Traction Decarb Network Strategy

[Junior]

Having spent a while googling the subject to return multiple sources of conflicting info, and on the assumption that the gov can't afford the original plan for increasing the route length of electrified railway, does anyone have any views to understanding scope / timescales of achieving decarbonisation?

Short term I assume an uptake in the use of bi mode trains (available, tried, tested) but what about BEMU and other power sources. Is hydrogen or bio diesel realistic / also seeing that the aviation industry is incentivising of sustainable fuels (https://eturbonews.com/cooking-oil-is-helping-power-heathrow-green-revolution/) - could this happen in the railways (or is it already?)

Do any of the different power sources provide reliable performance to achieve the timetable or are we relying on diesel for a lot longer than originally thought?

Or, in the words of Private Frazer, are we all doomed?

Apologies if this is covered elsewhere...

 

[zwk500]

I suspect the original thread has been locked by now.

Put simply, the TDNS was a 'shopping list' by NR, it has very little chance of everything being funded nor was it particularly expected that some of the wilder sides of it would ever get anywhere really. Strategy papers are produced for the sake of presenting them. It keeps people in a job, I suppose (I used to be involved with writing them, so I'm not just being cynical!).

The Scottish government do seem to have to taken the challenge seriously, although it's questionable whether or not this is for Devolved government-related politicking reasons rather than actually wanting to decarbonise. This is not to say nothing else is being done - the DfT are funding Battery fast-charge trials and have extended MML electrification, while the Welsh government are pushing the South Wales metro hard.

 

[paul1609]

To be honest we have to make far more progress on de-carbonising the electricity supply industry before the rail industry switching fuels becomes a priority.
I don't believe it but I did laugh when I saw claims online that the only reason that coal fired stations needed to be flashed up this winter was to provide charging for EVs.

 

[43066]

To be honest we have to make far more progress on de-carbonising the electricity supply industry before the rail industry switching fuels becomes a priority.
I don't believe it but I did laugh when I saw claims online that the only reason that coal fired stations needed to be flashed up this winter was to provide charging for EVs.

And of course China and India are still building new ones! Whatever we do in this tiny country generally, let alone just on the railway, won’t make a blind bit of difference to whether we are “all doomed” or not.

My personal view would be see sense, stop wasting money on “net zero” and start investing in better flood defences! That won’t happen, of course, because the “climate emergency” is now a fashionable political football with too many vested interests.

 

[Master29]

And of course China and India are still building new ones! Whatever we do in this tiny country generally, let alone just on the railway, won’t make a blind bit of difference to whether we are “all doomed” or not.

My personal view would be see sense, stop wasting money on “net zero” and start investing in better flood defences! That won’t happen, of course, because the “climate emergency” is now a fashionable political football with too many vested interests.

Indeed. Too much money available for vanity projects and not the practical solutions like the one you describe. Seriously, these pathetic initiatives mean nothing at the moment.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

There is this thread I started entitled "Hydrogen is NOT the panacea"

Hydrogen is not the panacea

Love this from a German Scientist. Plenty of detail. https:// youtu . be / Zklo4Z1SqkE Hydrogen is not the panacea - from a German commentator. Many politicians are touting as so though. Hydrogen is 1st element on periodic table but it Takes a lot of volume so needs to be pressurized...

www.railforums.co.uk

Scotland's strategy seems to be:

1. Nice steady rolling programme of electrification
2. BEMUs in the meantime in order to allow a steady stream and not have to wait until an entire line is electrified end to end
3. England does not seem to have a strategy
4. Wales is doing Core Valley by discontinuous electrification
5. TDNS is still a strategy document that could be used as a basis for a future Government of a different hue

 

[paul1609]

According to National Grids ESO currently North of Scotlands electrical generation is 100% zero carbon with 1 gCO2/Kwh, Londons is 16% zero carbon with 330 gCO2/Kwh. East Midlands, SE, Southern and South Wales are in the same ball park as London. These figures are typical, if the true objective is carbon reduction it does absolutely make sense to concentrate the conversion (electrification) in Scotland first.

