 |
Re: We Need to Electrify As Much Transportation As We Can
Author: BOB2
Date: 04-04-2016 - 17:55
You're right, US transportation emissions are about 27-28%, worldwide it is only about 20-21%, so EV's help here more than say in Germany, China, or India..... as we are more dependent on the auto and fly a lot of seat mile (being a rich country). Aviation is, according to the data I've seen, about 20% of "worldwide" "transportation" emissions of carbon, not total emissions, which I may not have been clear enough about.
I have done a fair amount of cost benefit analysis on some of the transportation related CO2 emission reduction strategies, including Park and Rides, express buses, commuter rail, TOD, and bike programs. And some of these can be very expensive on a purely carbon reduction basis, others not so much. But, when compared to things like LED's, which actually pay for themselves, in consumer savings, many CO2 transportation reductions like RR electrification (a popular but costly solution for trains, which doesn't exactly "pay for itself"....), or the expected auto or air travel "behavioral" mode shift carbon reduction "benefits" purported by the CAHSR project, these are costly, often with negligible reductions.
There are aa lot of cost effective transportation strategies, and orders for 275 thousand Tesla EV's last week, has showed that quite clearly. And, there are reasons to build light rail other than for what are, in fact, very small CO2 reductions, such as travel cost, travel time, corridor capacity, and access benefits. But, wasting CA's scarce resources supposedly dedicated to reducing CO2 for the likely CO2 reductions from the CAHSRA is almost criminal, given the other real and much more significant emission reductions benefits these funds could have achieved.
I have done a fair amount of cost benefit analysis on some of the transportation related CO2 emission reduction strategies, including Park and Rides, express buses, commuter rail, TOD, and bike programs. And some of these can be very expensive on a purely carbon reduction basis, others not so much. But, when compared to things like LED's, which actually pay for themselves, in consumer savings, many CO2 transportation reductions like RR electrification (a popular but costly solution for trains, which doesn't exactly "pay for itself"....), or the expected auto or air travel "behavioral" mode shift carbon reduction "benefits" purported by the CAHSR project, these are costly, often with negligible reductions.
There are aa lot of cost effective transportation strategies, and orders for 275 thousand Tesla EV's last week, has showed that quite clearly. And, there are reasons to build light rail other than for what are, in fact, very small CO2 reductions, such as travel cost, travel time, corridor capacity, and access benefits. But, wasting CA's scarce resources supposedly dedicated to reducing CO2 for the likely CO2 reductions from the CAHSRA is almost criminal, given the other real and much more significant emission reductions benefits these funds could have achieved.
