RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ENERGY SOURCES AND THEIR DEMAND SECTORS

America fueled its economy in the 19th century using coal. In the early 20th century, oil and natural gas also rose to prominence, followed by a handful of hydroelectric dams. In the second half of the 20th century we added nuclear energy. More recently, we've added wind, solar and biofuel renewable energies. Here's a closer look at those energy supply sources and how transportation, the parent of travel, relates to them.


In the 1970s, America became more dependent on foreign oil despite two OPEC oil embargoes, wake-up calls from several presidents, and population growth worsening auto and air traffic congestion. We also became more dependent on coal despite air pollution so dangerous that public health officials advise millions of lung disease sufferers to stay indoors 20% of the calendar. We no longer have the luxury of gradually lowering oil and coal demand. If we are to manage these global and national threats, we have to ramp up electricity generation from other sources.

In 2009-10, Congress granted President Obama economic stimulus funding that he wisely used, in part, to start several sustainable energy projects. Since then, Congress has stalled our sustainable energy ramp-up. In 2013, Congress can help the President set us on a path to complete major transition milestones by 2030. Or will it stall until 2016 or 2020, when so many Big Sticks named in Part 3 beat us over the head that we go into panic mode?

Regardless of timeline scenario between the President and Congress, we are compelled to understand how the relationship between Transportation and Electricity Generation sectors must transform into secured assets for the 21st century, rather than liabilities.

WE MUST NOT DEPEND ON FOREIGN OIL & RISKY OIL FOR TRANSPORTATION ENERGY SECURITY

Oil drives over 70% of American transportation. Yet for oil, most sand in the hourglass fills the bottom. World oil production peaked in 2010, it can only deplete, even as as demand by China and India escalates. As the world slowly emerges from global recession, the cost of gasoline and jet fuel will rise, regardless of who we elect. In 2010, the world produced 27 billion barrels of world. America consumed 7.3 billion barrels of it. Despite recently boosting domestic oil extraction, about 3.5 billion barrels of oil/year are imported, with a large chunk from OPEC nations. Any adult who has listened to Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama, knows that importing such a huge amount of oil is dangerous and against our long term interests.


Additionally, our close-to-the-surface oil reserves are so depleted that companies mostly pursue oil that costs more to extract from deeper, environmentally-risky places. Some economists call it "Risky Oil."

In this Worldwide Peak Oil Era, the smallest threat to oil supply triggers price shocks. That's because oil is priced by the world market, not by any single domestic market. Second, oil prices are manipulated by professional speculators who over-dramatize small or rumored disruptions to oil flow to quickly drive up prices on commodity markets, sell their commodity shares "high" to rake in huge profits, then watch commodity prices sink again, once everyone realizes they've overreacted or OPEC pumps more oil to stabilize the market.

Here's two examples. In 2011 following the rebel outbreak in Libya, world oil prices jumped from $90/barrel to $110/barrel, despite Libya supplying less than 4% of the world's oil. The U.S. does not import Libyan oil, nor was Libyan oil significantly disrupted to our trading partners in Europe or Asia. Yet gasoline prices in America spiked 35 cents/gallon overnight. Again in 2012, Iran threatened to block oil flow from the Persian Gulf. America doesn't buy oil from Iran, nor was oil blocked in the Persian Gulf, but commodity speculators spiked oil prices again. Then OPEC responded by pumping more oil to lower gasoline prices a few months preceding the November 2012 U.S. Election. Prices are settling 10 to 20 cents higher than the original level. Each time this scenario repeats, gasoline prices are 2-3% higher and each year China and India are consuming a slightly larger percentage of world oil. American oil companies string along because they make 33% of every oil dollar paid for refining crude oil into gasoline and distributing it.

With knowledge of the big picture even former oil executives predict higher oil prices in the near future. We can guarantee that oil prices will rise, but no one guarantees that foreign oil will securely flow to America.

COAL CONSUMPTION, THE BACK-END DANGER FOR ELECTRIC-POWERED TRANSPORTATION

To eliminate foreign oil while holding domestic oil production steady, we need an order of magnitude more people choosing electric-powered transportation. We will need double current electricity generation to meet their demand, as well as the freight shipping industry using more biofuel. If energy supply sources remained status quo, coal would be the backend fuel to half of that additional electric powered transportation.

