Forum: Story Recommendations

I know what an APO is (Army Post Office) and CA is the abbreviation for California used by the Post Office. I am not sure about lyptic. It might be a combination of lip and tic. A tic is a problem in which a part of the body moves repeatedly, quickly, suddenly, and uncontrollably. So lyptic is is one or more of the lips (upper, lower or both?) moving uncontrollably. So is a Post Apocalyptic story after lips in a California Army Post Office move uncontrollably?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalyptic_and_post-apocalyptic_fiction

here you go, a quick google can help you with terms you don't understand :)

Yeah, I know that humans often have conflicts in PA stories, I guess what I'm looking for is something that focuses more on rebuilding the world and society than it focuses on the humans fighting each other.

I've seen The Omega Man, and like you said it was so-so, but I might check out the novel.

Once the people reach some sort of accommodation with the changed reality the primary source of conflict is likely to be other people again.

In aftermath of a truly apocalyptic event, resulting in the total collapse of civilization and total loss of modern infrastructure world wide, it should be decades before people reach that point.

It should be many years before anyone can be in a position where they can be sure that they have a better than 50/50 chance of surviving the next winter.

but not something that could devastate the infrastructure of the entire world as far as I know.

By infrastructure, I'm not just talking about roads and buildings.

I'm talking about water, electricity natural gas delivered by pipe to the home. These things take a sizeable amount of labor on a day by day basis to function. They are nowhere close to 100% automated and we don't have the technology for that.

Kill 99% of the human population, no matter the cause, and all those things go away.

If it happened suddenly, even with no violence, 99% of the population just disappeared, the electric grid would fail, everywhere, within hours. Indoor running water would be gone within days.

It also hasn't been that long in the United States since a large portion of the population lived on small farms that were worked largely by hand tool with some draught animal assistance.

It's been long enough that few are left with the skills to do it.

There are still books out there on how to do it

Yes, but how many copies and will they be accessible to those who need them.

There are still books out there on how to do it - I think I still have a few and I know my neighbors have shelves of them.

if that's in the U.S., what general section of the country, please?

I'd say any rural area that's not specifically on the east coast.

You mean excluding anything east of the Appalachian Mountains? Or are you talking about an even smaller area (say, maybe, excluding only the largest cities)?

what are the weather patterns (especially wind destinations) where are the nearest nuclear power plants? A nice rural place is worthless if it is near nuclear power plants or in the path of the wind coming from them.

Does that assume that something bad MUST happen at nuclear power plants in post-apoc worlds?

Does that assume that something bad MUST happen at nuclear power plants in post-apoc worlds?

That's just a matter of time. Eventually, without maintenance, something will 'happen'.

Does that assume that something bad MUST happen at nuclear power plants in post-apoc worlds?

That's just a matter of time. Eventually, without maintenance, something will 'happen'.

That depends.
In most cases the automatical shut-down will work. If it does, fine, no problem for thousands of years.
If it doesn't, then...

Much depends on the type of apocalypse and how the people on-site will react to it. Will they foolishly override the automatical shut-down? ...

BTW, why do you single-out nuclear power plants? A chemical plant may be even more problematic. Anyone who remembers Seveso? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seveso_disaster

HM.

Much depends on the type of apocalypse and how the people on-site will react to it. Will they foolishly override the automatical shut-down? ...

The type of apocalypse surely would make a difference. A meteor strike and flooding would cause the structural integrity to fail, immediately or after some time. Even after shut-down a nuclear reactor must be maintained or at a minimum the radio active materials must be removed and secured or they will become a hazard after some undetermined time.
It would also make a difference whether or not there are people left with the knowledge to handle those hazards. The worst would be if there's just some people left that don't even know that a nuclear installation can be so dangerous.

Again, assume a Thanos type event. The plants will have a SCRAM event.

I tried assuming a Thanos type event and it SCRAMBled my brain. Can you tell me what those things mean?