 

[Master29]

According to National Grids ESO currently North of Scotlands electrical generation is 100% zero carbon with 1 gCO2/Kwh, Londons is 16% zero carbon with 330 gCO2/Kwh. East Midlands, SE, Southern and South Wales are in the same ball park as London. These figures are typical, if the true objective is carbon reduction it does absolutely make sense to concentrate the conversion (electrification) in Scotland first.

Err yeah, good luck with that.

 

[HSTEd]

According to National Grids ESO currently North of Scotlands electrical generation is 100% zero carbon with 1 gCO2/Kwh, Londons is 16% zero carbon with 330 gCO2/Kwh. East Midlands, SE, Southern and South Wales are in the same ball park as London. These figures are typical, if the true objective is carbon reduction it does absolutely make sense to concentrate the conversion (electrification) in Scotland first.

These figures cannot really be used for this purpose because they make assumptions about generation and demand that do not hold if generation or demand change.

If a kW of demand is added in Scotland, it won't result in another kW of 1g/kWh electricity, it will result in the addition of a kW of marginal generation that could be anywhere in the UK.
That capability is, after all, the point of electricity grids.

 

[paul1609]

These figures cannot really be used for this purpose because they make assumptions about generation and demand that do not hold if generation or demand change.

If a kW of demand is added in Scotland, it won't result in another kW of 1g/kWh electricity, it will result in the addition of a kW of marginal generation that could be anywhere in the UK.
That capability is, after all, the point of electricity grids.

That really assumes that the transmission system has unlimited capacity which isnt the case if northern Scotland is on 100% wind power its a fair bet that there is spare capacity to deal with the extra 1Kw and that the producers will be being paid not to produce as the grid cant accept it. if the grid could accept it, it would be being exported down south to replace expensive gas generation.

 

[snowball]

The cross-border capacity of the grid is indeed a key constraint according to previous posts in other threads, and Scotland has surplus supply.

If hydrogen is chosen for the Far North and Kyle lines then despite its overall inefficiency it should be possible to use spare local wind power, when it's most available, to electrolyse water to hydrogen, ideally at a plant near Inverness where the trains would be fuelled up.

 

[fandroid]

And of course China and India are still building new ones! Whatever we do in this tiny country generally, let alone just on the railway, won’t make a blind bit of difference to whether we are “all doomed” or not.

My personal view would be see sense, stop wasting money on “net zero” and start investing in better flood defences! That won’t happen, of course, because the “climate emergency” is now a fashionable political football with too many vested interests.

China is also leading on renewables. They'll cease to be an excuse for UK zero activity soon.

 

[Trainbike46]

Having spent a while googling the subject to return multiple sources of conflicting info, and on the assumption that the gov can't afford the original plan for increasing the route length of electrified railway, does anyone have any views to understanding scope / timescales of achieving decarbonisation?

an important distinction here is that the government is choosing not to afford electrification. It is important to acknowledge that government is making a decision, rather than pretend rail electrification is impossible.

Short term I assume an uptake in the use of bi mode trains (available, tried, tested) but what about BEMU and other power sources. Is hydrogen or bio diesel realistic / also seeing that the aviation industry is incentivising of sustainable fuels (https://eturbonews.com/cooking-oil-is-helping-power-heathrow-green-revolution/) - could this happen in the railways (or is it already?)

Do any of the different power sources provide reliable performance to achieve the timetable or are we relying on diesel for a lot longer than originally thought?

Or, in the words of Private Frazer, are we all doomed?

Well, if we don't stop using fossil fuels we are all doomed. Personally I am hoping for a more sensible government beyond the next election

To be honest we have to make far more progress on de-carbonising the electricity supply industry before the rail industry switching fuels becomes a priority.
I don't believe it but I did laugh when I saw claims online that the only reason that coal fired stations needed to be flashed up this winter was to provide charging for EVs.

The electricity grid is decarbonising quickly, and even on current carbon intensity, electrification massively reduces carbon emissions. Of course, the savings only get bigger as the grid gets greener. Which isn't to say we don't need to do more there. Time to start construction on Sizewell C, and get another new nuclear power station approved, as well as further roll-out of renewables.

That claim regarding EV charging is amost certainly wrong, and certainly has no data backing it. All coal power stations are closing by the end of 2024 anyway.

