{"id":333192,"date":"2024-06-17T16:11:30","date_gmt":"2024-06-17T14:11:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=333192"},"modified":"2024-06-17T16:11:32","modified_gmt":"2024-06-17T14:11:32","slug":"energy-notes-from-the-edge-coal-trains-vs-high-speed-rail-guess-which-is-faster-into-service-heres-how-big-oil-can-sleep-at-night","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=333192","title":{"rendered":"Energy notes from the edge: Coal trains vs. high speed rail \u2013 guess which is faster (into service); Here\u2019s how big oil can sleep at night"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"
California high speed rail<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From BOE Report<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By \u00a0Terry Etam<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Two wild train projects bookend the energy scene perfectly<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ah, you couldn\u2019t make this stuff up, as we find ourselves saying on a daily basis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here\u2019s a look at two ambitious infrastructure projects involving rail construction, separated by a few years and also by about everything else two projects could be separated on. One of the train stories dates way back to 2019; let me take you back to that era for all the readers less than five years old (not quite but close; last week I met a delightful family, a mother and two young daughters that are fascinated by pump jacks, love taking pictures of them, and are planning to launch an apparel line adorned by nodding donkeys. I\u2019ll take five.) 2019 was the zenith of anti-hydrocarbon frenzy. It remains alive in small pockets of guilt-ridden billionaire inheritors and various political types that don\u2019t understand energy and don\u2019t want to learn, but 2019 was something else; hundreds of thousands of brainwashed children taking to the streets behind a strange Swedish kid that was treated like a messiah by confused adults. Canada\u2019s prime minister jauntily joined one of her protests, standing proudly in front of signs explaining in emotional gobbledygook that the hydrocarbons that were keeping the sign-holders alive now and for the foreseeable future had to be eradicated immediately via some demand or magic or else the world will simply explode into flames a few decades hence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anyway, it was all surreal in one sense, but back to the railways: a few interesting milestones were hit around then that, when viewed alongside the climate hysteria of the era, prove without a doubt just how challenging it will be to transition to a new energy system.29dk2902lhttps:\/\/boereport.com\/29dk2902l.html<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But before getting to the 2019 story, we\u2019ll check in on one that began long before then and continues to this day. It hails from sunny California, spiritual leader of the Movement To Use Extreme Wealth To Do Wacko Things. In 2008, voters approved a high-speed rail connection between Los Angeles and San Francisco, to be completed by 2020, at a cost of some $33 billion<\/a>. Big numbers, both on the timescale and in the $ department. That\u2019s reality these days though; nothing is easy or cheap, part of which is the price of going green. US energy transition advocates have reliably pointed out that high speed rail was a necessity all over the US, and the world for that matter. Nature website ran an article<\/a> stating \u201c\u2026the role of high-speed railways in fostering a transition towards sustainable energy sources has gained prominence\u2026 these findings highlight the environmentally friendly attributes of high-speed railways and underscore the pressing need for effective policy measures to facilitate a global transition towards renewable energy, both in China and worldwide.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A few interesting tidbits emerge out of this scenario. The first and most peculiar is that a scientific article on the scientific website Nature would assert that high-speed rail is important in \u201cfostering a transition towards sustainable energy sources\u201d \u2013 the statement has no logical basis, it flows from nothing, and is incoherent. HSR is wonderful, and makes efficient use of time, and possibly could replace air travel in some circumstances, and, as the paper rightly asks, HSR may well contribute to \u2018nationwide energy savings and emissions reductions\u2019. But none of these virtues foster a transition towards sustainable energy sources and to state it does is an oddly dumb non sequitur to feature as the anchor statement for an academic paper.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But anyways, whatever, the paper analyzes China\u2019s experiences with HSR, which brings up a far more interesting point about the energy transition that is in the realm of That Which Must Not Be Discussed: the fact that in the west, major infrastructure projects are incredibly difficult to construct, whether green or not, and that initial cost estimates often turn out to be laughably low.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

