3 ms·

What's the market for this? Are parts of the US unable to electrify trains for some reason? Surely the easiest way to capture the carbon is not to emit it in th

by elric 4y ago

What's the market for this? Are parts of the US unable to electrify trains for some reason? Surely the easiest way to capture the carbon is not to emit it in the first place, and if you are going to emit it, you might as well do it in a stationary power plant.

fomine3 4y ago
Even if fully electrified train is difficult, hybrid and energy regeneration could be better.
AlgorithmicTime 4y ago
Those ridiculously long distances in the middle of nowhere are not really well suited for overhead electrical wires.
AnimalMuppet 4y ago
> Are parts of the US unable to electrify trains for some reason? It basically comes down to cost. The electric infrastructure costs per mile to install, and per mile per year to maintain. The benefits come per train. If you don't have enough trains per day, it's not economical to electrify. There are some places, like the Union Pacific around North Platte, where you'd think that electrification would be a natural. But the problem is that 90 miles east of North Platte, and 20 miles west of North Platte, the lines split, and the traffic density goes down. Switching between electric and diesel locomotives twice in 110 miles adds operating cost.
- kitten_mittens_ 4y ago
  Even in Boston, the metro transit authority (MBTA) has talked about the options for full electrification of commuter rail costing 18 billion+. https://d2o8eokdkim9o8.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/2019-10/rail-vision-alternative3-oct2019-accessible.pdf https://d2o8eokdkim9o8.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/20....
elric 4y ago
Not sure why AlgorithmicTime's comment is dead, so I'll reply here. Long distances are probably tricky to electrify. I don't know enough about US railroads (what little I know of US railroads comes from playing Ticket To Ride) to comment on the feasibility, but there are very long electrified railways in China and Japan, across difficult terrain. There is probably not much benefit in feeding electricity from regenerative braking back onto the overhead line if it's a very long segment with only one train (no one to use the power + transmission losses). I wonder at which point diesel becomes the cleaner option here, if ever. One the one hand, you have to lug a lot of fuel around over longer distances (or you need refueling infrastructure). On the other hand, transmission losses can be significant.
- lstodd 4y ago
  Well, you up the voltage and go AC, losses then become manageable. The move from 1.5KV DC to 25KV AC in Europe was about that exactly (many caveats apply, but it's basically that, a solved problem). If it's a somewhat loaded segment, someone would be there to consume the regenerated power. If it's not loaded then yes, no point in electrifying it to begin with.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

by elric 4y ago

fomine3 4y ago

Even if fully electrified train is difficult, hybrid and energy regeneration could be better.

AlgorithmicTime 4y ago

Those ridiculously long distances in the middle of nowhere are not really well suited for overhead electrical wires.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

> Are parts of the US unable to electrify trains for some reason? It basically comes down to cost. The electric infrastructure costs per mile to install, and per mile per year to maintain. The benefits come per train. If you don't have enough trains per day, it's not economical to electrify. There are some places, like the Union Pacific around North Platte, where you'd think that electrification would be a natural. But the problem is that 90 miles east of North Platte, and 20 miles west of North Platte, the lines split, and the traffic density goes down. Switching between electric and diesel locomotives twice in 110 miles adds operating cost.

kitten_mittens_ 4y ago
Even in Boston, the metro transit authority (MBTA) has talked about the options for full electrification of commuter rail costing 18 billion+. https://d2o8eokdkim9o8.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/2019-10/rail-vision-alternative3-oct2019-accessible.pdf https://d2o8eokdkim9o8.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/20....

elric 4y ago

Not sure why AlgorithmicTime's comment is dead, so I'll reply here. Long distances are probably tricky to electrify. I don't know enough about US railroads (what little I know of US railroads comes from playing Ticket To Ride) to comment on the feasibility, but there are very long electrified railways in China and Japan, across difficult terrain. There is probably not much benefit in feeding electricity from regenerative braking back onto the overhead line if it's a very long segment with only one train (no one to use the power + transmission losses). I wonder at which point diesel becomes the cleaner option here, if ever. One the one hand, you have to lug a lot of fuel around over longer distances (or you need refueling infrastructure). On the other hand, transmission losses can be significant.

lstodd 4y ago
Well, you up the voltage and go AC, losses then become manageable. The move from 1.5KV DC to 25KV AC in Europe was about that exactly (many caveats apply, but it's basically that, a solved problem). If it's a somewhat loaded segment, someone would be there to consume the regenerated power. If it's not loaded then yes, no point in electrifying it to begin with.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]