China is also leading on renewables. They'll cease to be an excuse for UK zero activity soon.

Exactly.

What some people fail to understand is that EVERYTHING needs to decarbonise, and that requires work to be happening on all fronts at once: zero-carbon electricity supply, heating, railway decarbonisation, decarbonisation of manufacturing, modal shift from high-carbon modes (driving, flying) to low-carbon modes (walking, cycling, railway, bus, tram, metro), etc. in all countries. blaming others isn't productive

 

[43066]

Well, if we don't stop using fossil fuels we are all doomed. Personally I am hoping for a more sensible government beyond the next election

Over a long enough timescale we are all doomed anyway! Many people are more focussed on being unable to pay their bills at the moment, rather than worrying about what *might* happen if sea levels rise over the next few decades.

What some people fail to understand is that EVERYTHING needs to decarbonise, and that requires work to be happening on all fronts at once: zero-carbon electricity supply, heating, railway decarbonisation, decarbonisation of manufacturing, modal shift from high-carbon modes (driving, flying) to low-carbon modes (walking, cycling, railway, bus, tram, metro), etc. in all countries. blaming others isn't productive

But that work clearly isn’t happening elsewhere, as I say countries like China and India dwarf anything we can do here. These policies aren’t something people are going to vote for because they’re expensive, rather abstract and don’t really improve peoples’ lives on a day to day basis, hence governments won’t prioritise them.

 

[Meerkat]

Over a long enough timescale we are all doomed anyway! Many people are more focussed on being unable to pay their bills at the moment, rather than worrying about what *might* happen if sea levels rise over the next few decades.



But that work clearly isn’t happening elsewhere, as I say countries like China and India dwarf anything we can do here. These policies aren’t something people are going to vote for because they’re expensive, rather abstract and don’t really improve peoples’ lives on a day to day basis, hence governments won’t prioritise them.

This is why I get very exasperated at the Climate Change zealotry.
IMO they should concentrate on pollution - climate change is abstract and probably beyond our lifetimes, ICE pollution is killing thousands of people and harming thousands of kids right here and now.

 

[43066]

IMO they should concentrate on pollution - climate change is abstract and probably beyond our lifetimes, ICE pollution is killing thousands of people and harming thousands of kids right here and now.

Agreed. This is why people can get behind things like the ULEZ in London which has a here and now benefit. They won’t want to pay for more their electricity just because of fear mongering by people who vandalise paintings and glue themselves to motorways!

 

[Energy]

an important distinction here is that the government is choosing not to afford electrification. It is important to acknowledge that government is making a decision, rather than pretend rail electrification is impossible.

I wouldn't say choosing not to afford, current progress is being kept quiet but MML electrification seems to be progressing well and on budget. As such there is interest (and I think tenders being put out?) for further MML wiring and there has been more electrification announced up north. The government are just being more cautious following the high costs of GWEP.

These policies aren’t something people are going to vote for because they’re expensive, rather abstract and don’t really improve peoples’ lives on a day to day basis, hence governments won’t prioritise them.

A bigger incentive to switch to wind energy, heat pumps etc. for most is that we are less dependant on other countries for natural gas.

 

[Trainbike46]

Over a long enough timescale we are all doomed anyway! Many people are more focussed on being unable to pay their bills at the moment, rather than worrying about what *might* happen if sea levels rise over the next few decades.

Fortunately, a lot of policies that help bring down bills (insulation, decoupling electricity prices from volatile international markets) also contribute to or require decarbonisation.

As an aside, the scientific evidence for the climate crisis and the myriad of impacts on people is very strong. It's not a *might* in a far away future

But that work clearly isn’t happening elsewhere, as I say countries like China and India dwarf anything we can do here. These policies aren’t something people are going to vote for because they’re expensive, rather abstract and don’t really improve peoples’ lives on a day to day basis, hence governments won’t prioritise them.

China is decarbonising, as is India.

