Officials with the Fort Worth-based railroad announced on Thursday that California officials have tentatively awarded a $22.6-million Zero and Near Zero Emission Freight Facilities grant to BNSF.
“BNSF is focused on continuing to reduce our environmental impact, and we’re committed to doing our part to test and prove the commercial viability of emerging technologies that reduce emissions,” John Lovenburg, BNSF vice president, Environmental, says in a statement.
The grant will pay for about half of the projected $45 million in emission reduction work the railroad will engage in in California, including the new locomotive.
GE Transportation officials tell Trains that the locomotive will be built on the AC Evolution Series platform at the company’s Erie, Pa., facility. GE will also test the locomotive in Erie. The goal is to have the locomotive use an overall energy management system that enables it to generate 2,400 kilowatt-hours of power and reduce a freight train’s total fuel use by 10 to 15 percent, when used in combination with other Tier 4-compliant diesel-electric locomotives. The railroad expects to use the locomotive in consists between Barstow, Calif., and Stockton.
The locomotive itself will have only lithium ion batteries on board and no diesel engines. A GE representative says the locomotive will be charged at a wayside station at BNSF’s yard in Stockton, but that the locomotive can also take a charge in dynamic braking mode. It is expected to be delivered to BNSF later in 2020.
“Battery-powered or hybrid locomotives are promising technologies for the rail industry with the potential to reduce operating costs and emissions,” Dominique Malenfant, vice president, Global Technology, GE Transportation, says in a statement. “This project will give us tremendous insight into the capabilities of battery power and the best operational methods of leveraging the technology. It will accelerate the development of this cleaner, more efficient solution for the freight rail industry.”
Railroad officials say they’ll invest to improve existing technology in engine idle control, all-electric cranes, electric hostlers for moving freight, and automated gates at BNSF yards around the state. Additional upgrades will be done specifically to the intermodal terminals at San Bernadino, Calif., and Stockton.
Seems like it would be easier–and cheaper—to string catenary:)
IAN: I do believe they’ve fudged the Nuclear number. Since Palo Verde’s three units are in AZ, not sure imported (AZ) power was counted in the numbers presented.
My bust on the rating of the PVNGS units; thanks to Roger for catching my rating mistake.
California’s Energy Generation per California Energy Commission. 1 July 2018
Year 2017 Wind 9.4% Solar 10.2% Small Hydro 2.7% Geothermal 4.4% Biomass 2.4% Large Hydro 14.7% Coal 4.1% Nuclear 9.1% Natural Gas 33.7% Unspecified 9.3%. Renewable. 29.0%
CL, Wind creates more power than you might think. In 2017, 6% of the power on the Ontario grid came from wind turbines, 9.2 TWh. In comparison, gas and oil accounted for 5.9 TWh which is 4%. I don’t like the appearance of wind turbines particularly when you can see dozens of them in all directions around you. Solar accounts for very little of the power on the grid, less than 1%, but some solar capacity is connected directly to local distribution and does not get included in the figures I quote. Ontario does not have any coal fuelled power plants.
Where I live, electric cars are not “ridiculous”. The gas plants only come online to satisfy peak power demand which doesn’t happen in the night when people normally charge their cars. Ontario has differential power pricing so energy is cheapest from 7PM to 7AM during the week and all day during the weekend and holidays.
I believe that nuclear power should be used more widely. Unfortunately, the Three Mile Island incident in the early 70s and the ‘China Syndrome’ movie scared people about the risks. Activists used the problem to build public opposition to nuclear. The coal industry together with its unions exploited that fear by lobbying politicians to discourage support for nuclear power. Disasters in the Ukraine and Japan have since added to fear of nuclear energy. Both of these incidents were fully avoidable. New plant designs are inherently safer but they won’t be tried in the US unless a large corporation with financial and political resources provides the impetus. The term ‘green power’ has combined renewable and non-carbon dioxide producing energy into one concept. Nuclear, non-carbon dioxide producing generation has to be split out and marketed as an effective, reliable and affordable solution to mitigate climate change.
