Finally paid $3 a gallon for gas for first time in life

In article >,
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) > wrote:
>
>
>"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>>
>> In article >,
>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) > wrote:
>
>
>> >> >> It has to stop and wait more often than a car does, however. Far more often.
>> >> >> Maybe not every block, but every few miles.
>> >> >>
>> >> >Why?
>> >>
>> >> The train has to stop to allow cars to enter and exit.
>> >>
>> >But not very often compared to a bus, I keep telling you.
>>
>> But very often, and for a very long time compared to, say, a car.
>>
>You might only have to stop every ten miles. Think about what might
>mean. Rail lines would only need to be as close as 20 miles to each
>other, for example.

Again, you've solved the same problem that limited-access highways
solve, only not as well.

>> >Do you realize that in some areas the bus is only getting ten percent of
>> >its total cost of running from the passenger fares? That some commuter
>> >light rail actually charges people riding only enough to pay for the
>> >ticket machines? Why is this so? Because few people ride them. If you
>> >had a lot of EVs and people were freely able to put them on trains, that
>> >problem would evaporate.
>>
>> No, it wouldn't. Since you've said the train will be free, it will
>> get zero percent of its total cost from passenger fares.
>>
>Which isn't that different from current public transport.

So the problem doesn't "evaporate". It becomes worse.

>> How could a train carrying cars and people be less efficient than the
>> cars carrying the people themselves? It's not even difficult.
>> There's nothing magic about a train.
>>
>Of course there is. The train is carrying the cars. The cars have to
>deal with wind resistance over a much greater area, they have other
>inefficiencies that trains avoid. I'd like a cite for your numbers.

http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb25/Edition25_Chapter02.pdf

Table 2.10

--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>
> In article >,
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) > wrote:
> >
> >
> >"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
> >>
> >> In article >,
> >> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> >> >> It has to stop and wait more often than a car does, however. Far more often.
> >> >> >> Maybe not every block, but every few miles.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >Why?
> >> >>
> >> >> The train has to stop to allow cars to enter and exit.
> >> >>
> >> >But not very often compared to a bus, I keep telling you.
> >>
> >> But very often, and for a very long time compared to, say, a car.
> >>
> >You might only have to stop every ten miles. Think about what might
> >mean. Rail lines would only need to be as close as 20 miles to each
> >other, for example.
>
> Again, you've solved the same problem that limited-access highways
> solve, only not as well.
>
1) There is physically not enough room for more lanes in many highly
urbanized areas. Train tracks often already exist and are
under-utilized.
2) Limited access highways don't make electric vehicles practical, what
I'm talking about does.


> >> >Do you realize that in some areas the bus is only getting ten percent of
> >> >its total cost of running from the passenger fares? That some commuter
> >> >light rail actually charges people riding only enough to pay for the
> >> >ticket machines? Why is this so? Because few people ride them. If you
> >> >had a lot of EVs and people were freely able to put them on trains, that
> >> >problem would evaporate.
> >>
> >> No, it wouldn't. Since you've said the train will be free, it will
> >> get zero percent of its total cost from passenger fares.
> >>
> >Which isn't that different from current public transport.
>
> So the problem doesn't "evaporate". It becomes worse.
>
The problem with current public transport isn't that it doesn't pay for
itself. A lot of important things are not directly able to pay all their
costs, e.g. basic science research. The problem with public transport
today is that it is in almost every conceivable way a complete failure
almost everywhere in the United States.




> >> How could a train carrying cars and people be less efficient than the
> >> cars carrying the people themselves? It's not even difficult.
> >> There's nothing magic about a train.
> >>
> >Of course there is. The train is carrying the cars. The cars have to
> >deal with wind resistance over a much greater area, they have other
> >inefficiencies that trains avoid. I'd like a cite for your numbers.
>
> http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb25/Edition25_Chapter02.pdf
>
> Table 2.10
>
I don't think that means what you think it means. Using your cited data,
cars average 5600 BTU/mile. They have a load factor of about 1.5. Rail
uses from about 50,000 to 91,000 BTU/mile for each vehicle, I'm not sure
how "vehicle" is defined. So this means that if the rail vehicle isn't
affected in its energy use by the added cars, it would take ((91,000 to
50,000) / 5600) cars on each train to use the same energy. That's less
than 20.

