VIA Rail

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Once the rest of the economy is decarbonized, the best way to address freight rail emissions is probably to either do some sort of carbon offset program or to use biodiesel which can potentially be carbon neutral.

I am not a big fan of biofuels. It seems to me to be greenwashing rather than a truly green option.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The same probably goes for shipping industry.

Possibly, though the big problem with shipping is a lack of regulation and enforcement of pollution standards. It is difficult to resolve since they are sailing in international waters and ships are often registered in countries that offer favorable tax incentives.

Originally Posted by milomilo

H2 seems like a good option - adding a car or two of H2 tanks to the train would be trivial. Would just depend if the cost is worth it vs electrifying, batteries or biofuel.

H2 is certainly a good alternative in the long term. The issue is economically producing H2 using a green method. Today most H2 is produced by steam reforming natural gas, in which releases CO2, in which case you would be better off just burning the natural gas.

Originally Posted by milomilo

As you say though, this is not low lying fruit. There's a ton of things to clean up before we look at the railways.

Our electrical grids for one thing. Also, as I said before, getting more freight off of trucks and onto trains.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by roger1818

H2 is certainly a good alternative in the long term. The issue is economically producing H2 using a green method. Today most H2 is produced by steam reforming natural gas, in which releases CO2, in which case you would be better off just burning the natural gas.

Potentially not with carbon capture. But there is scant evidence we can do that economically. Otherwise, it seems likely we are going to have excess electrical capacity at times in the future, but whether it will be enough to produce meaningful amounts of H2, I don't know.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Our electrical grids for one thing. Also, as I said before, getting more freight off of trucks and onto trains

And forcing the railways to pay for electrification they don't want, or using taxpayer money on it vs more productive means, actually hinders the objective of getting cargo off the road. We have the perfect tool already to achieve this, carbon pricing.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by milomilo

H2 seems like a good option - adding a car or two of H2 tanks to the train would be trivial. Would just depend if the cost is worth it vs electrifying, batteries or biofuel.

As you say though, this is not low lying fruit. There's a ton of things to clean up before we look at the railways.

Yes I kind of forgot about hydrogen. Its energy density makes it another option in situations in which batteries aren't practical due to range/cost/weight.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I am not a big fan of biofuels. It seems to me to be greenwashing rather than a truly green option.

I think it's greenwashing when people suggest that we can keep doing exactly what we've been doing in terms of energy consumption but just burn ethanol or biodiesel rather than gasoline or fuel oil. It would be a disaster to have a large portion of societal energy come from biofuels. But they're perfect to fill the gap for that remaining small slice of energy needs that are really difficult to electrify. But... that's if it's done right.

Biofuels are potentially carbon neutral, but not necessarily carbon neutral. If say, you clear huge tracts of forest where carbon is sequestered and start growing corn, then not so much. If you inject carbon emissions into the production process by growing the organic material using fossil fuel powered tractors and moving it long distances with fossil fuel powered trucks, etc. then it's no longer carbon neutral. But if it's produced using waste materials or algae and transported in a carbon-free manner, that's different. So whether or not it's actually green is in the details rather than the general concept.

But ultimately any energy strategy needs to look at both the production side and the consumption side. We can't use any production/storage innovations as an excuse for not using energy more responsibly.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Honestly I don't know that it'll necessarily ever be worth trying to electrify freight rail in the context of Canada. It already produces such low levels of Co2 per ton of cargo transported that you could potentially create more lifetime energy emissions by trying to produce the billions of $$ of economic value that would be needed to pay for it. Not to mention the embedded energy to create the actual infrastructure (poles, cables, transformer stations, etc) needed to electrify rail lines that stretch thousands of km and carry a few trains per day per direction. Once the rest of the economy is decarbonized, the best way to address freight rail emissions is probably to either do some sort of carbon offset program or to use biodiesel which can potentially be carbon neutral.

The same probably goes for shipping industry.

