why electrify?

[ess]

i kind of expect to be shot down in flames on this one but...

why would you electrify lines when diesel powered locos work and don't get stranded when the overhead power is bust. what's so good about electric traction?

 

[gordonthemoron]

cheaper and more sustainable, less wear and tear on the rails as electric traction is lighter, no need to refuel, electric can be produced from non-fossil fuels. Less noisy

 

[brad465]

Many reasons:

Faster Acceleration
Cheaper to run
Often more reliable

and many others

 

[90019]

Diesel is a finite resource.
The less of it there is, the more it costs, and evetually it will become too expensive to justify extracting what's left. Once you reach that point, all diesel powered trains become obsolete, unless you find another fuel source for them.

Electricity can be generated in so many different ways. If one source runs out, then you move onto another.
On top of that, electric trains don't have to carry their fuel supply around with them, and are only using the current needed to keep the electrics running whilst stationary, whereas diesels will be idling and wasting fuel.

The infrastructure means that the initial cost will be more expensive, but it's balanced out by the running costs.

 

[northwichcat]

The main problem with electric units is the lack of a back up engine. This could be implemented either be in the form of a small diesel engine or a battery engine which charges from overhead electrics and would allow electric trains to at least reach the next station in the event of electric failure.

 

[stockport1]

Diesel is a finite resource.
The less of it there is, the more it costs, and evetually it will become too expensive to justify extracting what's left. Once you reach that point, all diesel powered trains become obsolete, unless you find another fuel source for them.

Or lets rephrase that :

The banks take your bailout money...buy oil futures and drive the price into the stratosphere. goto END.

Or the banks invade iraq and other middle eastern countries and constrict the amount of oil produced...producing artificial scarcity.goto END.

Or a cartel known as opec conspires to limit oil production to hike the price of oil ....with the blessing of us banks(to help prop up the dollar). goto END.

or refineries get closed to reduce refinery capacity... to induce scarcity and hike the price.goto END.

END:
you buy the lie that oil is running out and accept higher prices at the pump.


Really there is no shortage of oil. just a perception of it.
Its been shown depleted wells actually REFIL over time. supporting abiotic theories.saying that crude oil is a nasty ,radioactive polluting substance (not buying the c02 global warming matra here either) and we should look for suitable cost effective alternatives.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
http://archive.arabnews.com/?page=6&section=0&article=44011&d=29&m=4&y=2004

“Saudi Arabia now has 1.2 trillion barrels of estimated reserve. This estimate is very conservative. Our analysis gives us reason to be very optimistic. We are continuing to discover new resources, and we are using new technologies to extract even more oil from existing reserves,” the minister said.

“Saudi Arabia’s vast oil reserves are certainly there,” Naimi added. “None of these reserves requires advanced recovery techniques. We have more than sufficient reserves to increase output. If required, we can increase output from 10.5 million barrels a day to 12-15 million barrels a day. And we can sustain this increased output for 50 years or more. There will be no shortage of oil for the next 50 years. Perhaps much longer.”



this is out of the mouth of the saudi oil minister. or is this not good enough

 

[HSTEd]

Are these the same reserves that have remained exactly the same as they were over a decade ago despite withdrawals?
OPEC members have an incentive to inflate the reserves they have so that they can claim a larger part of the production quota.

 

[talltim]

Or lets rephrase that :

The banks take your bailout money...buy oil futures and drive the price into the stratosphere. goto END.

Or the banks invade iraq and other middle eastern countries and constrict the amount of oil produced...producing artificial scarcity.goto END.

Or a cartel known as opec conspires to limit oil production to hike the price of oil ....with the blessing of us banks(to help prop up the dollar). goto END.

or refineries get closed to reduce refinery capacity... to induce scarcity and hike the price.goto END.

END:
you buy the lie that oil is running out and accept higher prices at the pump.


Really there is no shortage of oil. just a perception of it.
Its been shown depleted wells actually REFIL over time. supporting abiotic theories.saying that crude oil is a nasty ,radioactive polluting substance (not buying the c02 global warming matra here either) and we should look for suitable cost effective alternatives.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
http://archive.arabnews.com/?page=6&section=0&article=44011&d=29&m=4&y=2004

“Saudi Arabia now has 1.2 trillion barrels of estimated reserve. This estimate is very conservative. Our analysis gives us reason to be very optimistic. We are continuing to discover new resources, and we are using new technologies to extract even more oil from existing reserves,” the minister said.

“Saudi Arabia’s vast oil reserves are certainly there,” Naimi added. “None of these reserves requires advanced recovery techniques. We have more than sufficient reserves to increase output. If required, we can increase output from 10.5 million barrels a day to 12-15 million barrels a day. And we can sustain this increased output for 50 years or more. There will be no shortage of oil for the next 50 years. Perhaps much longer.”



this is out of the mouth of the saudi oil minister. or is this not good enough

So you think that diesel is not a finite resource?

