Rail decarbonisation: What are the solutions?

[Bletchleyite]

And put everyone in cars and buses?

That argument will gain validity when you are comparing driving your small electric car instead of taking a rotting, fume belching 150 on a branch line. It's a major threat to the railway that it can't ignore.

 

[greatvoyager]

An alternative approach to decarbonising the railways would be to close the lot.

No trains...no emissions. Simples.

And put everyone in cars and buses?

As I don’t have a car or driving license, that wouldn’t work for me.

It would, but there's a large number of routes which probably never will be electrified so it's equally important to look at solutions for those.

That’s a fair point, just a shame complete electrification won’t happen.

 

[Purple Orange]

Does anyone know what proportion of rail services are operated by diesel trains?

I agree that EVs are a threat to the railways, but then there is congestion and the cumulative effect of electricity production to consider. Under a hypothetical scenario where diesel trains are banned, which of the big cities would be most impacted from a congestion perspective?

In Birmingham, Snow Hill & Moor Street would close, Cross Country would need to cease and just operate as a WCML and Leeds-Newcastle-Glasgow operation.

 

[Mikey C]

As a general comment, even with electrification and electric cars etc, logically to reduce CO2 we'll all just have to travel less full stop, by whatever mode

I'll be amazed if by 2050 we'll be able to generate enough clean energy to produce the necessary electricity, hydrogen etc to maintain our current lifestyles

 

[Purple Orange]

As a general comment, even with electrification and electric cars etc, logically to reduce CO2 we'll all just have to travel less full stop, by whatever mode

I'll be amazed if by 2050 we'll be able to generate enough clean energy to produce the necessary electricity, hydrogen etc to maintain our current lifestyles

The goal is to be carbon neutral, not carbon zero. Therefore in reality there will still be CO2 emissions but they need to be offset elsewhere.

 

[Mikey C]

The goal is to be carbon neutral, not carbon zero. Therefore in reality there will still be CO2 emissions but they need to be offset elsewhere.

But where will the extra electricity come from, to power all these electric cars and extra electric trains and create green hydrogen, given that we will also be phasing out gas power stations?

 

[HSTEd]

Estimates will be electrical production will have to be between three to five times current values, depending on whether you make heroic assumptions about carbon capture and biofuels or not.

 

[Purple Orange]

But where will the extra electricity come from, to power all these electric cars and extra electric trains and create green hydrogen, given that we will also be phasing out gas power stations?

We need to continue the transition to clean electricity production. If we need a reason that be optimistic, look at the chart in the link below. You can see the change in the mix of electricity production over the last 22 years, but the real impact is looking at what has happened over the last 10 years. Coal has almost disappeared. Gas is still predominant, but Wind & Solar and Bioenergy combined is increasing and is the largest source or production when taken together, whereas in 2010 it was hardly registering. Imagine what that graph might look like in 2030!

Wholesale market indicators

Interactive data charts on wholesale price trends, security of supply, access and liquidity, competition, and investment and sustainability.

www.ofgem.gov.uk

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Apr 2021 ==

Another interesting graphic...

GB Fuel type power generation production

GridWatch | Live statistic of UK National Electricity grid by type of generation | Solar PV power Generation | Coal Stations output in Gigawatts | Wind Output Gigawatts | Nuclear energy output |Biomass power generation Output

gridwatch.co.uk

As at 11:15am today, 35% of our electricity production comes from renewable sources and a total of 49% comes from carbon neutral sources (the 49% includes the renewable sources too).

 

[JamesT]

Does anyone know what proportion of rail services are operated by diesel trains?

I agree that EVs are a threat to the railways, but then there is congestion and the cumulative effect of electricity production to consider. Under a hypothetical scenario where diesel trains are banned, which of the big cities would be most impacted from a congestion perspective?

In Birmingham, Snow Hill & Moor Street would close, Cross Country would need to cease and just operate as a WCML and Leeds-Newcastle-Glasgow operation.

