towards car-free towns

Something I hear occasionally is that 'we can't survive without cars and lorries'. But of course we can and, in a few places, already do. For example Wengen, Murren and Zermatt in Switzerland are all car free, and rely entirely on the train to bring in visitors and freight. They cheat a little with the sort of small electric vehicles seen in the bottom picture, but these may well survive peak oil on self contained roads within communities. Such roads would not need the high levels of maintenance that interurban roads do and could be maintained by the communities which they serve. Larger factories, shopping areas and markets would probably be better served by light railways bringing in goods and taking out finished materials. All rails - and roads - would of course lead to the station, which will become the hub of activity and centre of every community.

There are two totally car free places in the British Isles - Herm and Sark in the Channel Islands.

And others throughout the world - check out this list!

the electric car con

So our 'green' government are giving a £5000 subsidy to everyone who buys an electric car and are planning to put in thousands of charging points for these groundbreaking 'green' vehicles.

Of course far from being 'green' electric cars actually pour out even more pollution than a traditional petrol or diesel car. How? Because the electricity has to be generated, normally by burning coal or oil. And each step in an energy conversion programme loses some energy, typically 20%. Both coal and oil are dirty polluters, churning out CO2 as well as further depleting our rapidly diminishing reserves. So all electric cars will do is pollute more and deplete faster, the ultimate con. Hopefully this should be enough to wipe the smug smirks off the faces of electric car drivers and encourage people to switch from road to rail.

Of course if the electricity is generated by renewables that's a different matter, but even renewables use traditional energy in their construction and maintenance. The best thing is to rebuild our rail network where the energy is used far more efficiently. Electric cars are a con. Electric railways and tramways are the way forward.

perspective - and a new threat

I didn't even realise 'anti-car' books existed. I certainly never expected to read one!

But I have just finished the above. Now, to me, being 'anti-car' is a total waste of energy. The end of the car is now probably less than three decades off, so there's really no reason to waste a minute of one's time trying to hasten the inevitable.

But like most books it did give out some information that I'd never even thought about before. It covers the actual damage and change to our urban, suburban and rural landscape that the car has brought about. Not only the need for roads, but for parking spaces both at home and at work, as well as the destruction of 'real' town centres as out of town shopping areas, really only accessible to cars, became commonplace.

I've never been the slightest bit anti-car, and the book hasn't changed that at all. I'll still enjoy driving for as long as I can. But like most people I realise that the car (and the lorry and bus) are living on borrowed time. The usual refrain that the petrol and diesel-powered car will simply be replaced by LPG, electric and biofuel powered vehicles doesn't make sense as these alternatives will never be anywhere near as commonplace, and nowhere near as cheap, as oil. They are a sop to the simple man in the street, still worried about 'climate change' or 'the environment', rather than the real big issue of Peak Oil.

In reality the cost of running a car, which has been falling for decades, will soon begin to rise inexorably. No one disputes that oil is running out - it is a finite resource after all. The actual timing of the peak is still in doubt, it may have been several years ago, it may be as much as ten years into the future. It will only be clear with hindsight. Once the peak is reached the cost of oil, and all oil-derived products, will start to rise, slowly at first, but at an ever increasing pace.

The outcome is inevitable. As cars become more expensive to run less and less of us will be able to afford to run one. More of us will need to localise our lives and use public transport where available. The tax take from cars will start to fall, less money will be available to repair roads. There'll be a vicious circle of less cars, less money for roads, worse roads, less incentive to drive, more expense etc. I think when the end of the car comes it will all be over very quickly. And there's the threat. Will we be able to build the railways and tramways we need quickly enough? Will the skills, money, material and energy be available?
We can't worry about the wider picture though we obviously need to be aware of it. We can only concentrate on our small part of it. It is so important to get everything in place NOW so that we are prepared and ready to act when the decline comes. If in the meantime we can buy up trackbed, stations etc, and operate some sections of the route then all the better. What we are doing is so incredibly important, it's impossible to overstress our case.
There will be big news about the S&D over the next few months with the purchase and restoration of Midford, hopefully the restoration of Spetisbury, the launch of our new glossy Right Lines and a big media push. As always I'd like anyone who would like to take a more active role in what we're doing to contact me at leysiner@aol.com

a view from the board ...

