Louisiana BP/Transocean Oil Spill

[jerseyhoya34]

In light of the unfolding tragedy in the Gulf, causing the lives of employees on the oil rig as well as untold damage to the environment - plant and animal life - and direct/indirect consequences for Gulf residents, what now for our energy policy?

My take is that we need to stay the course and permit offshore drilling as originally planned in the recent policy statement, but we must have a better inspection/safety regime. BP is generally considered one of the better corporate citizens in these respects, but look at the results...

To the extent these kinds of injuries remain possible, I am not sure why offshore drilling is any better than nuclear or wind. The former is susceptible to meltdown (maybe low probability, but substantial risk to life when it happens), and the latter still runs the risk of leaky cables when energy is transmitted to land (easier to patch though, I would hope). A new offshore wind project just launched in MA.

In any event, sad state of affairs for the Gulf Coast.

[EasyEd]

I generally agree with Ambassador (gasp). To have any chance of achieving anything close to no dependence on foreign oil we need to do "all of the above". Nuclear, wind, solar, oil, gas, whatever, the combination is needed for the short and long term.

[The Stig]

I generally think we should be turning away from oil, so I'm lukewarm at best on new offshore drilling. I'd really like us to be at the stage soon where oil is only used for transportation, and even there it should be reduced.

I'm a big fan of nuclear energy. The risks are way overblown. What happened at Chernobyl could have never happened on a Western-designed reactor. Three Mile Island was much ado about very, very little. The peak radiation recorded at Three Mile Island was less than the normal ambient radiation in the US Capitol. The biggest worry about nuclear energy should be its cost, not its dangers. If we build enough plants, that will bring the cost per plant down dramatically.

Solar power is also massively under-utilized. In perpetually sunny places like LA, every middle class and above home should have solar panels on the roof. Again, cost is an issue, but a combination of government incentives and greater economies of scale from widespread use should be enough to make it affordable. It's also the kind of technology that can pay for itself in individual households.

For transportation, high speed rail should be a major part of the future. Not the pseudo-high speed stuff we have now with the Acela, but real high speed trains on dedicated tracks like they have in France and Japan. If done properly, it will be cheaper and faster than air travel on regional routes. If the trains have stations at the airports, they can replace a lot of the feeder flights that are clogging our skies today. The trains will also replace a lot of inter-city cars and buses on the road. Since the trains will be powered by electricity from the new nuclear plants, it'll cause a big drop in oil usage.

[Elvado]

All of these nasty little oil spill matters aside, wasn't the President fantastic at the Washington Correpondents' Dinner?

[theexorcist]

I can't buy high-speed trains beating out aircraft. In the early 90s, everyone said to travel Europe by rail - now Ryanair has shown that it's cheaper and easier to travel by jet.

Incidentally, oil has so many other uses besides transportation (plastics, lubricants, etc.) that it's never going to become a transportation-only device.

[hoyainspirit]

May 3, 2010 8:25:05 GMT -5 Elvado said:

All of these nasty little oil spill matters aside, wasn't the President fantastic at the Washington Correpondents' Dinner?

Funniest person there. Star of the show, IMO. Didn't think this year's show was as good as last year's, however. Leno was awful.

[Boz]

May 3, 2010 9:34:27 GMT -5 hoyainspirit said:

May 3, 2010 8:25:05 GMT -5 Elvado said:

All of these nasty little oil spill matters aside, wasn't the President fantastic at the Washington Correpondents' Dinner?

Funniest person there. Star of the show, IMO. Didn't think this year's show was as good as last year's, however. Leno was awful.

People actually watch that? Huh. Who knew?

[AustinHoya03]

May 3, 2010 8:51:57 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

I can't buy high-speed trains beating out aircraft. In the early 90s, everyone said to travel Europe by rail - now Ryanair has shown that it's cheaper and easier to travel by jet.

Incidentally, oil has so many other uses besides transportation (plastics, lubricants, etc.) that it's never going to become a transportation-only device.

