• Als Spam markieren
• Beitrag melden

• 
  Diese Gruppe Alles

• Archiv
• RSS-Feeds

• Kontakt
• Hilfe
• Impressum
• Datenschutz

Re: Bio-diesel 159

"Tony Polson" <docnews2011@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:7s43a45vo5d490jkuuaj6locknbag1sskr@4ax.com...
> "Stephen" <newsmail04@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>But is electrification any more environmentally friendly?
>
>
> That's the 64 billion dollar question.
>
>
>>At the source of traction its certainly cleaner, and can produce more
>>power
>>to weight, but its just moved the pollution from the train to the power
>>station. Plus there's all the transmission losses to consider which, when
>>generating electricity from fossil fuels, makes this less efficient and
>>creates more pollution.
>
>
> There may be a small saving in energy consumption.  Whether this is
> enough to justify the embedded energy in the electrification works is
> another matter entirely.
>
>
>>However if the generation is to be from hydro or nuclear sources then
>>electric trains become more viable in terms of efficiency and certainly
>>pollution. Admittedly nuclear will leave a legacy but what other viable
>>alternatives to a "clean" source of power other than hydro? With wind
>>power
>>the whole country would have to be covered with the blot on the landscape
>>turbines and still wouldn't be able to produce enough power for our needs.
>
>
> On the basis of the current and projected 'mix' of UK electricity
> generation, the electrified railway would actually produce *more*
> carbon emissions than the diesel railway it would replace.  Of course
> the trainspotters will howl in protest, claiming that the electricity
> for their "new" train set will all be from nuclear or renewable
> sources, but this is of course total nonsense.
>
> It isn't as if other industries and consumers of electricity will
> stand idly by while the rail industry claims all the new "zero carbon"
> sources of power.  They will want it at least as much as the railway
> does.  So unless the railway constructs its own dedicated nuclear
> stations and/or renewable sources (which we all know won't happen) it
> will be using exactly the same mix of power as everyone else.
>
> And for the foreseeable future, the vast majority of this power will
> come from fossil fuels - primarily Russian and Arab gas, and coal from
> a world market whose prices doubled in the first half of 2008 alone.
>
> The projected mix for UK electricity in 2020 is surprisingly similar
> to now.  Slightly less coal.  Slightly more gas.  More renewables, but
> nuclear about the same as today because the number of new plants will
> be roughly balanced by the old ones being closed down.  The carbon
> content of the electricity mix will therefore be much the same as
> today, maybe just a little less.
>
> So the electrification enthusiasts' claims for a low- or zero-carbon
> source of power for their new OHLE are utterly false.
>
Correct me if I'm wrong Tony but my understanding is that the generators
like for example Scottish Southern Electric who produce much of their
electricity from hydro (the biggest producer from that source in the
country) sell the electricity direct to the customer paying National Grid to
transport it to them. I think it's the source of where you buy the
electricity from that counts even though it'll be mixed up during the
transmission transport.

However I do fully agree with you that peoples perception of OHLE being low
or zero carbon rate is definitely false. No one seems to factor in
everything as you rightly point out like the production of the steel
supports, the copper wire, the sub stations, etc., plus its ongoing
maintenance and replacement when worn out.

This is exactly like everyone harping on about the fact you must use the low
energy light bulbs in your house. Yes they can save a lot but only if used
in the right locations. If its somewhere the light is constantly left on
like a living room then they do save a lot over a conventional tungsten
bulb. However if used in somewhere like a toilet when the light is
continually being switched on and off then they become more expensive. The
reason is that they use more electricity than a tungsten bulb starting up
and although their normal life is a lot longer than a tungsten bulb under a
living room scenario, this greatly reduces to less that a tungsten bulb if
stressed with being continuously switched on and off.

Antworten