LOS ANGELES — Commuter railroad Metrolink is proposing electrification of its route between Burbank and Anaheim for higher speed trains, a move it says would double ridership while decreasing pollution.
The Los Angeles Times reports the proposal is in a report Metrolink has submitted to the California High Speed Rail Authority, seeking reallocation of up to $5.5 billion in funds for the state’s troubled high speed rail project.
The Burbank-Anaheim route is part of the planned high speed rail system, so it would not take money away from the system. It would reallocate funds based on a proposal to complete construction of the right-of-way for the current 119-mile segment being built in Central California, but without electrification. Diesel trains would run on that segment, and the $5 to $6 billion needed for electrification would be spent elsewhere.
The Metrolink report was not made public, but the Times obtained a copy. It says trains on the Anaheim-Burbank route could reach speeds up to 125 mph, and would use 44 zero-emission trainsets costing $1.2 billion.
Just back from holidays and trying to catch up with newswire.
Maybe somebody can correct me but did I just see a steak recipe.
Wrong Michael Lampman.
California is 48th in per capita energy consumption, see: https://www.eia.gov/state/rankings/
Looks like the administration better take down that page too, it goes against their narrative. And it makes intuitive sense too, the mild climate means residents don’t use their heat all that often, and the closer to coast climates don’t require a lot of A/C days either (I don’t have A/C in my Sunnyvale residence but I do use the fans on hot days to bring the cool night air in). And even though I agree that solar isn’t worth the cost, it is useful because it provides max power when the A/C load is the greatest.
Now it’s also true that Californians do have a hella high VMT, which does raise energy use per capita, but I expect VMT per capita to be even higher in a place like Texas (I’ve experienced it personally) and moreover the vehicle mix in California isn’t as high on the gas guzzler front (partly because prices are so high), lots of Priuses and econoboxes on the road here (I bicycle to work and own an econobox I don’t drive that much because traffic sucks). But there’s also more transit too (not enough and not well coordinated enough to move the needle sufficiently though).
Finally that 29% extra in Ian’s 129% mix shows up under “Renewable”, which I would guess is the sum of wind, solar, hydro, geothermal and biomass. I have a card from some utility alternative that has similar misleading numbers with a Renewable item in the mix. I assume it’s marketing for the deluded who think wind and solar and hydro can meet all of our energy needs at an acceptable price. But I cant seem to make any subset of those % numbers add up to 29% so who knows?
Gerald, et al,
In case no one noticed, the energy sources Ian provided add up to 129%. I know Californication energy usage is excessive on a per-capita basis, but not that excessive.
I wish more posts were as well-written, knowledgeable, interesting, and often amusing as those submitted by Ms. Harding. As a college prof of astronomy and astrophysics (plus a little geology), I daily see the lack of basic technical knowledge and just plain common sense (and I’m not just referring to some students). I especially like the way Ms. Harding has responded to the “request” not to use “naughty” words.
Mister Fine:
What can I say – I’ve been listening to Lenny Bruce again.
Jack Daniels Grilled Steak Recipe
Steak and Marinade
4 8 oz steaks, new york, boneless
1/2 cup whiskey, Jack Daniel’s
1/2 cup sauce, soy
1 tbsp oil, olive
1 tbsp mustard, dijon
1/4 cup sugar, light brown
3 cloves garlic, minced
to taste pepper, ground black
Options
4 onions, whole Vidalia, cut into rings
4 zucchini, cut into rings
1 tbsp oil, olive
to taste salt
to taste pepper, ground black
Place the steaks in a pan that is large enough to hold all four. Set aside.
In a mixing bowl, whisk together the whiskey, soy sauce, olive oil, mustard, brown sugar, garlic, and fresh ground pepper; whisk until thoroughly combined.
Pour the marinade over the steaks, turning the steaks once or twice to coat evenly with the marinade.
Cover with plastic wrap and marinade over night, or at least for 4 hours, in the refrigerator, turning it once while in the fridge.