Yep. The same money is probably better spent improving the rail networks or building out passenger rail. And it's definitely questionable to give the freight operators subsidies to electrify. The carbon tax is enough. They'll figure out what kind of technological change and investment is in their financial interest.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I think it's greenwashing when people suggest that we can keep doing exactly what we've been doing in terms of energy consumption but just burn ethanol or biodiesel rather than gasoline or fuel oil. It would be a disaster to have a large portion of societal energy come from biofuels. But they're perfect to fill the gap for that remaining small slice of energy needs that are really difficult to electrify. But... that's if it's done right.

Biofuels are potentially carbon neutral, but not necessarily carbon neutral. If say, you clear huge tracts of forest where carbon is sequestered and start growing corn, then not so much. If you inject carbon emissions into the production process by growing the organic material using fossil fuel powered tractors and moving it long distances with fossil fuel powered trucks, etc. then it's no longer carbon neutral. But if it's produced using waste materials or algae and transported in a carbon-free manner, that's different. So whether or not it's actually green is in the details rather than the general concept.

Waste materials tend to have a low energy density and often need a lot of processing (which can be energy intensive) to get a useable fuel. Then there is the question as to what would have happened to that waste material if it wasn't converted to fuel? We are looking for ways to capture carbon and sequestered it, and here we have waste material with a high carbon content in a relatively stable form that could easily be sequestered instead of burning it and releasing its carbon.

Then there is the question of if it truly is a waste product. I gather Europe encourages the use of wood pellets as a carbon neutral energy source, with the idea that they can be made from scrap sawdust, but the cost of the pellets has risen so much that many of the ones imported are not from waste, but made from trees harvested solely for the purpose of chipping them to make the pellets. Obviously it would have been better for the environment to keep the trees alive.

As for using algae, that process relies on photo synthesis, which means you need to capture sunlight. My question is how much land will be used to grow the algae to make any meaningful amount of fuel, and could that land be put to better use?

But ultimately any energy strategy needs to look at both the production side and the consumption side. We can't use any production/storage innovations as an excuse for not using energy more responsibly.

I agree. The key is finding ways to use energy more efficiently and giving people/companies the resources to do so.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Yep. The same money is probably better spent improving the rail networks or building out passenger rail. And it's definitely questionable to give the freight operators subsidies to electrify. The carbon tax is enough. They'll figure out what kind of technological change and investment is in their financial interest.

Carbon tax is a valuable tool, but another thing I would like to see governments do is fund the building and operation of truck to train intermodal terminals in cities across the country and encourage the railways to offer intermodal service similar to the expressway service CP had previously offered, that would transport almost any trailer (not just specially reinforced ones).

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The same probably goes for shipping industry.

Interestingly Real Engineering just released this video today. It is worth watching.

• Video Link

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Carbon tax is a valuable tool, but another thing I would like to see governments do is fund the building and operation of truck to train intermodal terminals in cities across the country and encourage the railways to offer intermodal service similar to the expressway service CP had previously offered, that would transport almost any trailer (not just specially reinforced ones).

You don't need government to pay for that. Make the carbon tax high enough and companies will invest in such terminals themselves. There has to be enough demand for just in time shipping to justify it.

What we need above all is better rail infrastructure. Not just more of it on the passenger side. But more grade separation everywhere. Straighter corridors. Wider corridors in some places. And more sound barriers in residential areas. All of that would help increase diversion of freight and passenger traffic to rail substantially.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Waste materials tend to have a low energy density and often need a lot of processing (which can be energy intensive) to get a useable fuel. Then there is the question as to what would have happened to that waste material if it wasn't converted to fuel? We are looking for ways to capture carbon and sequestered it, and here we have waste material with a high carbon content in a relatively stable form that could easily be sequestered instead of burning it and releasing its carbon.

Then there is the question of if it truly is a waste product. I gather Europe encourages the use of wood pellets as a carbon neutral energy source, with the idea that they can be made from scrap sawdust, but the cost of the pellets has risen so much that many of the ones imported are not from waste, but made from trees harvested solely for the purpose of chipping them to make the pellets. Obviously it would have been better for the environment to keep the trees alive.

As for using algae, that process relies on photo synthesis, which means you need to capture sunlight. My question is how much land will be used to grow the algae to make any meaningful amount of fuel, and could that land be put to better use?

