 |
Re: 25 kV is the way- Lets' let the science and markets decide?
Author: BOB2
Date: 03-26-2024 - 11:54
Re: 25 kV is the way
Author: Clem
Date: 03-24-2024 - 19:08
You’re right, it isn’t cheap, which is why only rich countries can afford extensive overhead electrified freight networks spanning many thousands of miles across harsh terrain and climate. Only extremely high GDP per capita countries like… let me see… China, Russia, and India, if I understand the cost argument correctly.
The obstacle here is not lifecycle cost. It is the up-front cost that is too big to stomach for investors focused on next quarter’s profit margin, especially when the externalities of emissions aren’t remotely factored into our efficient market decision making. Short term thinking and failure to price emissions are the driving forces behind our avoid-catenary-at-all-costs approach to decarbonizing rail. How many more ppm before we figure out this is stupid?
The how and why various countries evolved there various paths to electrification (the technolgical, economic, operational, political, and engineering factors that governed the decisions, including where it didn't work, and why???) is an interestng topic in and of itself.
And, you are completely right about the current corporate culture which governs that culture in today's Class One RR's. Maybe, the short term hedge fund market model is a poor one for large scale highly capitalized fixed infrastructure systems, like utilities and railroads, Or even, given some of the issues with insurer's for things with a need to hedge and/or maintain safe risk portfolios against long term risk uncertainty like insurance companies? The Class One's have been able to maintain profitability for hedge funds with, the merger "duopolies", reducing competition, and a degree "monopolistic" pricing over many sectors and regions, and with big cuts in labor costs, as well as in long term capitalization of lower yield lines/customers.
And you are right, it is usually all about costs. And that is probably because costs are passed on to the consumers. And as voting "consumers", who also depend upon our planet and it's environment for our well being and survival, if there are "faster, better, cheaper" ways to achieve environmental goals at a lower cost, then good, right? So, I'm okay with establishing the needed environamental goals and letting the science and economics of a free society and competitive economy choose the mix of technologies to meet those goals.
The CARB nonsense and many these "electrication" "front groups" seem to be more about "do gooderism" being boutht and paid for, by and for, the folks who have learned how lucrative an electrification mandate could be for them...
I am not against electrification. Current gull costing economics may even support some cost effective electrification options, for some routes. But a CARB mandate will limit lines that can efficiently be electrified and operate, whereas, ZEV locomotives that can operate without the need for wires, can still serve many needs. And, if innovation can come up with a hydrogen/fuel cell/capacitor technology, or even something like the new dual mode Siemen's engines, which can run under wire where there is wire, and without it when not, then great.
I just say, let science and economics decide, how to best meet the standard, not unelected CARB bureaucrats, being lobbied by special interests.
Author: Clem
Date: 03-24-2024 - 19:08
You’re right, it isn’t cheap, which is why only rich countries can afford extensive overhead electrified freight networks spanning many thousands of miles across harsh terrain and climate. Only extremely high GDP per capita countries like… let me see… China, Russia, and India, if I understand the cost argument correctly.
The obstacle here is not lifecycle cost. It is the up-front cost that is too big to stomach for investors focused on next quarter’s profit margin, especially when the externalities of emissions aren’t remotely factored into our efficient market decision making. Short term thinking and failure to price emissions are the driving forces behind our avoid-catenary-at-all-costs approach to decarbonizing rail. How many more ppm before we figure out this is stupid?
The how and why various countries evolved there various paths to electrification (the technolgical, economic, operational, political, and engineering factors that governed the decisions, including where it didn't work, and why???) is an interestng topic in and of itself.
And, you are completely right about the current corporate culture which governs that culture in today's Class One RR's. Maybe, the short term hedge fund market model is a poor one for large scale highly capitalized fixed infrastructure systems, like utilities and railroads, Or even, given some of the issues with insurer's for things with a need to hedge and/or maintain safe risk portfolios against long term risk uncertainty like insurance companies? The Class One's have been able to maintain profitability for hedge funds with, the merger "duopolies", reducing competition, and a degree "monopolistic" pricing over many sectors and regions, and with big cuts in labor costs, as well as in long term capitalization of lower yield lines/customers.
And you are right, it is usually all about costs. And that is probably because costs are passed on to the consumers. And as voting "consumers", who also depend upon our planet and it's environment for our well being and survival, if there are "faster, better, cheaper" ways to achieve environmental goals at a lower cost, then good, right? So, I'm okay with establishing the needed environamental goals and letting the science and economics of a free society and competitive economy choose the mix of technologies to meet those goals.
The CARB nonsense and many these "electrication" "front groups" seem to be more about "do gooderism" being boutht and paid for, by and for, the folks who have learned how lucrative an electrification mandate could be for them...
I am not against electrification. Current gull costing economics may even support some cost effective electrification options, for some routes. But a CARB mandate will limit lines that can efficiently be electrified and operate, whereas, ZEV locomotives that can operate without the need for wires, can still serve many needs. And, if innovation can come up with a hydrogen/fuel cell/capacitor technology, or even something like the new dual mode Siemen's engines, which can run under wire where there is wire, and without it when not, then great.
I just say, let science and economics decide, how to best meet the standard, not unelected CARB bureaucrats, being lobbied by special interests.
