 |
Re: Hydrogen trains are garbage? There you go again with that fact based universe again... Costs sometime matter more to taxpayers and consumers than with contractors and politicians
Author: BOB2
Date: 03-23-2024 - 09:23
My observations about well financed lobbying efforts to use State mandates to require/force only the strining of overhead wires to "count" as "real" zero emissions technologies through influencing CARB apparently hit a nerve with some folks...
As usual, FUD, who has also worked in these areas, points out the fallacies of the highly intellectual "Hydrogen trains are garbage" and "Hydrogen is a fossil fuel" nonsense...
I see a lot of the "advocates", foamers, and trolly fans have been drinking the same koolaide, since it is what they "know", or seem to have some predilection for based on experience with existing electrified rail systems. Electrificant is very expensive, and like with the economics of crash worthiness standards in rail passenger cars, when it becomes much more expensive, you have less money to build and run more trains....
As usual, I could count on Clem to put forth the lie that hydrogen is really a "fossil fuel" because some hydrogen has historically been seperated from natural gas.
Of course, none of the hydrogen and hythane blend (CNG with 20% hydrogen added, which reduces CO2 from combustion) that SunLine Transit (down in the Coachella Valley) has used in it's buses since 2002 is from "fossil fuels", as it is all created using good old fashioned Colorado River H2O, and off peak wind energy.
And, since about 40% of all electricity produced in CA is from fossil fuel sources, I had a good laugh at Clem's fallacious PR "spin" "talking point", also used by the "real environmenalisti's" mandate wires lobbyist's ....
I still use math to measure cost/benefit and the resulting cost/effectiveness of competing technologies and investments. And after spending 20 years of my career doing that on a mobile source emissions reduction technical committee that funded a half a billion dollars in emission technology demonstration projects and participating in a half a dozen or so electrification studies of RR's and buses, I'll let the scientist's and engineers show me their numbers, and let the cost benefits of new technologies tell us which is cheaper. And, if thing like hydrogen clean vehicles cost us all less, that's great... If wires are cheaper, they can still do wires...
Why do so many folks seem to fear science and free market competition to come up with the most competitive and cost effective solutions...? Is it because they can make more money using the government to mandate certain more expensive technologies?
As usual, FUD, who has also worked in these areas, points out the fallacies of the highly intellectual "Hydrogen trains are garbage" and "Hydrogen is a fossil fuel" nonsense...
I see a lot of the "advocates", foamers, and trolly fans have been drinking the same koolaide, since it is what they "know", or seem to have some predilection for based on experience with existing electrified rail systems. Electrificant is very expensive, and like with the economics of crash worthiness standards in rail passenger cars, when it becomes much more expensive, you have less money to build and run more trains....
As usual, I could count on Clem to put forth the lie that hydrogen is really a "fossil fuel" because some hydrogen has historically been seperated from natural gas.
Of course, none of the hydrogen and hythane blend (CNG with 20% hydrogen added, which reduces CO2 from combustion) that SunLine Transit (down in the Coachella Valley) has used in it's buses since 2002 is from "fossil fuels", as it is all created using good old fashioned Colorado River H2O, and off peak wind energy.
And, since about 40% of all electricity produced in CA is from fossil fuel sources, I had a good laugh at Clem's fallacious PR "spin" "talking point", also used by the "real environmenalisti's" mandate wires lobbyist's ....
I still use math to measure cost/benefit and the resulting cost/effectiveness of competing technologies and investments. And after spending 20 years of my career doing that on a mobile source emissions reduction technical committee that funded a half a billion dollars in emission technology demonstration projects and participating in a half a dozen or so electrification studies of RR's and buses, I'll let the scientist's and engineers show me their numbers, and let the cost benefits of new technologies tell us which is cheaper. And, if thing like hydrogen clean vehicles cost us all less, that's great... If wires are cheaper, they can still do wires...
Why do so many folks seem to fear science and free market competition to come up with the most competitive and cost effective solutions...? Is it because they can make more money using the government to mandate certain more expensive technologies?
