Rail decarbonisation: What are the solutions?

[RAGNARØKR]

1. Decarbonising the railways should be removed from the agenda.
2. No plausible mechanism has been put forward for the claim that atmospheric carbon dioxide is the cause of higher temperatures at the earth's surface. The example of Venus is a different situation. The total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would form a layer 4 metres deep! Carbon dioxide is a poor absorber of infra red. If the climate is changing due to human action, the cause is almost certainly something else altogether, such as changes in land use, possibly deforestation. If this is the case, then the use of specially produced biofuels is a very bad development.
3. Even if carbon dioxide was the cause, the railways are a relatively small contributor within the transport sector. If it results in additional costs for the railways, the consequence is that people will turn to less efficient forms of transport ie the policy will be counter productive.
4. Attention should be paid to embodied energy. It takes vast amounts of energy to produce aluminium from its ore. Aluminium mining is an environmental disaster in its own right. Aluminium vehicle bodies are undesirable compared to steel, especially stainless steel where vehicles can have a life of 60 years.
5. Attention should be paid to keeping rolling stock in service for longer. In 2012, the British Mark 3 fleet had a projected future life of 25 years. Unfortunately the decision was taken to replace it prematurely with a fleet of trains with aluminium bodies and high-embodied energy.
6. Attention should be paid to reducing fuel consumption by making trains with lower air resistance. The Hitachi trains are poor in this respect, since they have masses of rooftop clutter and wide gaps between the vehicles.
7. Batteries for traction power are clean energy only if the total cycle from ore to disposal, and methods of generation, are ignored. It also has the disadvantage of having low energy density. The benefit is that they are clean at the point of use.
8. The same applies to wind generation, which is clean as long as the energy embodied in the structures are ignored, as well as the energy used to service the equipment, which is considerable for offshore installations; this does not mean we should not have wind generation but we should stop deceiving ourselves that it is completely clean.
9. Hydrogen is not suitable as a transport fuel. The gas cannot be liquified at a temperature of more than 33 degrees K ie very cold indeed. This means that the energy density is too low.
10. The principal disadvantage of diesel power is pollution in stations and urban areas, a problem which can be solved by the use of hybrid technology with limited use of battery power.
11. There is a need to revisit steam locomotive technology which in many ways remains ideal for railway use since the boiler acts as a buffer between the conversion of fuel into energy (which can be at a constant rate) and the actual use of the energy, which is intermittent. External production avoids the production of NOx, particulates and carbon monoxide, and is therefore more efficient than combustion in the cylinders of an internal combustion engine. The direct drive makes for simple mechanics and an inexpensive machine capable of giving 60 years or more of good service. The disadvantage of steam locomotives are primarily associated with the use of coal. The long start-up time can be reduced by pre-heating systems eg using off-peak electricity. Boiler wear can be reduced by improved systems of water treatment including ultra-high pH which virtually eliminates problems of scaling and corrosion. To get this in proportion: the money being spent on hydrogen traction research would have paid for a decent number of steam locomotives which would have worked straight out of the box!

 

[Bald Rick]

No plausible mechanism has been put forward for the claim that atmospheric carbon dioxide is the cause of higher temperatures at the earth's surface.

That’s a pretty big claim, and is not supported by just about every scientist.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

That’s a pretty big claim, and is not supported by just about every scientist.

Yes. The views of "scientists" carries no more weight than anyone else except when they are commenting within their own specialism. Atmospheric science is a complex multi-disciplinary business, involving mechanisms which are not well understood and about which there is still much to learn.

However, I rest my argument on a foundational point, which is that carbon dioxide is a poor absorber of radiation within the infra-red spectrum. Additionally, greenhouses work by preventing convection of warm air, whereas the purported "greenhouse effect" is explained by re-radiation of infra red radiation. If climate change is due to human action, it is almost certainly not due to carbon dioxide. I would look at changes in land use, in particular, de-forestation. We are probably barking up the wrong tree. And the railway industry should not be loading itself with unnecessary additional costs by following this fad.

 

[Rhydgaled]

If the climate is changing due to human action, the cause is almost certainly something else altogether, such as changes in land use, possibly deforestation. If this is the case, then the use of specially produced biofuels is a very bad development.

I don't know whether skepticalscience.com is a reputable source, or if I am understanding it correctly, but here it seems to be saying that carbon dioxide is only a small contributer to the greenhouse effect here on Earth. However, that small warming effect caused by CO2 means that the atmosphere holds more water vapour. Since water vapour is also a greenhouse gas, this amplifies the effect that CO2 emmissions have on the climate. So, in a way, you're right - the cause is something other than CO2, but that something is water vapour which has been added to the atmosphere as a result of our CO2 emmisions. Deforestation is a contributing factor too, in part because of the loss of carbon sequestration.

