 We're on a train. Where are we going? Mexico. Where are we going, Phoenix? To the bigger train station. To the bigger train station, that's right. We're on the metro in Chicago headed towards Union Station and then on to Texas. In this episode, we're going to be talking about transportation using our trip to Texas. I like that. Kind of a way to put it all in context. This is the Lotech Podcast. Hello and welcome. I'm Scott Johnson from the Lotech Technology Institute. You're host for podcast number 50 on July 1st, 2022. Coming to you out of the Lotech Institute's gardens in Cooksville, Wisconsin. Thanks for joining us. Today we're going to be talking about long distance transportation after fossil fuels. We'll also have a couple Institute updates. And don't forget to follow us on Twitter. Our handle is at low underscore techno. Follow us on Facebook. Find us on Instagram. Subscribe to us on YouTube. And check out our website, lowtechinstitute.org. There you can find both of our podcasts as well as information about joining and supporting the Institute and its research. Also, some podcasters, distributors put ads on podcasts. And unless you hear me doing the ad, someone else is making money on that advertising. While all of our podcast videos and other information are given away freely, they do take resources to make. And if you're in a position to help support our work and become part of this community, please consider becoming a monthly supporter for as little as $3 a month through our Patreon page, patreon.com slash lowtechinstitute. Thanks to Meg S for joining recently. If you'd like to sponsor an episode directly, please get in touch with us through our website, lowtechinstitute.org. A few months ago, my family took a trip from Madison, Wisconsin to Austin, Texas. This is a trip of about 1200 miles. We decided to take the train down and fly back. We wanted to compare these two types of transportation. Fossil fuels contain an amazing amount of energy in an easy to transfer package. It makes sense to harness first coal, then oil as motive power for trains starting in the 1800s. The advent of rail revolutionized transportation, making a trip across the U.S., for example, now take days instead of months as it had by horse or wagon. Suddenly we were able to move goods and even food across continents. Rail dominated the long distance game until cars displaced rail in the early part of the 1900s. America became obsessed with cars, and after World War II, driving distances for trips became the norm. Only in the last generation has air travel become viable option for the masses. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics tracks how Americans move across the U.S. Cars and rail miles have remained steady from 1995, but air miles have doubled from the mid-1990s to the 2009, the last date information was available. America is large and sparsely populated. The rail system suffers from the problem of the quote, last mile. This means if you're traveling from, say, Cooksville, Wisconsin to Kyle, Texas, the biggest problem is getting from your starting point to a travel hub to take a train, plane, or bus, and then when you've arrived at the nearest station in Texas, how do you get to your final destination? The answer in the U.S. has been with cars, and if you're already driving from Cooksville to Chicago, say, why not just drive the whole way and avoid the last mile problem? The lack of options for much of the U.S. population is one of the major factors that favors personal vehicles right now. In our case, we drove to Chicago to board the train at Union Station. This was partly to drop off our dog with the in-laws while we were gone, but even the nearest train station is pretty far away from Madison because of politics. On a political map, Madison is a blueberry in a red cherry pie. The gerrymandered Republican majority in the state legislature has tamped down any attempt to get Amtrak service through Madison, which appears to be simply for spite, according to different reports. So we drove two hours to get to Chicago. We got on the Amtrak's Texas Eagle heading out of Chicago around midday. The Texas Eagle route goes from Chicago to St. Louis, Dallas, Fort Worth, San Antonio, El Paso, Tucson, and entering Los Angeles two days later. Our trip to Austin was about 29 hours. The Eagle has coach seats, roomettes with two beds, a family bedroom with four beds, and in non-pandemic times, it had an observation car. From Chicago to San Antonio, it has a cafe car, and the rest of the way to LA, it has a restaurant car. With a room, we got access to the lounge in the train station and got to board the train right into our room. The room itself was the whole width of the car with a low bench seat across the width and fold-out tables on either side. On one side, the table turned into a kid's bed with the bench. Two bunks were folded up into the ceiling and would come down for sleeping. Okay, it's now 4.30. It's been three hours, lots to go. How are you feeling? I just really got feel like to lay down for a nap. Penny slept for, what, 30 minutes so far? It was a relaxing trip down. I got to read, watch movies, spend time with my family. We ate meals in the cafe car. All in all, it was pretty relaxing. Okay, Lauren, say it again. But a moment ago, I said this spontaneously. Like, even though it takes more time, it's... Like, this is your decompression to go into your vacation. Like, usually when you go on vacation, you have the hustle and bustle of your day to day and then once you get to your... And it's still stressful getting to your destination and then you still need some time to, like, cool down and get in vacation mode. But this is your sort of decompression so that when you get to your destination you can just go, go, go, go. The back of the napkin mat I was given from the guy filling up the train with diesel was 400 gallons to get 300 miles. And then the concessions... The lady told me there were 268 people on board, which means per person we did 200 miles per gallon. I asked how many people would this take if it was full and she said, we are full, 268 people. We're now in southern Texas, approaching Austin. 