Even though America consumes only domestic coal, nothing is more environmentally damaging and toxic than mining and burning coal to generate electricity due to its carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, sulphur dioxide, methane gas, air particulates, volatile organic compounds and mercury emissions. Thats why its called "Dirty Coal."

In 1950, 19% of dirty coal was consumed for electricity generation in America when our population was half that of today. Since fewer American homes and businesses burn coal for heating compared to 1950, its surprising that we burn more coal now. By 2009, 93% of coal was consumed for electricity generation, with most of that occurring in Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana. In fact, increased coal consumption by China and America have made us the world's two largest contributors to air pollution, by far. If our two nations cut oil burning in half, but double coal consumption for electricity generation, we'll be even worse off than burning oil.

US Electricity produced by coal, 2006; source EIA
Some say Clean Coal Technology, though expensive and complicated, is the answer. That technology acts like a giant catalytic converter trapping most emissions, while creating synthetic methane gas that burns as clean as natural methane gas.

Clean Coal Technology sounds good in theory, but makes little economic or environmental sense for many reasons. First, America has a 90-100 year supply of natural gas and methane extracted from natural gas is cheaper than synthetic methane made from clean coal technology. Second, America's natural gas-powered plants produce less than half the greenhouse gas emissions of Clean Coal Technology-electric plants. Third, toxic greenhouse gases (GHG) sequestered by Clean Coal Technology have to be stored somewhere. But, Americans not employed by the industry have a NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) perspective about sequestered emissions. So only communities substantially employed by Clean Coal Technology companies will accept the sequestered emissions storage burden. Fourth, more advanced Clean Coal Technology requires tax incentives for R&D and deployment. But if tax incentives are required, why not opt for renewable energy?

In the final analysis, we have to end "Dirty Coal" used for electricity generation and industry use sometime next decade. Cheap natural gas and tougher EPA regulations to cut GHG emissions are convincing more utility companies to convert more electric plants from coal-power to natural gas-power or renewable energy-power. The coal industry has to adjust to this new reality, just as the horse-drawn carriage industry had to adjust to the automobile.

THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY OF NATURAL GAS

The good news is America has abundant natural gas that is lower polluting than coal and oil. Natural gas is NOT "clean" burning. It is only "cleaner" burning than coal and oil. Compared to wind and hydroelectric energy, the gold standards for producing the least GHG emissions, burning:

• Natural Gas produces 19 times more GHG
• Oil produces 28 times more GHG
• Coal produces 34-41 times more GHG

Technological advances are coming to natural gas-powered electric plants to further lower GHG emissions.

The ugly news is, most of the easy to access natural gas in America has already been extracted. Now companies are pursuing risky natural gas through a controversial hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") process that pumps pressurized sand and toxic chemicals thousands of feet underground to break up miles of rocks spread out horizontally. Then the fracking process sucks out the natural gas and chemical residue to the surface. Fracking proponents are correct to claim that well-contructed and operated fracking processes are safe. As a result, fracking produces many jobs and natural gas is relatively cheap, at present.



Now some bad news. Pennsylvania gives tax breaks to attract more natural gas fracking. As a result some companies have cut corners, producing small contamination leaks at the surface. Without more regulation and enforcement in this booming industry, its only a matter of time before a disaster occurs.

From a national perspective, it is insane to give tax breaks that help natural gas be more price competitive than renewable energy and attract more wildcatters prone to cutting corners that lead to leaky wells. Since renewable energy is racing with natural gas to replace coal-powered electricity, federal fracking fees should be enacted to specifically increase EPA enforcement of fracking construction and operation inspections. Aside from improving public safety, such fees will help renewable energy become price competitive with natural gas.

Considering that corner-cutting triggered a disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and BP got hit with a $30 billion penalty, on balance, the natural gas industry should welcome tougher EPA enforcement for public safety and environmental protection. A Gulf of Mexico-like fracking disaster without knowing who caused it would be very bad for the entire industry, otherwise sustainable for 80-90 more years.