Remove steaks from fridge 30 minutes before you are ready to grill.
Set up the charcoal grill for direct grilling.
Fire up the grill and preheat to high. For steaks, you want the heat as high as possible.
Right before you are ready to cook, pour cooking oil on a paper towel and oil the grate using long-handled tongs.
Drain the marinade off the steak and discard the marinade.
Place the steak on the hot grate and grill until cooked to taste, 6 to 8 minutes per side for medium-rare.
After the steak is properly seared, if it’s not finished cooking, move it to the warm side of the grate (not directly over the coals), close the lid and continue to cook the steak until it’s at desired temperature for doneness.
To test for doneness, insert an instant-read thermometer in the side of the steak. The internal temperature should be 145°F for medium-rare.
Transfer the grilled steaks to a cutting board and let the steak rest for about 5 minutes before cutting.
In the meantime, prepare the vegetables.
Season the onions and zucchini with salt and pepper and drizzle with olive oil.
Working in batches, grill the vegetables until tender and lightly charred all over, about 6 to 7 minutes for the onions and zucchini.
Remove from grill and serve with steaks.
Remember, you asked for it. This one is for manly men only. A mere housewife such as myself could never master the complexity and awesome power of a fully operational gas barbecue.
The above comments are generic in nature and do not form the basis for an attorney/client relationship. They do not constitute legal advice. I am not your attorney. I am also not Crazy Eddie, although I can build a 318 and it will run really mean …
{continued} Meshuggenah? My rating 3 Michelin stars, a wonderful trait,and maybe I’ll win a piece of that cherry pie with whiskey marinade. Your disclaimer which wore thin, is now a top draw, as a bad as.. hebe I read from bottom to top. Keep ’em coming.
Ms. Harding, Here, Here! Your facts on nukler chemistry are so need read to counter some on this site and everywhere.
Mister Erickson:
I used too wander around my lab sessions with a slide rule while the kids had calculators. They could give me the wrong answer to 18 decimal places but I could give them the right answer to two. Whenever I pulled it out they would look at me like a Tordig witch doctor seeing his first cigarette lighter.
I also gigged a student for telling me the earth is six thousand years old (the solar system is roughly 4 billion years old, the universe is, from the data available, 14 billion years old – it’s a young, and cold, universe). When I corrected her she took her case to the department head who backed her up. It seems that when a student signs up for a class a sale occurs, and the student is entitled to satisfaction. And in this case I cannot give her information which contradicts her religious beliefs.
I also was punched twice by students during class. The first time I reported it and was held accountable for working the student up to the point where she was that frustrated. The second time I didn’t bother. But the whole thing gave me a really sour attitude toward the students. I recognized this, got out, went back into industry, and spent the next [mumble] years tormenting people who should have been doing their jobs but weren’t.
I tell you Martha, the kids these days, the world is going to heck in a handbasket and there is no stopping it.
The above comments are generic in nature and do not form the basis for an attorney/client relationship. They do not constitute legal advice. I am not your attorney. This is the New Year, but repent on your own dime – me, I’m having another whiskey. It eases the pain of being (quasi) human.
Interesting discussion. Here in the electrified zone, we DO have high voltage power lines above the right of way, both 138 kV 25 Hz single phase for the railroad and ? kV 60 Hz 3 phase for commercial customers. On electrified portions of the railroad, the catenary poles are extended well above the railroad’s 12 kV contact wire to carry the high voltage power lines.
Some of the 25 Hz power is generated as 25 Hz at the Safe Harbor Dam on the Susquehanna River.
As to nuclear plants, Exelon recently stopped generating power at the Three Mile Island Unit #1 (You may remember TMI Unit #2 had a partial meltdown in 1979) and will decommission the station. It seems natural gas is cheaper than operating an existing nuclear plant.
