Marrying Stranded Wind and Freight Rail Electrification

(Electrification of our nation’s railroads is winning idea. Do we have the will and money to make it happen? – promoted by Magnifico)

Welcome to the next in my (sporadic) Long Emergency series of essays.

This one is a real cheap rip-off essay, in which I simply rip out the short policy proposal wrapped up in a Daily Kos candidate diary, and present it without the candidate diary parts.

Here is a version of the national Wind Resource map:

It should, I hope, be clear that much of the best resource is in areas that do not have the highest electricity consumption. And at the same time, that is a lot of the terrain that the transcontinental freight rail must traverse to get where its going. And, at the same time, we desperately need to get the main freight rail trunk lines electrified, by hook or by crook. Ergo, I got a grossly oversimplified policy proposal to present.

• The Federal Government invests in publicly owned infrastructure to electrify the main railroad
• In return, the owners of the right of way cede use of the right of way above the part that they need to public use, together with access to the ground level right of way for support structures
• That right of way is used to establish long distance High Voltage DC trunk lines to bring sustainable energy from the places that have it to places the need it
• In areas where there is a commercial wind resource, the usage rights above those trunk lines are available to be leased out for wind farm operators, with the lease payments rolled back into the funding for the program

Some answers to some challenges to the proposal, after the fold.

Opponents will argue, “long distance power transport loses power”.

My suggested answer:

“Wind Power is use it or lose it. If we do not burn a ton of coal this year, we can burn it next year, or next decade, or a century from now. And if we wait, we may be able to use it in a way that does not damage the environment. But every Terawatt of Wind Power that we leave untapped is just gone.”

Opponents will argue, “The Federal Government should not subsidize the electrification of the freight rail grid.”

My suggested answer:

The reason we subsidized the Interstate Highway system was national defense. But back then we were an oil exporter. Now we are a massive oil importer. We have to be able to move essential food, supplies, and defense material from one side of the country to the other without having that hostage to events in the Middle East. Sustainable electricity supplies let us do that.”

Opponents will argue, “We cannot rely on wind power to always be there.”

My suggested answer:

“Its a big country we have here. There is always some wind blowing across some part of our country. But its true that sometimes there will be more wind power than other times. As long as the federal government makes sure that that power can be transported and sold at times that it is needed, I am sure that enterprising private firms will find ways to store it in times that it is abundant.”

Now, getting the proposal out there required far more than verbiage. It needs a good visual. And while I do not have the resource to quickly put that visual together, I’ve got a clear picture in me head.

A US state boundary map. A big bold percentage in black, that shows the total wind resource in the state, on current estimates, as a percentage of total current US electricity use. And include offshore wind resource within state boundaries in that percentage. A big bold percentage in red, that shows the state’s share of total electricity consumption. And in blue, the main existing trunk line rail network, with blue lightning bolts laid out alongside the ones that link up wind power surplus states with wind power deficit states.

OK, that’s what I got at the moment. Tell me what you think.