California wants to kill the diesels
-
the California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulation would have all freight trains operate in zero-emission configuration by 2035. At the end of the decade, the state is mandating the retirement of diesel locomotives 23 years or older, despite typically useful lives of over 40 years. Starting in 2030, new passenger locomotives must operate with zero emissions, with new engines for long-haul freight trains following by 2035. It limits locomotive idling and increases reporting requirements.
Given the interstate nature of railway operations, California needs the EPA to grant a waiver. If the agency agrees, the policy will inevitably affect the entire continental United States.
The kicker is that no technology exists today to enable railroads to comply with California's diktat, rendering the whole exercise fanciful at best.
Transportation is the largest source of U.S. emissions, yet railroads' contribution amounts to not much more than a rounding error. The industry cites its efficiency improvements over time, allowing railroads today to move a ton of freight more than 500 miles on a single gallon of diesel. Its expensive machines, which last between 30 to 50 years and are retrofitted throughout their life cycles, are about 75 percent more efficient than long-haul trucks that carry a comparative amount of freight.
As Patricia Patnode of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which signed the aforementioned letter to the EPA, recently remarked, "Rather than abolish diesel trains, CARB should stand in awe of these marvels of energy-efficient transportation."
I worked with a friend who is an amateur pilot. He told me that the EPA issued regulations of aviation fuel regarding lead content, etc. It was to be replaced by a "cleaner" alternative by a certain date. However, that alternative did not exist, and the proposed alternative, lead-free, would harm aircraft engines.
Perhaps @copper can elaborate.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
the California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulation would have all freight trains operate in zero-emission configuration by 2035. At the end of the decade, the state is mandating the retirement of diesel locomotives 23 years or older, despite typically useful lives of over 40 years. Starting in 2030, new passenger locomotives must operate with zero emissions, with new engines for long-haul freight trains following by 2035. It limits locomotive idling and increases reporting requirements.
Given the interstate nature of railway operations, California needs the EPA to grant a waiver. If the agency agrees, the policy will inevitably affect the entire continental United States.
The kicker is that no technology exists today to enable railroads to comply with California's diktat, rendering the whole exercise fanciful at best.
Transportation is the largest source of U.S. emissions, yet railroads' contribution amounts to not much more than a rounding error. The industry cites its efficiency improvements over time, allowing railroads today to move a ton of freight more than 500 miles on a single gallon of diesel. Its expensive machines, which last between 30 to 50 years and are retrofitted throughout their life cycles, are about 75 percent more efficient than long-haul trucks that carry a comparative amount of freight.
As Patricia Patnode of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which signed the aforementioned letter to the EPA, recently remarked, "Rather than abolish diesel trains, CARB should stand in awe of these marvels of energy-efficient transportation."
I worked with a friend who is an amateur pilot. He told me that the EPA issued regulations of aviation fuel regarding lead content, etc. It was to be replaced by a "cleaner" alternative by a certain date. However, that alternative did not exist, and the proposed alternative, lead-free, would harm aircraft engines.
Perhaps @copper can elaborate.
@George-K said in California wants to kill the diesels:
The kicker is that no technology exists today to enable railroads to comply with California's diktat, rendering the whole exercise fanciful at best.
Electric trains don’t exist?
-
@George-K said in California wants to kill the diesels:
The kicker is that no technology exists today to enable railroads to comply with California's diktat, rendering the whole exercise fanciful at best.
Electric trains don’t exist?
@jon-nyc said in California wants to kill the diesels:
Electric trains don’t exist?
Of course they do. Why do you think they're called "diesel-electrics" LOL.
But seriously...most of the Northeast corridor is electrified.
West of the Mississippi, none of it is.
None.
The cost of electrifying the Western United States is an endeavor that is beyond costly - in terms of infrastructure, maintenance, and land acquisition. When a wire breaks down because of freezing in Malta, Montana, it's going to suck up resources like crazy.
Now, perhaps there exist "zero-emission" diesels which can burn fossil fuels with no CO2 emission, but Im not aware of them.
But it's California, so I don't expect it to make sense.
-
-
the California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulation would have all freight trains operate in zero-emission configuration by 2035. At the end of the decade, the state is mandating the retirement of diesel locomotives 23 years or older, despite typically useful lives of over 40 years. Starting in 2030, new passenger locomotives must operate with zero emissions, with new engines for long-haul freight trains following by 2035. It limits locomotive idling and increases reporting requirements.
Given the interstate nature of railway operations, California needs the EPA to grant a waiver. If the agency agrees, the policy will inevitably affect the entire continental United States.
The kicker is that no technology exists today to enable railroads to comply with California's diktat, rendering the whole exercise fanciful at best.
Transportation is the largest source of U.S. emissions, yet railroads' contribution amounts to not much more than a rounding error. The industry cites its efficiency improvements over time, allowing railroads today to move a ton of freight more than 500 miles on a single gallon of diesel. Its expensive machines, which last between 30 to 50 years and are retrofitted throughout their life cycles, are about 75 percent more efficient than long-haul trucks that carry a comparative amount of freight.
As Patricia Patnode of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which signed the aforementioned letter to the EPA, recently remarked, "Rather than abolish diesel trains, CARB should stand in awe of these marvels of energy-efficient transportation."
I worked with a friend who is an amateur pilot. He told me that the EPA issued regulations of aviation fuel regarding lead content, etc. It was to be replaced by a "cleaner" alternative by a certain date. However, that alternative did not exist, and the proposed alternative, lead-free, would harm aircraft engines.
Perhaps @copper can elaborate.
@George-K said in California wants to kill the diesels:
Perhaps @copper can elaborate.
I remember everyone being terrified by this new lead-free alternative.
The lead gives extra power needed to support a reasonable weight limit. The alternative fuel reduces power which would reduce payload and make a mess of expected performance.
Of course we wouldn't have to worry about that because nobody could afford the maintenance needed to upgrade the engine to use the new fuel.
The General Aviation fleet is old, GA airplanes fly for decades so you wouldn't get a quick turnover to the new technology.
A significant percentage of the industry would just disappear.
