why electrify?

[142094]

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.

Point was that the OHL infrastructure doesn't continue to emit after it has been produced - although I agree that of course the electricity source for the OHL does produce emissions.

 

[Chris125]

It's more practical to scrub the emissions from power stations than individual engines - in the future me may also see carbon capture.

Chris

 

[Barrett M95]

Because you can't do this in a diesel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yszy1wltw8

EDIT: typical poor journalism though: "supercharged locomotives".... really? Where are they contributing forced induction on an electric train?

 

[NSEFAN]

Electric traction has the potential to be more efficient than diesel traction through regenerative braking on the trains and economies of scale at the power stations.

I say "potential" because you have to do it right. The same goes for failure rates; if set up properly, overhead wires don't sag in the heat and substations don't explode when you try to run 12 car trains. Unfortunately projects like the ECML and Weymouth electrification schemes were a case of "do it cheap or not at all". Given proper investment, electric traction is superior. That's my understanding of the situation.

 

[Nym]

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.

Because Batteries are c**p!

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.

Batteries in the electric vehicles you speak of take up 2 tonnes of the vehicle's mass, and the're fine round the city, try taking them on longer motorway runs. Eg. UPS use them in London but not on their long distance runs.

It's more practical to scrub the emissions from power stations than individual engines - in the future me may also see carbon capture.

Chris

Correctamondo, have a look at the Flue Gas Desulphurisation in use at Drax...
However, DO NOT think that Carbon Caputre and storage is a good idea, it's a stupid idea, rather than have nuclear that produces a ton or so a year to bury underground for the rest of time, they want to bury a ton or so every few minutes of a gas...

CCS is just well, stupid.

 

[142094]

Correctamondo, have a look at the Flue Gas Desulphurisation in use at Drax...
However, DO NOT think that Carbon Caputre and storage is a good idea, it's a stupid idea, rather than have nuclear that produces a ton or so a year to bury underground for the rest of time, they want to bury a ton or so every few minutes of a gas...

CCS is just well, stupid.

CCS is actually quite a good idea if we could get it right. However still means that we are using finite sources of fuel instead of building greener sources.

Also, note that FGD is mainly for sulphur - doesn't help the CO2 and NOx levels a great deal.

 

[Nym]

Yes, but the major problem IS Sulphur...

Put it this way, the CCS proposals I've looked at have included pumping it into former oil wells under the North Sea etc, and has been proposed as a mid term solution.

As a long term solution at the moment the awnser is Nuclear and Offshore wind (It's in some of my IET Journals that a consortium is working on and it will be functioning in the mid term, but major HVDC infrastructure is needed to make it work, in 20 or so years)

Nuclear has a turnover time of 20 years, as does this offshore wind stuff..

If you want to reduce emissions in the Mid Term 5 - 10 years, you need to look at Load levelling and burning cleaner fuels, load leveling would mean that the CCGT and Coal stations wouldn't need to start and stop all the time and the OCGT and OC Coal plants would be able to cope with the remainder of the load profile.

To balance this we need to look into running plant overnight, but I'm thinking major manufacturing plant, such as Hydrogen generating plant, as this isn't too hard to start and stop, plugging this in and only running it at night to level out the load profile would mean that a major nuclear and wind backbone would be workable, with OCGT and High Ramp CCGT plant (possibly using the produced hydrogen) picking up the slack and load profile.

Hydroelectric dams would work for profile storage too, but we don't have enough.

Either way, it's cleaner to use OHLE... Especially if it's combined with a good strategy for better load generation profile.