Bionic Duckweed Rears its ugly head again

[GRALISTAIR]

In the Transport Select Committee meeting yesterday the question was asked "How do we know that electrification will not turn out to be another diesel car fiasco"? The Telegraph today made a big deal of this. As is already alive in the Twitter world today, reference was made by Lilian Greenwood about Bionic Duckweed.

Every single time any electrification requires a huge fight - very frustrating indeed.

Twitter with the Telegraph article and replies from Roger Ford

https://twitter.com/Captain_Deltic/status/1326813001400406018/photo/1

Don't say we didn't warn you. Greg Smith MP using the bionic duck weed argument.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Bionic Duckweed. Please explain!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

In the Transport Select Committee meeting yesterday the question was asked "How do we know that electrification will not turn out to be another diesel car fiasco"? The Telegraph today made a big deal of this. As is already alive in the Twitter world today, reference was made by Lilian Greenwood about Bionic Duckweed.

Every single time any electrification requires a huge fight - very frustrating indeed.

We already know that electrification CAN be "another diesel car fiasco"* depending on where you get the electricity from. So really the issue isn't "should we electrify our railways?" because of course we should. The question should be "How do we decarbonise our electricity supply?".

*=the "diesel car fiasco" was caused by politicians ignoring the emerging science about carcinogenic emissions, because tax-breaks for low(er) CO² emissions were a bigger vote winner in the 1990s than "Uncle Frank's White Van is killing your kids", unsurprisingly.

 

[swt_passenger]

Bionic Duckweed. Please explain!

A substance invented by Roger Ford as the sarcastic answer to the next big thing in the fuel tank. Has been mentioned in about 150 posts in the forum, generally in the context of a hypothetical alternative to “real” electrification.

See also his batteries made from “ unobtainium”...

 

[ABB125]

Bionic Duckweed. Please explain!

An alternative fuel source to diesel which avoids the need for electrification. Because politicians will say "why should we spend £x billion on electrification when [insert fuel here] will result in negative carbon emissions* and be much cheaper".

No, that isn't a typo!

 

[Philip Phlopp]

It shouldn't be an issue - it should be turned into an opportunity.

What the rail industry needs to embrace is the idea of compact, modular hydrogen generating stations located alongside the existing National Grid connectors for rail electrification, so should green hydrogen become a thing, it can be shown as a useful energy source for rail electrification - and you still have all the benefits of removing fuel storage and heavier traction equipment from trains.

In the real world, away from tragically stupid Tory MPs, green hydrogen will never be a thing - it's too inefficient, the losses during electrolysis, compression, storage and the fuel cell process too steep to ever come close to rivalling pulling 25kV AC from a wire above the train.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Bionic Duckweed. Please explain!

Bionic duckweed: using the future to fight the present

When visions of the future are used, in bad or dubious faith, to undermine action and investment today, that’s bionic duckweed

medium.com

Sorry about this one but as is the Financial Times and thus extremely reputable I thought valid. Basically explaining the principle of avoiding CapEx because a new miracle is around the corner

Why tech isn’t always the answer — the perils of bionic duckweed

Always waiting for the next breakthrough can keep us from taking action now

www.ft.com

Why Tech is not always the answer -the perils of Bionic Duckweed

TIM HARFORD: Why tech isn’t always the answer — the perils of bionic duckweed

Glorious future inventions might sound good but sometimes aren’t because they keep us from acting

www.businesslive.co.za

 

[7 Ingleborough]

Electrification need not be as pricey as it seems to be in the UK.

NR are looking at different schemes more closely allied to local conditions and the speeds required which are far lighter than those on the GWML.

Rolls Royce are proposing mini nuclear power stations based on the technology used in submarines. They can be built reasonably quickly and used to replace gas fired generation. 16 possible sites have been identified.

Energy has to be sourced from a mix, and wherever possible electrification should be used to modernise the railway because it pays for itself operationally in reliability and maintenance savings quite quickly, certainly less than the 30 years used by the DfT when authorising schemes.

Modern EMUs are far cheaper to operate than even a brand new DMU, and the depot facilities far easier to manage. The UK needs to catch up.

 

[squizzler]

Bionic Duckweed. Please explain!

The energy source that powers rail journalist Roger Ford's superhero alter-ego, Captain Deltic.

I think the diesel car "fiasco" is such a poor analogy it scarcely warrants a response.

