GM Volt Forum banner

1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
477 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Electric trains are used all over Europe, low pollution,no smoke, no ICE, in the US General Electric uses Diesel turbines. Will there be a change to pure electric as the Electric car progresses, or viceversa-will the electric train advance the adoption of electric cars?...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
477 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
I imagine getting my Chevy BOLT inside a high Speed train in Boston,Mass. , and arriving to Miami Fla 10 hrs later, no major pollution, in a train with a nice sleep, Cafeteria and a Dinner , why not?...Almost better then autonomous drive ..LOL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,230 Posts
doubtful, unless it can take its power with it.

however one way to see it is to build out a new national power grid that just happens to run along new electrified rail lines
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,520 Posts
Electric trains are used all over Europe, low pollution,no smoke, no ICE, in the US General Electric uses Diesel turbines. Will there be a change to pure electric as the Electric car progresses, or viceversa-will the electric train advance the adoption of electric cars?...
European rail networks are dominated by passenger transportation, which is time-sensitive. Electrification makes sense since it allows for very fast passenger transportation.

The USA's railways are dominated by freight transportation. It's more cost-sensitive than time-sensitive. Underground rail systems are electric, but really that's it.
The USA is also a large country with large gaps between large cities, many of them sprawling. The cities are built for cars and people fly long distance.

Instead of thinking about electrifying trains, hope for autonomous systems cheap enough that people shift to hiring and renting transportation instead of owning. Although cost-driven, Transportation as a Service would be a good fit for electrification as prices continue to fall.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,945 Posts
European rail networks are dominated by passenger transportation, which is time-sensitive. Electrification makes sense since it allows for very fast passenger transportation.

The USA's railways are dominated by freight transportation. It's more cost-sensitive than time-sensitive. Underground rail systems are electric, but really that's it.
And the Northeast Corridor (basically Boston to Washington DC) is electric. That's also where the greatest concentration of passenger trains is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,416 Posts
Electric trains are used all over Europe, low pollution,no smoke, no ICE, in the US General Electric uses Diesel turbines.
Have a good look at European power generation: http://enipedia.tudelft.nl/wiki/Europe/Powerplants

There's still quite a bit of coal burning going on. They have a lot of nukes too. Some like to think nukes are clean, but there's a waste issue.

I really don't understand where people get the idea that Europe produces "clean" power. Norway and a couple of others can (hydro), but that's about it. It must be quite the lift to push clean energy propaganda there when anyone can look up the truth.

And furthermore...

The average European spent 26.9 cents per kilowatt-hour on electricity, while the average American only spent 10.4 cents.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/01/these-maps-show-just-how-much-more-europeans-pay-for-electricity-than-americans/

Will there be a change to pure electric as the Electric car progresses, or viceversa-will the electric train advance the adoption of electric cars?...
No and no. Very different systems between the two.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,968 Posts
Electric cars carry their power with them. Electric trains get their power from an overhead power line and ground through the tracks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,556 Posts
European rail networks are dominated by passenger transportation, which is time-sensitive. Electrification makes sense since it allows for very fast passenger transportation.

The USA's railways are dominated by freight transportation. It's more cost-sensitive than time-sensitive. Underground rail systems are electric, but really that's it.
The USA is also a large country with large gaps between large cities, many of them sprawling. The cities are built for cars and people fly long distance.

