Your Economy (No Politics)

[al44]

Biden’s EPA poised to allow California to move forward with its ‘zero-emissions’ locomotives regulations

By Olivia Murray

Every time they propose some stupid idea, I think they can’t possibly out-stupid themselves; but then every single time, they do.

Thought you’d seen the stupidest of the “green” movement? Think again, because here come “green” locomotives; here’s what Nick Pope at the Daily Caller News Foundation reported yesterday:

The Biden administration could allow California to implement a rule designed to push green locomotives, but a growing list of stakeholders are warning that the regulation would severely impact the state’s economy and the national rail industry.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could soon determine whether it will allow the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to move forward with a state regulation that would ban the use of locomotives that are more than 23 years past their manufacturing date unless they run using zero-emissions technology, according to Progressive Railroading.

Now, as far as I can tell, “zero-emissions” locomotives are battery-powered trains; here’s this from a report by Alex Luvishis and published by a locomotive outlet last year:

Today, four types of zero- or low-emission locomotives are being developed. These are self-contained battery-electric, electric-battery (operating off overhead catenary or internal batteries), hydrogen fuel cell (HFC), and units with upgraded diesel engines using low-carbon renewable diesel or biodiesel, hydrogen/diesel blends, and even an ammonia/hydrogen blend.

Since none of the above-suggested technologies are actually “zero- or low-emission” in reality, I have to draw on my reasoning skills and make some assumptions: I gather that the battery-powered engines are considered “zero-emission” while the fuel-mixture engines are the “low-emission” options. And, if this conclusion is accurate, that means California is pushing the most asinine and impractical policies I’ve ever heard, at least to date.

First of all, the infrastructure isn’t even there for cars, now they want to add locomotives to the mix? Californians already experience brown-outs due to the maxed-out grid, and even on the best days, energy is unreliable; how does anyone expect rechargeable train engines to not be a detriment? As both Pope and Luvishis also note, the market lacks “dependable” “zero-emission” locomotive technology, because everything is still in the prototype stage. Talk about putting the cart before the horse.

Now, according to Union Pacific, diesel-powered locomotive engines pull “heavy axle rail cars…can handle up to 286,000 lbs. or 315,000 lbs. gross weight,” which is seemingly a ludicrous amount of weight, especially when you consider the limits of battery-powered vehicles. Have you ever ridden an electric scooter or bike, relying exclusively on the battery of the vehicle to zoom around? I have, and after about 10–15 minutes of treating what was supposed to be a pedal-assist bicycle like a little moped and cruising at the top speed (30-ish mph), the battery-power was all used up—and I’m not a very heavy person. What will these trains transport? A couple of crates of apples? A few sacks of flour?

I mean, California already has electric semi-trucks, which as you can expect has been a total “cluster,” which would be laughable were it not so impactful; read about that here.

Next, how long will it take to charge these things? I mean, if all the stars align and the temperature is just right, an electric vehicle apparently takes a little less than an hour for a full charge—what happens when that battery is much bigger? I mean, it has to be bigger to power a bigger vehicle, correct? And, since it must be bigger, that means heavier—how far can these things go with such a heavy battery? Does the law of diminishing returns not apply?

For a state already suffering from serious supply chain issues, are “green” trains really the wisest priority?

Now, typically I’d say that the “fool me once, shame on you” adage is an appropriate metric of a person’s gullibility, except when you’re dealing with the progressive Democrat class—but, particularly when you’re dealing with the progressive Democrat class and their “green” ideas. Each time they adopt and introduce a new agenda, I think, “That’s it! We’ve finally hit the bottom of the stupid barrel and it’s only up from here.” But…they consistently prove me wrong (or prove me to be the chief of fools), because they’ve always got one more doozy coming down the pike.

Massive deforestation operations, followed by the use of heavy diesel machinery to dig landfills to then bury the axed trees and debris in said pits, is apparently a viable carbon-sequestering scheme—despite the fact that the trees were already doing exactly that, while emitting life-giving oxygen and functioning as a crucial part of local ecosystems. Surely that was the bottom…right? Wrong.

Razing old-growth forests that have been thriving for more than one-thousand years, to make way for just 18 wind turbines made of oil-based resins and using oil-based lubricants—for “clean” energy, the environment, and conservation purposes of course! Was that the bottom? Hardly.

Felling 1,700 beautiful green trees each day in Scotland, since the year 2000, to make way for “greener” things. I mean, this is just a joke right? I wish.

Dismantling dams to “save the salmon,” a move that winds up pushing fish populations to the brink of extinction, and decimates the landscape and local fishing industries, is more like an act of a play written for the theater of the absurd than an actual political idea that somehow made it to the political market.

It’s all enough to make a sane person lose her mind.

Every time they propose some stupid idea, I think they can’t possibly out-stupid themselves; but then every single time, they do.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/04/biden_s_epa_poised_to_allow_california_to_move_forward_with_its_zero_emissions_locomotives_regulations.html