In short, the common narative that 'our carbon dioxide emissions are causing climate change' probably isn't false, but that is an over-simplified version of it. The reality is probably more complex and there are lots of contributing factors.

the railways are a relatively small contributor within the transport sector. If it results in additional costs for the railways, the consequence is that people will turn to less efficient forms of transport ie the policy will be counter productive.

The issue there is that we need to reach net-zero emissions. The railways are small fry, correct, but other sectors (eg. steel) are probably even harder to decarbonise than the transport sector. I have no idea how much carbon sequestration is possible and whether there will be enough left over to net-out any residual emissions from the transport sector after the harder sectors have been netted-out. It may be that the transport sector needs to be reduced to zero emissions (not net-zero, just plain zero) in order for the world as a whole to reach net-zero. In that case it doesn't matter if it results in additional costs, it needs to be done anyway.

Attention should be paid to embodied energy.

Agreed, although I'm not sure whether aluminium or steel is preferable. Using lots of either is undesirable so I think the important thing is to maximise the lifespan of anything built with such materials.

This is one of the reasons I'm so concerned about the 195s and 197s - they are likely to either need replacement before their bodies are life-expired or, to get the full life out of them, we will have to keep burning diesel into the 2050s. Burning diesel in the 2050s means we have to use some of the carbon sequestration 'budget' on running trains, meaning less is available to net-out activities like making steel.

Taking account of embodied energy also means that batteries aren't a particularly great idea. The life span of laptop batteries often appears to be much shorter than that of the laptop, so lots of mining needed to make lots of sets of new batteries over the life span of the train. Which is another agrument in favour of electrification - although you then are left with the question of whether batteries to provide hotel power for a few hours in the event of a stranding would last longer than batteries used for traction power. At least the former requires significantly less battery capacity on each train (I assume).

We are probably barking up the wrong tree. And the railway industry should not be loading itself with unnecessary additional costs by following this fad.

While electrification does create additional cost, it also makes the railway better in many ways. There should be no regrets from electrification* - that might not be the case for hydrogen and batteries for traction though.

* apart from where it is badly designed, like on much of the Great Western, and even then the only regret is that it wasn't designed well

 

[reddragon]

1. Decarbonising the railways should be removed from the agenda.
2. No plausible mechanism has been put forward for the claim that atmospheric carbon dioxide is the cause of higher temperatures at the earth's surface. The example of Venus is a different situation. The total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would form a layer 4 metres deep! Carbon dioxide is a poor absorber of infra red. If the climate is changing due to human action, the cause is almost certainly something else altogether, such as changes in land use, possibly deforestation. If this is the case, then the use of specially produced biofuels is a very bad development.
3. Even if carbon dioxide was the cause, the railways are a relatively small contributor within the transport sector. If it results in additional costs for the railways, the consequence is that people will turn to less efficient forms of transport ie the policy will be counter productive.
4. Attention should be paid to embodied energy. It takes vast amounts of energy to produce aluminium from its ore. Aluminium mining is an environmental disaster in its own right. Aluminium vehicle bodies are undesirable compared to steel, especially stainless steel where vehicles can have a life of 60 years.
5. Attention should be paid to keeping rolling stock in service for longer. In 2012, the British Mark 3 fleet had a projected future life of 25 years. Unfortunately the decision was taken to replace it prematurely with a fleet of trains with aluminium bodies and high-embodied energy.
6. Attention should be paid to reducing fuel consumption by making trains with lower air resistance. The Hitachi trains are poor in this respect, since they have masses of rooftop clutter and wide gaps between the vehicles.
7. Batteries for traction power are clean energy only if the total cycle from ore to disposal, and methods of generation, are ignored. It also has the disadvantage of having low energy density. The benefit is that they are clean at the point of use.
8. The same applies to wind generation, which is clean as long as the energy embodied in the structures are ignored, as well as the energy used to service the equipment, which is considerable for offshore installations; this does not mean we should not have wind generation but we should stop deceiving ourselves that it is completely clean.
9. Hydrogen is not suitable as a transport fuel. The gas cannot be liquified at a temperature of more than 33 degrees K ie very cold indeed. This means that the energy density is too low.
10. The principal disadvantage of diesel power is pollution in stations and urban areas, a problem which can be solved by the use of hybrid technology with limited use of battery power.
11. There is a need to revisit steam locomotive technology which in many ways remains ideal for railway use since the boiler acts as a buffer between the conversion of fuel into energy (which can be at a constant rate) and the actual use of the energy, which is intermittent. External production avoids the production of NOx, particulates and carbon monoxide, and is therefore more efficient than combustion in the cylinders of an internal combustion engine. The direct drive makes for simple mechanics and an inexpensive machine capable of giving 60 years or more of good service. The disadvantage of steam locomotives are primarily associated with the use of coal. The long start-up time can be reduced by pre-heating systems eg using off-peak electricity. Boiler wear can be reduced by improved systems of water treatment including ultra-high pH which virtually eliminates problems of scaling and corrosion. To get this in proportion: the money being spent on hydrogen traction research would have paid for a decent number of steam locomotives which would have worked straight out of the box!