I believe 70% of UK rolling stock is purely electric, even though only 40% of the network is electrified. The proportion of rolling stock is probably a better fit for what proportion of services are currently electrified.

But to put that in perspective, rail has a modal share of 8.8% by distance of transport in the UK. So if you stopped running all diesel trains, that’s maybe 3% of transport emissions (if you can replace those trips with clean alternatives). In turn, transport was 27% of emissions in 2019.

Although every little helps, there’s also the Pareto Principle where you get the most effect from tackling the biggest emitters. In the past energy generation was the biggest sector for emissions. By focusing on the dirtiest power stations it’s made a huge difference. I think there needs to be a clearer explanation of what are the big polluters in the UK, so they can be the focus of efforts to change.

 

[Mikey C]

We need to continue the transition to clean electricity production. If we need a reason that be optimistic, look at the chart in the link below. You can see the change in the mix of electricity production over the last 22 years, but the real impact is looking at what has happened over the last 10 years. Coal has almost disappeared. Gas is still predominant, but Wind & Solar and Bioenergy combined is increasing and is the largest source or production when taken together, whereas in 2010 it was hardly registering. Imagine what that graph might look like in 2030!

Wholesale market indicators

Interactive data charts on wholesale price trends, security of supply, access and liquidity, competition, and investment and sustainability.

www.ofgem.gov.uk

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Apr 2021 ==

Another interesting graphic...

GB Fuel type power generation production

GridWatch | Live statistic of UK National Electricity grid by type of generation | Solar PV power Generation | Coal Stations output in Gigawatts | Wind Output Gigawatts | Nuclear energy output |Biomass power generation Output

gridwatch.co.uk

As at 11:15am today, 35% of our electricity production comes from renewable sources and a total of 49% comes from carbon neutral sources (the 49% includes the renewable sources too).

But we need a lot more electricity to charge all the electric road vehicles as well, so it's not just a case of producing the existing electricity demand from green sources.

 

[AndrewE]

But we need a lot more electricity to charge all the electric road vehicles as well, so it's not just a case of producing the existing electricity demand from green sources.

...which is why some of us keep pointing out that there has got to be a step-change in the way people expect to travel, as well as how much they travel.
Lots of journeys currently done in cars will have to either just not be made or will have to be done by public transport. Biden had the guts to say it (I think, but I can't find a reference,) none of our politicians has faced up to it yet.

 

[Purple Orange]

But we need a lot more electricity to charge all the electric road vehicles as well, so it's not just a case of producing the existing electricity demand from green sources.

Of course more electricity will be needed, but the offset is less petrol & diesel.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Apr 2021 ==

I believe 70% of UK rolling stock is purely electric, even though only 40% of the network is electrified. The proportion of rolling stock is probably a better fit for what proportion of services are currently electrified.

But to put that in perspective, rail has a modal share of 8.8% by distance of transport in the UK. So if you stopped running all diesel trains, that’s maybe 3% of transport emissions (if you can replace those trips with clean alternatives). In turn, transport was 27% of emissions in 2019.

Although every little helps, there’s also the Pareto Principle where you get the most effect from tackling the biggest emitters. In the past energy generation was the biggest sector for emissions. By focusing on the dirtiest power stations it’s made a huge difference. I think there needs to be a clearer explanation of what are the big polluters in the UK, so they can be the focus of efforts to change.

I can see this issue with air travel too. The biggest contributor is road travel, yet aviation gets the headlines.

 

[coppercapped]

And put everyone in cars and buses?

The thread is entitled 'RAIL decarbonisation...'

 

[Bald Rick]

As at 11:15am today, 35% of our electricity production comes from renewable sources and a total of 49% comes from carbon neutral sources (the 49% includes the renewable sources too).

For the 24hrs of the 28 March, 88% of our electricity came from carbon neutral sources, or 79% if you don’t believe Biomass is carbon neutral.

