4 ms·
This assertion is reductive and somewhat false. Rail is the most energy-efficient method of hauling freight over land (where no water route is available), and
by i_am_proteus 7y ago
This assertion is reductive and somewhat false.
Rail is the most energy-efficient method of hauling freight over land (where no water route is available), and electric trains are powered, on average, by whatever powers the regional grid. For countries besides France, such as the USA, Germany, or Norway, which get a sizeable portion of their energy from carbon-free sources, electric rail is a reasonably low carbon compared to trucking, and perhaps even compared to barge.
- Merrill 7y agoIn the US, electrification of rail is very expensive, since bridges were not built to allow installation of overhead catenaries. Third-rail electrification is inefficient for freight and it interferes with operation of container well cars, e.g. in the Long Island Rail Road.
- kaybe 7y agoThe usual solution for streetcars is to install a battery big enough to power the vehicle over the longest gaps. Is that unfeasible for trains?
- dredmorbius 7y agoTraction units throughout the trainset would mean only a subset of locomotion units are unpoeered at a time. Only very long bridges would require catenary refits. Freight rail would require immense batteries.
- tremon 7y agoWhy the addition "besides France"? I thought France gets most of its grid energy from nuclear power, which is still a low-carbon source.
- i_am_proteus 7y agoThis is correct; however my comment responds to conjecture implying that France is the only example rather than the best example.