THE RISKY BENEFITS OF NUCLEAR ENERGY FOR ELECTRICITY

I'll be the first to admit that I harbor a bias against nuclear energy due to the possibility of an accidental meltdown, nuclear terrorism and the nasty business of where to store spent radioactive fuel rods. But since America is not in an energy and economic security position to shut down all nuclear power plants, I updated my perspective based on technology advances and the short term advantages of nuclear energy.

No nations enjoy those short term advantages more than France, who produces most of its electricity from nuclear power. As a result, France:

• burns an extremely small percentage of coal for electricity
• have low cost electricity powering comprehensive rail transportation systems, making them less dependent on oil
• generate less GHG emissions per capita
• spend less money per capita on energy
• export less money abroad per capita to buy foreign oil
• have cleaner air quality in cities compared to similar size cities in other advanced nations

I also learned that 3rd generation nuclear reactors can prevent meltdowns, provided they are located away from natural disasters.

65 nuclear power plants containing 104 licensed nuclear reactors in America, 2008
Then Japan's earthquake-tsunami-nuclear meltdown occurred in 2011. No man-made protection could enable Fukushima nuclear plant to withstand a tsunami. In 2012, we also witnessed global warming creating super-storms like Sandy hitting unexpected places. Then I recalled the Great Flood of 1993 causing the Mississippi River to crest 45-50 feet. Due to global warming, scientists say the frequency and height of floods will increase. Can all nuclear power plants withstand the Mississippi River rising 60 feet or 70 feet?

The precautionary response to these events has caused many pro-nuclear nations to recognize that over-dependance on nuclear energy is an invitation to catastrophe. Now Japan, France, Germany and Italy plan to dramatically reduce or phase out nuclear energy over the next 10-25 years.

We live in an era of increasing threats due to more frequent earthquakes, tsunamis, storm surges, major floods and the potential of nuclear terrorism. All nuclear power plants near major earthquake faults, in a 100-year flood zone or near ocean beaches need to be closed sooner rather than later. Old nuclear reactors that remain in safer areas must be upgraded to next generation technology to prevent a catastrophe. At the end of the day, we can not upscale nuclear energy to meet increasing electricity demand. That's a job for renewable energy.

HYDROELECTRIC AND GEOTHERMAL RENEWABLE ENERGY ARE NOT SCALABLE IN AMERICA

Geothermal is a good source of renewable energy, but its most cost effective when used as a local heat exchange for heating and air conditioning at nearby housing, rather than for electricity generation. Thats true because you have drill deeper for High Temperature geothermals sufficient to fuel large-scale electric generation. This process of deep drilling for geothermals is as fraught with risk as fracking for oil & natural gas because when corners are cut, it can release GHG and toxic gases by accident. Despite risks, private industry is pursuing more geothermal energy in a number of places. Unfortunately, no one is tapping into enough geothermals to power a major city. At best we can double or triple geothermal capacity by 2030, but that will only supply 2-3% of our energy demand.

America is for the most part, pleased with existing hydroelectric dams, but leary of building new ones due to their ecosystem damage. If you want to be tied up in the courts for 25-30 years, try taking land for a new dam-created reservoir. Looking at the bigger picture, our biggest concern with dams is repairing them and ecosystems surrounding them. So we can't upscale hydroelectric dams to produce more electricity.

Hoover Dam, the largest source of electricity for Las Vegas
SOLAR, WIND & BIOMASS ENERGY ARE SCALABLE, BUT PUBLIC-PRIVATE INVESTMENT REQUIRED

Wind power is the only renewable energy ready for large scale deployment by utility companies. But it needs construction tax breaks to economically compete with natural gas as a replacement for coal-powered electric plants.

Since jets, ships and freight trucks can not operate tethered to electric outlets, we need biofuel replacements for jet and diesel fuel. Though past R&D has produced sufficient biofuel to power freight trucks, more R&D investment is required to make a more powerful, environmentally friendly, cleaner burning biofuel that economically replaces oil-based fuel for jets, ships and large freight trucks.

Last decade, solar panels only converted about 16% of the sun's energy into electricity. For homes, it required roughly a $40,000 investment (less 25-50% tax incentives, depending on state) to cover a $2000 of annual electricity bill. Consequently, solar panel adoption by residential and commercial consumers was low. Recent technical advances pushed solar panel efficiency to 33%. If the pace of R&D advancement continues by 2015-16, solar panels will hit 60% efficiency and price drops to $10,000 to increase demand by an order of magnitude. Similar R&D ventures are underway for utility-grade solar energy projects. More efficient large scale batteries are also required for energy utility companies to store excess wind and solar energy and a smart grid is required to transmit electricity more efficiently.