If you've seen any of the Avengers or other Marvel universe movies or read any Marvel comics,

Thanks for the explanation. I have seen none of the movies unless this year's Wonder Woman was one of them. The last time I read a Marvel comics story was before they were banned (for 25 years?) for being copycats of Superman.

If you've seen any of the Avengers or other Marvel universe movies or read any Marvel comics, then you know that Thanos is THE bad guy there.

That's fine, but what about those of us that don't see the movies or read those "books'?

Reading the posts, it appears that there is an area that hasn't been covered yet--that of growing crops. All the books in the world will do no good if the seed will not produce viable seed for the next year's crop. I recall reading that a lot of the hybrid seed will not reproduce by design. How much heirloom plants are out there?

Just my 2 cents.

I recall reading that a lot of the hybrid seed will not reproduce by design.

seeds don't reproduce at all, in any plant species. Seeds are the result of plant reproduction.

What has been done with the with a lot of the hybrids is that the seeds require specific conditions that are extremely unusual in nature in order to germinate(start growing). These conditions are kept as trade secrets by the seed companies.

I have outlined biological and chemical issues some posts prior in this thread.

Yeah, all the chemical plants would make for one heck of a disaster, in and of themselves. Just imagine all the oil refineries without anyone to turn them off, and then those things blow up. In and of themselves, that'll wipe out the Chicago area (the Whiting, Indiana refineries), Houston, San Francisco, Saint Louis, New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles.

Are you talking about two different things here - chemical plants and oil refineries? Or is there a connection between exploding chemical plants and the inability of someone to turn things off at oil refineries?

If it happened suddenly, even with no violence, 99% of the population just disappeared, the electric grid would fail, everywhere, within hours. Indoor running water would be gone within days.

My guess that how long the various electric grids in the world would last depends on a number of factors. The biggest of these would be luck. In some cases the survivors might be able to isolate a portion of the grid and continue having electricity even after most of the world's electrical grids are down - some permanently.

As for indoor running water - that probably would depend a lot on the location. Some places might not have running water for an hour after the lights go out. Other locations could have running water for a little longer - in some cases there alternative power sources to run the pumps serving the location, in others the water would come from gravity fed reservoirs.

My guess that how long the various electric grids in the world would last depends on a number of factors. The biggest of these would be luck.

Nope. Luck won't be a factor. Load and demand on the grid have to be constantly balanced down to time scales of seconds. Constant adjustments have to be made to maintain that balance.

If the people with the knowledge, skill and physical access to the control systems are dead, the grid will fail very, very quickly.

And generation all has to be phase/frequency synced. If a large number of power plants go off grid, it can take weeks and a hell of a lot of coordination to get them back on line.

in others the water would come from gravity fed reservoirs.

I have no idea whether it's accurate, but I took a Circle Line tour around Manhattan, and the guide on the boat said Manhattan's water comes from up-state reservoirs and gravity will, in most cases, deliver water up to the 7th floor of buildings (depending on how high the bottom floor is).

Even without running water, sewage, and electricity, you could set up a rudimentary toilet system with relative ease.

You should try it sometime. Especially in any town over 25k for population. Short of an outhouse, it's not that easy.

We are still talking about an apocalyptic event that kills 99% of the Population.

In the rural region where I grew up are several "green" families with houses that are nearly self-sufficient.
One of my parent's neighbors has:
- a 4000-liter rainwater tank, that he uses for toilet flushing, watering the garden and sometimes for the washing machine (it has a filter, it is not recommended for a shower (rather, you have to build in a specific filtering system to be lawful), but it is fine for a washing machine). In a normal rain-year he has no problems with using it for all 3 things with a 5-Person household. You just have to decide in the summer if you can use the washing machine the rest of the year or if there was too little rain (like this summer)
- a wood-powered central heating system. Fancy-pancy metropolitan wannabe's use pellet heating systems. but he has a combi-heating-system. he can use industrial pellets and normal wood in the heater. So, if the pellets ever run out, he can always use normal wood. (and with 99% of humanity gone, there should be no problem to just visit a pellet warehouse and get that stuff)
- Solar-panels on the roof, of course. You are not using it for heating, so there should be enough.

