Joe Biden has taken us down a rabbit hole

North America has a railroad problem that the rest of the world doesn’t have. As a result, a lot of North Americans think it’s too expensive to electrify that mode of transportation. As we explore electrifying everything everywhere all at once as a key wedge in solving global warming it’s time to debunk that notion.

India has electrified above 85% of its heavy rail and is aiming for 100% by 2025. China is at 72% and building more electrified, high-speed freight and passenger rail rapidly. Europe is at 60% and climbing. The entirety of the storied Trans-Siberian Railroad, all 9,300 kilometers of it, is electrified.

Read more in the forbes article.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...h=1fbec6c27e92

They’re digging that power out of the ground, where are we going to get it?

North America has a railroad problem that the rest of the world doesn’t have. As a result, a lot of North Americans think it’s too expensive to electrify that mode of transportation. As we explore electrifying everything everywhere all at once as a key wedge in solving global warming it’s time to debunk that notion.

India has electrified above 85% of its heavy rail and is aiming for 100% by 2025. China is at 72% and building more electrified, high-speed freight and passenger rail rapidly. Europe is at 60% and climbing. The entirety of the storied Trans-Siberian Railroad, all 9,300 kilometers of it, is electrified.

Read more in the forbes article.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...h=1fbec6c27e92 Originally Posted by txdot-guy

This is an excellent example of what Bjorn Lomborg has shouted from the rooftops. We're going to waste ridiculous amounts of money in the USA and Europe to make small percentage reductions in global carbon emissions. Money that could far better be spent on real problems.

Recapping from previous posts, rail, including electric, is responsible for around 1% of total U.S. carbon emissions. Trucks emit 7X more carbon per ton mile than diesel locomotives. And the cost of building out electric infrastructure for freight trains in the USA would be very high.

I strongly suspect this statement from the Forbes article as applied to freight trains is bull shit: Using electricity directly is much more efficient and cheaper than burning fossil fuels.

The writer ignores inefficiency in generating electric power. I'm reading that diesel locomotives are 30% to 35% efficient, in terms of converting the energy content of the fuel to energy at the wheels. From the link below, the efficiency of power plants is as follows -

Nuclear - 33%
Coal - 32%
Natural gas - 33% to 43%; 60% for combined cycle plants
Oil - 40%
Hydro - 90%
Wind - 35% to 47%
Solar - 18% to 25%

https://www.pcienergysolutions.com/2...lear-and-more/

Plus from what I'm googling, you have 8% to 15% loss in electric transmission lines, plus another 5% to 10% going to the electric locomotive.

The Forbes writer also ignores the huge cost of installing the infrastructure to switch from diesel to electric. Please see Texas Contrarian's comments in post #74.

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation estimates more than 300 million people in the U.S. and Canada may face power shortages in 2024. California suffers from brown outs. We're going to have to add generating capacity and invest lots in the grid to supply power for AI and Biden's back door electric vehicle mandates. And so now we want to get rid of the diesel locomotives too?

Please note that India and China's main source of electric power is coal. I'd bet the carbon emissions per ton mile transported by rail for both countries is higher than the emissions per ton mile from diesel locomotives in the USA. Electrification of the Trans-Siberian railroad, which started in 1929, was most likely a Communist boondoggle that California politicians appear determined to repeat. I suspect most rail in Russia, like Europe and China and India, is in populated areas where electric freight trains make sense, given they use the same infrastructure for passenger trains.

I have no problem with promotion of electric passenger trains in populated areas. It's cheaper, more efficient and emits less carbon than automobiles and buses. That probably makes a lot of sense, if done by the private sector. But not by our inefficient, hopeless federal government which, as shown by Amtrak, is incapable of replicating what Europe has.

Hopefully CreatedInSpace will weigh in further. I suspect he knows more about this than all the rest of us put together.

WYID / eccieuser / CreatedIn Space, I'm not shitting you. My father's oldest brother, George, was 15 years older than my father. The family had a farm and eked out a hardscrabble existence. They didn't have a mule or horse or burro. And George would literally strap a yoke around his shoulders and pull the plow while my grandfather guided it from behind.