32 hours in the train. We've survived. Both of our children are still alive. But yeah, the family room's been nice, a little bit luxurious, plenty of space. It's fun to watch. The seasons change as you go. We're now in south Texas and there's slight green on the ground as opposed to the grayish-brown of Wisconsin. After a while in Texas it was time to head back north and in contrast to the train we flew back and I ended up making less recordings because, well, it was more stressful. Alright, it's 5.19. We've been up for 45 minutes. So I'm hoping that I'm not going to bias my feelings about flight by being tired and getting two kids up before 5. And my sister's driving us to the airport. Yay! How you feeling, Lauren? Tired. Tired. How you feeling, Felix? No answer. How you feeling, Penny? Big smile? Needless to say, the early departure could also happen on a train. It just so happened that it was on our plane leg. The train, in contrast to the airplane, had no security protocol. And because weight makes little difference on a train, we could both check two bags and carry on two bags with the standard ticket price. On a plane, this of course costs extra. Although we were just on the plane for half a day, the food and beverage service was no comparison to the selection on the train, not to mention a dedicated cafe car to sit and enjoy the food. Airplanes generally get between 40 and 100 miles per gallon per seat. And that sounds good at first blush, but when we compare that to the miles per gallon per seat rate in a car, it actually isn't so great. A car that gets 40 miles per gallon with four seats means it gets 160 miles per gallon per seat. Remember, a train gets 200 miles per gallon per seat. So driving in a car with two people is as fuel efficient as a plane flight. But you'd have to cram five people into a 40 mile per hour gallon car to equal a train's efficiency. Plus, planes' emissions are directly injected into the higher atmosphere where they do more damage on a pound-for-pound basis than they do if they're emitted on the ground. Overall, about 2.5% of all emissions come from air travel. And let me repeat that. 2.5% of all emissions globally come from air travel. Well, that represents only about 0.1% of all miles traveled in the U.S., according to the good old Bureau of Transportation Statistics. And I know this is not a great comparison since emissions was a global number and I only have numbers for U.S. travel, but the real numbers of miles traveled by plane are probably much worse because the U.S. has more flights per capita than other countries. What I mean to say is 2.5% of global emissions are coming from much, much, much less than 0.1% of total miles traveled. It's a huge amount of emissions for a very small amount of mileage. We've established that trains are really fuel efficient. For those that are wondering, the reason that they have the reason they're so fuel efficient is they have dedicated flat hard tracks with metal wheels, which all adds up to what's called low rolling resistance. Or in everyday language, trains have almost frictionless travel. They only have to overcome the initial pull and inertia to get moving, and then they only fight air resistance. The U.S. train system, though, is abysmal. For comparison, let's bring in our producer and editor, Hina Suzuki, who happens to be in Japan this summer. Hello, my name is Hina Suzuki. I'm currently in Japan, spending the summer with my family and remotely interning for the Low Technology Institute. Today, I'm going to talk a little bit about Japan's public transportation system, mainly focusing on railway transport. It is one of the main methods of transportation in Japan, and it is known for its efficiency, reliability, and punctuality. The rail system can be divided into two types. One is called Shinkansen, and second is called regular local trains. The Japan Railways, also known as JR, is the biggest railway company in Japan that offers these both types. The company provides a railway network for the country's four major islands, which are Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, and Shikoku. So about 70% of Japan's railway network is covered by JR. And the rest is operated by private companies. First, the Shinkansen is also known as bullet trains, and they're what travelers to Japan often look forward to when they come visit. The Shinkansen covers most Japanese regions, connecting Hokkaido in the north to Kyushu in the south. These bullet trains can travel at speeds up to 320 miles per hour, but they only stop at major cities, so they're a great way for people traveling long distance. The Shinkansen is kind of similar to airplanes. They are quiet and comfortable with spacious seats and free Wi-Fi. The second one, regular local