I thought that all Climate Change deniers had become Climate Change Bullshi**ers?

How to spot the difference between a real climate policy and greenwashing guff | Damian Carrington

Unless actions by governments and corporations cut emissions here and now, a dose of scepticism is in order, says Guardian environment editor Damian Carrington

www.theguardian.com

 

[option]

The problem with promoting biodiesel from waste oil is that there just isn't enough of it. From reports such as Climate change: Growing doubts over chip fat biofuel - BBC News we're having to import oil to cope with demand, and only a tiny fraction of current usage is biodiesel.
There's no way you'd be able to shift the majority of diesel transport over to biodiesel without having to use crops grown for the purpose, which leads us back to the problems with those crops competing with agriculture for food.

Would there be enough to replace all current diesel usage? No

But, buses are going electric, small trucks are going electric.
Coventry are going for 100% electric buses, 297 electric buses by end of 2025, so that reduces the amount of diesel to be replaced. We've already got 19 in Birmingham, & NX aren't buying any more diesel buses.
(Yes, the old diesel fleet will probably end up with secondary operators, but they would be replacing even older, less efficient, buses, so would still see a reduction in diesel usage)

As more rail routes are electrified, then the total amount of diesel required reduces anyway, which also reduces the amount of bio required.

There's the currently timetabled for 2030 ban on new petrol & diesel cars.
New diesel car registrations started falling rapidly in 2016/17, & we're now probably back to 2001 levels of 500k a year. It will continue to fall.
Diesel vehicles pre-Euro6 (2015) are charged in some of the CAZ schemes, whereas petrol only has to be Euro4 (2006), & there will be more CAZ schemes coming through. So people will either use those vehicles less, or replace them with more efficient vehicles.


Would we be trying to replace all current diesel used with biodiesel? No
But rail has no choice but to find ways to reduce emissions from the diesel stock still further, & one way is to use biofuels.



Lets use Birmingham as an example.

Buses are already Euro6 compliant, there's also hybrids & electric buses.
The CAZ charges all vehicles that aren't compliant, even private ones, so any vehicles that aren't Euro6 diesel won't be around for much longer.
The standard is already 5 years old, so lets look 5 years into the future.

2026;
The few diesel buses left are 10+ years old, so are due for replacement.
Taxis & private hire are either 100% EV or plug-in hybrid.
Local van fleets are 50% EV.

New St station still has diesel running through it, from XC, TfW & WMT
Snow Hill lines are still diesel.


2031;
Buses are all zero emission
Taxis/private hire are 100% EV
Local van fleets are 100% EV

What's happening with diesel through New St?
What about Snow hill lines?
Even if they are doing final works to make them 100% electric, what is happening for diesel emissions between now & then?


With all other forms of transport not only doing something about emissions over that time, but also seen to be, rail has to do the same.

 

[reddragon]

Like any issue, you do the quickest, easiest most cost effective solutions first. The harder ones become easier & get done later following the standard adoption S curve.

All transport will be electric in time, with hybrids & other solutions being temporary solutions pushed by the oil / gas industry to slow their decline. Yes even planes!

There are solutions for 100% of road transport available today of which 80-90% is cheaper than oil/gas based transport

Passenger rail transport only lacks investment to switch to 100% renewable electric and forget Hydrogen (its an oil industry distraction).

Hydrogen has a much lower calorific value than diesel and substantial storage requirements. OK its lighter than oil just look on the Periodic table where it sits and its properties! Scale that up to the size of storage requirements to match diesel and you need a separate tanker or tender to accommodate it (choo choo). Fill a loco with batteries / Ultra Capacitors and you are there. Yes I know, it cannot do 1500 miles but ultra capacitors charge instantly and can do so at speed from lineside equipment. Do you know how dangerous Hydrogen is? And how explosive refuelling is even compared to petrol? We need to think differently.

I agree with @option Snow Hill is now a stinky dirty diesel place in a stinkier dirtier city. Buses & and vans will be electric in 5 years, cars mostly in 10 and suddenly, like covid lockdown, after the clean air people notice pollution with the return of traffic, then in 2025 by stepping onto a platform. It will not be the carbon footprint of a diesel train being smaller than an electric car that they will notice, it will be the smell that will repel them into their zero emission cars with high embedded carbon.

So even if your views match @RAGNARØKR public & commercial reality will not, the same as keeping old trains that are not accessible, we love them but the public begin to hate them so they have to go.