Anyway, this forum is about trains so we (I?) have drifted a bit off topic. The battery electric locomotives could be an effective tool in traditional helper districts. Add them to a consist to go up the grade and recharge and provide braking on the downgrade. Top-up the batteries after each run over the hill as required. Put the battery locomotives on the front of the train so they bring any specialised power management software with them, avoiding the need to do anything different with regular diesel power. The battery locomotives could use distributed power in the same way as a diesel and could control battery electric distributed power differently than diesels.
Battery electrics may also have a benefit on routes with long tunnels where clearing the diesel fumes restricts the number trains per hour. If the diesels can be idled or shut down for passage through a tunnel then line capacity can be increased. Battery electrics could be a cheaper and faster solution than upgrading the ventilation system.
The economics will be interesting. Battery electrics should require less maintenance than diesels because they don’t have an internal combustion engine to maintain. The traction motors and associated electronics are familiar to maintenance technicians which helps avoid special training. Power regenerated on downgrades and when stopping is essential ‘free’.
I hope Trains follows this experiment closely.
A basic engineering fact;
a kilo-Watt hour i(KWH) is a measure of ENERGY (similar to a BTU or calorie)
a kilo-Watt (kW) is a measure of POWER, similar to a horsepower
The original writer probably meant 2400 kW
Regardless of how the power is generated a lot of baseload power goes to waste at non peak hours. Electric cars if charged during these times would require no additional generation capacity, at least not until their market penetration demanded it. In which case the entire array of low to zero carbon electric generation technologies can be added to the grid.
My first choice is nuclear because it’s zero carbon baseload grade *reliable* (highest capacity favor of any source including coal) power using energy dense fuel. Unlike energy diffuse and unreliable wind and solar which require huge land footprints and energy intensive materials to build out. But if backed by quickly ramped up or down natural gas you also have a lower carbon and lower downstream pollutant (mercury, micro particulates, and my favorite highly toxic coal ash) compared to coal.
ROGER Nuke is a good source, anywhere. Hydro is cool if you live somewhere powered by Ontario Hydro (including Detroit), Hydro Quebec, or Niagara Mohawk. Anywhere else in North America, try building a hydro plant, it wouldn’t happen. Wind? I just don’t buy it. When I see wind farms I see environmental degradation. Solar is good because it distributes the production (even down to the individual house) thus mitigating the considerable line losses of distance transmission. The fact is, however, that coal has gotten us where we are now. We are each massive consumers of electricity and that includes persons of all political persuasions and all manner of views of environmental issues. Maybe phasing out of coal would be a good thing, but nobody who owns or uses anything that runs on electricity has any right to look down their nose at a coal plant. Ironically the people most opposed to coal are the ones who use it the most, by means of their ridiculous electric automobiles which make no sense to me.
I got my fill of wind power when driving our gasoline – powered car (built at Lafayette Indiana) home after touring the Lafayette auto plant. I see all the cars on Indiana I-65, and I see the d….ed windmills all over the place for tens of miles. Those windmills wouldn’t power a fraction of the traffic on I-65, let alone lighting nearby cities such as Champaign or Indianapolis.
KWG, according to Wikipedia, each unit at Palo Verde produces 1.4 Gigawatts of power.
JCU, I think the writer meant 2,400 kWH, in reference to the total battery capacity of the unit. For comparison, the Tesla Model S 100D electric car has 100 kWH of battery, so the locomotive would have 24 times the battery capacity of the car. The article says the battery electric locomotive will be built on the AC Evolution platform which suggests a 4,400 horsepower rating with 4 powered axles. Of course, with 6 traction motors the rating could be over 6,000 horsepower if the battery can deliver the current. Lithium ion transportation batteries require careful temperature management for optimum capacity, charging speed and longevity.
CL, you might think differently if you had ever driven a pure electric. The Tesla Model S 100D can travel 335 miles on a charge (EPA rating) and do zero to 60 in about 4.1 seconds. Electric cars are expensive due to the high cost of lithium ion batteries but these will drop to roughly half current prices around 2025 and make electrics less expensive than gas cars. All the major car manufacturers in the world are developing electric cars and the higher end vehicles are becoming available in the next year. Jaguar, Audi, BMW and Mercedes will compete with Tesla’s high end products. The US has been in the lead for electric car production because of Tesla but this status may be lost in the next few years. In the 1930s and 1940s, the US led in the number of miles of electric railways and the use of AC power but lost the edge to Europe and Asia after the war. History could repeat itself.
