Got to love how you completely ignore my arguments against biofuels, come up with one of your own and dismiss your own argument as irrelevant with a general one day in the future we might have a solution for it. It doesn't matter when the carbon was removed from the atmosphere but that we are putting copious quantities of CO2 back into the atmosphere. Were we to not burn the plant matter, and compost it instead, the carbon would be remain locked up in the ground for a very long time.
As for the argument that "using carbon stored in a plant is not an issue" because we all do it every day, there is a huge difference in magnitude. "T
he average human exhales about 2.3 pounds [1.04 kg] of carbon dioxide on an average day " As a comparison,
a VIA Rail train from Toronto to Montreal generates 14.76 kg of CO2 per seat. That means that the train (per passenger) is emitting significantly more CO2 per passenger than the people who are ridding on it are exhaling, and that is using one of the most efficient modes of transport.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the carbon cycle and how it pertains to climate change. Whether you breathe 2 lbs or 200 lbs, is irrelevant, as long as you aren't adding net GHG to the atmosphere. Under a scenario where VIA can source 100% clean biofuels, presumably no new GHGs would be added. Though, personally, I think reducing emissions net (by moving drivers and flyers over) is a bigger issue than worrying about VIA's emissions.
Can you provide references to those figures? Also you can't compare liters of diesel to liters of gasoline as diesel is more energy dense and produces more CO2 (and other pollutants) per liter (
3.00715 Kg of CO2 equivalent per Liter of diesel No. 2. vs.
2.500 Kg of CO2 equivalent per Liter of gasoline).
Here's some nice stats on emissions of typical Corridor city-pair trips themselves:
Discover the benefits of train travel over driving, including downtown arrivals, more work time and more relaxation time.
www.viarail.ca
Using the 541 km Toronto-Montreal trip of 14.76 kg CO2, and your 3.00715 kg of CO2 per L of diesel, that works out to ~4.91L of fuel for that trip for one passenger. Or about 0.91L/100 pax-km. And that's with VIA's current fleet. The new fleet, with Tier 4, will be even more efficient.
Trains are insanely efficient. Planes are actually moderately efficient. It's gasoline and diesel cars that are inefficient. So moving those passenger kms over that should be priority. Once the trains are being compared to a substantially electrified private automotive fleet, the discussion on train emissions might be more relevant. But we're a long way from that. Easily a decade. Probably two. Which is why I argue that would be a good time to electrify. 15-20 years is usually when fleet renewals or replacements are done.
I suspect the Canadian government will pay for electrification using stimulus money and will have the CIB fund the remainder of HFR, but that is just a guess.
Might be possible. But there's zero indication of anything like that given that all public discussions we've seen has treated electrification as an optional add-on and all the talk has been of the somebody financing the whole project. Recall all that talk about some outside investor funding the whole thing. The only thing I imagine the Feds paying for is the rolling stock since the Charger options would have to be exercised sooner than later.
HFR will require the purchase new trainsets
Which is exactly why VIA secured options for 18 additional trainsets in their contract with Siemens. Would be bizarre to pay for additional options (delivery slots aren't normally free) and then not use them because they wanted to secure a whole other fleet.
and the Chargers purchased for the new fleet can be used on existing routes.
The entire Charger fleet (including the options for HFR) is meant to be employed on the Corridor routes, as per my understanding. There wasn't mention of other use cases in their qualification documents. But Urban Sky can correct me if I'm wrong. I just don't see the fleet being redeployed especially since the coaches are being configured for Corridor operations too.
One could have a counter argument that if we are planning to electrify VIA anyway, why not do it before cars have been substantially electrified and not throw away the HFR Chargers half way through their lifecycle.
Replacing locos after 15-20 years isn't that unusual. Keeping them running for 40 years is only really a Canadian thing. But also, this point of view ignores the value of not redeploying the electrification costs towards an extension. How many cars would be taken off the road over 20 years with that $2B extending HFR to Kitchener or even London, vs. emissions saved from electrification.
If you use the argument that we shouldn't do it now because the technology might be better in the future might be better, you will never do anything. The timeline for battery powered intercity trains being feasible is uncertain at the moment.
I am not arguing for a perpetual delay. I'm suggesting making use of the options VIA has and focusing the capital dollars on getting the best network they can. And saving electrification for the fleet replacement. But it certainly would be beneficial if batteries advance sufficiently in 20 years that stringing catenary the entire length might not be necessary. But even if that doesn't happen, electrification just becomes part of a larger capital project that replaces the fleet, at that point.