 

[doorhanger93]

Carbon dioxide is a poor absorber of infra red

Come off the bull**** already - this is just backwards and wrong. https://www.quora.com/What-makes-carbon-dioxide-an-infrared-absorber

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Come off the bull**** already - this is just backwards and wrong. https://www.quora.com/What-makes-carbon-dioxide-an-infrared-absorber

That reference, and the diagram, perfectly confirms the point I made: CO2 is a poor absorber of infra red. The red line shows that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of wavelengths, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM). This means that most – about 92% – of the heat producing, ie all the other wavelength IR radiation passes through and escapes. Only about 8% of the available black body radiation is picked up by these characteristic frequencies of CO2.

There is a theory that the because is water vapour really is an effective absorber of infra red, the small amount of heating caused by CO2 amplifies the effect of the water vapour. Personally, I would suggest that, IF the climate is genuinely changing, and IF this is due to human action, then the most likely cause is changes in large scale changes in land use, in particular, deforestation and farming practices, possibly including irrigation of land in hot parts of the world.

The carbon dioxide scare has all the marks of a fashion which will turn out to be mistaken, like the various food scares of the past 40 years, and that we will turn out to have been barking up the wrong tree. As far as railways are concerned, the important thing is to stop the inexorable rise in costs due to inappropriate technology, and to make the system more robust by reversing the trend to use the latest technology and scrapping equipment with a couple of decades of useful service life left in it.

There is also a need to look at the overall cycle and the amount of energy embodied in rolling stock and infrastructure, and consumed by wasteful operating practices. It used to be a widespread practice to leave diesels running all night in DMUs so that the cleaners had electricity to run their vacuum cleaners! Aluminium bodied rolling stock is notorious in this respect due to the amount of energy used to mine and transport the ore and convert it to the metal. Then there is the over-engineered OHLE on the GW main line, which contains about three times the amount of metal actually needed, due to errors in calculation.

 

[reddragon]

That reference, and the diagram, perfectly confirms the point I made: CO2 is a poor absorber of infra red. The red line shows that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of wavelengths, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM). This means that most – about 92% – of the heat producing, ie all the other wavelength IR radiation passes through and escapes. Only about 8% of the available black body radiation is picked up by these characteristic frequencies of CO2.

There is a theory that the because is water vapour really is an effective absorber of infra red, the small amount of heating caused by CO2 amplifies the effect of the water vapour. Personally, I would suggest that, IF the climate is genuinely changing, and IF this is due to human action, then the most likely cause is changes in large scale changes in land use, in particular, deforestation and farming practices, possibly including irrigation of land in hot parts of the world.

The carbon dioxide scare has all the marks of a fashion which will turn out to be mistaken, like the various food scares of the past 40 years, and that we will turn out to have been barking up the wrong tree. As far as railways are concerned, the important thing is to stop the inexorable rise in costs due to inappropriate technology, and to make the system more robust by reversing the trend to use the latest technology and scrapping equipment with a couple of decades of useful service life left in it.

There is also a need to look at the overall cycle and the amount of energy embodied in rolling stock and infrastructure, and consumed by wasteful operating practices. It used to be a widespread practice to leave diesels running all night in DMUs so that the cleaners had electricity to run their vacuum cleaners! Aluminium bodied rolling stock is notorious in this respect due to the amount of energy used to mine and transport the ore and convert it to the metal. Then there is the over-engineered OHLE on the GW main line, which contains about three times the amount of metal actually needed, due to errors in calculation.

You views and debate are for the 1980's-1990's.

Now is the time for urgent significant game changing actions, not for tinkering with minor issues.

 

[Rhydgaled]

You views and debate are for the 1980's-1990's.

Now is the time for urgent significant game changing actions, not for tinkering with minor issues.

I wouldn't say that the changes in land use and embodied energy in rolling stock raised by RAGNARØKR were 'minor issues', but neither would I call the heating (and ocean acidification) caused (perhaps largely indirectly) by CO2 a 'minor issue'. The urgent, significant, game changing, actions required include addressing land use and must not ignore embodied carbon.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

You views and debate are for the 1980's-1990's.

Now is the time for urgent significant game changing actions, not for tinkering with minor issues.

There is no plausible mechanism to support the CO2 theory. But even if there was, emissions of CO2 by moving trains are a minor issue. The big CO2 emissions are electricity generation, steel and concrete manufacture, heating of buildings and road transport.

In this respect, bad decisions were taken about 15 years ago, including construction of HS2, replacement of the inter-city mark 3 fleet, and the introduction of bi-mode trains, which involve lugging around of heavy equipment which is out of use for half the time. The energy gobbling habits of the IEP trains are aggravated by their poor aerodynamic design.