 

[DarloRich]

Bionic Duckweed. Please explain!

My views on the journalist who coined this cliche are not welcome here so I wont share them!

My problem with the use of this phrase is that it seems to be used to try to discredit and belittle those that don't share conventional opinions. These ideas may turn out to be bunkum but they need to be explored.

 

[Bald Rick]

wherever possible electrification should be used to modernise the railway because it pays for itself operationally in reliability and maintenance savings quite quickly, certainly less than the 30 years used by the DfT when authorising schemes.

Thing is, it doesn’t. The DfT uses 60 years as the appraisal period (and is looking at 100), and there are few of any electrification scheme that pay for themselves in pure financial terms over that period. The Midland Main Line supposedly did, but that was based on unrealistic cost estimates, and a new fleet of electric only trains.

 

[A0wen]

Electrification need not be as pricey as it seems to be in the UK.

NR are looking at different schemes more closely allied to local conditions and the speeds required which are far lighter than those on the GWML.

Rolls Royce are proposing mini nuclear power stations based on the technology used in submarines. They can be built reasonably quickly and used to replace gas fired generation. 16 possible sites have been identified.

Energy has to be sourced from a mix, and wherever possible electrification should be used to modernise the railway because it pays for itself operationally in reliability and maintenance savings quite quickly, certainly less than the 30 years used by the DfT when authorising schemes.

Modern EMUs are far cheaper to operate than even a brand new DMU, and the depot facilities far easier to manage. The UK needs to catch up.

Is there any evidence that electrification is less costly in France, Germany or Italy for example where similar standards will apply ? Clearly it can be done more cheaply, I'm sure China manages it, but almost certainly by sacrificing a certain level of standards which would be unacceptable in Europe.

 

[trebor79]

In the real world, away from tragically stupid Tory MPs, green hydrogen will never be a thing - it's too inefficient, the losses during electrolysis, compression, storage and the fuel cell process too steep to ever come close to rivalling pulling 25kV AC from a wire above the train.

I work in the renewable energy sector, and there is a growing momentum behind hydrogen. I am sceptical that it will ever be useful or used for significant portions of transport.
Where I do believe it will come into play is for energy storage of excess renewable electricity. Batteries are very expensive, of limited capacity and in the case of lithium ion batteries degrade over time - possibly very quickly depending upon the duty cycle. If instead you use that excess renewable energy to make hydrogen, you can stuff that into the national gas grid, which offers a storage capacity that is unlimited in all practical senses. That hydrogen is then used to heat homes and offices etc in cold weather and run factories, which helps to decarbonise heat and industry.
There is a pilot programme taking place at the moment called HyDeploy which is verifying that up to 20% hydrogen can be injected into the grid without any impact upon end users. There's also a move to make all new gas appliances "hydrogen ready" which will allow them to utilise higher blends in the future.
At the moment, the main transmission network (which is where most of the storage capacity is) is not suitable for hydrogen and is the biggest challenge.

Having said all that, it would be possible to site a hydrogen production facility at a rail depot, and purchase cheap excess electricity to make hydrogen for fuelling trains. Technically it's not that difficult, it's the commercial and economic practicalities that are where it gets difficult.

 

[A0wen]

It shouldn't be an issue - it should be turned into an opportunity.

What the rail industry needs to embrace is the idea of compact, modular hydrogen generating stations located alongside the existing National Grid connectors for rail electrification, so should green hydrogen become a thing, it can be shown as a useful energy source for rail electrification - and you still have all the benefits of removing fuel storage and heavier traction equipment from trains.

In the real world, away from tragically stupid Tory MPs, green hydrogen will never be a thing - it's too inefficient, the losses during electrolysis, compression, storage and the fuel cell process too steep to ever come close to rivalling pulling 25kV AC from a wire above the train.

Surely there are lines where 'self powered' trains are going to be more viable than trying to install electrification equipment? I'm thinking of the Far North of Scotland, West Highland, Cambrian Coast etc. And on the basis these are likely to be smaller units - then surely their use would also apply for other routes, such as many of the rural branches ?

 

[Tio Terry]

Perhaps RR could produce an even smaller version of the submarine nuclear power plant that could be used on board an EMU (NMU?) to power the train!