(Round about Sturminster 2009)

Simon Ellison joined the board back in January and is particularly interested in the Sturminster Newton area.

He's just posted a comment which I think should be promoted to the main blog page as it covers much of the reasons why we exist and cleverly draws together many points raised (and challenged!) here over the last few weeks.

I note, with some disquiet, the rather 'negative' comments which seem to blight all aspects of railway restoration, in whatever form that takes.

Thing is: There are ALWAYS dissenters and ne'er do well's who delight in the negativity of their own lives, and like to project on to others their attitude.

If you do not believe in something with passion, then it's best not be get involved at all - applies to life generally, not just railways.

The obstacles to reinstating a continuous rail route from Bath/Bristol through to Poole/Bournemouth are huge, but not insurmountable. Of course there will have to be deviation from the original route at various locations, but, essentially, the route in its entirety should be, and MUST be reinstated, because rail will be the only sure way of transporting heavy freight and passengers in a viable way to smaller towns and villages in the future of road degradation and spiralling fuel costs.

Councils are being squeezed like sponges for funding which will not be forthcoming for essential road repair - here, where I live, roads are like rutted farm tracks, damage to wheels, tyres and steering geometry is becoming horrendous as well as unsafe.

Roads like minor 'B' and unclassified ones are left to their own devices due to lack of funding for repairs - that situation is fuelled by inclement weather which rapidly adds to the [rapid] destruction of surface 'black top'

How will we move anywhere in relative safety without wrecking our spines and our vehicle's suspension ? Are we to remain isolated in villages which have roads not fit for purpose?

At least a rail link would mean no more road wrecking heavy trucks - all commerce conducted by small trucks/vans from RAIL depot to destination - probably by electric engined vehicles.

But, before we all fall into the trap of 'electric' propelled vehicles [of ANY sort], just remember this: electricity has to be generated - which still means oil/coal/nuclear powered generating plants - so at whatever point, there will always be some form of 'unfriendly' fuel being used to provide all this 'clean' electricity. I'm sorry, but these pathetic wind farms will just NOT fit the bill for reliable and continous power supply, besides which, they are a blot on the landscape as well being a major threat to wild life, which also has the right to exist.

Remember this: Rail over road transport has much in it's favour:

A. It is fairly unobtrusive to the environment - noise is a minor consideration, once a train has passed the sound of its passage fades back into natural surrounding sound level, unlike the continuous drone of road transport.

B. The physical space needed to run trains is much less than an A class road!

C. Many more people die on the roads than on railways.

D. The cost of fuel is slashed as ton for ton, railway transport is far more efficient [much less frictional resistance on steel rail].

E. More economical - a typical train load is equivalent to many 44 ton trucks but in ONE movement and with ONE loco.

F. Faster - over distance, rail is MUCH quicker than road.

There are many other considerations which I have not entered here, but I am preaching to the converted ! It's the general public and local government who need to be 'educated'

The monopoly of road transport is over - it's time to bring back OUR trains for the betterment of OUR lives, our children's and their children's lives.

Short term-ism has been this country's failing - it's the reason for blinded politicians wrecking a once comprehensive railway infrastructure, and HERE lies our problem. It's so much easier to destroy than construct - all for short term profit/gains which gain NOTHING in the 'long run'.

We should DEMAND government aid in repairing the damage THEY were responsible for in the first place!

more congestion

A comment from Mick Knox in response to Ian W's post yesterday -

Congestion is certainly the reason a lot of people use rail now, and to take the Portishead Branch as an example how long would it take using a train, compared with a car, to commute into Bristol? The public understand this argument well, and it also stands up with the switch to electric cars. What is the journey time from Radstock to Bristol, or Bath? And would that be easily beaten by train today? I would have thought easily so?