I generally agree, but additionally note that high-speed rail might work well in conjunction with air travel.

Let's say I live in Waco, Texas. If I want to fly to DCA from my home airport, I have to take a ridiculously short flight on American Eagle (to DFW) or Continental (to IAH). I hate this flight because it's on a small, cramped, poorly maintained plane, and switching terminals at DFW will add at least an extra hour to my trip. American Airlines hates this flight because it doesn't make them any money. If there's a high-speed rail line between Austin-San Antonio and Dallas-Fort Worth, with a stop at the airport, my best option is to take the 38 minute (assuming TGV speeds) train to DFW.

[DFW HOYA]

May 3, 2010 10:14:57 GMT -5 AustinHoya03 said:

If there's a high-speed rail line between Austin-San Antonio and Dallas-Fort Worth, with a stop at the airport, my best option is to take the 38 minute (assuming TGV speeds) train to DFW.

Except it won't be 38 minutes, because Sens. Hutchinson or Cornyn will probably add a rider to mandate stops for their constituents at Round Rock, Georgetown, Salado, Belton, Temple, Waco, Hillsboro, and Waxahachie.

[The Stig]

Ideally, with a dedicated line just for high-speed passenger trains, they'd be able to offer both express trains (Austin-DFW direct) and regional trains that stop in every Congressionally mandated tiny town along the way.

Amtrak tried to do an express DC-Philly-NYC train with the Acela, but all the slow freight/commuter traffic on the NE Corridor made it impossible to run it fast for the entire route, so there wasn't much time saving.

As far as air travel vs. HSR, they both have their benefits. Trains are best for relatively short, very busy trunk routes. On those sorts of routes, high-speed trains have indeed dominated air travel in Europe. London-Paris used to be one of the busiest air corridors in the world. Now with the Eurostar, virtually nobody flies between London and Paris.

Air travel is best for longer distances and less-traveled routes to out of the way places that only require a couple daily trips. That's where Ryanair, Easyjet, and company excel.

There will still be a big place for domestic air travel in the US with a well-developed high speed train network. But if properly done, trains should dominate regional routes in densely populated parts of the country. Virtually nobody should be flying routes like DC-NYC, Milwaukee-Chicago, Dallas-Houston, SF-LA, Seattle-Portland, and Orlando-Miami.

[Boz]

My experience with trains is very limited. Pretty much have only done DC to NYC on several occasions.

I actually have found that a very pleasant experience, IMO. The trains are roomy and comfortable, and I love the "quiet cars."

And from DC to NYC, really, when you consider all the extra time you have to spend in airports -- and traveling to and from airports -- when flying, the trip doesn't really take you any longer by train.

However, it is NOT exactly what I would call inexpensive, by any stretch. It's actually more expensive than flying in some cases.

Also, my one experience with a much longer train trip, from Chicago to NY, was not as good. There is a reason I only did it once. It was nearly interminable. I suppose a HSR could solve that, but on any trip of that length, currently, I would never choose train over plane again.

[The Stig]

Even with high-speed rail, taking the train from Chicago-NYC would probably not be a good option.

I don't think anybody's proposing long-distance high-speed rail here in the US. All of the plans I've seen involve building several regional networks across the country. Eventually those regional networks might expand and connect to each other, but that's not the plan right now.

[Just Cos]

How do we get the space to build a dedicated regional networks? California passed a massive proposition for a high speed rail network, but now people who will have that rail network in their back yard are suing the government...even though they voted for the proposition.

[TBird41]

May 3, 2010 15:00:28 GMT -5 Just Cos said:

How do we get the space to build a dedicated regional networks? California passed a massive proposition for a high speed rail network, but now people who will have that rail network in their back yard are suing the government...even though they voted for the proposition.

Anyone know if the tactics used to allow for the passage of the Trans-Alaska pipeline would still work? My understanding was that the bill included a provision that greatly narrowed the people w/ standing (or removed jurisdiction for the courts to hear it).

