Batteries Included: Electric Locomotives?

[Anonymous]

 

 

Overmod

Bucyrus

Is some of the railroad demand driven by the need to meet regulations?

Yes, particularly in southern California.

Over the life of a locomotive, considering first cost, maintenance, and operating cost; is a genset more costly than a comparable diesel-electric switcher or less costly?

If the genset is less costly than the diesel electric, why don't the railroads buy gensets exclusively.  If the genset is more costly than diesel-electrics, why do railroads buy gensets?

[zugmann]

Bucyrus

 

 

Over the life of a locomotive, considering first cost, maintenance, and operating cost; is a genset more costly than a comparable diesel-electric switcher or less costly?

If the genset is less costly than the diesel electric, why don't the railroads buy gensets exclusively.  If the genset is more costly than diesel-electrics, why do railroads buy gensets?

Considering we have only had gensets a few years, I don't think there is an answer to your first question yet.   Time will tell.

[Anonymous]

When I asked what value one places on the objective of eliminating CO2 emissions, that question assumes that there is a cost to CO2 emissions that is now, or soon will be imposed through regulation.  It appears that much if not all of the incentive to buy gensets is their ability to meet environmental regulations.

I can’t find a reference to genset life cost, but I have learned that they cost six times more than a conventional diesel-electric switcher.   Despite better fuel efficiency, I assume the life cost is higher than conventional locomotives simply because a lower life cost is not being trumpeted.  What is trumpeted is the ability to meet regulations.   

When we consider the cost/benefit of battery powered locomotives, it would seem that part of the benefit is the elimination of CO2.  If that objective is mandated through regulations, that objective has to be met regardless of the cost.  So it would seem that battery locomotives would be cost effective no matter what they cost if they are the cheapest way to eliminate CO2 emissions.  So I must conclude that the value that one should place on the objective of eliminating CO2 emissions is whatever it costs to accomplish that goal.

[Overmod]

Bucyrus

When I asked what value one places on the objective of eliminating CO2 emissions, that question assumes that there is a cost to CO2 emissions that is now, or soon will be imposed through regulation.  It appears that much if not all of the incentive to buy gensets is their ability to meet environmental regulations.

I can’t find a reference to genset life cost, but I have learned that they cost six times more than a conventional diesel-electric switcher.   Despite better fuel efficiency, I assume the life cost is higher than conventional locomotives simply because a lower life cost is not being trumpeted.  What is trumpeted is the ability to meet regulations.   

When we consider the cost/benefit of battery powered locomotives, it would seem that part of the benefit is the elimination of CO2.  If that objective is mandated through regulations, that objective has to be met regardless of the cost.  So it would seem that battery locomotives would be cost effective no matter what they cost if they are the cheapest way to eliminate CO2 emissions.  So I must conclude that the value that one should place on the objective of eliminating CO2 emissions is whatever it costs to accomplish that goal.

I had a long and detailed reply to this, but deleted it.

It is trivial to set up an extreme example with a set of hypothetical assumptions and then draw conclusions from that.  Of course there would be implications from an autocratic imposition of CO2-abatement legislation that would technically favor BEVs -- or mandate a pure-electric technology if the use of liquid carbon-containing fuel were arbitrarily banned.  Long before that point, the use of synthesized 'carrier' fuel from technically renewable sources would become 'cost-effective', and there are other technologies that would become pervasive -- notably more widespread acceptance of railroad electrification, since the contribution of road locomotives to CO2 emissions greatly exceeds switching.

I don't think most railroads go by 'what is trumpeted' when assessing motive power requirements, or their response to legislation.  Actual use of BEVs for switching would, of course, have to be driven by something completely divorced from conventional economics.  Even in a cap-and-trade kind of approach to reducing anthropogenic global warming or whatever, the use of synthesized 'renewable-source' carrier fuel in 'specialty' areas like switching would have lower cost than the straight battery solution...especially if used in a hybrid or genset configuration.

Reducing overall fuel consumption by switch engines might be perceived as an adequate reason to implement gensets -- in an era where substantial fuel cost, and uncertainty about future increases in that cost, prevail.  I'd feel much more confident that railroads had a handle on what to do with gensets if I saw evidence of automatic startup and shutdown of the genset modules relative to demand or anticipated demand.  Or that regenerative braking even via hydraulic or flywheel storage were being provided on those things.  We'll see whether we ever get out of the "RCA VCR syndrome' on these things.