Most motorists would love to see more freight on the railways as it would leave more road space for them, together with less roadworks due to the damage caused by the heavy goods vehicles.

There is nothing more frustrating than sitting in traffic jams, so yes congestion is an issue the general public will understand. Post ‘Peak Oil’ it may not be, but today it is, so I suggest we use this to our advantage.

It was a valid reason not to close the Somerset & Dorset and therefore it is a reason to re-open it again.

My own view was that we could wrong foot ourselves by talking about congestion as a problem into the future. But I think there's a way to tie this all together. And perhaps I was being too dogmatic ...

Firstly we need to understand why there is congestion. If road really was a mode for the future then surely road development would continue as a reaction to congestion? Congestion would perhaps happen somewhere and measures would then be undertaken to get rid of it. But this doesn't happen. We need to understand why.

It seems to me that governments are well aware of the impact of Peak Oil, even if they are trying to keep it from us. They hide the measures needed to deal with it under the 'climate change' banner but any intelligent person sees through that quickly enough. (Clearly the world is warming and our activities are responsible for much of it, but this will slow down as Peak Oil hits so it's not a long term problem unless we reach certain tipping points). Governments will also be aware of the impending end of cheap air travel but they use different methods to hide this in their devious equations, like proposing a new runway for Heathrow knowing full well it wil never be built but being able to pass the blame on to climate change activists for example.

But underneath all deviousness and posturing there is a very real fear by government that this is a problem so big that they may not be able to contain it, hence the fact it's hidden at the moment from the general public. It may even be that climate change was put forward as a safe alternative just to test some of the measures that will be needed.

Okay, there was a lot of waffle there, but it does underline why road development has ground to a halt. It not only shows that governments are well aware that petrol and diesel-fuelled vehicles have had their day, but that the proposed alternatives will NOT fill the gap. Hence the current level of roads will be more than adequate to cope with future traffic needs. This means that congestion is a problem now, whilst oil-derived fuels are so incredibly cheap, but will not be in the future.

There's another side issue which concerns fuel prices. People are surprised that the retail price has remained stubbornly high despite the falling price of crude oil (at least from its 2007 highs of $147 barrel). This is easily explained by the lack of refining infrastructure. New refineries are not being built because the oil companies are even more aware than we are of the looming oil shortages. There's no point in building new refining facilities as whilst they may be needed for a few years they will be derelict in a few decades as the raw material will have dried up. Hence the current level of refining capacity will be more than adequate to cope with future needs.

So how do we apply all this to the New S&D without ending up with egg on our faces? I think we need to set current congestion levels within a long term framework. We've all been held up in traffic jams and they are without doubt both very annoying and a terrible waste of precious time. They also have a damaging effect on economic activity. Mick has mentoned the problem of heavy lorries and this is something we can really exploit. Car drivers hate them and railways are desperate to grab the freight they currently carry. So we need to encourage aggressive pricing wars between railfreight companies and the road based freight companies. Rail will become more and more advantaged as the system expands and the price of fuel goes up. Whilst railways will also be affected by the rising cost of energy the 400% extra efficiency of rail will work for rail and against road in this context. Freight will start switching from road to rail, and the New S&D will be as much a freight carrier as a passenger carrier. So this part of our programme should appeal to car drivers, even if they don't (for now) plan to use our trains. But it won't hurt to throw Peak Oil into the equation and say to drivers that by pushing freight onto new railways the infrastructure will then be in place for a return of passenger services on most lines as the oil runs out. They don't need to believe in Peak Oil to suffer from its effects! As the price of driving a private car goes stratospheric then people will return to the railways in their droves. It may be the last thing that goes, but go it will!

congestion

We've had a comment to an earlier post which I'd like to bring to the main board.

I do think the writer has a valid point about congestion TODAY, but I personally feel that to push the congestion angle too much could well leave us with egg on our faces as traffic FALLS due to the steadily rising cost of energy (which will apply to petrol/diesel AND electrically operated cars).