[kchoya]

May 3, 2010 15:04:44 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

May 3, 2010 15:00:28 GMT -5 Just Cos said:

How do we get the space to build a dedicated regional networks? California passed a massive proposition for a high speed rail network, but now people who will have that rail network in their back yard are suing the government...even though they voted for the proposition.

Anyone know if the tactics used to allow for the passage of the Trans-Alaska pipeline would still work? My understanding was that the bill included a provision that greatly narrowed the people w/ standing (or removed jurisdiction for the courts to hear it).

I'm thinking the amount of people who had the pipeline run through their backyard was significantly lower than the amount of people who would be affected by a California rail network.

[TBird41]

May 3, 2010 15:26:45 GMT -5 kchoya said:

May 3, 2010 15:04:44 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

Anyone know if the tactics used to allow for the passage of the Trans-Alaska pipeline would still work? My understanding was that the bill included a provision that greatly narrowed the people w/ standing (or removed jurisdiction for the courts to hear it).

I'm thinking the amount of people who had the pipeline run through their backyard was significantly lower than the amount of people who would be affected by a California rail network.

True.

[jerseyhoya34]

The other part of the regional rail in TX issue is that it is really a car culture as compared to some east coast cities, particularly DC and NYC. As Austin well knows, the city of Austin has created what turned out to be a mess of a commuter rail - significant delays and technical issues in getting it launched, only to find at least in the early going that daily ridership would number in the hundreds. They placed stations at some decent spots, including as far out as Leander, I think. Folks are still driving to work downtown, and I95 is still a highway in name only - more like a moving parking lot.

Nonetheless, a righteous effort that may be more successful as time passes.

As to DFW's point, I think you would want stations in between an Austin and San Antonio, for example. This would encourage folks to move away from city centers and would spread the congestion over a wider area (hopefully alleviating it in part). Imagine Philly and NY only connected by an Amtrak without stops in Trenton, Metro Park, Newark, EWR, etc. You'd end up with folks moving closer to the hubs and overwhelming that infrastructure at the hubs.

[SFHoya99]

There are mostly unfunded plans on an indeterminate timeline for a SF-LA route. But it isn't ideal, even if it ever gets built.

First of all, it's actually a decent distance. It can be close to 400 miles by car, depending on where you are going, and I'm not sure the train can find a much more linear route.

It won't beat a plane, but once you factor in security, etc., it might be faster. But certain aspects aren't going away. LA is spread out -- so you either have LAX -style hassles at one end (car rental, traffic, drop off) or you have multiple stops. Geh.

And even with better public transit in SF, they'd likely end up putting the station at SFO, I think. The current Caltrain station isn't on BART (though it is on the MUNI line) and there's no real parking there.

[The Stig]

If they can build HSR through a place as densely populated and mountainous as Japan, they can build it anywhere. And Japan's eminent domain laws are much weaker than ours. It's just a matter of political willpower, and most people in Congress associate trains with antiquated technology, just like they associate nuclear power with Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

[AustinHoya03]

May 3, 2010 17:00:11 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

The other part of the regional rail in TX issue is that it is really a car culture as compared to some east coast cities, particularly DC and NYC. As Austin well knows, the city of Austin has created what turned out to be a mess of a commuter rail - significant delays and technical issues in getting it launched, only to find at least in the early going that daily ridership would number in the hundreds. They placed stations at some decent spots, including as far out as Leander, I think. Folks are still driving to work downtown, and I95 is still a highway in name only - more like a moving parking lot.

Not to get too local here, but the local transit authority (CapMetro) botched more than the rail line over the past few years:

austin.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2010/04/19/daily69.html?jst=pn_pn_lk

Also, the light rail line (which I still like despite poor planning, safety issues, and lengthy delays) is the backbone for an expanded rail system. Folks in Leander may continue to prefer their cars, but the next rail phase will cater to Austinites downtown, where the city has encouraged dense urban development.

www.statesman.com/news/local/expanded-urban-rail-would-run-through-downtown-on-279960.html?imw=Y