US DOE to Invest Up to $4.4M in Six Advanced Biomass-to-Biofuels Projects at US Universities
Assessing the Impact of Global Peak Oil on the Climate

Report: California Has the Renewables Capacity for Zero GHG Operation of High-Speed Rail

A report by Navigant Consulting Inc. concluded that using renewable energy to power the proposed high-speed train (HST) system, resulting in zero greenhouse gas operations, is “well within the capabilities of the state.” The zero emissions strategy report was presented at the California High Speed Rail Authority’s (CHSRA) most recent board meeting held in San Diego. At the meeting, the Board adopted a renewable energy/zero emissions strategy for the high-speed train project.

The proposed HST—which has proceeded through a detailed planning phase and has a bond measure to fund it currently on the November 2008 ballot—would reduce pollution and GHG emissions by reducing the growth in automobile and plane travel. These benefits would be somewhat reduced, the Navigant report notes, if the HST consumes a significant amount of energy derived from fossil fuels.

The train system is expected to use 3,380 GWh a year of energy to transport 94 million passengers by 2030. This amount represents only 0.9% of the projected statewide load in 2030. However, if powered only by renewable energy, it would represent 2.8%-4.8% of the RPS needs for the entire state.

Integrating renewable energy into the high-speed train project would be neither cost- nor resource- prohibitive and would be well in line with the more sustainable future that California is trying to ensure for itself. The benefits in this regard are clear and, with several avenues to ‘green’ the train, the CHSRA could achieve the goal of low-cost, efficient and clean travel.

...In general, cost trends are leading renewables to be cost-competitive with fossil fuels more quickly than analysts had predicted. Still the CHSRA should consider a policy that allows flexibility given the unlikely event that the premium for clean energy becomes prohibitively large (and could result in significant ridership losses); in such a case, the policy could allow the CHSRA to put somewhat less renewable energy into the grid than it will be using (i.e. not meet the 100% standard).

The CHSRA should decide early on in the development process whether or not they wish to pursue an all-renewable option for the train. If so, it will be necessary to incorporate renewable energy planning into the business and environmental plans of the train. Expertise in renewable energy development is available, and would ensure the CHSRA develops its energy future in a cost effective and environmentally acceptable way. For planning purposes it is best to be committed early to renewable energy.

—“The Use of Renewable Energy Sources to Provide Power to California High-Speed Rail”

Resources

Comments

Peter

I assume this includes nuclear, which I am not a big fan of. I don't too much about the engineering of windmill and solar panel placement, or of California topography, but it seems to be that a rail right of way would also be a great place to windmills and solar panels, so that the trains running on the rails would be powered by the windmills and solar panels they pass along the way.

Overall, I think the high speed train idea is fantastic and I hope California goes ahead with it and I hope that it is a phenomenal success and that it is then adopted in other areas of the country.

Why do people keep mixing up alternative fuels and transport.
By all means have alternative fuels, but just pump the electricity into the grid.
By all means have electric trains and cars etc, but just take the power from the grid.
If you are utterly isolated, up the mountains somewhere, that is a different thing, but as a general rule, push the power into the grid (or push the excess power into the grid) and take power from the grid as required.
If you think about it, there will certainly be times when there is no sun and no wind, and the trains will still have to run, so just use the grid.

It is like putting PV cells on cars instead of putting them on your house facing south, or on a solar farm. There is no need to do it. [ Also, PV cells should last 20 years, cars 10-15 ]

It smells of "arts graduate thinking".

A minor point is that most countries that have HSTs also have lots of nuclear power - France, Japan, Germany for example - but that is another story.

aym

The european high speed rail system, at least the part between London and Paris, is completely electrically driven. Impressive as heck and as fast as a plane ride and right to the inner parts of the city.

California already has a HVDC line for power from one of the northern states for hydro power down to LA and provides a significant part of the power.

Oregon is already planning to put up solar power on a highway.

http://cleantechnica.com/2008/08/13/oregon-launching-first-solar-highway-in-the-us/

Peter, your idea of reminds me of a Bauhaus housing developement in the 20's. A lightrail system was put up first to transport supplies to build all the houses and them at the end was converted. Unified designed processes kept the overall prices down.

Peter

Well, clearly I pissed off somebody, not quite sure who. All I was suggesting is that windmills and solar panels take up lots of space. Trains take up lots of space. If you are going to clear a huge right of way for a train, why not make it a little wider and throw in some solar panels and windmills too? Sure, the trains can get their power from elsewhere when necessary and the solar panels and windmills can power other things too. But there are a lot of NIMBYs out there. Some don't want windmills or solar panels. Others don't want trains. I just figured if CA manages to fight one set of NIMBYs, perhaps they could get two for the price of one.

sjc

If you want to go from southern to northern California fast now, you fly. We pretty much know what high fuel prices and deregulation has done to the airline industry. I would favor developing bio jet fuels more than a high speed train.