By setting our argument and lobbying within the long term problem - ie Peak Oil and its consequences - I think we're positioning ourselves well ahead of the crowd and I feel we'll reap benefits from it from now and in the future. I worry that arguing the congestion case too loudly we'll look stupid in the face of the facts, but as I said above I do think that congestion is an issue now, and may even be for a few more years. But what do you all think? Feel free to support or challenge any of the views quoted above and below, and please post all comments to the comments section under this post.

I already have an electric car, powered by water according to Southern Electric. We still need to talk about congestion as that is the issue now. Petrol cars will be on the roads for at least the next two decades and we will wait for an eternity to rely on the public's acceptance of peak oil to switch. As I have said on here before, the car will be the last thing to go. Air travel, foreign holidays, new consumer goods and all other discretionary spending will decline before people give up their cars. if we are going to regenerate the railways today we need to sell them to the public in a language it understands.

living in electric dreams

As another riposte to the conucopian viewpoint of some observers out there, here is an excellent article from member Anna-Jayne Metcalfe, designed to add to the ongoing discussion re the possibility of electric cars.

Electric Cars and the National Grid.

When I did my engineering degree 25 years ago one of the subjects we covered in some depth was power generation, and how the National Grid was managed. A central tenet was (and still is) "hot standby" stations - i.e. the provision of excess generating capacity which can be brought online at very short notice to meet peak electricity demands. At the time oil and gas power stations were mostly used for this purpose (the Dinorwig pumped storage station being the obvious and very notable exception), with coal forming the majority of the generating capacity and nuclear fission (virtually all first generation Magnox and AGR stations) a substantial minority.


Since then the mix of power sources we use has changed fundamentally - the use of coal has significantly declined (with a consequent reduction in pollution such as sulphur emissions - when was the last time you heard of acid rain?) and the use of gas has shot up. All of the Magnox stations are now off the grid and in the process of being decommissioned, and the bulk of the AGR stations are likely to follow toward the end of this decade. As a result of long term public hostility and government inaction new fission power stations are some way off, and renewable sources - although gradually becoming more established - still make up a very small percentage of our generating capacity and have a much lower power output per installation than traditional fossil fuel or fission power stations.


As a result, our generating capacity is far more dependent upon fossil fuels than it was 25 years ago - and if media reports are to be believed we could face a shortfall of generating capacity once the decommissioning of significant numbers of AGR stations commences even if energy demand remains static. With UK fossil fuel assets in decline that will mean importing an even greater proportion of our electricity or fossil fuels from overseas, with the consequent vulnerability to political turmoil that entails (the recent disruptions to gas supplies from Russia to several EU countries illustrate this all too vividly).


The one potential game changer in power generation is of course nuclear fusion. Unfortunately, although fusion (magnetic bottle and laser initiated) technology is starting to show glimpses of its potential, commercial fusion power stations are still many years away and so can't help us with this particular conundrum. The magic bullet just isn't anywhere near ready yet.


When faced with such a challenge, governments tend to take the easy way out (e.g. leaving it until almost the last minute and then flailing around announcing new windfarms everywhere and/or taxing everyone) rather than planning ahead. I'd hate to think of electricity rationing or blackouts occurring again, but it could all too easily happen.


The bottom line is that unless significant new generating capacity is put in place by the time the AGR stations start being decommissioned we could face a significant shortfall in power generation capacity on the grid. If that happens, increasing consumer demand significantly by shifting the dominant fuel source for personal transportation from fossil fuels to electricity sourced from the grid could all too easily prove to be beyond our capability. That could all too easily have significant effects on the pricing and availability of electricity supplies in the UK.


If generating capacity is somehow increased correspondingly that does of course become less of an issue, but the other issues (e.g. charging infrastructure and especially road congestion) will still of course remain.


The bottom line is that this is - climate change and Peak Oil aside - a very real problem, and one for which there is no easy solution in sight. The politicians are being as impotent as ever, and unfortunately technology can't yet provide a straightforward answer either. In such a situation it is an unfortunate truth that it is always the public who - one way or another - ends up making the most sacrifices.


