power plant, in other words no oil, no gas. if it is not hydro or nuclear we are actually speeding up the consumption of fossil fuels by electrifying railroads, and likely by going to "all electric" houses.

By the way, in what universe is the climate "mild" in Buffalo, Cleveland, and Detroit?
 
Back
Top