If you happen to be concerned about the effects of climate change on the economy and the environment then electric locomotives and automobiles make sense. In the Province of Ontario where I live, about 95% of commercial electrical power comes from nuclear, hydro electric and wind power – sources which do not produce carbon dioxide. Ontario power has been 75% to 85% from nuclear and hydro sources for decades. The Ontario government commuter rail system has developed plans for electrification but nothing has been built as yet. The previous government of the Province ran up a huge debt so I wonder if the new conservative administration will fund the plan? At best, I think it will be reduced in scope and executed over a longer period.
JC _ Good catch! Just another demonstration of this truth: it’s not engineering, it’s corporate B.S.
Roger Keay thanks for the insight. It’s an interesting idea.
These are not “battery powered”. It is like telling us the compressed air in the train is powered from the reservoir tanks. These are commercial electricity powered.
Charles & Gerald:
Being a “Nuke”, Palo Verde (3 units) & Diablo Canyon (2 Units), at roughly 3.5 MW each, contribute to the CA energy grid as well meaning a healthy portion on CA power is Nuclear-based. Let’s not forget that portion of the CA power mix, even in the NIMBY state.
Brandon:
As for the West Coast Extension, more than enough has been documented that part of the MILW’s failure was de-energizing the catenary and going diesel due to miscalculating the impact of that decision (oil embargo impact, etc.), coupled with deferred MOW resulting in slowed transit, ultimately resulting in abandonment.
BLUL: If electrified rail is such a poor choice over batteries/oil powered locomotion, why did the NEC extend to Boston from New Haven last decade, and continues to enjoy success elsewhere? Catenary is in heavy use in Europe, and is successful. The three grades I address would benefit from conversion – helping resolve air quality on the Left Coast.
I wonder if the batteries will last any better than those in the green goats.
In automobiles, hybrid is great, all-electric is a silly joke. The same would hold for railroads. Imagine a long down-grade with regenerative braking storing energy in the locomotives or an attached tender. AC propulsion and DC energy storage would need to be made compatible.
GERALD – I simply don’t believe your statistic. And BTW, isn’t California an importer of electricity from neighboring states? I haven’t been to California in a long time but I’ve seen the wind farms in Indiana. I don’t believe for a microsecond that these are without environmental impact.
I hope this new battery powered GE locomotive looks good and not ugly like the Siemens Chargers. I hope it also wears the BNSF H4 scheme or whatever it’s called like the BNSF local power wears as I like the H4 scheme better than the H3 silver trucks scheme.
Plus I’m sure there will probably be some teething problems as new engines have problems when they are equipped with new technology.
Not anywhere even close, Gerald. Wind only accounts for 9.4% of California electricity usage and solar 10.2%. Natural gas dominates the market, accounting for 1/3 of California’s electricity needs.
Charles Landey,
From our extensive solar and wind power facilities, which already provide 50% of the states electricity needs.
And where exactly will the electricity to charge the batteries come from?
Since GE already has a history of engine fires, how long before it burns like a 180 tonne Tesla??*
*Why yes! I do enjoy a snarky question!
Sounds like they are planning an interesting test. The story suggests the plan is to run the diesels at their most efficient setting for fuel usage and provide additional power from the battery electric as required. For example, put enough diesels on the train for most of the route and use the electric for accelerating and hill climbing. Regenerative braking will recharge the batteries when going downhill and stopping while providing additional braking force.
With the technology not proven how are they able to guarantee a product? NS tried this years ago with NS 999 BP4 with mediocre success.
With the ongoing drought conditions in the southwest hydro-electric power may not be available.
Yeah and where’s the Milwaukee Pacific Extension?? Mostly abandoned… The railroads don’t need to string catenary. Batteries are promising and capacitors will get in the game eventually providing even better performance and durability
“BNSF is focused on continuing to reduce our environmental impact, and we’re committed to doing our part to test and prove the commercial viability of emerging technologies that reduce emissions,” O.K. ……Then why just in California?