Before too long, plugging in your new "green" car could become trickier and more expensive than you expect. Electric cars may indeed prove to have their place, but they are certainly no panacea.


Postscript: For completeness, the current operating capacity and estimated decommissioning dates for the remaining operational nuclear fission stations are:



Hartlepool (AGR - 1190 MW) – Decommissioning starts 2014

Heysham 1 (AGR - 1160 MW) - Decommissioning starts 2014

Hunterston B (AGR - 840 MW) - Decommissioning starts 2015

Hinkley Point B (AGR - 1140 MW) - Decommissioning starts 2016

Dungeoness B (AGR - 1090 MW) - Decommissioning starts 2018

Totness (AGR - 1250 MW) - Decommissioning starts 2023

Heysham 2 (AGR - 1230 MW) - Decommissioning starts 2023

Sizewell B (PWR - 1188 MW) - Decommissioning starts 2035



[AGR = Advanced Gas Reactor]

[PWR = Pressurised Water Reactor]

reorientation

We are all in for a big reorientation over the next 20 to 30 years.

With respect to the rebuilt S&D we are not only looking at restoring the 'classic' routes, Bournemouth to Bath and Evercreech to Burnham, but adding extra capacity and flexibility by including new links to Brockenhurst via Wimborne and Ringwood and to Bristol via Pensford, and also looking at the whole provision of rail to Glastonbury and Wells by not dismissing the possibility of building a wholly new route from these two important tourist towns over the Mendips to a junction near Masbury rather than simply restoring the original route from Evercreech Junction. We also expect that the entire main line will need to be double tracked including the long Blandford to Templecombe section, though with the obvious proviso of physical limitations north of Midford into Bath!

In the wider transport field all communities will need to look at how they are actually arranged. Suburbs, where they are still viable, will need trams or ULR to continue to allow them to thrive. Businesses needing incoming and outgoing transport will need to be located next to a rail or tram route with larger concerns having private sidings. Many industries will need to reconnect using their own private industrial lines. Whole swathes of manufacturing and service industries will vanish with the withering of pure consumerism. Seaside resorts benefitting from an improving (warming) climate and the end of cheap air travel will need to ensure they are connected to the network and outlying parts of their resort connected to the nearest network station by tram. Everything will need to be sustainable both in embedded energy and energy used to operate. Farms will need to be connected to the network by light rail to allow produce to reach markets which will also, of course, need to be rail served.

And individually, and as families, we will all need to reorientate the way we live. Within 20 to 30 years the idea that we once all - or nearly all - had access to private motorised transport will seem incredible. The electric car, now the only serious option in a post-oil society, will wither on the vine as the roads themselves fail without affordable materials for repair and under the new political regimes that will do everything they can to reduce private transport, using the oil price first, then rationing then actually outlawing private vehicles. This will not of course be a concatenation of political decisions but economic imperatives, so will be applicable to anyone who is voted in. None of this is rocket science.

We'll need to change the way we work, many of us will have to relocate, as close as we can to rail transport, grow our own food and live more locally-based lives. Personally I hope we retain our love of travel even if many are counting on us giving it all up. I don't think this will be the end of history or of, indeed, progress. But I do think we are all going to have to sit back and relax for a few generations until everything is totally reorientated towards a truly sustainable society. Once that's in place technology can start to develop again. I'm sorry if I'm an incurable optimist, but it's a position I've arrived at after many decades of pushing the boundaries!

(Apologies for using continental European images for this article - but they are so far ahead of us!!)

back to the future

This is an advert from the early 20th century - for an electric car. We all know that the internal combustion engine won the battle. Why? Simple - it is far cheaper to use petrol and diesel than electricity.

So why is the electric car about to replace internal combustion? It's nothing to do with global warming, but everything to do with economics. Governments, oil professionals and even some car manufacturers know that the game's up. The trumpeting of a tiny oil find last week in the press, an oil find described as 'giant' yet only big enough to supply the world for eleven DAYS, is a clue as to how bad things are getting. These are desperate times, only delayed slightly by the recession. Oil is once again heading upwards. Forecasts of $200-$500 a barrel are beginning to be made again. At these prices, even the bottom end, all civilian air traffic and most road traffic will vanish.