If you have suggestions as to how China/India/other countries can decarbonise quicker, I would love to read them (in a new thread, unless you somehow base it on the TDNS)

If the only reason you bring up China/India is to distract from a conversation about railway policy on a railway forum, I'd suggest you drop the whataboutery

This is why I get very exasperated at the Climate Change zealotry.
IMO they should concentrate on pollution - climate change is abstract and probably beyond our lifetimes, ICE pollution is killing thousands of people and harming thousands of kids right here and now.

I am not aware of a single person who has genuinely grasped what is happening with the climate crisis, who is opposed to swift and strong climate action.

Fortunately though, the answer for air pollution is to stop burning things (where things is fuel, gas, wood etc.). That is also a large part of the answer for decarbonisation.

Also, climate change is already killing people. Look at the various heatwaves that would have been impossible without climate change and the floods in Pakistan for examples over the last 12 months

Bringing stuff back to the TDNS, this would clearly help fight air pollution by removing combustion engines across the country

I wouldn't say choosing not to afford, current progress is being kept quiet but MML electrification seems to be progressing well and on budget. As such there is interest (and I think tenders being put out?) for further MML wiring and there has been more electrification announced up north. The government are just being more cautious following the high costs of GWEP.

I guess you are right in saying that some progress is happening on MML electrification. My point is just that where the TDNS isn't being followed, this is because the government decided not to, and not because of some external impossibility. One could of course argue that it is the right decision, and absolutely understand that the government is cautious after GWEP. But pretending it is unaffordable, when if the government wanted it to be affordable they could, removes the dutry from government to justify the decisions they are making, which I think isn't a good way to go.

A bigger incentive to switch to wind energy, heat pumps etc. for most is that we are less dependant on other countries for natural gas.

decarbonisation is a thing that has a LOT of cobenefits, yes. Energy independence is an important one

 

[Meerkat]

As an aside, the scientific evidence for the climate crisis and the myriad of impacts on people is very strong. It's not a *might* in a far away future

Major effects for the people who are paying the bills are far in the future

If the only reason you bring up China/India is to distract from a conversation about railway policy on a railway forum, I'd suggest you drop the whataboutery

China and India are relevant because of the scale. We could bankrupt ourselves drastically reducing emissions and on a world scale it would make little difference

Also, climate change is already killing people. Look at the various heatwaves that would have been impossible without climate change and the floods in Pakistan for examples over the last 12 months

Its still not big nor soon enough to the people who are struggling to pay their bills and are expected to pay for it.

That's why I think the emphasis should be on the pollution people can see and smell, and is clearly harming them here and now. The carbon reduction will follow.

 

[Trainbike46]

you are assuming decarbonisation is going to massively increase bills/costs. That is incorrect

new wind & solar plus storage is cheaper than existing gas or coal power stations. In almost all of europe, a heatpump is cheaper over its lifespan than a gas boiler. The cost advantage is even better for the households in the UK, rely on electric panel heaters or electric storage heaters.

In most cases, electrifying railways actually reduces costs in the long-term, though there is the upfront cost of installation.

 

[Meerkat]

you are assuming decarbonisation is going to massively increase bills/costs. That is incorrect

new wind & solar plus storage is cheaper than existing gas or coal power stations. In almost all of europe, a heatpump is cheaper over its lifespan than a gas boiler. The cost advantage is even better for the households in the UK, rely on electric panel heaters or electric storage heaters.

In most cases, electrifying railways actually reduces costs in the long-term, though there is the upfront cost of installation.

There is no large scale storage so I don't know how you price that.
Lifespan expenses matter to boomers and the middle aged middle classes in their forever home. For the rest it is a big lump sum they dont have and wont see a return on, or something their landlord wont fit because they dont pay the energy bills.

But anyway we are drifting away. My on topic point is that whatever you think should be the case climate change has limited traction so the emphasis should be on pollution.
We need to get diesel trains out of our towns and cities, and anyone who has been in a station near a diesel train will understand that.

 

[Trainbike46]

There is no large scale storage so I don't know how you price that.

There are examples of large scale storage in the form of pumped hydro across the world, as well as battery arrays in places like Australia that can be used

Lifespan expenses matter to boomers and the middle aged middle classes in their forever home. For the rest it is a big lump sum they dont have and wont see a return on, or something their landlord wont fit because they dont pay the energy bills.

