Re: Hull Trains hybrids?

On 25 Oct, 20:26, The Good Doctor <nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"R.C. Payne" <rc...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In order to beat the 37% figure, with 75% loss in transmission, the
power plant has to be about 50% efficient. There are plenty of 50%
efficient power stations in the UK (combined cycles are generally around
the 55% mark).

And there are plenty that don't reach 50%.

This simplistic analysis ignores the weight differential
between diesel and electric units. These figures also ignore the energy
cost associated with refining diesel fuel, or transporting it to the
railway depot/fueling point (if you are going to consider tranmission
losses for electricity, you must do the same for diesel).

So it doesn't cost any CO2 to mine, wash and sort coal, load and
transport it to the port, unload it, load it, ship it (possibly from
Australia), unload it, load it into wagons, transport it by rail,
unload it, stockpile it, load it into conveyors and deliver it to the
boiler?

If you can do all these things with zero CO2 emissions, you are either
a very clever man or ... well, the alternatives are up to you.

Does it cost nothing in CO2 terms to pump and store natural gas? Does
it cost nothing in CO2 terms to mine, deliver, refine and enrich
uranium to fuel nuclear stations? What price do you put on the
clean-up? I ask because none of the prices put on it so far are
nearly enough.

Power
stations also generally spend a higher proportion of their running time
working at high efficiency, whereas railway diesel engines will spend a
significant portion of their lives doing things like idling (at
stations, or while the unit is braking) which will harm their fuel
consumption figures. Add in regenerative braking, and I don't think you
can make a case that diesel is more efficient for railway traction purposes.

I'm not making a case that it is more efficient. I don't know whether
it is. I suspect there isn't much in it either way. I would be
interested to see a comparison based on the overall CO2 emissions of
each mode, using the actual mix of power generation that comes out of
the National Grid, of course, and including all the things that you
have conveniently overlooked (see list above), and I am completely
open minded about the result, unlike some here.

The point I have put forward was actually made for me by the highly
esteemed Roger Ford (for it is he). And his point is that it is
cheaper for a TOC to run diesel trains than electric trains, because
of the charges made by Network Rail for power.

Now that doesn't mean that diesel trains are more CO2 efficient than
electric trains, merely that they cost less to operate. But from
previous discussions I recall that the CO2 advantage of electric
trains over diesel is either very small, non-existent or negative.

And I think most of us would agree that comparing CO2 emissions is
every bit as important as comparing costs.

The problem here is that there has for a long time been a mindset
among railway professionals and enthusiasts alike, that electric
trains are better than diesel trains, always and in every respect.
That mindset appears to prevent people from making an objective
comparison.

I would like that comparison to be made, but independently by someone
without an axe to grind, and not wearing blinkers. Unfortunately,
Robin, much as I respect you, you seem to have the blinkers firmly on,
as the list above shows.

I don't think you can accuse us of wearing blinkers, still plenty of
coal in the UK. But by continuing to use diesel fuel in the quantities
we are we are making the same mistake as we did when we scrapped our
own coal industry. A politically inspired decision which resulted in
the UK importing millions of tonnes of "cheap" low sulphur coal, cheap
that is until our industry was gone, then the price went up and the
"dash for gas" began using up our own reserves at an enormous rate,
and the price went up, as oil gets scarce the price of diesel will go
up. Where there is the traffic density modern electric trains are much
more preferable than diesel, in terms of energy efficiency,
environmental and future proofing, this is not a mindset, it is a
simple fact. Rogers point was that the pricing is an artificial
constraint to expanding the network, and what fuelled the huge price
rises? See line 4 above.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Worlds First Fuel Cell-Powered Train Locomotive Slated for 2008
    ... >> today) has nowhere near the storage density that diesel has. ... > trains which carry the stuff anyway. ... I misspoke on the relative price of electricity; ... the other proposals have all included similar electrification. ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: Worlds First Fuel Cell-Powered Train Locomotive Slated for 2008
    ... >> today) has nowhere near the storage density that diesel has. ... > trains which carry the stuff anyway. ... I misspoke on the relative price of electricity; ... the other proposals have all included similar electrification. ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: Hull Trains hybrids?
    ... efficient power stations in the UK (combined cycles are generally around ... between diesel and electric units. ... If you can do all these things with zero CO2 emissions, ... cheaper for a TOC to run diesel trains than electric trains, ...
    (uk.railway)
  • Re: Mr Rayners views of Electrification.
    ... Thats a heck of a lot of diesel ... trains, or on BNS-Scotland. ... So you would prefer that we use electricity, ... That leaves us with nuclear. ...
    (uk.railway)
  • Re: Mr Rayners views of Electrification.
    ... Wasting how much diesel on each trip? ... trains, or on BNS-Scotland. ... So you would prefer that we use electricity, ... That leaves us with nuclear. ...
    (uk.railway)
Loading