 

[Bletchleyite]

For the 24hrs of the 28 March, 88% of our electricity came from carbon neutral sources, or 79% if you don’t believe Biomass is carbon neutral.

Part of that will be because in summer people aren't using heating and the UK isn't air-con heavy other than offices which mostly aren't open at the moment!

 

[Bald Rick]

Part of that will be because in summer people aren't using heating and the UK isn't air-con heavy other than offices which mostly aren't open at the moment!

Summer in March? (Average temperature on 28th was 9.4C)

There were 3 reasons that 28 March was a record breaker:

1) it was a Sunday, when demand is lower.

2) it was windy.... very windy, across the country, without being too windy. Wind power output broke all records at over 400GWh for the day. To put that into context, that is enough to power the NR electrified network for 5 weeks.

3) the Grid has implemented various new balancing tools and techniques, which meant more gas could be switched out and the full output of the wind power could be used, rather than paying the latter to switch out.

 

[xotGD]

Yeah, hydrocarbon imports aren't going away just yet, but semi-seriously, you could reverse the flow for green hydrogen exports. If we're going to become the "Saudi Arabia of wind power" as our glorious leader has said, then we're going to need green energy export facilities!

Actually, Saudi Arabia plans to be the Saudi Arabia of green hydrogen!

 

[Rhydgaled]

I can see this issue with air travel too. The biggest contributor is road travel, yet aviation gets the headlines.

There is no technical solution for sustainable aviation and yet the government was (and possibly still is) happy to facilitate the growth of aviation - that's probably why it gets the headlines. With road travel, electric cars are seen as a 'magic bullet' but I think they aren't enough to allow continued growth of road traffic. We need modal shift to public transport and perhaps decarbonising rail is more important in terms of public attitude ('why am I being told to use (diesel) rail when I have an electric car?') than the actual carbon footprint of rail itself. I wonder how many electric cars a diesel train would need to take off the road for the train to be 'greener'?

 

[doorhanger93]

I wonder how many electric cars a diesel train would need to take off the road for the train to be 'greener'?

I did some back of the envelope calculations a while ago and the upper bound with our electric grid is that a DMU would emit 2-2.5x more CO2 per passenger-mile than an EV running at its stated efficiency. But that could change given a lot of factors and it's likely to be less, or a lot more if the DMU is running very far from capacity. Still, it's not as unflattering as you might think when comparing an aging diesel MU to modern electric car running on a somewhat low-carbon grid.
Edit: If you were doing the calculations in Germany an EV could be twice as polluting and match even the higher estimate for DMUs!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I did some back of the envelope calculations a while ago and the upper bound with our electric grid is that a DMU would emit 2-2.5x more CO2 per passenger-mile than an EV running at its stated efficiency. But that could change given a lot of factors and it's likely to be less, or a lot more if the DMU is running very far from capacity. Still, it's not as unflattering as you might think when comparing an aging diesel MU to modern electric car running on a somewhat low-carbon grid.
Edit: If you were doing the calculations in Germany an EV could be twice as polluting and match even the higher estimate for DMUs!

Germany has in my view made a huge mistake by making the populist move of abandoning nuclear. In the UK I think we should build a few more stations on the basis that it'll be a while before wind/solar can fully provide for the needs of the grid.

 

[doorhanger93]

Germany has in my view made a huge mistake by making the populist move of abandoning nuclear. In the UK I think we should build a few more stations on the basis that it'll be a while before wind/solar can fully provide for the needs of the grid.

And Germany's current electricity mix still contains a fair chunk of nuclear - thank the glory of lignite for those emissions - so we can only imagine what it'll be like when they get around to closing those last plants next year. I did address why I don't think total adoption of intermittent renewables is really practical or possible at the end of a long post that's been sitting waiting for approval for a couple days for some reason.