Fully with you on the landlord issue, as I'm a tenant in a flat with a less than ideal heating system (electric panel heaters with a 24h electricity meter!), I wish my landlord would fit a heat pump but that definitely isn't happening until government rules require it.

But anyway we are drifting away. My on topic point is that whatever you think should be the case climate change has limited traction so the emphasis should be on pollution.
We need to get diesel trains out of our towns and cities, and anyone who has been in a station near a diesel train will understand that.

I think it says more about the different circles we exist in tbh. In my circles, climate crisis is definitely the more persuasive one. But in any case, it is better to try and make a case based on air pollution/climate change/other reasons without attacking the ones you are not basing it on. you can make a very good case for electrification based on air pollution without ever mentioning climate change for example, and I'm sure everyone who has ever been on a Birmingham New Street platform would agree.

So yes, diesel needs to get out of our towns and cities, and the only realistic way to do that is electrification of lines such as the Snow Hill lines, the chiltern lines out of Marylebone, lines around towns and cities in the north, etc. The UK government really should emulate the Scottish government on this one

 

[Meerkat]

Fully with you on the landlord issue, as I'm a tenant in a flat with a less than ideal heating system (electric panel heaters with a 24h electricity meter!), I wish my landlord would fit a heat pump but that definitely isn't happening until government rules require it.

Not sure you want to be in a flat with a heat pump hanging off the outside. One of my issues with them is the noise - an annoying hum like an air conditioner and not even consistent as they go on and off AIUI.

I don't really understand what the alternative to rolling electrification is. Batteries/hydrogen are not going to sort the trunk routes so just get on with electrifying them down the scale and let the (allegedly) improving batteries meet you in the middle on the way up from the fringes.

 

[snowball]

This is why I get very exasperated at the Climate Change zealotry.
IMO they should concentrate on pollution - climate change is abstract and probably beyond our lifetimes, ICE pollution is killing thousands of people and harming thousands of kids right here and now.

Climate change is not in the future, it is now. It has already killed millions, mostly in poorer countries. Extreme weather of all types has become commonplace in most countries. Last year's floods in Pakistan were the worst in the country's history and cost 15 billion dollars.

 

[Trainbike46]

Not sure you want to be in a flat with a heat pump hanging off the outside. One of my issues with them is the noise - an annoying hum like an air conditioner and not even consistent as they go on and off AIUI.

My parents have a heatpump, and based on the experience at their house the noise issue is overstated. Their heatpump genuinely makes less noise than the gas boiler in their previous house.

I don't really understand what the alternative to rolling electrification is. Batteries/hydrogen are not going to sort the trunk routes so just get on with electrifying them down the scale and let the (allegedly) improving batteries meet you in the middle on the way up from the fringes.

As I understand it, and as confirmed by the TDNS, there is no alternative to electrification for the vast majority of lines; for lines with very low passenger train numbers and no freight, batteries or hydrogen can make sense. But then again, those lines are near the bottom of the priority list to deal with anyway, so no need to worry about it yet.

 

[Bantamzen]

an important distinction here is that the government is choosing not to afford electrification. It is important to acknowledge that government is making a decision, rather than pretend rail electrification is impossible.

In the grand scheme of things whilst I agree that the government has been slow off it's feet on electrification, there are other, more immediate concerns. You may have noticed the cost of living crisis currently being played out?

Well, if we don't stop using fossil fuels we are all doomed. Personally I am hoping for a more sensible government beyond the next election

No we really aren't doomed. That's just today's rhetoric. We do have to change our ways, but not at the cost of everything else. There is no decarbonisation button we can just hit, and frankly even it there were it won't have an immediate effect as some environmentalists seem to hope for in order to lay claim to being world savers. Humanity has been using carbon based fuel from the very day the first fire was lit. Man made climate change will take hundreds, maybe even thousands of years to reverse.

What we need alongside sustainable change is carbon fixing. Next time you pass through a field, or a stretch of moorland, consider this. They were once forested, but were eroded through thousands of years.

The electricity grid is decarbonising quickly, and even on current carbon intensity, electrification massively reduces carbon emissions. Of course, the savings only get bigger as the grid gets greener. Which isn't to say we don't need to do more there. Time to start construction on Sizewell C, and get another new nuclear power station approved, as well as further roll-out of renewables.