Sewage: The whole system in the region is mechanical, gravity-based with several backwater-flaps along the pipes.

Sure, only 2 to 5% of the houses have the whole package, and ca. 20 to 30% have part of the package, but we are talking 99% gone. It should be no problem to pick one house and survive for the first years.
If there is no infrastructure problems or damages in the sewage system, you can also use it for several years, because only a tiny fraction will use it. (You have to be cautious about systems that also heavily use it for rainwater transport)

The major survival tool which will have to be used is their minds.

That begs a question. How many will use their mind? Better yet, how many are using it now? Unbiased critical thinking is a very rare quality based upon my personal experience.

How many will use their mind?

Yet its both the first tool and weapon we have historically had. Also its the one tool/weapon which can not be taken away from us by any authority group. Of course any usage of this tool/weapon is bound to be biased, since its sole purpose is the individual's survival, not the group's.

for safety, Helium pebble bed or LFTR(or similar) is the way to go; neither one is capable of criticality events.

for safety, Helium pebble bed or LFTR(or similar) is the way to go;

Or molten salt thorium reactors.

LFTR

wha dat?

LFTR

wha dat?

For the lazy, first search result: Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor

Nuclear power can be safe, but it's not going to be cheap.

Oh ye of little faith! I remember when the nuclear industry promised us that electricity from nuclear plants would be "too cheap to meter." You don't expect me to believe that private enterprise would lie to us, do you?

You don't expect me to believe that private enterprise would lie to us, do you?

They are just as reliable as the U.S. Native American treaties. You can trust them, just ask any Indian...

but if it has to be shut down in a hurry for any reason, it effectively entombs itself

This is why I vote for the other two, they can be restarted. :-)

for safety, Helium pebble bed or LFTR(or similar) is the way to go; neither one is capable of criticality events.

This is why I vote for the other two, they can be restarted. :-)

Agreed, they are a better option commercially. My comment was driven by the "for safety" part.

However, by the time the industry gets around to a new standard, I expect fusion to have become viable.

However, by the time the industry gets around to a new standard, I expect fusion to have become viable.

"Commercial fusion is twenty years away. And always will be". But perhaps the same can be said about commercial deployment of new fission designs.

Commercial fusion is twenty years away. And always will be". But perhaps the same can be said about commercial deployment of new fission designs.

20-25 years is about right in both cases.

That's what he said.

In 25 years, fusion will be here. The next big thing after that will likely be this;

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

ZPE is currently what fission was in 1920. I won't be alive to see it, but I expect my son's will.

The two hour recharge assumes you don't have to wait 4 hours while those ahead of you in line recharge.

Real life range in an electric, drive 100 miles, stop for two hours while it recharges, rinse, repeat, and that 800 mile trip now takes 32 hours.

The major problem with electric cars is not the miles you can drive, it's the time required for recharging. A range of 200 miles is more then enough for most trips IF you can recharge as fast a you would at a gas station AND every gas station has the charging equipment.

As a UK govt minister recently admitted, we're legislating towards an all electric future. We just have to develop electric vehicles worth buying in the meantime.

Personally I look forward to a time when more than 60% of cars on our (UK) roads are all electric, NOT hybrid. Why?

Because the first winter with snow is, like this year going to see hundreds of cars stuck on motorways in the few inches of snow. (Pause whilst the Canadians et al have a good laugh) Stationary in the cold, the batteries will soon go flat running the heaters. Now, imagine the chaos when the roads finally start to clear. How do you charge hundreds of cars along a relatively short stretch of motorway? Who is planning to build charging stations with capacity for say one hundred simoultaneously?

Of course you could use recovery vehicles to shift them off the motorway, but to where? Just moving them to the nearest exit leaves them stranded and unable to charge.

Some drivers will probably plan ahead and carry small generators in their car in case they get stranded. And some will add a fuel can. The next step is to plug in the generator and run the heater, or even drive.

Accident waiting to happen? Carbon monoxide poisoning?