One of the benefits of algae is that it wouldn't necessarily need to be grown on "land" since algae is aquatic. Yes it could be done on land by flooding a particular area for algae production but it could also be done in lakes and ocean in places where no agriculture is currently happening. I think a bigger issue is that if it was done by flooding an area of land, how much water would the process consume, and if done in an existing body of water, would it be suffocating an existing aquatic ecosystem due to the algae absorbing all the oxygen from the water?

Ultimately, all biofuels rely on photosynthesis just like fossil fuels did, because all energy other than geothermal and nuclear comes directly or indirectly from solar radiation (although many don't consider nuclear to be very green obviously). Photosynthesis is very efficient, but harvesting energy and resources from nature to put to human uses is always going to involve trade offs which I think is something we just need to accept to some extent. As long as the overall system can be made sustainable not every part of it needs to be perfect (which is fortunate because major change is a political challenge even without being perfect lol). While it's great to carefully consider the impact of new technologies or practices, there's a risk that excessive scrutiny and suspicion toward the new can distract from much greater problems posed by any delays in transition from the current/old. Holding out for perfection has its own opportunity costs. But the more different tools that are available to help the transition the better imo.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Interestingly Real Engineering just released this video today. It is worth watching.

• Video Link

That's actually really interesting. Some of that, namely the wind power cylinders, I hadn't even heard of.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You don't need government to pay for that. Make the carbon tax high enough and companies will invest in such terminals themselves. There has to be enough demand for just in time shipping to justify it.

We tried that and the right wing nut jobs cried fowl. The big problem is that no one wants to pay for a cleaner future.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

What we need above all is better rail infrastructure. Not just more of it on the passenger side. But more grade separation everywhere. Straighter corridors. Wider corridors in some places. And more sound barriers in residential areas. All of that would help increase diversion of freight and passenger traffic to rail substantially.

Sounds great....

Show me a straight route through the mountains.
Show me where a wider corridor in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver will fit.

What is needed is double track on the mainlines and passing siding on the rest.

Reality is, none of this will happen. There is no political will for it.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

We tried that and the right wing nut jobs cried fowl. The big problem is that no one wants to pay for a cleaner future.

It's Canada. The right wing nut jobs can't win. And the carbon tax is doing just fine. Going to to $40/tonne in January. There's no need for subsidies to the freight rail cos on anything. That's the whole point of the carbon tax. It's the free market solution. Put a price and the market will find what works to reduce the externality.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Sounds great....

Show me a straight route through the mountains.
Show me where a wider corridor in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver will fit.

What is needed is double track on the mainlines and passing siding on the rest.

Reality is, none of this will happen. There is no political will for it.

To the extent that public spending is going to be done to bolster rail infrastructure, it should be doing towards this stuff. Not to paying profitable rail cos who won't even share their networks with VIA, to electrify. That was my point. The billions that people are suggesting we give to CN and CP to electrify could pay for HFR.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's Canada. The right wing nut jobs can't win. And the carbon tax is doing just fine. Going to to $40/tonne in January. There's no need for subsidies to the freight rail cos on anything. That's the whole point of the carbon tax. It's the free market solution. Put a price and the market will find what works to reduce the externality.

I know they can't win, but they make a lot of noise that politicians think they need to listen to them.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

To the extent that public spending is going to be done to bolster rail infrastructure, it should be doing towards this stuff. Not to paying profitable rail cos who won't even share their networks with VIA, to electrify. That was my point. The billions that people are suggesting we give to CN and CP to electrify could pay for HFR.

I would not be one to suggest that electrification happens first. In my dream world, the order of things would be:
1) HFR Corridor built.
2) HFR electrified
3) Commuter rail electrification
4) Electrify lines that Via uses.
5) Everything else.

Mind you, I doubt we will get beyond #3 by 2050. Even then, I doubt the WCE will be electrified by then.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I would not be one to suggest that electrification happens first. In my dream world, the order of things would be:
1) HFR Corridor built.
2) HFR electrified
3) Commuter rail electrification
4) Electrify lines that Via uses.
5) Everything else.

Mind you, I doubt we will get beyond #3 by 2050. Even then, I doubt the WCE will be electrified by then.

