California’s 220 MPH High-Speed Train Will Be Emissions-Free
As if the announcement of a high-speed rail line that will go from San Francisco to Los Angeles in 2 hours and 40 minutes isn’t exciting enough, Navigant Consulting now claims that the bullet train can run with zero greenhouse gas emissions.
According to the energy consulting firm, the train’s expected usage of 3,350 GWh each year can easily be generated using renewable energy resources in California. The rail line’s energy consumption will be about one percent of the state’s total energy usage—not bad considering its speed, convenience, and potential for widespread use.
- » See also: Best Counterargument to Price on Carbon Hurting Jobs?
- » Get CleanTechnica by RSS or sign up by email.
The 800-mile bullet train system is being built by the California High-Speed Rail Authority. By 2030, the 220 MPH high-speed trains will carry up to 100 million passengers per year. The ultimate fate of the project will be decided this November, when the state’s $9.95 billion bond measure for the train is voted upon.
It’s hard to comprehend the reduction in carbon emissions that will occur once the train is running—just think about the effect of even one quarter of the people who would normally drive or fly across the state opting for high-speed rail. And why wouldn’t they want to take a train that drastically cuts travel time and eliminates the hassles of sitting in traffic and trekking through airport security? I know I’ll be first in line.
Posts Related to Transportation:
- Algal Fuel One Step Closer to Becoming a Conventional Oil Alternative
- Solazyme Hopes to Mass-Produce Algae Biodiesel in Three Years
- First Algae Biodiesel Plant Goes Online: April 1, 2008 : Gas 2.0
- Chevron Backs Solazyme’s Algae Biodiesel Production Process
>>Joel
Granted, there is a possibility of tragedy regardless of mode of transport, whether it is by air, road, rail, or sea. Terrorists sometimes get their way, acts of God sometimes get in the way, a batsh*t crazy engineer might be texting, accidents will happen. Especially after considering the tens of thousands of people that die in a motor vehicle every year in the US, I don’t consider it fair to dismiss high-speed rail as unsafe (if anything, you’re implying that they’re just as dangerous as airplanes). Several other countries have already embraced HSR, and the overall safety records of well-implemented networks (i.e. Japan) is nothing short of remarkable.
Securing a rail line isn’t as difficult as you make it seem. It may seem easy enough to park a car in the path of a rail line in hopes of a collision, just like what happened in LA in 2005. However, high-speed lines are dedicated rails, completely grade-separated from road traffic, so a disturbance will be more difficult to achieve, and more difficult to overlook (think security cams at regular intervals). Will it be expensive to fully secure? Yes. But it is also expensive to secure our airports. On the topic of price, it will also be more expensive to expand our roads and airports to achieve the same logistical advantages of HSR. I assure you that this $40b will be well spent.
America is also about having a choice. Right now, people only have two serious choices between LA and SF: driving (slow, inefficient) or flying (fast, expensive, stressful). Giving people the third choice of high-speed rail empowers the people to make a more environmentally sound and efficient decision, while also relieving the overcrowding of roads and airports, so those that choose otherwise can still go their own way. Perhaps you have a taste for flying as opposed to ground travel. Again, America is all about choice. In fact, you may just find getting your ticket and finding a seat on your plane a bit easier when the rest of us are on the train.
You think it’ll be hassle free at the train depot? Just as much security as at the airport. No way public transport that large and expensive won’t have it.
Oh, for crying out loud. Not another “miracle rail” project from the government.
If rail travel were viable in California, it wouldn’t take billions of tax dollars to make it happen.
How long will it take to complete this high speed train ? We need it here in San Diego . The daily traffic is a night mare , on the freeways .
Some Guy, what do you mean by another “miracle rail project from the government.” If by “another” you mean the Acela, then I would hope there would be more “miracle rail” projects.
Rail travel IS viable in California, just look at the increased ridership on Amtrak recently. And if you want to live in a perfect world where transportation is not subsidized, then I think you would lose your precious roads. Good luck with your traffic, carbon footprint, expensive flights, and the price of gas. I’ll be riding the train.
It’s a fraud. It won’t be zero emissions. It won’t carry 100M people and it won’t make it in 2 hours and 40 minutes. But it will cost more than projected. Just do the math. If the train was 10 cars long and each car would carry 100 people, you would need a train to leave every 2 minutes of every day, 24 hours a day.
Every mass transit system is always overrated on what it can do.
Oooooh, wow, I’ll be taking it just cuz I want to ride something that goes 220mph. :B
Zero emissions though? Bit suspicious. I think this was a Doctor Who episode..
by 2030?! cant they speed that up? our economy sucking, gas prices rising, and plus pollution is killing our atmosphere.
OK… Great idea… will likely NEVER be built as currently pitched. To many parties at the table… too much politics.. the unions… the enviromentalists… high cost of righ-a-way… and every leftist interest group will want something.
Very difficult for it to make fiscal sense. A horrific money loser that will not help much with core CA transportation problems. This state is in the red to the tune of hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars mainly due to huge amounts of wastefull spending. The voters will not support yet another open ended bond issue. Can’t even pay for the ones currently on the books.
I LOVE riding the train… but after a lot of years of watching how infrastructure projects are done (or in this case.. not done) in this dysfunctional state tells me this project is DOA.
If it were allowed to be done as Pete Wilson did with rebuilding the freeways in LA after the Northridge quake… cut all the beuraucratic crap out of it…engineer and build it on the merits… it could become a real transportation project.. it would have a chance of sucess. But as a politcal football… which is the current situation… it has NO future.
Look at the current (pathetic) Amtrak California… they can’t even get it over the Grapevine from Bakersfield to LA. A lousy 4,500′ hill!! Have to ride a bus. What a joke!!! Hundreds of millions of dollars and 30 + years and still no plausible … practical direct passenger service from LA to SF.. or LA to Sacramento …. north to Portland, Seattle, let alone Canada.
So until there is a sea change in how capitol projects are conceived and managed here in CA… coupled with a equal change in the political environment.. Forgetaboutit!!
total bs.
trains use large amounts of energy, especially bullet trains.
We have lots of those in germany, and the FAZ published a article about the averange carbon foot print of cars, trains and planes in germany. The carbon foot print of trains (equivalent to gas usage)is between 4 and 8 liters/100km (58.8 - 39.2 mpg)per passenger. while planes use 3 - 4 l/100km (78.4 - 58.8 mpg) per passenger. In cars the user can choose himself which kind of car he drives an how many passengers will be on bord, so the carbon footprint can vary. However, if two people ride in one modern car ( >39 mpg), it is the most efficient means of transportation.
If California produces 5% of its electricity with renewable methods, then only 5% of the electricity which is consumed by the train will be “green” and not 100%! trains are very heavy (1.5 metric tons per passenger if all seats are taken -> averange of 2.8 t per passenger) , they produce lots of friction with their wheels and, beeing close to the ground, they experience alot more aerodynamic resistance than planes flying at 11km above ground.
in conclusion: trains are not quite as good as their reputation.