Not to mention that when those 60% of all cars on the road all plug in to charge at once, the capacity of the current power grid etc can't cope.

Not to mention power station capacity, but not to worry, that same government will be ready to build more power stations quickly, oil fired ones, no doubt. Because hey, we are going to save the world by forcing all electric cars onto the public. (Whilst ignoring all the issues raised if that actually happens).

More likely gas, because gas isn't a fossil fuel ;)

I was going for irony.

Though given the intelligence of government plus the oil companies...

Add in the surplus fuel not being sold to drivers and...

Ok, oil fired it is then.

laws of thermodynamics

I studied Physics a long, long time ago. But I remember the 3 laws as 1) You can't win. 2) You can't break even. And 3) You can't get out of the game.

Must have studied that version in Vegas.

Hybrids are the best option currently, as that technology has long since been proven. It won't leave you waiting two hours to charge either.

Most of the hybrids on the market today are dual drive train. In addition to the electric motors, they have a standard mechanical transmission and drive train that are used when running on the gas motor. The extra weight is a significant drag on fuel efficiency.

Electric drive train only hybrids are coming though. The electric drive train is far more efficient in terms of energy transfer to ground and thereby into motion. Not only is the drive train itself more efficient, but internal combustion engines are most efficient at about half their maximum output. The electric only drive train with the engine hooked only to a generator with a battery to act as a buffer will let the engine just hum along in it's efficiency sweet spot no matter how fast or slow you are driving.

I was aware of that. The electric drive technology has been around a while in the form of diesel–electric locomotives. Why scaled down versions of that are only just now appearing is a matter of greed. For that matter, that's also the reason more efficient car engines as a whole are still rare.

When the government gets around to taxing us in a way that fuel taxes are replaced with a new scheme, then wide spread use of more efficient engines will be seen. Until that time, they will continue their shell games. Folks should look hard at what percentage of the cost per gallon goes to taxes.

Why scaled down versions of that are only just now appearing is a matter of greed.

True, but the full story is a little more complicated than that.

GM (who is also one of the biggest manufacturers of diesel electric locomotives) was going to come out with a gas/electric electric only drive train hybrid years ago, they did a full court press drive on it more than a year in advance. However, the manufactures with traditional dual drive train hybrids complained to the US regulators complaining that the electric drive train only wasn't a hybrid as they had defined the term.

The US regulators bought that argument and prohibited GM from calling the new vehicle a hybrid. After consulting with the regulators, GM started referring to it as an "extended range" electric car. But that didn't play well with focus groups from the target market, so GM eventually shelved the idea and when the model name they had been using finally it the market, it was a standard dual drive train hybrid.

Just a couple of years ago, the DOT ran a challenge for higher fuel efficiency semi tractors. Average millage for a standard diesel semi tractor under load is around 12.5 miles/gallon. The DOT was hoping for a 50% improvement. Freightliner entered a electric drive train only diesel/electric tractor. It did have solar panels on the trailer, but that was only enough to take some of the load from the AC and other accessories off the engine. The Freightliner diesel/electric tractor was the only entry to qualify on the preliminary round. The DOT ran a test on it hauling a 60,000 pound load across the state of Texas (around 600 miles).

The Freightliner diesel/electric tractor managed to average 22 MPG in the over road test under load.

Except that's not right as far as actual fuel consumption is concerned. Current fuel efficient big rig semis get a little better than 6 miles per gallon. The diesel electric locomotive gets 6 gallons to the mile. Where the train shines is in the amount of cargo it hauls. The semi can haul 20 tons. The diesel electric can haul 3,000 tons.

You do realize you've just made my point again right?

Reverse the logic. You've quoted 6 miles per gallon for both train and semi. How much fuel per ton to move that ton 6 miles?

You need to reread @StarfleetCarl's post. That's not what he wrote.

Again;

Which brings up the OTHER problem. Efficiency. The reason a train works for what it does is that it can move a LOT of cargo all at once. CSX (a big American railroad) likes to say that it can move a ton of freight 470 miles on a single gallon of fuel. That's all well and good, because they're comparing that to a regular semi truck, which according to them can move a ton of freight 134 miles on a gallon of fuel.