 

[Bald Rick]

Is there any evidence that electrification is less costly in France, Germany or Italy for example where similar standards will apply ? Clearly it can be done more cheaply, I'm sure China manages it, but almost certainly by sacrificing a certain level of standards which would be unacceptable in Europe.

That depends what you choose to call the cost of electrification.

The costs of installing OLE equipment and power equipment is broadly comparable in this country to Europe - after all the materials are similar and the installation techniques are similar. Any variation in cost is down to how much people are paid to do the work, and some industry structural issues- for example SNCF / DB etc won’t allocate to the electrification costs the value of lost revenue whilst the line is closed for the work to be done; that does happen here.

However, installing OLE an power equipment makes up around half the cost of electrification in this country, as we have to spend a lot of cash getting the railway ready to accept the OLE. Bridge rebuilds. Platform canopies, etc. This is stuff that happens to a much lower extent in Europe as the infrastructure is already capable.

So, electrification is more expensive over here, but putting up the electric kit isn’t

 

[swissrailpassion]

Is there any evidence that electrification is less costly in France, Germany or Italy for example where similar standards will apply ? Clearly it can be done more cheaply, I'm sure China manages it, but almost certainly by sacrificing a certain level of standards which would be unacceptable in Europe.

Plenty of evidence. Even Switzerland does it cheaper than England's GWEP etc. The most useful comparison is Scotland where a rolling programme has made significant savings.

 

[Bald Rick]

The most useful comparison is Scotland where a rolling programme has made significant savings.

A common mistake. Edinburgh - Glasgow was the second most expensive electrification project of the dozen or so done recently. GWEP was cheaper.

 

[ABB125]

A common mistake. Edinburgh - Glasgow was the second most expensive electrification project of the dozen or so done recently. GWEP was cheaper.

Which was most expensive then?

 

[Elecman]

Which was most expensive then?

At a guess Manchester to Preston and Blackpool

 

[InOban]

A common mistake. Edinburgh - Glasgow was the second most expensive electrification project of the dozen or so done recently. GWEP was cheaper.

What infrastructure costs, eg Queen Street tunnels, are you including in the e-g accounts? And the poster specifically referred to the later stages which would have included Stirling and the Shotts line.

 

[edwin_m]

My problem with the use of this phrase is that it seems to be used to try to discredit and belittle those that don't share conventional opinions. These ideas may turn out to be bunkum but they need to be explored.

That's a fair point if there's a credible option that needs to be looked at and possibly developed. However in the case of electrification of reasonably well-used railway lines there is no such alternative anywhere on the horizon. So essentially they're saying "we won't do electrification because we hope something else will turn up that means we don't have to". The term "bionic duckweed" is a good way of highlighting this strategic void.

 

[Bald Rick]

Which was most expensive then?

I stand corrected, having checked. EGIP was the second most expensive for the OLE element, but was the most expensive overall. Over 50% more expensive than GWEP.

What infrastructure costs, eg Queen Street tunnels, are you including in the e-g accounts? And the poster specifically referred to the later stages which would have included Stirling and the Shotts line.

Everything allocated to the electrification project, ie everything that needed to be done to enable electric trains.

Shotts was cheap, but that was partly as there were no feeder stations required, partly because it is a simple railway (straight up and down, few junctions or complicated areas to worry about) and partly because the light use of the line enabled a favourable access strategy. But there are English projects that were cheaper.

 

[ABB125]

I stand corrected, having checked. EGIP was the second most expensive for the OLE element, but was the most expensive overall. Over 50% more expensive than GWEP.

Yet it doesn't seem to have put the Scottish government off the idea of electrification! How does it compare with (for example) the Shotts line?

EDIT: I seem to have been caught out by the double post merge system, you've just answered!

 

[DarloRich]

That's a fair point if there's a credible option that needs to be looked at and possibly developed. However in the case of electrification of reasonably well-used railway lines there is no such alternative anywhere on the horizon. So essentially they're saying "we won't do electrification because we hope something else will turn up that means we don't have to". The term "bionic duckweed" is a good way of highlighting this strategic void.

What they are actually saying is "we cant afford it and/or are worried about the price so hope something cheaper will come along and/or will delay the issue until someone else has to decide"

In any event I think it is a silly, lazy cliche that ignores economic practicalities. However, it is easy to complain when you don't have to find the cash for your dream.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I think the diesel car "fiasco" is such a poor analogy it scarcely warrants a response.