Urgent action normally leads to bad decisions as they are politically driven by people who have little understanding of the overall picture.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jul 2021 ==

I wouldn't say that the changes in land use and embodied energy in rolling stock raised by RAGNARØKR were 'minor issues', but neither would I call the heating (and ocean acidification) caused (perhaps largely indirectly) by CO2 a 'minor issue'. The urgent, significant, game changing, actions required include addressing land use and must not ignore embodied carbon.

The big CO2 emitters are industrial and domestic. Transport emissions are a small proportion of the total. Railway emissions are a small proportion of all transport emissions. The best thing that railways can do is to make the most competitive with other modes so that passengers and freight are diverted from road and air to train. Pushing up costs with expensive technology which requires heavy R&D input is not going to help.

The main issue with diesel traction is point-of-use pollution in stations and urban areas.

 

[Rhydgaled]

emissions of CO2 by moving trains are a minor issue. The big CO2 emissions are electricity generation, steel and concrete manufacture, heating of buildings and road transport.

Agreed, particularly with regard to road transport.

Urgent action normally leads to bad decisions as they are politically driven by people who have little understanding of the overall picture.

You make a good point there as well, unfortunately we have been sleepwalking towards a very bad place and there is now little time to properly think through what we are doing - we need to act extremely fast.

The big CO2 emitters are industrial and domestic. Transport emissions are a small proportion of the total.

What region are you talking about here? On a UK level, industrial and domestic are major emitters but since 2016 transport emssions have been the largest component of UK greenhouse gas emissions according to the government's own statistics (see page 13). In 2019, Transport (excluding international aviation) accounted for over 25% of UK greenhouse gas emmissions, Energy Supply just over 20%, Business somewhere between 15-20% and Residential just over 15%.

Railway emissions are a small proportion of all transport emissions.

Yes, that is almost certainly true; but if the UK as a whole needs to get to zero emissions then even the tiny fraction of UK emissions that the railways represent need to be addressed.

The best thing that railways can do is to make the most competitive with other modes so that passengers and freight are diverted from road and air to train. Pushing up costs with expensive technology which requires heavy R&D input is not going to help.

If by 'expensive technology' you mean hydrogen trains I agree. But electrification reduces some running costs and is also the best way of decarbonising rail, by far.

The main issue with diesel traction is point-of-use pollution in stations and urban areas.

That's one issue, but I think a bigger one is mechanical transmission (which applies to most diesel passenger trains) which renders the train unable to utilise expensive electrification infrustructure. The IEP bi-modes are inefficient in energy use with the extra weight of their diesel engines etc. but running diesels under the wires is inefficient use of infrustructure. The greenhouse gas emissions of an electric train are so much lower than a diesel (or hydrogen) train that I wonder whether the heavy bi-modes or a diesel-only equivilent would release less CO2.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Agreed, particularly with regard to road transport.

Thanks for response.

You make a good point there as well, unfortunately we have been sleepwalking towards a very bad place and there is now little time to properly think through what we are doing - we need to act extremely fast.

Decide in haste, regret at leisure.

What region are you talking about here? On a UK level, industrial and domestic are major emitters but since 2016 transport emssions have been the largest component of UK greenhouse gas emissions according to the government's own statistics (see page 13). In 2019, Transport (excluding international aviation) accounted for over 25% of UK greenhouse gas emmissions, Energy Supply just over 20%, Business somewhere between 15-20% and Residential just over 15%.

Railways are a small part of the total. Transfer from road to rail will reduce energy use. The apparent shortage of truck drivers could be an opportunity.

But these statistics ignore energy use by the UK which takes place outside the UK eg concrete, brick, steel and aluminium production, transportation of goods to the UK.

Yes, that is almost certainly true; but if the UK as a whole needs to get to zero emissions then even the tiny fraction of UK emissions that the railways represent need to be addressed.

Not really. The focus needs to be on the big polluters as that is where the big gains can be made.

If by 'expensive technology' you mean hydrogen trains I agree. But electrification reduces some running costs and is also the best way of decarbonising rail, by far.

Electrification is a good thing provided that it is done economically and that it is justified by the levels of traffic or the network benefits. It would be worth completing the electrification of Reading-Guildford-Redhill for the network benefits, similarly Didcot-Oxford-Birmingham and the Henley and Marlow branches. Basingstoke-Salisbury-Exeter would probably be worth doing on that basis, if HSE can get over its horror of third rail electrification. Bristol-Plymouth is probably worth electrifying but not beyond that. Then again there are routes worth reopening but not electrifying eg Oxford-Witney and Oxford-Thame, and the east-west link should have been electrified from the start.