Except that's not right as far as actual fuel consumption is concerned. Current fuel efficient big rig semis get a little better than 6 miles per gallon. The diesel electric locomotive gets 6 gallons to the mile. Where the train shines is in the amount of cargo it hauls. The semi can haul 20 tons. The diesel electric can haul 3,000 tons. There's been many a time I've watched a Road Railer consist go by (those are semi-trailers that have train wheels built in, so they can go both on road AND on rail) of 100 trailers being pulled by a single engine. And of course, you don't need to be a detective to know that the train went by, it left its tracks.

Replies: Ernest Bywater Remus2

I replied to the efficiency comment as quoted in the earlier post, and again in this post. It's a direct quote, so how could it not be what he wrote?

I see what your saying now and stand corrected. Still the comparative cost are significant.

For six miles at 6 gallons per mile, it would be 36 gallons for 3,000 tonnes.
Arbitrary price per gallon at $3 it would be $108.00

The semi has to pull that 20 tons 150 times to equal the one pull by train. At that same six mile distance, that's 150 gallons or $450.00.

Using rail with a decent network and operations schedule is far more cost efficient for most freight, especially large loads.

Not really. It's only efficient for large loads going to the final destination.

You cannot have it both ways, claiming rail is more efficient using bulk load statistics then claim they are relative for non bulk, multi drop carriage.

You are back to bulk goods going to a major hub again.

I stated non bulk multi drop. Besides which, if what you suggest was really more efficient in the real world. Then Fedex DHL etc would already be doing it.

There's a reason they call it freight, and when it gets past being something being collected and delivered in the same local area it becomes freight and dealt with that way.

BTW Bulk goods is something like a several railway car loads of the same product, not containers of mixed packages.

And your point is?

I have no idea how "efficient" they might be, but there sure are a lot of trucks that travel long distances. It is possible that is because the trucks can pick up freight and deliver it to the final destination without having to unload. To use trains, something (probably a truck) has to get the freight to wherever the train is and then, at the other end, has to take it from the train to its final destination. THere's got to be some inefficiency in that.

THere's got to be some inefficiency in that.

And don't forget that they have to go back (or to the next destination), preferably WITH another freight. We have an incredibly dense train network here in the Netherlands and I know a lot of freight trains travel "back" without freight, all mostly during the night.

What is on the rise is the use of Intermodal operations where they have train / truck depots moving containers around by switching them between transport types.

We already have that in the US. There are specialized Semi trailer designed to carry cargo containers, locking them down with the same cam lock system that's used to tie containers together on the big container ships.

Containers come off ships at ports and are loaded onto trains (or trucks if they are relatively local). IF they go by rail, at the final rail terminal, they are loaded onto semi trailers and are hauled to their content's final destination with no need to unload the container's contents and load it on a truck anywhere in the middle.

While they don't yet out number conventional semi-trailers, seeing semi-tractors hauling a container is not at all uncommon.

Such trucks have been around for decades, but you don't see them on long haul runs.

That depends on what you call a long haul run. You can see them frequently on inter-state runs in the US.

You can see them frequently on inter-state runs in the US.

As well as in the UK and Europe

The 10 largest US states are each individually larger than the entire UK. You have to get down to the 34th largest before you find a state smaller than half the size of the UK. The UK doesn't have long haul. :)

You have to get down to the 34th largest before you find a state smaller than half the size of the UK. The UK doesn't have long haul. :)

Yes, it does. Just not within the UK, trucks move goods to and from the UK to all parts of Europe, including distances more than long enough to be classed as long haul.

So as you guys keep telling us, it's not the size that matters, it's what you do with it.

Trucks are not efficient for long haul, which you seem to be ignoring.

No, I'm agreeing with you, so long as it's bulk and to a single destination.

For the rest see what PotomacBob said in his answer to you.

You've quoted 6 miles per gallon for both train and semi.

No, I didn't. 6 mpg is not the same as 6 gpm.