Entrepreneurs have solutions, but many billions of public and private investment dollars are required to produce the "Apple of Solar Panels", the "Amazon of Utility-Scale Batteries" and the "Google of Smart Grid Technology." Unfortunately, the road from successful R&D to commercially successful product is also lined with potholes.

During the 2012 election campaign, clean energy critics railed about the $648 million bankruptcy of Solyndra, Beacon Power and Abound Solar ventures backed by public loans. Critics neglect to mention that those ventures were vetted by smart private investment firms who also convinced private investors like the Walton Family of Walmart to huge chunks of private money. Nor do the critics mention that 94% of the $16 billion in clean energy loans are on target to help America conserve energy, build a smarter electric grid and enable other successful wind and solar energy ventures to repay their loans WITH interest.

Learning from solar energy failures, the Obama Administration is enacting tougher accountability measures to limit massive failures again. Those measures include better defining asset-producing milestones per funding chunk invested and making 100% of private money be the first funds consumed in case of bankruptcy.

We must not lose faith in solar energy with its breakthrough promise so near. The race to the moon had failures too. Yet today, we enjoy a multi-billion dollar mobile phone industry as one of many byproducts of the space race. America has always accepted risks inherent to breakthrough R&D ventures. Some will fail, but with a smartly-structured portfolio of renewable energy, battery and smart grid ventures, more will succeed.

RENEWABLE ENERGY FOR ELECTRICITY, INDUSTRIAL, RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL SECTORS

By viewing the global warming chart in Part 3 and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency chart of 2006 CO2 Emissions measured in TeraGrams, its clear that America is in a race against time changing the energy mix for electric power, transportation, industrial, residential and commercial demand. Reducing imported oil is one of the few soundbites with bi-partisan appeal. So the President's campaign rhetoric spoke of increasing domestic oil to about 4 billion barrels of oil/year, while modestly reducing imported oil to 2.5 billion barrels of oil/year by 2025.


As stated in Part 3 of this article, the EPA estimates GHG emissions will drive global temperature up 2-11 degrees Fahrenheit this century, mostly dependent on behavior by America, China and India. If our three nations clamp down beginning this decade, global temperatures are headed to the lower number. If our three nations follow the same slow pace and wait until next decade to get serious, we're headed to a midrange number with devastating flood, drought, food crop and hurricane costs in the trillions of dollars and more loss of life.

To clamp our GHG emissions, more aggressive energy policy has to eliminate dirty coal and imported oil, and better regulate risky domestic oil & natural gas extraction by 2030. Thats a tall order because it means some Congressmen have to sacrifice dirty coal and foreign oil refining jobs in their districts for the greater good, when many of their voters refuse to believe or ignore compelling scientific evidence linking GHG emissions with temperature rise. Congressmen don't like sacrificing jobs in their districts, even though the nation as a whole can make up those jobs.

By accelerating wind power deployment and speeding up solar panel, biofuel, utility battery and smart grid R&D, more energy conservation and more electric-powered transportation, our government can eliminate dirty coal and reduce 7.3 billion barrels of oil/year down to 3.6 billion barrels of oil/year to wipe out foreign oil consumption by 2030. As a result, oil can drop from 35% to 18% of our energy supply and coal can drop from 20% to 4% of our energy supply by 2030. If we can muster the political will, America can do this.

In 2010, transportation constituted 72% of the 7.3 billion barrels of oil/year of consumed by America. That converts into roughly 5.1 billion barrels of oil/year for Transportation sector Before I address that Demand Sector, I'll address the low-hanging fruit of Industrial, Residential and Commercial sectors.

America uses about 1.7 billion barrels of oil/year for the Industrial sector. There are many industrial products using an oil-base that can convert to a biomass-base. Furthermore, the Industrial sector tends to amortize heavy equipment and manufacturing lines over 20-30 years. If new tax policy helps them speed conversion to electric and biofuel power, Industrial oil use can cut from today's 1.7 billion barrels oil/year to 1.0 billion barrels/year by 2030.

