• OpenTTD@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Okay, to be fair, I was assuming the nuclear trains would be doing cross-country freight hauls and never for passenger service.

    Upvoted for the hydrogen, you’re probably right about fuel cells being a better option.

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      The main problem with hydrogen is distribution. You’d have to build pipelines to a lot of train terminals to refuel the trains. So it seems to me running overhead wires for electric trains would be the better options for most cases. Yeah it’s a century old technology there’s nothing sexy about it, but since it’s old tech it’s well tested and will be reliable. The thing with technology is that you usually have to have a transitional phase that’s viable. Many “diesel” trains actually have electric motors that drive the wheels, they just haul around a diesel generator to power those electric motors. So you could use the overhead wires where available and run the diesel generators on parts of the track that don’t have that in place yet while transitioning. Then when there’s complete electric coverage, do away with the diesel generators entirely.

      I think hydrogen for ships makes sense because a port could have a hydrogen terminal similar to present day LNG terminals. LNG is transported by ship so hydrogen could also be transported to the terminals similarly. Eventually hydrogen pipelines can be built from there, but pipelines take time to build.

      • OpenTTD@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        The main problem with electric is also distribution. 95% of all North American heavy rail lines are unelectrified.

        I can see taking a risk on hydrogen trains might not pan out, just saying electric is something that draws from the electrical grid (which is at capacity in the Pacific, Texan and Atlantic grids) and there’s no easy/single solution. If only for avoiding pirates by staying far from shore indefinitely, ships should at least have the option to be nuclear but require a US Navy-certified team at the port to inspect it and do needed maintenance/repairs before each time it sets sail.

        As for nuclear trains, at the very least you have to admit that it’s not as simple as “just transmit power along the rail line from LA to NY”.

        • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Everything is going to have issues, but electrifying rail is proven technology and doesn’t require the infrastructure to be 100% complete before it can be used. Building pipelines is far more expensive than power lines and you’d need to have hydrogen distribution across the country before rolling out hydrogen trains. Green hydrogen generation requires electricity too, so there’s no difference in terms of the need for electricity.

          There will always be problems with environmental catastrophes from nuclear materials on vehicles so it should be limited to only military naval vessels that need it. Using US naval personnel doesn’t really solve the problem of inspections and maintenance, it’s just shifting responsibility. The Navy would need to train more people to do these inspections and there’s nothing about a Navy that makes that free.

          As for nuclear trains, at the very least you have to admit that it’s not as simple as “just transmit power along the rail line from LA to NY”.

          There are no simple solutions, but electrified rail is the simplest solution from all available options. Electrified rail is a century old technology and is implemented around the world already. As fun as it may be to come up with outside the box type solutions, we actually already have most of the technology needed to solve global warming, we’re only lacking a willingness to implement it.