Hello friends. Interesting editorial in Wall Street Journal this morning. Regarding the PG+E blackout which has returned substantial parts of California to the Middle Ages (1) Caused by PG+E neglecting line maintenance as a result of Sacramento forcing it to spend its money on “green” energy and electric cars. (2) Electric cars have come to a halt (to which I personally add, WSJ did not say this, that electric cars coming to a halt is a good thing, they’re an environmental disaster). (3) Without electricity, Californians returned to the Middle Aes have resorted to, you guessed it, fossil fuels.
Elect a Democrat in 2020, the entire nation will become California.
um no.
On the topic of nuclear power engineering I bow to the much more knowledgeable Anna while demonstrating that we are in agreement: https://hackaday.com/2019/10/08/the-long-history-of-fast-reactors-and-the-promise-of-a-closed-fuel-cycle/
In case no one noticed, based on the criteria for being “green” energy, California as of right now is producing just under 50% of our energy using “green” sources, starting with Renewable at 29%, adding in solar at 10.4% and wind at 9.2%…if you want to include Hydro as “green” then it’s over 50%.
As for the infrastructure issues, it has nothing to do with not burying the high-voltage transmission lines underground(which can’t be done because of technical reasons) but more to do with the utility(PG&E) being unwilling to spend a few pennies of their formerly billions in profits on keeping the power lines free and clear of vegetation(which incidentally required by state regulations, I blame the CPUC for lack of enforcement on the wild fire issue).
Now, how does the relate to railroads and electrification you might ask, well, it’s quite simple really. Utilities or state grid operators need to build new high voltage transmission lines, yet no one wants them in their back yards(as usual). However, there are rights of way criss-crossing states E-W/N-S just begging to be used, and at the same time providing the means to electrify the nations railroads. Yes, I’m taking about the railroads own rights of way, it’s a win-win situation for everyone. Land and right of way for building new high voltage transmission lines, and with those high voltage towers placed over the railroad right of way, built in electrification at the same time. The reduction in costs for both items would even make Wall Street happy.
Braden I like fuel cell tech. Many fuel possibilities, manageable emissions, portable so suitable in transportation applications. And no Carnot cycle heat loss. Not sure about cost yet.
CO2 per BTU energy produced is lower for NG than coal. Most of the carbon emission reductions in the US have come from the switch from coal to gas in the baseload power generation sector. But the negative tradeoff there is more methane emissions (the current administration is relaxing methane emission regulations, pure folly), which is a more powerful GHG (though it does break down over time unlike CO2.
Anna is right about baseload being critical. Also correct about nuclear “waste” safety, but it’s really not waste as there is enough residual latent energy in it to be used as a fissionable fuel in next gen molten salt reactors. Finally the volume of such material is low because nuclear fuel is so energy dense, on the order of 1cubic meter per reactor per year.
The volume of solar panels required for an equivalent amount of energy that energy dense nuclear or fossil fuels will produce more hazardous waste when decommissioned. And the amount of toxic coal ash produced per unit energy produced by coal is correspondingly higher than nuclear, again due to greater energy density of nuclear fuel. Energy density matters. It also show up in land use footprints (compared wind farms or centralized solar arrays to nuclear, coal or NG power plants).
@Charles Landey
While NG is a hydrocarbon… NG powered fuel cells in a power generation application is where I see this as the way. Fuel cells a most efficient in large scale applications such as a power plant throw in heat recovery by combined cycle, and you have a highly efficient process.. Still years away though.
I’ll buy dark. Also, it should be las, not los. It has been a lot of years since I was an active Spanish speaker.
AH
Geothermal has issues. First is the Carnot efficiency. What finally comes up the pipe isn’t all that hot, relative to what goes on in a fossil fueled steam plant, so the Carnot efficiency is in the 15-20 percent range at best (a good steam plant can go better than 40 percent). Second, what comes up the pipe isn’t all water. There is a lot of other stuff entrained in the steam, including sulfur, and it is corrosive. So, equipment maintenance is an issue, and depending on what actually does come up the pipe, can be expensive.
This is not to say geothermal does not have its uses. There is (or was) a geothermal plant in Hawaii, there are large scale geothermal plants in both Iceland and New Zealand.