I would agree that we are going to need nuclear for at least a medium term. Renewables are improving all the time, but that energy is fed into the grid on generation. Green energy is going to need a green solution to storing the energy for when we actually need it.

What some people fail to understand is that EVERYTHING needs to decarbonise, and that requires work to be happening on all fronts at once: zero-carbon electricity supply, heating, railway decarbonisation, decarbonisation of manufacturing, modal shift from high-carbon modes (driving, flying) to low-carbon modes (walking, cycling, railway, bus, tram, metro), etc. in all countries. blaming others isn't productive

No what we need is a balance. Just blasting through entire economies by trying to switch off all carbon based industries will just cause massive issues, and if forced through will result in much worse. Perhaps what we need in the context of transport is to get more people actually using public transport on a regular basis. That way governments will be more inclined to invest in greener fuel options. However what we must not do is force people not to travel as much, because travel brings people together. Lock people away in little zones in the name of the environment will reap really serious consequences.

 

[Trainbike46]

In the grand scheme of things whilst I agree that the government has been slow off it's feet on electrification, there are other, more immediate concerns. You may have noticed the cost of living crisis currently being played out?

My whole point was that the government should justify the choices it is making, rather than pretend they aren't making decisions. "We can't afford X" is a cop-oput in attempt to evade scrutiny.

No we really aren't doomed. That's just today's rhetoric. We do have to change our ways, but not at the cost of everything else. There is no decarbonisation button we can just hit, and frankly even it there were it won't have an immediate effect as some environmentalists seem to hope for in order to lay claim to being world savers. Humanity has been using carbon based fuel from the very day the first fire was lit. Man made climate change will take hundreds, maybe even thousands of years to reverse.

What we need alongside sustainable change is carbon fixing. Next time you pass through a field, or a stretch of moorland, consider this. They were once forested, but were eroded through thousands of years.


I would agree that we are going to need nuclear for at least a medium term. Renewables are improving all the time, but that energy is fed into the grid on generation. Green energy is going to need a green solution to storing the energy for when we actually need it.

No what we need is a balance. Just blasting through entire economies by trying to switch off all carbon based industries will just cause massive issues, and if forced through will result in much worse. Perhaps what we need in the context of transport is to get more people actually using public transport on a regular basis. That way governments will be more inclined to invest in greener fuel options. However what we must not do is force people not to travel as much, because travel brings people together. Lock people away in little zones in the name of the environment will reap really serious consequences.

As everyone who studies the climate system in any detail will tell you, we need to get to ZERO emissions. There will be some negative emissions, but they will be very expensive and limited in availability, and there are enough options for fully decarbonising rail transport that it isn't where we should use them in my opinion, as they should be reserved for those few sectors where we don't have alternatives (yet)

Storage will probably need to be combined with demand management (things like charging EVs primarily when demand is low, heating hot water tanks primarily when production is high etc.)

As has been pointed out by other people, there are a lot of advantages to electrified railway even if you don't consider climate action at all, an incomplete list:
- Better air quality
- Better acceleration
- Lower running costs
- Sparks effect attracting more passengers
- Energy independence (UK produced nuclear and renewables don't rely on volatile international markets, like gas, coal and oil do)

 

[43066]

As an aside, the scientific evidence for the climate crisis and the myriad of impacts on people is very strong. It's not a *might* in a far away future

Is it impacting on my life? Not really. On the other hand my gas and electricity bill was £250 this month. Am I likely to vote for a government that proposes to take measures that increase that? Not on your life! To put it another way, if I could choose a tariff that was cheaper but more polluting in C02 terms I’d absolutely do it.

If you have suggestions as to how China/India/other countries can decarbonise quicker, I would love to read them (in a new thread, unless you somehow base it on the TDNS)

If the only reason you bring up China/India is to distract from a conversation about railway policy on a railway forum, I'd suggest you drop the whataboutery

It isn’t whataboutery: it’s a simple observation that we account for a tiny % of global C02 emissions in this country, and the railway a tiny % of that! As such it’s completely irrational to spend significant sums of money decarbonising the railway, of all things, on the basis that “we are all doomed”. Whether we are doomed or not won’t be determined by what happens in this country.