trains, are for regions not covered by the Shinkansen. So they are slower than the Shinkansen, operating mostly under 80 miles an hour, and are how many businessmen and students commute. It is very common to see station workers pushing people into the trains and closing the doors during rush hour. In addition to these two types of rail transports, there's a subway system in almost every big city in Japan, such as Tokyo and Osaka. They cover popular areas within the city, like the business district and tourist attractions. According to Statistica, Japanese use of rail accounts for up to 72% of passenger distance traveled. So how are these trains fueled? Most trains in Japan, including a Shinkansen and the local regular trains, are electric. After World War II, Japan began to introduce electric rail lines replacing steam trains. This allowed Japan to consume less coal and avoid the coal shortages. At the time, a majority of electricity was hydroelectric. However, now it is heavily dependent on limited resources of fossil fuel inputs. Primarily, liquid-fired natural gas, coal, and oil. Japan has low electricity-generated diversification and is considered an energy resource poor country. Before the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011, nuclear energy accounted for about 25% of Japan's electricity. However, after the accident, the country has been increasing its fossil fuel imports. According to the Japan Railway, or JR, the Shinkansen is more environmentally friendly than airplanes. When compared to an airplane on the same route, a Shinkansen will use 88% less energy and produce 92% less carbon emissions per seat. JR is implementing the Low Carbon Society Phase II Plan, which is a plan that aims to reduce the company's carbon emission by 25% by 2030 compared to the levels of 1995. In 2010, the company successfully completed their plan, which was to reduce its energy consumption by 15%. In March of this year, JR East, a division of JR that covers the Tokyo area, began trial runs of its hydrogen-powered fuel cell trains, which they call the Hibari Test Trains. They hope to replace its diesel fuel trains with the Hibari by 2030. One of Japan's local railway companies called Tokyo that connects Tokyo with the city of Yokohama uses only renewable energy, such as solar and hydro-powered to powered trains. This change began April 1st of this year. In addition to its trains, their stations are powered by renewable energy, including their vending machines and security camera screens. According to the Japan Times, Tokyo's reduced CO2 emissions will be equivalent to the amount produced by approximately 56,000 households a year. Japan is one of the countries working proactively for the 2030 Agendas for Sustainable Development, a set of international developmental goals that focus on eliminating extreme poverty, reducing inequality, and protecting the Earth. The country also has a goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2050. Currently, Japan is the world's fifth biggest CO2 emitter. The railroad system in Japan, specifically the Japan Railroad, is working towards operating with no CO2 emission to support these goals. I used to live in Germany. I didn't have a car there. I never thought about flying. Every distance trip I did by myself was by rail. I had to walk across town, which took all of ten minutes to get on the regional bond or regional train. This would bring me to a larger city, usually Leipzig, where I could get on larger trains. When going between major cities, I'd use the ICE, or ICE, which is the inner city express. And although not as fast as the Japanese Shinkansen, these would regularly travel at speeds over 140 miles per hour. German trains are largely electric, with over 60% of power coming from renewable sources in 2020, and another 12% by nuclear, meaning much of their kilometers travel are carbon free, with a goal of zero emissions by 2050. Germany has even tested a hydrogen-fueled train, which emits only water vapor. Hydrogen also can of course be generated and stored from renewable energy sources. Importantly, many of the diesel trains in Germany can also run on electricity, and as much of the emissions comes when starting the train from a stop, which usually happens at a station or a city, the train will be using electric power, only relying on diesel to keep moving between cities. It's really a clever and efficient model. This is in contrast to the US, where passenger rails do not have dedicated lines and must constantly start and stop wasting significant amounts of energy, and not to mention that most of them are diesel. This brings us to the future. As the future of electric trains, planes, and automobiles, I'm going to paint a picture of what I think would be sustainable, but only if we start to transition to the system now. If we wait much longer, it would take too much energy to convert our system. Think of fossil fuels as a smartphone battery. Are you going to upgrade your system to run more efficiently on a new power source, or do you need to fritter away time playing whatever is the new craze after Candy Crush? I'm a little out of touch on the up-to-date phone games. So first, planes are gone, and I'm sorry, but no planes for regular passengers or cargo service. Everyday flights are just not in the cards. Perhaps helicopters will be worth keeping for medical evacuations and the like, but the day of getting on a plane for regular folks would just be gone. And