Amtrak Aims For Net-Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions By 2045 (thehill.com) 77
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Hill: Passenger rail service Amtrak is aiming to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045 to reduce its impact on the environment. Amtrak on Thursday announced efforts to hit that mark will involve reducing the use of diesel fuel and phasing in renewable fuels in its network over the next decades. The rail service said it plans to reach 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2030 by investing in new fuel-cell, hydrogen and battery technologies.
Funds from President Biden's bipartisan infrastructure law will be used to help Amtrak develop a more sustainable fleet, expand service and revamp part of the rail's aging infrastructure. The legislation includes $66 billion in rail funding, the largest federal investment in passenger rail since the creation of Amtrak. Amtrak executives said setting clear goals to reduce emissions is particularly important for attracting "a new generation of travelers who are conscious of their environmental impact."
Amtrak last year announced a $7.3 billion investment to procure 83 new trains that will operate mostly along the Northeast Corridor, which include some of the first hybrid-electric powered trains. The trains will start replacing older trains, some of which are nearly 50 years old, in 2024. The transportation sector generates the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., making up 27 percent of total emissions in 2020. Rail makes up just 2 percent of transportation emissions, while cars and trucks make up more than 80 percent.
Funds from President Biden's bipartisan infrastructure law will be used to help Amtrak develop a more sustainable fleet, expand service and revamp part of the rail's aging infrastructure. The legislation includes $66 billion in rail funding, the largest federal investment in passenger rail since the creation of Amtrak. Amtrak executives said setting clear goals to reduce emissions is particularly important for attracting "a new generation of travelers who are conscious of their environmental impact."
Amtrak last year announced a $7.3 billion investment to procure 83 new trains that will operate mostly along the Northeast Corridor, which include some of the first hybrid-electric powered trains. The trains will start replacing older trains, some of which are nearly 50 years old, in 2024. The transportation sector generates the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., making up 27 percent of total emissions in 2020. Rail makes up just 2 percent of transportation emissions, while cars and trucks make up more than 80 percent.
Oh wow, a 23 year plan (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
...run by the government. This will be over budget, and not on time. Some political cronies' spouses will make billions.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the evidence is pretty clear that voting doesn't work when all the candidates are trash.
Re: (Score:2)
Aaand what we have here is a right-wing fascist troll who doesn't believe in democracy, (or the results of elections).
The two parties haven't been "the same" in decades. The Democrats are *finally* pulling back from being Raygun Republicans, while the GOP are literally "Christian" fascists and white supremecists who want to "renegotiate" the Civil War.
Re: (Score:2)
It should be no surprise that you are unable to imagine life outside of government. There's better options than the false dichotomy of voting Democrat or Republican. Everyone that can vote and doesn't is casting a silent vote for "none of the above;" they are casting a vote for freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone that can vote and doesn't is casting a silent vote for "none of the above;" they are casting a vote for freedom.
No, they are not. They are casting a vote for indifference, because they can't be bothered to make an informed decision about the future of society. I guarantee that if you were to conduct a survey of voters who didn't vote in 2020, only a single digit percent would say that not voting is "a vote for freedom". Instead, you'd get a cornucopia of excuses such as "I didn't want to stand in line" or the like.
They are telegraphing that they can't be bothered to give a shit, even when the very structure of our
Re: (Score:2)
"The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule."
-- Samuel Adams
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, who actually rides on that thing...?
Anyone?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A ton of people.
But you'd rather shut down railroads (let's see, it's BNSF that likes to advertise that it carries a ton of friend 453mi on a gallon of fuel (true)) as opposed to shutting down long-distance trucking.
And you'd rather drive to work every day, in traffic jams, than ride on a train past the traffic jams, as I used to do when I lived in Chicago.
Re: (Score:2)
That was said largely tongue-in-cheek....but I'll admit I know precious little about trains. Most folks I know have never ridden on one.
From the few reports I've read about Amtrak in the US, I was under the impression that it was in bad shape and not really very viable...or much used and mostly just propped up by the Feds.
I do
Re: (Score:2)
The northeast corridor is well used - basically from DC to Boston.