I agree. Really p----d me off. It was politicians and DfT that were clamoring for it.

At a guess Manchester to Preston and Blackpool

Especially the Manchester - Preston portion. Not so much Preston -Blackpool because iirc that came on reasonably close to budget.. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[A0wen]

That depends what you choose to call the cost of electrification.

The costs of installing OLE equipment and power equipment is broadly comparable in this country to Europe - after all the materials are similar and the installation techniques are similar. Any variation in cost is down to how much people are paid to do the work, and some industry structural issues- for example SNCF / DB etc won’t allocate to the electrification costs the value of lost revenue whilst the line is closed for the work to be done; that does happen here.

However, installing OLE an power equipment makes up around half the cost of electrification in this country, as we have to spend a lot of cash getting the railway ready to accept the OLE. Bridge rebuilds. Platform canopies, etc. This is stuff that happens to a much lower extent in Europe as the infrastructure is already capable.

So, electrification is more expensive over here, but putting up the electric kit isn’t

Thanks for explaining it so clearly - I think what that does show is that whilst the costs in the UK are higher, they are because of historic decisions - such as clearances being smaller which means there are costly works to rebuild bridges / stations.

 

[CdBrux]

Bionic Duckweed. Please explain!

This, in part, always seems to me to be a term used by those who see electrification as the only option to disparage any other idea and try and close down any discussion on alternatives by implying that you need to be stupid to think any other solution could be workable. Unfortunately this, in my opinion, somewhat infantile language, doesn't help reasoned evaluation that may well prove these people right ... but might not.
I realise amongst the enthusiasts here this is probably not a popular opinion, however people approaching any topic from an enthusiasts viewpoint risk to be a bit too blinkered.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

This, in part, always seems to me to be a term used by those who see electrification as the only option to disparage any other idea and try and close down any discussion on alternatives by implying that you need to be stupid to think any other solution could be workable. Unfortunately this, in my opinion, somewhat infantile language, doesn't help reasoned evaluation that may well prove these people right ... but might not.

I am all for other ideas being given due consideration but by the same token, electrification which is proven, should not be dismissed by politicians. Otherwise we risk not being able to see the wood because of the trees. Electrification as the obvious answers are staring us in the face and it should not be this big of a fight.
Many European countries use electrification.
Scotland has its feet firmly in the electrification court and published the data.
The TDNS Network Rail et al are firmly behind a rolling programme.
The Labour Party actually had a committment to a rolling programme of electrification in their last manifesto and I bet they will again for their next manifesto too.

If I may I am going to post here an extract of what I sent to the Trains fit for the future review that has been published on the parliament web page.

• If we were to build Crossrail from scratch how would trains be powered? 25kV AC OHL Electric
• If we were to build Crossrail2 from scratch how would trains be powered? 25kV AC OHL Electric
• If we were to build Crossrail 4 from scratch how would trains be powered?25kV AC OHL Electric
• If we were to build HS2 from scratch how would trains be powered? 25kV AC OHL Electric
• If we were to build HS3/4/5/6/7 from scratch how would trains be powered? 25kV AC OHL Electric
• If we were to build Northern Powerhouse Rail from scratch how would the trains be powered? Answer 25kV AC OHL Electric.
• If the French, German, Dutch, etc were to build a new line from scratch how would the trains be powered? Answer 25kV AC OHL Electric.

The answer is staring us in the face that the default should be 25kV AC OHL Electric. Just sad that the GWML scheme left a bad taste. Retro-fitting our Victorian network is more difficult. There are cases where different voltages, batteries etc should be considered. However, we have now rebuilt our electrification expertise and supply chain so it would be crazy to lose it all again.

Why can people not see the obvious?

Hydrogen, batteries and some new technology in the future will have their place but by the old Pareto rule- lets get the 80% done not focus on the 20%

 

[43096]

This, in part, always seems to me to be a term used by those who see electrification as the only option to disparage any other idea and try and close down any discussion on alternatives by implying that you need to be stupid to think any other solution could be workable. Unfortunately this, in my opinion, somewhat infantile language, doesn't help reasoned evaluation that may well prove these people right ... but might not.
I realise amongst the enthusiasts here this is probably not a popular opinion, however people approaching any topic from an enthusiasts viewpoint risk to be a bit too blinkered.

We could use unobtainium instead, if you like?