Fortsätt till huvudinnehåll

Ultimate net zero lunacy?

The ultimate net zero lunacy is probably de-carbonising and trying to electrify the entire railway system. 

In the first place, the railways in total are not a major consumer of energy. Secondly, a huge amount of energy used by the railways is embodied in structures, rolling stock and electrification equipment. Thirdly, any measures that make the use of railways unnecessarily expensive encourage the use of less efficient alternatives. 

An immense amount of energy is used up in the manufacture of aluminium railway vehicles and the massive steel electrification gallows and goalposts used to hold up the copper wires, which also takes a lot of energy to mine and refine.

Oddly enough the railways of sixty years ago were probably more energy efficient. Locomotives and rolling stock were kept in use for nearly double as long as today, passenger trains ran at 75 mph and freight trundled along at 15 mph on its own lines, the aim being to keep the trains rolling as far as possible on as few lumps of coal. After 1960, rolling stock has been regularly scrapped prematurely, throwing away between a third to a half of its useful service; the trains themselves were designed so that the small parts that got worn could be replaced as required without scrapping the whole thing. 

A further issue with the railways is that the cost of higher speeds tends to get ignored. This does not affect only the energy consumption, but also wear and tear on trains and infrastructure, and the need to design to much higher specifications. The golden range of speeds for passenger trains is between 80 and 100 mph, and for freight, 25 to 50 mph. The lesson has been forgotten.

Kommentarer

Skicka en kommentar

Populära inlägg i den här bloggen

Importing people to sustain demand

I got involved in a discussion with a Youtuber called “Philosophy all along”. This was in connection with criticism of Trump’s policy of deporting illegal migrants, which he argued would be bad for the economy as it would reduce demand. This implies that there is a need to import people to sustain demand. There is no obvious reason why a population should not be able to consume everything that the same population produces. If it can not, then something else is going on. It is a basic principle that wages are the least that workers will accept to do a job. Wages are a share of the value added by workers through their wages. The remainder is distributed as economic rent, after government has taken its cut in taxes. Monopoly profit is a temporary surplus that after a delay gets absorbed into economic rent. Land values in Silicon Valley are an example of this; it's like a gold rush. The miners get little out of it. Rent and tax syphon purchasing power away from those who produce the g...
Skicka en kommentar
Läs mer

The dreadfulness of British governance

I wrote to my MP on two entirely separate issues recently. The first was to do with the replacement for the Inter City 125 train, which at £2.6 million per vehicle, is twice as expensive as it ought to be. The second concerned the benefits of a switch from business rate and Council Tax to a tax based on site values. In both cases, the replies were full of spurious, unsubstantiated assertions and completely flawed arguments. This is typical. You will not get an iota of sense from the government on any area of public policy at all - finance, economics, trade and employment, agriculture, housing, health, transport, energy. All junk. If you write to your MP you will invariably receive answers that are an insult to your intelligence, no matter what subject you are writing about. Of course they cannot understand statistics. They are innumerate. Whitehall is staffed with idiots with a high IQ. Look at their IT projects. And mind your purse, they will have that too.
Skicka en kommentar
Läs mer

How much more will the British tolerate?

The British are phlegmatic, tolerant and slow to rouse. Thus there was no great reaction after the terrorist attack in July 2005. The murder of Lee Rigby created a sense of outrage, but nothing more, since it appeared to be an isolated incident. Two serious incidents within a fortnight are another matter. Since the first major terrorist incident in 2001, authority has tried to persuade the public that Islam is a religion of peace, that these were isolated events, or the actions of deranged "lone wolves", having nothing to do with Islam, or to reassure that the chances of being killed in a terrorist attack were infinitesimally small. These assurances are are beginning to wear thin. They no longer convince. If government does not act effectively, people will take the law into their own hands. What, however, would effective action look like? What sort of effective action would not amount to rough justice for a lot of innocent people? Given the difficulties of keeping large n...
Skicka en kommentar
Läs mer