 

[Bald Rick]

And Germany's current electricity mix still contains a fair chunk of nuclear - thank the glory of lignite for those emissions - so we can only imagine what it'll be like when they get around to closing those last plants next year. I did address why I don't think total adoption of intermittent renewables is really practical or possible at the end of a long post that's been sitting waiting for approval for a couple days for some reason.

Germany has a very high renewables mix, and it is growing quickly, now that they have copied the U.K. to go for offshore wind in a big way. They will still have issues with the intermittent nature of renewables, however it is a big country, with a lot of solar in the south (which generates more power per area of panel). And it is a big country, where the wind is blowing somewhere most of the time. So whilst the nuclear is going to be switched off (wrongly in my view), the effect won’t be that bad.

 

[doorhanger93]

Germany has a very high renewables mix, and it is growing quickly, now that they have copied the U.K. to go for offshore wind in a big way. They will still have issues with the intermittent nature of renewables, however it is a big country, with a lot of solar in the south (which generates more power per area of panel). And it is a big country, where the wind is blowing somewhere most of the time. So whilst the nuclear is going to be switched off (wrongly in my view), the effect won’t be that bad.

That's somewhat true, but the emissions per kWh in Germany at still much higher than in the UK - although it varies day to day and season to season, the average is much higher - due to their reliance on low-grade coal rather than natural gas like the UK, and their previous nuclear shutdowns partially offsetting the building of renewables. Germany also doesn't have the coastline to make offshore wind a major part of its power grid; most of their wind power is onshore. And while it's true that intermittent renewables do average out in the short term and aren't crazy unpredictable like the fossil lobby would have you believe, (intermittent is probably not the best word that could have been chosen), that doesn't account for longer-term weather and seasonal variations that already do have a huge effect on how much of German power is renewable and how much is coal, plus wind turbines and solar can't be made to respond to the grid load very much at all, meaning the rest of the grid has to work around the intermittent supply.
It's stuff like this that means I just can't see wind and solar taking on the grid on their own, the rapid adoption figures look impressive but nobody's really even that much above half intermittent renewable electricity yet. The closest is Denmark, but they have a ready backstop in Norway's pumped hydro schemes, and even Germany's renewable goals are unavoidably backed by the increase of regular peak-shaving imports of nuclear power from France and and possibly coal power from Poland or even hydro from Norway. At some point the costs to the grid are going to show, the rapidly dispatchable gas power that supports the current renewable boom will start to dwindle, and we're either going to figure out much better storage fast or this green rush is going to stagnate. And that's just for electricity, not accounting for the total energy use that we need to replace with green sources.

Perhaps a little off topic from trains, but the battle for decarbonisation is far from a done deal yet.

 

[Bald Rick]

That's somewhat true, but the emissions per kWh in Germany at still much higher than in the UK - although it varies day to day and season to season, the average is much higher - due to their reliance on low-grade coal rather than natural gas like the UK, and their previous nuclear shutdowns partially offsetting the building of renewables. Germany also doesn't have the coastline to make offshore wind a major part of its power grid; most of their wind power is onshore. And while it's true that intermittent renewables do average out in the short term and aren't crazy unpredictable like the fossil lobby would have you believe, (intermittent is probably not the best word that could have been chosen), that doesn't account for longer-term weather and seasonal variations that already do have a huge effect on how much of German power is renewable and how much is coal, plus wind turbines and solar can't be made to respond to the grid load very much at all, meaning the rest of the grid has to work around the intermittent supply.
It's stuff like this that means I just can't see wind and solar taking on the grid on their own, the rapid adoption figures look impressive but nobody's really even that much above half intermittent renewable electricity yet. The closest is Denmark, but they have a ready backstop in Norway's pumped hydro schemes, and even Germany's renewable goals are unavoidably backed by the increase of regular peak-shaving imports of nuclear power from France and and possibly coal power from Poland or even hydro from Norway. At some point the costs to the grid are going to show, the rapidly dispatchable gas power that supports the current renewable boom will start to dwindle, and we're either going to figure out much better storage fast or this green rush is going to stagnate. And that's just for electricity, not accounting for the total energy use that we need to replace with green sources.