Note that on a per ton freight per mile, the train is the most efficient way to move freight. It also has less rolling friction than a rubber tire on an asphalt road - it's just getting the thing moving in the first place can be a pain.

Which is the real reason for the diesel electric - the electric side provides full torque from go.

there's another factor here as well, a GE dash 8-40cw locomotive can pull a lot of freight, but two or more locos can pull more freight together than they can individually.

The UP (union Pacific railways) number for allowable gross weight for car for unrestricted routing indicate a loaded weight of 134 tons per car.

I've watched trains that had in excess of 100 loaded boxcars being pulled by 3 dash-8s, and they do it quite handily. At over 100K Lbf (468 KiloNewtons!) peak tractive effort, these things really pull.

A third factor, and one that is normally overlooked, is that the entire train doesn't start moving at once; there is designed compressive loading in the draw bar(think big spring in between the couplers at each end) for each piece of rolling stock that allows each car to start moving at least a small amount before the next one starts, which reduces peak loads on the locomotive. a good engineer takes up coupler slack so as to avoid shock loads; there's always going to be a few bangs, but a good engineer manages his train so that they are near the locomotives, so that they happen at the lowest possible speed. (this is that distinctive banging you hear when a train gets moving)

dash 8-40cw: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_Dash_8-40CW

heavy freight starting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKl3IjwqqyU

Bonus view of a locomotive coupler while moving light loads: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IidlrYtK0bo

Otherwise I'm pretty sure it's inefficient since you have losses at the diesel and losses generating electricity and losses using the electricity.

You would have exactly the same problems with a mechanical transmission. The transmission looses energy in the form of heat from internal friction.

Is the generator + electric motor 100% efficient? Of course not. The real question is: is the generator + electric motor(s) more or less efficient than a mechanical transmission.?

Everything I've read on it says the generator + electric motor(s) is more efficient than a mechanical transmission

Note that on a per ton freight per mile, the train is the most efficient way to move freight.

Assuming you are correct, that only covers moving freight, not delivering it, which is the point of transporting it in the first place. Even if all freight being moved long distance was done by train, that still only gets that freight to the nearest railway goods yard. The it goes by truck to where it is needed.

How many railway goods yards have the space to handle that many trucks, vans etc? It's easy when moving bulk goods to one place with dedicated yards, coal to power station etc. It's another when handling a multitude of goods of all shapes and sizes all going to different delivery addresses. I can't recall ever having seen the Fedex express rolling down the tracks.

All freight includes everything now moved long distance by truck, whole different ball game. Not to mention scheduling, having the train stop at each location to ensure only local deliveries are made by truck. All those stops would mean perishable goods arriving at the far end as much as a day later than if as now moved long distance by truck.

I can't recall ever having seen the Fedex express rolling down the tracks.

The package delivery services (Fedex, UPS) do not handle wholesale deliveries. They move packages long distances by air, but then their total annual tonnage is probably less than a single large freight train.

They move packages long distances by air, but then their total annual tonnage is probably less than a single large freight train.

A quick google produced;

On an average day, UPS handles 15.8 million packages. FedEx, by contrast, averages north of 9 million packages per day.

So, probably not.

I'll let you garner what you want from those stats.

None of those stats would be relevant to the issue of wholesale deliveries which would imply the delivery of a minimum on one full semi trailer to a single customer at a single location. Stock deliveries to retail stores or warehouses.

And some will add a fuel can

To an all-electric car. I was under the impression that an all-electric car uses no fuel and has no fuel tank.

To an all-electric car. I was under the impression that an all-electric car uses no fuel and has no fuel tank.

Correct, the fuel can in question being for the small generator. Not the car.

Some drivers will probably plan ahead and carry small generators in their car in case they get stranded. And some will add a fuel can

Note that on a per ton freight per mile, the train is the most efficient way to move freight.

Not quite true, a cargo ship is more efficient. Not only by the sea, on inland waterways too.

HM.

Seriously, other than barges going up / down the Mississippi, we don't really have inland waterways here like you guys do in Europe.

