New release today discusses this and describes it with 2+% grades, tunnels and many bridges. If we are really serious about doing away with fossil fuels why even spend the money for such a study for a line that would seem to be difficult and costly to build; and difficult to operate if actually constructed?
Mainly because it will take several decades to move away from hydrocarbon fuels for transportation. Especially for aviation.
Erik_MagMainly because it will take several decades to move away from hydrocarbon fuels for transportation. Especially for aviation.
While it is viable, I don't foresee nuclear power being used to any extent in merchant marine applications for political reasons. While sails did the function for centuries, I doubt that sailing speeds would suffice in today's ocean shipping. I don't see much applicability for all electric ocean going vessels - could a all electric vessel even complete a oceanic voyage between continents?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Good points, Balt.
Johnny
If modular nuclear power plants become common, I could see similar sized units being used on the larger vessels. "Electric" ships would most likely be fuel cell powered, though LNG with a combined cycle combustion turbine would have a significantly lower CO2 output than a diesel engine running on fuel oil.
There are a fair number of non-fuel uses for the bitumen that comes from Uintah, e.g. asphalt. This could be important as more of the oil in the US comes from frac'ed wells, which results in a very light oil.
diningcar New release today discusses this and describes it with 2+% grades, tunnels and many bridges. If we are really serious about doing away with fossil fuels why even spend the money for such a study for a line that would seem to be difficult and costly to build; and difficult to operate if actually constructed?
1. Why are 2+% grades difficult to operate? Aren't there similar grades throughout the world? Does difficult mean impossible, unsafe, or impractical? Or just more costly? I'm confused by this value judgment.
2. Why is the line costly to build? The press releases cite $1.5 billion, which is considerably less of even the most modest rail lines for which construction costs are cited. http://www.lightrail.com/projects.htm says that light rail costs $35 million/mile, whereas this railroad apparently costs $18.8 million/mile, or about 50%. I don't understand the judgement that this is costly.
3. Why is this line difficult to build? Are there engineering or geological challenges that are unusual, not done before, or have been deemed impossible or unlikely?
4. Who is the "we" that is really serious about doing away with fossil fuels? Is this a consensus that has been memorialized in law? Has a law been passed to make fossil fuel production, transportation, or use illegal, that would make this railroad illegal?
JD
Put this posting on the wrong thread. Moved it to the right place. Duh!
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2019/12/20-stb-moves-forward-with-environmental-study-for-proposed-utah-railroad
This is the one that former Trains Editor Mark W. Hemphill is heading up the construction effort. I started a thread on it here several months ago when this first became news.
- PDN.
[
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.