[Anonymous]

Overmod

Bucyrus

When we consider the cost/benefit of battery powered locomotives, it would seem that part of the benefit is the elimination of CO2.  If that objective is mandated through regulations, that objective has to be met regardless of the cost.  So it would seem that battery locomotives would be cost effective no matter what they cost if they are the cheapest way to eliminate CO2 emissions.  So I must conclude that the value that one should place on the objective of eliminating CO2 emissions is whatever it costs to accomplish that goal.

It is trivial to set up an extreme example with a set of hypothetical assumptions and then draw conclusions from that.  Of course there would be implications from an autocratic imposition of CO2-abatement legislation that would technically favor BEVs -- or mandate a pure-electric technology if the use of liquid carbon-containing fuel were arbitrarily banned.  Long before that point, the use of synthesized 'carrier' fuel from technically renewable sources would become 'cost-effective', and there are other technologies that would become pervasive -- notably more widespread acceptance of railroad electrification, since the contribution of road locomotives to CO2 emissions greatly exceeds switching.

I am setting up a hypothetical case because I think it is highly probable.  We were told that this case was the justification for the NS #999 battery locomotive.  Eliminating CO2 does indeed seem to be the elephant in the living room.   

But the point I am making about this objective is that it affects the cost/benefit ratio of new non-emission locomotive concepts in a direction that makes previously non-cost-effective solutions suddenly become cost-effective.   In other words, based on free market economics, nobody is going to buy locomotives that cost more to own and operate than conventional locomotives.  But if a performance regulation adds cost to a locomotive, it will be accepted.  And if the regulation requires a locomotive power concept that was previously uneconomical, it might suddenly become economical. 

I did observe that it would seem that battery locomotives would be cost effective no matter what they cost if they are the cheapest way to eliminate CO2 emissions.  So, yes if a cheaper way were found, that would be used in place of battery locomotives.  I am just using battery locomotives as an example of technology that is not cost effective, but might become so overnight with new regulations.  I am certainly not advocating battery locomotives.    

[Overmod]

Bucyrus

I am setting up a hypothetical case because I think it is highly probable.  We were told that this case was the justification for the NS #999 battery locomotive.  

You see, I remember this differently -- the stated goals were air quality management, reducing dependence on foreign oil (by using grid electricity from coal or natural gas efficiently for charging) and save fuel expense (both with the 'cheaper-per-kilowatt' grid power and the regenerative braking).  If Schuster or the FRA/DOT agencies doing the co-granting had wanted to play up the global-warming scam, I suspect it would have been mentioned in the press releases and stories at the time.  And yes, I think that it's significant they did not.

Eliminating CO2 does indeed seem to be the elephant in the living room.

I look at it far more as a 'sky is falling' issue as far as most people in the Western world are concerned -- except insofar as it serves as a post-Cold War excuse to throw money at technology without significantly inflationary effect, and as a means of further consolidating European (and, ultimately, Asian) hegemony over American economic affairs.  

If there were practical political will to reduce actual anthropogenic global warming, the effort would heavily involve China and India, as well as other nations producing large amounts of effective greenhouse gas.  That it does not tells me that the whole story isn't being told truthfully, and there is more than enough evidence of arrogant scheming in the 'scientific' community and buy-in from various profiteers to indicate that it isn't nearly as important as... well, air quality in certain districts, or providing a technology without the drawbacks of diesel power.

[Disclaimer: I was a supporter of an anthropogenic global warming hypothesis in 1971, and I certainly still believe it can, and perhaps should be acknowledged as, real.  It's the fake science and the cozening that I find so deplorable.]

 

But the point I am making about this objective is that it affects the cost/benefit ratio of new non-emission locomotive concepts in a direction that makes previously non-cost-effective solutions suddenly become cost-effective.

Yes, and I don't want to stomp on that point.  The issue that concerns me about this is that AGW is not going to be a means of enforcing a permanent mandate that forces a required change from diesel to plug-in within a short timeframe.  (The principal reason for that being, no matter how much of a mandate a particular administration or Congress had, the disastrous effects of modal CO2 reduction would result in a political backlash within years, not decades -- and a prompt rethinking and revision of policies.

In any case, I would concentrate on other aspects, notably the stated reasons for building 999 as a straight electric.  You may note that the immediate follow-on project was to MU the battery locomotive with a genset engine to increase flexibility.  Hybrids with large energy storage density and good control over battery deterioration are DEFINITELY cost effective with diesel cost where it is, and are more and more attractive when terminal air-quality issues are included.  I have been waiting to see where the whole natural gas/methanol/synthesis thing goes -- LNG hybrid genset engines may be expensive, but they'll be clean, efficient, capable of plug-in charging to the greatest practical extent... etc.