On May 15, 11:22 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
> > In article >, Nate Nagel wrote:
> > > Brent P wrote:
> > >> In article >, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>
> > >>>>http://www.net.org/proactive/newsroo....vtml?id=29028
>
> > >>>>If the oil companies were truly short on refinery capacity they
> > >>>>wouldn't have gone from 223 refineries in 1985 to 149 in 2004 (and
> > >>>>yet production has increased by 30%). Go figure.
>
> > >>>They have been consolidating because it is difficult to be profitable
> > >>>*in refining* if you operate at a small scale. There is tightened supply
> > >>>in the US for refined products especially gasoline. If you want to help,
> > >>>don't drive.
>
> > >> It won't help. Reduce demand they'll just close off another refinery to
> > >> make sure the remaining ones need to run balls to the wall 24-7 just to
> > >> meet demand. That way every little hickup lets them cash in.
>
> > > That's one explanation, but another similar one is simply that a
> > > refinery is most economically efficient when it runs as close to
> > > capacity as it can get away with.
>
> > I don't doubt that, but why did they act to buy up or otherwise put out
> > of business the other refineries as per their documents already cited. I
> > am just accusing them of carrying out their plans.
>
> 1) Bigger refineries are more cost competitive.

Really. Why is that?

> 2) Older refineries were shut down because of eco-nuts complain about
> all the "smoke".

Um, no, they weren't. They were shut down because their owners CHOSE
to shut them down. You are welcome to post any refutations showing
that
there were any environmental reasons for the shutting of refineries.

> 3) Why aren't you opening a refinery if it's the all fired way to
> riches?

Same reason its so hard to put out a new engine these days. It
requires
too much money to get past those "in charge" (and I don't mean the
gov't).

My degree is in mineral engineering (mathematics, minor in geology). I
worked for Halliburton. What's your background to defend your
assumptions?


Matt

wrote:
> On Fri, 18 May 2007 21:31:36 -0700, "Fred G. Mackey" >
> wrote:
> >
>
>>>If it's such a money maker, why isn't he or others going into it?
>>>
>>
>>Incredibly high barriers to entry.
>>
>>Bill Gates, in case you hadn't noticed, is doing quite well in the
>>business that he's already in.
>
>
>
> Where he controls many of the barriers to entry. ;->
>
>
>

Not as much as he'd like.

In article >,
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) > wrote:
>
>
>"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>>
>> Again, you've solved the same problem that limited-access highways
>> solve, only not as well.
>>
>1) There is physically not enough room for more lanes in many highly
>urbanized areas. Train tracks often already exist and are
>under-utilized.

But they're not underutilized. They're extensively used by trains.
FREIGHT trains trains, mind you, but trains nevertheless. Freight and
passenger rail mix poorly.

>2) Limited access highways don't make electric vehicles practical, what
>I'm talking about does.

Is making electric vehicles practical an end in itself?

>> >> >Do you realize that in some areas the bus is only getting ten percent of
>> >> >its total cost of running from the passenger fares? That some commuter
>> >> >light rail actually charges people riding only enough to pay for the
>> >> >ticket machines? Why is this so? Because few people ride them. If you
>> >> >had a lot of EVs and people were freely able to put them on trains, that
>> >> >problem would evaporate.
>> >>
>> >> No, it wouldn't. Since you've said the train will be free, it will
>> >> get zero percent of its total cost from passenger fares.
>> >>
>> >Which isn't that different from current public transport.
>>
>> So the problem doesn't "evaporate". It becomes worse.
>>
>The problem with current public transport isn't that it doesn't pay for
>itself.

Really? You said it was, above. Of course, that's only one of its
myriad problems.

>> >> How could a train carrying cars and people be less efficient than the
>> >> cars carrying the people themselves? It's not even difficult.
>> >> There's nothing magic about a train.
>> >>
>> >Of course there is. The train is carrying the cars. The cars have to
>> >deal with wind resistance over a much greater area, they have other
>> >inefficiencies that trains avoid. I'd like a cite for your numbers.
>>
>> http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb25/Edition25_Chapter02.pdf
>>
>> Table 2.10
>>
>I don't think that means what you think it means.

I knew I shouldn't have bothered giving a cite.

>Using your cited data,
>cars average 5600 BTU/mile. They have a load factor of about 1.5. Rail
>uses from about 50,000 to 91,000 BTU/mile for each vehicle, I'm not sure
>how "vehicle" is defined.

A rail car is a vehicle. But what matters is energy use per
passenger-mile. Replace rail cars holding an average of 30-some
passengers each with rail cars holding passengers PLUS their vehicles,
and your fuel efficiency per passenger mile is bound to go down.

>So this means that if the rail vehicle isn't
>affected in its energy use by the added cars

It is, of course.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>
> In article >,
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) > wrote:
> >
> >
> >"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
> >>
> >> Again, you've solved the same problem that limited-access highways
> >> solve, only not as well.
> >>
> >1) There is physically not enough room for more lanes in many highly
> >urbanized areas. Train tracks often already exist and are
> >under-utilized.
>
> But they're not underutilized. They're extensively used by trains.
> FREIGHT trains trains, mind you, but trains nevertheless. Freight and
> passenger rail mix poorly.
>
They already mix given that Amtrak shares lines with fright. They are
also hardly "extensively" used. Go stand next to an average train track
and see how often a train goes by. Go stand on the freeway and similarly
see how often a car goes by. How often are trains "bumper to bumper"?