Renewable energy promises to reduce Residential and Commercial sectors use from 0.5 billion barrels/year. Wind power in America has more than doubled in the last 4 years. As wind and solar power becomes more affordable, anticipate Residential and Commercial sectors reducing from 0.5 billion barrels of oil/year today to 0.2 billion barrels by 2030. That would leave 1.2 billion barrels of oil/year used by Industrial, Residential and Commercial sectors.

To reach a secure 3.5 billion barrels of oil/year and eliminate dirty coal by 2030, our leaders have two big challenges:

• Cut 5.1 billion barrels of oil/year for Transportation in half
• Replace lost oil and coal jobs with renewable energy and natural gas jobs

OBAMA BALANCING ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL, SAFETY AND POLITICAL FACTORS

Given those diverse and conflicting demands, Obama's current energy policy is an "All The Above Energy" strategy that changes energy sources in ways that both please and displease, depending on one's perspective. By 2025, he wants to cut foreign oil by a third, maintain nuclear energy, significantly boost renewable energy, and permit deep sea oil drilling with toughened EPA regulations. He welcomes more hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") for natural gas, but urges states to better police it since underground drilling rights fall within their legal domain. As a salve to the coal industry, Obama's 2011 Energy Plan suggests that they convert old coal-power plants to Clean Coal Technology plants.

By the numbers, Obama wants the percentage of renewable energy, natural gas, and nuclear energy for electricity generation to grow from 51% in 2009 to 80% by 2035. Though Frankenstein-like, his energy policy is moving in the right direction. As expected, smaller bubbles on Obama's energy mix chart of tomorrow, displeases coal and oil lobbies.

Germany, a top-tier country without many hydroelectric dams, fewer sunny days, and a relatively small windy coastline, is already meeting 25% of its electricity demand with renewable energy. As it shuts coal and nuclear power plants, Germany's trajectory appears headed towards wind power producing 50% of its electricity by 2030.

America has engineering, venture capital, land size, windy coastline, and sunny day advantages over Germany. If we supplement those advantages with sound federal policy, one possible scenario is, America can accelerate renewable energy from 11% in 2010 to 45% of electricity generation by 2030? In that scenario, nuclear energy would shrink from the current 22% to ~18% of electricity generation by 2030. Then we'd only need natural gas to grow from 18% to 27% of electricity generation by 2030. The remaining 10% of electricity generation could come from Clean Coal Technology, without a net loss of energy jobs. Whatever the precise mixtures, setting a pace to renewable energy and cleaner fossil fuel supplying 100% of electricity generation by 2030, America would have vastly more influence with China and India to do likewise.

Until recent events, influencing China to lower global GHG emissions would have been unthinkable. China has a notorious reputation for hiding unpleasant public safety information and preventing public criticism. But after permitting its citizens to openly criticize the safety hazards of coal-powered Airpocalypse in 2013, China is clearly engaged in introspection before taking corrective action. China is becoming a world leader in solar and wind technology for export and is a global committee member working to reduce GHG emissions. Those events suggest that a "new" China can be influenced by global economic competitors to transition faster to renewable energy for electricity generation.

Now reelected, will President Obama amplify his policy push for renewable energy to exploit that influence opportunity with China?

REDUCING 2.4 BILLION BARRELS OIL/YEAR FROM U.S. TRANSPORTATION CONSUMPTION

To achieve energy security by 2030, federal policy and industry cooperation must cut 2.4 billion barrels of oil/year from the Transportation sector consisting of passenger automobiles, airplanes, transit, intercity passenger trains, freight trains, trucks and ships.

Freight train, freight truck and large ship operators want to convert to cleaner biofuel engines. But given the long lifespan of freight trains, trucks and ships, most fleets won't turn-over until 2020-2030. I'll summarize a lot of research by estimating that we can only get 0.4 billion barrels of oil/year savings from biofuel advances for freight trains, freight trucks and large ships. So we need 2.0 billion barrels of oil/year savings from airplanes and autos.