Everywhere else, Amtrak is a sad joke.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh wow, a 23 year plan (Score:5, Informative)
'Well, ackshually' the uptake of renewables has vastly outstripped projections in the US over a long period of time [bu.edu].
This [bu.edu] is the kind of graph we need to keep making happen.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Oh wow, a 23 year plan (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, Amtrak owns essentially none of the track their trains run on. The tracks are owned by the freight lines, which is why many of Amtrak's runs don't guarantee on-time arrival. It's also why there isn't much high-speed traffic, since the tracks are not capable of handling them.
Here's a link to a chart showing track ownership in the United States: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3rJC5Ca7Wmc/VLLU-4FkSqI/AAAAAAAAFYc/p6qy21wQx3U/s1600/pie_chart.png [blogspot.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much this. They would need to source the solar panels and replace the battery banks on the trains, but if they reduce the weight of the train cars and increase the volume for storage, they could easily make this happen with some trains. Also line the tracks so the trains could charge on the fly.
The idea is there, the tech can be too. The roofs of the car could easily be solar panels and while that won't charge a train, they would allow for longer trips.
Re: (Score:2)
What? (Score:5, Interesting)
Amtrak executives said setting clear goals to reduce emissions is particularly important for attracting "a new generation of travelers who are conscious of their environmental impact."
This is why Amtrak is losing money because they think people are taking planes, trains, and automobiles because trains are producing too much greenhouse gases?
If they stopped running mostly-empty trains on routes no one wants to travel, they would greatly reduce their carbon footprint.
The northeast corridor which is the only profitable part of the system, is largely electric as I recall - that's pretty green, isn't it?
Diesel trains, when full of passengers, are among the most efficient, greenest, methods of travel known - doubly-so for electric trains.
So here's the plan:
1) Stop subsidizing unpopular routes
2) Convert remaining lines to electric locomotives
3) Buy offsets for the remaining greenhouse gases
Let's see what the wizards at Amtrak come up with...
Re:What? (Score:4, Interesting)
Fuck disservice cunts ... I mean service cuts.
Electrify the railroads at public expense, both for freight and passengers.
Ban domestic overland flights under 500 miles.
Run more trains, more frequently, on more corridors.
France, China, India, and (yes) Russia basically have the right idea.
Re: (Score:3)
For high speed rail which is as fast as the TGV you need separate tracks with few stops and few turns. Otherwise you will get the German style high speed rail where the trains are technically capable of going fast, but have few opportunities to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
The German system is still orders of magnitude better than what exists in the Northeastern US. "Not going fast" still means 160-200km/h (100-125 mph) vs 250-300km/h. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Another good example is Poland -- they're starting to run modern higher-speed electric multiple unit train sets (PESA Dart) at 160km/h on existing lines.
Re: (Score:2)
High speed rail is being built around the world right now. There is an opportunity to export the technology and know-how if you have it. Shame the US didn't invest in the technology.
The kind of scales the US is working with would be ideal for maglev.
Re: (Score:2)
So now the USA's answer is to make battery powered trains? Don't they know that it's more efficient to run electricity to the trains via overhead cables? Makes the trains lighter & more stable so they can go faster too.
Re: (Score:2)
Making the locos lighter isn't always a win. You need enough adhesive weight on the driving wheels to achieve the maximum tractive effort the loco is built for. Some locos include substantial amounts of ballast to increase adhesive weight so they can achieve higher tractive effort at low speed - it's important for hauling heavy trains.
As for electrification, it isn't necessarily cost-effective to do everywhere. There's significant cost installing and maintaining the equipment. You end up needing dedicat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The US to invest in high speed rail. In California, remember? It was a complete disaster.
Compare this to China's mind boggling electric rail system, built almost entirely within the last ten years.
Re: (Score:3)
The US to invest in high speed rail. In California, remember? It was a complete disaster.
It was a complete disaster because it was run by morons. Go read some of the reports on that cluster fuck. You will think there as retarded gibbon running the show. Hell, a retarded gibbon would have done a better job.
Re: (Score:2)
Maglev requires highly specialized and expensive track -- it's actually less good for long distances due to this. The "spam in a can" Hyperloop is another pipe dream.