> >2) Limited access highways don't make electric vehicles practical, what
> >I'm talking about does.
>
> Is making electric vehicles practical an end in itself?
>
They are practical inside the city already. If you could connect that to
more suburban areas, you really could reduce pollution in areas that
that might be a good idea to try to do that in. Also, electric cars can
be directly powered by nuclear power plants.




> >> >> >Do you realize that in some areas the bus is only getting ten percent of
> >> >> >its total cost of running from the passenger fares? That some commuter
> >> >> >light rail actually charges people riding only enough to pay for the
> >> >> >ticket machines? Why is this so? Because few people ride them. If you
> >> >> >had a lot of EVs and people were freely able to put them on trains, that
> >> >> >problem would evaporate.
> >> >>
> >> >> No, it wouldn't. Since you've said the train will be free, it will
> >> >> get zero percent of its total cost from passenger fares.
> >> >>
> >> >Which isn't that different from current public transport.
> >>
> >> So the problem doesn't "evaporate". It becomes worse.
> >>
> >The problem with current public transport isn't that it doesn't pay for
> >itself.
>
> Really? You said it was, above. Of course, that's only one of its
> myriad problems.
>
I didn't say that was the problem, although it's a clear pointer to the
waste in public transport as currently configured in much of the United
States.




> >> >> How could a train carrying cars and people be less efficient than the
> >> >> cars carrying the people themselves? It's not even difficult.
> >> >> There's nothing magic about a train.
> >> >>
> >> >Of course there is. The train is carrying the cars. The cars have to
> >> >deal with wind resistance over a much greater area, they have other
> >> >inefficiencies that trains avoid. I'd like a cite for your numbers.
> >>
> >> http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb25/Edition25_Chapter02.pdf
> >>
> >> Table 2.10
> >>
> >I don't think that means what you think it means.
>
> I knew I shouldn't have bothered giving a cite.
>
Just because I took your data and used it to discuss your claim and
mine?


> >Using your cited data,
> >cars average 5600 BTU/mile. They have a load factor of about 1.5. Rail
> >uses from about 50,000 to 91,000 BTU/mile for each vehicle, I'm not sure
> >how "vehicle" is defined.
>
> A rail car is a vehicle.
>
It doesn't make that clear in the cite, at least that I saw.


> But what matters is energy use per
> passenger-mile.
>
I agree with that, although you are excluding the freedom of having your
own transport.


> Replace rail cars holding an average of 30-some
> passengers each with rail cars holding passengers PLUS their vehicles,
> and your fuel efficiency per passenger mile is bound to go down.
>
The point though is that it might not. 30 "stub car" electric vehicles
would easily fit on a single rail "vehicle". What currently is reducing
rail efficiency isn't that you can't have 150 people in each "vehicle",
it's that you can't get people to give up their cars to get in the
trains in the first place.



> >So this means that if the rail vehicle isn't
> >affected in its energy use by the added cars
>
> It is, of course.
>
To some extent although that would depend on the mass of the cars
compared to the total mass of the rail "vehicle".

In article >,
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) > wrote:
>
>
>"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>>
>> But they're not underutilized. They're extensively used by trains.
>> FREIGHT trains trains, mind you, but trains nevertheless. Freight and
>> passenger rail mix poorly.
>>
>They already mix given that Amtrak shares lines with fright.

They mix _poorly_. Either the freight line loses massive amounts of
capacity, or the passenger lines are badly delayed.

>They are also hardly "extensively" used. Go stand next to an average
>train track and see how often a train goes by. Go stand on the
>freeway and similarly see how often a car goes by. How often are
>trains "bumper to bumper"?

Trains have headway requirements and are scheduled and so _can't_
travel down the line bumper-to-bumper. Anyway, even highway capacity
is not at its max when traffic is bumper-to-bumper.

>> >2) Limited access highways don't make electric vehicles practical, what
>> >I'm talking about does.
>>
>> Is making electric vehicles practical an end in itself?
>>
>They are practical inside the city already. If you could connect that to
>more suburban areas, you really could reduce pollution in areas that
>that might be a good idea to try to do that in. Also, electric cars can
>be directly powered by nuclear power plants.

Existing nukes are already running at capacity, and they aren't
building any more. Electric cars mean more pollution at the
(non-nuclear) power plant. And connecting the city to the suburbs is
no longer sufficient; many if not most commutes are suburb to suburb.

>> I knew I shouldn't have bothered giving a cite.
>>
>Just because I took your data and used it to discuss your claim and
>mine?

Because you took "my" data and denied it meant what it said.

>> Replace rail cars holding an average of 30-some
>> passengers each with rail cars holding passengers PLUS their vehicles,
>> and your fuel efficiency per passenger mile is bound to go down.
>>
>The point though is that it might not. 30 "stub car" electric vehicles
>would easily fit on a single rail "vehicle".