George was the favorite of the family, because of the sacrifices he made for it when his brothers and sisters were young. He ended up serving in World War II as a radar operator, where he learned something about electronics, and continued that after the war in a civil service position until he retired. He lived in the north, and my aunts hated his wife because she was a Yankee. (No offense intended for the Pittsburgh contingent.) But they loved George, and missed him after he left Texas except for his visits every two or three years back home for Christmas.

The United States is a really big place and I would think that there are a number of long distance stretches that could be electrified much cheaper than some of the more urban areas. It’s been said that perfect is the enemy of the good. Good enough is better than perfect most of the time. Climate change is upon us and we need to start making progress on electrifying a lot of our systems sooner rather than later. Don’t be surprised when a lot of these changes come whether you like it or not.

It would have to be overhead and well protected. Cables that large either go underground or way out of reach. You wouldn’t lay partially uninsulated 1000 kva cables on the ground through Bumfuck Idaho. It might as well be a minefield lol. Originally Posted by CreatedInSpace

A volt VA is a vote amp which is watt around 100v track would meen 10,000 amps. That only 1334hp not enough for a train plenty for a heavy hull semi truck or super fast race car.

https://www.columbian.com/news/2024/...or-in-the-u-s/

Amazon’s Maple Valley warehouse is built for speed. At night, big rigs pull up to one end to unload boxes and padded mailers – some after a short drive from a bigger warehouse down the road, others following a flight in the hold of a cargo plane. Waiting employees scan, sort and load them into rolling racks.

Before 7 a.m. each day, many of those racks are wheeled out to dozens of vans lined up in four painted lanes. It’s the starting line at a Formula One race, but for $22-an-hour delivery drivers who ferry bottles of shampoo and packs of batteries to suburban Seattle doorsteps.

Their routes, the last step in a journey that can take products thousands of miles, are the source of a large chunk of the carbon emissions Amazon has pledged to eliminate in the coming decades.

The solution lies in the parking lot across the street: 309 Siemens electric vehicle chargers, which power delivery vans built by Rivian Automotive Inc. Making deliveries without tailpipe emissions, and increasing the size of the electric fleet, is among the most straightforward ways Amazon can wipe carbon from its operations.

In a little more than two years, Amazon has installed more than 17,000 chargers at about 120 warehouses around the US, making the retail giant the largest operator of private electrical vehicle charging infrastructure in the country. “We’ve figured out the path,” said Tom Chempananical, who oversees Amazon’s fleet of last-mile delivery vehicles.

Slowly but surely the American economy is being electrified. As long as we remember that perfect is the enemy of the good we’ll be able to make some real progress.

The United States is a really big place and I would think that there are a number of long distance stretches that could be electrified much cheaper than some of the more urban areas. It’s been said that perfect is the enemy of the good. Good enough is better than perfect most of the time. Climate change is upon us and we need to start making progress on electrifying a lot of our systems sooner rather than later. Don’t be surprised when a lot of these changes come whether you like it or not. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Please tell me when the climate hasn't changed? Please tell me what is the proper CO2 level for proper climate temperature if CO2 is the primary thermostat?

Please tell me when the climate hasn't changed? Please tell me what is the proper CO2 level for proper climate temperature if CO2 is the primary thermostat? Originally Posted by farmstud60

Do some basic research online. Here is a few links about the issue.

https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/
There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause. Earth-orbiting satellites and new technologies have helped scientists see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate all over the world. These data, collected over many years, reveal the signs and patterns of a changing climate.

https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/
. While Earth’s climate has changed throughout its history, the current warming is happening at a rate not seen in the past 10,000 years.
. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), "Since systematic scientific assessments began in the 1970s, the influence of human activity on the warming of the climate system has evolved from theory to established fact."
. Scientific information taken from natural sources (such as ice cores, rocks, and tree rings) and from modern equipment (like satellites and instruments) all show the signs of a changing climate.
. From global temperature rise to melting ice sheets, the evidence of a warming planet abounds.

https://theconversation.com/scientis...e-foote-164687
Long before the current political divide over climate change, and even before the U.S. Civil War (1861-1865), an American scientist named Eunice Foote documented the underlying cause of today’s climate change crisis. The year was 1856. Foote’s brief scientific paper was the first to describe the extraordinary power of carbon dioxide gas to absorb heat – the driving force of global warming.