Regular wheel-on-metal HSR works fine for distances up to even 1000 miles, and would replace a LOT of flights over land, even if not all of them.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on the type of maglev. The Japanese one does use expensive track, but obviously they think it's worth it.
Re: What? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It makes even more sense in the US where distances are longer. 600kph to start, but they think it will get to twice that, just under the speed of sound.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If they stopped running mostly-empty trains on routes no one wants to travel, they would greatly reduce their carbon footprint.
So ... if they just shut down?
Re: (Score:2)
So here's the plan:
1) Stop subsidizing unpopular routes
Then people would take a bus or car and produce more CO2, or not?
Am I missing something?
Re: (Score:2)
It should not be ignored that modern (any, really) diesel trains are hybrids. The diesel engine drives a generator that provides electricity to the traction motors embedded in the wheel sets. And modern engines have dynamic brakes where momentum is converted into heat and dissipated at the top of the engine. Why the things are so efficient. So hybrid-electrics are what we have been using for a long time.
Re: (Score:1)
They need to work on being profitable, and appealing to customers...ya know, functioning like an actual business? I keep trying to justify taking Amtrak someplace...but, anyplace I want to go, ends up being far more expensive than flying, takes 2 days, requires multiple trains (major issue when they're not on time), and takes a ridiculously indirect route. When I have used Amtrak in the past, the train was late every, single, time. I like trains...not on a trainspotter level...but I generally can't just
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Using an diesel fuel to power an electric generator, and then running the train on electricity; is obviously less efficient than running the train on diesel in the first place.
In an incredibly simplistic view, maybe. But do remember that if you intend to use the diesel in a generator, you can optimize that diesel engine for electrical generation and running at that optimal temperature / RPM rate 100% of the time, where you cannot if direct-driving. This is why literally all diesel trains are diesel-electric.
What, did you think that train operators hate money, and just want to use less efficient designs, and that's why literally the entire freight industry shifted to diesel-elec
Re: (Score:2)
Doing this will make train travel even more expensive, while doing nothing for service. So, a self-limiting process, until Amtrak can finally spend enough money on nonsense so that nobody at all rides it.
 windmills ! (Score:2)
Simple: windmills on top of every train in the country. Think of the energy generated! The faster and farther they go, the more energy they make.
But all seriousness aside; it's a big country with mostly wasteland in the middle section. No industry there, no active citizens who travel. Only the coastal regions, the perimeter, are active & productive and it's hard to connect them all by rail. I love long distance train travel, but it's just too expensive and that won't improve without paying customers alo
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Â windmills ! (Score:4, Insightful)
If by "..with mostly wasteland in the middle section.." you mean where most of your food is grown, sure.
Re:Â windmills ! (Score:5, Insightful)
I hear you, and your first paragraph is funny and all. But consider this. Forget the middle of the country most the most part. The eastern 1/3 of the country is pretty populated. The western 1/8 of the country is pretty populated. Improve those area first. Consider this map [wikipedia.org] of China's high-speed rails in 2017. See how they've concentrated on the area most populated? We would need to do the same. People need come to the point that traveling by train for semi-short distances actually saves them time (parking/security/waiting for flight/delays) and money. Once you can guarantee that, air travel is dead for those areas, for the most part. To connect the east and west of the U.S., you just need two high-speed rails across the country: north and south.
I know this sounds like "fuck everyone in the middle of the country", but you gotta get started somewhere. You play with the cards you're dealt and getting a country like the U.S. dealt in your hand when trying to get the best bang for your buck translates to something like this.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll add that the Northeast Corridor (DC to Boston), by far Amtrak's most heavily used section, has been 100% electrified since the late 1930s (electrification started in the early 20th Century actually due to restrictions on steam engines operating in densely populated cities). Acela can already make it from DC to NYC in under three hours, and a true "high speed" trainset could make that trip in a little over half that time -- but the major bottleneck is the Civil War-era B & P Tunnel in Baltimore. $
Re: windmills ! (Score:2)
For example, the Barcelona (on the Mediterranean coast) to Madrid (500km away on a mountain plateau) route has 10 trains per day that take 2 hours 30 minutes, city centre to city centre (How long does it take to get through TSA these days?). There's a whole bunch of othe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But of course, the USA is special.