Jet fuel consumes 12% of oil used by transportation or 0.6 billion barrels of oil/year, with over 99% of it used by airline fleets. America's airline fleets are heavily populated with the worst polluting and least oil-efficient segment of all transportation -- older regional jets traveling under 500 miles between large cities. A Brookings Institute study finds that over 50% of American flights are regional flights under 500 miles and 99% of them travel between our Top 100 Metro Areas. Regional flights under 500 miles attain only 2-20 minutes of fuel-efficient cruising time per flight. Otherwise they spend 15-20 inefficient minutes reaching cruising altitude and 15-20 minutes of inefficient descent.


To the relief of residential and commercial districts near airports, the aviation industry is introducing next generation jets that emit less pollutants. Next generation jets will mix oil, algae-biofuel and engineering advances to cut fuel consumption and GHG emissions by 25%. That welcome news, coupled with the NextGen Air Traffic Control System to reduce takeoff and landing delays, should save 0.2 billion barrels of oil/year by 2030. Even with those notable aviation advancements, America must cut 1.8 billion barrels of oil/year from autos.

GREENER CARS WILL REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

According to the latest USDOT data, in 2007 all passenger cars averaged 22.5 MPG and light trucks averaged 18 MPG. To eliminate foreign oil by 2030, we have to ramp up auto MPG quicker. With help from Detroit automakers, President Obama escalated CAFE standards 30 MPG passenger car and 24 MPG light trucks/SUVs in 2011 to 39 MPG passenger cars and 30 MPG light trucks/SUVs by 2016.

Today, most electric cars have a 200 to 250-mile driving range and recharge in about 4 hours. Engineering advancements underway will increase battery life three-fold and reduce recharge time to half an hour by early next decade. Batteries costing $3000 are the most expensive components of electric cars and the biggest complaint about electric cars today. As volume manufacturing increases by 2020, electric-vehicle battery prices should reduce to $500-$600.

Furthermore, residential windmill and solar panel costs are on pace to drop by 75% by decade-end. Thus, more people using electric cars charged from solar or windmill homes will significantly cut transportation oil consumption. So why can't greener autos wipe out 1.8 billion barrels of oil consumed per year? The answer: plenty of drivers who still have oil cars and roadway traffic congestion.

SURPRISE: MORE HIGHWAY LANES DO NOT REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION

One of the biggest hoaxes foisted on voters is that more highway lanes reduce congestion. About 71 million Americans will be added to our population between 2010-40. If we continue adding highway lanes under the falsehood of congestion relief, the average interstate highway will have 10 lanes running hundreds of miles, creating even more traffic jams, air pollution and accidents.

More importantly, the mathematics of queuing theory proves that average speed decreases because more autos traveling at different speeds and changing lanes introduces more erratic driver behavior that triggers delay. The Mathematics of Queuing Theory applied to highway lanes proves that the most efficient super-highways have only 2-lanes-per-side. Traffic lane efficiency gets worse for each lane added. A 4-lane-per-side interstate highway only carries about 65% more traffic than a 2-lane-per-side interstate highway. So if we add more than 4 lanes per side, electric, electric-hybrid and oil cars will be stuck in traffic longer, with the latter two vehicle types consuming far more oil and producing more GHG emissions.

An astute traffic engineer summarized the situation perfectly, "widening highways to solve traffic congestion is like loosening your belt to cure obesity."


Lastly, America more than tripled carpool lane miles in the last 20 years. That helps, right? Unfortunately, as more multi-passenger autos move to carpool lanes, the welcome mat for single-passenger drivers got bigger, increasing highway congestion. An inconvenient truth is that adding more carpool lanes to super-highways does NOT lower traffic congestion or oil consumption. So I estimate that cuts from autos will only take us from 1.8 billion barrels of oil/year down to 1.3 billion barrels of oil/year remaining to be cut from the Transportation sector. I welcome a more precise estimate from others.

Due to so many sprawling metro areas, the realities of distant work commutes and the enduring need for face-to-face activities, even with increases in biking and telecommuting, they can only reduce oil consumption another 0.1 billion barrels of oil/year. Thus, we would still need to cut 1.2 billion barrels of oil/year from transportation.

Fortunately, electric-powered Transit and HSR are proven alternatives to conserve oil while mitigating traffic congestion and GHG emissions. See Part 5 about the costs, where to build, and types of Transit and HSR best suited for each route.