Regenerative breaking can already exist for trains without adding in the carbon capture [1].
Instead of adding batteries, and thus weight, the train supplies power back to the grid when it breaks. Thus, the cheaper source of energy described here can be achieved without the carbon capture, and consequently, we can use that power to power other things, reducing energy generation overall and reduce CO2 emissions.
Thus, it seems like the primary benefit here is using the train's motion to replace the fans required for carbon capture and thus piggybacking on the energy already expended by the train to move. That seems logical, though it could be deployed irrespective of regenerative breaking. Basically we should do regenerative breaking regardless as it is just more energy efficient. Regenerative breaking can primarily be deployed in electric trains anyway as you use the existing motors to break the train, and in so doing, generate electricity from those motors. Adding electric motors and a battery to diesel trains JUST for carbon capture seems foolish.
One question I had: how does this carbon capture change the aerodynamics of the train and thus its efficiency?
Unless you're in a sufficiently carbon dense region (third world maybe) it seems exceptionally optimistic to assume the train will be able to power more than itself in either scenario. Not that it's not a good idea anyway but unless the train can cover itself with spare change leftover you're not going to be powering anything extra without creating waste.
Instead of adding batteries, and thus weight, the train supplies power back to the grid when it breaks. Thus, the cheaper source of energy described here can be achieved without the carbon capture, and consequently, we can use that power to power other things, reducing energy generation overall and reduce CO2 emissions.
Thus, it seems like the primary benefit here is using the train's motion to replace the fans required for carbon capture and thus piggybacking on the energy already expended by the train to move. That seems logical, though it could be deployed irrespective of regenerative breaking. Basically we should do regenerative breaking regardless as it is just more energy efficient. Regenerative breaking can primarily be deployed in electric trains anyway as you use the existing motors to break the train, and in so doing, generate electricity from those motors. Adding electric motors and a battery to diesel trains JUST for carbon capture seems foolish.
One question I had: how does this carbon capture change the aerodynamics of the train and thus its efficiency?
[1] https://www.ctc-n.org/technologies/regenerative-braking-trai....