Such a vehicle would be significantly heavier, and thus require more
fuel to pull, than a rail car holding passengers. There's no free lunch.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>
> In article >,
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) > wrote:
> >
> >
> >"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
> >>
> >> But they're not underutilized. They're extensively used by trains.
> >> FREIGHT trains trains, mind you, but trains nevertheless. Freight and
> >> passenger rail mix poorly.
> >>
> >They already mix given that Amtrak shares lines with fright.
>
> They mix _poorly_. Either the freight line loses massive amounts of
> capacity, or the passenger lines are badly delayed.
>
Do you think a train is covering the tracks most of the time, on most of
the tracks? I think this is wrong.



> >They are also hardly "extensively" used. Go stand next to an average
> >train track and see how often a train goes by. Go stand on the
> >freeway and similarly see how often a car goes by. How often are
> >trains "bumper to bumper"?
>
> Trains have headway requirements and are scheduled and so _can't_
> travel down the line bumper-to-bumper.
>
I'm talking about available bandwidth.


> Anyway, even highway capacity
> is not at its max when traffic is bumper-to-bumper.
>
No, it's *less* because the velocity of traffic is at a crawl. The most
traffic possible is at some rate that allows more rapid travel.



> >> >2) Limited access highways don't make electric vehicles practical, what
> >> >I'm talking about does.
> >>
> >> Is making electric vehicles practical an end in itself?
> >>
> >They are practical inside the city already. If you could connect that to
> >more suburban areas, you really could reduce pollution in areas that
> >that might be a good idea to try to do that in. Also, electric cars can
> >be directly powered by nuclear power plants.
>
> Existing nukes are already running at capacity, and they aren't
> building any more.
>
Nuclear power is base power, so obviously they run at capacity. Building
more is what I'm talking about.



> Electric cars mean more pollution at the
> (non-nuclear) power plant. And connecting the city to the suburbs is
> no longer sufficient; many if not most commutes are suburb to suburb.
>
Today they might use park and ride on one side and buses on the other.
I'm talking about driving your car on the train and then off again. This
means the train only has to come within 20 miles of your start point and
20 miles of your end point. That's not that many trains. Consider the
same with buses which must take you almost to your destination, even
allowing for park and ride on the source side.




> >> I knew I shouldn't have bothered giving a cite.
> >>
> >Just because I took your data and used it to discuss your claim and
> >mine?
>
> Because you took "my" data and denied it meant what it said.
>
I think it doesn't mean what you said it means.



> >> Replace rail cars holding an average of 30-some
> >> passengers each with rail cars holding passengers PLUS their vehicles,
> >> and your fuel efficiency per passenger mile is bound to go down.
> >>
> >The point though is that it might not. 30 "stub car" electric vehicles
> >would easily fit on a single rail "vehicle".
>
> Such a vehicle would be significantly heavier, and thus require more
> fuel to pull, than a rail car holding passengers. There's no free lunch.
>
So I quote Princess Bride and you quote Heinlein? People on a train
don't change the amount of energy it uses enough to matter. We'd have to
see how much stub cars weight and compare that to the total weight of
each rail vehicle.


--
"There are some gals who don't like to be pushed and grabbed and lassoed
and drug into buses in the middle of the night."
"How else was I gonna get her on the bus? Well, I'm askin' ya.",
George Axelrod, "Bus Stop"

In article >,
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) > wrote:
>
>
>"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>>
>> In article >,
>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> But they're not underutilized. They're extensively used by trains.
>> >> FREIGHT trains trains, mind you, but trains nevertheless. Freight and
>> >> passenger rail mix poorly.
>> >>
>> >They already mix given that Amtrak shares lines with fright.
>>
>> They mix _poorly_. Either the freight line loses massive amounts of
>> capacity, or the passenger lines are badly delayed.
>>
>Do you think a train is covering the tracks most of the time, on most of
>the tracks? I think this is wrong.

The problem is one of mixing high speed traffic and low speed traffic
on a line which allows passing only at discrete points (where there's
a siding long enough for the slower train-- and freight trains tend to
be quite long), and with a significant transaction cost.

>> Existing nukes are already running at capacity, and they aren't
>> building any more.
>>
>Nuclear power is base power, so obviously they run at capacity. Building
>more is what I'm talking about.

Dream on.

>> Such a vehicle would be significantly heavier, and thus require more
>> fuel to pull, than a rail car holding passengers. There's no free lunch.
>>
>So I quote Princess Bride and you quote Heinlein?

That statement isn't original with Heinlein. Nor is its truth changed
by Heinlein's use of it.

>People on a train
>don't change the amount of energy it uses enough to matter.

But cars weigh at least 10 times as much as people.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.