People have been talking about high speed trains in California for 50 years. It is the land right of way and the terrain that cost and stop it every time. You have a mountain range between the north and south that you either have to bore through or go over at great expense.

Henry Gibson

California has used Columbia River power for long enough, and it has pretended that it is using low green house gas power. This power should now be sold into Oregon and Washington and Idaho to replace the power from any of the coal burning or natural gas burning facilities in those states that are part of the Columbia basin watershed; California is not part of that watershed. California should use its own land area and resources if it proposes to inflict its own personal opinions about what power it should buy upon the other states. At least all of the CO2 released from fossil generators in Columbia states should be credited to California up to the limit of power that is sent to California. California can try to impose very expensive renewable power upon its residents, but it really should impose carbon-dioxide taxes upon all of its residents for their direct and indirect use of fossil fuels. And California should impose strict limits on the size of houses and the size of cars. ..HG..

D

Mixture of windfarms and railways gives good synergy due to available electrical infrastuctury not only due NIMBY'S. You don't need building additional transmission lines and you can avoid substantial investment costs.

Reality Czech
If you are going to clear a huge right of way for a train, why not make it a little wider and throw in some solar panels and windmills too?
Trains need level and relatively straight paths. Wind is best on hills and ridges. Solar panels work well as roofing, which the train doesn't need. Some functions are better separated.
HarveyD

sjc:

Please have a closer look at all the obstacles that the European High Speed trains have to go thru and you may change your mind about a Californian north-south high speed train line feasbility.

HarveyD

sjc:

Please have a closer look at all the obstacles that the European High Speed trains have to go through and you may change your mind about a Californian north-south high speed train line fesability.

aym

Hope you didn't count me as one of the complainants to your idea peter. Sort of liked the idea of the integrated works project. Usual blog, not so easy to present stuff.

With anything, always going to be aspects someone doesn't like. And this site has views covering whole spectrum.

So far, your post doesn't seem to have developed a huge backlash so be happy.

sjc

It is not me that determines "feasibility" that is explained by the people trying to sell the idea and pass the law issuing the bonds. They have been trying this for decades with no results. California is not Europe.

Peter

Don't worry, aym, I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to the anonymous poster above you who clearly thought my idea totally sucked. Oh, well, you can't make everybody happy.

sjc and others: although I agree with sjc that buying up a right of way is problematic, I don't see why the geography should be a problem. HarveyD has it right. Europe has plenty of mountains, not to mention the English Channel, under which the Eurostar trains run. Give our engineers a little more credit. They figured out how to put up I-5, I think they can figure out how to put up a rail line. No, California is not Europe, but it is closer than any other region or state in the US to implementing high speed rail.

Reality Czech: who ever said of putting solar panels on the roofs of trains? And since when do trains not needs roofs? I meant put the solar panels alongside the train tracks, not on the trains. Solar panels work fine on the ground. They don't need to be on roofs. Let's assume that this high speed rail line won't have any trees within a tree-height's distance from the tracks so that if a tree falls, it won't block the tracks. Hitting a downed tree at 200mph would really suck. This would provide a pretty clear line of sight for solar panels as well.

Backlash or not, I'm perfectly happy. I don't mind having a debate.

HarveyD

I'm I missing something here. Why can Europe get right of ways for thousands of Km for the their high speed trains and California cannot?

What is so different about California?

Is it the presence of highways (they exist in Europe too) or is it Californians acquired love for their oversized gas guzzlers or their infatuation with waiting in line for short fligts?

Could somebody explain?

Peter

Not to oversimplify, but I will anyway, it's our litigious society.

sjc

Another factor may be "no new taxes". In 1978 Proposition 13 passed in California limiting property taxes. That started a downward slide in quality of public education that moved California schools from the top of the list to the bottom of the list. As long as people do not see the good in working together, we will have the go it alone mentality.

arnold

Solar panels do need structures and could provide roofing that is good for something.
The best efficiency use suggests a second utility so maybe car parking space, or other shelter - terminals?

Wind gen really needs to be sited where the wind blows not to say that it can't blow over rail corridors but it is very specific re site requirements .

The idea of utilizing transport grid infrastructure is a proposal which is rather interesting especially in the context of distributed renewables as you suggest.

Peter

I like your idea Arnold. At this risk of upsetting Anon even further, how about parking lots covered by solar panels that power both the trains whizzing by the station and recharge the electric cars parked at the station?

gr

Clearances for a HSR north and south in CA should not be too difficult at least through the big ag country. In and out of Oakland/SF and LA/San Diego has plenty of existing track. I would think park and ride connections to BART, and LA Rapid Transit would be best for urban access.

The suggestion for easements to include PV infrastructure clearance - should raise few problems. While they won't help significantly with train power, free charging at Park N Ride - makes sense.

sjc

It is not the technical feasibility, it is the bond issue. You might need $100 billion in bonds and $5 billion a year for 30 years to pay it back in a $100 billion state budget, just for one rail system. The state budget is already more than $15 billion in deficit this year. A tough sell....

The comments to this entry are closed.