That's one issue, but I think a bigger one is mechanical transmission (which applies to most diesel passenger trains) which renders the train unable to utilise expensive electrification infrustructure. The IEP bi-modes are inefficient in energy use with the extra weight of their diesel engines etc. but running diesels under the wires is inefficient use of infrustructure. The greenhouse gas emissions of an electric train are so much lower than a diesel (or hydrogen) train that I wonder whether the heavy bi-modes or a diesel-only equivilent would release less CO2.

Running diesel under the wires is also not something to be unduly concerned about - the thermal efficiency is advantageous, especially diesel-mechanical systems. You just don't want big diesel engines chucking out smoke at termini.

All of the above assumes that CO2 is the cause of the apparent climate change. If it is not, then these measures will have no effect.

 

[reddragon]

All of the above assumes that CO2 is the cause of the apparent climate change. If it is not, then these measures will have no effect.

If its not, we are in a lot bigger trouble then?

 

[RAGNARØKR]

If its not, we are in a lot bigger trouble then?

Yes. I would be looking at deforestation, destruction of wild habitat in general, irrigation schemes and impounding of rivers by large dams (as well as carbon dioxide). We should also be looking at life-cycle effects eg from mining of raw materials, embodied energy and end-of-life disposal and recycling. Also looking at risks such as future Carrington events. There is lot to be said for old technology based on mechanical systems eg rods, levers and pulleys, and rolling stock which can run for the best part of a century with only small components having to be replaced to give as-new performance.

 

[waverley47]

1. Decarbonising the railways should be removed from the agenda.
2. No plausible mechanism has been put forward for the claim that atmospheric carbon dioxide is the cause of higher temperatures at the earth's surface. The example of Venus is a different situation. The total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would form a layer 4 metres deep! Carbon dioxide is a poor absorber of infra red. If the climate is changing due to human action, the cause is almost certainly something else altogether, such as changes in land use, possibly deforestation. If this is the case, then the use of specially produced biofuels is a very bad development.
3. Even if carbon dioxide was the cause, the railways are a relatively small contributor within the transport sector. If it results in additional costs for the railways, the consequence is that people will turn to less efficient forms of transport ie the policy will be counter productive.
4. Attention should be paid to embodied energy. It takes vast amounts of energy to produce aluminium from its ore. Aluminium mining is an environmental disaster in its own right. Aluminium vehicle bodies are undesirable compared to steel, especially stainless steel where vehicles can have a life of 60 years.
5. Attention should be paid to keeping rolling stock in service for longer. In 2012, the British Mark 3 fleet had a projected future life of 25 years. Unfortunately the decision was taken to replace it prematurely with a fleet of trains with aluminium bodies and high-embodied energy.
6. Attention should be paid to reducing fuel consumption by making trains with lower air resistance. The Hitachi trains are poor in this respect, since they have masses of rooftop clutter and wide gaps between the vehicles.
7. Batteries for traction power are clean energy only if the total cycle from ore to disposal, and methods of generation, are ignored. It also has the disadvantage of having low energy density. The benefit is that they are clean at the point of use.
8. The same applies to wind generation, which is clean as long as the energy embodied in the structures are ignored, as well as the energy used to service the equipment, which is considerable for offshore installations; this does not mean we should not have wind generation but we should stop deceiving ourselves that it is completely clean.
9. Hydrogen is not suitable as a transport fuel. The gas cannot be liquified at a temperature of more than 33 degrees K ie very cold indeed. This means that the energy density is too low.
10. The principal disadvantage of diesel power is pollution in stations and urban areas, a problem which can be solved by the use of hybrid technology with limited use of battery power.
11. There is a need to revisit steam locomotive technology which in many ways remains ideal for railway use since the boiler acts as a buffer between the conversion of fuel into energy (which can be at a constant rate) and the actual use of the energy, which is intermittent. External production avoids the production of NOx, particulates and carbon monoxide, and is therefore more efficient than combustion in the cylinders of an internal combustion engine. The direct drive makes for simple mechanics and an inexpensive machine capable of giving 60 years or more of good service. The disadvantage of steam locomotives are primarily associated with the use of coal. The long start-up time can be reduced by pre-heating systems eg using off-peak electricity. Boiler wear can be reduced by improved systems of water treatment including ultra-high pH which virtually eliminates problems of scaling and corrosion. To get this in proportion: the money being spent on hydrogen traction research would have paid for a decent number of steam locomotives which would have worked straight out of the box!

I'm 95% sure this is a troll, but I'll bite regardless.

Let's imagine a world in which climate change isn't a thing. We can continue to burn oil as fast as we want, and are unrestricted by any amount of fossil carbon being released into the atmosphere.

Economically, we lived in that world until about a decade ago. Back in 2010, contracts were being let to refurbish all of the old coal plants, new North sea oil was being brought online, and new gas plants built.