The average economist claims that as the price of oil rises more exploration will kick in alleviating any shortages. This may be true, but the important thing to bear in mind is that this oil will be more expensive. Peak oil effects will still happen because many drivers will be priced out of the market.


So this last final gasp of personal private transport seems to be heading for - electric cars. This week's Economist (5.9.09 vol 392 number 8647 pp79-81) had an interesting article on this coming transport revolution. The whole article seemed to pivot around whether the cars would be recharged at home, or simply change batteries at service stations. But at no point is it discussed as to where all this extra energy is going to come from, which grated somewhat with an article in the same magazine a few weeks earlier that forecast regular power cuts in the UK from 2013 onwards, because current capacity is being CUT as nuclear power stations are being decommissioned without being replaced. And this is before all the extra demand from electric cars!

Face it, nobody wants electric cars out of choice. They are going to be expensive, have limited range and still use loads of conventional energy in their construction - and will need oil for their tyres and, of course, for all that asphalt in the road services. All it will do is delay the inevitable switch to rail by a few years.

What really needs to happen, in the UK, is for the government to actually admit that road transport has no future. They need to get cross party support for this admission so that no other party benefits in an election from the truth being announced. They then need to selectively close roads, switch all freight to rail, abandon all new road developments and begin to build at least 200-300 miles of new railways EVERY year. Reversing the Beeching cuts will only be the start. They also need to speed up the planning process so that local initiatives can cheaply introduce light rail to link small towns and villages, factories and trading areas, to the main network. Urban trams need to be introduced to ALL cities and towns of 30,000 population and more.

The future is rail, electrically powered from sustainable sources (including nuclear) or steam powered from wood burning. All communities need to have either heavy or light railways, locally owned and operated, feeding into a nationally or internationally owned high speed trans-European rail network which is already beginning to replace doomed air travel.

This is the future into which the New S&D is boldly leading the way - pushing against the biggest open door in history even if sometimes it doesn't seem that way.

Join and/or donate!

rail v road

I have been reading a fair bit about Peak Oil etc lately but have a question for you. If electric cars are a bit of a con, how are we going to run trains in the future? I ask, as electric trains seem to be the only way forward [ ] with big electrification schemes coming to fruition.

It's a question of scale and efficiency. I read somewhere that to actually replace our entire car fleet by electric cars we'd need to increase our electricity generating capacity fourfold.

Trains of course are far more efficient for two reasons. Because of the lower friction of steel rail on steel wheel they use energy four times as efficiently. They can also get their supply via third rails, overhead, stubs, conduits etc. They don't need to carry the extra weight of batteries or all need recharging at the same time (overnight mainly in the case of cars).

The other problem for cars is that road surfaces need constant repairing using asphalt, which is oil based. As the price of travelling by car increases less and less people will be able to afford to run cars. This will decrease the tax take, which will probably mean higher road taxes, driving even more people off the roads. If the government try to shift the cost of keeping roads open to the general taxpayer, most of whom will never use roads, they will face huge opposition. Of course the cost of maintaining roads will increase despite the general reduction in traffic levels as the cost of asphalt will be directly connected to the price of oil. All this will be in a background where the future will mean less and less oil.

We'll see a wholesale shift to rail transport both due to government policy and the inability of most people to afford to run a car. The expansion of the rail network will of course mean even less electricity available to the car driver and at the end of the day any government will take the strategic decision to support rail over road, particularly as freight will be switching to rail in huge quantities. I can't see successful electric artics ever working because of the weight of the batteries needed to haul, say, 40 tonnes. Unless they start wiring up all the roads of course, but what would be the point? They may as well then convert them all to railways, to get that 400% efficiency gain!

assailed by peak oil from all sides

When Peak Oil starts reaching the national press - especially the Climate-Change-loving Independent - you know something's up! This was Thursday's headline. Seems cheap oil is running out faster than even the most pessimistic forecasts. The current recession hasn't helped at all (apart from depressing demand slightly) as a lot of investment has been cut back.