And, these are baseload plants. The fuel is, after all, free (and derived from nuclear, but we needn’t scare the children).
In the US, geothermal plants have to compete with coal and now gas plants as regards to cost. Gas is currently cheap. In Iceland and New Zealand, gas (if available) is much more expensive and even with the maintenance issues and low thermal efficiency, geothermal plants become attractive.
The above comments are generic in nature and do not form the basis for an attorney/client relationship. They do not constitute legal advice. I am not your attorney. Find your own (deleted) drug addled commie hippie weirdo pervo prevo punk freak!
Hello People. Chemistry wasn’t my major but I did well enuff in chemistry. Natural Gas is a hydrocarbon. Hydrocarbon as in carbon. Burning Natural Gas is just like burning coal. Or wood pelletts or garbage or whatever else that burns to turn a turbine.
From what I can find “tinto” means dark red, as in wine colored.
PS about zero emissions, I think it means that the consumption of energy by the vehicle is not generating emissions at that location and/or time.
California gets the largest chunk of power from natural gas(33.7% in 2017). After that hydro, ie dams(14.7%).
These are the numbers from 2017. (Wikipedia California Energy Commission. Retrieved 1 July 2018.)
Natural gas 33.7% Renewable 29.0% Hydro 17.4% Solar 10.2% Wind 9.4% Unspecified 9.3% Nuclear 9.1% Geothermal 4.4% Coal 4.1% Biomass 2.4%
Natural Gas is no surprise as it is what SoCal Edison & PG&E do as part of their core business. The surprise for me is both solar and wind are generating more power then nuclear. (to shine a lite on it & that is not just hot air)
California imports a lot of power from the Columbia River basin in Oregon and Washington. And still gets a hunk from Lake Powell’s coal plant. What I do not understand is why Geothermal hasn’t made more inroads.
California has long been experimenting with power sources to get a mix of sources. This goes back to the 1970’s during Jerry Brown’s first two terms as Governor. On nuclear there has been a lot of concern about how a nuclear power plant would fare in an earthquake.
As I’ve often said I’m just a worn out truck driver. If you need to look stuff up Wikipedia is where I tend to go. If you want well sourced research be willing to pay some bucks for an expert, which I’m not. If you need a lawyer go look in the yellow pages. Or Google it!
IGN
PS I should not have been surprised about wind, as just about everywhere you go in California away from heavily built urban areas you see windmills.
Rio de los Animas Perdidas. Let’s give it its proper name.
AH
Paul Bouzide, Why is there a toxic waste issue with solar panels? Even if there is one the cost would be much less than disposal of waste from nuclear power plants.
Correct on the copper Anna, as usual. I’d also add the lithium and cobalt for all those batteries. And the huge number of charging stations and grid upgrades required.
I instead favor personal mobility support synthetic carbon neutral liquid fuels produced using high temperature nuclear (nuculur) process heat from airborne or seawater dissolved CO2. No change to fueling infrastructure or batteries required.
As far as California not tolerating nuculur, that’s a hurdle for sure, but even Gavin Newsom has made some noises about keeping Diablo Canyon open IIRC. And since naive California “greens” (note quotes) are prone to magical thinking instead of systems thinking, they already don’t seem to mind that a huge hunk of California power is fossil based, but imported from out of state. So we see the Delta, Utah coal plant slated to be replaced by an equivalently huge gas generation plant nearby with nary a whimper.
Finally thanks Anna for amplifying my point about the grid deteriorating and either sparking fires or resulting in costly power outages. Again we see a lack of systems thinking.
Finally to close, I think we’ve sufficiently skewered the magical thinking left. Now let’s pivot to the magical thinking right who won’t accept we have anthropogenic climate change positive feedback loop well underway, keep shutting down a carbon tax (the best way to level the playing field for alternatives to fossil energy by taking the cost of externalities into account) and tend to be silent about the shareholders only hijack of the financial system (which hurts the rail mode in so many ways).