But even back in those heady days, people were still building new wind farms, because they're cheaper. It's actually significantly cheaper to built wind power than to invest in new fossil fuels. No decades of building a power plant, no concrete and steel in its construction. We're moving economically away from fossil fuels not because we have to, but because large energy companies have realised it's more profitable.

If you buy a new diesel fleet today, you'll end up in a situation ten years down the line where buying fuel is so expensive that it's actually cheaper to switch to electric. We reached the tipping point for new fleets about two years ago. There's a reason ScotGov has decided to wire the network, because in the long term it's easier.

If you want to live in a fantasy world where climate change isn't happening, then go ahead. But even so, you'll find switching to electronic processors, and renewable energy, and air source heat pumps happen around you, because they're cheaper. Pulleys and cogs are yesterday's technology.


Now. Climate change is real. It is happening. We, as a society, are releasing huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I could find you a hundred thousand peer-reviewed articles and studies backing me up. I could find government policies and reports from companies that would find it infinitely easier to not switch to renewables, and they're switching anyway because we have to. CO2 in the atmosphere does warm it up, and does release methane and other compounds which speed up the problem. Climate change is happening and being a dinosaur and claiming 'the science isn't certain and experts aren't all in agreement' doesn't help.

Yes, you might not feel the effects living in a temperate country, but if you don't believe in it then why don't you start investing in houses in Fairbourne, or farmland on the Sahel.

So, given the switch to electric everything is happening, and given climate change is a very real threat, why not embrace the switch. It's cheaper to run trains under the wires. In a system that has been around since before any of our grandparents were born, it makes sense to switch early to take advantage of long term cost savings.


Also, some minor points.

Aluminium is smelted mostly these days by large hydro facilities. It's renewable power.

Embedded carbon in steel and concrete is an issue, however in the medium term, technologies are being developed to tackle this. Embedded carbon in a train isn't an issue for a piece of kit that will last 40 years and far outweigh that in terms of carbon saved by not driving in cars everywhere.

Your points 7 and 8 are not wrong, but so far off the mark they're ridiculous. If you look at embedded carbon in a wind farm and a battery compound, you'll find a significant carbon reduction versus the lifetime of a coal or gas power plant.

Why are you advocating for steam. There's a reason nobody uses it any more. It's dead end technology.

As mentioned above, skepticalscience.com, or wherever else you want to find 'evidence' to back up these claims, is not a valid source. There is very good research out there about the lifetime carbon impacts of entire energy grids, from ore and manufacture to recycling. There is also an abundance of academic research on hydrogen as a fuel, both positives and negatives, as well as the real impact of carbon in the atmosphere.

 

[XAM2175]

I'm 95% sure this is a troll, but I'll bite regardless.

They made no posts at all between 20 July 2016 and 20 April 2021, and every post they've made since their return is climate change denial. I'm not holding my breath on this being a teachable moment.

 

[stuu]

It's a shame that someone with seemingly groundbreaking scientific knowledge is wasting his/her/their time posting it on a minor internet forum. Weird

 

[reddragon]

Yes. I would be looking at deforestation, destruction of wild habitat in general, irrigation schemes and impounding of rivers by large dams (as well as carbon dioxide). We should also be looking at life-cycle effects eg from mining of raw materials, embodied energy and end-of-life disposal and recycling. Also looking at risks such as future Carrington events. There is lot to be said for old technology based on mechanical systems eg rods, levers and pulleys, and rolling stock which can run for the best part of a century with only small components having to be replaced to give as-new performance.

So basically CO2 then?

 

[Rhydgaled]

Embedded carbon in a train isn't an issue for a piece of kit that will last 40 years and far outweigh that in terms of carbon saved by not driving in cars everywhere.

Where embedded carbon might be an issue is for new-build rolling stock which is not electrification-ready. For embedded carbon not to be a (big?) issue it is important to make sure your bit of kit really does last the 35-40 years it potentially could last. All the mark 4 coaches scrapped in the last year or two with probably another 10 years of life in them - and potentially the class 175s if TfW stick to the previous administration's plans to withdraw them - that's wasteful. Porterbrook claim that they "have calculated that every ‘half-life’ rail vehicle that we dispose of results in 77 tonnes of carbon dioxide being wasted" (source: this document, paragraph 7.2). There is therefore a conflict between the electrification programme Network Rail says we need and the CAF Civity DMU fleets which are not 'electrification-ready' and which, if you don't want to waste the embedded carbon, will still be running beyond the net-zero target.

 

[reddragon]

As building steam to as late as 1960, building anything diesel today is a folly unless its designed for conversion to electric and that goes for road transport too.

Covid hit small Petrol Stations hard and my local village one, once busy pre-covid is now little more than a Hermes drop off point as the switch locally to EVs is dramatic. Even with the ability to buy an ICE car being another 9 years and hybrids 5 more, manufacturers are jumping much faster than that and many rural areas will lack Petrol Stations quite quickly.

