Just a word of caution…. You can subtly manipulate statistics to give you your desired results assuming your audience isn’t going to look too closely. Kinda like selling snake oil. For example, on the above posted video, I didn’t pay really close attention until close to the end when the guy was A/B comparing two graphs. They both show the same data set except the later graph has two additional data points which skews the the smoothing up at the end. He claims that it is incorrect when in fact it is absolutely correct. And why stop at the year 2000 in your analysis? Anyone care to guess? This isn’t a global conspiracy as claimed by a small percentage of people that like to play with numbers to rile you up. If some “theory” goes against accepted data, you might want to look a little deeper into what’s being presented before you jump on the bandwagon. I’m gonna buy stock in Reynolds’s Aluminum before there’s a run on foil.

In my opinion, climate change/AGW details are ridiculously off-topic for this board, even in this thread.

The argument is about continued supply of diesel fuel for preservation efforts that utilize it. Short-run market supply constraint, while painful, doesn't really reflect what the longer-term picture will be.

Personally, I consider the current emphasis on 'zero-carbon' to be something of a scam when other countries, notably China and India, make a mockery of any absolute reduction over zero-net-carbon (in other words, renewable liquid fuels in this context). However, I think that anything that reduces the absolute consumption of diesel will free up its alternative use, including for strict preservation uses -- especially if any particular percentage of the 'market price change' at consumer level is in road or other taxes. In my opinion starting the necessary lobbying/'consciousness-raising' and preservation-community organizing to ensure that preservation diesel stays affordable is something we should prioritize over sky-is-falling peak-oil-style handwringing.

While the concept of more expensive fuel does related to preservation, very little of this thread is relevant and now is locked.

No Tom, this thread is relevant. I have unlocked it.

I posted a youtube video as something being the easiest to get a point across. Nobody is going to read entire books and dissertations for the sake of an internet discussion, but such concepts can be distilled down. The basic point of that video was that data can and is being manipulated, and even if that example was not correct, continuing to ask questions and being skeptical is the proper course of action.

The central thrust of my earlier argument still stands. We have never addressed the cost/benefit of mitigation vs. net zero. When you really look into the numbers behind net zero, there is no room for rail preservation to exist at all. The drastic reductions in energy usage will necessitate the halting of all leisure time activities if the 2050 goal is to be met, because there are not enough renewables available to take up the load. Renewables could potentially shoulder 30% of the load by 2050, not 100%.

This one issue will kill our entire industry if the powers that be continue to push for net zero on the current time frame, but it is not "on topic" for RYPN? This is the most "on topic" thing we can be talking about right now.

There are lots of arguments in this thread, even amongst moderators, but what can we do that's actually actionable? You can say "vote for candidate X" but that doesn't change the science. Nobody is coming specifically after tourist railroads, despite the doomsday predictions presented here. What's more likely is a piece of legislation which will unintentionally includes tourist railroads. When that happens who is the right person/people to speak up for us? Who is our lobbyist? HeritageRail Alliance?

Just for the record I did read the book I posted. You can borrow my copy if you'll actually read it.

I worked in the OTR industry for decades. For every dollar increase in the price of fuel the rate that is charged jumps up by 20 to 30 cents a miles for all miles. Right now with fuel near 5 bucks a gallon plus taxes and other costs no carrier is willing to move loads for less than 2.50 to 3 bucks a mile. If you live in the northeast try closer to 4 a mile California I know that carriers are getting 5 a mile with the fuel surcharge they require for California alone. Diesel in California is running 2 to 3 bucks higher than the rest of the nation. Not to many carriers are willing to put up with their regulatory side anymore also. They're now trying to sue the largest carriers for environmental issues that they have zero to do with.

First a moderator’s warning to stay out of the politics or rumors of the politics behind energy cost inflation… (so be careful about assigning blame, talking about climate change)

On the other hand the impact of those costs on railroad operation and preservation are fair game… (so discussions about impact of fuel costs, or decision to continue to use coal instead of converting to oil) continue to be welcome…

Fuel cost increases are painful… but relatively recently, as recently as 2015, my (former) museum had a fuel surcharge in place… this is not the first time fuel cost have been challenging… I note that in the post WWII period UP would convert locomotives from coal to oil firing, then back again based in part on coal strikes… so consider this as a historic reenactment. Two years later, that same museum benefited from the low cost of fuel, using the savings for capital improvement…

Coal prices are a different issue from oil… coal is being phased out as a fuel for climate reasons in many places… Mostly as power plant energy, but limited boutique uses like preserved steam, blacksmithing or even coal burning pizza oven use is affected.

Also noting that people have called out recent gas prices to support (unwelcome) arguments… noting I bought gas for $2.04 in Little Rock two days ago (diesel was much, much higher) but also paid $6.00 plus in California last month… Diesel in Little Rock is hovering at about $5.00.

The biggest issue in California for all industries that use anything that can generate anything that can produce co2 is the government out there. This is a state that literally decided that human beings can not have air conditioning in 160 degree metal boxes that weigh 40 tons but if they have any animals in that same box it can't be allowed to get hot or cold at all. Yes I am being dead serious. In California an OTR driver was fined 25k for idling his CARB approved to idle truck in Needles on a 110 degree day with his sleeper reaching 160 degrees while on his federally required 10 hour sleeper break.

Translation: Ignore the elephant in the room.

Sometimes I feel like Rodney Dangerfield in Back to School
encouraging a realistic view of the world to...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSLscJ2cY04

Look at the very first words in the very first post: "Regardless of the reasons it happened..."

That's what Randy is recapitulating. This is a preservation board, and there is little if anything that 'preservation' can legitimately do to advance knowledge of climate change awareness. But it can take note of the likely consequences, and plan accordingly.

I just heard from a very close friend that is COO of a 600 truck fleet. Their engine supplier's were just given another mandatory emissions reduction by the EPA that according to their own engineers is going to be physically impossible to meet. They're wanting a further 90 percentage reduction in both NOX and CO2 emissions from all diesel powered equipment in the next decade. What is being requested is beyond the scope of physics and thermodynamics of combustion. This happens and say goodbye to the entire economy.

Isn't that what everyone says every time there is a tightening of standards?

Then... lo and behold, they figure it out!

But the sky's always falling...

No.