A volt VA is a vote amp which is watt around 100v track would meen 10,000 amps. That only 1334hp not enough for a train plenty for a heavy hull semi truck or super fast race car. Originally Posted by Ripmany

That math is a bit sus, but the statement wasn’t meant to be accurate. It was just pointing out that you wouldn’t want high power, uninsulated cables laying on the ground. I have no idea what the power requirements of a train are, although I’m sure you could Google it up and do the math.

A volt VA is a vote amp which is watt around 100v track would meen 10,000 amps. That only 1334hp not enough for a train plenty for a heavy hull semi truck or super fast race car. Originally Posted by Ripmany

Or even lower after taking into account efficiency loss and the power factor. I’m reading electric locomotives provide around 6000 to 7000 HP. So unless we’re missing something, it may be even worse than what Created in Space thought.

Do some basic research online. Here is a few links about the issue.

https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/
There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause. Earth-orbiting satellites and new technologies have helped scientists see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate all over the world. These data, collected over many years, reveal the signs and patterns of a changing climate.

https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/
. While Earth’s climate has changed throughout its history, the current warming is happening at a rate not seen in the past 10,000 years.
. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), "Since systematic scientific assessments began in the 1970s, the influence of human activity on the warming of the climate system has evolved from theory to established fact."
. Scientific information taken from natural sources (such as ice cores, rocks, and tree rings) and from modern equipment (like satellites and instruments) all show the signs of a changing climate.
. From global temperature rise to melting ice sheets, the evidence of a warming planet abounds.

https://theconversation.com/scientis...e-foote-164687
Long before the current political divide over climate change, and even before the U.S. Civil War (1861-1865), an American scientist named Eunice Foote documented the underlying cause of today’s climate change crisis. The year was 1856. Foote’s brief scientific paper was the first to describe the extraordinary power of carbon dioxide gas to absorb heat – the driving force of global warming. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Ah yes, the same old garbage that isn't accurate. In 1976 these same " experts " said the next ice aged was coming.



The problem is your " research " doesn't bring up many issues that point out that they are not accurate. But search engines hide the real research such as the time period from 1950 to 2000 was actually quite abnormally quiet for the climate based on tree ring data from the last 400 years. I read this in a farm magazine from a climate scientist before everything was on the Internet and I can find the data in any " research ".


The problem is that the Internet has actually made the world dumber.

Ah yes, the same old garbage that isn't accurate. In 1976 these same " experts " said the next ice aged was coming.

The problem is your " research " doesn't bring up many issues that point out that they are not accurate. But search engines hide the real research such as the time period from 1950 to 2000 was actually quite abnormally quiet for the climate based on tree ring data from the last 400 years. I read this in a farm magazine from a climate scientist before everything was on the Internet and I can find the data in any " research ".

The problem is that the Internet has actually made the world dumber. Originally Posted by farmstud60

Or maybe the research you referenced isn’t on the internet because it’s not relevant or has been debunked or is a figment of your imagination. I’ll continue to believe NASA and the thousands of other scientists who have read and done the science thank you very much. The planet is warming and it is caused by human activity. Specifically the release of greenhouse gases caused by industrial and other human based activities.

Selfishly, I was just hoping for some bullet trains. For my job, it is client facing, so I have to be where the client is at. I'd still fly a lot, but it would be nice to be able to switch the mode of transportation up on occasion. I was hoping some of that infrastructure money would make this country a bit more modern like countries that have bullet trains in Asia and Europe.

I apologize if someone has already mentioned this and I'm being redundant. I have not read every post in this thread.

I'm hardly knowledgeable about planes and their effect on emissions, but I think it would be safe to assume that bullet trains would help reduce the damage to our climate if that's actually the goal and not just political bullshit speak to garner votes.

The planet is warming and it is caused by human activity. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Al Gore assured us the ice at the North Pole would be gone by now... it's not.

So why were the experts wrong?