In other words, based on free market economics, nobody is going to buy locomotives that cost more to own and operate than conventional locomotives.  But if a performance regulation adds cost to a locomotive, it will be accepted.  

Yes, but you pointedly leave out whether anyone will buy locomotives that cost more to own and LESS to operate.  Which was precisely the rationale behind first-generation diesels, and we know how THAT worked out in a reasonably free-market economic environment...

And if the regulation requires a locomotive power concept that was previously uneconomical, it might suddenly become economical.

But so would a whole passel of OTHER alternatives, some of which would be considerably superior.

An interesting example that people have been dancing around mentioning in this thread concerns fuel economy in automobiles.  I don't know if anyone remembers the fun involved with lean-burn and stratified-charge engines back in the early '70s ... in a world before fast inexpensive digital controls or CAD/CAM-optimized systems of direct fuel injection.  And in which cheapness generally trumped quality design and assembly.

Without the push from EPA and CAFE regulation... no matter how ridiculous and inefficient some of the implementations were ... I doubt that the 'right' kind of competition would have put the modern generation of fuel-efficient engine technologies in place.   Especially at the 'bottom end' of the price range.

Of course, I also remember one of the writers in the early Seventies aghast -- aghast, I tell you -- at the ridiculous prospect that a Volkswagen would shortly cost more than Eight Thousand Five Hundred Dollars.  Of course, by the time the price did get there, a Volkswagen wasn't a cheap little car any more...

I did observe that it would seem that battery locomotives would be cost effective no matter what they cost if they are the cheapest way to eliminate CO2 emissions.

Well, that's a valid point, but you are forgetting the 'zero option': it a technology is the 'cheapest' way to eliminate CO2 entirely, but it is not cost-effective by regular standards, you will simply see abolition of the service, or relocation of functions or operations to a less expensive or restrictive location.  Happened with furniture making in the 1950s -- out of unionized New England to lower-cost right-to-work North Carolina.  I don't have to bring up the word "Amtrak" to YOU.  Has anyone run the numbers for battery switcher cost to see how net profit from operations would be affected -- or how far rates would have to be run up to cover the cost of the battery, or whatever, technology?

I am just using battery locomotives as an example of technology that is not cost effective, but might become so overnight with new regulations.

I think you've already made that point, a bit better, with respect to genset engines. There is no need to postulate some modal and irreversible change in tolerance of 'any' level of CO2 to see the effect -- the spectre of $4 diesel certainly got many approaches rolling, as did the Southern California and EPA 'tier' requirements.

(I would also be very amused to see where practical amounts of charge power in a 'strict zero-CO2-emission' framework would come from ... and how the definition of 'cost-effective' would change when neither coal nor gas could be used for electric power generation without sequestration or other abatement/remediation techniques...)

[Anonymous]

Overmod,

Generally, I agree with most of your points.  The point I was making is really simple.  The original poster asked if battery locomotives were the way of the future.  The answer seems to be that they are not because solving the technical problems would render them non-cost-effective.  But add regulations and they might become cost effective.  And yes, any number of alternative solutions might emerge and compete with each other for the best approach to meeting new regulations including just fleeing the regulations.    

Above I said, “…based on free market economics, nobody is going to buy locomotives that cost more to own and operate than conventional locomotives. But if a performance regulation adds cost to a locomotive, it will be accepted.”   

And you said that I pointedly left out whether anyone will buy locomotives that cost more to own and LESS to operate.

I only left that out because it has nothing to do with the point I was making which is about the ability of regulations to move the goal posts.  Certainly I agree that if a locomotive cost more upfront but less overall because of more fuel efficiency or lower maintenance cost, for example, then sure that would be a good thing, and it might indeed be possible.  But that is another issue.  Railroads would buy that locomotive without the coercion of new regulatory cost. 

Just to be clear, I am not advocating the elimination of CO2 emissions.  I am probably on the same page as you are regarding that issue.  But it seems that much of this country is taking it very seriously.  It may seem like the sky is falling, but occasionally it does fall.  And I am not comforted by the fact that China and India are getting a pass.  That seems to be part of the deal.  The main focus of the call to action is targeted largely on the U.S.  But in any case, I do not expect an overnight ban on emitting CO2, but a shift in regulations might overnight change what technology is viable.  That is all I meant by suggesting abrupt change.