the reason is because of the rabbit hole I went down, based on a napkin on our United flight. It said that United has committed to 100% sustainable fuels by 2050, and there are two things wrong with that. First, 2050 is too late. By 2050, all the easily extractable oil will be gone, leaving only expensive oil that's hard to retrieve. Second, there's no such thing as 100% sustainable fuel. They're recently testing it in mixes, but it's just not there yet. So bear with me and I'll explain why sustainable aviation fuel is a pipe dream, and I'll do it as succinctly as I possibly can. So oil is so useful because it provides more energy than it takes to extract it. For each barrel of oil used in extraction, we get about 20 barrels in return. The ratio, in this case 20 to 1, is called the energy return on investment, or E-R-O-I, meaning how much energy is returned from a given extraction method. But again, that number will go down as easy to reach oil diminishes, like tar sands, which are really inefficient because they only return four, between four and seven barrels for each barrel used to extract it. Again, very, very inefficient, very wasteful fuel. Now, a recent study suggests that sustainable aviation fuel, which is essentially kerosene distilled from various plant matter, has a very low E-R-O-I. Sustainable jet fuel has an E-R-O-I of between 9.8 and 1.6 barrels, depending on the source of vegetation. Or really, if you take more into account what goes into the E-R-O-I, it might actually only be half that. And we'll link to the study that went into this on the show notes, as well as other useful links for some of the facts and figures that we're citing here. And again, don't forget the emissions of those fuels once they're made goes right up into the higher atmosphere, making them pound for pound worse than emitting them on ground level. So a truly sustainable jet fuel is really not feasible when the alternatives are more efficient than they already exist. So are trains the answer? Well, they are an answer. Building out the rail system in the U.S. to be a rival for plane travel would be a huge step forward for our future. High-speed, dedicated rail service between large cities with smaller cities connected to the hubs by regional rail, with light rail running into the suburbs and countryside, all electrified would be an ideal step forward. We spend so much public money building up roads and other car-centric infrastructure so that the rail's move more people and cargo with so much less energy. The only problem, of course, is the love affair with cars in the United States. To some extent this is practical, as the U.S. is a large country with a dispersed population and I recognize that, I live out in the country. But if even small villages had light rail systems connecting them to the cities, cars would be much less economical. Small electric trucks similar to Japanese mini-trucks could serve the most utilitarian purposes out here in the country, while specialized delivery vehicles are much of the heavy lifting. I'm not saying there isn't a place for individual vehicles in the future, but they have to be secondary after rail. I was the excitement surrounding the electric car, like Tesla and others, were instead focused on the dedicated light medium and high-speed rail infrastructure we need. We do not need to invent something new. We don't need to double down on a system that is automobiles, that wasn't sustainable in the first place, as with just electrifying our car-dependent system that's not a solution. We need to look to the future without clinging to the present or the past and take a hard look at what systems truly have a future and what is merely wishful thinking. And now time for a brief recap of some things going on around the Institute. Our wheat is getting ready for harvest, so that means we have our annual rye and wheat harvesting class coming up on July 16th. See our website for details on how to sign up and learn about harvesting and processing grains by hand at home. We also plan on having another Flax to Linen class with a master spinner, Holland Kennan, this August. Sign up to our listserv or blog to get regular updates on class announcements. Both of these can be accessed on our website. That's it for this week. The Lotech podcast is put out by the Lotechnology Institute. The show is hosted and co-produced by me, Scott Johnson, and co-produced and edited by Hina Suzuki. This episode was recorded in the Lotechnology Institute Gardens. Subscribe to the podcast on Spotify, Google Play, YouTube, and elsewhere. We hope you enjoyed this free podcast. If you'd like to join the community and help support the work we do, please consider going to patreon.com.slash, Lotech Institute, and signing up. Thank you to our Forester and Land Steward level members, Marilyn, Scorpon, and the Hambuses for their support. The Lotechnology Institute is a 501c3 research organization supported by members, grants, and underwriting. You can find out more information about the Lotechnology Institute membership and underwriting at LotechInstitute.org. Find us on social media and reach me directly. I'm Scott at LotechInstitute.org. Our intro music was Sailing Away off the album Orphaned Media by Halizna. That song is released in the public domain and this podcast is under the creative comments, attribution, and share like license. Meaning you're free to use and share it as long as you have credit. Thanks so much and take care.