Instead of thinking about electrifying trains, hope for autonomous systems cheap enough that people shift to hiring and renting transportation instead of owning. Although cost-driven, Transportation as a Service would be a good fit for electrification as prices continue to fall.
Completely agree. My family took an Amtrak from champaign to Chicago then chicago to Boston. 10 hour layover in Chicago followed by another 24 hours on the train, with many hours just stopped somewhere on a side rail stopping point waiting for some other train to pass since there is only one set of tracks, they are forced to take turns going east and west along the runs. It would have been nice if that stopping point had a small strip mall where we could get out and wander about, but no, they are in the middle of nowhere in some field or mountain valley. This might work in a large metropolitan area, but not city to city on a cross country trip, at least not until the update all the routes with two tracks instead of one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
477 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Fast electric trains perhaps monorails elevated over the National Interstate Highway system already present , and already have electric supply. The Chinese bullet train , the Japonese , should be considered,... after all the RAILROAD made USA number one during the 19th century, and was abandoned in the 1950"s.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,230 Posts
the rail road was never abandoned in the US and it was freight that did all the work to powering the US economy and still does. all the while I find it bizarre people heap so much praise on the European use of rail for transport when its numbers aren't really that high compared to other forms of transport in Europe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,945 Posts
the rail road was never abandoned in the US and it was freight that did all the work to powering the US economy and still does. all the while I find it bizarre people heap so much praise on the European use of rail for transport when its numbers aren't really that high compared to other forms of transport in Europe.
Nope. US history is that the long haul routes were built to serve passengers and mail, not goods, between urban centers. That's why the railroad coming through a western town was such a big deal. It's meant access for PEOPLE. People could move there, without having to spend half a year riding in a wagon covering 10 miles a day. Bulk freight mostly went on short lines that mostly ran from resource to the point of consumption. Lumber to ports; coal to urban centers. Purchased goods being transported long distances got commissioned into baggage/cargo cars on passenger trains, and you didn't really see bulk freight come into play across the country until the early 20th century. Cars started taking over passenger duty in the 30s for short/middling distances and passenger rail slipped in frequency most place until there was just one or two trains a day through most of the passenger network, exclusive of REALLY long-haul Limited services. Slow trains were mostly kept alive by postal duties. (Trucks weren't a big priority for schlepping mail because on a rail car, mail could be not only carries but also sorted and prioritized onboard, and exchanged without even stopping the train. Just slow down, throw the bag with mail for the area out the door, grab the bag for outbound mail off a hook as you go past, dump it on the table, and start sorting. By the next town, you've got everything ready to go again. Next-day delivery for mail 250-300 miles away was NORMAL for the USPS if you were mailing between points on or near the same line, even a hundred years ago.)

Edit to add: go look at some old photos of trains. Count what proportion were freight-only vs passenger. Keep in mind how much you pay NOW to go someplace yourself versus sending a box there, and remember that it wasn't a lot different in value then. It wasn't freight shipment that payed for rights of way and rails to go down.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
313 Posts
" Some like to think nukes are clean, but there's a waste issue."
I like to think nukes are clean. No air pollution, no CO2 pollution. The waste issue can be solved in time. New designs are said to be far more reliable. BTW, the Nuclear Navy carries its own power with them. Perhaps a civilian version of a nuclear sub power plant could drive a very long freight train..... Nah, Hyperloops are more likely. Go, Elon!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,416 Posts
" Some like to think nukes are clean, but there's a waste issue."
I like to think nukes are clean. No air pollution, no CO2 pollution. The waste issue can be solved in time.....
Well, the half-life gives you lots of time to figure something out. But there's an accumulation issue until then.




Can't just keep stacking it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,410 Posts
" Some like to think nukes are clean, but there's a waste issue."
I like to think nukes are clean. No air pollution, no CO2 pollution. The waste issue can be solved in time. New designs are said to be far more reliable. BTW, the Nuclear Navy carries its own power with them. Perhaps a civilian version of a nuclear sub power plant could drive a very long freight train..... Nah, Hyperloops are more likely. Go, Elon!


Idle Yucca Mountain Repository
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,945 Posts
Well, the half-life gives you lots of time to figure something out. But there's an accumulation issue until then.




Can't just keep stacking it.
In most places, you kinda can. The biggest hassle in that kind of storage is that you just have to monitor the casks so that they stay dry. Which means sending someone to go inspect them all regularly, and maintain the building that houses them, and if the waste is vitrified then it's not even that big a deal. Note that there's people walking around in those photos. The stuff's just not that dangerous in those casks. Which leads to the Yucca Mountain question...

And the answer to that is that Yucca Mountain is basically on hold, forever, because it's turned out to be not really NEEDED, precisely because just "stacking it up" turns out to be a lot less of a hazard than previously expected. We've learned a LOT in the 30-some years since the project was made law, but since it's law, nobody can just say "we're quitting this. It doesn't make any sense to continue" without ANOTHER law permitting it to stop. Which would probably require Congress to actually listen to some scientists, so that's probably off the table. That said, Congress has also been extremely reluctant to come up with the funds to actually finish and operate the place, and Lindsey Graham's gone so far as to introduce legislation to send moneys already collected from utility companies to fund construction *back* to them, even though large chunks of it have already been spent in fits and starts, whenever someone else stirs up the courts to make the NRC do something to further the project.
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top