Then on Friday MoneyWeek headlines with this. Of course electric cars will only be a short-lived fad as nobody is explaining how all this extra generating capacity is going to be provided or fuelled ...


... and reads even more stupidly when Friday's Economist carried this headline. We can't even keep up with existing demand, especially once the current crop of nuclear power stations are decommissioned over the next decade or two. Electric cars are possibly the biggest con yet.


And on Saturday this succinct gem appeared on a leaflet pushed through the door - no doubt with patriotic force - by the BNP!

from our friends across the sea

More insight from James Howard Kunstler -


Waking Up from the Happy Motoring Dream

Something like a week remains before General Motors is reduced to lunchmeat on industrial-capital's All-You-Can-Eat buffet spread. The wish is that its deconstructed pieces will re-organize into a "lean, mean machine" for producing "cars that Americans want to buy," and that, by extension, the American Dream of a Happy Motoring economy may be extended a while longer.

This fantasy rests on some assumptions that just don't "pencil out." One is that the broad American car-owning public can continue to buy their cars the usual way, on credit. The biggest emerging new class in America is the "former middle class." Credit kept the remnants of the middle class going for decades after their incomes stopped growing in the 1970s. Now, their incomes have stopped coming in altogether and they are sinking into swamp of entropy already occupied by the tattoo- for-lunch-bunch. Of course, this has plenty of dire sociopolitical implications.

Unfortunately, the big American banks did their biggest volume business in their biggest loans at the very time that that the middle class was on its way to becoming former. Now that the former middle class is arriving at its destination, the banks are so damaged by bad paper that they won't make loans to even the remnant of the remnant of the middle class. In other words, the entire model for financing Happy Motoring is now out-of-order, probably permanently.

Even assuming some Americans can continue buying cars one way or another, I'm not convinced that we can make the kinds we fantasize about. Notice, nobody talks about hydrogen-powered fuel cell cars anymore. Why not? Because the technicalities and logistics could not be overcome at the scale required -- i.e. at the current scale of mass highway motoring and commuting. Sure, you could build a demonstration vehicle and run it around a test track a few times, but could you build a mass production car by the tens of millions that would run for 150,000 miles without a hugely expensive fuel cell change-out? No, at least not within the time-window that the liquid hydrocarbon fuel problem presented. Or could you construct a hydrogen fuel station (and product delivery) network replacing the old gasoline stations? Fuggeddabowdit. Hydrogen, as an element, was just too hard to move and contain. It's teeny-weeny atoms leaked out of valves and gaskets remorselessly and you couldn't pack enough into a tanker truck to make the trip to its destination worthwhile. Schemes to generate hydrogen on-board all ended up in the "perpetual motion" sink.

The current wish is that the dregs of GM and Chrysler will hire low- paid elves with no pension or health benefits and pump out hybrid and/or electric cars. It's conceivable that we could "reverse-engineer" a Prius or an Insight, but considering what a lousy job American car companies did on reverse-engineering everything that Japan or Germany pumped out over the past thirty-five years, the odds are pretty high that these new products will be just lame enough to fail against the established competition. What's more, they also present logistical and technical problems. For the hybrid, gasoline is still an issue (and Jevon's Paradox comes into play: the more efficient you make a means for using a resource, the more of that resource you will use). For both the hybrid and the electric car, the issue of how to get enough lithium for the batteries obtains, at least for now, given the current state- of-the-art battery technology. Most of this rare metal now comes from one place, Bolivia, and everybody wants "a piece" of it. Electric vehicles in large numbers depend on either coal or nuclear powered electric generation, each presenting special hazards. Both hybrids and electric cars would depend on the old installment loan purchase system -- at least to work in the current mode of suburban living, long-range commuting, and interstate highway travel.