As everyone who studies the climate system in any detail will tell you, we need to get to ZERO emissions.

If you think that will ever happen you are living in cloud cuckoo land. We would need to wipe a couple of billion people off the planet for a start….

No what we need is a balance. Just blasting through entire economies by trying to switch off all carbon based industries will just cause massive issues, and if forced through will result in much worse. Perhaps what we need in the context of transport is to get more people actually using public transport on a regular basis. That way governments will be more inclined to invest in greener fuel options. However what we must not do is force people not to travel as much, because travel brings people together. Lock people away in little zones in the name of the environment will reap really serious consequences.

100% this.

 

[Bantamzen]

My whole point was that the government should justify the choices it is making, rather than pretend they aren't making decisions. "We can't afford X" is a cop-oput in attempt to evade scrutiny.


As everyone who studies the climate system in any detail will tell you, we need to get to ZERO emissions. There will be some negative emissions, but they will be very expensive and limited in availability, and there are enough options for fully decarbonising rail transport that it isn't where we should use them in my opinion, as they should be reserved for those few sectors where we don't have alternatives (yet)

Storage will probably need to be combined with demand management (things like charging EVs primarily when demand is low, heating hot water tanks primarily when production is high etc.)

As has been pointed out by other people, there are a lot of advantages to electrified railway even if you don't consider climate action at all, an incomplete list:
- Better air quality
- Better acceleration
- Lower running costs
- Sparks effect attracting more passengers
- Energy independence (UK produced nuclear and renewables don't rely on volatile international markets, like gas, coal and oil do)

And I don't dispute that we need to change, but all these solutions come at a cost. Electrification for example is expensive and time consuming, plus requires units that can actually draw power from the wires. We do move way too slowly but again right now there are huge pressures on economies which mean wiring the network may be down on priorities.

Perhaps rather than trying to shame or scare people into change, maybe environmental lobbyists could expend energy on coming up with solutions as to how to make greener solutions actually work in a functioning society. So taking transport instead of gluing themselves to roads and art galleries, maybe they could work with operators, councils and governments to come up with ways to encourage people to leave the car at home and grow public transport use. Or is it just easier for them to blame everyone else for man made climate change?

 

[Trainbike46]

Is it impacting on my life? Not really. On the other hand my gas and electricity bill was £250 this month. Am I likely to vote for a government that proposes to take measures that increase that? Not on your life! To put it another way, if I could choose a tariff that was cheaper but more polluting in C02 terms I’d absolutely do it.

I am sure you would prefer cheaper bills, as would everyone. Fortunately, low carbon electricity (renewables+nuclear) is much cheaper than the gas and coal plants it is replacing, especially right now with the high gas prices. This is part of the driver for the fast roll-out of wind and solar. Similarly, improving insulation will reduce demand for gas, and lead to lower bills, both for the households who upgrade (less gas/electricity means lower bills) and those that don't (on a european scale, it reduces the imbalance in supply and demand caused by Putin's invasion of Ukraine). Net-zero goals are not in conflict with acting on fuel poverty and the cost of living crisis. In fact, there are a lot of solutions that improve the situation for both.

I think for both our sanity's sake I'll skip replying to your not-so-thinly veiled insults to me and my colleagues, thank you very much

And I don't dispute that we need to change, but all these solutions come at a cost. Electrification for example is expensive and time consuming, plus requires units that can actually draw power from the wires. We do move way too slowly but again right now there are huge pressures on economies which mean wiring the network may be down on priorities.

Perhaps rather than trying to shame or scare people into change, maybe environmental lobbyists could expend energy on coming up with solutions as to how to make greener solutions actually work in a functioning society. So taking transport instead of gluing themselves to roads and art galleries, maybe they could work with operators, councils and governments to come up with ways to encourage people to leave the car at home and grow public transport use. Or is it just easier for them to blame everyone else for man made climate change?

If you believe you can do environmental lobbying/action/advocating/fill in whatever word you prefer to describe trying to get society as a whole to improve better I would strongly encourage you to get involved in whatever way you think is most effective!