Re: (Score:2)
it's a big country with mostly wasteland in the middle section. No industry there, no active citizens who travel.
Agriculture is an industry, whether you call it one or not. And I forgot how Denver, Minneapolis, Dallas, Houston, St. Louis, Indianapolis, Memphis, and Chicago have no active citizens who travel... no wait, they all have busy airports and logistics hubs that move millions of tons of freight every year.
Please don't talk about "the middle section" like it's only Wyoming and the Dakotas when it is very clearly not.
So ridership will drop to 0 by 2045? (Score:1)
This should be trivial. (Score:2)
All they have to do is stop existing like the government has been trying to get them to do for years.
Easy and obvious (Score:3)
Just shutdown Amtrak. Problem solved.
We do not need a hyper-ineffective passenger rail service with $13 cheeseburgers and suppose train routes that involve stretches where you must get off the train, board a bus to get around an area not served by Amtrak, and then board another train to continue your grossly over-priced and slow train trip.
If ANYBODY at Amtrak is focused on ANYTHING other than excellent passenger train travel experiences, the quasi-company needs liquidating.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, solve the problem by shutting down one of the few companies actually offering rail services. That'll spur the industry to life and people will just be looking up to take nonexistent trains! /s
Re: Easy and obvious (Score:2)
No one rides Amtrak outside the Northeast Corridor, at least not in sufficient numbers to cover the cost of the operation.
Have you ever ridden on an Amtrak train outside the northeast corridor? Do you know anyone else that has? Have you ever even considered taking Amtrak on any trip ever?
Re: (Score:2)
No one rides Amtrak outside the Northeast Corridor, at least not in sufficient numbers to cover the cost of the operation.
Have you ever ridden on an Amtrak train outside the northeast corridor? Do you know anyone else that has? Have you ever even considered taking Amtrak on any trip ever?
I did this specifically to avoid the shitfight that domestic aviation has become in the USA. I've taken trains down the West coast, and trains from Denver to Chicago, through Michigan, then to the Norheast corridor.
No, it's not fast. But the seats are big and wide, and there's a bar and restaurant on board. Train stations tend to be downtown, so you don't need to fool around with airport transfers. If your train is scheduled for 8:00, you can show up at 7:55 and still board. Nobody makes you take off your s
I hope that includes their infrastructure as well, (Score:2)
Stick solar panels on trains. (Score:2)
A decade or two late... (Score:2)
Ok, a decade or two late to the party, but sure! They know there's a party!! That's progress, right?
What will power the trains? Diesel generators? (Score:1)
Just because the train themselves emit no CO2, does not mean less CO2 is emitted.
How is the hydrogen created? How is the electricity supplied?
Zero emission from the vehicle itself does not mean it's any better for the environment.
Wrong reason (Score:2)
Amtrak's GHG emissions are trivial and irrelevant. Its diesel exhaust, however, is toxic, causes cancer, asthma, and emphysema. Amtrak should be electrified toute suite. However, with covid, no one is likely to ride it, except in the northeast corridor maybe.
Re: Wrong reason (Score:2)
Electrifying freight rail lines to accommodate the occasional electric passenger train is a waste of resources.
If you want to cut greenhouse gases from diesel passenger trains, step one is to stop running unpopular and money-losing trains no one is riding. Stop subsidizing trains that do little more than pollute the environment and lose money.
The numbers (Score:2)
The transportation sector generates the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., making up 27 percent of total emissions in 2020. Rail makes up just 2 percent of transportation emissions, while cars and trucks make up more than 80 percent.
So all rail traffic accounts for 2% of the 27% of all greenhouse gases from the transportation sector...
That means Rail (freight and passenger) worldwide is responsible for a mere 0.54% of all greenhouse gases, and Amtrak itself is responsible for a tiny, tiny fraction of that 0.54% of greenhouse gases.
Look, if the government wants to buy more choo-choos for its money-losing toy train set, that's fine, but please, don't pretend this will make a difference for the environment.
Per passenger mile, full passeng
In California (Score:2)