 

[GB]

Or lets rephrase that :

The banks take your bailout money...buy oil futures and drive the price into the stratosphere. goto END.

Or the banks invade iraq and other middle eastern countries and constrict the amount of oil produced...producing artificial scarcity.goto END.

Or a cartel known as opec conspires to limit oil production to hike the price of oil ....with the blessing of us banks(to help prop up the dollar). goto END.

or refineries get closed to reduce refinery capacity... to induce scarcity and hike the price.goto END.

END:
you buy the lie that oil is running out and accept higher prices at the pump.


Really there is no shortage of oil. just a perception of it.
Its been shown depleted wells actually REFIL over time. supporting abiotic theories.saying that crude oil is a nasty ,radioactive polluting substance (not buying the c02 global warming matra here either) and we should look for suitable cost effective alternatives.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
http://archive.arabnews.com/?page=6&section=0&article=44011&d=29&m=4&y=2004

“Saudi Arabia now has 1.2 trillion barrels of estimated reserve. This estimate is very conservative. Our analysis gives us reason to be very optimistic. We are continuing to discover new resources, and we are using new technologies to extract even more oil from existing reserves,” the minister said.

“Saudi Arabia’s vast oil reserves are certainly there,” Naimi added. “None of these reserves requires advanced recovery techniques. We have more than sufficient reserves to increase output. If required, we can increase output from 10.5 million barrels a day to 12-15 million barrels a day. And we can sustain this increased output for 50 years or more. There will be no shortage of oil for the next 50 years. Perhaps much longer.”



this is out of the mouth of the saudi oil minister. or is this not good enough

It doesn't matter how much there currently is. The fact is that some day it will run out.

 

[142094]

Are these the same reserves that have remained exactly the same as they were over a decade ago despite withdrawals?
OPEC members have an incentive to inflate the reserves they have so that they can claim a larger part of the production quota.

Look at it another way:

50 years ago there were estimates about the amount of oil that was easy to be extracted. Higher prices change the estimates, so that oil taht was once not economically viable to extract becomes more viable.

Canadian Tar Sands being one of the main examples of this.

 

[Schnellzug]

Because electricity is Clean and Green, of course, and doesn't pollute or cause Carbon Emissions like Stinky Diesels.


* Where does the Electircity come from? Don't ask. Whenever this question is asked, no one ever seems to come up with an answer, beyond talking vaguely that Nuclear power will cater for it. Yes, this may well be the case, but that opens up a whole new kettle of worms that enthusiasts for Electrification rarely seem to consider worth worrying about. And besides, as it'd be decades before any kind of expansion of nuclear generating Capacity could possibly come on line, supposing that the Government agreed to it tomorrow (in the face of the tidal wave of opposition that such an announcement would inevitably provoke), what would have to provide it in the meantime? Could Renewable energy come anywhere near to meeting demand? If anyone even proposes building Wind turbines, that invariably provokes a storm of opposition.


And then, Electrification is so much more reliable than diesels, isn't it ...? When do you ever hear of the wires coming down?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

why would you electrify lines when diesel powered locos work and don't get stranded when the overhead power is bust. what's so good about electric traction?

Diesels are noisy, smelly and dirty, and can't be used in long tunnels.
The engines take up a lot of space and can't produce as much power.
They also wear out quickly and have high maintenance costs.
They are considered un-green and work against emissions policy.

 

[davelew99]

How about hydrogen fuel cell trains?

Hydrogen can be produced very greenly using solar farms (thats the heat type, not photovoltaics) and mirrors to heat water in a solar furnace (to produce electricity, then used for electrolysis). Obviously the best way is to use the electricity generated at this point, but solar farms only really work in sunny countries (southern europe, africa etc) so converting to hydrogen allows it to be in a form which is transportable.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It is not too far back in time when these same arguments were being used to justify the withdrawal of coal as a method of fuelling locomotives.

 

[NJTom]

Aside from the astonishing cost of electrification, for those who care about emissions, how much is emitted producing all the materials for OHLE quite aside from generating the electricity.

As for Bi-mode trains, we have them already, they're called diesel.

As for the carrying their own fuel argument, this clearly limits breakdowns to individual units, rather than bringing the entire system to a standstill.

 

[Schnellzug]

They also wear out quickly and have high maintenance costs.

really? How long have (for instance) EMD Geeps, or indeed our very own Class 20s and 37s, lasted, compared with how long electric locomotives of the Class 90/91 generation are likely to? 91s break down every day due to being stretched to the limit, and 90s seem to go up in smoke on a regular basis. :-/ And if we want wearing out quickly and high maintenance costs, just look at how often the Wires come down on the EC and GEML.