You have it backwards on electrification. The greatest return on electrification is on the most frequented corridors. That's suburban rail. HFR can operate just fine without electrification. A line running once or twice per hour is going to have lower returns on electrification. Likewise, even if freight cos allowed electrification on lines they run, it would be pointless to do it for VIA trains that run a few times per day, or less.

[Truenorth00]

Over at Urban Toronto, somebody has posted that VIA's CEO presented at the Toronto Board of Trade today. Her comments here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x_D...w?usp=drivesdk

She expects the Joint Project Office to release their report "shortly" and a decision by the end of the year. So we can finally move past circular discussions on this thread.....

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You have it backwards on electrification. The greatest return on electrification is on the most frequented corridors. That's suburban rail. HFR can operate just fine without electrification. A line running once or twice per hour is going to have lower returns on electrification. Likewise, even if freight cos allowed electrification on lines they run, it would be pointless to do it for VIA trains that run a few times per day, or less.

I meant that if the federal government were to put up the entire amount. Realistically speaking, GO RER will most likely be electrified before Via HFR, but that is more due to the province stepping up. This doesn't mean the entire GO route would be.

[ssiguy]

I don't we we sell any major VIA electrification at all, even in the Corridor. While VIA may piggy-back onto GO RER's catenary {assuming GO goes catenary which is by no means assured}, I don't see VIA putting catenary anywhere else.

IF GO goes catenary, the battery trains are truly viable for Corridor West. If GO does catenary to Aldershot, at this point they could basically make it to London. Of course then they would have to recharge for an hour before heading further to Windsor/Sarnia. Eventually as battery technology evolves, it will be able to be done.

Corridor East on the other hand is a TOTALLY different matter. The distances are far too great for battery and VIA will not be able to potentially piggy-back onto REM like it possible can onto RER.

The staggering amounts of money Ottawa would have to fork over to electrify just the Win/Lon/Tor/Ott/Mon sections will be exceptionally difficult to qualify. This is to saying nothing of the other corridor routes like QC/Sar/Kit/Nia. Each dollar they spend to stick a pole in the ground is a dollar not available for more trains, track upgrades & dualing, overpasses, and stations.

I think the ONLY way VIA will be able to decarbonize is thru hydrogen. For VIA it would not only be the easiest and cheapest way but also would mean that VIA could get much of the needed fueling infrastructure paid for CN/CP. CN/CP are also going to have to decarbonize their entire networks by 2050 and for that hydrogen is the ONLY option which means CN/CP are going to have to spend billions on hydrogen infrastructure nationwide and VIA could simply electrify it's entire national fleet by using hydrogen trains that CN/CP have graciously built the infrastructure for.

[milomilo]

For interest, I just looked into how much CO2 CN produces annually. I might have got it wrong, but I think it's about 5 million tons a year. That might sound like a lot, but with a $50/ton carbon tax, it's only $250M on a revenue of $15B, and they can pass it on to their customers anyway, and their competitors are trucks, who also have to pay the tax.

It's also less than a percent of Canada's emissions. Eventually, it will have to be reduced or offset, but it is not a priority. CN and CP will figure it out, all the government should do is give them predictable timelines and a level playing ground - carbon pricing.

[Truenorth00]

Electrification is all about what GO and AMT can do. There are challenges. GO doesn't have service on the corridor to Peterborough. The Vaudreuil-Hudson line is owned by CP and AMT shares tracks. So even VIA can cross over from the CN tracks at Dorion, the question becomes whether CP would allow any electrification on a shared corridor.

Even with battery trains, VIA would effectively have to electrify from somewhere in the GTA to near Coteau. That's probably 400 km of catenary at least. It's easy to see how they reached the $2B estimate for electrification. The real question is payoff. Do they save enough to justify that expense? I suspect they'd have to get to get higher than hourly frequencies to justify the cost.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Even with battery trains, VIA would effectively have to electrify from somewhere in the GTA to near Coteau. That's probably 400 km of catenary at least. It's easy to see how they reached the $2B estimate for electrification. The real question is payoff. Do they save enough to justify that expense? I suspect they'd have to get to get higher than hourly frequencies to justify the cost.

From a dollar perspective, probably not, but it may happen anyway so that the government can look like they are putting their money where their mouth is. Not paying for electrification of HFR may come across as being hypocritical.