US emissions from transport are about to surpass those from electricity - Polidicks

[thumb]https://electrek.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/chart-emission-trend-us.png?w=722&h=486[/thumb] [QUOTE]In the US, carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation, primarily coal, have long been the main air polluter in the country, but it’s about to change. Continuing its long declining trend since the 2008 financial crisis, emissions from electricity generation are about to be surpassed by emissions from the transportation sector in the US.[/QUOTE] [url]https://electrek.co/2016/09/26/electric-cars-impact-emissions-transport-emissions-from-electricity/[/url]

Good to see that this is due to a fall in emissions from electricity generation, rather than a rise from transport

[QUOTE=smurfy;51109804]Good to see that this is due to a fall in emissions from electricity generation, rather than a rise from transport[/QUOTE] There's a very slightly rise in transport emissions the last few years.

We seriously need to invest in a system of cargo bullet trains and possibly a railroad system powered by hydroelectric, solar, and wind power. Maybe even Nuclear.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51109849]We seriously need to invest in a system of cargo bullet trains and possibly a railroad system powered by hydroelectric, solar, and wind power. Maybe even Nuclear.[/QUOTE] Hopefully in a few years Tesla will have their electric semi truck ready for production. Planes and boats still need to be tackled though.

Considering that the technical mechanics of almost every car has not evolved much in over 100 years, it makes sense that the engine efficiency (work out/heat in) given how reliant ICE vehicles are on that system. Sure, tweaking systems for maximum optimization given new technologies can increase that percentage will give you some gain, but there is still almost or over a 50% gap in complete efficiency. Comparatively, building or upgrading large singular sole purpose facilities for the purpose of electrical generation is a more achievable goal given that it requires a more confined approach - this is also something achievable by the government, given that most power distribution has an oversight by them (FERC).

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51109849]We seriously need to invest in a system of cargo bullet trains and possibly a railroad system powered by hydroelectric, solar, and wind power. Maybe even Nuclear.[/QUOTE] I misread this slightly and imagined nuclear-powered trains. Like, trains with a nuclear reactor on board. Now [i]that[/i] I could get into, although it'd probably be horribly inefficient with all the necessary radiation shielding.

Ehhh, I wouldn't mind that, but it'd be a bit dangerous. I'd prefer to have smaller nuclear reactors acting as main-power outputters for the train system.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;51109910]I misread this slightly and imagined nuclear-powered trains. Like, trains with a nuclear reactor on board. Now [i]that[/i] I could get into, although it'd probably be horribly inefficient with all the necessary radiation shielding.[/QUOTE] The idea is actually feasible and there have been designs and parents and such for it, though I suppose security concerns and public opinion are the main issue these days.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51109849]We seriously need to invest in a system of cargo bullet trains and possibly a railroad system powered by hydroelectric, solar, and wind power. Maybe even Nuclear.[/QUOTE] we dont need faster freight we need newer freight. our freight lines are a hundred years old in many cases and now go straight through big towns which cause slow downs like my home town has 4 freight lines running through it, they can only pass through at speed at 4:50 am

[QUOTE=Terminutter;51110655]The idea is actually feasible and there have been designs and parents and such for it, though I suppose security concerns and public opinion are the main issue these days.[/QUOTE] Not having to stop for refuelling and the extremely high energy density of the fuel does make it attractive I suppose. Even if public opinion was favourable I imagine security being a big issue, tough to secure long distance railways which is where these trains would shine.

Yeah, in terms of running, they would be spectacular for long distance freight hauling, for example, through Siberia and such. Expensive to build and maintain I imagine though.

[QUOTE=Terminutter;51110769]Yeah, in terms of running, they would be spectacular for long distance freight hauling, for example, through Siberia and such. Expensive to build and maintain I imagine though.[/QUOTE] Heck, just imagine if every cargo ship was nuclear powered. Setting aside security issues, the kind of carbon emissions we'd cut are incredible.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51109951]Ehhh, I wouldn't mind that, but it'd be a bit dangerous. I'd prefer to have smaller nuclear reactors acting as main-power outputters for the train system.[/QUOTE] Doesn't matter how small the reactor is, you'll always need at least 50 tons of lead shielding

This CO2 drop was nearly entirely powered by fracking and natural gas.

[QUOTE=download;51111248]This CO2 drop was nearly entirely powered by fracking and natural gas.[/QUOTE] kind of telling that coal was [I]that bad[/I] that natural gas caused that much of a drop

And to think I thought that by 2020 most of the world will be powered by nuclear energy, hahaha

[QUOTE=damnatus;51115476]And to think I thought that by 2020 most of the world will be powered by nuclear energy, hahaha[/QUOTE] Hopefully that could be a dream.

[QUOTE=Nak;51120686]Hopefully that could be a dream.[/QUOTE] Maybe eventually, but it takes 5-7 years to build nuclear reactors.

[QUOTE=shadow_oap;51120748]Maybe eventually, but it takes 5-7 years to build nuclear reactors.[/QUOTE] Only because of the nuclear regulator. They routinely put them up in 2-3 years in the 60s and 70s.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;51109910]I misread this slightly and imagined nuclear-powered trains. Like, trains with a nuclear reactor on board. Now [i]that[/i] I could get into, although it'd probably be horribly inefficient with all the necessary radiation shielding.[/QUOTE] This was actually a real concept in the 50's. It would have been 160 feet long and weighed 360 tons. All in all, I don't think the technology of the time would have made it feasible. The radiation shield alone would have weighed 200 tons. Nowadays we could make one much lighter, it wouldn't weigh all that much more than one of today's super-locomotives. [editline]28th September 2016[/editline] [url]http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-days-of-atomic-locomotives-in-america-1564623650[/url]

great, now compare that to co2 emissions from industry.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51109849]We seriously need to invest in a system of cargo bullet trains and possibly a railroad system powered by hydroelectric, solar, and wind power. Maybe even Nuclear.[/QUOTE] I think you forgot the part where for the last 50 years the United States has been pulling up their railroads. There's too much money transporting by road for there to be a resurgence in rail freight, let alone transportation.

[QUOTE=pentium;51122252]I think you forgot the part where for the last 50 years the United States has been pulling up their railroads. There's too much money transporting by road for there to be a resurgence in rail freight, let alone transportation.[/QUOTE] Rail transportation is actually doing quite well, thank you. It's still the best and most efficient way to get a shitton of goods across the country, and we're at a point now where a lot of railroads are regretting all the infrastructure they abandoned in the late 70's and 80's because many lines are now much more congested than 20 years ago. Coupled with modern T4-compliant locomotives, railroads are actually something we should be looking to for shipping for a long time still.

[QUOTE=Trekintosh;51121705]This was actually a real concept in the 50's. It would have been 160 feet long and weighed 360 tons. All in all, I don't think the technology of the time would have made it feasible. The radiation shield alone would have weighed 200 tons. Nowadays we could make one much lighter, it wouldn't weigh all that much more than one of today's super-locomotives. [editline]28th September 2016[/editline] [url]http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-days-of-atomic-locomotives-in-america-1564623650[/url][/QUOTE] Not likely, radiation shielding is a pretty fixed mass.

[QUOTE=shadow_oap;51120748]Maybe eventually, but it takes 5-7 years to build nuclear reactors.[/QUOTE] Yeah, not with the "but think of the chernobyl and fukushima!!!!!!" people Looking at you, Germany