Perhaps a little off topic from trains, but the battle for decarbonisation is far from a done deal yet.

Yep I agree with all of that. Our Carbon emissionsare for electricity generation are much lower than Germany’s simply because we use gas rather than coal, and not insignificantly use rather less electricity (about half the electricity for 80% of the population).

Wind, solar, and hydro won’t take on the grid on their own, however they will get us more than half way there. The rest will be nuclear, biomass (including waste to energy) a bit of gas, and a massive amount of storage, including a lot at a domestic level. (Just tonight I have had 3 unsolicited offers of domestic installs of batteries of 6-10kWh).

 

[doorhanger93]

I'm just going to try and see if I can re-word and re-post this message that was stuck in approval

Purple Orange said:
course more electricity will be needed, but the offset is less petrol & diesel.

Is that an offset? It still means we need more power. Optimistically, with electric efficiency, you still need about a third of the 50-60 million tonnes of oil equivalent used for transport in the UK, that's ~200 terrawatt-hours per year after efficiency. The entire grid is >~300TWh/y.

Bletchleyite said:
That argument will gain validity when you are comparing driving your small electric car instead of taking a rotting, fume belching 150 on a branch line. It's a major threat to the railway that it can't ignore.

Purple Orange said:
agree that EVs are a threat to the railways

EVs are only a "threat" to the railways in a world where cars don't already exist. People don't actually make these decisions based on carbon emissions, as per:

greatvoyager said:
As I don’t have a car or driving license, that wouldn’t work for me

Even if you have clean electric cars, what's more energy efficient? 100 people in a single EMU running on steel or 100 people in 60 teslas, each lugging around a battery pack, running on rubber? It's not some fantasy to argue for total rail electrification. Fully battery-electrified road transport would have seemed mad 10 years ago, but if you talked about full rail electrification in the early 50s they would have assumed you were talking about the future world of the 1980s. Does rail electrification make money? Well, I don't know. But does it save lives from reduced pollution, and save lots of energy, improve service, and reduce CO2 emissions? Inarguably. Unfortunately, decarbonisation is going to be expensive, we just have the choice whether we pay the price in money now or pay it in disasters later. This country is not particularly high above sea level.
It might seem trite but, do main road expansions make money? The hypocritical expectation is that rail should have to count its cards and figure if certain corporate divisions can individually make a profit from the public and environmental investment of electrification.
You have to think: cui bono? If we want to talk about profit, I think we can all agree it's more profitable to sell everyone in a train coach their own individual car and the fuel and tires and insurance for that car than it is to sell them all a train ticket. Rail is a fundamentally social investment, and those benefits are harder to privatise. I don't expect anything to actually happen, but I feel resigning ourselves to impossibilities is self-defeating when we can so clearly identify the vested interests that prevent a better, more energy efficient, and less underwater future! These things aren't just impossible ex nihilo, profitability isn't some fundamental constant of reality. There are social systems, and people in those systems, to blame.
At the end of the day, it's no more of a costly fantasy than increasing the power of the grid by two thirds just so everyone can have their own battery car as a solution to transport emissions.

 

[Purple Orange]

@doorhanger93 how would you crystallise the point or argument you are trying to make?

 

[Bletchleyite]

EVs are only a "threat" to the railways in a world where cars don't already exist. People don't actually make these decisions based on carbon emissions, as per:

People as individuals don't. However, if the Government starts penalising electric car use when the alternative is an infrequent, polluting 1980s DMU on a branch line, people will soon change their votes.

It is a massive threat that could lead to another Beeching.

The railway has to be fully electrified, even the branches (even if that means battery) - and it needs to happen quick.