California did indeed set out to build an HSR in 2008, to be completed (as you may recall) some twelve years hence. But, as this California news website notes<\/a>, \u201cthe blueprint is fraying\u201d, which is some beautiful understatement. In 2020, the year the project was to be completed, Governor Newsom unveiled an updated plan, that California would settle for building a 171 mile initial segment \u2013 about a third of the distance of the original \u2013 at a cost of $35 billion, a number that exceeds the initial estimate for the entire 500 mile line. And the in-service date for the shortened version is now penciled in as 2030. As for an end date for the entire project, they haven\u2019t a clue, don\u2019t even bother taking a guess at it, but they have bravely provided an updated budget of, brace yourself, $128 billion. That\u2019s almost four times the original estimate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And even that number is scoffed at by engineers that have worked on HSRs. Bill Ibbs, a retired UC Berkeley engineer, says he is concerned about the lack of attention to engineering risks \u2013 that proponents don\u2019t even address significant engineering challenges in the latest cost estimate, such as challenges likely to arise in the 38 miles of mountain tunnels required. (Per the article linked above: \u201cDemocratic leaders have declined or did not respond to requests for interviews.\u201d Who saw that coming.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That<\/em> is what we are in store for in the western world. Keep this example in mind the next time you hear about net-zero 2050 visions based on almost any large scale infrastructure construction. You would have to be the world\u2019s most na\u00efve person to believe initial cost and time estimates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now, on the other hand, countries such as China have indeed made great progress though, as we\u2019ll see in a second, the choice of China as an example is fairly ironic. The Nature academic paper notes that hundreds of Chinese cities already operate HSR networks. China has stunned the world with the pace at which it has developed infrastructure over the past 40 years; however, it is an authoritarian state that sweeps aside the sort of issues that bog down western democracies like a bear sweeps aside a hiker.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And if we\u2019re going to marvel at the speed at which China has constructed these HSRs, then we should look at this one too. In 2019, China opened a brand new, 1,813 mile railroad, completed on schedule at a cost of $28 billion. It took 4 years to construct, and faced multiple significant challenges such as \u201ccrossing both the Yangtze and Yellow Rivers twice\u201d and includes 770 bridges and 229 tunnels totalling 469 kilometres or 291 miles, some 8 times as many tunnel miles as California. This new rail line is dedicated to carrying\u2026 coal<\/a>. It was created for no other reason. It was built entirely to handle coal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s how they do it folks. An authoritarian state that removes any obstacles instantly, all to build a supply line for a fuel that the west is cleansing itself from as fast as it can. China realizes what it takes to build things. The West does not. Further, while China is the largest installer of renewable energy, it is fairly transparent about its appetite for any fuel. That\u2019s how the world works, folks, except for some\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cHow do you sleep at night?\u201d Or\u2026 how to win a debate with extremist loons \u2013 hand them a microphone<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

An NDP committee that hates things dragged a bunch of \u201cBig Oil\u201d (or \u201cBig Canadian Oil\u201d, anyway) CEOs onto the carpet to, literally, blame them for forest fires and floods. Their argument went about where you\u2019d think it would, when your philosophical underpinnings are of that grade: Not only do you mooks create a lot of bad weather, but you line your pockets by doing so, gleefully so, and thus we want to know just how you can sleep at night.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The CEOs responded decently enough in their polished way, but I think it\u2019s important when addressing an interrogation of that sort to firmly call out the lay of the land.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rich Kruger, CEO of Suncor<\/a>, said \u201cI could praise the transformational virtues of hydrocarbons over the past century, convey the world\u2019s dependence on oil and gas for decades to come, recite economic contributions to Canada\u2019s prosperity and, yes, discuss the concerning effects of climate change and GHG emissions\u2026 however, today, I plan to dispel a series to myths. And paint a picture of opportunity.\u201d The myths: oil & gas prosperity comes at the expense of the planet; Canadian companies are resisting the energy transition\/decarbonization; and that Canada can demonstrate global leadership by restricting its oil & gas sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He\u2019s not wrong, but there\u2019s a significant subtlety that gets swept under the rug here, one that can cause grave danger to a lot of people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, y\u2019all need to understand the battlefield. Kruger is right; it is to generate headlines, but consider the headlines carefully when selecting which myths to bust. They (the NDP) are literally accusing the hydrocarbon industry of murder \u2013 not with a gun, but via creating the emissions that cause weather disasters that kill people. They and their fellow warriors have created a lazy but sellable chain of causality there.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mythbusting is important, but first, it is critical to take aim at the cornerstones of their argument, and not capitulate on those. In other words:<\/p>\n\n\n\n