As momentum gathers and commercials switch, vans & buses will be very rapid, diesel refineries will disappear as will local oil depots leaving areas bereft of oil supplies. Whilst that may not immediately affect larger diesel depots, refuelling outpost will soon become uneconomic. My parents kept a coal fired CH quite late but getting bulk coal deliveries where they lived became impossible and when it broke nobody would fix it.

One thing I do agree with our troll about, is that new trains are over weight, too complex to repair & use for 40 years and as we are already seeing, quite young trains become uneconomical to maintain.

We have a lot to do and much more to learn from our grandparents make do & mend approach.

 

[option]

It's not just climate change that's a concern either, there's also the direct impact on our health from the exhaust gases & particulates produced by combustion engines.

 

[Bald Rick]

It's not just climate change that's a concern either, there's also the direct impact on our health from the exhaust gases & particulates produced by combustion engines.

Well, yes, but that has been much, much improved in recent years.

 

[Mikey C]

As building steam to as late as 1960, building anything diesel today is a folly unless its designed for conversion to electric and that goes for road transport too.

Covid hit small Petrol Stations hard and my local village one, once busy pre-covid is now little more than a Hermes drop off point as the switch locally to EVs is dramatic. Even with the ability to buy an ICE car being another 9 years and hybrids 5 more, manufacturers are jumping much faster than that and many rural areas will lack Petrol Stations quite quickly.

As momentum gathers and commercials switch, vans & buses will be very rapid, diesel refineries will disappear as will local oil depots leaving areas bereft of oil supplies. Whilst that may not immediately affect larger diesel depots, refuelling outpost will soon become uneconomic. My parents kept a coal fired CH quite late but getting bulk coal deliveries where they lived became impossible and when it broke nobody would fix it.

One thing I do agree with our troll about, is that new trains are over weight, too complex to repair & use for 40 years and as we are already seeing, quite young trains become uneconomical to maintain.

We have a lot to do and much more to learn from our grandparents make do & mend approach.

The switch to electric cars is nowhere near that dramatic across the country. Indeed the electricity infrastructure couldn't cope if people switched too quickly.

Independent petrol stations have closed because the margins have been so tight for years, not helped by supermarkets using it as a way of getting people into the shops. If Tesco and Sainsbury were making decent profits out of their petrol stations, they'd be opening up ones away from their supermarkets...

Well, yes, but that has been much, much improved in recent years.

Not as much as it should be though, hence the introduction of clean air zones in many cities, which are all about air quality

 

[Bald Rick]

Not as much as it should be though, hence the introduction of clean air zones in many cities, which are all about air quality

Indeed, but given that every car built in the least 6 years should meet the most stringent emissions regulations, and many built before then already did, then air quality would be improving rapidly anyway. Albeit that the clean air zones help with an incentive.

I was reminded of this last week when two or three ‘classic’ cars went past me as I was walking to town. The smell from the non-catalysed exhausts took me back 30 years!

 

[reddragon]

Indeed, but given that every car built in the least 6 years should meet the most stringent emissions regulations, and many built before then already did, then air quality would be improving rapidly anyway.

They do but they don't!

New cars do meet the clean requirement when driven sensibly after the engine warms up. This is after about 5 miles in a Petrol Car and 10 miles in a diesel. You can double this in winter.

The average UK trip is 2 miles.

Cars only driven in town need to run a filter cleaning cycle often. You will know when you are following one!

 

[zwk500]

The average UK trip is 2 miles.

This is quite frankly a terrifying statistic. 2 miles is a very walkable distance, even carrying a moderate load, for the majority of the population. Changing the mindset, as ever, is going to be our biggest challenge.

 

[Bald Rick]

They do but they don't!

New cars do meet the clean requirement when driven sensibly after the engine warms up. This is after about 5 miles in a Petrol Car and 10 miles in a diesel. You can double this in winter.

The average UK trip is 2 miles.

Cars only driven in town need to run a filter cleaning cycle often. You will know when you are following one!

No doubt. But the statistics show that air quality is improving, and rapidly. This report from over a year ago for London is good reading. (Unfortunately I can’t quote an extract for some reason).

Of course there is more to do, but the interventions are working.

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/air_pollution_monitoring_data_in_london_2016_to_2020_feb2020.pdf

 

[reddragon]

No doubt. But the statistics show that air quality is improving, and rapidly. This report from over a year ago for London is good reading. (Unfortunately I can’t quote an extract for some reason).

Of course there is more to do, but the interventions are working.

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/air_pollution_monitoring_data_in_london_2016_to_2020_feb2020.pdf

London is something of an exception with ULEZ, electric buses & taxis, high EV growth and of course Paddington lost its diesels too.