 

[greatvoyager]

I'm just going to try and see if I can re-word and re-post this message that was stuck in approval



Is that an offset? It still means we need more power. Optimistically, with electric efficiency, you still need about a third of the 50-60 million tonnes of oil equivalent used for transport in the UK, that's ~200 terrawatt-hours per year after efficiency. The entire grid is >~300TWh/y.


EVs are only a "threat" to the railways in a world where cars don't already exist. People don't actually make these decisions based on carbon emissions, as per:


Even if you have clean electric cars, what's more energy efficient? 100 people in a single EMU running on steel or 100 people in 60 teslas, each lugging around a battery pack, running on rubber? It's not some fantasy to argue for total rail electrification. Fully battery-electrified road transport would have seemed mad 10 years ago, but if you talked about full rail electrification in the early 50s they would have assumed you were talking about the future world of the 1980s. Does rail electrification make money? Well, I don't know. But does it save lives from reduced pollution, and save lots of energy, improve service, and reduce CO2 emissions? Inarguably. Unfortunately, decarbonisation is going to be expensive, we just have the choice whether we pay the price in money now or pay it in disasters later. This country is not particularly high above sea level.
It might seem trite but, do main road expansions make money? The hypocritical expectation is that rail should have to count its cards and figure if certain corporate divisions can individually make a profit from the public and environmental investment of electrification.
You have to think: cui bono? If we want to talk about profit, I think we can all agree it's more profitable to sell everyone in a train coach their own individual car and the fuel and tires and insurance for that car than it is to sell them all a train ticket. Rail is a fundamentally social investment, and those benefits are harder to privatise. I don't expect anything to actually happen, but I feel resigning ourselves to impossibilities is self-defeating when we can so clearly identify the vested interests that prevent a better, more energy efficient, and less underwater future! These things aren't just impossible ex nihilo, profitability isn't some fundamental constant of reality. There are social systems, and people in those systems, to blame.
At the end of the day, it's no more of a costly fantasy than increasing the power of the grid by two thirds just so everyone can have their own battery car as a solution to transport emissions.

I want to see full electrification. In all honesty I avoid cars, and one reason I do NOT have a car or license is because I don’t quite fit in them, I’m too tall. So I am stuck with the railway.

 

[doorhanger93]

@doorhanger93 how would you crystallise the point or argument you are trying to make?

I'm making multiple points and arguments, what didn't you find to be clear enough?

The overarching point is that total electrification is something we should do, and something we should have started 70 years ago, and that profitability shouldn't really be the major consideration.
There was some resistance to full electrification as a possibility in previous posts on this thread, and while I don't expect it to happen soon either, it is possible, and what stands in the way is that our economy demands private returns on public investments.

People as individuals don't. However, if the Government starts penalising electric car use when the alternative is an infrequent, polluting 1980s DMU on a branch line, people will soon change their votes.

It is a massive threat that could lead to another Beeching.

The railway has to be fully electrified, even the branches (even if that means battery) - and it needs to happen quick.

As far as I can see, this government isn't in the business of penalising electric car use, and I don't think EV adoption will be as explosive as some people seem to expect due to the huge electricity demands, but I do obviously agree on the last point.

 

[Purple Orange]

I'm making multiple points and arguments, what didn't you find to be clear enough?

The overarching point is that total electrification is something we should do, and something we should have started 70 years ago, and that profitability shouldn't really be the major consideration.
There was some resistance to full electrification as a possibility in previous posts on this thread, and while I don't expect it to happen soon either, it is possible, and what stands in the way is that our economy demands private returns on public investments.

You have clarified it in your 2nd paragraph, but I was unsure about who you were arguing with and what you were advocating. To me it seems like your actually preaching to the choir in the main. I for one, certainly believe we should be electrifying as much of a rail network as possible, as soon as possible. Although I don’t want to speak for other forumers, the more vocal forumers all appear to be in favour of what you are arguing for.