For freight going from the North Sea to the Black Sea and vice versa it's far shorter to go on inland waterways than by sea. (Danube – RMD canal – Rhine vs. Black Sea – Bosporus – Dardanelles – Mediterranean Sea - Strait of Gibraltar – around Portugal/Spain – Gulf of Biscay – English Channel – North Sea).

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main-Donau-Kanal#/media/File:Constanta-Rotterdam_DE.PNG

It probably makes sense to ship containers with destination Black Sea from the USA via Rotterdam – Rhine – Danube, but I doubt many dispatchers outside the shipping companies do know about this alternative. The shipping companies don't propagate this route, they make more money by sending the containers by sea ships to the Black Sea.

HM.

What are those? :)

The US uses it's internal navigable waterways mainly for bulk products, i.e. coal, agricultural product, aggregate, some petroleum product, etc. And if by the Mississippi River you mean the Mississippi River watershed (including tributaries), I'd agree. Even so, the US does have over 36,000 miles of navigable inland waterways in use. The amount of freight moved isn't deminimis.

What are those? :)

Presumably the great lakes also count as inland waterways, at least as far as moving cargo by ship is concerned, not exactly canal boat conditions though.

Presumably the great lakes also count as inland waterways, at least as far as moving cargo by ship is concerned, not exactly canal boat conditions though.

I should've mentioned that in my immediate previous post living as I do in a Great Lakes state. Mention should also be made of the Great Lakes connection to the Atlantic Ocean by the St. Lawrence Seaway.

As far as shipping on the Great Lakes, both internal and export, it's enormous. Figures that I saw from early 2000s put it over 160 million tons. I don't know what it is nowadays.

That number is really low even for early 2k.

trucks move by rail, ALL THE TIME!

And

primarily transferring trailers to and from the rail freight yard, where they are loaded onto rail cars for cross country transfer.

(My bold)

Big difference between a truck and a trailer, especially when using it in the context we are discussing.

A good rule of thumb for river boat fuel consumed is
a gallon of fuel a day per horsepower,

Regardless of the load carried?

Regardless of the load carried?

No, more load would require more horse power to move at all.

On the upper Mississippi (way upper, Wisconsin / Minnesota) you often see grain barges with 6-8 individual fully loaded barges lashed together with 1 pusher boat.

With only 1 horse power (or even 100 hp) they would be completely at the mercy of the current.

The pusher boats range from 600hp to 11,000hp, Pusher's north of St Louis on the Mississippi tend to be under 5000hp. The individual locks start getting too small to take that many barges through at one time.

The individual locks start getting too small to take that many barges through at one time.

The locks on the Mississippi river range from 56 feet wide by 400 feet long (17 × 122 meters) in the Upper Mississippi to 110 feet wide by 1,200 feet long (34 x 370 meters) near St. Louis, Missouri.

The individual lock I am most familiar with at Trempealeau, WI is 110' x 600'.

The standard grain barges (which are what you see most often there) are 35' x 195 feet. With 8 barges in two columns of 4, they have to split the load in half and take it through the lock four barges at a time.

I may have seen one go through with 12 once, in 3 columns of 4, but at 105' wide, that's pushing the capacity of the lock.

There are at least two seed repositories that I know of where seeds of the original strains are preserved, as well as seeds of plants that are disappearing through various reasons.

The question is how accessible would the seed repositories be in the case of an apocalyptic event?

For instance, it would not help someone living in the state of Kansas much if the nearest intact repository was 1,500 miles away and after the event 95% of all available transportation was human or animal powered.

Don't know if those are the two, but one is in the Swiss Alps and one in Norway.

The Svalbard Global Seed Vault is a secure seed bank on the Norwegian island of Spitsbergen near Longyearbyen in the remote Arctic Svalbard archipelago

In other words, you WANT sweet corn. You end up with feed corn.

Does that mean that ALL sweet corn is hybrid?

What's the corn they use to make cornmeal and grits (and "fish fry" on the Gulf) - sweet or field?