Boone Pickens's plan of last year for converting the US car fleet to natural gas was another fantasy with wide appeal. But it depended on the companion fantasy of building massive wind-farm infrastructure on the great plains to shift natural gas use from power plants to vehicles, and the financial crisis has destroyed the capital necessary to even begin planning that project -- it even destroyed a large part of Mr. Pickens own capital reserves. Anyway, I would not be so sanguine about the long-term future of the shale gas plays that this scheme was based on. The depletion rates of these wells is horrendous and the amount of steel needed to keep production up is not consistent with the realities of the available infrastructure.

All the technologies under consideration are not likely to extend the Happy Motoring era. A prayerful reflection on them can only reinforce the specialness of oil and its byproducts -- cheap oil double-specially -- as well as reinforcing the reality that the cheap energy era itself is over. And, of course, in the play of events over the past several years we can see the relationship between cheap energy and easy credit, and how our entire economy has run aground, one way or another, on resource limits.

The implications of all this in the sociopolitical and geopolitical realms are pretty daunting. As long as we maintain Happy Motoring as the normal mode of existence in this country, we are going to see an ever-growing class of very resentful citizens pissed off at being foreclosed from it. In my oft-repeated scheme-of-things, this leads very quickly to the trap of political extremism, perhaps even corn-pone Nazism, as the system becomes increasingly difficult to prop up except by force. In geopolitical terms it leads to ever more dangerous international contests over the world's remaining oil reserves.

All this leads to two conclusions.

One is to accept the fact that the Happy Motoring era is over and to devote our remaining resources to re-localization, walkable communities, and public transit. It obviously requires a very drastic revision of our current collective self-image, of what we aspire to and who we are. If the car companies have any future at all, it should be based on making the rolling stock for public transit -- and for now the most intelligent choice for us is to fix the existing passenger railroad lines instead of venturing into grandiose new transit systems requiring stupendous capital outlays. Let the car era wind down gracefully. Triage and prioritize the highway maintenance agenda -- we won't be affluent enough to keep repaving the whole existing system -- and let other nations meet the diminishing demand for cars in the USA. This would be a "best case" scenario. (Other nations may decide to go further up the Happy Motoring road at their own eventual peril.)

My second conclusion is not so appetizing, namely that the bankruptcy of General Motors may set in motion a chain of events that will accelerate the destructive unwind of the bad credit economy, the damage to our bond values, the loss of faith in our currency, and the authority and legitimacy of our leaders. This last dire outcome might be allayed if, say, President Obama directed his policy efforts to the items in the paragraph above, that is, a reality-based agenda for true change in how we live -- but who can feel confident about that happening these days? Maybe it will take a horrifying chain of events to get Mr. Obama there. And then, tragically, he may be overwhelmed by the chain of events itself. I hope not.

electric cars - the next con

So everyone is now talking about electric cars, that they are going to save the world! This is hilarious. The worst thing is that Gordon Brown et al keep explaining that this is to control CO2 emissions, no mention of Peak Oil!

The fact is that to switch all the UK's cars to electric power - which is after all what these idiots are proposing - will require current UK electricity generating capacity to increase FOURFOLD. (Source Analysis commissioned by CBT from Keith Buchan of the Metropolitian Transport Research Unit) This does not take into account the embedded energy also required to build these vehicles. Not even the greenest hippy would claim that renewables could supply even a tiny percentage of this increase so where is the only place it could come from? Coal. Great news for the pits of North Somerset but very bad news for the climate.

These odd ideas will fall one by one as the seriousness of the energy crunch comes clear to even the most befuddled politician. We need to constantly argue the case for rail, to stress how much more energy efficient it is (ironically 400%), and to point out that once a line is in place almost all the income is profit. The Americans and continental Europeans understand this, particularly with regard to freight, it will not be that long before our dull lot realise it too. But a little bit of lobbying and information thrown their way won't hurt either!

If you would like to donate towards lobbying local, regional and national government in addition to helping maintain a high media profile then you can donate any amount by clicking the Paypal button below.

LOBBYING AND MEDIA.