They are considered un-green and work against emissions policy.

really, i think that's purely a red herring. Emissions from rail transport as a whole, worldwide, is infinitesimal compared with, compared with, say, power station emissions.

 

[HSTEd]

The Class 91s are doing rather well considering that they are being worked more intensively than it would ever have been assumed they would be, they are also due for another overhaul which might explain the dropping reliability.

Class 90s have a similar problem with the modern freight shippers working locomotives far harder than BR ever would have done in order to "sweat" the assets.

 

[LexyBoy]

In terms of performance / operation:
- Faster acceleration
- Cheaper to maintain
- More reliable (yes, the wires can come down, but I believe the failure rate is higher for diesels)
- Longer lifetime
- Less wear on track

In environmental terms:
- No point of use emissions - very important for the Tube, not so important for InterCity
- Electricity is the same wherever it comes from. If we have electric trains, there's one less thing to worry about de-carbonising
- In general, lower overall emissions compared to diesel

How about hydrogen fuel cell trains?

Producing hydrogen from electricity is extremely wasteful compared to transmitting it even over large distances. Then, the storage tanks and fuel cells on the train would add a lot of weight so you'd be better off sticking with internal combustion engines using either biofuels or e.g. methanol generated from hydrogen.

Not to mention the inevitable (if erroneous) "Hindenburg effect" on public perception.

 

[Zoe]

What about battery trains? If the range for electric cars can be extended in the future then I would have thought there would be potential for using battery power on some routes that are off the wires.

 

[Schnellzug]

An idea that has of course been tried... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_BEMU

 

[gordonthemoron]

batteries are very heavy, too heavy for lorries & buses, so why would they be any use to trains?

 

[anthony263]

And the fact that electric buses powered by batteries are useless. I remember the 1 we had on trial in Cardiff about 6-7 years ago. Most terrible thing i have seen, couldnt even climb a very small hill

 

[Beveridges]

Able to haul heavier trains. Well at least in the case of the Class 92 anyway.

 

[LexyBoy]

batteries are very heavy, too heavy for lorries & buses, so why would they be any use to trains?

Where I work we often get deliveries from a 7.5 tonne battery electric van, it manages to drive sound all day, and apparenty has similar performance to a regular vehicle.

I can see a battery powered unit working for short, low-intensity services. Of course, it's unlikely that it would ever be economical to design such a vehicle for the small market there.

 

[Flywaver]

really? How long have (for instance) EMD Geeps, or indeed our very own Class 20s and 37s, lasted, compared with how long electric locomotives of the Class 90/91 generation are likely to? 91s break down every day due to being stretched to the limit, and 90s seem to go up in smoke on a regular basis. :-/ And if we want wearing out quickly and high maintenance costs, just look at how often the Wires come down on the EC and GEML.


really, i think that's purely a red herring. Emissions from rail transport as a whole, worldwide, is infinitesimal compared with, compared with, say, power station emissions.

I share the same views. I drove Electrics for 8 years and im far happier on Diesels.. I find it hilarious hearing about reliability when it was one thing after another with OHL issues. Its not just you stuck with no line volt light. Its all the juice traffic within that neutral section! How are ugly power lines good for the enviroment.....The sight of them ruins it.

 

[gordonthemoron]

ofcourse all major european Rail Operators have got it wrong with their electification NOT

 

[Flywaver]

Depends where you go in Europe..
Plus rolling stock and electrification is far better overseas

 

[142094]

Aside from the astonishing cost of electrification, for those who care about emissions, how much is emitted producing all the materials for OHLE quite aside from generating the electricity.

But this is a fixed emission level. OHL doesn't emit emissions once it has been manufactured and installed. However, diesel engines have the double whammy - emissions created to build an engine and the emissions the engine produces over its lifetime.

One other argument for electrification is that efficiency is much easier to increase on a large scale, such as in a power station. Increasingly very hard to do so with engines. Also, when Carbon Capture and Storage comes on stream, this will significantly reduce any emissions.

 

[Badger]

One benefit is the pollution specifically regarding station stays. Imagine how New Street would look without any diesel engines -- the whites would stay white and it might not have the reputation it has for being dingy and dark.

Electric trains have the potential to be carbon neutral, even if in reality they aren't. Diesel trains can never be carbon neutral.

 

[90019]

But this is a fixed emission level. OHL doesn't emit emissions once it has been manufactured and installed.

Electric trains still emit pollution indirectly.
The pollution just comes from the power station rather than the train. If we changed to power sources that produced no emissions from production then it would be the case.